protecting capability, eradicating extreme poverty: chile solidario and the future of social...

8/13/2019 Protecting Capability, Eradicating Extreme Poverty: Chile Solidario and the Future of Social Protection

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/protecting-capability-eradicating-extreme-poverty-chile-solidario-and-the 1/20

This article was downloaded by: [Human Development and Capability Initiative]On: 18 August 2012, At: 07:00Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Human Development and

Capabilities: A Multi-Disciplinary

Journal for People-Centered

DevelopmentPublication details, including instructions for authors and

subscription information:

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjhd20

Protecting Capability, Eradicating

Extreme Poverty: Chile Solidario andthe Future of Social ProtectionArmando Barrientos

a

a Research Director at the Brooks World Poverty Institute,

University of Manchester, UK

Version of record first published: 17 Nov 2010

To cite this article: Armando Barrientos (2010): Protecting Capability, Eradicating Extreme

Poverty: Chile Solidario and the Future of Social Protection, Journal of Human Development and

Capabilities: A Multi-Disciplinary Journal for People-Centered Development, 11:4, 579-597

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19452829.2010.520926

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,

demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions




http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19452829.2010.520926

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjhd20



Journal of Human Development and Capabilities Vol. 11, No. 4, November 2010

ISSN 1945-2829 print/ISSN 1945-2837 online/10/040579-19 © 2010 United Nations Development Programme

DOI: 10.1080/19452829.2010.520926

Protecting Capability, Eradicating ExtremePoverty: Chile Solidario and the Future of

Social Protection

ARMANDO BARRIENTOS

Armando Barrientos is Professor and Research Director at the Brooks World Poverty Institute, University of Manchester, UK

Taylor and FrancisCJHD_A_520926.sgm10.1080/19452829.2010.520926Journal of Human Development and Capabilities1945-2829 (print)/1945-2837 (online)Original Article2010Taylor & Francis114000000November 2010Dr [email protected]

Abstract Social protection has emerged as a strong policy framework addressing poverty and vulnerability in developing countries. The growingliterature on social protection largely focuses on the relative effectiveness of different social protection programmes, but seldom makes a link tounderlying conceptual frameworks. The paper argues that the capability approach can provide a sound foundation for social protection and discussesin some detail Chile Solidario, an integrated anti-poverty programme thatexplicitly embraces this approach. The paper demonstrates how anunderstanding of conceptual frameworks is essential to shaping the future of

social protection.

Key words: Capability, Poverty, Social protection

Introduction

Over the past decade or so, social protection has emerged as a policy framework addressing poverty and vulnerability in developing countries. The fastgrowing literature on social protection has been largely dominated by discus-sion of the relative effectiveness of social protection instruments. This shouldbe welcomed, especially as knowledge on what works in poverty reductionhas the quality of a global public good. However, insufficient attention hasbeen paid to the conceptual frameworks that underpin social protection, andthis will prove a handicap for its future development. The main objective of the paper is to argue that the capability approach can provide a soundconceptual framework and tools for social protection. The discussion in thepaper pursues this objective at two levels. Firstly, it examines whether thecapability approach can be taken to provide the informational basis of socialprotection, and the implications arising from doing so. Secondly, it discussesChile Solidario as an example of an integrated anti-poverty programme

informed by the capability approach. In connecting these two levels, the



A. Barrientos

580

paper aims to demonstrate both the advantages of a more explicit discussionof the conceptual basis of social protection and the relevance of the capabil-ity approach to the future of social protection.

The term social protection has long standing, and describes public

policy aimed at protecting and promoting well-being. It has long been usedby the International Labour Office (2001) to describe the range of programmes—social insurance, social assistance, and labour market regula-tion—which it has advocated and supported.1 The current interest in socialprotection is in no small part due to a growing recognition that poverty and

vulnerability are significant barriers to development, but also catalysts for social exclusion and unrest (Barrientos and Hulme, 2008). Beyond thisconsensus on the need for social protection, few studies have examined theconceptual underpinnings of social protection as a policy framework. Anexception is Munro, who identifies three alternative approaches to socialprotection in developing countries: emphasizing protection against risk, thesatisfaction of basic needs, and the extension of rights (Munro, 2008). Thesealternative approaches reflect competing approaches to development, andcan be observed in the definition of social protection used by multilaterals.The Social Protection Strategy paper from the World Bank defines socialprotection in terms of a social risk management framework as consisting of public interventions “to assist individuals, households, and communities inbetter managing income risks” (Holzmann and Jorgensen, 1999, p. 1008).The International Labour Office, on the other hand, sees social protection as“entitlements to benefits that society provides to individuals and households– through public and collective measures – to protect against low or declin-

ing living standards arising out of a number of basic risks and needs” (vanGinneken, 2000, p. 23). The UN Economic and Social Council states thatsocial protection:

is broadly understood as a set of public and private policies andprogrammes undertaken by societies in response to various contin-gencies in order to offset the absence or substantial reduction inincome from work, provide assistance for families with children;and provide people with health care and housing. (United Nations,2000, p. 3)

Can the capability approach provide a conceptual basis for social protec-tion? In as far as the capability approach is focused on developing a richer theory of well-being, which is also the subject of social protection, this is astrong possibility. An interesting way of approaching this issue is to consider the extent to which capability can provide the informational basis for socialprotection. This involves asking the question: what is to be protected? Thepaper discusses non-welfarist, welfarist, and capability responses to this ques-tion. Adopting the capability approach implies a strong focus on the produc-tion of well-being and therefore on the multidimensional nature of poverty.

The objective of the paper is not to provide a comprehensive assessment of



Chile Solidario and the Future of Social Protection

581

all possible conceptual frameworks that could underpin social protection,2

but simply to demonstrate the relevance of the capability approach.The paper argues that focusing on capability as the informational basis

of social protection provides invaluable insights into the assessment of social

protection programmes. To demonstrate this claim, the discussion thenmoves on to the implications of adopting capability theory as a basis for social protection at a programme level.3 The paper introduces and examinesa new integrated anti-poverty programme introduced in Chile in 2002, theSistema de Protección Social Chile Solidario, and shows how thisprogramme engages with the capability approach. In discussing how thecapability approach informs Chile Solidario, the paper demonstrates thatattention to conceptual underpinnings can provide both ‘light’ and ‘fruit’ inshaping the future of social protection.

The paper divides into two main sections. The first section examines whether capability theory can provide a conceptual foundation for socialprotection. The second section shows how capability theory can inform thedesign and implementation of anti-poverty programmes, such as Chile Soli- dario. The Conclusion gathers the key findings.

Capability as the informational basis of social protection

Social protection is a policy framework addressing poverty and vulnerability.Poverty is here understood as significant deficits in well-being, and vulnera-bility as the strong likelihood that individuals, households, and communities

will be in poverty in the future. What distinguishes social protection withinthe wider set of anti-poverty policies is its focus on vulnerability. Socialprotection is grounded on the view that insecurity is an important factor behind poverty, and especially persistent poverty (Chronic Poverty Research Centre, 2008). As a policy framework, social protection helps to evaluatedifferent social arrangements providing greater or lesser security, and espe-cially those providing less security than a minimum socially acceptable level.For example, it helps to identify and evaluate the impact and effectiveness of policy interventions aimed at reducing poverty and vulnerability.

Highlighting the evaluative dimension of social protection provides a

good entry point into a discussion of its conceptual underpinnings. In thecontext of social protection, evaluation requires some understanding of whatis to be made more secure, or what is to be protected? Following Sen, thepossible responses to these questions can be taken to indicate alternativeinformational bases of social protection.4 This section considers alternativeinformational bases of social protection, beginning with a brief outline of non-welfarist and welfarist approaches, and moves on to argue that the capa-bility approach can provide a strong, arguably the strongest, informationalbasis of social protection.

Non-welfarist perspectives on poverty focus on the extent to which households are unable to ensure minimum consumption levels; for example,



A. Barrientos

582

in terms of income, consumption and/or services. The term non-welfarist isused here in the sense that well-being is determined by given quantities of goods and services to which households have access, as opposed to house-holds’ own perception of their welfare, which is referred to as welfarist and

discussed briefly below. Nutrition-based poverty lines are a good example of a non-welfarist approach. They work by identifying a minimum calorificintake for an average person, determining a minimum food intake of locally consumed goods to achieve this intake, which is then valued at local pricesto yield a poverty line (Kakwani, 2003). The vast majority of social protectionanalysis is couched in non-welfarist terms, especially where consumption or income are used as proxies for well-being (Ravallion, 1996; Duclos, 2002).The same applies to social protection programmes, which in the main havenon-welfarist objectives and evaluation tools.

Welfarist perspectives on well-being are standard in economics, but lessin evidence in the economics of poverty and vulnerability.5 Welfarist evalua-tion of well-being is based on households’ own assessment of their welfare,and would define poverty in terms of the inability experienced by individualsand households to achieve a basic level of utility. The distinction existingbetween welfarist and non-welfarist approaches comes up strongly in thecontext of discussions of the incentives effects of social protectionprogrammes, and especially in the context of income transfers.6 Focusing onconcerns with potential household labour supply responses to income trans-fers will help distinguish the informational bases of welfarist and non-

welfarist approaches. What if participant households reduce their labour supply following receipt of an income transfer? A non-welfarist social planner

would be concerned that this household will now have insufficient incometo reach the poverty line, with a presumption that well-being for this house-hold has declined. By contrast, a welfarist social planner would be reassuredthat this household has traded off some of the income transfer income for less labour, with their utility level (and hence well-being) no worse thanbefore, with a presumption that the households would not have opted for alower one. The informational basis for an evaluation of social protection in anon-welfarist perspective is the quantities of goods and services the house-holds need to achieve a minimum level of well-being, whereas from a

welfarist perspective the informational basis is the utility of the household.

The capability approach to well-being incorporates both welfarist andnon-welfarist perspectives within a more general approach and, in theprocess, addresses a number of their weaknesses.7 The non-welfaristapproach identifies the informational basis of social protection with access toresources necessary to meet basic needs. It focuses on the instrumentsneeded to achieve well-being, but not on well-being itself. This can be prob-lematic because individual and household heterogeneity ensures that therelationship existing between the instruments of well-being and well-beingitself can be complex. Circumstances of age, gender, location, health status,social roles, to name a few, imply that the same set of resources can result in

very different levels of wellbeing. Some individuals or households affected by




583

disability, illness, poverty or exclusion will experience greater difficulties inconverting commodities or income into wellbeing than healthy individuals(Sen, 1999). Agency and the processes of transforming resources into well-being are also important here. Intra-household distribution norms and dispar-

ities in voice and power, for example, strongly influence the process of converting household resources and income into individual well-being.8

Welfarist approaches, on the other hand, are deficient in the present contextbecause of adaptive expectations.9 As Sen notes, a “person who is ill-fed,undernourished, unsheltered and ill can still be high up in the scale of happi-ness or desire fulfillment if he or she has learned to have ‘realistic’ desires andto take please in small mercies” (Sen, 1985, p. 14).

The capability approach argues that well-being can be better understoodand evaluated if the focus, or informational basis for evaluation, is on func-tionings and capability instead. Functionings are defined as the possiblebeings and doings available to individuals and households, and they reflect

well-being because “… how well a person is must be a matter of what kindof life he or she is living, and what the person is succeeding in ‘doing’ or ‘being’” (Sen, 1985, p. 19). Capability additionally reflects the role of agency in the selection of ‘beings’ and ‘doings’ that a person makes in line with her

values. Capability describes the subset of functionings that are available to aperson in line with her life-plan. As Sen states, the capability approach is“primarily concerned with value-objects, and see the evaluative space interms of functionings and capability to function” (Sen, 1997, p. 45).

The capability approach constitutes a more general approach primarily because it focuses on the production of well-being and incorporates agency

and processes. It is essential to explore this point further as it opens a window into the relevance of the capability approach for social protection.Figure 1 provides a summary description of the different elements in theproduction of well-being consistent with capability theory. It distinguishesbetween observable outcomes, collected in the evaluation space, and trans-formative space. The last row provides examples of vulnerability associated

with the different elements, suggesting how failures in the transformativespace and deficits in outcomes can raise vulnerability (i.e. the likelihood of future poverty). The examples in the last row are intended to suggest linksto the social protection policies and priorities.FIGURE 1 Summary description of the production of well-being. Note: The summary description of well-being production is informed by Sen (1982, 1985). The summary description of the relationship of assets and entitlements to commodities is informed by the discussion in Sen (1982, esp. chapter 5). Sen (1985) defines a vector of commodities possessed by person i as xi, which relates to achieved functionings bi through a personal utilization function fi(.) and a function c(.) converting commodities into avector of characteristics of these commodities. Achieved functionings are given by bi = fi(c( xi)). For a set Fi of utilization functions fi and a set Pi( xi) of feasible functioning vectors, the latter is defined as Pi( xi) = [bi|bi=fi(c( xi)), for some fi(.) Fi], which informs the three middle columns in the figure (from commodities to functionings). The analysis there also informs the relationships represented in the last two columns.

Moving from left to right, individuals and households have assets andentitlements. Through processes of production and exchange, they are ableto transform or convert their assets and entitlements into commodities for consumption or accumulation. This conversion critically depends on marketsand the rights system. Insufficient assets and entitlements, badly operatingmarkets or uncertain rights systems raise vulnerability. Livestock can bedepleted by natural disasters, conflict or changes in demand. Uncertainty over entitlements, due to lack of information, bureaucratic filters, or corrup-tion, may render assets valueless. Commodities have properties supportingconsumption. Households can arrange commodities so that their properties

support different sets of ‘beings’ and ‘doings’. Commodities are thus



A. Barrientos

584

converted into functionings. A given set of commodities can thus support arange of alternative functionings: vegetables can be used for meals or medi-cines; computers can be used for learning, entertainment, or political partic-

ipation. At this point, vulnerability can reflect deficits in commodities and/or difficulties in converting these commodities into functionings. Populationheterogeneity is particularly relevant at this point. Expectant mothers needlevels and quality of nutrition and healthcare different from non-expectantmothers of the same age and in the same location. Poor health and disability reflect greater difficulty in converting commodities into functionings. Thenext element directly involves agency. Agency is important to select from theset of available functionings those which persons value in line with their life-plans. For example, deficits in voice and participation by women in house-hold decisions make them especially vulnerable, and will limit their capacity

to convert available functionings into capability.The partial nature of welfarist and non-welfarist approaches to well-beingis now clearer, as these fix on specific elements and ignore others. In partic-ular, these approaches pay insufficient attention to processes and agency, andthe significance of transformative space demonstrated in Figure 1. Focusingon capability expands and re-focuses the approach to vulnerability and socialprotection in important ways. The role of transformative space, and especially agency and processes, is now fully incorporated with the implication that aricher and more complete perspective on vulnerability can be reached. Thecapability approach also helps us to focus on the interconnectedness of

vulnerabilities. It is possible that vulnerabilities may combine and thus

FIGURE 1. Summary description of the production of well-being.

Note: The summary description of well-being production is informed by Sen (1982, 1985). The summary

description of the relationship of assets and entitlements to commodities is informed by the discussion in

Sen (1982, esp. chapter 5). Sen (1985) defines a vector of commodities possessed by person i as xi , which

relates to achieved functionings bi through a personal utilization function fi (.) and a function c (.) convert-

ing commodities into a vector of characteristics of these commodities. Achieved functionings are given

by bi = fi ( c ( xi )). For a set Fi of utilization functions fi and a set Pi ( xi ) of feasible functioning vectors, the

latter is defined as Pi ( xi ) = [bi|bi=fi ( c ( xi )), for some fi (.) Fi ], which informs the three middle columns

in the figure (from commodities to functionings). The analysis there also informs the relationships repre-

sented in the last two columns.

∋




585

compound in their effects on well-being. Old-age poverty, for example,reflects compounding of asset depletion and life-course capacities in convert-ing commodities into functionings. It is also possible that different sources of

vulnerability can be traded off against one another. Adverse incorporation

trades off autonomy against greater security and protection in the market andrights system (Hicks and Woodon, 2001; Wood, 2003).Overall, the capability approach could provide a better grounding for

social protection, by focusing on functionings and capability as the informa-tional basis of social protection, and in the process unfolding the productionof well-being and associated vulnerability as the context in which socialprotection operates. The next section considers the relevance of the capabil-ity approach for social protection in the context of Chile Solidario.

Capability informed social protection in practice: ChileSolidario

Chile Solidario was introduced in 2002 with the aim of eradicating extremepoverty in Chile. Its full title is ‘Social Protection System Chile Solidario’( Sistema de Protección Social Chile Solidario ). Chile Solidario providesintensive support to the 225 000 poorest households in Chile along sevendimensions of well-being: education, health, income, employment, house-hold dynamics, housing, and registration (MIDEPLAN, 2003). This sectionoutlines the policy environment that led to the introduction of Chile Soli- dario, notes the main features of its design and operation, and then relates

the programme back to the capability approach.

Why Chile Solidario?

Chile experienced a sustained period of economic growth since the mid-1980s, averaging annual rates of growth of GDP in excess of 7%. The perfor-mance of the economy together with the restoration of democracy in 1990created the conditions, and fiscal space, for a significant reduction inpoverty. Figure 2 shows the incidence of indigence and poverty in Chileduring 1990–2006.10 As can be seen from the figure, the poverty headcount

declined from 38.6% in 1990 to 13.7% in 2006 (MIDEPLAN, 2007). The indi-gence headcount declined from 12.9% to 3.2% in the same period. The trendin poverty incidence shows the importance of growth is a key driver for poverty reduction, and at the same time it demonstrates that growth is notenough. In 2000, policy-makers became concerned that the reduction in thepoverty headcount rate had slowed down and, critically, that the indigenceheadcount rate had stagnated.FIGURE 2 Incidence of poverty and indigence in Chile, 1990–2006.

