Buddhism in Southeast Asia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_in_Southeast_Asia 

 

The 9th century Borobudur Buddhist stupa in Central Java

Buddhism in Southeast Asia includes a variety of traditions of Buddhism including two main traditions: Mahāyāna Buddhism and Theravāda Buddhism. Historically, Mahāyāna Buddhism had a prominent position in this region, but in modern times most countries follow the Theravāda tradition. Southeast Asian countries with a Theravāda Buddhist majority are Thailand, Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar, all mainland countries.

Vietnam continues to have a Mahāyāna majority due to Chinese influence. Indonesia was Mahāyāna Buddhist since the time of the Sailendra and Srivijaya empires, but Mahāyāna Buddhism in Indonesia is now largely practiced by the Chinese diaspora, as in Singapore and Malaysia. Mahāyāna Buddhism is the predominant religion of Chinese communities in Singapore, Malaysia, Brunei, and Indonesia.

History

Main articles: History of Buddhism in Southeast Asia, History of Indian influence on Southeast Asia, and Indianization of Southeast Asia

Further information: Indianised kingdom, Indosphere, Srivijaya, Khmer Empire, and Buddhism in Vietnam

Early traditions and origins

Prince Siddhartha shaves his hair and becomes an ascetic. Borobudur bas-relief, 9th century.

Buddhism reached Southeast Asia both directly over sea from India and indirectly from Central Asia and China in a process that spanned most of the first millennium CE.

In the third century B.C., there was disagreement among Ceylonese monks about the differences in practices between some councils of Bhikkhu monks and Vajjian Monks. The Bhikkhu monks affirmed Theravada traditions and rejected some of the practices of the Vajjian monks. It is thought that this sparked the split between Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism.

Theravada Buddhism was formed and developed by Ceylon Bhikkhus during a period spanning from the third century B.C. to fifth century A.D. Ceylonese influence, however, did not reach Southeast Asia until the eleventh century A.D. Theravada Buddhism developed in Southern India and then traveled through Sri Lanka, Burma, and into Thailand, Cambodia, Laos and Beyond.

In the twelfth century, Mahayana Buddhism developed in Northern India and traveled through Tibet, China and into Vietnam, Indonesia and beyond.

Buddhism is thought to have entered Southeast Asia from trade with India, China and Sri Lanka during the 1st, 2nd and 3rd centuries. One of the earliest accounts of Buddhism in Southeast Asia was of a Theravada Buddhist mission sent by the Indian emperor Ashoka to modern-day Burma in 250 BCE. The mission was received by the Mon kingdom and many people were converted to Buddhism. Via this early encounter with Buddhism, as well as others due to the continuous regional trade between Southeast Asia, China and South Asia, Buddhism spread throughout Southeast Asia. After the initial arrival in modern-day Burma, Buddhism spread throughout mainland Southeast Asia and into the islands of modern-day Malaysia and Indonesia. There are two primary forms of Buddhism found in Southeast Asia, Theravada and Mahayana. Theravada Buddhism spread from India to Sri Lanka then into the region as outlined above, and primarily took hold in the modern states of Burma, Cambodia, Laos, Thailand and southern Vietnam. Mahayana Buddhism is thought to have spread from both China and India during the first and second century into Southeast Asia. Mahayana took root primarily in maritime Southeast Asia, although there was also a strong influence in Vietnam, in part due to their connection with China.

Srivijaya, Java and the Khmer Empire

Srivijayan Art

 

A 9th century Srivijayan art bronze Avalokiteshvara of Bidor in Perak, Malaysia.

 

A bronze Maitreya statue from Komering, South Sumatra, Indonesia, 9th century Srivijayan art.

 

Avalokiteshvara of Chaiya, the bronze torso of Padmapani, 8th century Srivijayan art, Chaiya, Southern Thailand, demonstrate the Central Java art influence.

During the 5th to 13th centuries, The Southeast Asian empires were influenced directly from India, so that these empires essentially followed the Mahāyāna tradition. The Srivijaya Empire to the south and the Khmer Empire to the north competed for influence, and their art expressed the rich Mahāyāna pantheon of bodhisattvas.

Srivijaya, a maritime empire centred at Palembang on the island of Sumatra in Indonesia, adopted Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna Buddhism under a line of rulers named the Sailendras. Yijing described Palembang as a great centre of Buddhist learning where the emperor supported over a thousand monks at his court. Yijing also testified to the importance of Buddhism as early as the year 671 and advised future Chinese pilgrims to spend a year or two in Palembang. Srivijaya declined due to conflicts with the Chola rulers of India, before being destabilised by the Islamic expansion from the 13th century.

Between 8th to 11th century, Medang Mataram kingdom flourished in Central Java ruled by Sailendra dynasty, which also the ruling family of Srivijaya. The reign of King Panangkaran (r. 760—780) saw the rise of Buddhist Mahayana influence in central Java, as the Sailendran kings became the ardent patron of Buddhism. Numerous Buddhist temples and monuments were erected in the region. Notable example includes Kalasan, Manjusrigrha, Plaosan, and the grand stone mandala Borobudur, completed during the reign of Samaratungga (r. 819–838) in early 9th century. The period marked the apogee of Buddhist civilization in Indonesia.

