Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Process and Outcomes: Participation and Empowerment in a Multidimensional Poverty Framework

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Capability Approach, Empowerment and Participation

Part of the book series: Rethinking International Development series ((RID))

Abstract

In this chapter, Shailaja Fennell considers the capability, livelihoods, and chronic poverty approaches to development—all of which recognise the importance of participation processes and empowerment outcomes for escaping poverty. But as Fennell points out, there is no common methodological base for incorporating participation and evaluating empowerment in order to measure poverty reduction. Recent innovations in multidimensional poverty measurement, however, provide insight. In particular, an evaluation of new methodologies for researching poverty shows that participation does not automatically improve well-being. To illustrate, Fennell draws on data from a mixed methods approach that investigated the educational outcomes of the poor to show how an explicit incorporation of the perceptions of the poor provides a way forward in linking empowerment to capabilities. The possibility of using community-based research that works with the actions and perceptions of the poor in contexts that are sharply divided by power hierarchies is crucial for improving our understanding of the relation between participation and empowerment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See Robeyns (2003) and Unterhalter (2008) for analyses of how agency can be used in the study of gender and education, respectively, but there is far less on structural aspects in such capability analysis. Crocker and Robeyns (2009) provide an important new insight by linking agency to freedom through public reasoning.

  2. 2.

    Clark (2012) emphasises the relationship between aspirations and livelihoods, and how they might possibly reinforce each other in a positive manner.

  3. 3.

    The emphasis on the importance of resource ownership in the chronic poverty approach focuses on the ability to use assets to generate income instead of relying solely on labour. It differs in this regard from the focus on resources in the capability approach where they are part of endowments that are crucial for enhancing capabilities. See Pierik and Robeyns (2007) for an excellent discussion on the difference between resources and capabilities.

  4. 4.

    Harriss (2009) makes the point that it is power that is primary and not data collection itself.

  5. 5.

    The Sustainable Development Goals include an expanded list of targets and indicators that focus on quality education and lifelong learning (United Nations, 2018).

  6. 6.

    RECOUP was a five-year research programme (2005–2010), funded by the UK’s Department for International Development (DFID). The project was split between the University of Cambridge and six other research institutions in the UK, South Asia, and Africa.

  7. 7.

    The conceptual and methodological basis for the project can be found in Fennell (2010).

  8. 8.

    Exit can change the number of pupils in a set of schools in an area with an increase in numbers that have made their way to the favoured school and a reduction in numbers in the poorly performing school.

  9. 9.

    District-level data was obtained from the Ministries of Finance, Planning, Education, Women and Children and other minor ministries and departments that have a devolved role in education provision and monitoring. Data on the school was obtained from interviews with head teachers; data on employment, outlays and maintenance was obtained from local officials; school educational data was derived from information on enrolment, curriculum and examination performance; and student data was derived from school management data and mission statements.

  10. 10.

    This was Hirschman’s original case and all the additional types of exit, voice, and loyalty were set out in the methodology paper for the PPP research in the RECOUP programme (Fennell, 2010). The original data analysis is provided in Fennell and Malik (2012).

  11. 11.

    Other writers have also examined manifestations of exit, voice, and loyalty as households move back and forth between public and private schools, rather than presupposing that the movement is always in onedirection (Dowding & John, 2008).

  12. 12.

    The latest World Development Report published in 2018 addresses the learning crisis in the world today and makes the case that schooling is not the same as learning (World Bank, 2018). If education is to empower, then using a multiframework approach to creating new tools for measurement needs to be the primary focus of global policy making on educational outcomes.

References

  • ADB. (2010). Delivering Educational Services for the Poor: What Role for the Non-state Sector. Prepared for UNICEF-ADB Workshop on the Role of the Non State Providers in Delivering Basic Social Services for Children.

