Social Opportunities and Individual Responsibility: The Capability Approach and the Third Way

The fashionable widespreading of Sen’s ideas coincides with a new mood in the shaping of public policies in affluent societies. In Europe indeed, an “opportunity”-based approach to social security has been implemented through the European Employment Strategy. Public action tends to rely on a procedural concern with individual opportunities or potentialities in the labour market. The underlying ethics is that individuals are then responsible to use these background opportunities in order to lead the kind of life they value most. More broadly, the discourse and practice of the so-called “Third Way” shares with the capability approach an appeal for a procedural and enabling depiction of the role of the State. The paper intends to clarify the relation between procedural and opportunity-based approaches to social justice, among them the capability approach, and these new patterns of public action. Our vision goes in the way of a yet renewed, but deeper action of the welfare state, where social agency is envisaged as the very condition of individual agency. Drawing on the various critics of mainstream equality of opportunity, two opposed approaches to responsibility are identified: on the one hand, responsibility is conceived of as i) a “luck vs. choice” fixed starting point, ii) a backward-looking conception and iii) a highly individualistic framework. On the other hand, responsibility is envisaged as i) an outcome of public policies rather than a starting point, ii) a forward-looking conception, and iii) a combined institutional-individual framework. We situate here Sen’s capability approach, as well as critics of the luck egalitarianism path. The Third Way rhetoric is assessed against both these perspectives. The issue eventually boils down to an ethical reflection on the articulation of responsibilities, and to a pragmatic and substantial concern for the content of what providing security should mean in practice.

Sen and Nussbaum: Agency and Capability- Expansion1

Full Text / Article complet

Participation as capacity-building for active citizenship

Within the framework of the “capability approach” to human rights, this paper argues that adults who facilitate participatory planning and design with children and youth have an ethical obligation to foster young people’s capacities for active democratic citizenship. Practitioners often worry, justifiably, that if young people fail to see their ideas realized, they may become disillusioned and alienated from political life. Based on the experience of the Growing Up in Cities program of UNESCO, four rules of good practice are distilled which can help promote young people’s belief in the value of collective action, regardless of the challenges that the full implementation of their ideas may face.

Préférences décisives et précarité: Comment distinguer liberté comme capabilité et liberté comme non-domination?

Cet article se penche sur le rapport de la conception républicaine de la liberté comme non-domination défendue par P. Pettit avec la conception de la liberté comme capabilité proposée par A. Sen. L’usage que fait Pettit de la conception défendue par Sen lui permet d’avancer une conception plus réaliste des préférences des individus en contexte social. Cette définition des «préférences décisives» guide toute sa démonstration de la compatibilité de la liberté comme capabilité avec la théorie néorépublicaine. Elle lui permet en outre de donner une valeur particulière à l’objectif social de lutte contre la précarité, précarité comprise comme situation dans laquelle un individu est placé sous la dépendance arbitraire d’un autre en l’empêchant de se mouvoir à sa guise dans le jeu social. Nous examinons les enjeux de cette articulation à la lumière de la réponse critique qui a été formulée par Sen à l’effet que la conception néorépublicaine limitait trop la pluralité sociale de la liberté. Enfin, nous esquissons une manière de réconcilier l’approche par les capabilités avec la conception républicaine.

Beyond Equality of What: Sen and Neutrality

Based on a close reading of the debate between Rawls and Sen on primary goods versus capabilities, I argue that liberal theory cannot adequately respond to Sen’s critique within a conventionally neutralist framework. In support of the capability approach, I explain why and how it defends a more robust conception of opportunity and freedom, along with public debate on substantive questions about well-being and the good life. My aims are: (i) to show that Sen’s capability approach is at odds with Rawls’s political liberal version of neutrality; (ii) to carve out a third space in the neutrality debate; and (iii) to begin to develop, from Sen’s approach, the idea of public value liberalism as a position that falls within that third space.

Constructive Universalism: Sen and Sensitivity to Difference

Amartya Sen’s capability approach is, on the one hand, in line with universalism such as exhibited in Martha Nussbaum’s capabilities approach and Len Doyal and Ian Gough’s human need theory. On the other hand, his approach puts priority on people’s “self-evaluation” of capabilities and needs. The latter emphasis makes his approach distinctly sensitive to people’s differences such as gender, ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation, etc.. One could ask, however, how successfully the former commitment to universalism relates to this latter feature that places importance on taking difference seriously. This question is especially relevant with respect to global justice and gender, for example. To offer a potential answers to this question is main goal of this paper.

Pogge -vs- Sen on Global Poverty and Human Rights

This Paper is part of a broader project examining the ways in which Amartya Sen’s “capability approach” provides a framework for thinking about global poverty as a denial or a violation of basic human rights. The Paper compares the “capability approach” as a basis for thinking about global poverty and human rights with the alternative framework developed by Thomas Pogge. Both the “capability approach” and Pogge’s theory of “severe poverty as a violation of negative duties” support the idea of “freedom from severe poverty as a basic human right”. However, there are important differences. The Paper examines the limitations of Pogge’s “apparent minimalism” and establishes the ways in which Sen’s treatment of the “capability approach” and human rights moves beyond a “minimalist normative position” whilst avoiding Pogge’s charge of “implausibility”.

The Money Question and the Good Life

This paper proposes a theory of the good life for use in answering the question how much money the rich should spend on fighting poverty. The paper moves from the abstract to the concrete. To begin with, it investigates various ways to get an answer to the question what is good, and finds itself drawn to objective theories of the good. It then develops, taking Bernard Williams and Martha Nussbaum as its guides, a broad outline of a theory of the good. It holds that something evil happens to people if they do not have a real choice from a reasonable number of projects that realize most of their key capacities to a certain degree, and in connection to this it points to the great importance of money. The paper goes on specifically to consider what criticisms of Nussbaum's version of the capability approach are implied in this outline of a theory of the good. Next, it gets more specific and asks how much money the rich can give -and how they can be restricted in spending their money- without suffering any evil. It does three suggestions: the tithe suggestion, the ecological (or footprint) suggestion, and the fair trade suggestion. To conclude, the paper returns to the question how much money the rich should spend on fighting poverty.

Relating Fragile States to Social and Human Fragilities

Fragile States is a way of naming this particular category of states that have weak performance, insufficient service delivery, weak administrative and government power, and lack of legal rules. Little consideration is usually made to the fact that their own societies may also be fragile and easily jeopardised by inappropriate economic measures or external events. Poverty traps and social exclusion, unjust inequalities with lack of equity, feelings of insecurity and vulnerability, usually undermine the social fabric. Moreover, the people bear their own internal fragilities, which are based on the lack of capabilities and recognition, and interfere in the relationships between the groups that constitute the society. Therefore, dealing with the issue of fragility requires to consider various decision levels, from the personal one to the State level. Such an approach could allow fragile states to conceive preventive policies that would avoid the surge of a political crisis resulting from the combination of social conflict and individual failure.