Search Results

Each of the four chapters of Part I of the book synthesizes one aspect that must be specified in the operationalization of the capability approach, then proposes a framework for doing so. This fourth chapter considers the relationship between choice, self‐direction, and the construction of cultural values and identities. It analyses the different possible values of community participation in poverty reduction initiatives, and also draws out considerations regarding the responsibilities that outside actors may have in generating and providing to decision‐makers the information necessary to make informed choices. It draws Amartya Sen's capability approach into discussion with the participatory processes that have been common in micro‐economic development initiatives, and that are becoming increasingly popular in macroeconomic approaches as well, and, in particular, focuses on community participation in development activities that are partly supported by resources external to the community, whether these be from regional or national government, NGOs, or other sources. The main sections of the chapter are: Participation: Means, Ends, Debate, and Identity; Subsidiarity; and External Assistance.

This chapter focusses on professionally facilitated efforts to promote young people’s participation through project-based activities located within young people’s everyday spaces. Inspired by theories of the emergence of a ‘project society’ (Jensen, 2012) and ‘projective regimes’ (Boltansky and Chiapello, 2005), the chapter discusses the implications of a regime driven by social mobility, fast and continuous innovation and managerial logics with the aim to promote societal activity through projects. Drawing on case studies of young people’s experiences while taking part in two project-based initiatives that aim to promote young people’s participation in school and in the psychiatric system respectively, the chapter demonstrates how this project regime greatly affects who how and to what aims young people are able to participate in change and decision-making.

If agents are to consider intentionally inducing guilt or shame, as so many do, guidelines are needed to ensure that the practice is ethical and has the desired, and significant, effects. Guidelines to shape responses to environmental guilt and shame are also necessary even they are not intentionally induced given their prevalence in human experience. Chapter 8 addresses these concerns by articulating a set of “conditions” or characteristics needed in the shamer, shamee, their relationship, the broader community and the physical system in order to ethically respond to or induce guilt or shame. These conditions include relationality; trust in, credibility of and authority of those shaming; moral support; values; a vision of identity that takes account of human limits and failure while maintaining the possibility of at least partial success; participatory processes; identifying with an other; critical self-assessment and transformation; and action. As maintaining all of these conditions at once is difficult at best, intentionally inducing shame is even more ethically challenging than suggested previously. Because these conditions are also needed to respond to guilt and shame, people should foster them regardless of their intent to induce guilt or shame.

The increasing number of metropolitan areas worldwide suggests to more in-depth investigate metropolitan neighbourhoods in order to explain the complex social dynamics emerging in these new contexts. As a matter of fact, the majority of the existing studies on spatial justice provided analyses and investigations focused on metropolitan settings. However, the issue of spatial justice also involves smaller urban areas and further research is needed in that sense. Our investigation analyses a case study of urban gardening that has been developed with the aim of valorising the central neighbourhood of an Italian mid-size city through proposing participatory planning interventions and requalification of urban sites. The urban gardening initiative has included several actors within the process of implementation. The investigated group of people potentially subjected to the spatial injustice is formed by the residents and the local retailers. A comparison between different stakeholders’ perspectives is provided in order to measure the positive and negative impacts of the initiative on the local community.

Measuring systems change raises the fundamental questions of systems work: namely, who, what, and when are we measuring, and why? Measurement should be embedded in systems work as a practice, not just to prove successful outcomes but as part of the overall learning process of organizations and broader collectives. This kind of measurement puts primary actors in charge of their own data, revealing a deeper understanding of what is valued by those who are immersed in the context of a social issue. To measure systems work more effectively, organizations and their supporting actors can support self-evaluation, surface invisible value, shorten feedback loops, and measure for meaning. When measuring for learning, organizations are able to ask different questions, recognizing that the primary aim is to determine “what is happening” rather than “what worked.” Organizations and primary actors are also able to access “deep data” that captures the richness of individual experiences while visualizing the bigger picture as it emerges.