Day 3630, The Capability Approach.

The Capability Approach (SEP)

The capability approach is a theoretical framework that entails two normative claims: first, the claim that the freedom to achieve well-being is of primary moral importance and, second, that well-being should be understood in terms of people’s capabilities and functionings. Capabilities are the doings and beings that people can achieve if they so choose – their opportunity to do or be such things as being well-nourished, getting married, being educated, and travelling; functionings are capabilities that have been realized. Whether someone can convert a set of means – resources and public goods – into a functioning (i.e., whether she has a particular capability) crucially depends on certain personal, sociopolitical, and environmental conditions, which, in the capability literature, are called ‘conversion factors.’ Capabilities have also been referred to as real or substantive freedoms as they denote the freedoms that have been cleared of potential obstacles, in contrast to mere formal rights and primary social goods.

Within philosophy, the capability approach has been employed to the development of several conceptual and normative theories within, most prominently, development ethics, political philosophy, public health ethics, environmental ethics and climate justice, and philosophy of education. This proliferation of capability literature has led to questions concerning what kind of framework it is (section 1); how its core concepts should be defined (section 2); how it can be further specified for particular purposes (section 3); what is needed to develop the capability approach into an account of social and distributive justice (section 4); how it relates to non-Western philosophies (section 5); and how it can be and has been applied in practice (section 6).

Read the rest here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/capability-approach/

Chatbot

The Capability Approach is a normative framework in political philosophy and welfare economics that evaluates well-being, justice, and social arrangements in terms of what people are actually able to do and be. It was primarily developed by Amartya Sen and later expanded by Martha Nussbaum.

At its core is a shift away from measuring welfare by resources (income, wealth) or subjective satisfaction (happiness, preferences). Instead, it asks whether people possess the real freedoms—the capabilities—to live the kinds of lives they have reason to value.

A central distinction in the theory is between functionings and capabilities.
Functionings are the actual states of being or activities a person achieves, such as being healthy, being educated, participating in political life, or forming relationships. Capabilities refer to the genuine opportunities to achieve those functionings. The approach therefore focuses not only on outcomes but on the range of options available to a person.

For example, two individuals may both be undernourished. One might be starving because food is unavailable, while another may be fasting voluntarily for religious reasons. In terms of functionings they look identical, but their capabilities differ greatly. The first lacks the capability to be well nourished; the second has that capability but chooses not to exercise it.

The framework also stresses that resources do not translate equally into capabilities. People differ in age, health, social status, environment, and cultural context. A disabled person, for instance, may require more resources to achieve the same functioning as someone without a disability. Justice therefore cannot be assessed simply by distributing goods equally.

Martha Nussbaum developed the approach further by proposing a list of central human capabilities that should be secured for every person in a just society. Her list includes capabilities such as life, bodily health, bodily integrity, practical reason, affiliation with others, and control over one’s environment. The idea is that a minimally just society must guarantee conditions that allow these capabilities to be realized.

The Capability Approach is widely used in discussions of development and social policy. It influenced the Human Development Index (HDI) and broader development thinking that looks beyond GDP toward education, health, and political freedom.

In summary, the Capability Approach evaluates social arrangements by asking: what are people actually free to do and to become? Justice and development are measured not by the possession of resources alone, but by the real opportunities available for human flourishing.

Wikipedia

The capability approach (also referred to as the capabilities approach) is a normative approach to human welfare that concentrates on the actual capability of persons to achieve lives they value rather than solely having a right or freedom to do so. It was conceived in the 1980s as an alternative approach to welfare economics.

In this approach, Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum combine a range of ideas that were previously excluded from (or inadequately formulated in) traditional approaches to welfare economics. The core focus of the capability approach is improving access to the tools people use to live a fulfilling life. Hence, the approach has a strong connection to intragenerational sustainability and sustainability strategies.

Assessing capability
Sen initially argued for five components to assess capability:

The importance of real freedoms in the assessment of a person’s advantage
Individual differences in the ability to transform resources into valuable activities
The multi-variate nature of activities giving rise to wellbeing
A balance of materialistic and nonmaterialistic factors in evaluating human welfare
Concern for the distribution of opportunities within society

Subsequently, in collaboration with political philosopher Martha Nussbaum, development economist Sudhir Anand and economic theorist James Foster, Sen has helped propel the capabilities approach to appear as a policy paradigm in debates concerning human development; his research inspired the creation of the UN’s Human Development Index (a popular measure of human development that captures capabilities in health, education, and income). Additionally, the approach has been operationalized to have a high income country focus by Paul Anand and colleagues. Sen also founded the Human Development and Capability Association in 2004 in order to further promote discussion, education, and research on the human development and capability approach. Since then, the approach has been much discussed by political theorists, philosophers, and a range of social scientists, including those with a particular interest in human health.

The approach emphasizes functional capabilities (“substantive freedoms”, such as the ability to live to old age, engage in economic transactions, or participate in political activities); these are construed in terms of the substantive freedoms people have reason to value, instead of utility (happiness, desire-fulfillment or choice) or access to resources (income, commodities, assets). An approach to wellbeing using utility can be found in utilitarianism, while access to resources is advocated by the Rawlsian approach.

Poverty is understood as capability-deprivation. It is noteworthy that proponents emphasize not only how humans function, but their access to capabilities “to achieve outcomes that they value and have reason to value”. Everyone could be deprived of capabilities in many ways, e.g. by ignorance, government oppression, lack of financial resources, or false consciousness.

This approach to human well-being emphasizes the importance of freedom of choice, individual heterogeneity and the multi-dimensional nature of welfare. In significant respects, the approach is consistent with the handling of choice within conventional microeconomics consumer theory, although its conceptual foundations enable it to acknowledge the existence of claims, like rights, which normatively dominate utility-based claims (see Sen 1979).