Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-rwnhh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-23T23:12:16.255Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A contested terrain: Re/conceptualising the well-being of homeworkers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

Farah Naz  and
Dieter Bögenhold
Farah Naz*
Affiliation:
University of Sargodha, Pakistan
Dieter Bögenhold
Affiliation:
Alpen-Adria-University, Klagenfurt, Austria
*
Farah Naz, Department of Sociology and Criminology, University of Sargodha, Sargodha 40100, Punjab, Pakistan. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Disenchantment with traditional income-based measures of well-being has led to the search for alternative measures. Two major alternative measures of well-being come from subjective well-being research and the objective capability approach. The capability approach has been largely discussed in the context of development studies and economics and is mainly used within quantitative frameworks, but it also raises many questions that are worthy of discussion from a sociological perspective as well. This study opts for a qualitative approach to transpose capability approach in order to assess the well-being of female homeworkers in the football industry of Pakistan. The aim of this empirical research is to focus on the capabilities of homeworkers in accessing economic, individual, social and psychological aspects of well-being.

Keywords

Z1Capability approachdecent workhome-based workinformal economywell-being
Type
Articles
Information
The Economic and Labour Relations Review , Volume 29 , Issue 3: Work and well-being: Setting and upholding standards , September 2018 , pp. 328 - 345
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2018

