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
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-t5pn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-20T03:51:08.365Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

13 - Social Choice and the Capability Approach

from Part II - Methods, Measurement and Empirical Evidence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 November 2020

By
Maurice Salles
Edited by
Enrica Chiappero-Martinetti ,
Siddiqur Osmani  and
Mozaffar Qizilbash
Enrica Chiappero-Martinetti
Affiliation:
University of Pavia
Siddiqur Osmani
Affiliation:
Ulster University
Mozaffar Qizilbash
Affiliation:
University of York
Get access

Summary

Social choice is concerned with the selection of an ideal (or social) option, which can be a so-called ‘social state’, or a social ‘utility’, or a social ‘preference’, or a social choice ‘set’, on the basis of individual utilities, or individual utility functions, or individual preferences, or individual choice sets, or individual choice functions. A number of scholars have outlined the limited aspect of the notion of utility, including, notably and pre-eminently, Amartya Sen and Martha C. Nussbaum. Although they did not put it in such a strong phrase, the basic idea is to replace the notion of utility by the notion of capability (leaving aside ‘happiness’, a notion which for many is hardly distinguishable from utility). As has been remarked by Mozaffar Qizilbash, the development of the capability approach has been focused on the capability of an individual; and the idea of amalgamating or aggregating individual data is consubstantial with social choice. The purpose of this text is to propose some preliminary ideas regarding the aggregation of individual capabilities.

