Developing and agreeing a capability list in the British context: What can be learnt from social survey data on ‘rights’?

The paper examines what can be learnt about the 'valuation' of freedoms and opportunities (or capabilities) using a general population social survey data source on values. On the assumption that rights can be understood as protecting underlying critical freedoms and opportunities, social survey data on public attitudes towards the rights that people "should have" is interpreted as providing empirical evidence on the 'valuation' of freedoms and opportunities by individuals and groups. The paper addresses the extent to which data of this type provides empirical evidence of the 'valuation' of the 10 domains of freedom and opportunity that are specified in the capability lists for adults and children that have been developed and applied in previous projects (namely, Life; Health; Physical security; Legal security; Standard of living; Education and learning; Productive and valued activities; Individual, family and social life; Identity and self-respect; Participation, influence and voice). Particular emphasis is put on moving beyond the 'legalistic' methodology for deriving a 'human rights-based capability list' applied in previous projects, and examining whether empirical research on values provides an alternative, overlapping or supplementary informational base for deriving a list of this type. The research findings can be interpreted as providing broad empirical underpinnings for the 'valuation' of nine out of the ten domains of freedom and opportunity specified in the capability lists that have been developed and applied in previous projects. The Life domain was effectively not covered by the research exercise, since the underlying social survey data did not include questions on public attitudes towards the right to life.Capability approach, capability lists, human rights, public attitudes, values

Antecedents of the Idea of Human Rights: A Survey of Perspectives

human development, human rights

Pogge -vs- Sen on Global Poverty and Human Rights

This Paper is part of a broader project examining the ways in which Amartya Sen’s “capability approach” provides a framework for thinking about global poverty as a denial or a violation of basic human rights. The Paper compares the “capability approach” as a basis for thinking about global poverty and human rights with the alternative framework developed by Thomas Pogge. Both the “capability approach” and Pogge’s theory of “severe poverty as a violation of negative duties” support the idea of “freedom from severe poverty as a basic human right”. However, there are important differences. The Paper examines the limitations of Pogge’s “apparent minimalism” and establishes the ways in which Sen’s treatment of the “capability approach” and human rights moves beyond a “minimalist normative position” whilst avoiding Pogge’s charge of “implausibility”

The holes in the UK levelling up strategy: key omissions from the government’s metrics

Polly Vizard assesses the suite of metrics the government proposes to use to measure the delivery of its ‘levelling up’ objectives, and which will remain relevant if the policy is not dropped by Boris Johnson’s successor

The holes in the UK levelling-up strategy: key omissions from the government’s metrics

The 2019 Conservative Party manifesto pledged to level up all parts of the UK and last February’s White Paper set out the details of the Government’s flagship programme for addressing inequalities by 2030. With a levelling-up bill now passing through Parliament, Polly Vizard takes a closer look at the suite of metrics that will be used to measure and assess the delivery of the Government’s levelling up objectives

The Contributions of Professor Amartya Sen in the Field of Human Rights

This paper analyses the work of the Nobel Prize winning economist Professor Amartya Sen from the perspective of human rights. It assesses the ways in which Sen's research agenda has deepened and expanded human rights discourse in the disciplines of ethics and economics, and examines how his work has promoted cross-fertilisation and integration on this subject across traditional disciplinary divides. The paper suggests that Sen's development of a 'scholarly bridge' between human rights and economics is an important and innovative contribution that has methodological as well as substantive importance and that provides a prototype and stimuli for future research. It also establishes that the idea of fundamental freedoms and human rights is itself an important gateway into understanding the nature, scope and significance of Sen's research. The paper concludes with a brief assessment of the challenges to be addressed in taking Sen's contributions in the field of human rights forward.Amartya Sen, human rights, poverty, freedom, obligation, capability approach, meta-rights, entitlements, opportunity freedom, liberty-rights

Multidimensional poverty and income inequality in the EU

This paper examines the link between the way a country's most deprived individuals experience disadvantage across multiple dimensions of life and how this may relate to its level of income inequality. By expanding the definition of disadvantage beyond income poverty, we overcome some of the limitations presented by the mechanical link between strictly income-based measures of poverty and inequality. We consider whether – and if so, how – three measures of material deprivation and multidimensional poverty relate iv to income inequality, focusing our analysis on European Union countries

Older people’s experiences of dignity and nutrition during hospital stays: secondary data analysis using the Adult Inpatient Survey

The report uses the Adult Inpatient Survey 2012 to build up an in-depth quantitative evidence base on older people’s experiences of dignity and nutrition during hospital stays in England. We find that just under one-quarter (23%) of inpatients reported that they were not treated with dignity and respect, or were only sometimes treated with dignity and respect during their hospital stay. We estimate that this is equivalent to around 2.8 million people on an annual basis - of whom about 1 million are aged 65 or over. Inconsistent and poor standards of help with eating during hospital stays were also a key concern. In 2012, about a quarter of all survey respondents indicated that they needed support with eating during their hospital stay. This is a substantial proportion and points towards the issue of support with eating being a major issue for significant numbers of inpatients – just under three and a half million each year - rather than being a marginal or specialist issue. Of those who needed help with eating, more than 1 in 3 (38%) reported that they only sometimes received enough help with eating from staff, or did not receive enough help from staff. We estimate that this is equivalent to around 1.3 million people on an annual basis, of whom about 640,000 are aged 65 or over. Logistic regression analysis suggests that, after other factors are controlled for, the risk of not being helped with eating is significantly higher for women rather than men and for individuals who experience a longstanding limiting illness or disability such as deafness or blindness, a physical condition, a mental health condition or a learning difficulty, or a longstanding illness such as heart disease, stroke or cancer. Perceptions of inadequate nursing quantity and quality, and lack of choice of food, stand out as having consistent, large associations with lack of support with eating during hospital stays. Amongst the population aged over 65, risks of inconsistent and poor standards of care were higher for women than for men, and for people aged over 80. We conclude that there was a widespread and systematic pattern of inconsistent or poor standards of dignity and respect, and help with eating, in hospitals in England in 2012. Evidence of poor and inconsistent standards was not limited to isolated “outlier” healthcare providers. Rather, patient experiences of inconsistent or poor standards of dignity and respect, and help with eating, were a significant general problem affecting inpatients in the vast majority of NHS acute hospital trusts. Dignity and nutrition are key markers of quality of care which have been not given sufficient public policy attention in the past. Whilst there has been increasing public policy focus in this area following the Mid-Staffordshire Public Inquiry, ongoing public policy efforts will be required to ensure quality improvement and that the new fundamental standards of care, which cover dignity and respect and help with eating, are implemented and enforce

Older people’s experiences of dignity and support with eating during hospital stays: analytical framework, policies and outcomes

There is growing recognition of the importance of dignity and support with eating as markers of high-quality and older-person-centred hospital services. We use data on these markers from the national Adult Inpatient Survey for England to build up statistical evidence on older people’s experiences. We find that poor and inconsistent experiences of being treated with dignity and respect, and of receiving support with eating, affect a substantial proportion of inpatients across the vast majority of acute hospital trusts. There has been remarkably little change over time, although small improvements provide some grounds for optimism relating to policy developments in the period following the Francis Inquiry. Amongst people over 65, the prevalence of inconsistent and poor experiences of dignity and support with eating was higher amongst the ‘oldest of the old’ (inpatients aged over 80), individuals who experience a long-standing limiting illness or disability, and women. The highest rates of prevalence were observed amongst disabled women over 80. Perceptions of inadequate nursing quantity and quality, and lack of choice of food, stand out from logistic regression analysis as having consistent, large associations with lack of support with eating. These factors provide potential policy levers since they are within the control of hospitals to a certain extent. In drawing lessons from our analysis for inspection, regulation and monitoring, we highlight the importance of inequalities analysis – including systematic disaggregation and separate identification of at risk sub-groups (e.g. older disabled women) – rather than relying on a ‘population average approach’