Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-9q27g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T05:54:20.075Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

2 - Amartya Sen's capability view: insightful sketch or distorted picture?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 September 2009

Mozaffar Qizilbash
Affiliation:
Professor of Politics Economics and Philosophy University of York
Flavio Comim
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge
Mozaffar Qizilbash
Affiliation:
University of York
Sabina Alkire
Affiliation:
University of Oxford
Get access

Summary

Introduction

It is now more than twenty-five years since the publication of Amartya Sen's Tanner lecture (Sen 1980) in which he first began to develop what we now know as the ‘capability approach’ (CA). The approach has evolved and matured quite considerably over time, and its influence and stature have also grown. It now stands as a, if not the only, major alternative to standard welfare economics. There have also been numerous attempts at applying the CA in different contexts. In some ways the CA has ‘grown up’ and it is an appropriate time to reassess the CA, and to consider its prospects.

Sen's CA gives us a way of thinking about and, in that sense, a ‘view’ of various interrelated subjects, such as the quality of life, justice, and development. It is a view which is, as Sen repeatedly tells us, incomplete, and which is supposed to be open to different accounts of valuation. Sen stops short of completing the picture, rather like an artist who prefers a sketch with a few sharply executed marks to a more fully worked and developed painting. The view Sen gives us might be seen as a rather masterful sketch. Yet by leaving out a great deal of detail and producing a striking effect by giving some things a particular prominence, a sketch can distort reality. So I shall look at the view Sen ‘draws’ and ask: is this view an insightful sketch or a distorted picture?

Type
Chapter
Information
The Capability Approach
Concepts, Measures and Applications
, pp. 53 - 81
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2008

