Real opportunities – Commodities and beyond

Commodities are goods and services that are usually considered necessary for human development. However, they have to, as previously stated, been thought of as mere means to achieve, rather than ends in themselves. “Commodity access” functions as an “input” in the creation or expansion of capabilities. This should be considered one real opportunity in a person‟s opportunity set, which excludes the notion that it is the

only means or real opportunity necessary to function.

Further, they should not necessarily be thought of as exchangeable for money or income alone, because this would restrict the CA to analyses, evaluations and measurements in market-based economies alone, which is not intended and which would inadequately represent the living conditions in many developing countries.

Commodity exchanges are often taking place in the non-monetary/ non-market economy, and the CA is taking account of this situation (Robeyns, 2005a: 98-99).

Further, Sen understands commodities, as previously stated, in the same line of argumentation of Aristotle, namely that “…wealth is evidently not the good we are seeking; for it is merely useful and for the sake of something else” (Sen, 1990: 44 in Clark, 2006: 3). For example, a book itself as an object or good is uninteresting and irrelevant for a person, as it is merely a bundle of pages usually fastened together to hinge at one side43. Only when a person is able to read the book it becomes useful and interesting, because it enables a functioning, which is education, an achievement of both, instrumental and intrinsic importance44.

The interrelation between commodities (incomes and goods and services) and an achieved valuable functioning is influenced by three (main) groups of conversion

factors (Robeyns, 2003a: 12-13; Sen, 1999: 70-71):

1. Personal conversion factors (personal heterogeneities): ~ have an influence on how a person can convert the commodity into a functioning. These comprise metabolism, physical and psychological condition, sex, intelligence, reading skills, inter alia. A person‟s ability to read will greatly influence her conversion ability to achieve the functioning of education.

2. Social conversion factors: ~ comprise social norms, customs and conventions, societal hierarchies, status and class, gender roles, public policies, discriminating practices, power relations, inter alia. The usefulness of a book for instance is greatly affected by discriminating practices regarding education

43 _{This is aside of the fact that it gave employment to the author of the book and to a whole industry living}

from printing and selling.

44 _{Commodities comprise technically goods and services, such as health care, sanitation and education.}

While this is indeed an option, in empirical situations budgetary cuts in the public sector are relatively common though, especially during economic slowdowns. Basically, policies tend to concentrate on the

in a given society. In societies in which women are deprived of their right to education a book is deprived of its purpose.

3. Environmental conversion factors (environmental diversities): ~ comprise infrastructure, climatic conditions (temperature ranges, flooding, rainfall, pollution, and so on), public goods and facilities, institutions, the presence of infectious diseases, heating and clothing requirements, inter alia (Robeyns, 2003a: 12-13; Sen, 1999: 70-71)

Sen distinguished further two factors which are to be located on the borderline between personal and social conversion factors (Sen, 1999: 71). These are:

4. Differences in relational perspectives: Commodity requirements of established patterns of individual behaviour may vary between the various conventions and customs of any given community at hand. For instance, a person who is relatively poor in an affluent community can be deprived from achieving some elementary functionings, such as taking part in the life of the community, even though her commodity disposal, in absolute terms, may be higher than the level of commodities with which members of poorer communities can achieve functionings of value with greater ease and success: “to be able to “appear in public without shame” may require higher standards of clothing and other visible consumption in a richer society than in poorer one” (Sen, 1999: 71)45. The same may apply for the ability to achieve self-respect. This particular factor is primarily an intersociatal, rather an interindividual one; however, both are too interlinked to conduct a clear separation (Sen, 1999: 71).

5. Distribution within the family: Incomes earned by one or more family members are usually shared by the entire family, meaning the family as a whole becomes

45

the basic unit for analytical consideration regarding income as the main poverty indicator. However, unequal distribution rules within the family may prevent individual members to achieve their chosen well-being and freedom (Sen, 1999: 71). Although this factor belongs predominantly into the social conversion category, it is greatly influenced by personal heterogeneities, and thus has to be categorised within the grey zone between those two factors. This point is also of special importance in regard to the criticism the CA attracts that the framework is too individualistic, a point discussed in detail in Chapter 4.5/Part I.

Knowing the goods a person possesses or can use is, from the factors outlined above, not a sufficient informational base to know which functionings a person can achieve. Commodity demand as an evaluative base for well-being comparisons is thus at best limited, and at worst misleading as base for policy prescriptions. To provide another example of Sen (1999), consider giving the same amount of rice to all people of a given analytical unit regardless of the physical condition of the people in it. A child, teenager, adult or elderly person will convert the calorie intake very differently in regard to achieving the function of being well-nourished. They will process this real opportunity into outcomes very distinct. The amount of rice in this example should be considered a real opportunity; however, further means are necessary to achieve the end of being well-nourished. This may comprise increasing the amount of rice intake for some, supplementing the diet with other nourishment (for others); provide training seminars to teach how to preserve the nutritious substances in the processing of food,

inter alia. This opportunity freedom depends of course greatly on the process freedom

of the agent in order to finally achieve the functioning. But as this short example aimed to show, policies which merely aim to equalize resources could disadvantage certain

people quite significantly. Arguing from this angle Sen questions Rawl‟s proposal to require equality in the space of primary goods (Alkire, 2002: 5). The informational base needs thus to be broadened to take greater account of the person herself and the circumstances in which s/he is living. I will critique the official unidimensional poverty measure in Mozambique (with its focus on “caloric intake”) from the same line of argumentation in chapter 2/Part II.

Also, many more complex social functionings, such as entertaining friends and family or appearing in public without shame, require more comprehensive means than mere commodities at ones disposal, such as social institutions and norms broadly defined. Thus, the conversion factors themselves, most dominantly the socio- environmental characteristics, are important real opportunities and hence means to achieve. They supplement commodity access/ demand (and other freedoms, to be outlined) as real opportunity freedoms, to be processed by the agent herself, and the choices being taken from this capability set are in turn greatly influenced by these socio- environmental circumstances and mental conditioning of the individual herself (personal history and psychology, preference formation mechanisms, among others). As Robeyns formulates it:

The capability approach not only advocates on evaluation of people‟s capability set‟s, but insists also that we need to scrutinize the context in which economic production and social interactions take place, and whether the circumstances in which people choose from their opportunity sets (process freedom)46 are enabling and just (2005a: 99).