    Google Scholar 

  • Addison, T., Hulme, D., & Kanbur, R. (2009). Poverty Dynamics: Interdisciplinary Perspectives. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Adger, N. (1999). Social Vulnerability to Climate Change and Extremes in Coastal Vietnam. World Development, 27(2), 249–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alkire, S. (2007). Choosing Dimensions: The Capability Approach and Multidimensional Poverty. In N. Kakwani & J. Silber (Eds.), The Many Dimensions of Poverty (pp. 89–119). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alkire, S., & Foster, J. E. (2011). Counting and Multidimensional Poverty Measurement. Journal of Public Economics, 95(7–8), 476–487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alkire, S., Foster, J. E., Seth, S., Santos, E., Roche, J., & Ballón, P. (2015). Multidimensional Poverty Measurement and Analysis. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Biggeri, M., Arciprete, C., & Karkara, R. (2019). Children and Youth Participation in Decision Making and Research Processes. In D. A. Clark, M. Biggeri, & A. A. Frediani (Eds.), The Capability Approach, Empowerment and Participation: Concepts, Methods and Applications. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biggeri, M., Libanora, R., Mariani, S., & Menchini, L. (2006). Children Conceptualising their Capabilities: Results of a Survey Conducted during the First Children’s World Congress on Child Labour. Journal of Human Development, 7(1), 59–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bird, K., Hulme, D., Moore, K. & Shephard, A. (2002). Chronic Poverty and Remote Rural Areas (CPRC Working Paper 13). Chronic Poverty Research Centre, University of Manchester.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chambers, R. (1997). Whose Reality Counts? Putting the First Last. Bourton on Dunsmore, UK: ITDG Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Chambers, R. (2005). Ideas for Development. London/Sterling, VA: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chambers, R., & Conway, G. (1992). Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: Practical Concepts for the 21st Century (IDS Discussion Paper 296). Institute of Development Studies, Brighton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, D. A. (2002). Visions of Development: A Study in Human Values. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, D. A. (2006). Capability Approach. In D. A. Clark (Ed.), The Elgar Companion to Development Studies (pp. 32–45). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, D. A. (Ed.). (2012). Adaptation, Poverty and Development: The Dynamics of Subjective Well-Being. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, D. A., Fennell, S., & Hulme, D. (2017). Poverty and Inequality. In K. Reinert (Ed.), Handbook of Globalisation and Development (pp. 487–512). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, D. A., & Hulme, D. (2010). Poverty, Time and Vagueness: Integrating the Core Poverty and Chronic Poverty Frameworks. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 34(2), 347–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, D. A., & Qizilbash, M. (2008). Core Poverty, Vagueness and Adaptation: A New Methodology and Some Results for South Africa. Journal of Development Studies, 44(4), 519–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cleaver, F. (1999). Paradoxes of Participation: Questioning Participatory Approaches to Development. Journal of International Development, 11, 597–612.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cleaver, F. (2001). Institutions, Agency and the Limitations of Participatory Approaches to Development. In B. Cooke & U. Kothari (Eds.), Participation: The New Tyranny? London/New York: Zed Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooke, B., & Kothari, U. (Eds.). (2001). Participation: The New Tyranny. London/New York: Zed Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cornwall, A., & Brock, K. (2005). Beyond Buzzwords: “Poverty Reduction”, “Participation” and “Empowerment” in Development Policy (Overarching Concerns Programme Paper 10). United Nations Research Institute for Social Development, Switzerland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crocker, D., & Robeyns, I. (2009). Capability and Agency. In C. W. Morris (Ed.), Amartya Sen (pp. 60–90). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, P. (2006). Poverty in Time: Exploring Poverty Dynamics From Life History Interviews in Bangladesh (CPRC Working Paper 69). University of Manchester.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Janvry, A., & Sadoulet, E. (2005). Achieving Success in Rural Development: Towards Implementation of an Integral Approach. Agricultural Economics, 32(s1), 75–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dowding, K., & John, P. (2008). The Three Exit, Three Voice and Loyalty Framework: A Test with Survey Data on Local Services. Political Studies, 56(2), 288–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drèze, J., & Sen, A. K. (2002). India: Development and Participation. New Delhi, India: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Du Toit, A. (2007). Poverty Measurement Blues: Some Reflections on the Space for Understanding “Chronic” and “Structural” Poverty in South Africa. Paper presented at the Workshop on Concepts and Methods for Analysing Poverty Dynamics and Chronic Poverty, Manchester, 23–25 October, 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  • Du Toit, A., & Neves, D. (2007). In Search of South Africa’s Second Economy: Chronic Poverty, Economic Marginalisation and Social Exclusion in Mt Frere and Khayelitsha (Chronic Poverty Working Paper 102). Chronic Poverty Research Centre, University of Manchester.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, F. (1998). Survey Article: Household Strategies and Rural Livelihood Diversification. Journal of Development Studies, 35(1), 1–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, F. (2006). ‘Livelihoods Approach’ and ‘Vulnerability and Coping’. In D. A. Clark (Ed.), The Elgar Companion to Development Studies (pp. 345–349, 671–675). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellman, M. (2006). Does Privatising Public Service Provision Reduce Accountability? (Working Paper 997). Department of Economics and Business, University of Pompeu-Fabra.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fennell, S. (2009). Rules, Rubrics and Riches: The Interrelations between Legal Reform and International Development. Abington, UK: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fennell, S. (2010). Public Private Partnerships and Educational Outcomes: New Conceptual and Methodological Approaches (RECOUP Working Paper 37). University of Cambridge, Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fennell, S., & Malik, R. (2012). Between a Rock and a Hard Place: the emerging educational market for the poor in Pakistan. Comparative Education, 48(2), 249–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher, A., & Vavrus, J. (2006). The Guide to Social Change Led by and with Young People, CommonAction, Olympia, WA. Online at www.freechild.org/publications.htm

  • Foster, J., Greer, J., & Thorbecke, E. (1984). A Class of Decomposable Poverty Measures. Econometrica, 52(3), 761–766.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frediani, A. (2007). Amartya Sen, the World Bank and the Redress of Urban Poverty: A Brazilian Case Study. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 8(1), 133–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frediani, A. A. (2010). The Capability Approach as a Framework to the Practice of Development. Development in Practice, 20(2), 173–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grusky, D., & Kanbur, R. (2006). Poverty and Inequality. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Günther, I., & Klasen, S. (2009). Measuring Non-income Chronic Poverty. In T. Addison, D. Hulme, & R. Kanbur (Eds.), Poverty Dynamics: Interdisciplinary Perspectives (pp. 59–101). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammock, J. (2019). The Practice of Participation and the Capability Approach. In D. A. Clark, M. Biggeri, & A. A. Frediani (Eds.), The Capability Approach, Empowerment and Participation: Concepts, Methods and Applications. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harriss, J. (2009). Bringing Politics Back into Poverty Analysis: Why Understanding of Social Relations Matters More for Policy on Chronic Poverty than Measurement. In T. Addison, D. Hulme, & R. Kanbur (Eds.), Poverty Dynamics: Interdisciplinary Perspectives (pp. 205–224). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Harriss-White, B. (2005). Destitution and the Poverty of Its Politics-with Special Reference to South Asia. World Development, 33(6), 881–891.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hickey, S., & du Toit, A. (2007). Adverse Incorporation, Social Exclusion and Chronic Poverty (CPRC Working Paper 81). Chronic Poverty Research Centre, University of Manchester.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirschman, A. (1970). Exit, Voice and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations and States. Harvard, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hulme, D. (2006). Chronic Poverty. In D. A. Clark (Ed.), The Elgar Companion to Development Studies (pp. 61–67). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hulme, D., & McKay, A. (2008). Identifying and Measuring Chronic Poverty. Beyond Monetary Measures? In N. Kakwani & J. Silber (Eds.), The Many Dimensions of Poverty. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hulme, D., & Shepherd, A. (2003). Conceptualizing Chronic Poverty. World Development, 31(3), 403–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kanbur, R., & Shaffer, P. (2007). Epistemology, Normative Theory and Poverty Analysis: Implications for Q-Squared in Practice. World Development, 35(2), 183–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kleine, D. (2013). Technologies of Choice? ICTs, Development and the Capabilities Approach. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lienert, J., & Burger, P. (2015). Merging Capabilities and Livelihoods: Analyzing the Use of Biological Resources to Improve well-being. Ecology and Society, 20(2). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07405-200220

