Beyond ‘having reason to value’: why we should adopt a procedure-independent and value-neutral definition of capabilities

References

• Alkire, S. (2002). Valuing freedoms. Sen’s capability approach and poverty Reduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Alkire, S. (2008). Choosing dimensions: The capability approach and multidimensional poverty. MPRA Working Papers No. 8862.
   Google Scholar
• Alkire, S., & Deneulin, S. (2009). The human development and capability approach. In S. Deneulin & L. Shahani (Eds.), An introduction to the human development and capability approach: Freedom and agency (pp. 22–48). London: Earthscan.
   Google Scholar
• Argenton, C., & Rossi, E. (2013). Pluralism, preferences, and deliberation: A critique of Sen’s Constructive argument for democracy. Journal of Social Philosophy, 44(2), 129–145.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arneson, R. (2010). Two Cheers for capabilities. In H. Brighouse, & I. Robeyns (Eds.), Measuring justice. Primary goods and capabilities (pp. 101–127). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Baujard, A., & Gilardone, M. (2017). Sen is not a capability theorist. Journal of Economic Methodology, 24(1), 1–19. doi: 10.1080/1350178X.2016.1257821
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bonvin, J.-M., & Farvaque, N. (2005). What informational basis for assessing job-seekers?: Capabilities vs. Preferences. Review of Social Economy, 63(2), 269–289.
   Google Scholar
• Byskov, M. F. (2018a). The capability approach in practice: A New ethics for setting development agendas. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Byskov, M. F. (2018b). Selecting capabilities for development. An evaluation of proposed methods. In F. Comim, S. Fennell, & P. B. Anand (Eds.), New frontiers of the capability approach (pp. 198–231). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Carter, I. (1999). A measure of freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Carter, I. (2014). Is the capability approach Paternalist? Economics & Philosophy, 30(1), 75–98.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Claassen, R. (2011). Making capability Lists: Philosophy versus democracy. Political Studies, 59(3), 491–508.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Claassen, R. (2014). Capability paternalism. Economics & Philosophy, 30(1), 57–73.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Claassen, R. (2018). Capabilities in a just society: A theory of navigational agency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Claassen, R., & Düwell, M. (2013). The Foundations of capability theory: Comparing Nussbaum and Gewirth. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 16(3), 493–510.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clark, D. A. (2002). Visions of development: A study of human values. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Crocker, D. A. (2008). Ethics of global development. Agency, capability, and deliberative democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Crocker, D. A., & Robeyns, I. (2010). Capability and agency. In C. Morris (Ed.), Amartya Sen (pp. 60–90). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Deneulin, S., & Shahani, L. (2009). An introduction to the human development and capability approach: Freedom and agency. London: Earthscan.
   Google Scholar
• Dowding, K., & Van Hees, M. (2009). Freedom of choice. In The handbook of rational and social choice (pp. 374–392). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dworkin, R. (1981). What is Equality? Part 2: Equality of resources. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 10(4), 283–345.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Entwistle, V. A., Cribb, A., & Owens, J. (2018). Why health and social care support for people with long-term conditions should be oriented towards enabling them to live well. Health Care Analysis, 26(1), 48–65.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans, P. (2002). Collective capabilities, culture, and Amartya Sen’sDevelopment as freedom. Studies in Comparative International Development, 37(2), 54–60.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans, S. (2017). What should social welfare seek to achieve? Applying the Capability Approach. Ethics and Social Welfare, 11(1), 19–32.
   Google Scholar
• Frankfurt, H. G. (1971). Freedom of the will and the concept of a person. The Journal of Philosophy, 64(1), 5–20.
   Google Scholar
• Gasper, D. (2007). What is the capability approach?: Its core, rationale, partners and dangers. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 36(3), 335–359.
   Google Scholar
• Hart, C. S., & Brando, N. (2018). A capability approach to children’s well-being, agency and participatory rights in education. European Journal of Education, 53(3), 293–309. doi: 10.1111/ejed.12284
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hodgett, S., & Deneulin, S. (2009). On the use of narratives for assessing development policy. Public Administration, 87(1), 65–79.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holland, B. (2008). Ecology and the limits of justice: Establishing capability ceilings in Nussbaum’s capabilities approach. Journal of Human Development, 9(3), 401–425.
   Google Scholar
• Ibrahim, S. (2017). How to build collective capabilities: The 3C-Model for Grassroots-Led development. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 18(2), 197–222. doi: 10.1080/19452829.2016.1270918
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ibrahim, S., & Alkire, S. (2007). Agency and empowerment: A proposal for internationally comparable indicators. Oxford Development Studies, 35(4), 379–403.
   Google Scholar
• Khader, S. J. (2011). Adaptive preferences and women’s empowerment. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Khader, S. J., & Kosko, S. J. (2019). “Reason to value”: process, opportunity, and perfectionism in the capability approach. In L. Keleher & S. J. Kosko (Eds.), Agency and democracy in development ethics (pp. 178–204). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kirman, A., & Teschl, M. (2006). Searching for identity in the capability space. Journal of Economic Methodology, 13(3), 299–325.
   Google Scholar
• Mauro, V., Biggeri, M., & Maggino, F. (2018). Measuring and monitoring poverty and well-being: A New approach for the synthesis of multidimensionality. Social Indicators Research, 135(1), 75–89. doi: 10.1007/s11205-016-1484-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nussbaum, M. (1992). Human functioning and social justice: In defence of Aristotelian Essentialism. Political Theory, 20(2), 202–246.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nussbaum, M. (2000). Women and human development: A study in human capabilities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nussbaum, M. (2003). Capabilities as fundamental entitlements: Sen and social justice. Feminist Economics, 9(2–3), 33–59.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nussbaum, M. (2006). Frontiers of justice. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nussbaum, M. (2011). Creating capabilities. The human development approach. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Palmer, T. G. (2009). Realizing freedom: Libertarian theory, history, and practice. Washington, DC: Cato Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Poveda, S., & Roberts, T. (2018). Critical agency and development: Applying Freire and Sen to ICT4D in Zambia and Brazil. Information Technology for Development, 24(1), 119–137. doi: 10.1080/02681102.2017.1328656
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prah Ruger, J. (2009). Health and social justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Prah Ruger, J. (2010). Health capability: Conceptualization and operationalization. American Journal of Public Health, 100(1), 41–49.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Putnam, H. (2002). The Collapse of the fact/value Dichotomy and other Essays. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rawls, J. (2001). Justice as fairness. A restatement. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press.
   Google Scholar
• Richardson, H. (1997). Practical reasoning about final ends. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Robeyns, I. (2016a). Capabilitarianism. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 17(3), 397–414.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robeyns, I. (2016b). The capability approach. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy (Winter 2016). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/capability-approach/
   Google Scholar
• Robeyns, I. (2017). Wellbeing, freedom and social justice: The capability approach re-examined. Cambdridge: Open Book Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Schroeder, M. (2016). Value theory. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy (fall 2016). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2016/entries/value-theory/
   Google Scholar
• Sen, A. (1974). Informational bases of alternative welfare approaches: Aggregation and income distribution. Journal of Public Economics, 3(4), 387–403.
   Google Scholar
• Sen, A. (1977). On weights and measures: Informational constraints in social welfare analysis. Econometrica, 45(7), 1539–1572. doi: 10.2307/1913949
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sen, A. (1979a). Equality of what? The Tanner Lectures on Human Values, 197–220.
   Google Scholar
• Sen, A. (1979b). Issues in the measurement of poverty. The Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 81(2), 285–307. doi: 10.2307/3439966
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sen, A. (1979c). Personal utilities and public judgements: Or what’s wrong with welfare economics. The Economic Journal, 89(355), 537–558. doi: 10.2307/2231867
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sen, A. (1979d). Utilitarianism and Welfarism. The Journal of Philosophy, 76(9), 463–489. doi: 10.2307/2025934
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sen, A. (1985a). Commodities and capabilities. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sen, A. (1985b). Well-being, agency and freedom: The Dewey lectures 1984. The Journal of Philosophy, 82(4), 169–221.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sen, A. (1985c). Women, technology and sexual divisions. Trade and Development, United Nations, New York, 6, 218–223.
   Google Scholar
• Sen, A. (1987a). Gender and cooperative conflicts. UNU Wider Working Paper 18. World Institute for Development Economics Research. Helsinki.
   Google Scholar
• Sen, A. (1987b). Tanner lectures in human values The standard of living. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511570742.
   Google Scholar
• Sen, A. (1990). Justice: Means versus freedoms. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 19(2), 111–121.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sen, A. (1992). Inequality Reexamined. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sen, A. (1993). Capability and well-being. In M. Nussbaum, & A. Sen (Eds.), The Quality of life (Vol. 1993) (pp. 30–53). Oxford: Clarendon.
   Google Scholar
• Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. New York: Knopf.
   Google Scholar
• Sen, A. (2000). Reason before identity. Oxford: Romanes Lecture.
   Google Scholar
• Sen, A. (2002). Rationality and freedom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sen, A. (2005). Human rights and capabilities. Journal of Human Development, 6(2), 151–166.
   Google Scholar
• Sen, A. (2007). Identity and violence: The illusion of destiny. New Delhi: Penguin Books India.
   Google Scholar
• Sen, A. (2008a). The idea of justice. Journal of Human Development, 9(3), 331–342.
   Google Scholar
• Sen, A. (2008b). Violence, identity and poverty. Journal of Peace Research, 45(1), 5–15. doi: 10.1177/0022343307084920
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sen, A. (2009a). The fog of identity. Politics, Philosophy & Economics, 8(3), 285–288. doi: 10.1177/1470594X09105388
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sen, A. (2009b). The idea of justice. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sen, A. (2013). The ends and means of Sustainability. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 14(1), 6–20. doi: 10.1080/19452829.2012.747492
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stewart, F., & Deneulin, S. (2002). Amartya Sen’s contribution to development thinking. Studies in Comparative International Development, 37(2), 61–70. doi: 10.1007/BF02686262
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Svensson, P. G., & Levine, J. (2017). Rethinking sport for development and Peace: The capability approach. Sport in Society, 20(7), 905–923. doi: 10.1080/17430437.2016.1269083
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teschl, M., & Comim, F. (2005). Adaptive preferences and capabilities: Some preliminary conceptual explorations. Review of Social Economy, 63(2), 229–247.
   Google Scholar
• van der Deijl, W. (2016). What happiness science can learn from John Stuart Mill. International Journal of Wellbeing, 6(1), 164–179. doi:10.5502/ijw.v6i1.464
   Google Scholar
• Venkatapuram, S. (2011). Health justice. An argument from the capability approach. Cambridge: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Walker, M. (2005). Amartya Sen’s capability approach and education. Educational Action Research, 13(1), 103–110.
   Google Scholar
• Walker, M., & Unterhalter, E. (2007). Amartya Sen’s capability approach and social justice in education. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Retrieved from http://library.mpib-berlin.mpg.de/toc/z2008_308.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Walsh, V. (2003). Sen after Putnam. Review of Political Economy, 15(3), 315–394.
   Google Scholar
• Williams, B. (1981). Internal and external reasons. In J. E. Adler & L. J. Rips (Eds.), Reasoning. Studies of human inference and its foundations (pp. 60–66). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Williams, B. (1987). The standard of living: Interests and capabilities. In A. Sen & G. Hawthorn (Eds.), The standard of living. The Tanner Lectures. Clare Hall, Cambridge, 1985 (pp. 94–102). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar