To their Fullest Potential?

Conceptualising the Adequacy of Children’s Living Standards for their Development

in The International Journal of Children's Rights
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?



Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.



Help

Have Institutional Access?



Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



Connect

In this paper a framework is proposed for conceptualising ‘fullest potential’ towards which, according to the Convention on the Rights of the Child (crc), children’s education should be directed (Article 29). Children’s development to their fullest potential is linked explicitly to their right to a standard of living adequate for their development (Article 27). The paper argues that focus on ‘fullest potential’ as a human rights issue exposes a tension between the rights of children, the obligations of parents to their children and the obligations of the state to support all children’s development.

To their Fullest Potential?

Conceptualising the Adequacy of Children’s Living Standards for their Development

in The International Journal of Children's Rights

Sections

References

ArnesonR. J.Equality and Equal Opportunity for Welfare’. Philosophical Studies: An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition 56 (1) (1989):7793.

AtkinsonA. B.Poverty and Social Security (Hemel Hempstead (uk): Harvester Wheatsheaf1989).

AtkinsonA. B.Social Exclusion, Poverty and Unemployment’ In Exclusion Employment and OpportunityAtkinsonA. B. and HillsJ. eds. (London School of Economics: Centre for the Analysis of Social Exclusion1998).

Barry B. Social Exclusion Social Isolation and the Distribution of Income Centre for the Analysis of Social Exclusion London School of Economics case/12 http://sticerd.lse.ac.uk/dps/case/cp/paper12.pdf.

BeckerG.A Treatise on the Family (Cambridge, ma: Harvard University Press1981).

BergesS.Why the Capability Approach is Justified’. Journal of Applied Philosophy 24 (1) (2007):1625.

BourdieuP.Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste (Cambridge (Mass.): Harvard University Press1984).

BourdieuP. ‘The (Three) Forms of Capital’ in Handbook of Theory and Research in the Sociology of Education Richardson J. G. ed. (New York: Greenwald Press 1986).

BourdieuP. and PasseronJ.-C.Reproduction in Education Society and Culture. Translated by R. Nice R. (London: Sage1990).

Bowers AndrewsA.Securing Adequate Living Conditions for Each Child’s Development’ in Implementing the un Convention on the Rights of the Child: A Standard of Living Adequate for DevelopmentBowers AndrewsA. and KaufmanN. Hevener eds. (Westport, Connecticut and London: Praeger1999).

BrighouseH. and SwiftA.Legitimate Parental Partiality’. Philosophy & Public Affairs 37 (1) (2009):4380.

BrighouseH. and UnterhalterE.‘Primary goods Versus Capabilities: Considering the Debate in relation to Equalities in Education’ in Capabilities - Handlungsbefahigung und Verwirklichungschancen in der ErziehungswissenschaftOttoH.-U. and ZieglerH. eds. (Wiesbaden: VS Verlag2008).

BurchardtT.Le GrandJ. and PiachaudD.Degrees of Exclusion: Developing a Dynamic Multidimensional Measure’ in Understanding Social ExclusionHillsJ.JulianL. G. and PiachaudD. eds. (Oxford: Oxford University Press2002).

BurchardtT. and ZaidiA.Comparing Incomes when Needs Differ: Equivalization for the Extra Costs of Disability in the u.k.’. Review of Income and Wealth 51 (1) (2005):89114.

ChapmanA. R.A “Violations Approach” for Monitoring the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights’. Human Rights Quarterly 18 (1) (1996):2366.

Committee on the Rights of the Child The Aims of Education. (United Nations 2001). Original edition.

Committee on the Rights of the ChildGeneral comment No. 15 (2013) on the right of the child to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health (art. 24) Geneva Office of the United Nations High Commissioner on Human Rights crc/c/gc/15 Adopted by the Committee at its sixty-second sexxion (14 January – 1 February 2013) http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/crc/docs/gc/crc-c-gc-15_en.doc.

CongerR. D. and DonnellanM. B.An Interactionist Perspective on the Socioeconomic Context of Human Development’. Annual Review of Psychology 58 (1) (2007):175199.

CravenM.The International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights: A Perspective on its Development (Oxford Clarendon Press1995).

DeneulinS.Perfectionism, Paternalism and Liberalism in Sen and Nussbaum’s Capability ApproachReview of Political Economy 14 (4) (2002):497518.

HatcherR.Class Differentiation in Education: Rational Choices?’. British Journal of Sociology of Education 19 (1) (1998):524.

HimmelfarbG.The Idea of Poverty: England in the Early Industrial Age (New York: Knopf1984).

HodgkinR. and NewellP.Implementation Handbook for the Convention on the Rights of the Child. 3rd ed (New York: UNICEF2007).

HurkaT.Perfectionism (Oxford: Oxford University Press1996).

JohnstoneR. L. and ÁmundadóttirA.2011. Defending Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in Iceland’s Financial Crisis. The Yearbook of Polar Law Onlinehttp://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/10.1163/22116427-90000020.

LareauA.Unequal Childhoods: Class Race and Family Life (Berkeley: University of California Press2003).

LevitasR.PantazisC.FahmyE.GordonD.LloydE. and PatsiosD.The Multi-Dimensional Analysis of Social Exclusion Bristol Department of Sociology and School for Social Policy Townsend Centre for the International Study of Poverty and Bristol Institute for Public Affairs University of Bristol January 2007http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/media/cabinetoffice/social_exclusion_task_force/assets/research/multidimensional.pdf.

ListerR.Poverty (Cambridge, UK: Polity Press2004).

mceetyaMelbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians Carlton Vic. Ministerial Council on Education Employment Training and Youth Affairs December 2008 http://www.mceecdya.edu.au/verve/_resources/National_Declaration_on_the_Educational_Goals_for_Young_Australians.pdf.

MurrayC.Losing Ground: American Social Policy 1950–1980 (New York: Basic books1984).

MurrayC.Coming Apart: The State of White America 1960–2010 Crown Forum 2012).

NolanA. 2013. Economic and Social Rights, Budgets and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The International Journal of Children’s Rightshttp://booksandjournals.brillonline.com/content/10.1163/15718182-02102003.

NussbaumM.Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press2000).

NussbaumM. C.Capabilities as Fundamental Entitlements: Sen and Social Justice’. Feminist Economics 9 (2–3) (2003):3359.

Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights Human Rights and Poverty Reduction: A Conceptual Framework Geneva and New York United Nations HR/PUB/04/1

PoggeT.Can the Capability Approach Be Justified?’. Philosophical Topics 30 (2) (2002):167228.

PoggeT.World Poverty and Human Rights (Cambridge, UK: Polity Press2008).

RedmondG.Poverty and Social Exclusion’ in Handbook of Child Well-beingBen-AriehA.FronesI.CasasF. and KorbinJ. eds. (Dordrecht: Springer2013): 1387–1426.

Robeyns I. The Capability Approach: An Interdisciplinary Introduction University of Amsterdam Department of Political Science and Amsterdam School of Social Sciences Research.

RogersG.What is Special About a Social Exclusion Approach?’ in Social Exclusion: Rhetoric Reality ResponsesRogersG.GoreC. and FigueredoJ. B. eds. (Geneva: International Institute of Labour Studies United Nations Development Programme 1995).

Ruggeri LaderchiC.SaithR. and StewartF.Does it matter that we do not agree on the definition of poverty? A comparison of four approaches’. Oxford Development Studies 31 (3) (2003):243272.

SaitoM.Amartya Sen’s Capability Approach to Education: A Critical Exploration’. Journal of Philosophy of Education 37 (1) (2003):1733.

SenA.A Sociological Approach to the Measurement of Poverty: A Reply to Professor Peter Townsend’. Oxford Economic Papers 37 (4) (1985):669676.

SenA.The Standard of Living (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press1987).

SenA.Inequality Re-examined (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press1992).

SenA.Development as Freedom (Oxford: Oxford University Press1999).

SenA.Why Health Equity?Health Economics 11 (8) (2002):659666.

SenA.Elements of a Theory of Human Rights’. Philosophy & Public Affairs 32 (4) (2004):315356.

SenA.The Idea of Justice (London: Allen Lane2009).

StewartF.Basic Needs Strategies, Human-Rights, and the Right to Development’. Human Rights Quarterly 11 (3) (1989):347374.

u.s. Department of Education Blueprint for Reform: The Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education ActWashington, DCUnited States Department of Education March 2010http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/.

United NationsConvention on the Rights of the Child Adopted and Opened for Signature Ratification and Accession by General Assembly resolution 44/25 20 November 1989http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/k2crc.htm.

WhiteS.Being, Becoming and Relationship: Conceptual Challenges of a Child Rights Approach in DevelopmentJournal of International Development 14 (8) (2002):10951104.

WolffJ. and de-ShalitA.Disadvantage (Oxford: Oxford University Press2007).

Figures

  • View in gallery

    The relationship between commodities, capabilities and functionings in Sen’s capability approach.

  • View in gallery

    Model of development to fullest potential for children with low and high standards of living

Index Card

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 9 9 5
Full Text Views 8 8 8
PDF Downloads 2 2 2
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0