Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-l4dxg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-11T09:01:14.702Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

12 - Beyond Welfarism

The Potential and Limitations of the Capability Approach*

from Part II - Developing Modern Welfare Economics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 March 2021

By
Constanze Binder
Edited by
Roger E. Backhouse ,
Antoinette Baujard  and
Tamotsu Nishizawa
Roger E. Backhouse
Affiliation:
University of Birmingham and Erasmus University Rotterdam
Antoinette Baujard
Affiliation:
Université de Lyon et Université Jean Monnet à Saint-Étienne
Tamotsu Nishizawa
Affiliation:
Teikyo University Japan
Get access

Summary

The capability approach is widely considered to be a promising alternative to welfarist approaches in welfare economics. Indeed, prominent criticism of the informational basis of utilitarianism and resource-based approaches in welfare economics and political philosophy stand at the origins of the approach. What is not straightforward is whether the capability approach can indeed overcome the problems that motivated its origins. This chapter discusses the latter issue, covering the intrinsic importance of freedom, issues of preference adaptation and the neglect of diversity linked to paternalism. Drawing both on the wide diversity of the literature on capabilities and on the axiomatic literature on freedom rankings, we show that the characteristic features of the capability approach are not enough to respect these three criteria together. We conclude that any promising non-welfarist approach will require further scrutiny of the conceptualisation of freedom, and the modalities of application of value pluralism.

Keywords

Capability ApproachWelfarismUtilitarianismPaternalismJusticeFreedomCapability RankingsPreference Adaptation
Type
Chapter
Information
Welfare Theory, Public Action, and Ethical Values
Revisiting the History of Welfare Economics
 , pp. 277 - 297
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

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

Alkire, S. 2002. Valuing Freedoms: Sen’s Capability Approach and Poverty Reduction, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Alkire, S. and Foster, J. 2011. Counting and Multidimensional Poverty Measurement, Journal of Public Economics 95(7–8): 476–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Backhouse, R. E. and Nishizawa, T. 2010. No Wealth but Life: Welfare Economics and the Welfare State in Britain, 1880–1945, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Basu, K. and Lopez Calva, L. F. 2011. Functionings and Capabilities, in Arrow, K., Sen, A. K. and Suzumura, K. (eds.), Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare, Volume II, Amsterdam: Elsevier, 153–87.Google Scholar
Baujard, A. 2007. Conceptions of Freedom and Ranking Opportunity Sets: A Typology, Homo Oeconomicus 24: 231–54.Google Scholar
Baujard, A. 2011. Utilité et liberté de choix dans les classements d’ensembles d’opportunités, Raisons politiques 43: 59–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baujard, A. 2016. Welfarism, an historical perspective. 3rd International Conference Economic Philosophy, June 2016, Aix-en-Provence, France.Google Scholar
Baujard, A. and Gilardone, M. 2017. Sen Is Not a Capability Theorist, Journal of Economic Methodology 24(1): 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binder, C. 2013. Plural Identities and Preference Formation. Social Choice and Welfare: 1–18. doi:10.1007/s00355-013-0761-z.Google Scholar
Binder, C. B. 2019. Agency, Freedom and Choice. Theory and Decision Library A: Rational Choice in Practical Philosophy and Philosophy of Science. Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
Binder, C. and Binder, C. B. 2016. A Capability Perspective on Indigenous Autonomy, Oxford Development Studies 44: 297–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowding, K. and van Hees, M. 2009. Freedom of Choice, in Anand, P., Pattanaik, P. K. and Puppe, C. (eds.), The Handbook of Rational and Social Choice, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 374–92.Google Scholar
Drydyk, J. and Keleher, L. 2019. Routledge Handbook of Development Ethics, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Dworkin, G. 1972. Paternalism, The Monist 56: 64–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Echávarri, R. A. and Permanyer, I. 2008. Ranking Profiles of Capability Sets, Social Choice and Welfare 31: 521–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elster, J. 1982. Sour Grapes, in Sen, A. and Williams, B. (eds.), Utilitarianism and Beyond, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 219–38.Google Scholar
Elster, J. 1983. Sour Grapes: Studies in the Subversion of Rationality, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fiebiger Byskov, M. 2018. The Capability Approach in Practice: A New Ethics for Setting Development Agendas, New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foster, J. E. 2015. Freedom, Opportunity, and Well-Being, in Arrow, K., Sen, A. K. and Suzumura, K. (eds.), Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare, Volume II, Amsterdam: Elsevier, 687–728.Google Scholar
Fukuda-Parr, S. 2003. The Human Development Paradigm: Operationalizing Sen’s Ideas on Development, Feminist Economics 9(2/3): 301–17.Google Scholar
Gasper, D. 2002. Is Sen’s Capability Approach an Adequate Basis for Considering Human Development? Review of Political Economy 14: 435–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Hees, M. 2016. Analysing Capabilities: Games, Groups and Effectivity, Working Paper.Google Scholar
Khader, S. 2011. Adaptive Preferences and Women’s Empowerment, New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kramm, M. 2019. When a River Becomes a Person, Working Paper.Google Scholar
Kreps, D. M. 1979. A Representation Theorem for ‘Preference for Flexibility’, Econometrica 47: 565–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nozick, R. 1974. Anarchy, State and Utopia, New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M. C. 1988. Nature, Function, and Capability: Aristotle on Political Distribution, in Annas, J. and Grimm, R. H. (eds.), Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, Supplementary Volume, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 145–84.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M. C. 1993. Non-relative Virtues: An Aristotelian Approach, in Nussbaum, M. C. and Sen, A. K. (eds.), The Quality of Life, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 242–69.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M. C. 2000. Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nussbaum, M. C. 2001. Adaptive Preferences and Women’s Options, Economics and Philosophy 17: 67–88.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M. C. 2006. Frontiers of Justice: Disability, Nationality, Species Membership, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M. C. 2011. Creating Capabilities: The Human Development Approach, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M. C. and Sen, A. K., eds. 1993. The Quality of Life, Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Pattanaik, P. K. and Xu, Y. 1990. On Ranking Opportunity Sets in Terms of Freedom of Choice, Recherches Economiques de Louvain 56: 383–90.Google Scholar
Pattanaik, P. K. and Xu, Y. 1998. On Preference and Freedom, Theory and Decision 44: 173–98.Google Scholar
Pattanaik, P. K. and Xu, Y. 2012. Some Foundational Issues in the Functioning and Capability Approach to the Concept of Well-Being, in Social and Cultural Development of Human Resources [Eds. UNESCO-EOLSS Joint Committee], in Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS), developed under the Auspices of the UNESCO, EOLSS Publishers, Oxford, UK, [www.eolss.net] [Retrieved 24 April 2013].Google Scholar
Pattanaik, P. K. and Xu, Y. 2020. The Concept of Capability and Its Measurement, in Chiappero, E., Qizilbash, M. and Osmani, S. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of the Capability Approach, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Qizilbash, M. 2007. Social Choice and Individual Capabilities, Politics Philosophy Economics 6: 169–92.Google Scholar
Qizilbash, M. 2016. Capability, Objectivity and ‘False Consciousness’: On Sen, Marx and J. S. Mill, International Journal of Social Economics 43: 1207–18.Google Scholar
Rawls, J. 1971/1999. A Theory of Justice, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Robeyns, I. 2011. The Capability Approach, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2016 Edition), Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/capability-approach/.Google Scholar
Robeyns, I. 2017. Wellbeing, Freedom and Social Justice: The Capability Approach Re-examined, Cambridge: Open Book Publishers.Google Scholar
Saito, M. 2003. Amartya Sen’s Capability Approach to Education: A Critical Exploration, Journal of Philosophy of Education 37: 17–34.Google Scholar
Sen, A. K. 1977. On Weights and Measures: Informational Constraints in Social Welfare Analysis, Econometrica 45: 1539–72.Google Scholar
Sen, A. K. 1979a. Personal Utilities and Public Judgements: Or What’s Wrong With Welfare Economics?, The Economic Journal 89: 537–58.Google Scholar
Sen, A. K. 1979b. Utilitarianism and Welfarism, The Journal of Philosophy 76: 463–89.Google Scholar
Sen, A. K. 1980. Equality of What?, in McMurrin, S. M. (ed.), The Tanner Lectures on Human Values, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 195–220; reprinted in Goodin, R. E. and Pettit, P. (eds.), Contemporary Political Philosophy, An Anthology, Oxford: Blackwell, 473–83.Google Scholar
Sen, A. K. 1983. Development: Which Way Now?, The Economic Journal 93(372): 745–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, A. K. 1984. Rights and Capabilities, in Resources, Values, and Development, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 307–24.Google Scholar
Sen, A. K. 1985. Commodities and Capabilities, Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Sen, A. K. 1987. Ethics and Economics, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sen, A. K. 1991. Welfare, Preference and Freedom, Journal of Econometrics 50: 15–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, A. K. 1995. Gender Inequality and Theories of Justice, in Nussbaum, M. C. and Glover, J. (eds.), Women, Culture, and Development, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 259–73.Google Scholar
Sen, A. K. 1999. Development as Freedom, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sen, A. K. 2002. Rationality and Freedom, The American Economic Review 89: 349–78.Google Scholar
Sen, A. K. 2009. The Idea of Justice, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Suzumura, K., and Xu, Y. 2009. Consequentialism and Non-consequentialism: The Axiomatic Approach, in Anand, P., Pattanaik, P. K. and Puppe, C. (eds.), The Handbook of Rational and Social Choice, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 346–73.Google Scholar
Wantene, K., Yap, M. and Bockstael, E. 2019. Indigenous Peoples and the Capability Approach, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×