Cambodian statue of Avalokiteśvara Bodhisattva. Sandstone, 7th century CE

From the 9th to the 13th centuries, the Mahāyāna Buddhist and Hindu Khmer Empire dominated much of the Southeast Asian peninsula. Under the Khmer, more than 900 temples were built in Cambodia and in neighbouring Thailand. Angkor was at the centre of this development, with a temple complex and urban organisation able to support around one million urban dwellers.

Early spread of Theravada Buddhism

There are many factors that contributed to the early spread of Theravada Buddhism throughout Southeast Asia. The main three ways in which the religion was transported into the region is through systems of trade, marriage, and missionary work. Buddhism has always been a missionary religion and Theravada Buddhism was able to spread due to the work and travel of missionaries. The Mon people are an ethnic group from Burma (Myanmar) that contributed to the success of Theravada Buddhism within Indochina. Buddhism was likely introduced to the Mon people during the rule of Ashoka Maurya, the third emperor of the Mauryan Dynasty (268-232 BCE) in India. Ashoka ruled his kingdom in accordance with Buddhist law and throughout his reign he dispatched court ambassadors and missionaries to bring the teachings of the Buddha to the east and Macedonia, as well to parts of Southeast Asia. India had trading routes that ran through Cambodia, allowing for the spread of these ideologies to easily occur. The Mons are one of the earliest ethnic groups from Southeast Asia and as the region shifted and grew, new inhabitants to Burma adopted the Mon people's culture, script, and religion.

The middle of the 11th century saw a decline of Buddhism in Southeast Asia. From the 11th to 13th century the Khmer Empire dominated the Southeast Asian peninsula. Hinduism was the primary religion of the Khmer Empire, with a smaller portion of people also adhering to Mahayana Buddhism. During the Khmer Rule, Theravada Buddhism was only found in parts of Malaysia, northwest Thailand, and lower Burma. Theravada Buddhism experienced a revival under the rule of Anawrahta Minsaw (1014–1077 AD). Anawrahta was the ruler of the Pagan Empire in Burma and is considered to be the founder of the modern Burmese nation. Anawrahta embraced and revived the Mon people's form of Theravada Buddhism through his building of schools and monasteries that taught and supported Theravada ideologies. The success of Theravada Buddhism in Burma under the rule of Anawrahta allowed for the later revival and growth of Buddhism in neighboring Southeast Asian countries, such as Thailand, Laos, and Cambodia. The influences of the Mon people as well as the Pagan Empire are still felt today throughout the region. Currently, the Southeast Asian countries with the highest amounts of practicing Theravada Buddhists are Myanmar, Thailand, Laos, and Cambodia.

Political power and resistance

Vietnamese Buddhist monk Quảng Đức self-immolation in 1963, protesting the persecution of Buddhists by the South Vietnamese government.

 

See also: Buddhist crisis and Buddhist Uprising

Buddhism has long been characterized by some scholars as an other-worldly religion, that is not rooted in economic and political activity. That is in part due to the influence of German sociologist, Max Weber, who was a prominent scholar of religion that has had a significant impact on the way Southeast Asian Buddhism is studied. Many contemporary scholars of Buddhism in Southeast Buddhism are starting to move away from the Weberian school of thought and identifying the role Buddhism has played in economic, political and every-day life in the region. Buddhism has also played a role in the consolidation of power and political resistance to throughout history, dating back to as early as the 10th and 11th century. Buddhist resistance has been a part of many significant historical moments, from the resistance to colonization and colonial powers, the creation of nation-states and the consolidation of political power within kingdoms and states.

Some of the earliest accounts of religious conflict that trace back to the 11th century took place in modern-day Burma. There was tension between Buddhist kings looking to create a more uniform religion and different sects of Buddhist worship. In particular, there was resistance from the cult of Nat worship, a religious practice that predates Buddhism in Burma. Buddhist kings of the time attempted to unify the different sects of Buddhism by the elimination of heretical movements. This was done so in order to maintain their power over their people and in an effort to purify the faith.

During the Nguyen dynasty of Vietnam in the 19th and 20th century, there was a strain between Confucian rulers and practitioners of Buddhism monks during the early unification of the empire. The rulers had a fear of potential rebellions emerging from monastic sites in the countryside and heavily criticized the spiritual practices of Buddhist sects, including a belief in invulnerability based on merit. After an attempt to de-legitimize Buddhist faith in the eyes of Vietnamese people through this criticism of their practices, they declared a war on Buddhism to squash any resistance to the consolidation of their empire

During the late 19th century and early 20th century, there were Buddhist resistance movements in the kingdom of Siam. These resistance movements were led by holy men or phu mi bun who had great power due to a high accumulation of merit. Some of these men claimed to have powers of invulnerability to enemy bullets and shared their powers through bathing others in holy water. An early phu mi bun rebellion was led by a former Buddhist monk, Phaya Phap, who resisted increased taxes in the province of Chiang Mai and proclaimed he would be the new, ideal Buddhist king of the region. These movements were not associated with mainstream Buddhism of the time, but many of the leaders had been ordained monks and utilized some Buddhist symbolism and philosophies.

Buddhist resistance also played a role in anti-colonialism movements. During the British colonization of Burma in the 19th century, there was intense Buddhist militarization and resistance against the colonial occupiers in an effort to restore the ideal Buddhist monarchy. There have also been more recent Buddhist resistance movements in Southeast Asia. After the communist takeover of Laos in 1975, some Buddhist monks feared that Buddhism was threatened by the Pathet Lao government. Many monks fled from Laos to Thailand and helped fund resistance movements from across the border. Monks who stayed in Laos supported resistance fighters with food and medical supplies. Another act of Buddhist resistance took place in Saigon in 1963 when a Mahayana Buddhist monk, Thích Quảng Đức, self-immolated in the middle of a busy intersection. This self-immolation was an act of protest of the regime of South Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Diem, a member of the Catholic minority who ruthlessly persecuted and suppressed the Buddhist community.

Theravada traditions

The shaving ceremony of Theravada Buddhist monk to prepares ordain into Sangha Buddhist priesthood.

Theravada Buddhism in Southeast Asia is rooted in Ceylonese Buddhism that traveled from Sri Lanka to Burma and later to lower Thailand.

The Buddha, the Dhamma, and the Sangha are the three fundamental aspects of Theravāda Buddhist thought. The Buddha is the teacher of gods and men. The Dhamma consists of the teachings of the Buddha. It is the Noble Path made through the words and deeds of the Buddha that is to be followed. The path leads the follower from the Realm of Desire, to the Realm of Form, the Formless Realm with the ultimate destination being Nibbāna. The Sangha (gathering) refers to the two types of followers of the Buddha: laity and monastic. The monastic members strictly adhere to the Buddhist monastic discipline, known as the Vinaya. Theravadin Bhikkhu lead a very disciplined life modeled after the Buddha, going from Pabbajjā or novice ordination (sāmaṇera) to Upasampada or higher ordination (Bhikkhu).

Mahāyāna traditions

Vietnamese Buddhist nun.

Mahāyāna Buddhism in SE Asia is rooted in Buddhist traditions that traveled from Northern India through Tibet and China and eventually made their way to Vietnam, Indonesia and other parts of southeast Asia.

Mahāyāna Buddhism consists of a large variety of different sūtras. A defining feature of Mahāyāna Buddhism is its inclusiveness of a wide range of doctrines. The Mahāyāna tradition includes the doctrine of the three bodies of the Buddha (trikāya). The first is the body of transformation (nirmānakāya), the second is the body of bliss/enjoyment (sambhogakāya), and the third is the body of law/essence (dharmakāya). Each body makes sense of a different function of the Buddha. Another common theme in the Mahāyāna tradition of Buddhism, is the path of the bodhisattva. Stories are told about prior lives of the Buddha as a bodhisttva. These stories teach the qualities that are desirable to a good Mahāyāna Buddhist. Bodhisttvas are selfless as they care not only for their own salvation, liberation, and happiness, but also for the salvation, liberation, and happiness of others. A bodhisttva will make it almost all of the way to Nirvana, but go back in order to help others go farther.

Buddhism by country

Buddhist temple of Wat Arun in Bangkok, Thailand. Currently Buddhism is the major faith in Thailand and neighboring Myanmar, Cambodia and Laos

Currently, there are approximately 190–205 million Buddhists in Southeast Asia, making it the second largest religion in the region, after Islam. Approximately 35 to 38% of the global Buddhist population resides in Southeast Asia. The following is a list of Southeast Asian countries from most to least adherents of Buddhism as a percent of the population.

• Thailand has the largest number of Buddhists with approximately 95% of its population of 67 million adhering to Buddhism, placing it at around 63.75 million.
• Myanmar has around 48 million Buddhists, with 89% of its 54 million citizens practicing Theravada Buddhism. Around 1% of the population, mainly the Chinese, practice Mahayana Buddhism alongside Taoism, but are strongly influenced by Theravada Buddhism.
• Vietnam may have a large number of Buddhists, but the Communist government under-reports the religious adherence of its citizens. It is estimated to have around 44 million Buddhists, around half its population. The majority of Vietnamese people practice Mahayana Buddhism due to the large amount of Chinese influence.
• Cambodia has 97.9% of its total population adheres to Theravada Buddhism, placing its Buddhist population at around 14 million which mark as one of the world's highest Buddhist nations by percentage. By the end of 2017, there are 4,872 Buddhist temples (Wat) accommodating 69,199 Buddhist monks that play the important role to maintain the existence of Buddhism and preserve Buddhist culture in Cambodia.
• Malaysia has about 20% of its citizens, mainly ethnic Chinese, with significant numbers of ethnic Thais, Khmers, Sinhalese and migrant workers, practising Buddhism. The Chinese mainly practice Mahayana Buddhism, but due to the efforts of Sinhalese monks as well as historical links with Thailand, Theravada also enjoys a significant following.
• Communist Laos has around 5 million Buddhists, who form roughly 70% of its population.
• Indonesia has around 4.75 million Buddhists (2% of its population), mainly amongst its Chinese population. Most Indonesian Buddhists adhere to Theravada Buddhism, mainly of the Thai tradition.
• Singapore have around 2 million Buddhists, forming around 33% of their populations respectively. Singapore has the most vibrant Buddhist scene with all three major traditions having large followings. Mahayana Buddhism has the largest presence amongst the Chinese, while many immigrants from countries such as Myanmar, Thailand and Sri Lanka practice Theravada Buddhism.
• Philippines have around under 1% of the total population.
• Brunei, which has the smallest population in Southeast Asia, has around 13% of its citizens and a significant migrant worker population adhering to Buddhism, at around 65,000.

• 

  Thai Buddhist monks on pilgrimage

• 

  Novice monks in Myanmar

• 

  Buddhist monks pilgrim in Indonesia

Capability approach

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capability_approach 

 

Development economics
Economies by region
Africa North America South America Asia Europe Oceania
Economic growth theories
Harrod–Domar model Neoclassical growth model Endogenous growth theory Unified growth theory Balanced growth theory
Fields and subfields
Economic inequality Poverty Undernutrition Land Labour Human capital Education Property Rights Microfinance Decentralization Environmental determinism
Lists
Journals Publications Categories Outline Economists

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:

1. The importance of real freedoms in the assessment of a person's advantage
2. Individual differences in the ability to transform resources into valuable activities
3. The multi-variate nature of activities giving rise to happiness
4. A balance of materialistic and nonmaterialistic factors in evaluating human welfare
5. 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:

1. 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.
2. Bodily Health. Being able to have good health, including reproductive health; to be adequately nourished; to have adequate shelter.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.)
6. 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.)
7. Affiliation.
   1. 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.)
   2. 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.
8. Other Species. Being able to live with concern for and in relation to animals, plants, and the world of nature.
9. Play. Being able to laugh, to play, to enjoy recreational activities.
10. Control over one's Environment.
    1. 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.
    2. 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’.

Gun control

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Firearm guiding policy by country according to the University of Sydney.

  Permissive

  Restrictive

  Not included

Gun control (or firearms regulation) is the set of laws or policies that regulate the manufacture, sale, transfer, possession, modification, or use of firearms by civilians.

Most countries have a restrictive firearm guiding policy, with only a few legislations being categorized as permissive.  Jurisdictions that regulate access to firearms typically restrict access to only certain categories of firearms and then to restrict the categories of persons who will be granted a license to have access to a firearm. In some countries such as the United States, gun control may be legislated at either a federal level or a local state level.

Terminology and context

See also: Small arms trade and Small arms and light weapons

Gun control refers to domestic regulation of firearm manufacture, trade, possession, use, and transport, specifically with regard to the class of weapons referred to as small arms (revolvers and self-loading pistols, rifles and carbines, assault rifles, submachine guns and light machine guns).

Usage of the term gun control is sometimes politicized. Some of those in favor of legislation instead prefer to use terms such as "gun-violence prevention", "gun safety", "firearms regulation", "illegal guns", or "criminal access to guns".

In 2007, it was estimated that there were, globally, about 875 million small arms in the hands of civilians, law enforcement agencies, and armed forces. Of these firearms 650 million, or 75%, are held by civilians. U.S. civilians account for 270 million of this total. A further 200 million are controlled by state military forces. Law enforcement agencies have some 26 million small arms. Non-state armed groups have about 1.4 million firearms. Finally, gang members hold between 2 and 10 million small arms. Together, the small arms arsenals of non-state armed groups and gangs account for, at most, 1.4% of the global total.

Regulation of civilian firearms

Barring a few exceptions, most countries in the world allow civilians to purchase firearms subject to certain restrictions. A 2011 survey of 28 countries over five continents found that a major distinction between different national regimes of firearm regulation is whether civilian gun ownership is seen as a right or a privilege. The study concluded that both the United States and Yemen were distinct from the other countries surveyed in viewing firearm ownership as a basic right of civilians and in having more permissive regimes of civilian gun ownership. In the remaining countries included in the sample, civilian firearm ownership is considered a privilege and the legislation governing possession of firearms is correspondingly more restrictive.

