My first steemit post is actually an essay on one of my favorite subjects I wrote years ago. Humanitarianism!

Please forgive the "book report" format. I will revisit this subject soon in a less formal style. My "introduce yourself" post will be uploaded shortly. Enjoy! Give criticisms and don't forget to show love!

Human Capability Vs. Human Capital
Amartya Sen’s Development as Freedom expounds on the interdependency of freedom and responsibility. This essay will examine Amartya Sen’s discourse juxtaposed by Anthony Gidden’s sociological Structuration theory. Gidden’s theory supports Sen’s thesis stating within all civil society, structure and agency are an inseparable duality. This theory potentially can have clout in the way relief operations value the involvement of indigenous people in human development projects. This essay seeks to validate Sens argument while vying for a social paradigm shift in relief operations.
Role of Development
Amartya Sen’s Development as Freedom expounds on the relationship between economic views of human development and human development as freedom. The mean by which freedom is attained is development. Adequate or well developed states are territorial based organizations which exist primarily to establish maintain and defend basic social conditions and values including particularly, security, freedom, order, justice, and welfare. Under developed states fail to provide most if not all of these resources thus their citizens lack freedom because the state lacks development. This is an integral distinction because citizens belonging to developed states experience a wider range of capabilities. Capability does not necessitate successful citizens, it does however, necessitate freer ones. This is contrary to Dworkinian resourcism, or the Rawlsian social primary goods approach which do not focus on individualism within a society thus defunct to utility. Individuals in developed society are predisposed to a vast array of opportunities compared to others in lesser-developed states. Opportunities vary from education or employment to food choice. The more the individual has to choose from, the freer the individual is because he has choice. Sen expresses the problem of people indigenous to the regions surrounding the Sundarbun forest as an actualized derivative of this theory. The Sundarban Forest is home to Bengal tiger as well as clusters of natural honeybee hives. The state of development in this society is so drastically low that the resident’s must brave the forest and harvest the honey for profit. This state has not directly taken any freedoms away from its citizens. However, because the state is in such a poor state of development it has rendered the freedoms they have utterly useless. If this state were more developed, individuals would have a wider range of employment capabilities and thus they would ultimately be freer persons.
Freedom and Responsibility
Development requires that freedom and responsibility are interdependent upon each other. For responsibility to be conceivable individuals must have freedom to make a correct decision, otherwise the individual can only account for actions arisen from external factors rather than internal ones. Likewise for freedom to be perpetuated responsibility must be taken for past actions. A critique of this theory would follow that freedom does not necessitate responsibility but responsibility is a mere derivative of freedom. This critique lacks the understanding that freedom is found in capability rather than function. Sen states “by focusing on capabilities rather than functioning we do not privilege a particular account of good lives but instead aims at a range of possible ways of a life from which each person can choose.” Capability of a larger array necessitates choice between different opportunities and thus we arrive at responsibility by the individual choosing the correct one. If freedom were found in function our theory would involve a state that viewed its citizens as a means to an end thus we would arrive at a consequentialist argument. However, Sen aspires to give an account for why philosophical thought has standards for freedoms and rights that seem to be inherent yet in practice fail to transpire universally. Freedoms tend to be relative to the region in which individuals reside thus freedom must be contingent upon the development of the state. The essay seeks to answer: what are the practical applications of this theory? The primary step is for relief fund operative to lead in a social paradigm shift in the way human development views the individual agency of the human capability that transpires of the freedom gained in the aforementioned development. Individual agency is what will allow relief operations to implement a self-sustaining system by utilizing the indigenous people of underdeveloped societies. Only when human development efforts recognize the interdependency between freedom and responsibility fruits of these laborious projects will be seen. Thus, we can claim that the ultimate telos of development, apart from the progressing of capabilities, is promoting individual agency to be simultaneously the ends and the means.
Giddens: Why agency is fundamental to the running of a society?
Once development within a state progresses, the agency of the individual flourishes thus allowing for a complete duality of structure and agency in a society. I have chosen to juxtapose Amartya Sen’s thoughts with those of Sociologist Anthony Giddens whose Structuration theory opened a new school of thought in the discipline of International Relations. By assessing Sen’s thesis through a sociological standpoint, this essay will achieve its purpose of bridging the theoretical influence and the practical application thus vying for a social paradigm shift. Structuration theory states that societal structure predicates individual action and that agency reciprocates back into the structure of society. This parallels with Sen’s well-developed state. Agency is imperative to a prosperous society because it reinforces structure. This parallels with the capability based freedom found in Sen’s thesis. The structure of society guide individuals in action and ensure that those actions are taken in lieu of liberty. The structure is not only hard and soft law but, in sociological terms, encompasses procedural rules, moral rules, material resources and resources of authority. How this information is interpreted is contingent upon the idea of power. Giddens claims “power is never merely a constraint but is the much defined origins of the agents to bring about intended outcomes of actions.” Thus, constraint allows from enablement much like Sen whose development allowed for freedom because the serve to open up certain possibilities of action while at the same time they can restrict or deny others. The conceptualization of power through the lens of Giddens Structuration theory is analogous with Hegel’s Slave/Master view of autonomy. Obviously one entity is authoritative and the other is submissive yet in order for the authoritative entity to survive the submissive entity is needed. In structuration theory, individual agency is under a societal constraint, and has predetermined capabilities because of said constraint. If the constraint were taken away the various individual agencies would vie for the lacking power. Hence, there is a inherently mutual need between both parties. Giddens proposed a valid criticism of this theory in Constituion of Society: Theory of Structuration. “Structure is always enabling and restraining” is Giddens claim but “does this conception not in fact sacrifice anything akin to Structural constraint? Does not speaking of structure as constraining and enabling only pay lip service to the former? Enabling aspects of structure are never sufficiently balanced by constraining ones.” However, Giddens claims this does not necessarily hinder the argument. He gives the example of speaking a first language. No person ever chooses to speak his or her native tongue rather it is a non-consented compliance to environment. If parents gave children, the right to choose which language to learn that child will remain outside of communicative society. By not giving this person speech, the parents would be shirking development and ultimately hindering capabilities of an individual agent. This constraint of choice does not hinder but in fact enables the speaker an opportunity to choice in the future. Thus, there is a marriage between constraint and enabling within Structuration theory as well as a marriage between freedom and responsibility within individual agency. This is why agency is fundamental in the running of society. Individuals are what fulfill the other half of the reciprocal relationship creating the inseparable duality of agency and structure. So in practical use of this theory, who would hold the power in the relations between relief project operatives, states and the individual agents indigenous to those states? Only the indigenous individual agents and states can hold power simultaneously. The relief project operatives have no permanent position and thus no power. If the relief project were permanent, there would be no possibility of creating a self-sustained self-contained system and thus relief efforts would most unfortunately morph into utility.
Why Utility doesn’t work.
For Amartya Sen there is always one fatal flaw when assessing human development. When states, nongovernmental organizations, or international organizations operate relief efforts for impoverished people groups, they fall into the eternally perpetuated position of utility. The original concerns for the impoverished people of the cause and principium’s of individuation therein become irrevocably broken. Sen states “The shift in the focus of attention of pro market economics from freedom to utility has been achieved at some high cost: the neglect of the central value individual freedom itself.” Utilitarianism Sen believes manifests a break in between individual responsibility and social regulation. Utility in human development refocuses the view of freedom and how it occurs within a state. For Sen individual freedom is a social product foundationally and there is a reciprocal relationship between social arrangements to expand human development, and the uses of individual freedoms to not only improve respective lives but to make these social arrangements more effective and appropriate. For many states, denying political and civil rights is acceptable if it promotes economic development and the general wealth of the population. However, Sen also states freedoms have no use to impoverished people if they cannot use them due to the economic circumstance. Thus, we have a sort of chicken egg impasse in the relationship between freedoms and economic development. The relief project operatives are thus in a curious and potentially advantageous position. As aforementioned, there is a reciprocal relationship between social arrangements and the use of individual freedoms to not only improves respective lives but also to make these social arrangements more effective and appropriate. For most states, the former is seen more often than the latter. Therein we may find the practical usage for Sen’s argument and inspire a paradigm shift.
Relief Projects
I will now refer to a current event proving the intense need for a paradigm shift. This Case study involves naturally occurring aquifers in Kenya and the methods of harvesting and distributing the resource. The study is entitled: “Too big to fail: The paradox of groundwater governance. By Professor Albert Mumma” Professor Mumma and his Associates state, “the objectives of the study were to (a) describe groundwater resource and socioeconomic settings for four selected aquifers; (b) describe governance arrangements for groundwater management in Kenya; and (c) identify the relevance of these arrangements for planning and implementing climate change mitigation measures.” The World Bank offered the funding for the Case study aquifers but after that they did not cooperate with the state of Kenya or any of its affiliates and thus one of the case study findings was that “despite its importance, the value of groundwater is not appreciated, nor is its vulnerability understood.” This is a very utilitarian result. The dominant use for the CSA’s in the Merti region are refugee camps, livestock, domestic, and public water system. In Nairobi a slightly more prosperous area, the uses are domestic, commercial, industrial, irrigation, and public W/S. However, in the Tiwi and Baricho regions these aquifers are only used as public water systems. Project operators claimed “These aquifers, and aquifers elsewhere in Kenya, are not managed in any true sense; new water allocations are not based on a formal assessment process or a water allocation plan. Indeed, the poor level of compliance by water users in respect to water permits and the payment of water use charges make water allocation an uncertain exercise at best. The groundwater conservation area (GCA) meant to protect the Nairobi aquifer system (NAS) has completely failed to achieve this objective. The complete lack of rational land use planning has meant that attempts to restrict abstraction have been severely constrained by indifference, commercial interests, and a building boom.” Researchers and project analyst have found significant gaps between National policies by the GoK and plain observations of reality. Every technology and resource has been funded towards this project yet an array of complications are acknowledged on the institutional framework: “over centralized decision-making processes, inappropriate monitoring networks and database, discontinuous assessments, uncoordinated source development, non-operative water rights, and the absence of special courts to arbitrate on water use conflicts.” This has been the general consensus of the Kenyan government since the Water act of 2002. Thus rendering that the difficulty is not an absence of policy, but rather of the absence of the will to implement the solutions. This is where Amartya Sens literature can be proven most effective. If the development of the states increased to enhance capabilities of the individuals then the defunct agency of the indigenous people will be restored. This jettisons the problem of lack of will because the indigenous people are directly affected by this dysfunctional system of bureaucracy. It is also claimed that the policy found within the IWRM states that the National Standing committee containing representatives from all regions main water and sector actors should oversee such matters but no such committee has been created. This is a patsy program to allude to the sentiment of self-sufficiency but ultimately only serves the end of discrepancy. The different sectors (Land, water and forests) still develop their own rules, which lack the essential relationships needed to implement any policy effectively. If individual agency where used and ultimately reinforced the structure of society this case study would have a promising outcome. However, without the inclusion of the indigenous people there will be a continuation of futile siphoning of funds into an abyss.
My analysis in this essay integrates the theoretical literature of Giddens and Sen with the practical literature of the case study. The essay posits that there should be a way for relief projects to extend their operation services to create a self-sustaining system. By simply filtering money into efforts, the relief projects are operating under a utilitarian model, which does not fulfill its purpose. To understand the solution to the problems found in the case study we should gain a foundational understanding of Amartya Sen’s argument. O’Hearn states, “His ‘entitlement’ and ‘capability’ approaches are individualistic in methodology, derived from microeconomics and generalized by adding problems of access to non-market-related entitlements.” Thus, the ideas will force them to ask some necessary questions about reciprocal relationship between social arrangements and the use of individual freedoms. As Ben Fine (2004) says, Sen’s conception of development boils down to ‘what can I get from what I have, given the conditions for transforming one to the other?’ The one resource that remains unused is the human resource. What can indigenous people groups do towards their own cause? Incorporation of individual agency that reinforces societal structure will only further development and expand much needed capabilities. Looking at the African continent as a whole there are not many NGO’s owned by indigenous people groups. We are dealing with the wrong group of people. By bypassing, the state and dealing directly with the aforementioned regions of Tiwi, Baricho, Merti and Nairobi the results would prove to be a staggering difference. Why is it that the freedoms discovered within human development are rarely implemented to reinforce social arrangements for further development? Reciprocity in this relationship is broken and they cannot feed into each other thus never making a self-sustaining and self-contained system. A social paradigm shift in humanitarian efforts will open the avenue for this reciprocity between duality’s to be restored.
Conclusively the essay claims that there is a need for a paradigm shift within the infrastructure involving all actors in this model. This means that mandate complications must be acknowledged and solved. “Otherwise, any efforts at reestablishing a balance between the policy-making, on the one hand, and the implementing agencies on the other—WRMA for resources management, and WASREB, the WSBs and WSPs for water supply, will fail.” Most importantly without local participation by groundwater users, all of these efforts will be made in vain. Humanitarian efforts should be reformed in the way they view impoverished individuals and their usefulness towards their own cause. In all human relief cases, all civil society structure and agency are an inseparable duality. If the sociological terms of Sen’s thesis are applied in a practical manner this theory potentially can have clout in the way relief operations value the involvement of indigenous people in human development projects. If, developed states approach concerns for impoverished people through a lens of human development through freedom, and not economy, then the individuals will become useful by way of human capability not human capital. Thus, there is a proven need for a social paradigm shift in humanitarian efforts and the ubiquitously marred conceptualization of individual agency in impoverished countries.

Acknowledgements: All footnotes in the essay are references to external sources and are not the findings of original research.

Works Cited
Mumma, Albert; Lane, Michael; Kairu, Edward; Tuinhof, Albert; Hirji, Rafik. 2011. Kenya - Groundwater governance case study. Water papers. Washington D.C. - The Worldbank. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2011/06/16583819/kenya-groundwater-governance-case-study
The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration by Anthony Giddens University of California Press(1984)
Sen, A (1999) Development as Freedom, Alfred A. Knopf, New York.
O'Hearn 'Amartya Sen's Development as Freedom: Ten Years Later' in Policy & Practice: A Development Education Review, Vol. 8, Spring 2009, pp. 9-15, available: http://www.developmenteducationreview.com/issue8-focus1.
Fine, B (2004) ‘Economics and ethics: Amartya Sen as point of departure’ in The New School Economic Review, Vol. 1, 1, pp. 151-62.
Robeyns, Ingrid, "The Capability Approach", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2011 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2011/entries/capability-approach/.