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barrientos, S (2013) Corporate purchasing practices in global production networks: a socially contested terrain. Geoforum 44(1): 44–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bathmaker, AM and Harnett, P (2010) Exploring Learning, Identity, and Power through Life History and Narrative Research. Abingdon; New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Baylina, M and Schier, M (2002) Homework in Germany and Spain: industrial restructuring and the meaning of homework for women. GeoJournal 56(4): 295–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biggeri, M and Ferrannini, A (2014) Opportunity gap analysis: procedures and methods for applying the capability approach in development initiatives. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities 15(1): 60–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binder, M (2013) Subjective well-being capabilities: bridging the gap between the capability approach and subjective well-being research. Journal of Happiness Studies 15(5): 1197–1217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bögenhold, D (2017) The order of social sciences: sociology in dialogue with neighbouring disciplines. Journal of Philosophical Economics: Reflections on Economic and Social Issues 11(1): 27–52.Google Scholar
Burchielli, R, Buttigieg, D and Delaney, A (2008) Organizing homeworkers: the use of mapping as an organizing tool. Work, Employment and Society 22(1): 167–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burchielli, R, Delaney, A and Goren, N (2014) Garment homework in Argentina: drawing together the threads of informal and precarious work. Economic and Labour Relations Review 25(1): 63–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cambra-Fierro, J and Wilson, A (2011) Qualitative data analysis software: will it ever become mainstream? Evidence from Spain. International Journal of Market Research 53(1): 17–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, I and Price, R (2016) Precarious work and precarious workers: towards an improved conceptualisation. Economic and Labour Relations Review 27(3): 314–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, M (2009) The capabilities approach and critical social policy: lessons from the majority world. Critical Social Policy 29(3): 351–373.Google Scholar
Clark, DA (2005) Sen’s capability approach and the many spaces of human well-being. Journal of Development Studies 41(8): 1339–1368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Creswell, JW (2013) Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five Approaches. 3rd ed. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar
Denzin, NK and Lincoln, YS (2005) Introduction: the discipline and practices of qualitative research. In: Denzin, NK and Lincoln, YS (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 1–32.Google Scholar
Felstead, A, Jewson, N, Phizaclea, A and Walters, S (2001) Working at Home: Statistical Evidence for Seven Key Hypotheses. Work, Employment and Society 15(2): 215–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finnis, J (1979) Natural Law and Natural Rights. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Freeman, D (2004) Homeworkers in global supply chains. Greener Management International 43: 107–119.Google Scholar
Griffin, J (1996) Value Judgement: Improving Our Ethical Beliefs. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Harris, L (2003) Home-based teleworking and the employment relationship: managerial challenges and dilemmas. Personnel Review 32(4): 422–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, E (2001) Women in the Indian informal economy: collective strategies for work life improvement and development. Work, Employment and Society 15(3): 443–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hollywood, E, Egdell, V, McQuaid, R, et al . (2012) Methodological issues in operationalising the capability approach in empirical research: an example of cross-country research on youth unemployment in the EU. Social Work and Society 10(1): 1–20.Google Scholar
ILO (1996) Homework convention no. 177. Available at: http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO::P12100_ILO_CODE:C177Google Scholar
Kalleberg, AL (2011) Good Jobs, Bad Jobs: The Rise of Polarized and Precarious Employment Systems in the United States, 1970s to 2000s. New York: American Sociological Association.Google Scholar
Lewchuk, W (2017) Precarious jobs: where are they, and how do they affect well-being. Economic and Labour Relations Review 28(03): 402–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lund-Thomsen, P, Nadvi, K, Chan, A, et al . (2012) Labour in global value chains: work conditions in football manufacturing in China, India and Pakistan. Development and Change 43(6): 1211–1237.Google Scholar
McGillivray, M and Clarke, M (2006) Introduction. In: McGillivray, M and Clarke, M (eds) Understanding Human Well-Being. New York: United Nations University Press, pp. 3–16.Google Scholar
Mehrotra, S and Biggeri, M (2005) Can industrial outwork enhance homeworkers’ capabilities? Evidence from clusters in South Asia. World Development 33(10): 1735–1757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moss, J (2013) The foundations of well-being. Australian Economic Review 46(1): 62–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nadvi, K, Lund-Thomsen, P, Xue, H, et al . (2011) Playing against China: global value chains and labour standards in the international sports goods industry. Global Networks 11(3): 334–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naz, F (2016) Understanding human well-being: how could Sen’s capability approach contribute? Forum for Social Economics. Epu ahead of print 24 August. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07360932.2016.1222947.Google Scholar
Naz, F (2017) The position of female homeworkers in a global supply chain: how do capitalist labor market practices interplay with gender ideologies? In: Haase, M (ed.) The Changing Basis of Economic Responsibility: A Look from the Perspective of Today. Berlin: Springer, pp. 125–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nussbaum, M (2000) Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nussbaum, M (2003) Capabilities as fundamental entitlements: Sen and social justice. Feminist Economics 9(2–3): 33–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orton, M (2011) Flourishing lives: the capabilities approach as a framework for new thinking about employment, work and welfare in the 21st century. Work, Employment and Society 25(2): 352–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Qizilbash, M (2002) Development, common foes and shared values. Review of Political Economy 14(4): 464–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rani, U and Unni, J (2009) Do economic reforms influence home-based work? Evidence from India. Feminist Economics 15(3): 191–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robeyns, I (2003) Sen’s capability approach and gender inequality: selecting relevant capabilities. Feminist Economics 9(2–3): 61–92.Google Scholar
Robeyns, I (2005) Selecting capabilities for quality of life measurement. Social Indicators Research 74(1): 191–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, A (1983) Development: which way now? Economic Journal 93(372): 745–776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, A (1990) Gender and cooperative conflict. In: Tinker, I (ed.) Persistent Inequalities. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 123–149.Google Scholar
Sen, A (1993) Capability and well-being. In: Nussbaum, M and Sen, AK (eds) The Quality of Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 30–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Standing, G (2011) The Precariat: The New Dangerous Class. New York: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Stewart, A and Stanford, J (2017) Regulating work in the gig economy: what are the options? Economic and Labour Relations Review 28(3): 420–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sullivan, C and Lewis, S (2001) Home-based telework, gender, and the synchronization of work and family: perspectives of teleworkers and their co-residents. Gender, Work & Organization 8(2): 123–145.Google Scholar
Sullivan, S and Smithson, J (2007) Perspectives of homeworkers and their partners on working flexibility and gender equity. International Journal of Human Resource Management 18(3): 448–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tietze, S, Musson, G and Scurry, T (2009) Homebased work: a review of research into themes, directions and implications. Personnel Review 38(6): 585–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trani, JF, Biggeri, M and Mauro, V (2013) The multidimensionality of child poverty: evidence from Afghanistan. Social Indicators Research 112(2): 391–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wapshott, R and Mallett, O (2012) The spatial implications of homeworking: a Lefebvrian approach to the rewards and challenges of home-based work. Organization 19(1): 63–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, TD (2003) Forms of male domination and female subordination: homeworkers versus maquiladora workers in Mexico. Review of Radical Political Economics 35(1): 56–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yin, RK (2009) Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, B (2006) Pragmatism and the capability approach: challenges in social theory and empirical research. European Journal of Social Theory 9(4): 467–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar