From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The capability approach (also referred to as the capabilities approach) is a normative approach to human welfare that concentrates on the actual capability of persons to achieve their well-being rather than on their mere right or freedom to do so. It was conceived in the 1980s as an alternative approach to welfare economics. In this approach, Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum
bring together a range of ideas that were previously excluded from (or
inadequately formulated in) traditional approaches to the economics of
welfare. The core focus of the capability approach is on what
individuals are able to do (i.e., capable of).
Assessing capability
Initially, Sen argued for five components in assessing capability:
- The importance of real freedoms in the assessment of a person's advantage
- Individual differences in the ability to transform resources into valuable activities
- The multi-variate nature of activities giving rise to happiness
- A balance of materialistic and nonmaterialistic factors in evaluating human welfare
- Concern for the distribution of opportunities within society
Subsequently, and in collaboration particularly with political philosopher Martha Nussbaum, development economist Sudhir Anand and economic theorist James Foster,
Sen has helped to make the capabilities approach predominant as a
paradigm for policy debate in human development where it inspired the
creation of the UN's Human Development Index
(a popular measure of human development, capturing capabilities in
health, education, and income). In addition, the approach has been
operationalised with a high income country focus by Paul Anand and colleagues. Furthermore, since the creation of the Human Development and Capability Association
in the early 2000s, the approach has been much discussed by political
theorists, philosophers, and a range of social scientists, including
those with a particular interest in human health.
The approach emphasizes functional capabilities ("substantive
freedoms", such as the ability to live to old age, engage in economic
transactions, or participate in political activities); these are
construed in terms of the substantive freedoms people have reason to
value, instead of utility (happiness, desire-fulfillment or choice) or access to resources (income, commodities, assets).
Poverty is understood as capability-deprivation. It is noteworthy that
the emphasis is not only on how humans actually function but also on
their having the capability, which is a practical choice, "to achieve
outcomes that they value and have reason to value".
Everyone could be deprived of such capabilities in many ways, e.g. by
ignorance, government oppression, lack of financial resources, or false
consciousness.
This approach to human well-being
emphasizes the importance of freedom of choice, individual
heterogeneity and the multi-dimensional nature of welfare. In
significant respects, the approach is consistent with the handling of
choice within conventional microeconomics consumer theory,
although its conceptual foundations enable it to acknowledge the
existence of claims, like rights, which normatively dominate
utility-based claims (see Sen 1979).
Key terms
Functionings
In the most basic sense, functionings consist of "beings and doings".
As a result, living may be seen as a set of interrelated functionings.
Essentially, functionings are the states and activities constitutive of a
person's being. Examples of functionings can vary from elementary
things, such as being healthy, having a good job, and being safe, to
more complex states, such as being happy, having self-respect, and being
calm. Moreover, Amartya Sen contends that functionings are crucial to
an adequate understanding of the capability approach; capability is
conceptualized as a reflection of the freedom to achieve valuable
functionings.
In other words, functionings are the subjects of the capabilities
referred to in the approach: what we are capable, want to be capable,
or should be capable to be and/or do. Therefore, a person's chosen
combination of functionings, what they are and do, is part of their
overall capability set — the functionings they were able to do. Yet,
functionings can also be conceptualized in a way that signifies an
individual's capabilities. Eating, starving, and fasting
would all be considered functionings, but the functioning of fasting
differs significantly from that of starving because fasting, unlike
starving, involves a choice and is understood as choosing to starve
despite the presence of other options.
Consequently, an understanding of what constitutes functionings is
inherently tied together with an understanding of capabilities, as
defined by this approach.
Capabilities
Capabilities
are the alternative combinations of functionings that are feasible for a
person to achieve. Formulations of capability have two parts:
functionings and opportunity freedom — the substantive freedom to pursue
different functioning combinations.
Ultimately, capabilities denote a person's opportunity and ability to
generate valuable outcomes, taking into account relevant personal
characteristics and external factors. The important part of this
definition is the "freedom to achieve", because if freedom had only instrumental value (valuable as a means to achieve an end) and no intrinsic value
(valuable in and of itself) to a person's well-being, then the value of
the capability set as a whole would simply be defined by the value of a
person's actual combination of functionings.
Such a definition would not acknowledge the entirety of what a person
is capable of doing and their resulting current state due to the nature
of the options available to them. Consequently, the capability set
outlined by this approach is not merely concerned with achievements;
rather, freedom of choice, in and of itself, is of direct importance to a person's quality of life.
For example, the difference between fasting and starving, on person's well-being, is whether the person is choosing not to eat.
In this example, the functioning is starving but the capability to
obtain an adequate amount of food is the key element in evaluating
well-being between individuals in the two states. In sum, having a lifestyle is not the same as choosing it; well-being depends on how that lifestyle came to be.
More formally, while the combination of a person's functionings
represents their actual achievements, their capability set represents
their opportunity freedom — their freedom to choose between alternative
combinations of functionings.
In addition to being the result of capabilities, some
functionings are also a prerequisite for capabilities, i.e., there is a
dual role of some functionings as both ends and instruments. Examples of
functionings that are a direct requirement for capabilities are good
nourishment, mental and physical health, and education.
Nussbaum further distinguishes between internal capabilities that are personal abilities, and combined capabilities
that are "defined as internal capabilities together with the
social/political/economic conditions in which functioning can actually
be chosen".
She points out that the notion of (combined) capability "combines
internal preparedness with external opportunity in a complicated way, so
that measurement is likely to be no easy task."
An extension of the capabilities approach was published in 2013 in Freedom, Responsibility and Economics of the Person.
This book explores the interconnected concepts of person,
responsibility and freedom in economics, moral philosophy and politics.
It tries to reconcile the rationality and morality of individuals. It
presents a methodological reflection (phenomenology versus
Kantian thought) with the aim to re-humanise the person, through
actions, and through the values and norms that lead to corresponding
rights and obligations that must be ordered. The book extends the
capabilities approach in a critical form. In particular, it considers
freedom in relation to responsibility, that is, the capacity of people
to apply moral constraints to themselves. By contrast, Sen's capability
approach considers freedom as a purely functional rationality of choice.
Agency
Amartya
Sen defines an agent as someone who acts and brings about change, whose
achievement can be evaluated in terms of his or her own values and goals. This differs from a common use of the term "agent" sometimes used in economics and game theory to mean a person acting on someone else's behalf.
Agency depends on the ability to personally choose the functionings one
values, a choice that may not correlate with personal well-being. For
example, when a person chooses to engage in fasting, they are exercising their ability to pursue a goal they value, though such a choice may not positively affect physical well-being.
Sen explains that a person as an agent need not be guided by a pursuit
of well-being; agency achievement considers a person's success in terms
of their pursuit of the whole of their goals.
For the purposes of the capability approach, agency primarily refers to a person's role as a member of society,
with the ability to participate in economic, social, and political
actions. Therefore, agency is crucial in assessing one's capabilities
and any economic, social, or political barriers to one's achieving
substantive freedoms. Concern for agency stresses that participation, public debate, democratic practice, and empowerment, should be fostered alongside well-being.
Alkire and Deneulin
pointed out that agency goes together with the expansion of valuable
freedoms. That is, in order to be agents of their lives, people need the
freedom to be educated, speak in public without fear, express
themselves, associate, etc.; conversely, people can establish such an
environment by being agents. In summary, the agency aspect is important in assessing what a person can do in line with his or her conception of the good.
Nussbaum's central capabilities
Nussbaum
(2000) frames these basic principles in terms of 10 capabilities, i.e.
real opportunities based on personal and social circumstance. She claims
that a political order can only be considered as being decent if this
order secures at least a threshold level of these 10 capabilities to all
inhabitants. Nussbaum's capabilities approach is centered around the notion of individual human dignity.
Given Nussbaum's contention that the goal of the capabilities approach
is to produce capabilities for each and every person, the capabilities
below belong to individual persons, rather than to groups.
The capabilities approach has been very influential in development
policy where it has shaped the evolution of the human development index (HDI), has been much discussed in philosophy, and is increasingly influential in a range of social sciences.
More recently, the approach has been criticized for being grounded in the liberal notion of freedom:
This is a fundamentally reductive
view of the human condition. Moreover, the emphasis on freedom betrays a
profoundly modern orientation. The compound problem is that freedom in
Nussbaum’s hands is both given an intrinsic and primary value (a
reductive claim), and, at the same time, the list is treated as a
contingent negotiated relation in tension with other virtues such as
justice, equality and rights. Both propositions cannot hold.
The core capabilities Nussbaum argues should be supported by all democracies are:
- Life. Being able to live to the end of a human life of normal length; not dying prematurely, or before one's life is so reduced as to be not worth living.
- Bodily Health. Being able to have good health, including reproductive health; to be adequately nourished; to have adequate shelter.
- Bodily integrity. Being able to move freely from place to place; to be secure against violent assault, including sexual assault and domestic violence; having opportunities for sexual satisfaction and for choice in matters of reproduction.
- Senses, Imagination, and Thought. Being able to use the
senses, to imagine, think, and reason—and to do these things in a "truly
human" way, a way informed and cultivated by an adequate education, including, but by no means limited to, literacy and basic mathematical and scientific training.
Being able to use imagination and thought in connection with
experiencing and producing works and events of one's own choice,
religious, literary, musical, and so forth. Being able to use one's mind
in ways protected by guarantees of freedom of expression with respect to both political and artistic speech, and freedom of religious exercise. Being able to have pleasurable experiences and to avoid non-beneficial pain.
- Emotions. Being able to have attachments to things and people
outside ourselves; to love those who love and care for us, to grieve at
their absence; in general, to love, to grieve, to experience longing, gratitude, and justified anger.
Not having one's emotional development blighted by fear and anxiety.
(Supporting this capability means supporting forms of human association
that can be shown to be crucial in their development.)
- Practical Reason. Being able to form a conception of the good and to engage in critical reflection about the planning of one's life. (This entails protection for the liberty of conscience and religious observance.)
- Affiliation.
- Being able to live with and toward others, to recognize and show concern for other humans, to engage in various forms of social interaction; to be able to imagine the situation of another.
(Protecting this capability means protecting institutions that
constitute and nourish such forms of affiliation, and also protecting
the freedom of assembly and political speech.)
- Having the social bases of self-respect
and non-humiliation; being able to be treated as a dignified being
whose worth is equal to that of others. This entails provisions of
non-discrimination on the basis of race, sex, sexual orientation,
ethnicity, caste, religion, national origin and species.
- Other Species. Being able to live with concern for and in relation to animals, plants, and the world of nature.
- Play. Being able to laugh, to play, to enjoy recreational activities.
- Control over one's Environment.
- Political. Being able to participate effectively in political choices that govern one's life; having the right of political participation, protections of free speech and association.
- Material. Being able to hold property (both land and movable goods), and having property rights
on an equal basis with others; having the right to seek employment on
an equal basis with others; having the freedom from unwarranted search
and seizure. In work, being able to work as a human, exercising
practical reason and entering into meaningful relationships of mutual
recognition with other workers.
Although Nussbaum did not claim her list as definite and unchanging,
she strongly advocated for outlining a list of central human
capabilities. On the other hand, Sen refuses to supply a specific list of capabilities.
Sen argues that an exact list and weights would be too difficult to
define. For one, it requires specifying the context of use of
capabilities, which could vary. Also, Sen argues that part of the
richness of the capabilities approach is its insistence on the need for
open valuational scrutiny for making social judgments. He is disinclined
to in any way devalue the domain of reasoning in the public sphere.
Instead, Sen argues that the task of weighing various capabilities
should be left to the ethical and political considerations of each
society based on public reasoning.
Along with concerns raised about Nussbaum's list, Alkire and Black also
argue that Nussbaum's methodology "runs counter to an essential thrust
of the capabilities approach which has been the attempt to redirect
development theory away from a reductive focus on a minimally decent
life towards a more holistic account of human well-being for all
people."
That said, applications to development are discussed in Sen
(1999), Nussbaum (2000), and Clark (2002, 2005), and are now numerous to
the point where the capabilities approach is widely accepted as a
paradigm in development. The programme of work operationalising the
capability approach by Anand and colleagues draws heavily on Nussbaum's
list as a relatively comprehensive, high-level account of the space in
which human well-being or life quality is experienced. This work argues
that the subitems on Nussbaum's list are too distinct to be monitored by
single question and that a dashboard of some 40-50 indicators is
required to inform the development of empirical work.
Measurement of capabilities
The
measurement of capabilities was, in the early days, thought to be a
particular barrier to the implementation and use of the approach.
However, two particular lines of work, in research and policy have
sought to show that meaningful indicators of what individuals (and in
some cases governments) are able to do can be developed and used to
generate a range of insights.
In 1990, the UN Human Development report published the first such exercise which focused on health, education and income which were equally weighted to generate the Human Development Index.
At the same time, and subsequently, researchers recognizing that these
three areas covered only certain elements of life quality have sought to
develop more comprehensive measures. A major project in this area has
been the 'capabilities measurement project' in which Anand has led teams
of philosophers, economists and social scientists to generate that
gives a full and direct implement of the approach drawing particular on
the key relations and concepts developed in Sen (1985) but also on work
to do with the content of the approach. The earliest work in this
project developed a set of around 50 capability indicators which were
used to develop a picture of quality of life and deprivation in the UK.
Subsequently, Anand and colleagues have developed datasets for the US,
UK and Italy in which all the elements of Sen's framework are reflected
in data which permits all three key equations, for functionings,
experience and capabilities, to be estimated.
In a series of papers, they have shown that both their primary
data and some secondary datasets can be used to shed light on the
production and distribution of life quality for working age adults,
those in retirement, very young children, those vulnerable to domestic
violence, migrants,
excluded traveler communities and the disabled. They use these
applications to argue that the capability framework is a particularly
good fit for understanding quality of life across the life course and
that it provides a relatively universal grammar for understanding the
elements of human well-being.
Monetary vs. non-monetary measures of well-being
Monetary and non-monetary measures of well-being are ideal when used to complement each other.
Understanding the various aspects of economic development process not
only helps address issues of inequality and lags in human development,
but also helps to pinpoint where countries lag, which once addressed can
further promote well-being and advancement. As the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2006) notes:
Well-being
has several dimensions of which monetary factors are only one. They are
nevertheless an important one, since richer economies are better placed
to create and maintain other well-being-enhancing conditions, such as a
clean environment, the likelihood that the average person will have a right to 10 years or more of education, and lead a comparatively long
and healthy life. Well-being will also be increased by institutions
that enable citizens to feel that they control their own lives, and that
investment of their time and resources will be rewarded. In turn, this
will lead to higher incomes in a virtuous circle.
Simon Kuznets,
the developer of GNP, cautioned against using the measure as an
indicator of overall welfare, which speaks to the unintended use of
output-based measures as indicators of human welfare.
Critique of output-based measures
The
use of GDP and GNP as an approximation of well-being and development
have been critiqued widely, because they are often misused as indicators
of well-being and human development when in fact they are only telling
about the economic capacity of a country or an average income level when
expressed on a per person basis. In particular, feminist economics and environmental economics
offer a number of critiques. Critics in these fields typically discuss
gender inequalities, insufficient representation of environmental costs
of productions and general issues of misusing an output-based measure
for unintended purposes. In sum, the conclusion of Capabilities
Approach is that people do not just value monetary income, and that
development is linked to various indicators of life satisfaction
and hence are important in measuring well-being. Development policies
strive to create an environment for people to live long, healthy
creative lives.
Feminist critiques
Nussbaum highlights some of the problematic assumptions and
conclusions of output-based approaches to development. First, she notes
that GNP and GDP do not consider special requirements to help the most
vulnerable, such as women.
Specifically, Nussbaum mentions that output-based approaches ignore the
distribution of needs for the varying circumstances of people, for
example a pregnant woman needs more resources than a non-pregnant woman
or a single man.
Also, output-based measures ignore unpaid work, which includes child rearing and the societal advantages that result from a mother's work. Marilyn Waring,
a political economist and activist for women's rights, elaborates on
the example of a mother engaged in child care, domestic care and
producing few goods for the informal market, all of which are usually
done simultaneously.
These activities provide economic benefits, but are not valued in
national accounting systems; this suggests that the definition of
unemployment used in output-based measures is inappropriate. (See the article on Feminist economics, section "Well-being").
Environmental critiques
Another critique by Waring is that the output-based measures ignore negative effects of economic growth
and so commodities that lower social welfare, such as nuclear weapons,
and oil extraction which causes spills, are considered a good input. The
"anti-bads" or the defensive expenditures to fight "bads" are not
counted as a deduction in accounting systems (p. 11).
Furthermore, natural resources are treated as limitless and negative
outputs such as pollution and associated health risks, are not deducted
from the measures.
Technical and misinterpretation critiques
When GNP and GDP were developed, their intended use was not for
measuring human well-being; the intended use was as an indicator of
economic growth, and that does not necessarily translate into human
well-being.
Kuznets has often made this point, in his words, "distinctions must be
kept in mind between quantity and quality of growth, between costs and
returns and between the short and long run. Goals for more growth should
specify more growth of what and for what" (p. 9).
Nussbaum also points out that GNP and GDP omit income
distribution and the opportunity or ability to turn resources into
activities (this critique stems directly from Capabilities Approach). Kuznets terms this as a problem of "obtaining an unduplicated total of all output", (p. 15)
this suggests that people are only seen as consumers and not as
potential producers, hence any products purchased by an individual are
not seen as "being consumed in the productive process of turning out
other goods."
These accounting measures also fail to capture all forms of work and only focus on "engagement in work 'for pay or profit'", (p. 133)
leaving out contributions to a society and economy, like volunteer work
and subsistence farming. Kuznets provides the example of the process by
which farmers devote time and energy to bringing virgin land into
cultivation.
Furthermore, GNP and GDP only account for monetary exchanges, and place
no value on some important intangibles such as leisure time.
Shift to alternative measures
Capabilities
Approach has been highly influential thus far in human development
theories and valuational methods of capturing capabilities,
the theory has led to the creation of the HDI, IHDI and GII and their
uses among international organizations such as the United Nations and
others. In companies, capabilities are included in Key Development Indicators, or KDIs as measures of development, including employee development. In 1990 in the Human Development Report (HDR)commissioned by the UNDP set out to create a distribution-sensitive development measure.
This measure was created to rival the more traditional metrics of
GDP and GNP, which had previously been used to measure level of
development in a given country, but which did not contain provisions for
terms of distribution.
The resulting measure was entitled the Human Development Index, created
by Mahbub ul Haq in collaboration with Sen and others. The purpose was
to create an indicator of human development, especially one that would
provide a general assessment and critique of global human development to
shed light on persistent inequality, poverty and other capability
deprivations despite high levels of GDP growth.
Currently the HDI continues to be used in the Human Development
Report in addition to many other measures (based on theoretical
perspectives of Capabilities) that have been developed and used by the
United Nations. Among these indices are the Gender-related Development Index (GDI), the Gender Empowerment Measure (GEM), introduced in 1995, and the more recent Gender Inequality Index (GII) and the Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index (IHDI), both adopted in 2010.
Capabilities-based indices
The following are a few of the major indices that were created based on the theoretical grounds of Capabilities Approach.
Human development index
The Human Development Index
takes into consideration a number of development and well-being factors
that are not taken into account in the calculation of GDP and GNP. The
Human Development Index is calculated using the indicators of life
expectancy, adult literacy, school enrollment, and logarithmic
transformations of per-capita income.
Moreover, it is noted that the HDI "is a weighted average of income
adjusted for distributions and purchasing power, life expectancy,
literacy and health."
The HDI is calculated for individual countries with a value
between 0 and 1 and is "interpreted...as the ultimate development that
has been attained by that nation."
Currently, the 2011 Human Development Report also includes the
Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index which accounts for exactly
the same things that the HDI considers however the IHDI has all three
dimensions (long and healthy life, knowledge and a decent standard of
living) adjusted for inequalities in the distribution of each dimension
across the population.
Gender-related development index
The Gender-related Development Index
is defined as a "distribution-sensitive measure that accounts for the
human development impact of existing gender gaps in the three components
of the HDI".
In this way, the GDI accounts for shortcomings in the HDI in terms of
gender, because it re-evaluates a country's score in the three areas of
the HDI based on perceived gender gaps, and penalizes the score of the
country if, indeed, large gender disparities in those areas exist. This
index is used in unison with the HDI and therefore also captures the
elements of capabilities that the HDI holds. In addition, it considers
women's capabilities which has been a focus in much of Sen's and
Nussbaum's work (to list a few: Nussbaum, 2004a; Nussbaum, 2004b; Sen,
2001; Sen, 1990.)
Gender empowerment measure
The Gender Empowerment Measure
(GEM) is considerably more specialized than the GDI. The GEM focuses
particularly on the relative empowerment of women in a given country.
The empowerment of women is measured by evaluating women's employment
in high-ranking economic positions, seats in parliament, and share of
household income. Notably this measurement captures more of Nussbaum's
10 Central Capabilities, such as, Senses, Imagination and Thought;
Affiliation; and Control Over Ones Environment.
Gender inequality index
In
the 2013 Human Development Report the Gender Inequality Index, which
was introduced in 2011, continues to adjust the GDI and the GEM. This
composite measurement uses three dimensions: reproductive health, empowerment, and labor force participation.
When constructing the index the following criteria were key: conceptual
relevance to definitions of human development and theory; Non-ambiguity
so that the index is easily interpreted; Reliability of data that is
standardized and collected/processed by a trustworthy organization; No
redundancy found in other indicators; and lastly Power of
discrimination, where distribution is well distinguished among countries
and there is no "bunching" among top and bottom countries.
This index also captures some of Nussbaum's 10 Central Capabilities
(Senses, Imagination and Thought; Affiliation; and Control Over Ones
Environment).
Other measures
In
1997, the UNDP introduced the Human Poverty Index (HPI), which is
aimed at measuring poverty in both industrialized and developing
countries. The HPI is a "nonincome-based" measure of poverty (p. 100)
which focuses on "human outcomes in terms of choices and opportunities
that a person faces" (p. 99). In support of this index, Sakiko Fukuda-Parr—a
development economist and past Director of The Human Development Report
Office—differentiates between income poverty and human poverty. Human
poverty can be interpreted as deprivations to lead a long healthy and
creative life with a decent standard of living.
Economic evaluation in health care
The capability approach is being developed and increasingly applied in health economics, for use in cost-effectiveness analysis. It is seen as an alternative to existing preference-based measures of health-related quality of life (for example the EQ-5D) that focus on functioning, and can be applied within the framework of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). A number of measures have been created for use in particular contexts such as older people, public health and mental health, as well as more generic capability-based outcome measures.
Caution remains when measures do not explicitly rule out people's
adaption to their circumstances, for example to physical health
problems.
Alternative measures of well-being
As
noted above, to a great extent, Nussbaum's Central Human Capabilities
address issues of equality, political freedom, creativity and the right
to the self, as do the various indices that are based on capabilities.
It is evident that these measures are very subjective, but this fact is
in the essence of defining quality of life according to Nussbaum and
Sen. Nussbaum refers to Sen in saying that, although measures of
well-being may be problematic in comparative, quantifiable models due to
their subjective matter, the protection of and commitment to human
development are too important of matters to be left on the sidelines of
economic progress. Well-being and quality of life are too important to
be left without intentional focus towards political change.
Measures such as the HDI, GDI, GEM, GII, IHDI and the like are
crucial in targeting issues of well-being and indicators of quality of
life. Anand, et al. (2009) can be summarized as demonstrating that it is
possible to measure capabilities within the conventions applied to
standard household survey design, contrary to earlier doubts about the
ability to operationalise the capabilities approach.
Contrast with other approaches
Utility-based or subjective approaches
Much of conventional welfare economics today is grounded in a utilitarian approach according to the classical Benthamite form of utilitarianism, in which the most desirable action is the one that best increases peoples' psychological happiness or satisfaction. The "utility" of a person stands for some measure of his or her pleasure or happiness.
Some merits associated with this approach to measuring well-being are
that it recognizes the importance of taking account of the results of
social arrangements in judging them and the need to pay attention to the
well-being of the people involved when judging social arrangements and
their results. Amartya Sen, however, argues this view has three main deficiencies: distributional indifference; neglect of rights, freedoms, and other non-utility concerns; and adaptation and mental conditioning.
Distributional indifference refers to a utilitarian indifference
between different the distributions of utility, so long as the sum total
is the same (note that the utilitarian is indifferent to the
distribution of happiness, not income or wealth—the utilitarian approach
would generally prefer, all else being equal, more materially equal
societies assuming diminishing marginal utility).
Sen argues that we may "want to pay attention not just to "aggregate"
magnitudes, but also to extents of inequalities in happiness". Sen also argues that while the utilitarian approach attaches no intrinsic value (ethics) to claims of rights and freedoms, some people value these things independently of their contribution to utility.
Lastly, Amartya Sen makes the argument that the utilitarian view of individual well-being can be easily swayed by mental conditioning and peoples' happiness adapting to oppressive situations. The utility calculus
can essentially be unfair to those who have come to terms with their
deprivation as a means for survival, adjusting their desires and
expectations. The capability approach, on the other hand, doesn't fall
victim to these same criticisms because it acknowledges inequalities by
focusing on equalizing people's capabilities, not happiness, it stresses
the intrinsic importance of rights and freedoms when evaluating
well-being, and it avoids overlooking deprivation by focusing on
capabilities and opportunities, not state of mind.
Resource-based approaches
Another common approach in conventional economics, in economic policy and judging development, has traditionally been to focus on income and resources. These sorts of approaches to development focus on increasing resources, such as assets, property rights, or basic needs.
However, measuring resources is fundamentally different from measuring
functionings, such as the case in which people don't have the capability
to use their resources in the means they see fit. Arguably, the main
difficulty in a resource- or income-based approach to well-being lies in
personal heterogeneities, namely the diversity of human beings.
Different amounts of income are needed for different individuals
to enjoy similar capabilities, such as an individual with severe disabilities
whose treatment to ensure the fulfillment of basic capabilities may
require dramatically more income compared to an able-bodied person. All
sorts of differences, such as differences in age, gender, talents, etc.
can make two people have extremely divergent opportunities of quality of life,
even when equipped with exactly the same commodities. Additionally,
other contingent circumstances which affect what an individual can make
of a given set of resources include environmental diversities (in
geographic sense), variations in social climate, differences in
relational perspectives, and distribution within the family.
The capability approach, however, seeks to consider all such
circumstances when evaluating people's actual capabilities. Furthermore,
there are things people value other than increased resources. In some
cases, maximizing resources may even be objectionable. As was recognized
in the 1990 Human Development Report,
the basic objective of development is to create an enabling environment
for people to live long, healthy, and creative lives. This end is often
lost in the immediate concern with the accumulation of commodities and
financial wealth that are only a means to expansion of capabilities.
Overall, though resources and income have a profound effect on what we
can or cannot do, the capability approach recognizes that they are not
the only things to be considered when judging well-being, switching the
focus from a means to a good life to the freedom to achieve actual
improvements in lives, which one has reason to value.
The Capability Approach to Education
The capability approach has also impacted educational discourse.
Rather than seeing the success of an education system based on the
measurable achievements of students, such as scores in examinations or
assessments, educational success through a capabilities perspective can
be seen through the capabilities that such an education enables. Through
an education programme a student is able to acquire knowledge, skills,
values and understanding and this enables a young person to think in new
ways, to ‘be’, to develop agency in society and make decisions. These
are not easily ‘measurable’ in the same way examination results are, but
can be seen to be an important outcome of an educational programme.
A number of writers have explored what these education ‘capabilities’
might be. Terzi’s
list focuses on the minimum entitlement of education for students with
disabilities- these include Literacy, Numeracy, Sociality and
Participation among others. Walker, working in Higher Education offers Practical Reason, Emotional Resilience, Knowledge and imagination. Hinchcliffe
offers a set of capabilities for students of Humanities subjects,
including critical examination and judgement, narrative imagination,
recognition/ concern for others (citizenship in a globalised world).
Further exploration of the capability approach to education has sought
to explore the role that subject disciplines play in the generation of
subject specific capabilities, drawing on the ideas of Powerful
Knowledge from Michael Young and the Sociology of Education. Geography as a school subject has explored these as ‘GeoCapabilities’.
.jpg)
.jpg)
