Housing policy in the UK has little ethical framework behind it for the most part. It is not something that is regularly thought of. But if politics is able to adopt a consistent model for assessing housing outcomes, it will probably be easier to implement consistent policies in our housing infrastructure.
The UK Collaborative Centre for Housing Evidence published a report last year titled ‘How Should We Evaluate Housing Outcomes?’. In it, authors, Professor David Clapham and Dr Chris Foye prepared a framework for judging policy reports based on the Capability Approach.
Capability Approach is an idea of human development that focuses on the moral significance of choices. Amartya Sen developed the concept in the 1980s, and since it has been built upon by figures like Philosopher Martha Nussbaum. Capability Theory has also influenced the UN Development Programme.
The Approach studies a person’s abilities to achieve a good life. Poverty is understood as the inability to resource things that make a good life – food and education for example. The approach focuses on our ‘effective freedom’, while taking into account factors such as relative poverty and the phenomenon of ‘adaptive preferences’ – the idea that someone may consider themselves not badly off, even if they are in objectively bad circumstances.
The theory challenges so-called ‘objective’ economic theories of value. Sen has cited Karl Marx’s concern with “replacing the domination of circumstances and chance over individuals by the domination of individuals over chance and circumstances” in his work.
Sen’s ideas have gained serious attention in policy and in the work of NGOs. But Clapham and Foye’s report is like a breath of fresh air for anyone interested in UK housing policy. In their report, they say there is no ‘neutral, value-free’ way of assessing housing outcomes. (This already provides the option of not assessing outcomes through checkboxes of ownership or market value.)
The report goes on to focus on how the individuals living in them may value their homes. For example, some people may not mind living in what are technically overcrowded homes in circumstances. A person wishing to live near their older relatives is a reasonable expectation. Housing outcomes may consider if people are capable of accessing green spaces.
Since Clapham and Foye focus mostly on what individuals choose, rather than governance, they focus on ‘democratic deliberation’. The last pages give more attention to the idea that communities should be able to pre-empt and assess their own housing outcomes. Citizens’ juries and the valuation of land are ideas worthy of attention.
Sen talked about what individuals may consider valuable after ‘reflective valuation’, so the report’s reference to the ‘informational blindspots’ creates room for more discussion.
Since becoming aware of Sen’s work, I have been interested in how one can apply the Capability Approach to policy decisions in the UK. Unfortunately, the work of development theorists is often seen as only applying to the ‘developing world’. Oddly, I don’t think human development ceases in other countries.
Its application can potentially teach us a lot about life in the UK. Considering, how we must ensure communities in this country are capable of mitigating and resisting the effects of climate change, Capability Theory I believe the theory has a role to play. I encourage others to read the report and stay familiar with the Centre’s work.
Just Housing 