Collectivity and the capability approach: survey and discussion

ABSTRACT

Sen's capability approach is often criticized for its alleged individualism; various approaches have been suggested to overcome this problem. The notion of ‘collective capabilities’ is best known while other suggestions haven't received as much attention or approval. This article surveys the manifold suggestions for how Sen's capability approach can accommodate collectives and introduces the literature. Five strands of literature are identified with a framework that classifies these suggestions according to (a) whether the groups are externally or internally defined and (b) whether the main aim of these groups is to improve the well-being or agency of their members. After discussing the main threads of the literature the article tags Sen's capability approach as an example of structural individualism, proposes the concept of collective functionings, and calls for models of interaction between individuals and collective agency that integrate collective intentions and explore the effects of Giddensian social structure.

KEYWORDS:

• Capability approach
• collectives
• social embedding
• individualism

Acknowledgements

I started working on this paper during the the research project GeNECA. Felix Rauschmayer has inspired and encouraged this survey. Henry Richardson has pushed me forward by asking for classifying criteria. Further, I owe much to many colleagues from the research projects GeNECA and RE-InVEST, especially Martin Rechenauer, Gunter Graf, Jean-Michel Bonvin, and Michel Debruyne as well as participants of the ESPAnet-conference 2017. Special thanks to Gary Tyler who corrected the text. All errors and the views expressed are my own.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 This distinction is contested (Nussbaum, 2000, p. 14) partly because agency usually refers to process rather than content and partly because well-being goals may be regarded as a subset of agency goals. Indeed, Sen (Sen et al., 1987, p. 28) himself has blurred the distinction by saying ‘at the risk of oversimplification … that we move from agency achievement to personal well-being by narrowing the focus of attention through ignoring “commitments”’.

2 In fact, Taylor (1990, p. 50) invokes Wittgenstein who discusses the nondecomposable nature of language in his Philosophical Investigations (see Section 2.5 as well).

3 The concept of average doesn't make sense for Sen's conception of capability sets. Stewart's examples refer to income, illiteracy rate, and quality of owned land.

4 This term is unfortunate since Nussbaum (1988) used the same term for external conditions of exercising one's (internal) capabilities. However, she later changed this to ‘combined capabilities’ (Nussbaum, 2000).

5 In this article Martins takes a quote from Leßmann (2011b) out of context supposing that she denies a causal role of social relations. However, she only disputes the idea that Sen's approach is best read as an example of the Lawson's social ontology whose system-view she calls over-socialized.

6 I would like to thank Martin Schütz for reading and discussing the book with me as well as for pointing out the German summary provided by Joas and Knöbl (2004, pp. 405–29) that proved extremely helpful for understanding the essence of Giddens’ theory. (All errors in presenting the theory are mine.)

7 Thanks to Jan Dumkow who pointed out this article.

8 Similarly, Basu (2013, p. 335) states that this may still seem close to methodological individualism, but that introducing the concept of identity ‘alters the way we reason in economics’.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by H2020 Societal Challenges [grant number 649447].

Notes on contributors

Ortrud Leßmann

Ortrud Leßmann currently is the coordinator of the research consortium ‘Labour Standards for improved Well-being’ at the University of Hamburg. An economist by training, her research interests lie in the overlap of economics, philosophy, philosophy of education and sociology. Her research focuses on social policy issues such as poverty, inequality, sustainability and justice.