Capability and life chances: An assessment of two analytical traditions 1

Jos Manuel Roche

PhD Student in Development Studies University of Sussex
jmr26@sussex.ac.uk

ABSTRACT This paper assesses the similarities between the sociological tradition and the capability approach in the study of social inequality. The sociological tradition has commonly related the study of social inequality with the distribution of life chances between social categories, commonly social classes or status groups. I sustain in this paper that, in a broad sense, life chances should be understood in terms of capabilities, and the study of social inequality

based on the capability approach needs to acknowledge the different nature of groups and the way in which they relate to systematic processes of inequality. Consequently, in terms of the study of differences in life chances, this perspective should focus on understanding which social relations determine peoples chances, by assessing differences between social categories. Finally, I sustain that this perspective needs to acknowledge the complex processes related to individual preferences and choices, as ways of producing and reproducing social inequalities.
KEYWORDS Capabilities, Life Chances, Social Inequality, Stratification, Social Groups

1. Introduction The main contribution of the Capability Approach (CA) has been to put forward an alternative way to assess inequality other than the generalized focus on income distribution. On the other hand, the sociological approaches have contributed by highlighting the systematic differences between social groups as unintended consequences of social relations. It seems that both approaches share certain complementarities while at the same time involve mutual challenges. This paper reviews these complementarities and challenges. It starts by briefly presenting the basis of the capability approach contribution to the study of inequality. It moves later to present the origin of the sociological tradition, by clarifying the concept of social class, status group and social stratification. Based on these previous sections the following one reviews the main approaches related to life chances, emphasizing the connection between capability, life chances and social groups.

Paper to be presented at the 2006 Annual International Conference of the Human Development and Capability Association, Groningen, The Netherlands, 29 August 1 September.

2. The Capability Approachs contribution to the study of inequality The CA, whose main exponents are Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum, finds its origin on a critic to the most traditional utilitarian or 'welfarist' approaches in economics (Nussbaum and Sen, 1993; Sen, 1992; Sen, 1999). Its main contribution has been to liberate the studies of economic inequality from the confinements of income or commodity holding by highlighting the notion of capability as a more suitable criteria for assessing inequality (Sen, 2000). In contrast to the one-dimension focus of the welfarist approach, the CA remarks the importance of other dimensions of well-being, criticizing the welfarist extreme focalization on income distribution. Firstly, it differentiates means from ends, stressing that an increase in income does not necessarily bring an increase in other dimensions. Secondly, it emphasizes the notion of human diversity indicating that people and households vary in their faculty to convert commodities into well-being, vary in their systems of preferences and also in their needs. Consequently, it finally suggests that inequality should be assessed, not on the basis of commodity holding, but on the effective capability people have to choose a 'way of life' they have reasons to value. Regarding the distinction between means and ends, the CA suggests three main concepts: commodities, functionings and capabilities. Commodities are understood as means to achieve other ends, such as income or basic goods, which are not ends in themselves but means for achieving other ends (Sen, 2000). Functionings are ends or achievements in themselves; in Sens words, functionings are 'beings' or 'doings' in life such as being healthy, living healthily, being educated or enjoying a decent life (2000). Everything is not equally possible in life; consequently the functionings can be grouped in different combinations, each of which can be understood as a different and possible 'way of life'2. Finally, capabilities are the various combinations of functionings available from which a person can choose one particular group (Sen, 2000). In other words, capabilities are the various 'ways of life' from which a person can choose one. A second relevant aspect to highlight is the emphasis given to human diversity. On the one hand, people and households vary greatly in their capacity to convert commodities into well-being (Lipton and Ravallion, 1995). Households with the same income will not necessarily be able to achieve the same satisfaction because of particular differences (Sen, 2000). On the other hand, people have different needs and what is desirable for one might not be for another, therefore, differences in results might be the expression of differences in preferences. It seems then that 'differences in economic outcomes attributable to differences in preferences must thus be considered essentially as the expression of individual liberty and diversity in society rather than a sign of inequality' (Atkinson and Bourguignon, 2000). Consequently, the CA suggests that human diversity should be taken into account when assessing inequality. Finally, the CA proposes that inequality should be assessed based on the capability people have to enjoy different 'ways of life'. Inequality is here related to opportunity but in a very different sense than that of libertarians. Even though it is possible to study disparities in commodities and functionings (such as income or level of education), the
2

A 'way of life' is then a combination of a specific set of 'being' and 'doing' in life.

HDCA suggests studying inequality from the differences in capabilities to achieve ends. 'In this view, individual claims are to be assessed, not only by income, resources or primary goods the persons respectively have, nor only with reference to the utilities they enjoy, but in terms of the freedoms they actually have to choose between different ways of living they can have reason to value' (Sen, 2000: 65). Based on this perspective, a policy towards social justice should be oriented towards enlarging people and actors capabilities by endowing them with adequate, fair and efficient resources, 'providing individuals with effective means to develop' (Salais and Villeneuve, 2004). It is in this context that inequality is related to the notion of freedom; freedom to choose a 'way of life' that a person has reason to value (Sen, 1999). If capabilities should be the evaluation space for interpersonal comparisons, an important aspect to solve is the selection of the capabilities to take into account in order to do this interpersonal comparison. Although Sen seems to agree that some capabilities are more important than others, he is reluctant to define a definitive list leaving it to discussion and to the specificity of each particular context3. Nussbaum instead supports the thesis of defining a list with the most central capabilities as a way to attain a normative conception of social justice 4 . Many reasons sustain her argument, being particularly important the one of having a clear idea of what to claim in terms of citizenship. Nussbaum more clearly relates the capability approach to the human rights approach, understanding this list as the fundamental entitlements to be claimed from a citizenship perspective. The list, she says, needs to be independent of the preferences that people happen to have, [since] preferences [are] shaped, often, by unjust background conditions (2003: 34). In her opinion, this is important for issues of gender inequality, and, as will be sustained later in this paper, for issues related to inequality between other social categories. The list is conceived as an account for political purposes in order to direct social policy. It is, in Nussbaums opinion, a way to give theoretical shape to womens denite, and justied, demands (2003: 56). The same thing could be said for other social groups demands, say ethnic groups, regional groups, or even social classes. It seems that the CA focuses on individual differences, overlooking groups and structural inequalities. Stewart considers that the CA should pay more attention to groups, studying what she defines as horizontal inequalities5 (2005). She stresses that groups are important because their general situation has an important impact on the well-being of individuals, they are instrumental for other capabilities, and also because they influence individual values and choices. Attention is particularly given to the relation between these horizontal inequalities and violence. She sustains that processes of violence are common in contexts where inequalities between relatively permanent groups are severe (say ethnic groups or regional inequalities). Therefore, the study of these inequalities allows defining policies to monitor and correct them, not just to generate instrumental benefits for development, but in order to avoid highly antagonistic conflicts (Stewart, 2005). There is not doubt that Nussbaum is also referring to group inequality when she calls the attention to gender differences (Stewart, 2003). In her case, the emphasis is given to defining the central capabilities that need to
3

Robeyns will also support the thesis of not having a definitive list but proposes instead five criteria for selecting the relevant capabilities (2003). 4 Nussbaum proposes a list of 10 Central Human Capabilities in order to stimulate discussion (2003). 5 Stewart defines horizontal inequalities as those inequalities between culturally formed groups, in contrast to vertical inequality or inequality between individuals.

be corrected and especially where claims should be oriented. Both authors would agree that groups can be mobilized as a consequence of being affected by inequalities. Hence, if most of the CA empirical studies seem to be individually centred, this approach has also been concerned with systematic differences between social groups, such as gender, regional, or ethnic groups. As will be explained shortly, the sociological tradition focuses mainly on differences in life chances between social groups or social categories, and it is frequently concerned with identity, social mobilization and antagonistic conflicts. It seems that the capability space can be incorporated as a way to assess life chances, taking into account Nussbaums proposition of defining a list of central capabilities. On the other hand, I will sustain that the study of social inequality needs to acknowledge the divers nature of groups and the way in which they are related to systematic processes of inequality.

3. The Sociological tradition: social class, status group and social stratification The sociological approaches are interested in the study of inequality from a more structuralist perspective, focusing on the systematic differences in life chances among groups of people that are the unintended result of social processes and social relationships (Crompton, 1998). These approaches more commonly relate inequality to the notions of social class, status group or social stratification. The indiscriminate use of these terms or, on occasions, the use of the same term to refer to completely different concepts, tends to generate significant confusion (Crompton, 1998; Wright, 2005a). The concept of class mainly derives from Marxist thought, while status group is associated to Webers heritage. Stratum and stratification tend to be used as general terms that involve both previous categories (Crompton, 1998; Runciman, 1967; Wright, 2005c). The concept of class finds its more formal origins on Marx's works, and it is mostly related to the structure of hierarchical positions within the production system. Marx analysis stands on different levels of analysis. On a more abstract level it is concerned with antagonistic conflicts between social groups and social change processes, inspiring a family of approaches concerned with social change and social movements. A different group of approaches is more interested on actually classifying individuals in categories, analyzing the distribution of power and their associated life chances. In either case the concept of class inspired by Marx is economically centred, being interested in social production relations, the distribution of power, life chances and antagonistic conflicts. In contrast to Marxist's notion of social class, Max Weber's concept of status group is linked to the relation between chances and lifestyle, and particularly to the interrelation between cultural and economic conditions (Cockerham et al., 1997). Weber's ideas have derived in a different concept of stratification associated with the ideas of status groups, prestige, culture and 'lifestyle' (Crompton, 1998). Weber sustains that, in modern society, other sources of stratification can be found besides relationship to the production system, and they are not necessarily aligned with one another. In that sense, Weber prefers to distinguish status from class as two different forms of stratification. Class is the hierarchical differentiation according to 'the place in the process of production, distribution and exchange' (Runciman, 1967). Status is instead the different social esteem attributed to a person who enjoys certain attributes and it is related to 4

hierarchy of prestige and privilege within a society. Based on Webers tradition, social groups are stratified according to their lifestyles, in the sense of consumption patterns, understanding that the lifestyle is as much a choice as a result of peoples chances. According to Cockerham and colleges, Weber's overall thesis states that 'chance is socially determined, and social structure is an arrangement of chances. Hence, lifestyles are not random behaviours unrelated to structure but are typically deliberate choices influenced by life chances' (Cockerham et al., 1997: 325, emphasis is given). In that sense, having the resources and means allows those who have the desire to choose a particular lifestyle. The different understanding of the terms social class, status group and stratification are a major source of confusion, particularly because it is commonly overlooked that these differences are significantly related to the question that each perspective aims to answer. Erik Olin Wright helps to clarify this confusion by classifying the different perspectives based on what he considers the six basic questions of class analysis (2005a): 1. Distributional location: How are people objectively located in distribution of material inequality? 2. Subjectively salient group: What explains how people, individually and collectively, subjectively locate themselves and others within a structure of inequality? 3. Life chances: What explains inequalities in life chances and material standards of living? 4. Antagonistic conflicts: What social cleavages systematically shape overt conflicts? 5. Historical variation: How should we characterize and explain the variations across history in the social organization of inequality? 6. Emancipation: What sorts of transformation are needed to eliminate oppression and exploitation within capitalist societies? Taking these questions into consideration the author classifies the approaches according to where the emphasis has been given. The result is presented in the form of a table such as the one bellow (see table 1). As the table shows, some perspectives have certain interest as the primary anchoring question, while other queries remain in a secondary level or just as a minor or additional interests. Depending on the emphasis, the definition of social class can vary. It could relate more with locating individuals in categories or just referring to collective action. The idea of identity could be more relevant or not very significant. Wright considers that students interested in these issues do not need to make a choice, to adopt one or another of these approaches to the exclusion of others (2005b). Instead, if it is the case that these various approaches are organized around different mixes of anchoring questions, then, depending upon the specific empirical agenda, different frameworks of class analysis may provide the best conceptual menu (Wright, 2005b: 192). This table helps to clarify the confusion generated by the different conceptions about class and stratification within the sociological tradition.

Table 1. Six primary questions of class analysis (extracted from: Wright, 2005b: 182, highlight is own).
Approaches to class analysis Popular usage David Grusky (neo-Durkheimian) Jan Pakulski (post-class analysis) Pierre Bourdieu Richard Breen and John Goldthorpe (neo-Weberian) Aage Srensen (rent-based) Max Weber Erik Olin Wright (neo-Marxist) Anchoring questions 1. Distributional location *** ** ** ** ** * *** *** ** * 2. Subjectively salient group 3. Life chances ** ** ** *** *** * * ** * * * ** 4. Antagonistic conflicts 5. Historical variation 6. Emancipation

** * *

* * *

** ** **

*** * ** *** ** ***

*** primary anchoring question for the concept of class ** secondary anchoring question (subordinate to primary anchor) * additional questions relevant to the concept of class, but not central to anchoring the definition

It is particularly interesting that life chances is always an aspect of major concern whereas as a primary or as a secondary question, but always of a relatively high interest. This has to do with the fact that social class analysis, stratification and social structure are mainly about distribution of chances. Life chances are normally related to the possibility of opting for a particular life style, in the case of Webers influence, or as the chances associated to distribution of resources, in the case of Marxist tradition. The CA proposition could be incorporated to the analysis of life chances, being this understood as opportunities in life. In this way, life chances could be interpreted in the same way as the notion of capabilities. Life chances are different because people vary in their capabilities to enjoy a valuable way of life, being this a more generalized notion than life style. The approaches related to life chances tend to be, nevertheless, very economically centred. This occurs in spite of being more inclined to consider the multidimensionality of inequality than the economic welfarist approaches do. Three approaches related to life chances are particularly interesting to relate to the CA: the neo-weberian perspective, the analysis of inequality carried out by Pierre Bourdieu, and the so called post-class analysis.

4. Capability, Life Chances and Social Groups Generally, the approaches concerned with issues related to life chances focus on studying the causal mechanisms that help to determine the salient features of the system, or possible outputs (Wright, 2005b). The neo-weberian perspective whose main exponent is John Goldthorpe focuses on social mobility and its determinant factors 6

(Goldthorpe, 1992; Goldthorpe et al., 1987). Pierre Bourdieus work is ample and difficult to summarize. The author focuses on issues related to life chances and the relation with material goods and symbolic status, giving particularly attention to the complex role of education (Bourdieu, 1984 [1979]). The third perspective is the postclass analysis represented by Jan Pakulski (2005). This perspective stresses the historic basis of class differentiation, highlighting the complexity of the current stratification systems. The three perspectives have a particular focus on life chances and bring interesting insights for the study of inequality based on the CA. The study of social inequality as life chances in the neo-weberian perspective is linked to normative issues of equality of opportunity, mainly understood as meritocracy (Breen, 2005; Goldthorpe et al., 1987; Marshall et al., 1997). This approach focuses on the distribution of rewards, normally in economic terms, according to the position in the social structure. It is interested in the relation between this social position and individual effort or performance, and the studies of social mobility in general terms. The position in the social structure is understood related to social class by using the so called Goldthorpe class scheme (Goldthorpe et al., 1987). This is one of the most widely used stratification schemes, being strongly influenced by Webers thought. It incorporates a notion of employment status by discriminating between manual and non manual workers, giving relevance to the relations and conditions of employment, distinguishing service, intermediate and labour contracts (Marshall et al., 1997). It has been extensively used to study the distribution of rewards, particularly material rewards, the level of meritocracy and the social class political affiliation (Marshall et al., 1997). The criterion of social justice considered seems to be the main problem of this approach. It evaluates the fairness of the social structure system either in economic terms or in terms of meritocracy. In economic terms it studies the differences in rewards, usually income, between social classes, rather than the actual capabilities people have by belonging to a particular class. The meritocratic analysis studies the processes of social mobility considered mainly as the relation between education or performance, and the social class destiny. This is possibly the strength of this approach, since it assesses to what extent social position and the respective rewards are the result of merits, evaluating a dominant idea in liberal societies (Wright, 2005b). However, it tends to overlook changes in the social structure, such as the fact that what was before the basis of distribution of chances might have changed. This implies that the social categories used to define the social structure might need to be adapted and perhaps reconsidered, in the light of changes in the labour market or of the increasing relevance of other social categories such as gender, ethnic group, regional location and so on. Therefore, in terms of social justice, the study of inequality seems to be better linked to capability than to distribution of rewards, or just to social mobility. It seems interesting to establish what social relations determine peoples chances, by assessing differences between social categories e.g.: occupational categories, gender, ethnic group, and geographic location. The strength of the approach rests in studying processes of social mobility and the factors that explain them, assessing to what extent it is the result of effort, and consequently of peoples choices. Bourdieu moves the attention from exclusively taking into account either economical relations, or predominantly status and prestige, and integrates both in one framework. In his understanding of social position, Bourdieu combines the Marxist focus on economic

