Paper short abstract:

The fallouts of demographic ageing colliding with rapid urbanization has led to the reimagining of urban policies to protect the interests of older persons. This urgency is manifested in the WHO’s Age-Friendly Cities and Community (AFCC) paradigm. The reliance on Sen’s version of the capability approach without acknowledging its limitations has implications for AFCC as an urban agenda.

Paper long abstract:

1. Amartya Sen and AFCC – an (unrecognized) debt.

WHO defines age-friendly cities as those with “policies, services, settings and structures support and enable people to age actively” (WHO, 2007, p.5). This builds on the WHO’s understanding of ‘healthy ageing’ as “as the process of developing and maintaining the functional ability that enables wellbeing in older age” (WHO, 2015, p.28, emphasis added); ‘functional abilities’ are “attributes that enable people to be and to do what they have reason to value” (WHO, 2023, xv). Functional abilities are built through intrinsic capacities (mental and physical abilities) and the environmental (built environments, social policies related to health, pension, work). [ For reasons that are not clear, and in spite of the obvious debt, Sen's capability approach is not acknowledged as the philosophical inspiration in foundational texts of AFCC]

The focus of this paper raises is whether the limitations of Sen’s version of the capability approach are being transmitted to AFCC vision for cities. Let us take two of the aspects of this version that scholars have critiqued – (1) that defence of market solutions (Gasper and van Staveren, 2003; Selwyn, 2011) and (2) the assumption that individual skills of reasoning result in democratic-plural outcomes (Deneulin, 2011). First, Sen has a steadfast reluctance to question markets as mechanisms for enhancing freedoms (Selwyn, 2011). Given that markets are unavoidable institutions in the modern world, Sen asks how “any reasonably critic could be against the market mechanism…” (Sen, 2000, p.142). Sen is correct to view markets is an upgrade from slavery and bonded labour but fails to acknowledge the constrains a market society set on the range of capabilities a person can value (Selwyn, 2011).

Second, Sen believes that reasoning can dissolve disagreements over principles for organizing societies through examining deeply-held prejudices and entrenched interests. Sen’s assumption that persons unyoked from authority (given the right education and freedom to participate freely) would only reason for equality is unfounded (Deneulin, 2011). Reasoning is filtered through webs of significance which may be seeped in injustice and “individuals who act within an unjust structure may even have a sense of acting justly” (Deneulin, 2011, p.794).

Implications for AFCC.

Recently, WHO has shifted the preferred vocabulary from ‘active ageing’ has shifted to “healthy ageing” which reflect a shift from public provision of health to market interests. The repeated use of “resource” to refer to older persons is revealing. For instance: healthy ageing is expected to enable “older people to remain a resource to their families, communities and economies” (WHO, 2018, p.3 emphasis added). This shift from the active ageing paradigm to healthy ageing is reflected in the AFCC discourses too (c.f. WHO, 2007 and WHO, 2023). The shift towards neoliberal global discourses of health and ageing (for instance shifting responsibility from the state to citizen) have consequently influenced, inevitably, the meanings of age-friendliness. For example, implementation of age-friendly programmes co-exists with steady dismantling of the welfare provisions for older persons and spaces for profit-oriented actors control policymaking (Joy, 2021; Buffel and Phillpson, 2018). Indeed, the acceptance of age-friendly discourses into urban agendas can be traced to, this paper argues, to the accommodation of markets in Sen’s conception of capability approach noted above.

Furthermore, indicator of age-friendliness does not foreground indicators of democracy. Cities could score high on measures of age-friendliness even in authoritarian and fascist contexts. Indicators of accessibility to public spaces and state-supported facilitation of social participation can be positive even when democratic indicators are downsliding. Fascist regimes gaining support from resentments surrounding market-led dismantling of welfare tend to provide welfare when in power, but only to the communities they claim to protect. The consequences for older persons, particularly of those belonging to minorities and dissenters, in the contexts wherein policies institutionalize ethnic and religious supremacy – voting restrictions in the United States, anti-minority laws in India – age-friendliness may benefit only, by design, the older persons belonging to dominant groups.

Conclusion

AFCC is a significant expansion of policy attention to include the interests of older persons in urban agendas. Sen’s capability approach has, like in other domains like education and gender equality, has restrained purely economistic policy styles from dominating policy priorities. Nevertheless, in the context of increasing role of private interests in urban policymaking and steady dismantling of democratic institutions, this paper argues that the the proponents of AFCC should recognize and contain the undesirable consequences stemming from the limitations of Sen’s capability approach.

References.

References

Buffel, T., & Phillipson, C. (2018). A manifesto for the age-friendly movement: Developing a new urban agenda. Journal of aging & social policy, 30(2), 173-192.

Deneulin, S. (2011). Development and the limits of Amartya Sen's The Idea of Justice. Third World Quarterly, 32(4), 787-797.

Gasper, D., & Van Staveren, I. (2003). Development as freedom ¬- and as what else?. Feminist economics, 9(2-3), 137-161.

Joy, M. (2021). Neoliberal rationality and the age friendly cities and communities program: Reflections on the Toronto case. Cities, 108, 102982.

Moulaert, T., & Biggs, S. (2013). International and European policy on work and retirement: Reinventing critical perspectives on active ageing and mature subjectivity. Human relations, 66(1), 23-43.

Selwyn, B. (2011). Liberty limited? A sympathetic re-engagement with Amartya Sen’s Development as Freedom. Economic and Political Weekly, 46(37), 68-76.

Sen, A.K. (2000). Development as Freedom. Oxford University Press

Sen, A. K. (2009). The idea of justice. Harvard University Press.

Walker, A. (2018). Why the UK needs a social policy on ageing. Journal of social policy, 47(2), 253-273.

World Health Organization (WHO). (2002). Designing health financing systems to reduce catastrophic health expenditure, Technical Briefs for Policy Makers, https://www.who.int/health_financing/pb_2.pdf

World Health Organization (WHO) (2007a). The checklist of essential features of age-friendly cities; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2007.

World Health Organization (WHO). (2015). World report on ageing and health. https://www.who.int/ageing/events/world-report-2015-launch/en/

World Health Organization (WHO). (2023). National programmes for age-friendly cities and communities A guide, https://www.who.int/teams/social-determinants-of-health/demographic-change-and-healthy-ageing/age-friendly-environments/national-programmes-afcc

Paper short abstract:

The paper operationalises the capabilities approach by elaborating a detailed framework of conversion factors to be able to plan urban interventions that address the determinants of inequities and enhance the capabilities of different people in a common area. It then tests the usefulness of the proposed framework by analysing empirical data from a participatory planning process in Brazil.

Paper long abstract:

In the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, all UN Member States have unequivocally committed to leave no one behind (UN SDG 2024). Nonetheless, during the past years, multiple and overlapping crises connected to health, security, and the environment have worsened existing deprivations and segregation dynamics in many cities worldwide, negatively impacting “important matters as the freedom to live long, or the ability to escape avoidable morbidity, or the opportunity to have worthwhile employment, or to live in peaceful and crime-free communities” (Sen 1999, 291). To keep the central promise of the 2030 Agenda, urban interventions that effectively address the complex socio-environmental challenges and achieve equity in promoting well-being are urgently needed during the final years of this Decade of Action. However, up-to-date, a theoretically well-founded guidance for planning such interventions is lacking, as existing concepts, e.g. for the promotion of just cities, have raised doubts about planners’ capacities to make ethical choices for the fair distribution of goods (Campbell and Marshall 1999, 346) in correspondence to prioritised demands of different people (Basta 2016, 12–14).

The article suggests that the capabilities approach serves to guide the planning of interventions that leave no one behind, due to its sensitivity to person-specific circumstances, which, according to Speak, enable it to better address issues of redistribution and recognition compared to other normative approaches concerned with social justice (Speak 2012, 347). The approach understands well-being in terms of individual capabilities or freedoms to achieve ‘beings and doings’ that a person has reason to value (Sen 1989, 43). Sen highlights that individual freedoms to achieve well-being are “constrained by the social, political and economic opportunities that are available” (Sen 1999, xi–xii) and dependent on person-specific contingencies in the ability to convert means into valued ends (Sen 2009, 254f). Robeyns categorises those circumstances as personal, social and environmental conversion factors (Robeyns 2005, 99).

