Understanding Human Well-being: How could Sen’s Capability Approach Contribute?

Abstract

The division of theoretical work into two broad areas of social and economic theory kept the social and economic domains separated from each other for a long time. Sen’s major contribution in the field of economics is to resist the desocialization of economics. In capability approach (CA), Sen shifted the focus in the field of economics and development studies from an exaggerated emphasis on growth toward issues of personal well-being, agency, and freedom. However, despite having many promising features, Sen’s CA also has its own weaknesses when considered on its own. The aim of this paper was to identify the potential as well as the limits of CA for the conceptualization and assessment of human well-being. The paper concludes that in order to use CA to construct an empirically grounded assessment of well-being, one needs to adopt carefully designed procedural methods for the selection of relevant capabilities.

Keywords:

• capability approach
• quality of life
• well-being

Notes

1 However, this non-individualistic stance is not unanimously shared. CA is also criticized for being too individualistic, not adequately taking into account the social interaction and maintaining its weak commitment to a rational framework (Zimmermann, 2006, p. 471).

2 According to Binder (2014), the transformation of resources, similar to the CA, depends on diverse conversion factors, which can be individual conversion factors (‘‘internal conversion factors’’, such as genetic dispositions, age, gender, education) or environmental conversion factors (‘‘external conversion factors’’, such as political regimes, the level of freedom in a society, corruption and so on) (p. 1207).

3 The idea of collective capabilities articulates how the interaction of individuals in groups generates capabilities that can enhance the fulfillment of each member in a way that could not have been achieved without the interaction. Sen (2009) recognizes the existence of collective capabilities, though he rejects the possibility of well-being assessment at the collective level.

4 Zimmerman (2006) articulated a similar view that Sen’s concept of agency “remains sociologically unspecified” (p. 474).