This is a lecture about my book Technology & Human Development (2015), in which well-being, agency and justice are the core values – as a powerful normative lens to examine technology and its role in development. This approach attaches central moral importance to individual human capabilities, understood as effective opportunities people have to lead the kind of lives they have reason to value. The book examines the strengths, limitations and versatility of the capability approach when applied to technology, and shows the need to supplement it with other approaches in order to deal with the challenges that technology raises. The first chapter places the capability approach within the context of broader debates about technology and human development – discussing amongst others the appropriate technology movement. The middle part then draws on philosophy and ethics of technology in order to deepen our understanding of the relation between technical artefacts and human capabilities, arguing that we must simultaneously ‘zoom in’ on the details of technological design and ‘zoom out’ to see the broader socio-technical embedding of a technology. The book examines whether technology is merely a neutral instrument that expands what people can do and be in life, or whether technology transfers may also impose certain views of what it means to lead a good life. The final chapter examines the capability approach in relation to contemporary debates about ‘ICT for Development’ (ICT4D), as the technology domain where the approach has been most extensively applied so far.

1. Technology & Human Development
– A Capability Approach
Dr. ir. Ilse Oosterlaken
e.t.oosterlaken@vu.nl
Department of Philosophy,
VU University Amsterdam
UNU-MERIT seminar series
30 April 2015

2. The Capability Approach
• Normative/conceptual framework
• Interdisciplinary literature
• Different application areas
Re-emerging points
in the CA literature:
• Every individual ought to
have flourishing life
• Capabilities & functionings
central to our evaluations
• Pervasiveness of
human diversity
• Importance of agency

3. Defended:
Jan. 2013
Forthcoming May 2015
Oosterlaken &
Van den Hoven,
eds. (2012)

4. Oosterlaken (2015):
•Philosophy of technology
•Science & technology studies
•Design studies
Hartmann (2014):
•Development economics
•Innovation economics
•Innovation studies
Kleine (2013):
•Human geography (ethnog
•ICT4D

5. Goals of the book
1. Examine the strengths and limitations of the CA as a
critical lens to technology (book as a whole)
2. Put CA to technology in the context of some historical and
current debates about technology and human development
(ch. 1 & 4).
3. Argue that understanding the technology–capability
relationship requires iteratively ‘zooming in’ (design
details of technical artefacts), and ‘zooming out’ (socio-
technical embedding of technical artefacts) (ch. 2 & 3)
4. Show that various technology and design accounts may
fruitfully supplement the capability approach – actually
need to (book as a whole)

6. Chapters in the book
1. The Appropriate Technology Movement and the CA
2. The Details of Technological Design
3. Embedding Technology in Socio-Technical Networks
4. Taking a CA of ICT for Development (ICT4D)
2 + 3:
Understanding the relationship between
technical artifacts & human capabilities
1 + 4:
‘Case studies’ of how CA relates to
existing debates on technology & human development

7. 1. Central Concepts & Ideas in
the Capability Approach

8. What is meant with ‘capabilities’?
Intrinsically
valuable
Instrumentally
valuable
Individual
capabilities Capability
approach
Innovation
studies
Collective
capabilities Innovation studies
Development
practice
 Human capital
 Innovation capabilities of
firms or sectors
 ‘Capacity building’ by
Western NGOs
?
Distinguishbetweenmeansand ends!

9. Nature of Individual Human Capabilities
Inputs (Robeyns):
• Financial resources
• Political practices & institutions
• Cultural practices & social norms
• Social structures & institutions
• Public goods
• Traditions & habits
• Etc.
Distinguish (Nussbaum):
• Innate capabilities
• Internal capabilities
+
• Suitable external
circumstances for their
exercise
=
Combined capabilities
Robeyns (2005):
• Ethical individualism
• Ontological individualism
• Methodological individualism

10. How to measure well-being / development?
Goods
(like a bicycle)
CapabilityCapability
(to move around, to travel)(to move around, to travel)
FunctioningFunctioning
(cycling)(cycling)
Happiness / satisfaction
Problem: ‘adaptive preferences’;
preferences may become distorted due
to extreme oppression or deprivation
Problem: ‘conversion factors’
unfavourable for
•disabled (personal -),
•Bedoeins in the dessert
(environmental -)
•women in Iran (social -)

11. “Agency refers to a person’s ability to pursue and
realize goals that he or she values and has reason
to value. An agent is ‘someone who acts and brings
about change.’ The opposite of a person with
agency is someone who is forced, oppressed, or
passive.”
(Source: HDCA briefing note Capability and
Functionings:Definition & Justification)
Well-being + Agency Important
“We see the person as
having activity, goals,
and projects”, “a dignified
free being who shapes
his or her own life”
“The ‘good life’ is partly a life of
genuine choice, and not one in
which the person is forced into a
particular life – however rich it
might be in other respects”
Participation /
public debate /
democratic practice /
empowerment
important themes
in the CA !

