Conceptualizing Energy Poverty Using Amartya Sen’s Capability Approach

I. Introduction

This piece of research is in succession to my previous research on energy justice which, I concluded with the broad observation that there exist incoherencies in the proposed theories of energy justice. I was looking for one uniform theory of justice in the context of energy laws that can resolve problems related to energy injustice. But sooner, I realized that this quest for one unified approach might be a premature expectation or oversimplification of a complex virtue like justice. The idea of energy justice is highly contextual, and the problems of injustices need specifically tailored treatments. Accordingly, I decided to cheery pick the burning issue of energy poverty and tried to conceptualize it from the capability approach of Amartya Sen. This piece is not the first novel attempt to carry this thought experiment, and few scholars have already invested in this experiment.³ At the upfront, I want to state that the base of my understanding of the capability approach is Amartya Sen’s magna opus – An Idea of Justice⁴, where he eloquently explained the relation between the capability approach and poverty. I have borrowed the descriptive analysis of Sen with respect to capability and attempted to conceptualize energy poverty using it.

This experiment of conceptualizing energy poverty in terms of capability deprivation is highly useful as it allows taking into account relevant factors for determining someone as energy-poor or rich. It will shift the focus from the availability of resources to social realizations as the key factor for making energy-related policy decisions.⁵ Also, it gives the scope for interventions at multiple facets to rectify the energy deprivation issues.

The readers should not expect any uniform definition of energy poverty based on the capability approach coming out of this piece as a conclusion. I have actually critiqued this aspect which, I called definitional building exercise. The key reason for critiquing lies in the very fact that the capability approach primarily provides an informational focus for making the right decisions on issues concerned with ethics or virtues like justice.⁶ The capability approach does not offer a common unit or standard to calculate. Therefore the capability approach has the issue of non-commensurability.

II. The Capability Approach

This section is dedicated to explaining the capability approach in a simplistic manner and highlighting its core ideas of it. Any substantive theory of ethics or theory of justice requires an informational focus for making conclusions and decisions.⁷ For example, if I want to distribute 100 kilograms of grains among three families in such a way that the distribution ends up being just and fair. Now at the upfront, I will need information about three families to fix the exact quantum of food grains to be distributed to each family. This information will be the premise of my decision about the distribution of grains and also about it being just and fair. The capability approach says the informational focus for such decisions should be the “freedom of an individual to do things he/she values in life”.⁸ It focuses on the ends and not on the means to decide the questions of justice and fairness. So in the given example, according to the capability approach, a just and fair distribution will allow each family to pursue the beings or doings which it values or want to in life. Suppose a family might want to live a life with good nutrition and health, and so the distributed grains must allow the family to accomplish such a life goal. Therefore the informational focus lies on the ends or goals of life to decide whether a distribution is just or fair. The capability approach actually focuses on the end goals for which each family wants the food grains and not on the mere availability of the food grains to decide a question of just and fair distribution.

The capability approach counts the real freedom of an individual, which allows him/her to choose the doings or beings in life. The real freedom of an individual is the core value in the capability approach, and this real freedom ensures the well being of an individual. Therefore the capabilities are the real freedoms of an individual to ensure his/ her well being in life.⁹

There are strong arguments for focusing on the ends and not on the means because we all want the means or resources in life not for the sake of it but to convert them into useful ends that we value most in life. So if I may exemplify it then, the connection of electricity is not valuable in itself because we need electricity for lighting, cooking, education, health care and other useful ends of life. Therefore the focus must be on the ends which we want to achieve in life by converting these means and securing our well beings in life.

Another argument that I think is more relevant is that “we all have variations in terms of our abilities to convert means into desirable ends”.¹⁰ This implies that even though we may have a higher number of resources or means, that does not bring a higher ability to convert those means into our goals in life. To exemplify this, suppose 20 units of electricity to be distributed between 2 families, one is family (A) which has 4 members and annual income of 2 lakhs and all members are earning some amounts, second is family (B) which has 6 members, and annual income of 1 lakh and only 2 members are earning, 2 are senior citizens, and 2 are children. Now in the given description of two families, can we say that both have equal abilities to convert the supplied electricity into useful ends of their respective lives of members? And can we say the equal distribution of 10 units to each family will be a just and fair distribution? Both the families are different in terms of their financial status, a number of members, earning members and age groups variations. All these differences will substantially affect the respective abilities of both families to convert the supplied electricity into their respective desirable ends. These differences will curb the abilities of the family (B) in converting the resources to valuable ends. Due to more members in the family (B), there will be lesser availability of electricity for each member, and due to lesser income, they would not be able to meet their energy needs from alternate sources also. Therefore the broader point is that due to typically social, political and environmental conditions, our ability to convert the resources into the kinds of lifestyles we want may differ. So accordingly, the capability approach allows us to focus on these aspects, which determine our abilities to convert resources into useful ends. Therefore I have argued that the capability approach enhances our informational focus as it allows us to consider the wider range of factors to make complex decisions of justice and fairness.

On a closer reading of Sen’s seminal work, I inferred that he categorically distinguished the capability approach from a final solution to social arrangements issues. Sen stated that the capability approach is pointing to an “…informational focus in judging and comparing overall individual advantages..”.¹¹ In no sense of understanding, the capability approach aims to provide any formula on how to use this information. So the capability approach enriches the decision making by providing a comprehensive informational focus rather than giving principles to design any social, institutional arrangements as in the case of John Rawls.¹² Also, the capability approach of Sen does not further any straight-jacket formula or schema to calculate the capabilities or to assign the weights to respective capabilities. Therefore in case of conflicts as to which among the following capabilities must be given priority, Sen’s approach is silent. The issue of social choices is left unaddressed by the Sen Capability approach.

Sen has also stated that his theory of capability advocated the expansion of human capabilities and substantive freedom to choose about life’s beings and doings. But at the same time, it does not provide the blueprint of how to resolve the conflicts aggregative and distributive consideration.¹³ Sen has also devoted dedicated sections in his work for distinguishing the resource-based theories of distributive justices like John Rawls concept of primary goods and Ronald Dworkin Idea of having a hypothetical insurance market to justify the resource-based distributional theories.¹⁴

Broadly if I may put Sen’s core idea then, he argued against the very idea of transcendental idealist approach to distributive justice. He argued that we don’t need perfectly defined and neatly arranged principles of justice to identify the prevailing distributional injustices in society. We all may have different reasons for calling a certain distribution unjust because we all have a shared sense of justice. So accordingly, Sen has stretched this argument against the resource availability based economic approaches, which solely focused on the availability of resources as the criterion for distributional justice and poverty. Sen argued against the obsession of resource-based economic approaches and stated capability approaches which allows for “plurality of reasoning”¹⁵.

III. Conceptualizing Energy Poverty in terms of Capability deprivation

At the upfront, I want to highlight that a basic understanding of the core ideas of the capability approach is the prerequisite to appreciating the following arguments and debate. Therefore at the cost of repetition, I summarise the previous debate as follow-

• Capabilities are the real freedom to choose the doings and beings which we value in life. By fulfilling capabilities, one can ensure the well beings.
• Thus the approach of capability focuses on expanding the real freedom of an individual to ensure its well being.

(A.) Relation between Capabilities and poverty –

Before venturing into the core discussions, it is important to understand the relation between the capability approach and poverty. The issue of poverty is an issue of unjust distribution of economic resources, and to rectify it, we need an approach that enables just and fair distribution of resources.¹⁶ This is the most fundamental understanding of the idea of poverty in the context of economic resource-based definition. The capability approach helps in describing the relation between the availability of resources and their contribution to accomplishing the doings and beings. It provides a comprehensive understanding of the individual life situations and relates it with the issue of distributional injustice.

(B.) Energy services are means and not an end –

To begin with, I would like to stress the fundamentals of the capability theory, which lie in the means and ends distinction. As already highlighted, the capability approach focus on ends rather than means (means are the resources) to determine the position of an individual. So if we try to define poverty in the context of capability as the end, then poverty would be the deprivation of basic capabilities in the life of an individual like good health, food, shelter, cloth etc.

