Solves inequality the best

3. The Role of Social Policy at the Collective Level: Establishing the Social Preconditions of Democracy

One important reason for interpreting capability narrowly as the capacity to participate in the economy through employment lies in the fact that this interpretation allows to reframe social policy as an “investment.” Hence, while at the individual level the employment-focused paradigm is justified in terms of empowerment, at the collective level it is legitimized through its contribution to economic growth. Social policies promoting individuals’ participation in the economy are thus praised for being able to reconcile social and economic goals (Hemerijck Citation2013, 134) whereas, not surprisingly, the emphasis on unpaid care work and political participation is much less strong: these activities have no or very little economic return. Yet, from a capability perspective, justifying social policy in terms of economic growth appears difficult. Indeed, one of the central normative concern of capability theorists has been precisely that of challenging the appropriateness of economic growth as a measure of social wellbeing, arguing that it treats a means—and not even a very good means (Crocker Citation1992, 585)—as if it was an end in itself (e.g. Sen Citation1999). This is not to say that economic progress is unimportant. However, there is no automatic link between economic growth and social wellbeing. For example, higher economic growth does not necessarily imply a better healthcare or education system and indeed national rankings based on the Human Development Index are not the same as those based on GDP (Nussbaum Citation2011, 48).

Hence, the CA suggests focusing policies directly on social wellbeing rather than economic growth. Furthermore, the meaning of social wellbeing should be defined through democratic deliberation. Indeed, democracy—defined as “public reasoning” and “government by discussion” (Sen Citation2009)—permits to deliberate on social priorities, thereby shaping also individuals’ values. In this context, public discussion potentially allows to overcome adaptive preferences (Anderson Citation2003) and to promote values such as social solidarity, which are indispensable for “living well together” (Deneulin and McGregor Citation2010). For all these reasons, democracy is simultaneously one of the central means and of the fundamental aims of development (Sen Citation1999) and within the literature on the CA great emphasis is put on the importance of (deliberative) democracy and political self-determination (e.g. Anderson Citation2003; Fukuda-Parr Citation2003; Hill Citation2003; Crocker Citation2006; Jayal Citation2009; Murphy Citation2014; Bonvin and Laruffa Citation2018b).

Crucially, the CA calls for a substantive—rather than merely formal—democracy, which requires establishing the “social conditions for equal citizenship” (Anderson Citation1999, 332). One of these conditions is socioeconomic equality (see also Bohman Citation1997; Srinivasan Citation2007; Bonvin, Laruffa, and Rosenstein Citation2018): not full equality, but citizens should have enough equality to be protected from oppressive relationships. Indeed, equals are not marginalized (they can freely participate in politics and the major institutions of civil society), they do not live at the mercy of others’ will and they are not exploited by others (Anderson Citation1999, 315). Since social policy can play a crucial role in promoting socioeconomic equality, democracy represents a good justification of capability-based social policy at the collective level. In this perspective, social policy aims to create the conditions for equal democratic participation, transforming the vicious circle between high inequalities and malfunctioning democracy into a virtuous one where low inequality strengthens democracy (Olson Citation2006). Social rights are thus interpreted as constitutive of democratic citizenship and indivisible from civil and political rights (see also Nussbaum Citation2011, 67). Hence, rather than a precondition for economic growth (Morel, Palier, and Palme Citation2012, 11), social policy should be seen as a precondition for “equal citizenship,” which implies according a central priority to redistribution with a view to promote socioeconomic equality.

Moreover, the value attributed to democratic politics in the CA implies the need to adopt a democratic approach to the issue of welfare reform itself instead of delegating this task to “experts.” Rather than as an economic and technical issue, welfare reform should be framed as a political matter, involving a debate on values (Laruffa Citation2018). This diverges with the employment-focused paradigm, which involves a technocratic approach to welfare reform: recognizing only one highest good to be maximized (employment), “experts” can formulate welfare reform proposals in a top-down way on the basis of scientific evidence, promoting the policies that deliver the best results. In contrast, the CA calls for broad political participation also in the field of welfare reform (see also: De Leonardis, Negrelli, and Salais Citation2012). The need for democratic deliberation on the direction of reforms is also a direct consequence of the fact that the CA remains agnostic in respect to the question of the highest good: rather than only one good, it recognizes a plurality of goods, thereby acknowledging the existence of social dilemma between different values, which make impossible a technical solution (e.g. Sen Citation1997, 155; Sen Citation1999, 110).

From this perspective, focusing on navigational agency—rather than on employment—as “informational basis” for social policy is a way to increase not only the freedom to pursue one’s own conception of the good life at the individual level but also the opportunities for democratic deliberation at the collective level. Indeed, formulating underspecified goals, a capability-oriented social policy leaves room to the “participative definition of the aims and indicators of public action” (Bonvin Citation2008, 372). The vagueness that characterizes capability-enhancing social policy in respect with the employment-focused paradigm turns out to be an advantage: citizens become not only the beneficiaries but also the co-authors of social policy (Laruffa Citation2018).