Following the reading of chapters 11 and 12 in Amartya Sen’s book, the ‘Idea of Justice’ this entry focuses extensively on a discussion of Sen’s ‘capability approach’.
Fundamentally, Sen’s capability approach is an attempt to stem away from defining deprivation solely in terms of financial deficit and focuses instead on establishing the real, underlying causes of poverty. Sen believes that ‘disadvantages’ are often ‘coupled’ together meaning that it is not sufficient to just examine things from a purely financial perspective in terms of improving the welfare of those in need. Although it is evident that financial assistance is required in order for the disadvantaged to achieve what he refers to as specific ‘functionings’, it is not sufficient if long term change is on the agenda. Sen believes that it is essential to examine the links that exist between the different types of disadvantages in order to determine their just causes and to establish their interconnectedness.
Although deprivation affects ability and therefore hinders income earning capacity, poverty results from capability deprivation and not income deprivation as is commonly believed within capitalist government systems. With his capability approach, Sen argues that the income approach to poverty is disproportionate and does not take into consideration; individual heterogeneities, disparities in the physical environment, societal variation and individual perspectives.
The capabilities approach is linked to substantive freedom and values ability over income, focusing on opportunities rather than the means to the opportunities, in other words wealth, resources and utility. However, Sen still remains sceptical about income distribution as a means of rectifying capability deprivation as he believes that it ultimately does not facilitate understanding nor contribute to long term poverty alleviation in tackling the issues behind capability deprivation, what Sen refers to as ‘real poverty’.
Although the capability approach is a viable alternative to the income approach, especially when long term change is on the agenda, it frequently slips short of the mark, notably in terms of its execution. The capability approach is a necessary critique of traditional welfare economics in that poverty isn’t judged by a lack of wealth or resources but by a human inability to achieve valuable functionings. Although the capability approach is clearly superior to the income approach in that it searches for answers by taking into account all aspects of life in determining the real factors for poverty it can also be criticised for being too general. Although Sen is absolutely correct in focusing on functional capabilities as opposed to access to resources in judging advantage, it must also be acknowledged that this approach is not always either usable or preferable as it is often considered to be too multidimensional.
When used in conjunction with each other, both the income approach and the capability apporach have the highest chance at success. Although the capability approach has proven to be groundbreaking, the benefits of the more simple analyses of what constitutes as poverty (for example comparative wealth or income) should not be completely ignored as although financial deprivation is not the only aspect of poverty it still remains its defining feature.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
The Capability Approach as an Idea of Justice
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I more or less agree with all of the above. The greatest merit of the capabilities approach seems to me to be in pointing out the conceptual distinction between resources as a means to an end and resources as an end in themselves. (Assuming I’ve interpreted it correctly).
At the same time, material resources themselves are clearly ‘easier to work with’ than capabilities in terms of how we measure and compare and distribute and redistribute them.
It seems to me therefore, that what we should aim at is, as you say, to have both approaches working in conjunction with one another. Ideally, complimentary balance should be found which recognises that capabilities are ultimately the most important aspects of a person’s life, while acknowledging the difficulties with a capabilities-only approach (such as those you mention above), and using something like an income approach as a supplementary, rather than a competing, model to be used as a sort of ‘indirect’ method of achieving a just society.
I would think that, though I agree with Marian's general argument, I scoff (rather impolitely I admit, shame on me) when the capabilities approach is considered ground-breaking. Give a man a fish, and you will feed him for a day, and we know the rest. However, the purpose of welfare does become lost in translation when implementation and institutionalisation comes into play, and I agree that resource approach is far more simple, alas not as effective in the long term. So indeed as egalitarians we ought to seek enablement of opportunities, not a sterile and senseless distribution of resources.
I think the main question that arises from Sen’s capabilities approach is what capabilities we consider to be important. For example, we can all agree that the capability to visit areas of scenic beauty might be an important capability to equalise: but maybe we judge the capability to travel to those areas by business class or by Ferrari as not so important. We may judge the capability to shelter ourselves or nourish ourselves properly to be extremely important but not to live in a castle or dine on fine cuisine every night. The capability approach may therefore leave room for a large degree of inequality of resources where we view the underlying capability to be equalised. The question is does this tackle what we are really concerned about in cases of poverty?
Is it the differences in ability to do something, i.e holiday, socialise, eat, etc, or the differences in the style by which we do it that makes material inequality so harsh to those at the lower ends of the social ladder? It would seem to me that those that take a capabilities approach to poverty in their daily lives, say for example the more bohemian or “beatnik” members of society, ie those who view themselves enriched by their capabilities, are often materially not so well off. But can society share their outlook and disregard material inequality for equality of capability? I am not so sure.
In hindsight my use of the word 'groundbreaking' may have been a little over zealous, so in that regard I agree with Oscar.
However, I do not think that it is possible to disagree that the capabilities apporach has proven to be both significant and extremely beneficial, notably in terms of modern day development economics.
As Kevin mentioned above, the term 'capabilities' in itself is highly ambiguous which may lead to certain disagreements surrounding the type of capabilities that are considered to be of high importance.
Although it is not without its flaws, I do feel that the best method is to use both approaches in conjunction with each other. This will lead to an honest, legitimate understanding of the source of poverty and will ultimately prove important when attempting to rectify the issue, either financially, through increasing opportunities, through fairer distribution of resources, etc
Post a Comment