In Chapter 4 of Development as Freedom, Sen states that value is generated based on the “freedoms a person enjoys that allows them to lead the life they have reason to value.” This leads to the postulate that “poverty must be seen as the deprivation of basic capabilities rather than merely as lowness of incomes.” The idea of observing and understanding poverty as a function of capability deprecation refocuses the reader on the process rather than just the outcome. As we noted in the last chapter, the journey matters. The argument is that without capabilities (i.e. access to education, health care, and transportation) low income is the outcome. While there is covariance (low income reduces access to capabilities) the relationship is obvious. Couple that with the point that poverty is relative to context and the data gets harder to compare region to region. Finally, without understanding which capabilities are in deficit it will be difficult to make policy decisions.
One of the points that struck me in this chapter was the distinction between intrinsic and instrumental capabilities. If something is intrinsic it is good or desirable in and of itself. It’s not valuable because it leads to something else; it’s valuable simply because it exists or because of what it is. Happiness, human life, and ability to make decisions about your life path all have intrinsic value. Alternatively, something has instrumental value if it is useful for achieving some other goal or end. Money for most people has instrumental value. In many organizations standardization of process is viewed as a tool for promoting efficiency. Methods and frameworks are used as instruments to enable (or constrain) capabilities that have intrinsic value. A balancing act must be struck. The question that occurs to me is the low Gallup engagement scoring a reflection of organizations favoring capabilities with instrumental value over capabilities with intrinsic value? According to Gallup employee engagement in the “U.S. fell to its lowest level in a decade in 2024, with only 31% of employees engaged” (https://www.gallup.com/workplace/654911/employee-engagement-sinks-year-low.aspx). The Gallup article suggests that not having the ability to grow (improve) capabilities is a driver for the low engagement. While Sen links capability deprivation to poverty the linkage to attributes like engagement suggest capability deprivation depresses value at all levels of an economy.
By refocusing poverty or team performance on capabilities shifts discussions from specific outcome and on the “nature and causes of poverty and deprivation” (or simple cruddy productivity). Staying focused on a single outcome such as poverty, income, or releases delivered fixates leaders on specific capabilities rather than on a broader picture. For example in the software industry the last twenty years has been focused on “being agile” in its own right. This has lead to the perception of inefficiency and a degradation of delivered value. Organizations that viewed agile as more than Scrum (a broader set of capabilities) have not fallen prey to the same issue. As leaders, paying attention to the freedoms needed are available so people can lead the life they value.
The idea of focusing on being agile at the expense of other things is an important concept and it’s important to the idea of agile and other approaches for working. But focusing on outcomes without any focus on efficiency is equally as problematic. Arguably using the word value is just like waving a magic wand and saying OK we’ll just say value and we won’t consider the capabilities that delivers value (and value to whom).
Previous installments of Development as Freedom by Amartya Sen:
Week 1: Context and Logistics
Week 2: Introduction and Preface
Week 3: The Perspective of Freedom
Leave a Comment