Capability Approach Analysis

1560 Words7 Pages
The Capability Approach:
I would like to start this paper by first examining the capability approach. With extensive reading carried out on the capability approach, I have come to the conclusion that it is a framework broadly designed to evaluate the social arrangements and well-being of individuals. The capability approach also incorporates proposals such as the design of policies to proposals in relation to such things as social change (Robeyns 2003). My understanding is that the approach is used in numerous field’s such as social and political philosophy to welfare economics and development studies. It has been used to calculate nearly all facets of peoples well-being, from an individual’s well-being to an individual’s inequality and poverty.
…show more content…
According to Sen its these beings and doings that make life valuable. Sen refers to the beings and doings as functioning’s. Functioning’s includes such things as being healthy, well-nourished, working, being literate to resting and being part of a community and having a roof over one’s head. Capabilities refer to the set of prized functioning’s that an individual has effective access to (Robeyns…show more content…
This is because the central concern of Sen’s Capability Approach is his emphasis on the individual’s actual freedom. Some communitarians such as Gore would be in agreement with this statement. Sen’s account is somewhat lacking in shared values because of his over reliance on the individual. Gore argues that Sen’s Capability Approach only reflects how good or bad social arrangements are on the individual’s freedom and well-being (Gore 1997). Another criticism and in deed a shortcoming would be that Sen’s Capability Approach and especially Sen’s idea of individual freedom is rather vague and also fails to contemplate that individual freedom may have an impact on others. I also believe that Sen’s idea of freedom though broad is not a good way of hypothesising certain personal goods such as care, friendship and respect (Giri 2000). Again another line of critique would be Sen’s image of individuals. I believe it to be rather abstract and even too rationalistic. Gasper shares this critique by suggesting Sen’s Compatible Approach is grounded to much philosophy and economics and rather not enough in methods and perspectives of sociology and anthropology (Gasper 2002). This grounding in economics and philosophy results in Sen having a poor grasp in such things as the importance and difficulty of areas such as personal growth and
Open Document