The need for a pro-active stance on poverty and indigence was all tooevident.11 A review of poverty reduction programmes identified several

weaknesses in the poverty reduction strategy. An exercise mapping publicprogrammes with poverty reduction objectives in 1999 found 134 such



A. Barrientos

586

programmes delivered by 25 different agencies. The same exercise wasrepeated in 2002, and found the number of programmes had risen to 142

with 33 agencies involved (MIDEPLAN, 2003). The multiplicity of programmes reflected a piecemeal, fragmented, and sectoral approach topoverty reduction, which greatly undermined the effectiveness of the

government poverty reduction strategy. The mode of provision was alsoproblematic, in that it was largely passive and paid no attention to the costsand barriers faced by poor households attempting to access theseprogrammes or to the social exclusion they experienced.12 Evaluation of these programmes, where available, concluded that they focused mainly onthe moderately poor and in many cases failed to reach the poorest.

The review pointed to the need for fundamental change. It indicatedthat what was needed was a pro-active approach to poverty reduction focus-ing on the extreme poor and ensuring a coordinated effort of public agenciesand a strengthening of the demand side. Most importantly, the review indi-

cated the need to address social exclusion. The main lesson for the designersof Chile Solidario was that the main barrier to effective poverty reduction was the social exclusion experienced by the poorest in securing access topublic programmes delivering social protection (MIDEPLAN, 2003). Thedesign of Chile Solidario acknowledges the multidimensional nature of poverty, to a much greater extent than conditional cash transfer programmeselsewhere in Latin America that are mainly focused on schooling, health andnutrition. It explicitly adopts a capability approach and aims to bring aboutgreater equality in the capability space through ensuring that “all can accessa minimum of basic capabilities” (MIDEPLAN, 2003, p. 17).13 It defines the

household as the focus of support, because agency largely lies there, and

FIGURE 2. Incidence of poverty and indigence in Chile, 1990–2006.




587

pays particular attention to gender disparities in these households. It alsoreflects a rights approach to human development and pays attention to localdevelopment.

How is Chile Solidario supposed to work? Figure 3 provides a trajectory description of the operation of Chile Solidario.

Analysis of the CASEN (Caracterización Socio-Económica Nacional) 2000household survey identified 225 000 indigent households, who are the targetgroup for Chile Solidario. The selection of participant households was donethrough a proxy means test, in use in Chile since 1980. Households applyingfor assistance receive the visit of an enumerator, who completes a brief ques-tionnaire covering housing conditions, education, employment and income.This questionnaire is known as Ficha CAS . Using the responses to the ques-tionnaire, a score is calculated for the household. This score ranks house-holds according to their level of deprivation. Households who have a scorebelow a threshold point are eligible to access all relevant public programmes.This score is valid for two years. Chile Solidario uses this targeting system toidentify the 225 000 poorest households below a threshold CAS score.14FIGURE 3 Chile Solidario: timelines and outcomes.

Households identified as eligible are contacted and invited to join the PUENTE programme (BRIDGE between households and their rights).15

Households joining the programme are allocated a social worker (describedas household support or apoyo familiar ) and provided with an income trans-fer ( Bono de Protección ). Over the first six months, household members have14 intensive sessions with the social worker to identify deficits on the seven

dimensions of well-being. Each of the dimensions of well-being has a number of minimum thresholds, 53 in all (see Appendix 1 for a listing). The sessionsidentify households’ deficits and how to overcome these deficits, leading tospecific commitments ( compromisos ) on the part of the households and thesocial worker. The latter is responsible for coordinating access to the relevantpublic agencies and programmes; while household members are responsiblefor fulfilling their commitments. Achievements on the basic thresholds are

FIGURE 3. Chile Solidario: timelines and outcomes.



A. Barrientos

588

recorded. After the first six months, sessions are fewer. Households areexpected to exit PUENTE after two years. The main target for PUENTE is that70% of household exit the programme having successfully reached all 53 basicthresholds. Over the subsequent three years, households continue to be enti-

tled to access to public programmes and to another income transfer ( Bonode Egreso ). Households that fail to reach all 53 basic thresholds when exiting PUENTE continue to work to achieve these during this period.16

It is not the purpose of this paper to evaluate Chile Solidario, butinstead to use its design and orientation to reflect on the capability approach as a conceptual framework for social protection. However, some brief comments on the implementation and impact of Chile Solidario might beuseful. The information available indicates that in the main the programmehas been implemented as planned. By September 2005, 86.9% of eligiblehouseholds had been contacted (189 534 out of a target 218 217 house-holds), and 51 441 had exited PUENTE . A CEPAL evaluation of PUENTE inthe first quarter of 2003 raised a number of detailed issues concerning imple-mentation, but reported a very positive assessment from participants andprogramme officials (CEPAL, 2003). A majority of the recipients of incometransfer were found to be women. A subsequent attitudinal and progress eval-uation carried out by the University of Chile in 2004 also reported high levelsof satisfaction and achievement among those interviewed (Canales, 2004).17

A planned full-scale evaluation of Chile Solidario will help assess outcomesmore reliably. Galasso and Carneiro et al . provide preliminary evaluations of impact, and find a marked improvement in access to public programmeamong participant households (Galasso, 2006; Carneiro et al., 2008).18

Chile Solidario and the capability approach

Chile Solidario explicitly takes functionings as its informational basis. In theprogramme documentation, its aim is to equalize capability by ensuring thepoorest can achieve a minimum set of basic functionings. In this respect, itis highly unusual—if not unique—among anti-poverty programmes. Thisformulation needs further discussion.

Although the programme documentation refers to capabilities( capacidades ), the description of the programme thresholds in Appendix

1—for example, to be literate and numerate and to be in employment—iscloser to the description of functionings in the previous section. There, func-tionings are understood as the range of beings and doings that are availableto a person. In the previous section, capability relates instead to the beingsand doings a person selects among the available functionings in line with her

values and objectives.19 The nature of the relationship existing betweenfunctionings and capability in the programme turns out to be extremely important in identifying the potential of the capability approach as theconceptual underpinning for social protection.