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

Anand, Sudhir and Sen, Amartya K. 1995. ‘Gender inequality in human development: theories and measurement’, Human Development Report Office Occasional Paper 19 New York: United Nations Development Programme.
Anand, Sudhir and Sen, Amartya K. 2000. ‘The income component of the human development index’, Journal of Human Development 1: 83–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alkire, Sabina. 2002. Valuing freedoms: Sen's capability approach and poverty reduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atkinson, A. B. 1970. ‘On the measurement of inequality’, Journal of Economic Theory 2: 244–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Basu, Kaushik. 1987. ‘Axioms for a fuzzy measure of inequality’, Mathematical Social Science 14: 275–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bentham, Jeremy. 1970. ‘An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation’, in Burns, J. H. and Hart, H. L. A (eds.) The collected works of Jeremy Bentham. London: Athlone Press.Google Scholar
Berlin, Isaiah 1969. ‘John Stuart Mill and the ends of life’, in Isaiah Berlin, Four essays on liberty. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 173–206.Google Scholar
Carter, Ian. 1996. ‘The concept of freedom in the work of Amartya Sen: an alternative analysis consistent with freedom's independent value’, Notizie di Politeia 12 (43/44): 7–22.Google Scholar
Cerioli, Andrea and Zani, Sergio. 1990. ‘A fuzzy approach to the measurement of poverty’, in Dagum, Camilo and Zenga, Michele (eds.) Income and wealth distribution, inequality and poverty. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, pp. 272–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheli, Bruno and Lemmi, Achille. 1995. ‘A “totally” fuzzy and relative approach to the measurement of poverty’, Economic Notes 94: 115–34.Google Scholar
Chiappero-Martinetti, Enrica. 1994. ‘A new approach to the evaluation of well-being and poverty by fuzzy set theory’, Giornale Degli Economisti e Annali di Economia 53: 367–88.Google Scholar
Chiappero-Martinetti, Enrica. 1996. ‘Standard of living evaluation based on Sen's approach: some methodological suggestions’, Notizie di Politeia 12 (43/44): 37–53.Google Scholar
Chiappero-Martinetti, Enrica. 2000. ‘A multi-dimensional assessment of well-being based on Sen's functioning theory’, Rivista Internationale di Scienzie Sociali CVIII: 207–231.Google Scholar
Clark, David A. and Qizilbash, Mozaffar. 2002. ‘Core poverty and extreme vulnerability in South Africa’, Discussion Paper 2002–3, Economics Research Centre, University of East Anglia.
Clark, David A. and Qizilbash, Mozaffar. 2005. ‘Core poverty, basic capabilities and vagueness: an application to the South Africa context’, Discussion paper No. 26, Global Poverty Research Group, Universities of Manchester and Oxford.
Crisp, Roger. 1997. Mill on utilitarianism. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Drèze, Jean and Sen, Amartya K. 1995. India: economic development and social opportunity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dutta, Indranil, Pattanaik, Prasanta K. and Xu, Yongsheng. 2003. ‘On measuring deprivation and the standard of living in a multidimensional framework on the basis of aggregate data’, Economica 70: 197–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fine, Kit. 1996. ‘Vagueness, truth and logic’ in Keefe, R. and Smith, P. (eds.) Vagueness: a reader. London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Finnis, John. 1979. Natural law and natural rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fleurbaey, Marc. 2002. ‘Development, capabilities and freedom’, Studies in International Comparative Development 37: 71–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleurbaey, Marc. 2006. ‘Capabilities, functionings and refined functionings’, Journal of Human Development 7: 299–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foster, James, Lopez Calva, Luis F. and Szekely, Miguel. 2005. ‘Measuring the distribution of human development: methodology and an application to Mexico’, Journal of Human Development 6: 5–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harsanyi, John. 1982. ‘Morality and the theory of rational behaviour’, in Sen, Amartya K. and Williams, Bernard A. O. (eds.) Utilitarianism and beyond. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 39–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haq, Mahbub ul. 1995. Reflections on human development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hicks, Douglas A. 1997. ‘The inequality adjusted human development index: a constructive proposal’, World Development 25: 1283–1298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griffin, James. 1986. Well-being: its meaning, measurement and moral importance. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Kanbur, R. 1987. ‘The standard of living: uncertainty, inequality and opportunity’, in Hawthorn, Geoffrey (ed.) The standard of living. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 59–69.Google Scholar
Klasen, Stephan. 1997. ‘Poverty, inequality and deprivation in South Africa: an analysis of the 1993 SALDRU survey’, Social Indicators Research 41: 51–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klasen, Stephan. 2000. ‘Measuring inequality and deprivation in South Africa’, Review of Income and Wealth 46: 33–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Majumdar, Manabi and Subramanian, Subbu. 2001. ‘Capability failure and group disparities: some evidence from India for the 1980s’, Journal of Development Studies 37: 104–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
May, Julian, Woolard, Ingrid and Klasen, Stephan. 2000. ‘The nature and measurement of poverty and inequality’, in May, Julian (ed.) Poverty and inequality in South Africa: meeting the challenge. London and New York: Zed Books, pp. 19–48.Google Scholar
Miles Coope, Christopher. 1998. ‘Was Mill a utilitarian?’, Utilitas 10: 33–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mill, John Stuart. 1962. Utilitarianism. On liberty. Essay on Bentham. Together with selected writings of Jeremy Bentham and John Austin. Edited with an Introduction by Warnock, Mary. Glasgow: Fontana Press.Google Scholar
Mill, John Stuart. 1988. The subjection of women. Okin, Susan (ed.) Indiana: Hackett.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, Martha C. 1988. ‘Nature, function and capability: Aristotle on Political Distribution’, Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 6 (Supplementary Volume): 145–184.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, Martha C. 1990. ‘Aristotelian social democracy’, in Douglass, Bruce, Mara, Gerald and Richardson, Henry (eds.) Liberalism and the good. London: Routledge, pp. 203–243.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, Martha C. 1992. ‘Human functioning and social justice. In defence of Aristotelian essentialism’, Political Theory 20: 202–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nussbaum, Martha C. 1995. ‘Human capabilities, female human beings’, in Nussbaum, Martha C. and Glover, J. (eds.) Women, culture and development. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 61–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nussbaum, Martha C. 1998. ‘The good as discipline, as freedom’, in Crocker, David A. and Linden, Toby (eds.) Ethics of consumption: the good life, justice and global stewardship. London: Rowman and Littlefield, pp. 312–411.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, Martha C. 1999. Sex and social justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, Martha C. 2000. Women and human development: the capabilities approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nussbaum, Martha C. 2003. ‘Capabilities as fundamental entitlements: Sen and social justice’, Feminist Economics 9: 33–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nussbaum, Martha C. 2005. ‘Women's bodies: violence, security, capabilities’, Journal of Human Development 6: 167–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Qizilbash, Mozaffar. 1997a. ‘A weakness of the capability approach with respect to gender justice’, Journal of International Development 9: 251–263.3.0.CO;2-Q>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Qizilbash, Mozaffar. 1997b. ‘Pluralism and well-being indices’, World Development 25: 2009–2026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Qizilbash, Mozaffar. 1998. ‘The concept of well-being’, Economics and Philosophy 14: 51–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Qizilbash, Mozaffar. 2002a. ‘Development, common foes and shared values’, Review of Political Economy 14: 463–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Qizilbash, Mozaffar. 2002b. ‘A note on the measurement of poverty and vulnerability in the South African context’, Journal of International Development 14: 757–772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Qizilbash, Mozaffar. 2003. ‘Vague language and precise measurement: the case of poverty’, Journal of Economic Methodology 10: 41–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Qizilbash, Mozaffar. 2005b. ‘Sen on freedom and gender justice’, Feminist Economics 11: 151–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Qizilbash, Mozaffar. 2006a. ‘Capability, happiness and adaptation in Sen and J. S. Mill’, Utilitas 18: 20–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Qizilbash, Mozaffar. 2006b. ‘Philosophical accounts of vagueness, fuzzy poverty measures and multidimensionality’, in Lemmi, Achille and Betti, Gianni (eds.) The fuzzy set approach to multidimensional poverty measurement, London: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Qizilbash, Mozaffar. 2007. ‘Social choice and individual capabilities’, Politics, Philosophy and Economics 6: 169–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Qizilbash, Mozaffar and Clark, David A. 2005. ‘The capability approach and fuzzy poverty measures: an application to the South African context’, Social Indicators Research 74: 103–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheffler, Samuel. 1988. Consequentialism and its critics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sen, Amartya K. 1974. ‘Choice, orderings and morality’, in Korner, Stephan (ed.) Practical reason. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 54–67 and reprinted in Sen, Amartya K. 1982. Choice, welfare and measurement. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 74–83.Google Scholar
Sen, Amartya K. 1979. ‘Utilitarianism and welfarism’, The Journal of Philosophy 76 (9):463–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, Amartya K. 1980. ‘Equality of what?’, in McMurrin, Sterling M. (ed.) Tanner lectures on human values. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 195–220 and reprinted in Sen, Amartya K. 1982. Choice, welfare and measurement. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 353–369.Google Scholar
Sen, Amartya K. 1980–1981. ‘Plural utility’, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 81: 193–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, Amartya K. 1981. Poverty and famines: an essay on entitlement and deprivation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sen, Amartya K. 1983. ‘Poor relatively speaking’, Oxford Economics Papers 35: 153–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, Amartya K. 1984a. ‘Goods and people’, in Sen, Amartya K.Resources, values and development. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 509–532.Google Scholar
Sen, Amartya K. 1984b. ‘Family and food: sex bias in poverty’, in Sen, Amartya K. Resources, values and development. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 346–368.Google Scholar
Sen, Amartya K. 1985a. Commodities and capabilities. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Sen, Amartya K. 1985b. ‘Well-being, agency and freedom: the Dewey lectures 1984’, Journal of Philosophy 82: 169–221.Google Scholar
Sen, Amartya K. 1985c. ‘A sociological approach to the measurement of poverty’, Oxford Economics Papers, 37: 669–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, Amartya K. 1987. On ethics and economics. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sen, Amartya K. 1988. ‘The concept of development’, in Chenery, Hollis and Srinivasan, T. N. (eds.) Handbook of development economics, Amsterdam: North Holland, pp. 9–26.Google Scholar
Sen, Amartya K. 1990a. ‘Justice: means versus freedom’, Philosophy and Public Affairs 19: 111–121.Google Scholar
Sen, Amartya K. 1990b. ‘Development as capability expansion’, in Griffin, Keith and Knight, John (eds.) Human development and the international development strategy for the 1990s. London: Macmillan, pp. 41–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, Amartya K. 1991a. ‘Welfare, preference and freedom’, Journal of Econometrics 50: 15–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, Amartya K. 1991b. ‘Utility. Ideas and terminology’, Economics and Philosophy 7: 277–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, Amartya K. 1992. Inequality reexamined. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Sen, Amartya K. 1993. ‘Capability and well-being’, in Nussbaum, Martha C. and Sen, Amartya K. (eds.) The quality of life. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 51–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, Amartya K. 1995. ‘Rationality and social choice’, American Economic Review 85: 1–24.Google Scholar
Sen, Amartya K. 1996. ‘Freedom, capabilities and public action: a response’, Notizie di Politeia 12(43/44): 107–125.Google Scholar
Sen, Amartya K. 1997a. On economic inequality, Expanded edition with a substantial annexe by James A. Foster and Amartya Sen. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Sen, Amartya K. 1997b. ‘Maximization and the act of choice’, Econometrica 65: 745–779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, Amartya K. 1999. Development as freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sen, Amartya K. 2000a. ‘Consequential evaluation and practical reason’, Journal of Philosophy XCVII: 477–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, Amartya K. 2000b. ‘A decade of human development’, Journal of Human Development 1: 17–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, Amartya K. 2000c. ‘East and west: the reach of reason’, New York Review of Books XLVII (12): 33–38.Google Scholar
Sen, Amartya K. 2002. Rationality and freedom. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Sen, Amartya K. 2004a. ‘Elements of a theory of human rights’, Philosophy and Public Affairs 32: 315–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, Amartya K. 2004b. ‘Dialogue: capabilities, lists and public reason: continuing the conversation,’ Feminist Economics (10): 77–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, Amartya K. 2005a. The argumentative Indian. Writings on Indian history, culture and identity. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Sen, Amartya K. 2005b. ‘Human rights and capabilities’, Journal of Human Development 6: 151–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, Amartya K. 2006. ‘Reason, freedom and well-being’, Utilitas 18: 80–96. Statistics South Africa 1998. Census in brief. Pretoria: Statistics South Africa.Google Scholar
Sugden, Robert 1993. ‘Welfare, resources and capabilities: A review of Inequality Reexamined by Amartya Sen’, Journal of Economic Literature 31: 1947–1962.Google Scholar
Sumner, L. W. 2006. ‘Utility and capability’, Utilitas 18: 1–19.Google Scholar
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (1994, 1995, 1997). Human Development Report. New York: Oxford University Press.

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
×