Keywords

capabilitysocial choiceutilitypreferenceArrow’s theoremSen’s theoremwelfarismwelfare economicsvaguenessfuzzy sets
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of the Capability Approach , pp. 253 - 270
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alkire, S. 2016. ‘The Capability Approach and Well-Being: Measurement for Public Policy’, in Adler, M. D. and Fleurbaey, M (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Well-Being and Public Policy. Oxford University Press: 615–644.Google Scholar
Arrow, K. J. 1950. ‘A Difficulty in the Concept of Social Welfare’. Journal of Political Economy 58: 328–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arrow, K. J. 1951. Social Choice and Individual Values. New York: Wiley (2nd ed. 1963).Google Scholar
Arrow, K. J. 1959. ‘Rational Choice Functions and Orderings’. Economica 26: 121–127.Google Scholar
Arrow, K. J., Sen, A. K. and Suzumura, K. (eds.). 2002. Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare, vol. I. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Arrow, K. J., Sen, A. K. and Suzumura, K. 2011. Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare, vol. II. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Balinski, M. and Laraki, R. 2011. Majority Judgment. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barrett, R. and Salles, M. 2011. ‘Social Choice with Fuzzy Preferences’, in Arrow, K. J., Sen, A. K. and Suzumura, K (eds.). Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare, vol. II. Amsterdam: North-Holland: 367–389.Google Scholar
Barrett, R., Pattanaik, P. K. and Salles, M. 1986. ‘On the Structure of Fuzzy Social Welfare Functions’. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 19: 1–10.Google Scholar
Basu, K. 1984. ‘Fuzzy Revealed Preference Theory’. Journal of Economic Theory 32: 212–227.Google Scholar
Basu, K. 1987a. ‘Achievements, Capabilities, and the Concept of Well-Being’. Social Choice and Welfare 4: 69–76.Google Scholar
Basu, K. 1987b. ‘Axioms for a Fuzzy Measure of Inequality’. Mathematical Social Sciences 14: 275–288.Google Scholar
Basu, K. and López-Calva, L. F. 2011. ‘Functionings and Capabilities’, in Arrow, K. J., Sen, A. K. and Suzumura, K (eds.). Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare, vol. II. Amsterdam: North-Holland: 153–187.Google Scholar
Bentham, J. 1970. An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. Oxford University Press (first published 1789).Google Scholar
Bergson, A. 1954. ‘On the Concept of Social Welfare’. Quarterly Journal of Economics 68: 233–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bossert, W. and Suzumura, K. 2010. Consistency, Choice, and Rationality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broome, J. 1991. Weighing Goods. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Broome, J. 2004. Weighing Lives. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chambers, C. and Echenique, F. 2016. Revealed Preference Theory. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chiappero-Martinetti, E. 2008. ‘Complexity and Vagueness in the Capability Approach: Strengths or Weaknesses’, in Comim, F, Qizilbash, M and Alkire, S (eds.). The Capability Approach: Concepts, Measures and Applications. Cambridge University Press: 268–309.Google Scholar
Comim, F., Qizilbash, M. and Alkire, S. (eds.). 2008. The Capability Approach: Concepts, Measures and Applications. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
d’Aspremont, C. and Gevers, L. 2002. ‘Social Welfare Functionals and Interpersonal Comparability’, in Arrow, K. J., Sen, A. K. and Suzumura, K (eds.). Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare, vol. I. Amsterdam: North-Holland: 459–541.Google Scholar
Duddy, C., Perote-Peña, J. and Piggins, A. 2011. ‘Arrow’s Theorem and Max-Star Transitivity’. Social Choice and Welfare 36/1: 25–34.Google Scholar
Felsenthal, D. S. and Machover, M. (eds.). 2012. Electoral Systems: Paradoxes, Assumptions, and Procedures. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
Fleurbaey, M. 2006. ‘Capabilities, Functionings and Refined Functionings’. Journal of Human Development 7: 299–310.Google Scholar
Fleurbaey, M. and Blanchet, D. 2013. Beyond GDP: Measuring Welfare and Assessing Sustainability. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fleurbaey, M. and Maniquet, F. 2011. A Theory of Fairness and Social Welfare. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fleurbaey, M. and Maniquet, F. 2012. Equality of Opportunity: The Economics of Responsibility. New Jersey: World Scientific.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foster, J. E. 2011. ‘Freedom, Opportunity and Well-Being’, in Arrow, K. J., Sen, A. K. and Suzumura, K (eds.). Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare, vol. II. Amsterdam: North-Holland: 687–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaertner, W. 2009. A Primer in Social Choice Theory. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Graff, D. and Williamson, T. (eds.). 2002. Vagueness. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Keefe, R. 2000. Theories of Vagueness. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kolm, S.-C. 1966. ‘The Optimal Production of Social Justice’, in Guitton, H and Margolis, J (eds.). Public Economics. London: Macmillan: 145–200.Google Scholar
Kolm, S.-C. 1972. Justice et Équité. Paris: Éditions du CNRS.Google Scholar
Kolm, S.-C. 1996. Modern Theories of Justice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kolm, S.-C. 1997. Justice and Equity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kolm, S.-C. 2005. Macrojustice: The Political Economy of Fairness. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Krantz, D. H., Suppes, P., Luce, R. D. and Tversky, A. 1971. Foundations of Measurement, vol. I. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kuklys, W. 2005. Amartya Sen’s Capability Approach. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
Little, I. M. D. 1952. ‘Social Choice and Individual Values’. Journal of Political Economy 60: 422–432.Google Scholar
Luce, R. D., Krantz, D. H., Suppes, P. and Tversky, A. 1990. Foundations of Measurement, vol. III. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
May, K. O. 1954. ‘Intransitivity, Utility, and the Aggregation of Preference Patterns’. Econometrica 22: 1–13.Google Scholar
Mill, J. S. 1991a. ‘On Liberty’, in Mill, J. S.. On Liberty and Other Essays (ed. Gray, J). Oxford University Press: 5–128 (first published 1859).Google Scholar
Mill, J. S. 1991b. ‘Utilitarianism’, in Mill, J. S.. On Liberty and Other Essays (ed. Gray, J). Oxford University Press: 131–201 (first published 1863).Google Scholar
Mordeson, J. N., Malik, D. S. and Clark, T. D. 2015. Application of Fuzzy Logic to Social Choice Theory. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mulgan, T. 2007. Understanding Utilitarianism. Stocksfield: Acumen.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nussbaum, M. 2011. Creating Capabilities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Pattanaik, P. K. 2014. ‘Introduction’, in E. Maskin, and A. K. Sen, (eds.). 2014. The Arrow Impossibility Theorem. New York: Columbia University Press: 1–21.Google Scholar
Pattanaik, P. K. and Xu, Y. 1990. ‘On Ranking Opportunity Sets in Terms of Freedom of Choice’. Recherches Économiques de Louvain 56/3–4: 383–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piggins, A. and Salles, M. 2007. ‘Instances of Indeterminacy’. Analyse & Kritik 29: 311–328.Google Scholar
Qizilbash, M. 2007. ‘Social Choice and Individual Capabilities’. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 6: 169–192.Google Scholar
Raffman, D. 2014. Unruly Words: A Study of Vague Language. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Robeyns, I. 2016. ‘Capabilitarianism’. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities 17: 397–414.Google Scholar
Roemer, J. E. 1996. Theories of Distributive Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Roemer, J. E. 1998. Equality of Opportunity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roemer, J. E. and Trannoy, A. 2015. ‘Equality of Opportunity: Theory and Measurement’, in Atkinson, A. B. and Bourguignon, F (eds.). Handbook of Income Distribution. Amsterdam: North-Holland: vol. 2A, 217–300.Google Scholar
Saari, D. G. 2008. Disposing Dictators, Demystifying Voting Paradoxes: Social Choice Analysis. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Salles, M. 2011. ‘On Rights and Social Choice’, in Ege, R and Igersheim, H (eds.). Freedom and Happiness in Economic Thought and Philosophy. Abingdon: Routledge: 227–242.Google Scholar
Salles, M 2016. ‘Social Choice’, in Faccarello, G and Kurz, H. D. (eds.). Handbook on the History of Economic Analysis, vol. III. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar: 518–537.Google Scholar
Schokkaert, E. 2009. ‘The Capabilities Approach’, in Anand, P, Pattanaik, P. K. and Puppe, C (eds.). The Handbook of Rational and Social Choice. Oxford University Press: 542–566.Google Scholar
Sen, A. K. 1970a. ‘The Impossibility of a Paretian Liberal’. Journal of Political Economy 78: 152–157.Google Scholar
Sen, A. K. 1970b. Collective Choice and Social Welfare. San Francisco: Holden-Day.Google Scholar
Sen, A. K. 1971. ‘Choice Functions and Revealed Preference’. Review of Economic Studies 38: 307–317.Google Scholar
Sen, A. K. 1977. ‘Social Choice Theory: A Re-Examination’. Econometrica 45: 53–89.Google Scholar
Sen, A. K. 1985a. Commodities and Capabilities. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Sen, A. K. 1985b. ‘Well-Being, Agency and Freedom: The Dewey Lectures 1984’. Journal of Philosophy 82/4: 169–221.Google Scholar
Sen, A. K. 1987. On Ethics and Economics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sen, A. K. 2002. ‘Freedom and Social Choice: The Arrow Lecture’, in Sen, A. K., Rationality and Freedom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press: 581–712.Google Scholar
Sen, A. K. 2008. ‘The Economics of Happiness and Capability’, in Bruni, L, Comim, F and Pugno, M (eds.). Capabilities and Happiness. Oxford University Press: 16–27.Google Scholar
Sen, A. K. 2009. The Idea of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Sen, A. K. 2011. ‘The Informational Basis of Social Choice’, in Arrow, K. J., Sen, A. K. and Suzumura, K (eds.). Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare, vol. II. Amsterdam: North-Holland: 29–46.Google Scholar
Sen, A. K. 2017. Collective Choice and Social Welfare, expanded ed. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Shapiro, S. 2006. Vagueness in Context. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, N. J. J. 2009. Vagueness and Degrees of Truth. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Suppes, P., Krantz, D. H., Luce, R. D. and Tversky, A. 1989. Foundations of Measurement, vol. II. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Suzumura, K. 2011. ‘Welfarism, Individual Rights, and Procedural Fairness’, in Arrow, K. J., Sen, A. K. and Suzumura, K (eds.). Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare, vol. II. Amsterdam: North-Holland: 605–685.Google Scholar
Trannoy, A. 2016. ‘Equality of Opportunity: A Progress Report’. Revue d’économie politique 126/5: 621–651.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×