There is a direct relationship existing between the set of functionings

available to households in poverty and their capability. Enlarging the set of




589

functioning for the poorest implies wider scope for the selection of capabil-ities.20 In this context, it will be valid to argue that the policy objective of expanding the set of functionings of the poorest households in Chile will alsosucceed in broadening their capability. In fact, the programme’s main objec-

tive, to facilitate permanent exit from extreme poverty, is just another way of saying this.However, treating the list of 53 thresholds as representing basic func-

tionings and making a direct link between achieving these and enlargingcapability might be problematic for a number of reasons. Focusing on a rangeof dimensions and thresholds represents a significant improvement over

welfarist and non-welfarist approaches, but their selection in Chile Solidariorepresents an informed but pragmatic decision by programme designers. It isimportant to ask whether the dimensions and thresholds selected provide theright evaluative space. It can, and should, be questioned whether the list of thresholds in Chile Solidario can be taken to include all the necessary basicfunctionings. There is a weighty literature on this issue that cannot bereviewed here (Doyal and Gough, 1991; Nussbaum, 1999; Alkire, 2002).There is no consensus on a possible list of basic functionings, and perhapssuch consensus on this would not be feasible or desirable. In all likelihood, alist would differ across societies, communities, households and individuals.In the context of Chile Solidario, what is important is to make sure the poor-est have a basic set of functionings, ensuring that they will be able to lead thelife they value, to a basic extent.

On this issue, it would be interesting to examine whether the function-ings targeted by the programme designers are essentially the same as those

that would be chosen by the poorest. Some insights can be gained from anexamination of the priorities revealed by programme participants in the selec-tion of the dimensions to cover in the first and subsequent sessions with thesocial worker, and a comparison with the objective assessment of the unmetthresholds shown by households at the time of their entry into the programme.

At the start of the programme, participant households are asked which dimen-sion they would prefer to work with in the first and subsequent sessions (onedimension is covered in each session). Their preferences can be taken to indi-cate the relative priority attached to the different dimension by participanthouseholds. In the priority ranking shown in Table 1, the dimension ranked

first had the highest number of households indicating that dimension as thepriority for the first meeting, the dimension ranked second had the highestnumber of households choosing it as the focus for the second meeting, andso on for the other dimensions. The deficit ranking, on the other hand,provides information on the relative importance of the different dimensionsbased on the percentage of unmet thresholds shown by households at the startof the programme. The ranking was constructed to give first place to thedimension with the highest share of unmet thresholds reported by the house-holds in the sample at the time of enrolment in the programme, and secondplace to the second highest, and so on. Table 1 shows the priority and deficit

rankings for households participating in the programme in December 2002.



A. Barrientos

590

The issue here is whether the priorities revealed by participating house-holds reflect the ranking of their deficits measured by the threshold indicatorsset by programme designers.21 As Table 1 shows, the two rankings areroughly similar; that is, the priority accorded by the participant householdsto each dimension is roughly in line with the incidence of their deficits in thethresholds set by the programme. Housing and employment are top of thepriorities, followed by income, household dynamics and education.However, two dimensions have widely diverging rankings. The priority rank-ing for the health dimension significantly ‘overstates’ the measured incidenceof deficits. Inversely, registration is significantly understated in the priority ranking compared to the incidence of deficits. Put in a different way, partic-

ipant households worry about health more than it is justified by their deficits, while showing little concern for the deficits in the registration dimension.Several interpretations that can be supported by the data, but at least a far ashealth and registration are concerned it appears that the listed dimensions are

weighed differently by participant households and programme designers.22

In the context of Chile Solidario, capability is not measured directly, butindirectly through binary indicators of achievement of basic thresholds in thespecified dimensions. Why not focus on capability rather than proxies of functionings as the evaluative space? Is this to do with operational constraintson the programme? Is it to do with the inherent difficulties in measuring

capability?23

The inherent danger is that by focusing on simple measures of thresholds, Chile Solidario could in practice fall back on a non-welfaristinformational basis (Santibañez, 2006).

Cross-referencing the list of thresholds in Appendix 1 with the well-beingprocess described in Figure 1 suggests that the thresholds fit at different pointsin that stylized outline of the process. The majority of the thresholds listedunder Registration link up with the rights system in Figure 1, especially as they enable persons to be legally recognized as entitlement bearers. Registrationis required for application to the different programmes of support providedby the government. The Registration thresholds enable the entitlements to

services and transfers. Health and Education thresholds, in the main, facilitate

T ABLE 1. Priority and deficit rankings of dimensions for households participating in Chile Solidario in

December 2002

Housing Employment Health Income Household

dynamics

Education Registration

Priority ranking 1 2 3 4 6 5 7Deficit ranking 2 1 6 3 5 7 4

Note: The priority ranking was constructed by adding the proportion of households selecting each

dimension for each consecutive session, and taking the highest valued dimension at each consecutive

session; therefore (one) is the most preferred dimension for session one, while (seven) is the most

preferred dimension for session seven. The deficit ranking arrays the dimensions according to the average

share of deficits under each of the dimensions; from the dimension with the highest share of unmet

thresholds (one) to the dimension with the lowest share of deficits (seven).

Source: From data reported in CEPAL (2003).




591

the conversion of commodities into functionings (literacy, numeracy andprimary healthcare, for example). Some of the thresholds under HouseholdDynamics, especially mechanisms to deal with conflict and norms for sharingand living together, facilitate agency and are expected to address autonomy

deficits. Some of the thresholds under Housing are to do with assets such asland and housing. Other thresholds under this dimension relate to consump-tion and commodities. The thresholds under Work facilitate access to thelabour market, while the thresholds under Income relate to entitlements. Theinteresting point that emerges from this exercise is that the programmeprovides support at different points in the production of well-being, and there-fore the generation of functionings. The substantive content of the thresholdsdoes not necessarily involve fully fledged functionings, but facilitates theproduction of functionings. Meeting the specified thresholds leads to anenlargement of the set of functionings for those in extreme poverty.

This is of significance for the conceptualization of social protection.Chile Solidario is multidimensional in aiming to address a range of deficitsexperienced by households in extreme poverty. It does this by providingsupport at different points in the production of functionings and therefore

well-being. In the context of Figure 1, the programme is multidimensionalboth vertically (focusing on both the evaluative space and the transformationspace) and horizontally (focusing on the different elements in the productionof well-being). In this important sense, the influence of the capability approach is directly observable, and a core feature of the programme. It aimsto support an integrated as well as multidimensional exit from extremepoverty. In adopting, and adapting, the capability approach as the conceptual

framework underpinning Chile Solidario, programme designers engaged with the process of well-being production.

Conclusions

Social protection has emerged as a strong policy framework addressingpoverty and vulnerability in developing countries. The literature on socialprotection has focused on the relative efficiency of social protection inter-

ventions, but has not paid sufficient attention to conceptual and ethical

foundations. The paper aimed to draw attention to the significance of thesefundamentals, by arguing that the capability approach can provide a firmbasis for social protection and examining this argument in the context of Chile Solidario.

The first part of the paper argued that capability offers a more generalinformational basis for social protection. In particular, focusing on function-ings and capability ensure that social protection programmes engage with theproduction of well-being, including agency and process issues. The secondpart of the paper outlined and examined the Sistema de Protección Social Chile Solidario as an example of social protection interventions explicitly

informed by the capability approach. More specifically, the evaluation space



A. Barrientos

592

includes seven dimensions of well-being and 53 basic thresholds necessary to‘graduate’ participating households. The programme goes some way toextending the scope of social protection programmes in a multidimensionaldirection. Chile Solidario provides a demonstration, at a policy level, that the

capability approach can underpin social protection programmes that areeffective in addressing poverty and vulnerability.There is an emerging consensus in developing countries around the

need to strengthen social protection, and there is considerable innovationand ambition in the design and scope of social protection interventions.Chile Solidario provides a very good example of an integrated anti-poverty programmes grounded on a multidimensional understanding of poverty andtackling social exclusion. The programme has attracted enormous interestfrom programme designers in Latin America and other developmentregions. In Latin America it has exerted significant influence on new, as

well as on established, programmes. It has demonstrated the advantagesfrom widening of the scope of existing programmes (Barrientos andSantibañez, 2009). Beyond Latin America, it has informed the design of innovative programmes in Egypt and elsewhere. Low-income countries willfind it hard to emulate Chile Solidario, as their incidence of extremepoverty is much higher and delivery capacity is more limited. Few low-income, and even middle-income, developing countries are in a position todeploy the human resources available to programme managers in Chile.Chile Solidario’s influence will be felt most strongly in its innovativeperspective on social protection.

This takes us back to the core aim of the paper, to contribute to a better

understanding of the alternative conceptual frameworks underpinning socialprotection. The discussion in the paper shows how important it is to comple-ment a discussion of the relative advantages and disadvantages of differentanti-poverty programmes with a consideration of appropriate conceptualunderpinnings for these programmes. Such an approach can guarantee both ‘light’ and ‘fruit’. In particular, the capability approach has the potential toensure that the rapid spread of social protection in developing countries hasa large and permanent impact on poverty.

Notes

1 The discussion below will be focused on social assistance, defined as tax-financedprogrammes normally delivered by public agencies focused on poverty reduction. Therelevant literature for developing countries commonly uses the term social protectioneven where the focus is social assistance, and the Chile Solidario literature describes it associal protection. The paper will use the term social protection throughout to avoidconfusion.

2 A list would include risk, needs, and rights approaches to social protection outlined aboveas well as welfarist and non-welfarist perspectives on what is to be protected.

3 Schischka et al. (2008) apply the capability approach to poverty alleviation programmes.4 As he puts it, in “each evaluative structure, some types of factual matters are taken to be

important in themselves, others not so. The former variables, which reflect the basic ends




593

in that specific evaluative system, constitute the ‘informational basis’ of evaluative judg-ments in that system” (Sen, 1991, p. 16).

5 Hagenaars (1987) developed a welfarist approach to poverty measures. Recent papersdevelop a welfarist approach to conceptualizing and measuring vulnerability (Elbers andGunning, 2003; Ligon and Schechter, 2003).

6 There is an important literature comparing welfarist and non-welfarist approaches in thecontext of optimal taxation (Kanbur, 1994; Kanbur et al., 1995).7 The discussion in the paper provides only an outline of the different approaches to well-

being. These are discussed in detail in Sen (1985, 1993, 1997).8 See the extensive literature on equivalence scales as a tool for comparing households with

different demographic composition (Deaton and Paxson, 1998).9 See Burchardt (2009) for a more detailed discussion of this issue in the context of the capa-

bility approach. Interestingly she recommends adopting a more dynamic approach toassessing agency, in line with the emphasis in this paper on the production of well-being.In the context of poverty analysis, the capability approach has been criticized for empha-sizing individual agency.

10 Two poverty lines are commonly used in the region. Indigents are those living in house-holds with income or expenditure at or below the value of a basic basket of food ensuring

minimum nutrition, the indigence line. The poverty line is around twice the indigenceline. This assumes that, in addition to food, a minimum socially acceptable living standard would require that the same amount spent on food is spent on non-food items.

11 In 2000, Ricardo Lagos was elected President of Chile, the third centre-left administra-tion since the ending of dictatorship in 1990 and the second socialist President after Salvador Allende. His manifesto placed strong emphasis on social development andpoverty reduction.

12 MIDEPLAN eloquently refers to this mode of provision as “modelo de espera” (MIDEPLAN,2003), a ‘sit and wait’ attitude among service providers much in evidence across the highly bureaucratic public service agencies in the region.

13 The reference to capabilities in the document has a footnote that reads: “Concept firstelaborated by Amartya Sen, Nobel Prize in Economics” (MIDEPLAN, 2003, p. 17).

14 This method of identifying eligible households raises some issues as regards targeting.CASEN identifies indigents solely on the basis of household income, but the CAS scorecovers four dimensions with income contributing only around 11% of the score. Put another way, CASEN identifies the income poorest but CAS identifies the most deprived. There isno guarantee these will be the same. In practice, Chile Solidario targets the extreme poor (poorest 5% of households) rather than the indigent (those with income below the indi-gence line). Another issue is that the threshold CAS score for Chile Solidario is set at theregion level in order to account for regional disparities in deprivation, but the allocationof places to that region is based on the CASEN income data, so that two households with the same CAS scores in different regions may have different eligibility status (CEPAL, 2003).Borzutzky (2009) discusses weaknesses in Chile Solidario targeting. The CAS Form wasreplaced by a Social Protection Form in 2007. The latter includes additional indicators of

health utilization, schooling, disability and drug use. The Social Protection Form aims toprovide more detailed information on household vulnerability (Santibañez, 2005).15 The PUENTE Programme is managed by a longstanding social fund FOSIS in collaboration

with municipalities.16 Programme data show that 75.3% of 51 441 households exiting PUENTE by September

2005 had managed to reach all 53 thresholds, but this rate seem to have declined over time(Santibañez, 2006).

17 Government satisfaction with the progress of Chile Solidario is reflected in the expansionof the programme to include street dwellers and older people living alone. This is also theroute recommended by a World Bank study of social protection in Chile (World Bank,2005).

18 It will be some time before it becomes possible to assess whether participant householdsmanage to exit extreme poverty permanently.



A. Barrientos

594

19 On the relationship between functionings and capability, Fleurbaey (2006) proposes afocus on refined functionings.

20 It is questionable whether the proliferation of alternatives, say branded pharmaceuticalproducts as opposed to generic ones, does imply a wider set of capabilities, but thetargeted functionings as represented by the programme thresholds are of a different kind

entirely.21 The potential for the programme to fall back into paternalistic forms of social assistance was a matter of concern to programme designers, and has been monitored by theprogramme managers. The ‘contractarian’ feature of the programme, as with co-responsi-bilities in programmes like Oportunidades and Bolsa Familia, also helps to fuel such concerns.

22 It is an interesting issue, in the light of the model of well-being in Figure 1, whether adifference in views of the social planner and participant households is due to insufficientinformation on the part of households (e.g. not realizing the importance of being properly documented), or insufficient information by the social planner (e.g. not understandingthat registration may be of little benefit to households). Alternatively, it could be due tothe design of the programme reflecting the imposition of government, rather than house-hold, priorities. See Szreter (2007) for a discussion of the importance of registration in

development.23 There is a large literature around the measurement of functionings and capability as indi-

cators of well-being that cannot be reviewed here (Brandolini and D’Alessio, 1998;Robeyns, 2000).

References

Alkire, S. (2002) ‘Dimensions of Human Development’, World Development, 30(2),pp. 181–205.

Barrientos, A. and Hulme, D. (Eds) (2008) Social Protection for the Poor and Poorest:Concepts, Policies and Politics, Palgrave, London.

Barrientos, A. and Santibañez, C. (2009) ‘New Forms of Social Assistance and theEvolution of Social Protection in Latin America’, Journal of Latin American Studies,41(1), pp. 1–26.

Borzutzky, S. (2009) ‘Anti-poverty Politics in Chile: A Preliminary Assessment of the ChileSolidario Program’, Poverty and Public Policy, 1(1), pp. 1–16.

Brandolini, A. and D’Alessio, G. (1998) ‘Measuring Well-Being in the Functioning Space’,mimeo, Bank of Italy Research Department, Rome.

Burchardt, T. (2009) ‘Agency Goals, Adaptation and Capability Sets’, Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 10(1), pp. 3–19.

Canales, M. (2004) Evaluación del estado de avance del sistema Chile Solidario. Informe Final, Report, University of Chile, Santiago.

Carneiro, P., Galasso, E. and Ginja, R. (2008) ‘The Impact of Providing Psycho-Social Support

to Indigent Families and Increasing their Access to Social Services: Evaluating ChileSolidario’, mimeo, University College London.CEPAL (2003) Análisis de Resultados del Programa Puente 2002, Report, CEPAL, División

Desarrollo Social, Santiago.Chronic Poverty Research Centre (2008) The Chronic Poverty Report 2008–09: Escaping

Poverty Traps, Chronic Poverty Research Centre, Manchester.Deaton, A. and Paxson, C. (1998) ‘Economies of Scale, Household Size, and the Demand for

Food’, Journal of Political Economy, 106(5), pp. 897–930.Doyal, L. and Gough, I. (1991) A Theory of Human Need, Macmillan, London.Duclos, J.-Y. (2002) ‘Vulnerability and Poverty: Measurement Issues for Public Policy’, Social

Protection Discussion Paper 0230, The World Bank, Washington, D.C.Elbers, C. and Gunning, J. W. (2003) ‘Estimating Vulnerability’, mimeo, Free University,

Amsterdam.




595

Fleurbaey, M. (2006) ‘Capabilities, Functionings and Refined Functionings’, Journal of Human Development, 7, pp. 299–310.

Galasso, E. (2006) ‘“With their Effort and One Opportunity” Alleviating Extreme Poverty inChile’, mimeo, Development Research Group, The World Bank, Washington, D.C.

Hagenaars, A. (1987) ‘A Class of Poverty Indices’, International Economic Review, 28,

pp. 583–607.Hicks, N. and Woodon, Q. (2001) ‘Protección social para los pobres en América Latina’, Revista de la Cepal, 73, pp. 95–116.

Holzmann, R. and Jorgensen, S. (1999) ‘Social Protection as Social Risk Management: Concep-tual Underpinnings for the Social Protection Strategy Paper’, Journal of International Development, 11, pp. 1005–1027.

International Labour Office (2001) Social Security. A New Consensus, International Labour Office, Geneva.

Kakwani, N. (2003) ‘Issues in Setting Absolute Poverty Lines’, Poverty and Social Develop- ment Papers 3, Asian Development Bank, Manila.

Kanbur, R. (1994) ‘Optimal Non-linear Income Taxation for the Alleviation of IncomePoverty’, European Economic Review, 38, pp. 1613–1632.

Kanbur, R., Keen, M. and Toumala, M. (1995) , ‘Labor Supply and Targeting in Poverty Allevi-

ation Programs’, in D. van der Walle and K. Nead (Eds), Public Spending and the Poor,Theory and Evidence, Johns Hopkins University, London, pp. 91–113.

Ligon, E. and Schechter, L. (2003) ‘Measuring Vulnerability to Poverty’, Economic Journal,113(486), pp. C95–C102.

MIDEPLAN (2003) Chile Solidario: El desafío de crear un sistema de protección y promoción social, PowerPoint presentation, MIDEPLAN, Santiago.

MIDEPLAN (2007) ‘La Situación de la Pobreza en Chile’, Serie Análisis de Resultados de la Encuesta de Caracterización Socio-Económica Nacional (CASEN 2006) 1, Ministerio deDesarrollo y Planificacion, Santiago.

Munro, L. T. (2008) ‘Risks, Rights and Needs: Compatible or Contradictory Bases for SocialProtection’, in A. Barrientos and D. Hulme (Eds), Social Protection for the Poor and Poor- est: Concepts, Policies and Politics, London, Palgrave, pp. 27–46.

Nussbaum, M. (1999) ‘Women and Equality: The Capabilities Approach’, International Labour Review, 138(3), pp. 227–245.

Ravallion, M. (1996) ‘Issues in Measuring and Modelling Poverty’, Policy Research Working Paper WPS1615, The World Bank, Washington, D.C.

Robeyns, I. (2000) ‘An Unworkable Idea or a Promising Alternative? Sen’s Capability Approach Re-Examined’, mimeo, Wolfson College, Cambridge.

Santibañez, C. (2005) ‘The Informational Basis of Poverty Measurement: Using the Capability Approach to Improve the CAS’, European Journal of Development Research, 17(1), pp.89–110.

Santibañez, C. (2006) Pobreza y desigualdad en Chile: Antecendentes para la construcciónde un sistema de protección social, Report, Inter-American Development Bank, Washington,D.C.

Schischka, J., Dalziel, P. and Saunders, C. (2008) ‘Applying Sen’s Capability Approach toPoverty Alleviation Programmes: Two Case Studies’, Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 9(2), pp. 229–246.

Sen, A. (1982) Poverty and Famines. An Essay in Entitlement and Deprivation, OxfordUniversity Press, Oxford.

Sen, A. (1985) Commodities and Capabilities, North-Holland, Amsterdam.Sen, A. (1991) ‘Welfare, Preference and Freedom’, Journal of Econometrics, 50, pp. 15–29.Sen, A. (1993) ‘Capability and Well-Being’, in M. Nussbaum and A. Sen (Eds), The Quality of

Life, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 30–53.Sen, A. (1997) Inequality Reexamined, Clarendon Press, Oxford.Sen, A. (1999) Development as Freedom, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Szreter, S. (2007) ‘The Right to Registration: Development, Identity Registration and Social

Security—A Historical Perspective’, World Development, 35(1), pp. 67–86.



A. Barrientos

596

United Nations (2000) ‘Enhancing Social Protection and Reducing Vulnerability in a Globaliz-ing World’, Report of the Secretary General to the Thirty-Ninth Session E/CN.5/2001/2,United Nations Economic and Social Council, Washington, D.C.

van Ginneken, W. (2000) ‘The Extension of Social Protection: ILO’s Aim for the Years toCome’, in T. Conway, A. de Haan and A. Norton (Eds), Social Protection: New Directions

of Donor Agencies, Department for International Development, London, pp. 33–48. Wood, G. (2003) ‘Staying Secure, Staying Poor: The “Faustian Bargain”’, World Development,31(3), pp. 455–471.

World Bank (2005) Household Risk Management and Social Protection in Chile, WorldBank Country Study, The World Bank, Washington, D.C.

APPENDIX 1. Chile Solidario’s basic thresholds, by poverty dimension

Dimension Basic threshold

Registration Recorded in the Civil Registry

Have identity card

Valid CAS form with municipality

Up to date with military service

Up to date criminal record documentationDisabled are registered as such

Health Registered with primary health care unit

Up to date with pregnancy checks

Children below 7 up to date with immunisations

Children with up to date health check ups

Women 35+ up to date with Papanicolau test

Contraceptive methods up to date check up

Older people up to date check ups

Up to date check up if suffering from chronic illness

Disabled are participating in a rehabilitation programme

All members are aware of preventative health measures

Education Pre-school children attending or applying for pre-school

If mother working and no adult carer in the household, that pre-school

children access child care

Children below 15 attend school

Children of school age access demand subsidy

Children over 12 can read and write

Disabled children are in a educational establishment

One adult is responsible for the education of the children and liaises with

school

Adults have a positive and responsible attitude to education

Adults can read and write




597

APPENDIX 1. (Continued.)

Dimension Basic threshold

Household dynamics Daily communication about practices, leisure, time

Have effective mechanism for dealing with conflictClear norms for sharing and living together

Fair distribution of household work (for all, independent of sex or age)

Knowledge about community resources and networks

Linked to support programmes if violent behaviour

Regular visits to children if in care

Regular visits to youth if incarcerated and support for their rehabilitation

Housing Regularized occupancy of land and housing

Applying for housing if in need

Safe drinking water

Access to energy sources, electricity, gas, etc

Adequate sewage

Housing protected from leaks or threat of flooding

At least two habitable rooms

Bed and bedding

Cooking equipment and facilities

Effective disposal of rubbish

Non-contaminated environment

Access to water subsidy

Work At least one adult in regular paid employment

No child below 15 not attending school because in work

If unemployed, registered with the labour bureau

Income Access to family subsidy (SUF)

Access to Family Allowance (Asignación Familiar)

Access to non-contributory pension (PASIS)

Household income above the indigence line

Household budget in line with resources and priorities

protecting capability, eradicating extreme poverty: chile solidario and the future of social...

Documents