International and regional civilian firearm regulation

At the international and regional level, diplomatic attention has tended to focus on the cross-border illegal trade in small arms as an area of particular concern rather than the regulation of civilian-held firearms. During the mid-1990s, however, the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) adopted a series of resolutions relating to the civilian ownership of small arms. These called for an exchange of data on national systems of firearm regulation and for the initiation of an international study of the issue. In July 1997, ECOSOC issued a resolution that underlined the responsibility of UN member states to competently regulate civilian ownership of small arms and which urged them to ensure that their regulatory frameworks encompassed the following aspects: firearm safety and storage; penalties for the unlawful possession and misuse of firearms; a licensing system to prevent undesirable persons from owning firearms; exemption from criminal liability to promote the surrender by citizens of illegal, unsafe or unwanted guns; and, a record-keeping system to track civilian firearms.

In 1997, the UN published a study based on member state survey data titled the United Nations International Study on Firearm Regulation which was updated in 1999. This study was meant to initiate the establishment of a database on civilian firearm regulations which would be run by the Centre for International Crime Prevention, located in Vienna. who were to report on national systems of civilian firearm regulation every two years. These plans never reached fruition and further UN-led efforts to establish international norms for the regulation of civilian-held firearms were stymied. Responding to pressure from the U.S. government, any mention of the regulation of civilian ownership of small arms was removed from the draft proposals for the 2001 UN Programme of Action on Small Arms.

Although the issue is no longer part of the UN policy debate, since 1991 there have been eight regional agreements involving 110 countries concerning aspects of civilian firearm possession. The Bamako Declaration, was adopted in Bamako, Mali, on 1 December 2000 by the representatives of the member states of the Organisation of African Unity (OAU). The provisions of this declaration recommend that the signatories would establish the illegal possession of small arms and light weapons as a criminal offence under national law in their respective countries.

Studies

High rates of gun mortality and injury are often cited as a primary impetus for gun control policies. A 2004 National Research Council critical review found that while some strong conclusions are warranted from current research, the state of our knowledge is generally poor. The result of the scarcity of relevant data is that gun control is one of the most fraught topics in American politics and scholars remain deadlocked on a variety of issues. Notably, since 1996, when the Dickey Amendment was first inserted into the federal spending bill, the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has been prohibited from using its federal funding "to advocate or promote gun control," thwarting gun violence research at the agency at the time. The funding provision's author has said that this was an over-interpretation, but the amendment still had a chilling effect, effectively halting federally funded firearm-related research. Since the amendment, the CDC has continued to research gun violence and publish studies about it, although their funding for such research has fallen by 96% since 1996, according to Mayors Against Illegal Guns. According to a spokesman, the CDC has limited funding and has not produced any comprehensive study aimed at reducing gun violence since 2001.

General

A 1998 review found that suicide rates generally declined after gun control laws were enacted, and concluded that "The findings support gun control measures as a strategy for reducing suicide rates." A 2016 review found that laws banning people under restraining orders due to domestic violence convictions from accessing guns were associated with "reductions in intimate partner homicide". Another 2016 review identified 130 studies regarding restrictive gun laws and found that the implementation of multiple such laws simultaneously was associated with a decrease in gun-related deaths.

According to a 2011 UN study, after identifying a number of methodological problems, it stated "notwithstanding such challenges, a significant body of literature tends to suggest that firearm availability predominantly represents a risk factor rather than a protective factor for homicide. In particular, a number of quantitative studies tend towards demonstrating a firearm prevalence–homicide association."

United States

Main articles: Gun law in the United States, Gun politics in the United States, Gun culture in the United States, and Gun violence in the United States

 

Multiple studies show that where people have easy access to firearms, gun-related deaths tend to be more frequent, including by suicide, homicide and unintentional injuries.

Cross-sectional studies

In 1983, a cross-sectional study of all 50 U.S. states found that the six states with the strictest gun laws (according to the National Rifle Association) had suicide rates that were approximately 3/100,000 people lower than in other states, and that these states' suicide rates were 4/100,000 people lower than those of states with the least restrictive gun laws. A 2003 study published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine looked at the restrictiveness of gun laws and suicide rates in men and women in all 50 U.S. states and found that states whose gun laws were more restrictive had lower suicide rates among both sexes. In 2004, another study found that the effect of state gun laws on gun-related homicides was "limited". A 2005 study looked at all 50 states in the U.S. and the District of Columbia, and found that no gun laws were associated with reductions in firearm homicide or suicide, but that a "shall-issue" concealed carry law may be associated with increased firearm homicide rates. A 2011 study found that firearm regulation laws in the United States have "a significant deterrent effect on male suicide".

A 2013 study found that in the United States, "A higher number of firearm laws in a state are associated with a lower rate of firearm fatalities in the state." A 2016 study published in The Lancet found that of 25 laws studied, and in the time period examined (2008–2010), nine were associated with reduced firearm mortality (including both homicide and suicide), nine were associated with increased mortality, and seven had an inconclusive association. The three laws most strongly associated with reduced firearm mortality were laws requiring universal background checks, background checks for ammunition sales, and identification for guns. In an accompanying commentary, David Hemenway noted that this study had multiple limitations, such as not controlling for all factors that may influence gun-related deaths aside from gun control laws, and the use of 29 explanatory variables in the analysis.

