scholarly journals Beyond Equality of What: Sen and neutrality

2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 226-235
Author(s):  
Christopher Robert Lowry

Based on a close reading of the debate between Rawls and Sen on primary goods versus capabilities, I argue that liberal theory cannot adequately respond to Sen’s critique within a conventionally neutralist framework. In support of the capability approach, I explain why and how it defends a more robust conception of opportunity and freedom, along with public debate on substantive questions about well-being and the good life. My aims are: (i) to show that Sen’s capability approach is at odds with Rawls’s political liberal version of neutrality; (ii) to carve out a third space in the neutrality debate; and (iii) to begin to develop, from Sen’s approach, the idea of public value liberalism as a position that falls within that third space.

Author(s):  
Mendiola Teng-Calleja ◽  
Jose Antonio R. Clemente ◽  
Ma. Ligaya Menguito ◽  
Donald Jay Bertulfo

Abstract. This study sought to initiate conversations on the utility of the capability approach and a psychological lens in approximating a living wage. We put forth the concept of capability gap – defined as the difference between what one values and what one perceives as attainable. We used a set of valued domains of a good life that were identified based on well-being indicators in determining capability gaps. Five hundred workers (all breadwinners) belonging to households selected through stratified random sampling from purposively chosen middle- and low-income communities in the Philippines participated in the survey. From the data, we constructed a weighted capability measure that determines the capability gap, weighted by the perceived importance of each of the good life domains. We likewise derived an estimate of a living wage that yields a weighted capability that represents individuals' capabilities to achieve and pursue valued outcomes, freedoms, and entitlements. This initial attempt at estimating a living wage based on individuals' capability to achieve and pursue a good life is presented as the main contribution of the research. The limitations of the study as well as its implications to living wage research and policy are discussed.


2005 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 89-108 ◽  
Author(s):  
SERENA OLSARETTI

A central question for assessing the merits of Amartya Sen's capability approach as a potential answer to the “distribution of what”? question concerns the exact role and nature of freedom in that approach. Sen holds that a person's capability identifies that person's effective freedom to achieve valuable states of beings and doings, or functionings, and that freedom so understood, rather than achieved functionings themselves, is the primary evaluative space. Sen's emphasis on freedom has been criticised by G. A. Cohen, according to whom the capability approach either uses too expansive a definition of freedom or rests on an implausibly active, indeed “athletic,” view of well-being. This paper defends the capability approach from this criticism. It argues that we can view the capability approach to be underpinned by an account of well-being which takes the endorsement of valuable functionings as constitutive of well-being, and by a particular view of the way in which endorsement relates to force and choice.


2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
David Hall

Amartya Sen’s capability approach is a guiding light for international efforts to improve the measurement of national well-being. This article compares Sen’s nuanced philosophical ideal with the New Zealand Treasury’s Living Standards Framework, which identifies the capability approach as one of various influences. However, the idea of the capability – that is, people’s freedoms to lead the kind of lives they have reason to value – remains an interpretive possibility, rather than a design feature. To give the capability its due importance, policymakers will need to utilise this idea when making sense of the Dashboard’s indicators and instilling policy relevance.


Author(s):  
Sabina Alkire

This chapter presents Sen’s capability approach as a framework for well-being measurement with powerful and ongoing relevance to current work on measuring well-being in order to guide public policy. It discusses how preferences and values inform the relative weights across capabilities, then draws readers’ attention to measurement properties of multidimensional measures that have proven to be policy relevant in poverty reduction. It presents a dual-cutoff counting methodology that satisfies these properties and outlines the assumptions that must be fulfilled in order to interpret ensuing indices as measuring capability poverty. It then discusses Bhutan’s innovative extension of this methodology in the Gross National Happiness Index and reflects upon whether it might be suited to other contexts. It closes by responding at some length to relevant material in other Handbook chapters.


2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 93-108
Author(s):  
Akinjide Aboluwodi

Most of the students studying entrepreneurship in Nigerian universities lack entrepreneurial capability- that is, they lack the freedom to pursue and achieve entrepreneurial opportunity. Freedom is seen here in terms of those conditions that must be in place for students to be able to carry out their entrepreneurship studies. These are conditions that support the well-being of the students and may be seen as having good shelter, being well nourished, being healthy, being able to do their normal studies among others. The paper examined why the presence of these conditions is likely to assist students to improve their creative thinking and strengthen their entrepreneurial capability. It explored Amartya Sen’s Capability Approach, focusing on freedom, opportunities, and functionings to explain the required favourable conditions that make learning worthwhile for students, and how it accounts for students’ ability to strengthen their entrepreneurial capability. The paper argued for the deployment of creative thinking to strengthen entrepreneurial capability among students of entrepreneurship in universities in Nigeria. It concluded by urging universities in Nigeria to adopt relevant curriculum in addition to providing students with a decent learning environment to enable them to develop creative thinking that could be used in entrepreneurship education.


Author(s):  
Flavio Comim

AbstractThe paper introduces a poset-generalizability perspective for analysing human development indicators. It suggests a new method for identifying admissibility of different informational spaces and criteria in human development analysis. From its inception, the Capability Approach has argued for informational pluralism in normative evaluations. But in practice, it has turned its back to other (non-capability) informational spaces for being imperfect, biased or incomplete and providing a mere evidential role in normative evaluations. This paper offers the construction of a proper method to overcome this shortcoming. It combines tools from poset analysis and generalizability theory to put forward a systematic categorization of cases with different informational spaces. It provides illustrations by using key informational spaces, namely, resources, rights, subjective well-being and capabilities. The offered method is simpler and more concrete than mere human development guidelines and at the same time it avoids results based on automatic calculations. The paper concludes with implications for human development policies and an agenda for further work.


2013 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
pp. 615-618 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gary J. Lewis ◽  
Ryota Kanai ◽  
Geraint Rees ◽  
Timothy C. Bates

Utilitas ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 334-354 ◽  
Author(s):  
STEPHEN M. CAMPBELL

This essay introduces and defends a new analysis of prudential value. According to this analysis, what it is for something to be good for you is for that thing to contribute to the appeal or desirability of being in your position. I argue that this proposal fits well with our ways of talking about prudential value and well-being; enables promising analyses of luck, selfishness, self-sacrifice and paternalism; preserves the relationship between prudential value and the attitudes of concern, love, pity and envy; and satisfies various other desiderata. I also highlight two ways in which the analysis is informative and can lead to progress in our substantive theorizing about the good life.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document