resources as determinant of peoples chances, incorporating other sources of inequality in a more Weberian way, such as social and cultural or symbolic capitals (Bourdieu, 1986 [1983]). Hence, resources and social relations are considered not just economic, but also cultural and social. The social mobility paths are diverse, not just through economic resources and position, but also by means of cultural capital. He particularly concentrates on life style and the role of education and of cultural or symbolic capital in the reproduction of inequalities. He is interested in observing how the pattern of consumption and life style are not just the result of the social position, but also a way to reproduce the social structure by means of habitus disposition and by using it as a symbolic capital (see: Bourdieu, 1984 [1979]). A key aspect in Bourdieus analysis is the concept of 'habitus'. This is understood as a system of dispositions to taste or to preferences shared by all the individuals who come from the same background (Bourdieu, 1984 [1979]). Classes are for Bourdieu efficient agents of socialization; as a result, their members share dispositions, tastes and lifestyles (Grusky, 2001). These systems of disposition to taste produce enduring orientation towards action that tends to reproduce the structure from which they are originated (Cockerham et al., 1997). This is an interesting challenge for the CA with respect to reconsidering individuals chances and choices. If habitus determines people actions and choices, then it is not clear whether someone would be inclined to choose an alternative way of life even when capabilities are enlarged. Action and choice are affected by habitus, in which case they are partly expressions of previous forms of inequality, as much as a way to reproduce them. This has in my opinion two main consequences. Firstly, it is difficult to introduce the subjectivity of satisfaction or to just consider peoples preferences in order to assess the achievement of capabilities. Secondly, it might support defining a list of fundamental entitlements independent of the preferences that people happen to have since they can be affected by previous situations. The post-class analysis perspective, whose main exponent is Jan Pakulski, focuses on the distribution of chances and the social stratification system in a broader sense (Pakulski, 2005). This approach is interested not just in social classes, understood in economic terms (occupational categories), but also in other social categories. Pakulski suggests that social class is a historical category characteristic of industrial societies, and not necessarily the social category that explains the distribution of chances and social formation, nor identity, nor antagonistic conflict, in current societies. He considers that the complexity of post modern societies has lead to the end of class inequality as the main category of differentiation, generating instead complex and hybrid stratification systems. He considers that gender, occupational strata and market segments, as well as racial and ethno-specific underclass enclaves, are good examples of such hybrid configurations of inequality. If clustering is strong and social strata develop around the complex combination of positions, we are dealing with complex/hybrid stratification (Pakulski, 2005: 173). Pakulski gives attention not just to the distribution of chances, but also to social groups formation around social consciousness, identity and antagonism. These processes could lead to actions in economic and political fields with the potential of generating societal transformation. This interest on diverse social categories, understood as complex/hybrid

stratification, is to a certain extent similar to Stewarts interest in social group inequalities. Groups might be potentially mobilized when inequalities in life chances or capabilities are severe, and they possess strong social consciousness and identity. Some questions result interesting when studying inequality in the distribution of life chances. Which social divisions, social group formations, are more related to the distribution of life chances e.g., class division, occupational, regional location, ethnonational, gender, religious? How strong are these divisions in terms of the distribution of life chances? To what extent these groups could generate group consciousness, identity, antagonism and social mobilization?

5. Conclusion and final remarks Summarizing, the study of social inequality in a broad sense is related with the distribution of life chances between social categories, commonly social classes or status groups. Life chances from a narrow point of view has to do with distribution of rewards. However, in a broader sense and more linked to a social justice perspective, I sustain that life chances should be understood in terms of capabilities. The sociological perspective gives particular attention to how social relations generate systematic unintended inequalities between social groups, possibly linked to groups consciousness, identity, and antagonistic conflict. I have also sustained that the study of social inequality needs to acknowledge the diverse nature of groups and the way in which they relate to systematic processes of inequality. Consequently, in terms of the study of differences in life chances, this perspective should focus on understanding what social relations determine peoples chances, by assessing differences between social categories. Another area of interest is studying to what extent these groups could generate group consciousness, identity, antagonism and social mobilization. However, this last perspective is less oriented toward life chances and more toward collective action. Finally, I sustain that the CA needs to acknowledge the complex processes of individual preferences and choices. The habitus disposition toward action and preferences implies complex processes of production and reproduction of social inequality. Consequently, if the analysis aims to assess differences in a normative social justice perspective, then it might be useful to consider defining a list of the central capabilities on which this analysis will be based. Nevertheless, this seems to be an unsolved question.

REFERENCES
ATKINSON, A. B. & BOURGUIGNON, F. (2000) Income Distribution and Economics. IN ATKINSON, A. B. & BOURGUIGNON, F. (Eds.) Handbook of income distribution. Amsterdam, Elsevier Science. BOURDIEU, P. (1984 [1979]) Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste, London, Routledge.

BOURDIEU, P. (1986 [1983]) The Forms of Capital. IN RICHARDSON, J. G. (Ed.) A handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education. New York, Greenwood Press. BREEN, R. (2005) Foundations of a neo-Weberian class analysis. IN WRIGHT, E. O. (Ed.) Approaches to class analysis. Cambridge, UK ; New York, Cambridge University Press. COCKERHAM, W. C., RTTEN, A. & ABEL, T. (1997) Conceptualizing Contemporary Health Life Styles: moving Beyond Weber. The Sociological Quarterly 38, 321-42. CROMPTON, R. (1998) Class and stratification : an introduction to current debates, Cambridge, UK Polity Press ;, Malden, MA Blackwell. GOLDTHORPE, E. (1992) The Constant Flux: A Study of Class mobility in Industrial Societies, Oxford, Clarendon Press. GOLDTHORPE, J. H., LLEWELLYN, C. & PAYNE, C. (1987) Social mobility and class structure in modern Britain, Oxford [Oxfordshire], Clarendon Press ; Oxford University Press. GRUSKY, D. B. (2001) The Past, Present, and Future of Social Inequality. IN GRUSKY, D. B. (Ed.) Social Stratification: Class, Race, and Gender in Social Perspective. Boulder, Westview Press. LIPTON, M. & RAVALLION, M. (1995) Poverty and Policy. IN BEHRMAN, J. R. & SRINIVASAN, T. N. (Eds.) Handbook of development economics. Amsterdam, Elsevier. MARSHALL, G., SWIFT, A. & STEPHEN, R. (1997) Against the Odds?: Social Class and Social Justice in Industrial Societies, Oxford, Clarendon Press. NUSSBAUM, M. (2003) Capabilities as Fundamental Entitlements: Sen and Social Justice. Feminist Economics 9, 33-59. NUSSBAUM, M. & SEN, A. K. (1993) The Quality of life, Oxford [England]; New York, Clarendon Press; Oxford University Press. PAKULSKI, J. (2005) Foundations of a post-class analysis. IN WRIGHT, E. O. (Ed.) Approaches to class analysis. Cambridge, UK ; New York, Cambridge University Press. ROBEYNS, I. (2003) The Capability Approach: An Interdisciplinary Introduction, This text was originally written for the Training Course preceding the 3rd International Conference on the Capability Approach, Pavia, Italy, on 6 September 2003. . RUNCIMAN, W. G. (1967) Relative Deprivation and Social Justice: A Study of Attitudes to Social Inequality in Twentieth-Century England, London, Routledge and Kegan Paul. SALAIS, R. & VILLENEUVE, R. (2004) Introduction. IN SALAIS, R. & VILLENEUVE, R. (Eds.) Europe and the politics of capabilities. Cambridge ; New York, Cambridge University Press. SEN, A. K. (1992) Inequality reexamined, Oxford, Clarendon Press. SEN, A. K. (1999) Development as freedom, New York, Oxford University Press. SEN, A. K. (2000) Social Justice and Distribution of Income. IN ATKINSON, A. B. & BOURGUIGNON, F. (Eds.) Handbook of income distribution. Amsterdam, Elsevier Science. SRENSEN, A. B. (2005) Foundations of a rent-based class analysis. IN WRIGHT, E. O. (Ed.) Approaches to class analysis. Cambridge, UK ; New York, Cambridge University Press. STEWART, F. (2003) Horizontal Inequalities : A Neglected Dimension of Development. CRISE Working Paper <http://www.crise.ox.ac.uk/pubs/workingpaper1.pdf> (July, 2006). STEWART, F. (2005) Groups and Capabilities. Journal of Human Development, 6, 185-2004. WRIGHT, E. O. (2005a) Approaches to class analysis, Cambridge, UK ; New York, Cambridge University Press. WRIGHT, E. O. (2005b) Conclusion : If "class" is the answer, what is the question? . IN WRIGHT, E. O. (Ed.) Approaches to class analysis. Cambridge, UK ; New York, Cambridge University Press. WRIGHT, E. O. (2005c) Foundations of a neo-Marxist class analysis. IN WRIGHT, E. O. (Ed.) Approaches to class analysis. Cambridge, UK ; New York, Cambridge University Press.

10