The Question Of Identity In Amartya Sen’s Capability Approach (original) (raw)
Related papers
This article discusses the theoretical scheme of human development as proposed in the 1990s by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) by exploring the theoretical foundations of Amartya Sen's capability approach. Sen critiques traditional development thinking that considers Gross Domestic Product growth as a principal vehicle for progress and economic development. Human Development, grounded on the capability approach, focuses on the enhancement of people's real freedom to choose the kinds of lives they have reasons to value. This essay explores the strengths and weaknesses of the capability approach toward realizing holistic human development, an approach that focuses on human development as enhancement of individual freedom. For the capability approach to be an effective tool for evaluating human development, however, it is argued here that Ubuntu philosophy should be incorporated. Ubuntu philosophy envisions the human being as a communal being driven by the virtues of cooperation and solidarity.
For the extension of human capabilities: Observations on Amartya Sen
2018
PDF-PowerPoint presentation of the talk I gave an Tuesday, 23rd January at the 15th International Conference on Alternative Perspectives and Global Concerns, O.P. Jindal Global University, Sonipat (Delhi NCR), 23rd-24th January, 2018 Abstract In my contribution regarding aspects of Amartya Sen’s philosophy I would like to deal with Sen’s interpretations of the relationships between justice, freedom, capability and entitlements. My aim is to show on the basis of Sen’s meditation that criteria such as measurement of Gross National Product and of individual income cannot be the only criteria used in order to ascertain the degree of development possessed by countries and by individuals. Criteria such as degree of freedom, culture, education ought to be taken into consideration too. Sen’s works that I am going to take into account for my exposition are, for instance, “On Economic Inequality”, “Poverty and Famines: An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation”, “Commodities and Capabilities”, “On Ethics & Economics”, “The Standard of Living”, “Inequality reexamined”, “Development as Freedom”, “Identity and Violence: The Illusion of Destiny”, and “The Idea of Justice”; furthermore, I am going to analyze some elements from Sen’s “Hunger and Public Action”, which Sen has written together with Jean Drèze. In my contribution, I will moreover refer to Sen’s articles “Capability and Well-Being” and “How Does Culture Matter?”. The first theme I will deal with in my contribution will be Sen’s capability approach and the relations between capability, freedom and development. My attention will be dedicated to Sen’s interpretation of the development as the progressive extension of the individual capabilities; furthermore, I will deal with Sen’s interpretation of the primary goods being means, and not ends: the Aristotelian bases of some aspects of Sen’s meditation will receive the due attention. Sen’s criticism of utilitarianism and Sen’s criticism of happiness of a criterion used to measure the efficiency of an economic policy will then occupy a central part of my exposition. Sen’s analysis of the constitutive and of the instrumental roles of freedom will give the opportunity of describing Sen’s interpretation of freedom as an end. Sen’s proposal of the capability approach as an alternative way of evaluating the economic conditions of a country together with Sen’s criticism of all the approaches basing only on the measurement of the gross domestic product and of the individual income will then be analyzed. My attention will thereafter be concentrated on Sen’s interpretation of the concept of development, which in Sen’s opinion cannot be limited to the income of the individuals but should be extended, to individuals’ freedoms, human rights, health care, opportunities of education and further entitlements. In my contribution, I will pay attention to Sen’s analysis of famines such as “The Great Bengal Famine”, “The Ethiopian Famines”, and “Famine in Bangladesh”: in particular, I will concentrate my attention on Sen’s criticism of the thesis of the food availability decline as this thesis presents food shortages as the cause of famines. According to Sen’s analyses, famines have often happened in countries where there was actually no shortage of food (or where the shortage of food was not sufficient in order to explain the catastrophic dimension of the occurring famine): the cause of famines should rather be located in the lack of exchange entitlement of some subjects of a population; the cause of the lack of exchange entitlement is due to different factors bringing a part of the population of a country in the condition of not being able to buy food (for instance, unemployment of a part of the population, or a sudden growth of food prices). Moreover, famines are not a univocal phenomenon: boom famines should be distinguished, for instance, from slump famines. The common characteristic of the famines analyzed by Sen consists in the lack of public action addressed to a solution of the problems bringing about the famine: that is, famines happen when there is no political will that want to fight against the factors bringing to the famines. Sen points out that hunger and famines are always the effect of social factors and of political decisions; hunger and famines are not, in other words, natural phenomena against which there is nothing to do; they are social phenomena having precise responsible agents; neither do famines represent an integral, constitutive, unavoidable element of the modern world: they can be prevented, if there is the political will to prevent them. Sen’s message proves to be a process of uncovering the usual strategy represented by blaming the nature for the famines, as though the only cause of famines were the nature; famines have their cause in the failure of the political decisions: persons, and not nature, are responsible for the occurring of famines. In this context, I will concentrate on Sen’s evaluation of democracy as the only political system in which famines never occurred, and I will then introduce and describe Sen’s defense of democracy as a system which is compatible with economic growth against all those who considers democracy as an obstacle to economic growth. In order to analyze Sen’s idea of justice, I will reconstruct Sen’s criticism of Rawls’ position, in particular, and of all the positions denominated by Sen’s transcendental institutionalism, in general. Even though to search for and to find just institutions is – in Sen’s opinion too – necessary, this cannot be sufficient, in Sen’s opinion, for a complete order of justice to be found and to be built up, since phenomena as famines can happen under just institutions too: the finding of just institutions does not solve, in other words, the problems of justice. The transcendentalist approach to the definition of justice should be substituted, in Sen’s opinion, by an approach comparing capabilities of individuals in different societies. I will finally refer to Sen’s pointing out the perils related to the absolute view of the cultural identity, if this is connected to economic and political strategies (for instance, the contemptuous attitude of the British politics against Irishmen during the Irish famines resulting from considering Irishmen as possessing an inferior culture, or the attitude of the British politics towards Indians during the Great Bengal famine). The analysis of the connections between Sen and Mahbub Ul Haq, whose books and articles (for instance, “Reflections on Human Development”) are always referred to by Sen, will close my presentation.
A Postcolonial Critique of Amartya Sen's Capability Framework
This paper is a postcolonial cri que of Amartya Sen's capability framework. This is done through first, a considera on of the posi ve contribu ons of the capability framework and then, an examina on of its inadequacy. The authors argue that while Sen recognizes the importance of building the capability of the poor and promoting participatory freedom, the kind of development he aspires for cannot be fully reached as long as his approach remains within an individualis c capitalist neoliberal framework. Seminal ideas for a re--concep on of postcolonial capability building are then offered.
Mutual dependency between capabilities and functionings in Amartya Sen’s capability approach
Social Choice and Welfare, 2008
Amartya Sen's capability approach has recently been widely discussed as a theoretical basis for making resource allocation decisions in health care. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the relationship between capabilities and functionings in the capability approach. The paper shows that some functionings are not only the result of capabilities, but also their prerequisite. That is, there is a dual role of some functionings as both ends and instruments, resulting in a mutual dependency between capabilities and functionings. Functionings may be a direct requirement for capabilities, but also an indirect one because they ensure the absence of mental disorders or negative thoughts, both of which are relevant constraints on freedom. This has important implications. It supports a policy that ensures for everyone an initial endowment of (1) mental and physical health, (2) education, and (3) other functionings with a direct or indirect impact on capabilities.
Endorsement and Freedom in Amartya Sen's Capability Approach
Economics and Philosophy, 2005
A central question for assessing the merits of Amartya Sen's capability approach as a potential answer to the "distribution of what"? question concerns the exact role and nature of freedom in that approach. Sen holds that a person's capability identifies that person's effective freedom to achieve valuable states of beings and doings, or functionings, and that freedom so understood, rather than achieved functionings themselves, is the primary evaluative space. Sen's emphasis on freedom has been criticised by G. A. Cohen, according to whom the capability approach either uses too expansive a definition of freedom or rests on an implausibly active, indeed "athletic", view of well-being. This paper defends the capability approach from this criticism. It argues that we can view the capability approach to be underpinned by an account of well-being which takes the endorsement of valuable functionings as constitutive of well-being, and by a particular view of the way in which endorsement relates to force and choice.
Ijrtbt Amartya Sen's Perspective on Capability Approach & Well-Being
2019
IJRTBT AMARTYA SEN'S PERSPECTIVE ON CAPABILITY APPROACH & WELL-BEING Sucharita Mitra Dutta International Journal on Recent Trends in Business and Tourism | Vol. 3 (4) 2019 | 26 OCTOBER A society develops in a certain way to ensure the flourishment of its members. By eliminating injustice, the citizens of the society draw a full proof plan to establish justice. This is not about the formation of a completely just society; it is the formulation of a society in which its citizens can eliminate injustice to the furthest extent. So, the theory of justice becomes so important and relevant in this context. John Rawls in his A Theory of Justice explains equality in terms of distribution of primary goods to establish justice individualistically. His idea of well-being helps to develop the position of least well offs in the society so that it brings a concept of equality and justice among the citizens of the society. In contrary, twentieth century philosopher Amartya Sen illustrates his n...
THE HUMAN DEVELOPMENT PARADIGM: OPERATIONALIZING SENʼS IDEAS ON CAPABILITIES
Feminist Economics, 2003
Amartya Sen's ideas constitute the core principles of a development approach that has evolved in the Human Development Reports. This approach is a ''paradigm'' based on the concept of well-being that can help define public policy, but does not embody a set of prescriptions. The current movement from an age of development planning to an age of globalization has meant an increasing attention to agency aspects of development. While earlier Human Development Reports emphasized measures such as the provision of public services, recent ones have focused more on people's political empowerment. This paper reflects on Sen's work in light of this shift in emphasis. Gender analysis has been central to the development of the new agency-driven paradigm, and gender equity is a core concern. A gender perspective has also helped highlight important aspects of this paradigm, such as the role of collective agency in promoting development.
Internal Debates within Capability Approach Debate Between Amartya Sen And Martha Nussbaum
International Research Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies, 2015
Capability approach is an evolving subject. While Amartya Sen developed the skeleton of the capability approach, the colleagues of Sen and his followers expanded the approach. Martha Nussbaum is a colleague of Amartya Sen who tried to use capability approach as a broad theory of social justice. Hence, she tried to be very methodological in her understanding of capability approach. She argued that a comprehensive understanding of capability approach needs us to go beyond Sen. She added a new twist to the existing understanding of the subject. She prepared a list of capabilities which she thought will provide the best conditions for human development. She claims that her list is more practical and suitable for gender justice. The present paper is an attempt to probe into the issues raised by Nussbaum. Along with this, the paper would also try to draw attention to the similar kind of lists prepared by other contemporary writers. In the concluding part it would focus on why it is a anom...
No Democracy without Justice: Political Freedom in Amartya Sen's Capability Approach
Journal of Human Development, 2007
Amartya Sen has critiqued theories of justice in the liberal tradition for not focusing on actual human living and failing to be truly egalitarian. However, in the absence of a theoretical approach of his own that comprehensively links capabilities and social justice, others have criticised him for not telling us exactly which capabilities should be guaranteed for all citizens in a ‘just’ society. Sen’s ‘silence’ on the substantive content of an account of justice is due in large measure to his stringent emphasis on plurality, agency and choice; he turns to democratic processes that allow for public reasoning and social choice to attend to judgements about justice. Yet this critical role for democracy is undermined in Sen’s elaboration in the absence of requirements of justice that would protect democracy’s fair and effective functioning in a manner consistent with capability egalitarianism. There is need for a fuller account of justice concerning actual opportunities for political participation than is available so far in Sen’s work, one that protects equality of substantive political freedom seen properly in the perspective of capabilities, not merely civil liberties and political rights.
Beyond the Conventional - A Sociological Criticism of Sen's Capability Approach
Journal of Economy Culture and Society, 2018
The capability approach initially developed by Amartya Sen is a new evaluative framework frequently used by scholars and policy makers who aim to deal with issues related to development, welfare, poverty, social choice theory, inequality and justice. Drawing upon a sociological account of various diversities related to individuals’ characteristics and their social/ institutional surroundings, the approach criticizes some mainstream political theories of social justice such as the utilitarian, libertarian and Rawlsian models of social justice. Therefore, it is usually addressed as a “sociological turn” within the relevant literature. This work argues that this is not a fully-deserved characteristic since the approach employs a sociologically-informed perspective of various diversities primarily to criticize rival theories of justice, but not to configure the analytical texture of its own authentic proposal that advocates “individuals’ ability to achieve what they have reason to value” as the focal point of assessment of social justice.