Other studies comparing gun control laws in different U.S. states include a 2015 study which found that in the United States, "stricter state firearm legislation is associated with lower discharge rates" for nonfatal gun injuries. A 2014 study that also looked at the United States found that children living in states with stricter gun laws were safer. Another study looking specifically at suicide rates in the United States found that the four handgun laws examined (waiting periods, universal background checks, gun locks, and open carrying regulations) were associated with "significantly lower firearm suicide rates and the proportion of suicides resulting from firearms." The study also found that all four of these laws (except the waiting-period one) were associated with reductions in the overall suicide rate.

Another study, published the same year, found that states with permit to purchase, registration, and/or license laws for handguns had lower overall suicide rates, as well as lower firearm suicide rates. A 2014 study found that states that required licensing and inspections of gun dealers tended to have lower rates of gun homicides. Another study published the same year, analyzing panel data from all 50 states, found that stricter gun laws may modestly reduce gun deaths. A 2016 study found that U.S. military veterans tend to commit suicide with guns more often than the general population, thereby possibly increasing state suicide rates, and that "the tendency for veterans to live in states without handgun legislation may exacerbate this phenomenon." California has exceptionally strict gun sales laws, and a 2015 study found that it also had the oldest guns recovered in crimes of any states in the U.S. The same study concluded that "These findings suggest that more restrictive gun sales laws and gun dealer regulations do make it more difficult for criminals to acquire new guns first purchased at retail outlets."

Another 2016 study found that stricter state gun laws in the United States reduced suicide rates. Another 2016 study found that U.S. states with lenient gun control laws had more gun-related child injury hospital admissions than did states with stricter gun control laws. A 2017 study found that suicide rates declined more in states with universal background check and mandatory waiting period laws than in states without these laws. Another 2017 study found that states without universal background check and/or waiting period laws had steeper increases in their suicide rates than did states with these laws. A third 2017 study found that "waiting period laws that delay the purchase of firearms by a few days reduce gun homicides by roughly 17%." A 2017 study in the Economic Journal found that mandatory handgun purchase delays reduced "firearm related suicides by between 2 to 5 percent with no statistically significant increase in non-firearm suicides," and were "not associated with statistically significant changes in homicide rates." Another 2017 study showed that laws banning gun possession by people subject to intimate partner violence restraining orders, and requiring such people to give up any guns they have, were associated with lower intimate partner homicide rates. A 2021 study found that firearm purchase delay laws reduced homicide – the authors suggested that it was driven by reductions in gun purchases by impulsive customers.

Reviews

A review of published studies of gun control released in October 2003 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was unable to determine any statistically significant effect resulting from such laws, although the authors suggest that further study may provide more conclusive information, and noted that "insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness".

In 2015, Daniel Webster and Garen Wintemute reviewed studies examining the effectiveness of gun laws aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of high-risk individuals in the United States. They found that some laws prohibiting gun possession by people under domestic violence restraining orders or who had been convicted of violent misdemeanors were associated with lower violence rates, as were laws establishing more procedures to see if people were prohibited from owning a gun under these laws. They also found that multiple other gun regulations intended to prevent prohibited individuals from obtaining guns, such as "rigorous permit-to-purchase" laws and "comprehensive background checks", were "negatively associated with the diversion of guns to criminals."

A 2016 systematic review found that restrictive gun licensing laws were associated with lower gun injury rates, while concealed carry laws were not significantly associated with rates of such injuries. Another systematic review found that stricter gun laws were associated with lower gun homicide rates; this association was especially strong for background check and permit-to-purchase laws.

Studies of individual laws

Other studies have examined trends in firearm-related deaths before and after gun control laws are either enacted or repealed. A 2004 study in the Journal of the American Medical Association found evidence that child access prevention laws were "associated with a modest reduction in suicide rates among youth aged 14 to 17 years." Two 2015 studies found that the permit-to-purchase law passed in Connecticut in 1995 was associated with a reduction in firearm suicides and homicides. One of these studies also found that the repeal of Missouri's permit-to-purchase law was associated with "a 16.1% increase in firearm suicide rates," and a 2014 study by the same research team found that the repeal of this law was associated with a 16% increase in homicide rates. A 2000 study designed to assess the effectiveness of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act found that the law was not associated with reductions in overall homicide or suicide rates, but that it was associated with a reduction in the firearm suicide rate among individuals aged 55 or older. A 1991 study looked at Washington, D.C.'s Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975, which banned its residents from owning all guns except certain shotguns and sporting rifles, which were also required to be unloaded, disassembled, or stored with a trigger lock in their owners' homes. The study found that the law's enactment was associated with "a prompt decline in homicides and suicides by firearms in the District of Columbia." A 1996 study reanalyzed this data and reached a significantly different conclusion as to the effectiveness of this law.

Other studies and debate

In 1993, Kleck and Patterson analyzed the impact of 18 major types of gun control laws on every major type of gun-involved crime or violence (including suicide) in 170 U.S. cities, and found that gun laws generally had no significant effect on violent crime rates or suicide rates. Similarly, a 1997 study found that gun control laws had only a small influence on the rate of gun deaths in U.S. states compared to socioeconomic variables like poverty and unemployment.

Philosophy professor Michael Huemer argues that gun control may be morally wrong, even if its outcomes would be positive, because individuals have a prima facie right to own a gun for self-defense and recreation.

RAND Corporation did a study that demonstrates that background checks may decrease suicides and violent crime; child-access prevention laws may decrease the number of suicides and unintentional injuries and deaths; minimum age requirements may decrease suicides; and prohibitions associated with mental illness may decrease suicides and violent crimes. On the other hand, concealed-carry laws may increase violent crimes and suicides, while stand-your-ground laws may increase violent crime. Bans on the sale of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines may increase the sale price for these items. An August 2019 article entitled, "Gun control really works" published by Business Insider looks at a dozen studies by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, The Journal of the American Medical Association, Rand Corporation, the journal Preventive Medicine, Everytown for Gun Safety, Johns Hopkins University, and others. They conclude that mirroring the firearms regulations in Switzerland such as banning the sale of new assault weapons, denying concealed-carry licenses to some individuals, and prohibiting firearm sales to people convicted of multiple alcohol-related offenses will decrease gun-related deaths and injuries.

Canada

Main article: Gun laws in Canada

Rifles and shotguns are relatively easy to obtain, while handguns and some semi-automatic rifles are restricted.

With respect to the Criminal Law Amendment Act, a gun control law passed in Canada in 1977, some studies have found that it was ineffective at reducing homicide or robbery rates. One study even found that the law may have actually increased robberies involving firearms. A 1993 study found that after this law was passed, gun suicides decreased significantly, as did the proportion of suicides committed in the country with guns. A 2003 study found that this law "may have had an impact on suicide rates, even after controls for social variables," while a 2001 study by the same research team concluded that the law "may have had an impact on homicide rates, at least for older victims." A 1994 study found that after this law came into force in 1978, suicide rates decreased over time in Ontario, and that there was no evidence of method substitution. The same study found that "These decreases may be only partly due to the legislation."

In 1991, Canada implemented the gun control law Bill C-17. According to a 2004 study, after this law was passed, firearm-related suicides and homicides, as well as the percentage of suicides involving firearms, declined significantly in that country. A 2010 study found that after this law was passed, firearm suicides declined in Quebec among men, but acknowledged that this may not represent a causal relationship. In 1992, Canada promulgated the Canadian Firearms Act, which aimed at ensuring that guns were stored safely. A 2004 study found that although firearm suicide rates declined in the Quebec region Abitibi-Témiscamingue after the law was passed, overall suicide rates did not. A study in 2005 also found that overall suicide rates did not change after passage of Bill C-17. A 2008 study reached similar conclusions with regard to the entire Quebec province; this study also found that C-17 did not seem to increase the rate at which the firearm suicide rate was declining. Other researchers have criticized this 2008 study for looking at too short a time period and not taking account of the fact that the regulations in C-17 were implemented gradually.

A 1990 study compared suicide rates in the Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada metropolitan area (where gun control laws were more restrictive) with those in the Seattle, Washington area in the United States. The overall suicide rate was essentially the same in the two locations, but the suicide rate among 15 to 24 year olds was about 40 percent higher in Seattle than in Vancouver. The authors concluded that "restricting access to handguns might be expected to reduce the suicide rate in persons 15 to 24 years old, but...it probably would not reduce the overall suicide rate." A study that looked at provincial gun ownership rates, and associated suicide rates found no significant correlations with overall suicide rates.

A 2011 study looked at gun control passed in Canada between 1974 and 2004 and found that gun laws were responsible for 5 to 10 percent drops in homicides. The study found that the homicide reduction effects of Canadian gun legislation remained even after accounting for sociodemographic and economic factors associated with homicide rates.

A 2012 study looked at gun control laws passed in Canada from 1974 to 2008 and found no evidence that these laws had a beneficial effect on firearm homicide rates in that country. According to the study, "other factors found to be associated with homicide rates were median age, unemployment, immigration rates, percentage of population in low-income bracket, Gini index of income equality, population per police officer, and incarceration rate."

A 2013 study of the 1995 Canadian gun control law Firearms Act, 1995 reported little evidence that this law significantly reduced rates of lethal gun violence against women.

On May 1, 2020, after deadly shootings in Nova Scotia, Justin Trudeau's Liberal government banned 1,500 kinds of military-style semi-automatic rifles, including the popular AR-15 and its variants. The ban was enacted via an Order In Council.

A 2020 study examining laws passed from 1981-2016 found no significant changes in overall homicide or suicide rates following changes in legislation. In addition, it also found that firearm ownership by province was not correlated to overall suicide rates by province.

Australia

Main article: Gun laws in Australia

In 1988 and 1996, gun control laws were enacted in the Australian state of Victoria, both times following mass shootings. A 2004 study found that in the context of these laws, overall firearm-related deaths, especially suicides, declined dramatically. A 1995 study found preliminary evidence that gun control legislation enacted in Queensland, Australia reduced suicide rates there.

A 2006 study by gun lobby-affiliated researchers Jeanine Baker and Samara McPhedran found that after Australia enacted the National Firearms Agreement (NFA), a gun control law, in 1996, gun-related suicides may have been affected, but no other parameter appeared to have been. Another 2006 study, led by Simon Chapman, found that after this law was enacted in 1996 in Australia, the country went more than a decade without any mass shootings, and gun-related deaths (especially suicides) declined dramatically. The latter of these studies also criticized the former for using a time-series analysis despite the fact that, according to Chapman et al., "calculating mortality rates and then treating them as a number in a time series ignores the natural variability inherent in the counts that make up the numerator of the rate." Chapman et al. also said that Baker and McPhedran used the Box–Jenkins model inappropriately.

A 2010 study looking at the effect of the NFA on gun-related deaths found that the law "did not have any large effects on reducing firearm homicide or suicide rates," although David Hemenway has criticized this study for using a structural break test despite the fact that such tests can miss the effects of policies in the presence of lags, or when the effect occurs over several years. Another study, published the same year, found that Australia's gun buyback program reduced gun-related suicide rates by almost 80%, while non-gun death rates were not significantly affected. Other research has argued that although gun suicide rates fell after the NFA was enacted, the NFA may not have been responsible for this decrease and "a change in social and cultural attitudes" may have instead been at least partly responsible. In 2016, Chapman co-authored another study that found that after the NFA was passed, there were no mass shootings in the country (as of May 2016), and that gun-related death rates declined more quickly after the NFA than they did before it. The study also found, however, that non-gun suicide and homicide rates declined even more quickly after the NFA, leading the authors to conclude that "it is not possible to determine whether the change in firearm deaths can be attributed to the gun law reforms."

Other countries

Further information: Overview of gun laws by nation

 

Possession of long guns by country:

  No permit required for both repeating and semi-automatic long guns

  Partially licensed – repeating long guns permitless, semi-automatic with permit

  Allowed with permit – no good reason required or simple declaration of reason¹

  Allowed with permit – good reason (like sport shooting license or proving danger to life) required¹

  Prohibited with exceptions or prohibited in practice – few licenses are issued

  Prohibited – civilians are banned from obtaining long guns

  Different rules regarding shotguns and rifles

¹Some countries in these categories may place additional restrictions or ban semi-automatic long guns

Possession of handguns by country:

  No permit required – permits or licenses are not required to obtain handguns

  Allowed with permit – no good reason required or simple declaration of reason

  Allowed with permit – good reason (like sport shooting license or proving danger to life) required

  Prohibited with exceptions or prohibited in practice – few licenses are issued

  Prohibited – civilians are banned from obtaining handguns

Notes:

- Map describes policy regarding obtaining new firearms regardless whether firearms that were produced before ban were grandfathered.

A 2007 study found evidence that gun control laws passed in Austria in 1997 reduced the rates of firearm suicide and homicide in that country. In Brazil, after disarmament laws were passed in 2003, gun-related mortality declined by 8% in 2004 relative to the previous year, the first decline observed in a decade. Gun-related hospitalizations also reversed their previous trend by decreasing 4.6% from 2003 to 2004. A 2006 study found that after gun control laws were passed in New Zealand in 1992, suicides committed with guns declined significantly, especially among youth. This study however found that overall suicide rates did not change significantly. A case-control study conducted in New Zealand found that gun ownership was significantly associated with a greater risk of gun suicides, but not suicides overall.

A 2010 study looked at the effect of a policy adopted by the Israeli Defense Forces that restricted access to guns among adolescents on suicide rates, and found that "Following the policy change, suicide rates decreased significantly by 40%." The authors concluded that "The results of this study illustrate the ability of a relatively simple change in policy to have a major impact on suicide rates." A 2013 study showed that after the Military of Switzerland adopted the Army XXI reform, which restricted gun availability, in 2003, suicide rates – both overall and firearm-related – decreased. Another 2013 study looking at four restrictive gun laws passed in Norway found that two of them may have reduced firearm mortality among men, but that the evidence was more inconclusive with respect to all of the laws they studied. A 2014 study found that after South Africa's Firearm Control Act was passed in 2000, homicide rates in the country declined, and concluded that "stricter gun control mediated by the FCA accounted for a significant decrease in homicide overall, and firearm homicide in particular, during the study period [2001–2005]." A 2000 study found that a ban on carrying guns in Colombia was associated with reductions in homicide rates in two cities in the country, namely, Cali and Bogotá.