Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Contributors
- Preface
- Introduction
- 1 Preference, Choice, and Rationality
- 2 Ethics and Economics
- 3 Capability and Agency
- 4 Freedom in the Spirit of Sen
- 5 Social Choice Theory and the Informational Basis Approach
- 6 Sen on Sufficiency, Priority, and Equality
- 7 Famine, Poverty, and Property Rights
- 8 Development
- Selected Bibliography
- Index
- References
3 - Capability and Agency
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 June 2012
Edited by
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Contributors
- Preface
- Introduction
- 1 Preference, Choice, and Rationality
- 2 Ethics and Economics
- 3 Capability and Agency
- 4 Freedom in the Spirit of Sen
- 5 Social Choice Theory and the Informational Basis Approach
- 6 Sen on Sufficiency, Priority, and Equality
- 7 Famine, Poverty, and Property Rights
- 8 Development
- Selected Bibliography
- Index
- References
Summary
INTRODUCTION
The capability approach is one of Amartya Sen's most significant contributions to philosophy and the social sciences. His writings on the capability approach are not only of theoretical interest on their own, but also provide concepts used in his work on social choice, freedoms, and development (see the chapters by Alkire, Pettit, and Roberts in this volume). Moreover, the capability approach has practical relevance for policy design and assessment, most famously through the work of the United Nations' Human Development Reports (United Nations Development Programme 1990–2007/8).
This chapter provides an overview of the conceptual and normative foundations of the capability approach and the role of agency within the approach. It puts aside the diverse ways in which the capability approach has been applied and implemented (Robeyns 2006). The chapter is divided into two parts. The first part, of which Ingrid Robeyns is the primary author, describes the main purpose of the capability approach, the concepts of functioning and capability, and the question of selecting and weighing capabilities. The second part, of which David A. Crocker is the primary author, focuses on the nature, value, and role of agency in the capability approach.
CAPABILITY
The Capability Approach
Scholars and policy makers use the capability approach in a wide range of fields, most prominently in development studies and policymaking, welfare economics, social policy, and social and political philosophy. It can be employed in both narrower and broader ways.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Amartya Sen , pp. 60 - 90Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2009
References
(2002). Valuing Freedoms: Sen's Capability Approach and Poverty Reduction (New York: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2009). “Concepts and Measures of Agency” in and (eds.), Arguments for a Better World (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
(1987). “Achievements, Capabilities, and the Concept of Well-being,” Social Choice and Welfare, 4, 69–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (forthcoming). “Functionings and Capabilities,” in , and (eds.), Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare, Vol. 3 (North Holland: Elsevier Science).
(1999). Faces of Intention: Selected Essays on Intention and Agency (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (eds.) (forthcoming). Measuring Justice: Primary Goods and Capabilities (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).CrossRef
, and (eds.) (2002). Contours of Agency: Essays on Themes from Harry Frankfurt (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).
(1996). “On the Possibility of a Weighting System for Functionings,” Indian Economic Review, 31, 241–50.Google Scholar
(2006). “Sen and Deliberative Democracy,” in (ed.), Capabilities Equality: Basic Issues and Problems (New York: Routledge).Google Scholar
(2007). “Deliberative Participation in Local Development,” Journal of Human Development, 8, 3, 431–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2008). Ethics of Global Development: Agency, Capability, and Deliberative Democracy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (2002). India: Development and Participation, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1981). “What is Equality? Part 2: Equality of Resources,” Philosophy and Public Affairs, 10, 283–345.Google Scholar
(2000). Sovereign Virtue: The Theory and Practice of Equality (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).Google Scholar
(2002). “Development, Capabilities and Freedom,” Studies in Comparative International Development, 37, 71–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (1992). Choosing Justice: An Experimental Approach to Ethical Theory (Berkeley: University of California Press).Google Scholar
, and (eds.) (2005). The Deliberative Democracy Handbook: Strategies for Effective Civic Engagement in the 21st Century (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass).
(1977). The Passions and the Interests: Political Arguments for Capitalism before Its Triumph (Princeton: Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
(2006a). “Capabilities and Freedom,” Journal of Political Philosophy, 14, 3, 289–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2006b). “What Goods Do to (and for) People: Duality and Ambiguity in Sen's Capabilities Approach?” in (ed.), Capabilities Equality: Basic Issues and Problems (New York: Routledge).Google Scholar
(1988). “Nature, Functioning and Capability: Aristotle on Political Distribution,” Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, 6, suppl. vol., 145–84.Google Scholar
(2000). Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2003). “Capabilities as Fundamental Entitlements: Sen and Social Justice,” Feminist Economics, 9, 2/3, 33–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2006). Frontiers of Justice: Disability, Nationality, Species Membership (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).Google Scholar
(2001). “Capability and Freedom: A Defense of Sen,” Economics and Philosophy, 17, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and (2007). “Resources Versus Capabilities: Social Endowments in Egalitarian Theory,” Political Studies, 55, 1, 133–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2002). “Can the Capability Approach be Justified?” Philosophical Topics, 30, 2, 167–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2002). Bridging Liberalism and Multiculturalism in American Education (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).Google Scholar
(2003). “Sen's Capability Approach and Gender Inequality: Selecting Relevant Capabilities,” Feminist Economics, 9, 2/3, 61–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2005). “The Capability Approach: A Theoretical Survey,” Journal of Human Development, 6, 1, 93–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2006). “The Capability Approach in Practice,” Journal of Political Philosophy, 14, 3, 351–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2007). “Capabilities and Satisfaction with Life,” Journal of Human Development, 8, 3, 415–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1980). “Equality of What?’ in (ed.), Tanner Lectures on Human Values (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
(1984). “Rights and Capabilities,” in Resources, Values and Development (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).Google Scholar
(1985b). “Well-being, Agency and Freedom: The Dewey Lectures 1984,” Journal of Philosophy, 82, 4, 169–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1987). “The Standard of Living,” in , , and , The Standard of Living: The Tanner Lectures on Human Values (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(1990a). “Gender and Cooperative Conflicts,” in (ed.), Persistent Inequalities (New York: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
(1990b). “Individual Freedom as a Social Commitment,” New York Review of Books, 37, 10 (14 June).Google Scholar
(1993). “Capability and Well-being,” in and (eds.), The Quality of Life (Oxford: Clarendon Press).Google Scholar
(1995a). “Agency and Well-Being: The Development Agenda,” in , and (eds.), A Commitment to the World's Women (New York: UNIFEM).Google Scholar
(1995b). “Gender Inequality and Theories of Justice,” in and (eds.), Women, Culture and Development: A Study of Human Capabilities (Oxford: Clarendon Press).Google Scholar
(2004). “Elements of a Theory of Human Rights,” Philosophy & Public Affairs, 32, 4, 315–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2005). “Human Rights and Capabilities,” Journal of Human Development, 6, 2, 151–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2006). “The Importance of Ethics for the Efficient Design and Implementation of Development Policies and Projects,” International Social Capital, Ethics and Development Day, Inter-American Development Bank, 24 February.
(1995). “Basic Needs, Capabilities and Human Development,” Greek Economic Review, 17, 2, 83–96.Google Scholar
(1993). “Welfare, Resources, and Capabilities: A Review of Inequality Reexamined by Amartya Sen,” Journal of Economic Literature, 31, 1947–62.Google Scholar
(ed.) (2005). Personal Autonomy: New Essays on Personal Autonomy and Its Role in Contemporary Moral Philosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).CrossRef
(2005). “Debate: Capabilities versus Opportunities for Wellbeing,” Journal of Political Philosophy, 13, 359–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
(2005). World Development Report 2006: Equity and Development (Washington, DC: World Bank / Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
- 83
- Cited by