Respecting human diversity in the perception and definition of personal well-being, Sen does not propose a definite list of important capabilities but argues for local specification through democratic procedures containing public discussion and reasoning (Sen 2004, 77f). In this perspective, to ensure reaching the goal of promoting well-being of all people without leaving anyone behind, it is necessary to locally specify and prioritise the kind of capabilities different persons value, to then design interventions that remove obstacles that prevent people from achieving valued capabilities.

In this context, Robeyns indicates that the knowledge of resources needed in face of specific conversion factors generates information on where interventions can be made (Robeyns 2017, 47). While she has exemplarily specified conversion factors, Sebastianelli highlights that up to now, the capabilities literature lacks a well-established ‘conversion factor taxonometry’ with homogeneous categories that are separated from their components, and that are value-neutral, obtaining their characterisation according to the point of application (Sebastianelli 2016, 1–4).

In response to this, the article draws on theoretical reflections from literature to propose a conceptual framework, specifying resources and conversion factors as bundle of determinants that influence the availability of capabilities: In his regional planning methodology, Heidemann reflects on regime-budget-interrelations that are effective upon realising an activity. He specifies budgets of time, tools, and skills that need to be available in sufficient quantities to meet requirements and circumstances established by valid regimes, composed of time slots, standards of social interaction, and set of locations (Heidemann 2004, R36). For each of those general categories, value-neutral components are specified in dialogue with Sen and further authors.

The framework aims to support the localisation of barriers to valued capabilities of different citizens within a locality, for which it explicitly requires local specification: As each locality is a compound of natural conditions and the metabolism of a local society with unique characteristics, Galster suggests that particular attributes can only be observed and measured after a particular location has been specified (Galster 2001, 2112f). This way, the proposed categories are conceived with orientation on Whitehead as non-exhaustive framework to initiate investigations and facilitate the organisation and storage of data, with flexibility to adapt boundaries of categories and alter denominations to locally applicable terms as local cultural and individual variations become clearer during the process (Whitehead 2010). This second phase of adapting the framework in view of a specific locality is done by analysing empirical data from a participatory planning process in Brazil, carried out within the institutional framework of the ‘Professional Residence in Architecture, Urbanism and Engineering’ at the Federal University of Bahia (RAU+E/UFBA).

In a last step, categories with a higher incidence of reported obstacles as well as ‘couplings of disadvantages’ (Sen 2009, 256) are identified to analyse developed proposals for urban interventions in terms of their respect and potential for enhancing locally valued capabilities.

References:

Basta, Claudia. 2016. From justice in planning toward planning for justice: A capability approach. Planning Theory 15. SAGE Publications:190–212.

Campbell, Heather, and Marshall, Robert. 1999. Ethical Frameworks and Planning Theory. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 23:464–478.

Galster, George. 2001. On the Nature of Neighbourhood. Urban Studies 38. SAGE Publications Ltd:2111–2124.

Heidemann, Claus. 2004. Methodologie der Regionalplanung. IFR-Diskussionspapier 16. Karlsruhe: Institut für Regionalwissenschaft der Universität Karlsruhe.

Robeyns, Ingrid. 2005. The Capability Approach: a theoretical survey. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities 6(1):93-117.

Robeyns, Ingrid. 2017. Wellbeing, Freedom and Social Justice: The Capability Approach Re-Examined. Open Book Publishers.

Sebastianelli, Marco. 2016. Individual features and efficiency of conversion in the Capability Approach.

Sen, Amartya. 1989. Development as capability expansion. Journal of Development Planning 19:41–58.

Sen, Amartya. 1999. Development as Freedom. Oxford University Press.

Sen, Amartya. 2004. Dialogue Capabilities, Lists, and Public Reason. Feminist Economics, 10(3):77–80.

Sen, Amartya. 2009. The idea of justice. London: Allen Lane.

Speak, Suzanne. 2012. Planning for the needs of urban poor in the Global South: The value of a feminist approach. Planning Theory 11. SAGE Publications:343–360.

UN SDG. 2024. Universal Value Two: Leave No One Behind. https://unsdg.un.org/2030-agenda/universal-values/leave-no-one-behind, Accessed February 28.

Whitehead, Tony. 2010. The Cultural Systems Paradigm. EICCARS Working Papers, University of Maryland.