12. Capabilities and Functionings (II)
Functionings:
• Realized
• Achievements
Capabilities:
• Effectively possible
• Valuable options to choose from
Compare:
•person who is starving
•Person who has been fastening for a long time
Functioning is the same: undernourished
Yet morally salient difference in capacility / agency!
Goal of policies:
in principle capabilities,
not functionings

13. 2. The Application of the CA
to Technology

14. • People often treated as passive receivers of ICT, overlooking
“the needs and aspirations of the people whose interests are
affected by the innovations” (Zheng, 2010)
• Too much emphasis on economic growth, “which is too narrow
to capture the impacts of ICT” (Kleine 2011)
• Tension between well-being and agency goals, for example in
rural telecentre projects, deserves explicit reflection (Ratan &
Bailur, 2007)
• Too much attention for ICT distribution and access, even
though its “outcome is contingent, depending on individual
conversion factors” (James, 2006)
Zheng (2007):
CA is “able to surface a set of key concerns
systematically and coherently, on an explicit
philosophical foundation”
Usage of CA for Critique on
‘Mainstream’ ICT4D Practice

15. Does the Technology itself Still Matter?
“A key
recommendation […] is
that the human
development of
people, rather than
technology itself,
should be the center of
the design and
evaluation of ICT
programs”
Gigler (2008)
in a chapter
on the
CA & ICT4D
Does focus on human
development not require
– somewhat
paradoxically - more
rather than less attention
for technology itself?

16. ?
•…human capabilities  technical artefacts
•…capability approach  technology theories &
design approaches
Research project
2009 - 2015

17. Understanding the Technology –
Human Capability Relationship (I)
… requires an iterative movement between:
‘Zooming in’:
details of
technological
design
‘Zooming out’:
socio-technical
embedding
Technical
artifacts
• Head phone or speakers?
• Recording function or
not? Bluetooth or not?
• Charging with electricity
net or solar panels?
• Collective listening
practices?
• Production of new
podcasts?
• Availability of
medicines
recommended by
podcasts?

18. Understanding the Technology –
Human Capability Relationship (II)
… which in turn requires drawing on supplementary
‘technology theories’ and ‘design approaches’
Pluralistic view (micro):
•Every technology can be used in multiple
ways by its users
•Users can choose of which user practices
they would like to become part
Network / system view (macro):
•Technology can only function as part of bigger
socio-technical systems
•These enable some possibilities, and close of
others (user’s choice limited)
A teenager uses his mobile phone
different from a business man.
A car can be used recreationally, or for
commuting.
Stress free life  Demand, made possibly
by new ICTs, to be continuously available
Lifestyle based on cycling  urban
developments in countries like USA
Example:

19. 3. The CA, Technology &
Development (Ch. 1)

20. The Relation between
Technology & Poverty Reduction
Development scholars
Leach and Scoones (2006)
Three broad/general views:
1.‘Race to the top’
2.‘Race to the universal fix’
3.‘The slow race’

21. Outline of the chapter
PART I – Exploring the CA in relation to technology & development
o Examination of Leach & Scoones’ “3 races” through lens of the CA
o Conclusion: CA seems best aligned with the ‘slow race’
o Zooming in on Appropriate Technology movement as example
o Conclusion: commonalities. But CA has also added value:
• Agency
• Gender
PART II – Adding nuance: Will the real CA stand up now?
o Different versions of the CA
o Normative/conceptual framework – different extension possible
o Illustration with agency / gender
o Compatible with all ‘3 races’
o Illustration with case of KickStart

22. The ‘Race to the Top’
Leach and Scoones:
• ‘The top’  the top in the global economy
• “Science and technology driven
economic growth” ‘trickling down’ to the
poor
• ‘development as modernization’
(1950s/1960s) fits with this view
• Technology transfer from developed to
developing countries
Some keywords:
• scientific progress, diffusion,
• investments, risks, patents,
• network age, skilled labor
force

23. Criticism &
the Capability Approach
Leach and Scoones:
•Growth  distribution (‘trickling down’ does not always occur)
•Negative side effects of growth (the poor most vulnerable)
Perspective that CA offers?
•Ethical individualism: concern with capabilities of each and every
person, careful with relying on group averages
•Critical of sacrificing the capabilities of individuals to “non-capability
collective goals”, such as growth or modernization
•Income & economic growth: poor indicators of well-being /
development ( alternative: capabilities)

24. The ‘Race to the Universal Fix’
Leach and Scoones:
• “breakthroughs in science
and technology that will
have a direct and
widespread impact on
poverty”
• “big-hitting technologies with
the potential for global scope
and application”
• “the 20th century’s unprecedented
gains in advancing human
development and eradicating
poverty came largely from
technological breakthroughs”
• e.g. new medicines, crop varieties

25. Criticism &
the Capability Approach
Leach and Scoones:
• Social, technical and political aspects closely intertwined,
thus “treating S&T as a separate issue is dangerous”
• Ecologies & livelihood practices are highly diverse,”
technologies have to fit these local circumstances
• Problems of poverty not just the result of technical matters.”
Also other causes, such as conflict and market failures
Perspective that CA offers?
• Pervasiveness of human diversity, conversion factors
• Sen warns against “commodity fetishism” of economists 
also technology fetishism?
• Focus on the ultimate ends (valuable individual capabilities)
stimulates openness to different available means

26. The ‘Slow Race’
Leach and Scoones:
• Making technology fit the local context
• Attention for social, cultural &
institutional dimensions
• Active role for citizens in “both the
‘upstream’ choice and design of
technologies, and their ‘downstream’
delivery and regulation”
Criticism of Indian activist
Vandana Shiva:
human concerns overlooked,
does not discuss participation/ active role
of global South, nor diversity of
cultures & solutions
Best match
with the CA!?
Capability approach:
• Human diversity significant &
far-reaching
• Puts people central, as active
agents  participation

27. Example ‘Slow Race’ Perspective:
Appropriate Technology Movement
• Reaction on (failed) technology transfers
& modernization 1950s/1960s
• Initially successful movement, although
also much criticized.
• Lost momentum after early 1980s
• Many of its ideas have survived &
influenced new movements

28. What is AT About?
“Specific characteristics approach”
•Easy to use
•Low-cost
•Low-maintenance
•Labour-intensive
•Energy efficient
•etc.
“General principles approach”
•Context suitability central
•Design as point of intervention
According to Willoughy this is:
•A normative statement: priority for
certain ends
•An empirical statement: criteria
based on assessment of which
means in practice best serve ends

29. How Does the CA Relate?
• CA compatible with ‘general principles AT approach’
• ‘Specific characteristics AT approach’  assumption of “Third World’
and its inhabitants as homogenous entities”? (Schuurman, 2008)
• Taken to the extreme: distinction with ‘race to the universal fix’
becomes blurry
• Still: AT has always taken ‘conversion factors’ seriously
• Practical solutions of AT worth considering for expanding capabilities
• Example podcasting devices Zimbabwe (Oosterlaken, Grimshaw &
Janssen, 2012)

30. Beyond AT: Agency (I)
Projects introducing micro hydro power plants in rural Latin America
(Fernández-Baldor et al. 2012):
•Case 1: community hardly involved, maintenance problems 
frequent power interruptions (classic failure case)
•Case 2: strong participatory process, still operational  variety of
well-being improvements (AT: respecting agency instrumentally
important)
•Case 3: project as driving force for the community to take on new
development challenges (CA: constructive + intrinsic value of
agency)

31. Beyond AT: Agency (II)
“Participatory development” on the agenda since mid-1970s.
Yet problems (Mohan 2008):
•Tokenism: more about rhetoric than actual empowerment 
message of CA not redundant
•People are situated & embodied agents, their ability to
participate depends on material and social structures  CA as
comprehensive & holistic approach acknowledges this
•Communities often treated as socially homogenous, ignoring
e.g. power & gender differences  emphasis CA on human
diversity

32. Appropriate for Whom?
Gender and Technology (I)
• AT movement: attention for social & environmental factors, less
attention for personal conversion factors
• Appropriate for whom? Whose interest does the technology serve?
• Gender often one of most salient facts of interpersonal diversity
within communities
• “appropriate technology […] is often inappropriate when gender
issues are taken into account” (Stamp 1989)
• Not until 1980s that gender & technology became distinct topic of
research. Yet still a challenge
• E.g. impacts of appropriate energy technologies on lives man &
women differ significantly (Fernández-Baldor et al. 2014)

33. Gender and Technology (II):
What Can the CA Offer
CA in several ways “gender-sensitive evaluative framework” (Robeyns
2008)
 Focus on capabilities and functions, instead of resources, helpful in
revealing gender differences
 Looks into both market and non-market settings
 Attention for human diversity in terms of conversion factors
 Ethical individualism: household not primary unit of analysis
 Yet no ontological / methodological individualism: so within CA
one can study influence of social structures on women’s capabilities
and choices
 Acknowledgement of problem of adjusted preferences

34. Will the Real Capability Approach Stand
Up Now?
•To summarize:
•CA natural ally of proponents ‘slow race’
•CA very compatible with AT, although it also goes beyond AT
Two concerns:
1.CA is merely normative framework, not theory about empirical reality /
phenomena. What one sees through the ‘lens’ of the CA depends on
‘filters’ (technology theories) one adds
2.‘The’ CA does not exist. Only limited number of normative/ethical claims
shared by all partisans of CA
 Argument so far overestimates what CA can do / underestimates
degree to which people - even when all adopting the CA - can still differ of
opinion about technology

35. ‘The’ CA Does Not Exist
• Multidisciplinary literature: economics, political
science, philosophy, development studies, etc.
• Even differences between Sen (economist,
social choice theory) and Nussbaum
(philosopher, narrative approach)
• Robeyns: ‘narrow’ versus ‘broad’ application of
the CA
o Well-being vs. broader range of values (agency, justice, ….)
o Individual wellbeing vs. policies/institutions/social practices

36. Robeyns:
“Concentric Circles Account” of the CA
Core of CA:
• People should be able to lead flourishing, truly human life –
functionings/capabilities as core ‘evaluative space / informational base’
• Normative evaluation of functionings / capabilities is needed
• There may be other elements of value & claims of the right which do not
refer to capabilitarian notion of the good
• Ethical individualism
Around this inner circle different types of applications:
• Quality of life assessments (focus of Sen)
• Theory of justice (focus of Sen)
• (Re)conceptualization of phenomena (e.g. education, technology)
Further circles depending on e.g. further normative commitments, or
additional ‘explanatory theories’

37. The CA and
Gender Theory / Feminist Concerns
Different capability analyses / normative evaluations of
gender cases possible, depending on e.g.:
• conservative or feminist gender theory
• (normative) theory of preference formation
(Robeyns, 2008)

38. The CA and Agency
• Sen: distinction between agency freedom & well-
being freedom. Nussbaum: capability/functioning
distinction enough to capture importance of agency
• Nussbaum: more focus on agency as integral part of
outcome of development. Sen: role of agency in
process of development very important.
• “Agency-based development ethics” of David Crocker:
Sen’s CA + deliberative democracy + modes of
participation from development ethics
• Agency & technology? Draw on STS, design studies,
etc?

39. Back to the ‘Three Races’
& the AT Movement
• There has been a lot of criticism on AT over time, e.g. “the AT
movement died because it was led by well-intentioned tinkerers
instead of hard-nosed entrepreneurs designing for the market”
(Polak and Warwick 2013)
• CA on its own does not have much if anything at all to say about
truth or convincingness of most of them
• CA is not incompatible with other two ‘races’
• Nussbaum sees central role for governments, but one may also
believe “that te capabilitarian ideal society is better reached by a
cooordinated commitment to individual action or relying on market
mechanisms” (Robeyns, 2014)
• Likewise, CA allows for many different views on how to make
technology work for the poor

40. Example: “KickStart”
• Non-profit social enterprise operating in Africa, founder greatly
disappointed in AT (Fisher 2006)
• Technologies need to be “designed to create individual opportunities”
• Impact is ultimately about things such as enabling people to send
their kids to school, or to improve diet & health
• We live in a cash economy, money is needed for this
• Focus: technologies which entrepreneurs can use to create income
• Reliance on “high-quality engineering and mass-production”
Do such initiatives truly empower people –
in all their human diversity – to lead the
lives they have reason to value?

41. Thank you for you attention!
Dr. Ir. Ilse Oosterlaken
e.t.oosterlaken@vu.nl