Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

2 results

  • 11 - Adaptive preferences versus internalization in deprivation

  • from Part II - Inclusiveness, Social and Individual Agency
  • Edited by Flavio Comim, Universitat Ramon Llull, P. B. Anand, University of Bradford, Shailaja Fennell, University of Cambridge
  • Book:
    Social Choice, Agency, Inclusiveness and Capabilities
    Published online:
    28 March 2024
    Print publication:
    14 March 2024, pp 240-256

  • Summary

    This chapter provides a conceptual exploration about the validity of people’s subjectivity in policy making. Featuring the capability approach in development and self-determination theory in psychology, it examines a fundamental question: whether full internalization can be made in externally deprived conditions, as the capability approach assumes, or whether it cannot, as self-determination theory assumes. For this investigation, this chapter (1) makes a comparative analysis between central capabilities in the capability approach and the basic psychological needs in self-determination theory to confirm the similarity in needs requirement; (2) examines the type of goods required for the need satisfaction and the way of assessing them in both approaches; and (3) discusses the feasibility of justice in internalization vis-à-vis adaptive preferences.