Suppose I extend and apply this means and lends distinction to the energy services which we all use. Then we can say that access to energy services is not the end that we all want to achieve. Rather these are the means using which we can achieve bigger goals of well beings in life. To explain this aspect, let's exemplify it, suppose the government decides to provide access to electricity to a remote village, and it has laid down transmission lines and constructed an electricity generation plant for it accordingly. But let’s assume there is no irrigation infrastructure and no school in the village for primary education, and also the nearby medical dispensary is far away from it. Then can we really say that access to electricity will bring changes in the life of village people? What will they do with the access to electricity when they don’t have other primary infrastructures to use electricity? The access to electricity is in itself is of no use unless it converts into useful beings and doings like education, good farming by irrigation or medical facilities. Therefore the broader point I want to highlight is that energy services are means towards certain ends of life, and accordingly, their access is not the sole indicator of well being. If we connect the energy services with the notion of well being, then we can shift our focus towards the capabilities that an energy service ensures for an individual and accordingly, we can conceptualize energy poverty also.

The capability approach conceptualizes energy poverty by relating it with the concept of well being. The focus of the energy-related policymakers must be to ensure that access to energy services should enable an individual’s wellbeing. This well being is a subjective aspect, and each individual chooses his or her well beings independently.

(C.) Energy Poverty as the deprivation of capabilities

Energy poverty is the state of an individual who is unable to meet its capabilities which he or she values in life, due to lack of availability of energy services. This state of energy poverty will deprive an individual of ensuring it well being in life. I want to add a caveat here that this is not a definition of energy poverty. Rather it is a conception. I will critique the definitional building exercise in the next segment.

IV. Issues with the definition building exercise

While researching for this paper, I came across literature which were defining energy poverty on the basis of the capability approach.¹⁷ I have certain objections to this kind of definition building exercise in the context of the capability approach. These objections are related to the nature of capabilities which makes it difficult to formulate a uniform definition based on capabilities. Accordingly, my principal argument is that the capability approach is useful for providing a comprehensive informational focus to make correct policy decisions, but it cannot be used to define energy poverty.

The primary objection lies in the very nature of capability, unlike the resources based or utilitarian based approaches where they define a common unit to measure, like happiness, income or expenditure. In the capability-based approach, the basic unit is the capability which is the substantive freedom to choose what one values. Now the issue lies in the calculation of the real freedom of an individual, which is highly subjective and contextual. The freedom of an individual can be affected by a variety of direct and indirect factors, which makes it an impossible calculus. Therefore unless we have something as a common unit to calculate capabilities, how come we may conclude that one is deprived of the capabilities. Sen has mentioned this point in his book, and he called it fear of non-commensurability.¹⁸

Another objection that is interlinked with the first one is about how to assign weight to the capabilities and how to priorities different capabilities. While reading capability approach based definitions, I came across a qualifier like “essential capabilities” for example “, Energy poverty is an inability to realize essential capabilities as a direct or indirect result of insufficient access to affordable, reliable and safe energy services, and taking into account available reasonable alternative means of realizing these capabilities”.¹⁹ I question how come we determine what the essential capabilities which the energy services should satisfy in relation to others are? Each among us might give different values and importance to similar capabilities, and then it emerges as a conflict of choices. Sen has warned us that his approach of capability is not meant to resolve the issues of conflicts of choices.

Therefore I argue that the approach of capability can be used to conceptualize energy poverty and enhance the informational base for making the policy decisions better. But this cannot become the basis to redefine energy poverty in terms of capabilities.

V. Conclusion

A capability approach is a comprehensive approach that covers non-resources based aspects of human life to determine its state of being. This approach has shifted the focus from means to the ends of human life, and this is correct because most of the resources have a derivative value in terms of what they enable a person to do or become. In this context, if we see energy poverty, then our focus should be on the capabilities which the energy resources provide and extend. Only the mere access or denial of an energy service will not provide the correct informational focus for making a judgment on energy poverty.

There are certain issues with the capability approach; as already highlighted, it is difficult to prioritize and allocate weights to the different capabilities. At the same time, it is difficult to calculate the capabilities so as to reach on conclusion as to deprivation of capabilities. All these issues lie at the core of the capability approach, and therefore any attempt to redefine energy poverty in terms of capability would be a useless exercise. This argument is a novel addition to the existing literature on the capability approach and energy poverty. Therefore the best way to use the capability approach is to use it for enhancing the informational focus for making sound decisions and policies.

*****