Why the Capability Approach?

Abstract

In addressing operational challenges such as poverty or economic development, many researchers and practitioners wish to build upon insights raised by Sen's capability approach and related writings. This paper argues that the comprehensive reach and foundation of the human development and capability approach has a value independent from and additional to their practical outworkings, and yet also that operational specifications are both possible and vital to the further development of the approach. The paper begins with a thumbnail sketch of the core concepts of the capability approach, and supplements these with additional informational and principle requirements that Sen argues to be necessary for a more complete assessment of a state of affairs. It traces some important avenues along which the Human Development Reports and other empirical studies have operationalized certain aspects of Sen's capability approach. The paper then articulates further developments that might be expected, arguing that such developments must also build upon cutting edge research in other fields. It also identifies certain ‘value judgments’ that are inherent to the capability approach and should not be permanently dismissed by some methodological innovation.

Keywords:

• Amartya Sen
• Capabilities
• Capability approach
• Development economics
• Human development
• Poverty
• Well‐being

Notes

Martha Nussbaum's rich account of the capability approach merits separate treatment that lies beyond the scope of this article.

For overviews of issues see, for example, Fukuda‐Parr and Kumar (2003), Robeyns (2000), Sugden (1993), Nussbaum and Sen (1993), Crocker (1991, 1992) and Alkire (2002).

For brief historical accounts see, for example, Gasper (1996), Streeten (1995) and Doyal and Gough (1991).

See Sen (1992, p. 39; 1999a, p. 75); see also Sen (1990a). For the context of this paper I often use examples of poverty reduction, but of course the capability approach is not limited to these; other focal issues might be chosen with equal relevance.

Sen traces the roots of this approach to human flourishing to Aristotle's writings in both The Nicomachean Ethics and Politics (1992, p. 39; 1999a, p. 73).

In Quality of Life Sen pointed out that he had not used the term ‘basic capabilities’ in his Dewey Lectures, nor in Commodities and Capabilities, in order to avoid confining the capability approach “only to the analysis of basic capabilities” (Sen 1993a, p. 41, n. 33). Drèze and Sen's Indian Development takes up again the language of basic human capabilities, as does Development as Freedom (Sen, 1999a, p. 20). However although Development as Freedom does identify five instrumental freedoms, Sen does not, ever, identify and defend a canonical ‘list’ of basic capabilities; indeed, he argues convincingly against such a list (as presented by Sen in his Keynote Address at the Human Capability Conference, Pavia, Italy, September 2004).

See the exchange between Williams and Sen (1987b, pp. 98–101, 108–109). Sen (1993a, p. 37) writes that assessments of the standard of living focus on “those influences on well‐being that come from the nature of [the person's] life, rather than from ‘other‐regarding’ objectives or impersonal concerns”.

See Sen (1992, pp. 56–57; 1999a, p. 191; 2002, chapters 19–21) and Sen's third Dewey lecture (1985a, pp. 203–221).

A further research agenda might be developed to consider harmful or negative beings and doings — and people's interest in advancing them. See Frances Stewart's keynote address given at Pavia in September 2004, forthcoming in the Journal of Human Development, July 2005.

See also Sen (1985b, 1991, 1997a, and references cited therein).

See Sen (1985a, lecture 3). For a summary of Sen's writings on individual and collective agency see Alkire (forthcoming, and references cited therein). See also Deneulin in this issue. For each of the remaining topics I give only one citation; for more extensive referencing, see Alkire (2002).

Attention to the informational requirements of moral principles was the substance of Sen's first Dewey lecture (1985a) and has been sustained in subsequent writings. See also Sen (1979).

Sen (1997c) offers alternative ways of measuring capabilities.

See, for example, the bibliography online (www.hd‐ca.org).

See, for example, Anand and Sen (1993, 1994, 1995, 1997, 2000a, 2000b) and Sen (1997d). But also see Fukuda‐Parr (2002).