  • Luttrell, W. (2010). Qualitative Educational Research: Readings in Reflexive Methodology and Transformative Practice. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moser, C. O. N. (1998). The Asset Vulnerability Framework: Reassessing Urban Poverty Reduction Strategies. World Development, 26(1), 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mosse, D. (2001). “People’s Knowledge”, Participation and Patronage: Operations and Representations in Rural Development. In B. Cooke & U. Kothari (Eds.), Participation: The New Tyranny? London: Zed Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Narayan, D. (2002). Empowerment and Poverty Reduction: A Sourcebook. Washington, DC: World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, M. C. (2000). Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Okin, S. M. (2003). Poverty, Well-Being and Gender: What Counts, Who’s Heard? Philosophy and Public Affairs, 31(3), 280–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olsen, W. (2006). Pluralism, Tenancy and Poverty: Cultivating Open-mindedness in Poverty Studies (Q Squared Working Paper 26). Trent University, Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker, B., & Kozel, V. (2007). Understanding Poverty and Vulnerability in India’s Uttar Pradesh and Bihar: A Q-squared Approach. World Development, 35(2), 296–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pierik, R., & Robeyns, I. (2007). Resources Versus Capabilities: Social Endowments in Egalitarian Theory. Political Studies, 55(1), 133–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Radney, M., van den Berg, M., & Schipper, R. (2012). Rural Poverty Dynamics in Kenya: Structural Declines and Stochastic Escapes. World Development, 40(8), 1577–1593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rew, A., & Khan, S. (2007). “P3>Q2” in Northern Orissa: An Example of Integrating “Combined Methods” (Q2) Through a “Platform of Probing Poverties” (P3). World Development, 35(2), 281–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robeyns, I. (2003). Sen’s Capability Approach and Gender Inequality: Selecting Relevant Capabilities. Feminist Economics, 9(2–3), 61–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Santos, M. E., & Alkire, S. (2011). The Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI), Training Material for Producing National Human Development Reports, http://www.ophi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/MPI-Primer.pdf. Last Accessed 5 Apr 2016.

  • Sen, A. K. (1985). Commodities and Capabilities. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen, A. K. (1999). Development as Freedom. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen, G. (1997), Empowerment as an Approach to Poverty (Background Paper for the Human Development Report, 1997). Available online http://www.ieham.org/html/docs/Empowerment_as_an_approach_to_Poverty.pdf

  • Shaffer, P. (2012). Ten Years of “Q-Squared”: Implications for Understanding and Explaining Poverty. World Development, 45, 269–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaffer, P., Kanbur, R., Thang, N., & Areetey, B. (2009). Q-Squared in Policy: The Use of Qualitative and Quantitative Methods of Poverty Analysis in Decision Making (Working Paper 2009-04). Department of Applied Economics and Management, Cornell University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, K. B. (1994). Policies, Markets and Bureaucracy: Re-examining School Choice. Journal of Politics, 52(2), 475–491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thorbecke, E. (2005). Multidimensional Poverty: Conceptual and Measurement Issues. Paper prepared for the Many Dimensions of Poverty, International Conference, UNDP International Poverty Centre, Brasilia.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations. (2010). Rethinking Poverty: Report on the World Social Situation. New York: United Nations.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • United Nations. (2018). Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/. Last Accessed 22 May 2018.

  • Unterhalter, E. (2008). Global Values and Gender Equality in Education: Needs, Rights and Capabilities. In S. Fennell & M. Arnot (Eds.), Gender Equality and Education in a Global Context: Conceptual Frameworks and Policy Perspectives (pp. 19–34). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Bank. (2002). Empowerment and Poverty Reduction: A Sourcebook. Washington, DC: World Bank.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Bank. (2018). World Development Report 2018: Learning to Realize Education’s Promise. Washington, DC: World Bank.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre of Development Studies and Fellow of Jesus College, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

    Shailaja Fennell

Authors
  1. Shailaja Fennell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Centre of Development Studies, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

    David Alexander Clark

  2. Action Research for CO-Development (ARCO), PIN-Educational and Scientific Services for the University of Florence, Florence, Italy

    David Alexander Clark  & Mario Biggeri  & 

  3. Department of Economics and Management, University of Florence, Florence, Italy

    Mario Biggeri

  4. Development Planning Unit, University College London, London, UK

    Alexandre Apsan Frediani

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Fennell, S. (2019). Process and Outcomes: Participation and Empowerment in a Multidimensional Poverty Framework. In: Clark, D.A., Biggeri, M., Frediani, A.A. (eds) The Capability Approach, Empowerment and Participation. Rethinking International Development series. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-35230-9_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation