Technology has an immense potential to contribute to poverty reduction and human development, and the details of design are crucial for its impact. Engineers are thus in a position to make a real difference in the world. Yet to do this in a responsible way is a challenge, as the meaning of human development is far from obvious and even contested, and the relation between technology and poverty reduction is complex. Too often technology introduced in the South has failed, or disadvantaged already marginalized groups, or led to other negative societal consequences. In this talk I will introduce the ‘capability approach’ of Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum as a providing designers and engineers with a useful lens through which to examine this nexus. Justice, well-being and human agency are central values in this approach, which focusses on the capabilities that individuals have to lead the life they have reason to value. As such, it moves away from a simplistic picture of poverty as merely a lack of income. It also draws attention to the great diversity in people and their social and natural environments, awareness of which is also of great importance for engineers and designers wishing to work and engage in this area. The real question is thus not “what if… technology challenged poverty and social inequality?”, but “how exactly… are we going to make technology truly challenge poverty and social inequality?”

1. Technology,
Poverty
Reduction
& the
Responsibility
of Engineers
Ilse Oosterlaken
8 March 2013
Milan, Italy
TECH FOR SOCIETY:
Technology, Innovation
and Social Change

2. Development organization
Practical Action:
“When NGOs talk about
poverty reduction, they
focus on food, health or
education. People see
health, but they don’t see
the fridge and the health
centre that need energy.
That’s a technology.”
“Even simple tech
can make a large
impact on
development”

3. Program for the Lecture
1. Thinking about technology & development –
Some highlights (context)
2. The capability approach – A very short
introduction (theory)
3. A capability approach to technology & its
design + some cases (application)

4. 1.
Thinking about
Technology &
Development
– Some
Highlights

5. Appropriate Technology
Movement (1970/1980s)
• Reaction to (failed) transfer of
Western technologies after
WOII
• New technologies to be
designed to suit local
circumstances and needs in
developing countries
• Locally produced, ecologically
sound, labor intensive, etc.
• Initially quite successful
movement, although also
much criticized

6. Human Development Report
2001
• Keywords: scientific
progress, diffusion of
technologies,
investments, risks, patents,
network age, skilled labor
force
• Criticism of Indian activist
Vandana Shiva: human
concerns overlooked, does
not discuss participation,
diversity of solutions, role
of the South

7. Different Views on Relation
‘Technology & Development’
Development scholars
Leach & Scoones (2006)
distinguish:
1. Driving force behind
industrialisation & economic
growth
(“race to the top”)
2. Technologies with direct, big
impact on poverty
(“race to the universal fix”)
3. Specific to local contexts, social /
cultural / institutional dimensions,
citizen participation in choice and
design, new partnerships, etc.
(“the slow race”)

8. ‘Responsible Engineering’
in Development Context?
Robbins (2007). “The Reflexive Engineer: Perceptions of Integrated Development”,
in: Journal of International Development 19, 99-110
Aspect Traditional engineers Reflexive engineers
Technology/society
relationship
Technological shaping of
society
Socio-technical dynamics
View of expertise Narrow, discipline based Broad & holistic, interdisciplinary
Politics of knowledge Engineers know best Engineer/stakeholder
partnership
Technological uptake Experts communicating to the
public brings acceptance
Social, economic, env.m. factors
explain adoption/rejection
Means of decision making
about technology
Experts ‘engage’ and educate
the public
Public-expert dialogue &
agreement
Epistemological approach
to problems & solutions
Technical specialisation Complex systems
View of development Technology-driven Livelihoods-based
Conceptual starting point Designs Socio-technical systems
More
comprehensive
alternative to
livelihood approach
to development:
the ‘capability
approach’

9. Necessity to Reflect on the
Meaning of Development
“We tend to discuss the principles of form and composition, the
principles of aesthetics, the principles of usability, the principles of
market economics and business operations, or the mechanical and
technological principles that underpin products. In short, we are
better able to discuss the principles of the various methods that are
employed in design thinking than the first principles of design, the
principles on which our work is ultimately grounded and
justified. The evidence of this is the great difficulty we have in
discussing the ethical and political implications of design.”
(Buchanan, 2001 in journal Design Issues)
The Capability Approach
A normative conceptual framework that enables us to articulate
such implications in the context of development, and reflect on them

10. 2.
The Capability
Approach
– A Very Short
Introduction

11. The ‘Capability Approach’ (CA)
to Development
Central in this approach:
individual human ‘capabilities’
•The real opportunities that people have
in life, what people are realistically able
to do and to be
•Examples: capability to be healthy, to
travel, to be part of a community…
Development: a process of increasing
valuable capabilities for each and every
individual
Key values underlying this approach:
•Well-being
•Justice
•Freedom & autonomy (‘agency’)
Amartya
Sen
Martha
Nussbaum

12. Well-being and Agency
‘Functionings:’
Realized
Achievements
Capabilities:
Effectively possible
Freedoms, valuable options to
choose from
Respect for human agency, avoid
paternalism
E.g. difference between
starving
and having fastened
Participation /
public debate /
democratic practice
are important themes
in the CA !
Amartya Sen:
People are not just
passive patients
to be helped

13. How Do We Assess
Poverty & Development?
Goods / resources
(like a bicycle)
‘‘Capability’Capability’
(to move around, to travel)(to move around, to travel)
Happiness, preference satisfaction
(by cycling)
Problem: ‘adaptive preferences’
caused by extreme poverty or
social conditioning; What if women
in Iran are ‘simply happy’ despite
their situation of oppression?
Problem: ‘conversion factors’
unfavorable for
•People with disability (personal)
•Bedouin in the desert
(environmental )
•Women in Iran (social)
‘Income’
often
used

14. 3.
A Capability
Approach to
Technology
& Its Design

15. ICT for Development (ICT4D)
One Laptop per Child (OLPC) Rural telecentres
Mobile phones for farmers in Africa Phone ladies in Bangladesh

16. Usage of CA for Critique on
‘Mainstream’ ICT4D
• Tension between well-being goals NGOs and
agency of people, which deserves explicit
reflection (Ratan & Bailur, 2007)
• 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 attention for ICT distribution and
access, even though its “outcome is contingent,
depending on individual conversion factors”
(James, 2006)
• Too much emphasis on economic growth,
“which is too narrow to capture the impacts of
ICT” (Kleine 2011)
“the common way of
measuring impact by
defining the intended
development
outcomes top-down
and a-priori is
unsuitable in the
context of multi-
purpose technologies
[i.e. like ICT] which
could empower
individuals to attain
development
outcomes of their own
choosing”
Kleine (2009) My own critique: in general little explicit attention for design

17. A Capability Approach of
Design for Development
Overall valuable
capabilitiesCapability to be healthy
Capabilities important
for the sake of higher
level ones
Capability to be free
from malaria
Design of malaria
diagnostic devices for
rural areas
Design project
A.o. very clear user
interface
Design requirements
Conversion factorsE.g. low level of
education local health
workers
• ‘Narrow usage’ of CA:
design to increase well-
being in terms of
expansion valuable
capabilities
• ‘Broad usage’ of CA:
design also in line with
values like agency ( e.g.
participatory design) and
justice ( e.g. universal
design)
Designers can
& should pro-
actively
anticipate
conversion
factors
Example seems rather straightforward. Reality often
more complex: technologies / designs have impact
on range of capabilities, both intended & unintended,
direct & indirect. Plus not always clear what a
capability concretely means in a certain context

18. Case I: Podcasting
Devices in Zimbabwe
• Livelihoods: small-scale subsistence farming
• Very poor infrastructure services in region
• Traditional agricultural extension services failed
• Mp3 players introduced as a new channel of knowledge
sharing on cattle management (“kamuchina kemombe”)
• Many conversion factors pro-actively addressed
o ICT: voice-based (→ illiterate villagers), loud-speakers instead of head
phones (→ African village meetings)
o Information: podcast in local dialect, message adjusted to local audience,
additional demonstration meetings
• Change in plans during project (for several reasons):
o Original idea: recording function, device owned by villagers, Bluetooth for
sharing files
o Implemented: ‘ordinary’ mp3 player, recording disabled, device in
possession of professional ‘animators’

19. The Case from a Capability
Approach Perspective
• Project did quite well in addressing human
diversity through technology choice / design
• Broadening evaluation base
– NGO’s evaluation reports: quite a lot of attention for #
podcasts / listeners, increased milk & crop production, …
– CA: expansion (basic) capabilities, but also e.g. increased
sense of agency
• Development process: participatory
– NGO:  high adoption rate / succesful technology transfer
– CA: Not only for instrumental reasons, participation also
important for normative reasons!
• Device as implemented contributes to well-being,
but original idea more optimal from an agency
perspective – deserves further analysis
“Before the
technology, if
an animal was
dying then I
could not take
action, but
now I can. I
am happy
since I am a
full farmer
now!”
“… group work and harmony which did not exist
before. When groups ask for lessons we share
experiences and ideas”
“I can now
send my
children to
school”

20. Creating human capabilities:
design + socio-tech systems
‘Zooming in’:
details of
artifact design
‘Zooming out’:
socio-technical
embedding of
technical artifacts
Human
capabilities
• Headphones or
loudspeaker?
• Recording function
or not? Bluetooth or
not?
• Charging through
solar panels or
electricity network?
• Collective
listening practices
• Production of new
podcasts
• Availability of
means
recommended by
podcasts

21. Case II: Silk Reeling
Machines in India
• Indian NGO PRADAN organizes women from poor
rural village in so-called ‘self-help-groups’
• Engages them in livelihood activities, like Tasar silk
reeling: processing cocoons into yarn
• Silk reeling centre was set up
• Re-design of the Tasar silk reeling machine
undertaken by TU Delft student Annemarie Mink
• Design challenges a.o. yarn quality problems,
safety & health issues & for the reeling women
• 8 months of fieldwork
• Cum laude graduation, patents, machine
implemented. Impact: increased income, higher
safety level. So: quite successful design project

22. The Case from a Capability
Approach Perspective
• Recently a retrospective re-evaluation by Annemarie,
using the CA
• One requirement for the new design was: suitable for
home usage  light, easy to move
• In theory: new design facilitates choice where to use
the machine (freedom, autonomy…)
• In practice: enables families to now keep women at
home, whereas silk reeling centres are actually
important for women’s capability of ‘affiliation’, for
women’s empowerment (Mink, Parmar & Kandachar, forthcoming)
• Apparently 8 months of fieldwork had not been enough
to sufficiently grasp local realities
• Yet not self-evident what designer should have done!
What is the responsibility of a designer?

23. Recommended Readings
Specialized literature on the capability approach:
• Alkire, Sabina. 2005. “Why the Capability Approach?” In: Journal
of Human Development 6 (1):115-133.
• Robeyns, Ingrid. 2005. “The Capability Approach - A Theoretical
Survey.” In: Journal of Human Development 6 (1):94-114.
• Robeyns, Ingrid. 2006. “The Capability Approach in Practice.” In:
Journal of Political Philosophy 14 (3):351-376.
On the capability approach & technology / design
• Oosterlaken, Ilse. 2009. “Design for Development – A Capability
Approach” In: Design Issues 25(4).
• Zheng, Yingqin. 2009. "Different spaces for e-development:
What can we learn from the capability approach." In: Information
Technology for Development 15(2): 66-82.
• Oosterlaken & Van den Hoven (eds.). 2012. The Capability
Approach, Technology & Design. Dordrecht: Springer.
General
books: