Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T21:50:16.376Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Needs and Capabilities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 April 2017

Sabina Alkire
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

How should actions to redress absolute human deprivation be framed?1 Current international coordinated actions on absolute poverty are framed by human rights or by goals such as the Millennium Development Goals. But appropriate, effective and sustained responses to needs require localized participation in the definition of those rights/goals/needs and in measures taken to redress them. Human rights or the MDGs do not seem necessarily to require such processes. For this reason some argue that no universal framework can describe economic, social, or cultural rights. Yet to address absolute poverty purely from the local perspective still requires the identification and prioritization of capabilities or needs, and often requires actions by greater-thanlocal institutions, so in practical terms a framework is not rejected without cost. This paper argues that the identification and prioritisation of rights or MDGs can and should be done at an international level, but that they might be framed as capabilities, and that far greater attention need be given to the iterative specification of these rights, and to the ongoing protection of certain agency freedoms. The paper explores how Wiggins' account of need can fruitfully inform the specification of needs claims. It also draws significantly on Sen's work to identify the intrinsic importance of process and opportunity freedoms, and to identify how these can relate to universal priorities.

Type
Papers
Information
Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplements , Volume 57 , December 2005 , pp. 229 - 251
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Institute of Philosophy and the contributors 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

2 I am grateful to David Wiggins, Soran Reader, Melissa Lane, Ian Gough, Ingrid Robeyns, and participants at the Needs conference in Durham for their comments. Errors remain my own.

2 United Nations Millennium Declaration (8 September 2000), General Assembly Resolution 55/2.

3 The goals are to:

i. eradicate extreme poverty and hunger

ii. achieve universal primary education

iii. promote gender equality and empower women

iv. reduce child mortality

v. improve maternal health

vi. combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases

vii. ensure environmental sustainability

viii. develop a global partnership for development

4 Annan, Kofi, ‘Implementation of the United Nations Millennium Declaration’ A/511210 (31 07, 2002).Google ScholarWiggins, David, ‘Claims of Need’ in Needs, Values, Truth (Oxford: Clarendon Press,1998) 1–57.Google ScholarNussbaum, Martha C., Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000).Google Scholar

5 Hart Lecture (17th June 2004), 32, fn 23. Doyal, Len and Gough, Ian, A Theory of Human Need (Basingstoke: MacMillan, 1991)Google Scholar. Fitzgerald, Ross (ed.), Human Needs and Politics (Sydney: Pergamon, 1977)Google Scholar. Springborg, Patricia, The Problem of Human Needs and the Critique of Civilisation (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1981)Google Scholar.

6 Sen Forthcoming Mimeo p. 6.

7 Wiggins and Sen both follow H.L.A. Hart in viewing a purely legal account of human rights as too narrow. This paper will not, however, explore further the similarities and dissimilarities in their accounts.

8 Wiggins op. cit., paragraphs 1–11, and postscript 2, 319–328. It would perhaps be a more obvious comparison to use Nussbaum's account of the capabilities approach as she also argues that the state should support a ‘threshold’ of central human capabilities (Nussbaum 2000). But as this paper turns on the role of freedom and agency, I use Sen's writings as they consider the role of freedom rather carefully.

9 Hart Lecture (17th June 2004), 32, fn 23.

10 Wiggins op. cit.: 45

11 Op. cit., 4. This argument is common in basic needs literature: see also Doyal and Gough, op. cit., Fitzgerald, op. cit., and Springborg, op. cit.

12 Op. cit., 6

13 Op. cit., 16

14 Op. cit., 16

15 Op. cit., 10.

16 Op. cit., 14.

17 Wiggins follows Hare's distinction between universality and generality — see Hare, R., Freedom and Reason (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1963), 38–50Google Scholar.

18 Op. cit., 22.

19 Op. cit., 23.

20 Op. cit., 14 both quotes.

21 Op. cit., 15.

22 Op. cit., 15; Sen, A. K., ‘Capability and Well-Being’, The Quality of Life, Sen, A. and Nussbaum, M. (eds.) (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993), 30–53CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed.

23 Op. cit., 29. Sen, Amartya K., ‘Equality of What?’ Tanner Lectures on Human Values, McMurrin, S. (ed.) (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980a)Google Scholar. Sen, Amartya K., ‘Plural Utility,’ Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 81 (1980/1981), 193–215Google Scholar. Sen, Amartya K., ‘Well-Being Agency and Freedom: The Dewey Lectures 1984’, Journal of Philosophy 82, 4 (1985a), 169–221.Google ScholarSen, Amartya K., Commodities and Capabilities (Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1985b).Google ScholarSen, Amartya K., ‘The Standard of Living’, The Standard of Living: The Tanner Lectures on Human Values, Sen, A., Muellbauer, J., Kanbur, R., Hart, K., and Williams, B. (eds.) (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987).Google ScholarSen, Amartya K., ‘The Concept of Development’, The Handbook of Development Economics, Volume I, Chenery, H. and Srinivasen, T.N. (eds.) (Amsterdam: Elsevier Publishers, 1988a).Google ScholarSen, Amartya K., ‘Development as Capability Expansion’, Human Development and the International Development Strategy for the 1990s, Griffin, K. and Knight, J. (eds.) (London: MacMillan, 1990).Google ScholarSen, Amartya K., Inequality Reexamined (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992).Google ScholarSen, Amartya K., ‘Capability and Well-Being’, The Quality of Life, Sen, Amartya and Nussbaum, Martha (eds.) (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993), 30–53.Google ScholarSen, Amartya K., ‘Well-Being, Capability and Public Policy’, Giornale degli economisti et Annali di economia 53 (1994), 334–347.Google ScholarSen, Amartya K., ‘On the Foundations of Welfare Economics: Utility, Capability and Practical Reason’, Ethics, Rationality and Economic Behaviour, Farina, F., Hahn, F., and Vannucci, S. (eds.) (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996a), 50–65Google Scholar. Sen, Amartya K., ‘Freedom, Capabilities and Public Action: A Response’, Politeia 12, 43/44 (1996b), 107–125.Google ScholarSen, Amartya K., On Economic Inequality: with a substantial annexe ‘after a Quarter Century’ by Foster, J. and Sen, A. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2nd Edition, 1997a).Google ScholarSen, Amartya K., Development As Freedom (New York: Knopf Press, 1999).Google Scholar

24 Op. cit., 60 where Wiggins discusses the epistemological role consensus can play.

25 Op. cit., 11. Nussbaum, Martha C., ‘Nature, Function and Capability: Aristotle on Political Distribution’, Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 6, Supplementary Volume (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988), 145–184.Google ScholarNussbaum, Martha C., ‘Aristotelian Social Democracy’, Liberalism and the Good, Douglass, Bruce, Mara, Gerald and Richard, Henry (eds.) (London: Routledge, 1990), 203–252.Google ScholarNussbaum, Martha C., ‘Human Functioning and Social Justice: In Defense of Aristotelian Essentialism’, Political Theory 20, 2 (1992), 202–246.Google ScholarNussbaum, Martha C., ‘Non- Relative Virtues: An Aristotelian Approach’, The Quality of Life, Sen, Amartya and Nussbaum, Martha (eds.) (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993), 242–269.Google ScholarNussbaum, Martha C., ‘Aristotle on Human Nature and the Foundations of Ethics’, World Mind and Ethics: Essays on the Ethical Philosophy of Bernard Williams, Altham, J. and Harrison, R. (eds.) (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 86–131.Google ScholarCrocker, David A., ‘Functioning and Capability: The Foundations of Sen's and Nussbaum's Development Ethic, Part 2’, Women, Culture and Development: A Study of Human Capabilities, Nussbaum, Martha and Glover, Jonathan (eds.) (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995), 153–199.Google Scholar

26 Op. cit., 11.

27 Op. cit. 1998, 12. Sen, Amartya K., ‘Rights and Agency’, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 11, 1 (1982a), 5–29Google Scholar; Sen, ‘Liberty as Control: An Appraisal’, Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 7 (1982b), 207–221Google Scholar; Sen, ‘Freedom of Choice’, European Economic Review 32 (1988b), 269–294Google Scholar.

28 ‘Needs are states of dependency (in respect of not being harmed), which have as their proper objects things needed (or, more strictly, having or using …x)’. Op. cit., 16.

29 Op. cit., 16.

30 Op. cit., 9. Veenhoven, Ruut, DenBuitlaar, Carla and Heer, Henk de, World Database of Happiness: Correlates of Happiness (Rotterdam, Netherlands: RISBO, 1994).Google ScholarSmith, Peter B. and Bond, Michael Harriss, Social Psychology Across Cultures: Analysis and Perspectives, (Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1993).Google ScholarHofstede, G., Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Press, 1980).Google ScholarInglehart, Ronald, Modernization and Postmoderization: Cultural, Economic, and Political Change in 43 Societies (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1997).Google ScholarInglehart, Ronald and Baker, Wayne, ‘Modernization, Cultural Change, and the Persistence of Traditional Values’, American Sociological Review, 65 (2000), 19–51.Google ScholarKahneman, Daniel, Diener, Ed and Schwarz, Norbert (eds.), Weil-Being: The Foundations of Hedonic Psychology (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1999).Google ScholarRyan, R. M., and Deci, E. L., ‘Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development and well-being’, American Psychologist, 55 (2000), 68–78.Google ScholarChirkov, V., Ryan, R., Kim, Y. and Kaplan, U., ‘Differentiating Autonomy From Individualism and Independence: A Self-Determination Theory Perspective on Internalization of Cultural Orientations and Well-Being’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 1 (2003), 97–110.Google Scholar

31 Op. cit., 10.

32 I am grateful for David Wiggins’ advice on this point in particular. Sen, Amartya K., ‘Welfare, Preference and Freedom’, Journal of Econometrics, 50 (1991), 15–29.Google ScholarSen, Amartya K., ‘Maximization and the Act of Choice’, Econometrica 65, 4 (1997b), 745–779.Google ScholarSen, Amartya K., Rationality and Freedom (Cambridge MA: Belnap Press, 2002).Google Scholar

33 Alkire, Sabina, Valuing Freedoms: Sen's Capability Approach and Poverty Reduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002b)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, Chapters 5 and 7.

34 Wiggins discusses this briefly (op. cit., 21); see footnote on Paul Streeten's work. Beitz, C. R., ‘Amartya Sen's Resources, Values and Development’, Economics and Philosophy, 2 (1986).Google Scholar

35 For the main texts developing the capability approach see Sen 1980, 1980/81, 1985a, 1985b, 1987, 1988a, 1990, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1996a, 1996b, 1997a, 1999. Sen, Amartya K., Resources, Values and Development (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1984).Google Scholar

36 Sen 1999: 75.

37 Sen traces the roots of this approach to human flourishing to Aristotle's writings in both The Nicomachean Ethics and Politics (Sen 1992:39, Sen 1999:73). Nussbaum's work investigates this heritage: see especially 1988, 1990, 1992, 1993, 1995. For an inspection of both authors’ conceptions of functionings see Crocker 1995. Stewart, Frances, Basic Needs in Developing Countries (Maryland: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1985).Google ScholarStreeten, Paul, Burki, Shaid Javed, Haq, Mahbub ul, Hicks, Norman, and Stewart, Frances, First Things First: Meeting Basic Human Needs in Developing Countries (London: Oxford University Press for the World Bank, 1981).Google ScholarLederer, Karin (ed.), Human Needs: A Contribution to the Current Debate (Cambridge, MA: Oelgeschlager, Gunn and Hain, 1980).Google Scholar International Labour Organization, Employment, Growth, and Basic Needs (Geneva: International Labour Organization, 1976)Google Scholar. Drèze, Jean and Sen, Amartya, Hunger and Public Action. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989).Google ScholarDrèze, Jean and Sen, Amartya, India: Economic Development and Social Opportunity (Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1995).Google ScholarDrèze, Jean and Sen, Amartya (eds.), Indian Development: Selected Regional Perspectives (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997).Google ScholarDrèze, Jean and Sen, Amartya, India: Development and Participation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002).Google Scholar

38 Agency refers to the freedom to bring about achievements one considers to be valuable, whether or not these achievements are connected to one's own well-being or not. See Sen 1992: 56–7, 1999: 191, and Sen's third Dewey lecture 1985: 203–221.

39 See Sen 1982a, 1982b, 1988b, 1992, 1999, 2002. Alkire, Sabina, ‘Dimensions of Human Development’, World Development (02, 2002a)Google Scholar.

40 Sen 1992: 40.

41 Sen 1992: 31, see 1999: 74 and 2002: 596. Alkire Valuing Freedoms.

42 Veenhoven et al. 1994, Smith and Bond 1993, Hofstede 1980, Inglehart 1997, Inglehart and Baker 2000, Kahneman et al. 1999. However see Ryan's empirical studies of autonomy (2000, 2002, 2004), that invoke concepts closely related to Sen. Nussbaum, Martha C., ‘Flawed Foundations: The Philosophical Critique of (a Particular Type of) Economies’, University of Chicago Law Review (1997), 1197–1214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

43 Sen 1992: 63.

44 Sen 1992: 59. See Sen 1985b, 1991, 1997d and t h e references therein.

45 Sen forthcoming ‘Elements of a Theory of Human Rights’, Philosophy and Public Affairs (Expected Fall 2005).

46 Sen 1993a: 36.

47 Sen 1984: 514.

48 Op. cit., 327.

49 In addition to the eight goals of the MDGs, there are 18 targets and 48 indicators that do track changes in particular ‘satisfiers’.

50 Stewart, referring to Streeten et al. 1981, Lederer 1980, I LO 1976 and others notes that BN always included ‘certain standards of nutrition, and the universal provision of health and education services’. They sometimes included ‘shelter and clothing and non-material needs such as employment, participation and political liberty’ (1985:1). See Drèze and Sen 1989, 1995, 1997, 2002 and Sen 1999, all of which view political participation as a basic capability.

51 Op. cit., 328.

52 Particularly Streeten 1984 and Stewart 1985.

53 This argument is developed in Sen's Arrow lectures, Sen 2002 Chapters 19–21.

54 Sen 2002: 585.

55 I have tried to explore some of these ideas elsewhere in ‘Valuing Freedoms 2002 and ‘Dimensions of Human Development’ (2002).

56 With Nussbaum I also think it significant ‘that the endogeneity of preferences has been recognized by almost all the major writers on emotion and desire in the history of Western philosophy, including Plato, Aristotle, the Epicureans, the Stoics, Thomás Aquinas, Spinoza, and Adam Smith, not to mention countless contemporary writers in philosophy and in related fields (such as anthropology and cognitive psychology)’. Nussbaum (1997).