The Capability Approach: Conceptual Roots
The Capability Approach, championed by Amartya Sen, centers on individuals'
capability to lead valued lives, distinguishing it from utilitarianism and
resourcism.
It defines well-being in terms of accessible valuable "beings and doings," like good
health and fulfilling relationships.
Sen introduced this approach in the 1980s, emphasizing its relevance in human
development beyond economic metrics like GDP per capita. Poverty is viewed as a
lack of capability, and development as capability expansion.
In academic philosophy, the Capability Approach is gaining attention, especially in
gender justice and normative theory development.
Sen’s Background
Amartya Sen's Capability Approach, developed in the 1980s, draws from his
extensive background in development economics, social choice theory (for which he
received the 1998 Nobel Prize in Economics), and philosophy. His book
"Development as Freedom" (1999) provides a comprehensive and accessible
synthesis of his contributions from these fields, making it essential for understanding
and assessing his Capability Approach.
Sen’s Concerns
The Capability Approach attempts to address several concerns Sen had about
contemporary approaches to the evaluation of well-being:
1. Individuals can differ greatly in their abilities to convert the same resources into
valuable functionings. For example, those with physical disabilities may need
specific goods to achieve mobility, and pregnant women have specific nutritional
requirements to achieve good health. Therefore, evaluation that focuses only on
means is insufficient.
2. People can adopt to the harshness of their circumstances, leading to 'adaptive
preferences' where they may declare satisfaction even in objectively adverse
conditions. Therefore, evaluation must consider unbiassed circumstances
alongside subjective metrics.
3. Having valuable options, even if not always taken, is significant. For example,
recognizing the choice not to eat during fasting is important. Thus, evaluation should
consider both functionings and capability.
4. Evaluation should reflect the reality and avoid excluding information prematurely.
Happiness is important but should not be the sole consideration. Therefore,
evaluation must remain open-minded and avoid excessive theorization.
Sen’s Critiques of Utilitarianism and Resourcism
Sen's Critiques of Utilitarianism
i) Act-Consequentialism: Act consequentialism assesses actions solely based on
their consequences, disregarding the moral aspects of the process. Sen
advocates for a 'comprehensive consequentialism' that considers both
consequences and principles. He argues that achieving equality should
consider not just the outcome but also the fairness of the process.
ii) Welfarism: Welfarism evaluates goodness focusing solely on psychological
states. Sen criticizes welfarism for neglecting reflective valuations and
physical health, which are crucial for assessing well-being. He highlights the
concept of 'adaptive preferences,' where people may claim satisfaction
despite material deprivation.
iii) Sum Ranking: Sum-ranking seeks to maximize total welfare without
considering distribution. Sen, along with philosophers like Bernard Williams
and John Rawls, argues that sum-ranking ignores the distinction between
individuals and their varying abilities to convert resources into welfare.
This approach could lead to resource distribution that Favors those who
are more efficient converters, potentially disadvantaging the sick and
disabled.
Sen's Challenge to Resourcism:
Resourcism assesses well-being based on possession resources for any good life.
Sen criticizes this approach, particularly John Rawls' account, for its exclusive
focus on resources.
His central argument is that resource use, overlooks individuals' varying abilities to
achieve the good life.
Sen disputes Rawls' idea of working out justice principles first for the 'normal' case
and argues that excluding 'hard' cases, like disability, is unjust.
He emphasizes the need to focus on the relationship between resources and
individuals rather than fetishizing resources as the embodiment of advantage.
Core Concepts and Structure of Sen’s Capability Approach
Functioning and Capability:
Amartya Sen's Capability Approach is a framework for evaluating well-being that
emphasizes the importance of considering what individuals are actually capable of
doing, rather than just looking at their material possessions or subjective well-
being.
This approach argues that commodities or wealth and mental reactions (utility) are
insufficient indicators of a person's well-being because they provide limited or
indirect information about the quality of their life.
a) Functionings:
Functionings are the states of 'being and doing.' They represent specific
achievements or capabilities that individuals can have, such as being well-
nourished, having shelter, being educated, or having access to transportation.
Functionings should be distinguished from the commodities or resources used to
achieve them. For instance, "bicycling" is a functioning, while "possessing a
bike" is a commodity.
b) Capability:
Capability refers to the set of valuable functionings that a person has effective
access to. It represents an individual's freedom to choose between different
functioning combinations, allowing them to lead a life that aligns with their values
and preferences. In other words, capability assesses the range of opportunities
and choices available to a person in terms of achieving various functionings.
c) The Significance of Capability:
Amartya Sen's Capability Approach focuses on the quality of life that individuals
can actually achieve, considering their capabilities. This approach is valuable
because it takes into account the diversity of individuals and recognizes that
different people may value different functionings, emphasizing the importance of
individual agency and freedom.
Valuation: Which Functionings Matter for the Good Life?
a) Determining Functionings that Matter:
When evaluating how well off people are in terms of their capability to lead a good
life, it's crucial to determine which functionings are essential and how much weight to
assign to each. Sen rejects the idea of philosophers or social scientists specifying a
fixed list of essential functionings because it may not account for the values that
individuals hold or the role of democracy in decision-making.
b) Sen's Social Choice Exercise:
Sen proposes a social choice exercise that involves public reasoning and
democratic procedures to determine which functionings matter for the good life.
This approach respects the values and preferences of the people concerned,
allowing them to have a say in what constitutes a flourishing life. It may not produce
complete agreement but can lead to substantial action-guiding consensus.
c) Weighted Rankings and Ranges:
Sen suggests that even if there is no unanimous ranking of functionings, it is
possible to establish ranges of weights or relative importance for different
functionings. For example, if there are conflicting views on the importance of literacy
and health, introducing a range of weights (e.g., 1/2 to 1/5) can still guide evaluations.
This approach accommodates diverse perspectives.
d) Basic Capabilities:
In many cases, a subset of crucial capabilities associated with basic needs, such as
education, health, nutrition, and shelter, can be relatively easily identified and
agreed upon as urgent moral and political priorities. These are termed "basic
capabilities" and can help assess the extent and nature of poverty, particularly in
developing countries. However, they focus primarily on the basics of well-being and
may not capture the full range of an individual's capabilities.
In summary, Amartya Sen's Capability Approach emphasizes evaluating well-being
by assessing what individuals are capable of being and doing. It involves determining
which functionings matter for the good life through a democratic and inclusive
process and acknowledges the significance of individual freedom and agency in shaping
well-being evaluations.
Criticisms of Sen’s Capability Approach
a. Illiberalism: Critics argue that Sen's focus on evaluating people's capabilities to achieve
valuable functionings may impose an external valuation of the good life, which conflicts
with the liberal principle of allowing individuals to pursue their own start of the good
life. For example, Rawls suggests that justice should focus on fair allocation of resources,
not assessing individuals' achievements. Sen responds by highlighting the heterogeneity in
people's abilities to convert resources into valuable functionings, making it crucial to assess
their effective freedom or capability to live the life they have reason to value.
b. Under-Theorisation: Critics, both external and from within the capability approach,
argue that Sen's theory lacks a clear and objective list of valuable capabilities and doesn't
specify how they should be distributed. This makes it difficult to identify the goals of a just
society or to assess societal performance. Different capability theorists propose various
methods for valuing capabilities, from procedural to substantive accounts, leading to
confusion.
c. Individualism: Sen's emphasis on individual effective freedom is criticized for being
excessively individualistic. Some argue that it neglects communal values and
oversimplifies complex social goods. Critics, like Martha Nussbaum, suggest that Sen's
focus on individual freedom fails to address how one person's freedom may affect others
or consider the need to limit certain freedoms in a just society. Sen defends his approach by
stating that social goods are instrumental and should be valued based on reflective choices,
and his concept of freedom encompasses an ethical evaluation of the content of options.
d. Information Gaps: Sen's Capability Approach relies on collecting extensive information
about people's lives and capabilities. Critics point out that this can be challenging and
invasive. The Human Development Index (HDI), a key capability metric, is criticized for its
simplicity and limited dimensions.
In summary, while Sen's Capability Approach has received praise for its focus on individual
capabilities and the evaluation of well-being beyond economic metrics, it has faced
criticisms related to its potential illiberalism, under-theorization, perceived
individualism, and the challenges associated with collecting comprehensive information.
Sen has responded to these criticisms by highlighting the importance of evaluating effective
freedom and the need for ongoing refinement and development of capability assessment
methods.
Measuring Gender Inequality Using the Capability Approach
Empirical measures of gender inequality lag behind the more sophisticated conceptual
discussion of gender in the capabilities approach. This is due to a range of conceptual and
empirical challenges associated with measuring gender inequality in capabilities. They relate
to the distinction between well-being and agency, possible gender differences in needs and
preferences, as well as household-based instead of individual-based assessments of well-
being. As a result, it is very difficult to empirically assess gender inequalities in capabilities
with a sufficient amount of accuracy and reliability. In contrast, more progress can be made
in documenting gender gaps in functionings. This can be done by using all available
individual-level information in standard household surveys, extending these surveys to
include more individual-level indicators, and by relying on custom-made data for more
detailed assessments. At the same time, measured gender gaps in functionings are not easily
interpreted. While in some cases, it is relatively easy to conclude that such gaps imply
unequal treatment and discrimination, not all observed gaps can be interpreted in this way.
We therefore need to be more circumspect when interpreting gender gaps in functionings, and
particularly try to understand much better why these gender gaps exist and, in many cases,
persist.
