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-lrblm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-09T06:30:04.476Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

6 - The Capability Approach to Well-Being and Freedom from the Viewpoint of Welfare Economics and Social Choice Theory

from Part I - Historical Antecedents and Philosophical Debates

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 November 2020

By
Kotaro Suzumura
Edited by
Enrica Chiappero-Martinetti ,
Siddiqur Osmani  and
Mozaffar Qizilbash
Enrica Chiappero-Martinetti
Affiliation:
University of Pavia
Siddiqur Osmani
Affiliation:
Ulster University
Mozaffar Qizilbash
Affiliation:
University of York
Get access

Summary

Traditionally, the state of persons has been described either by means of how richly they are endowed with means for achieving their ends, or by means of how happy or fulfilled they are. Sen criticized the former, opulence-focused approach for its commodity-fetishist bias; he also criticized the latter, utility-focusedapproach for the reason that considerations of feasibility enter into what we are pained not to obtain, and what we can expect to obtain may involve compromises with a harsh reality. Sen’s capability approach was introduced so as to be free from these defects in the informational bases of normative economics. This chapter is meant to highlight the crucial features of this approach. We contend that it is an attempt to build a coherent framework of the realization-focused assessment approach to human well-being, freedom and equality. It is concerned not with the characterization and implementation of the first-best allocation of resources, but with the identification of the channels through which the suboptimal allocation of resources can be improved without violating freedom and dignity of persons. It is founded on the non-consequentialinformational basis, as it assigns a crucial role to the intrinsicvalue of the freedom of choice within each person’s capability.

Keywords

informational tree of normative evaluationconsequentialism versus non-consequentialismwelfarism versus non-welfarismtranscendental institutionalism versus realization-focused assessment approachHicks’s non-welfarist manifesto; Rawls’s theory of justice by means of social primary goods; functioning and capabilityequitable allocation of maximal overall freedom
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of the Capability Approach , pp. 106 - 125
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

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

Basu, K. 1987. ‘Achievements, Capabilities, and the Concept of Well-Being’. Social Choice and Welfare 4: 69–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Basu, K. and López-Calva, L. F. 2011. ‘Functionings and Capabilities’, in Arrow, K. J., Sen, A. K. and Suzumura, K (eds.). Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 2. Amsterdam: North-Holland: 153–186.Google Scholar
Bentham, J. 1776. A Fragment on Government. London: T. Payne.Google Scholar
Dasgupta, P. and Maskin, E. 2015. ‘Debreu’s Social Equilibrium Existence Theorem’. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 112: 15769–15770.Google Scholar
Debreu, G. 1952. ‘A Social Equilibrium Existence Theorem’. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 38: 886–893.Google Scholar
Gorman, W. 1980. ‘The Demand for Related Goods: A Possible Procedure for Analysing Quality Differentials in the Egg Market’. Review of Economic Studies 47: 843–856 (circulated as journal paper no. 2319, Iowa Agricultural Experiment Station, November 1956).Google Scholar
Hammond, P. J. 1976. ‘Equity, Arrow’s Conditions, and Rawls’ Difference Principle’. Econometrica 44: 793–804.Google Scholar
Harsanyi, J. C. 1955. ‘Cardinal Welfare, Individualistic Ethics and Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility’. Journal of Political Economy 63: 309–321.Google Scholar
Herrero, C. 1996. ‘Capabilities and Utilities’. Economic Design 2: 69–88.Google Scholar
Hicks, J. R. n.d. (c.1955). ‘Another Shot at Welfare Economics, Lecture I and Lecture II’ (unpublished typescript, 19 pages folio + 21 pages, diagrams in the text).Google Scholar
Hicks, J. R. 1959. ‘Preface – and a Manifesto’, in Hicks, J. R.. Essays in World Economics. Oxford: Clarendon Press (repr. in Hicks 1981: 135–141).Google Scholar
Hicks, J. R.n.d. (c.1963). ‘The Real Product – A Revision of Welfare Economics’ (unpublished manuscript).Google Scholar
Hicks, J. R. 1975. ‘The Scope and Status of Welfare Economics’. Oxford Economic Papers 27:307–326 (repr. in Hicks 1981: 218–239).Google Scholar
Hicks, J. R. 1981. Wealth and Welfare: Collected Essays on Economic Theory, vol. I. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lancaster, K. 1966. ‘A New Approach to Consumer Theory’. Journal of Political Economy 74: 132–157.Google Scholar
Mitchell, W. C. 1937. The Backward Art of Spending Money and Other Essays. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M. 2006. Frontiers of Justice: Disability, Nationality, Species Membership. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M. 2011. Creating Capabilities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M. and Sen, A. (eds.). 1993. The Quality of Life. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Pigou, A. 1912. Wealth and Welfare. London: Macmillan (repr. as Pigou, A. 1999. Collected Economic Writings, vol. II. London: Macmillan).Google Scholar
Pigou, A. 1920. The Economics of Welfare. London: Macmillan (4th ed. 1932; repr. as Pigou, A. 1999. Collected Economic Writings, vol. III. London: Macmillan).Google Scholar
Rawls, J. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press (rev. ed. 1999).Google Scholar
Robbins, L. 1932. An Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science. London: Macmillan (2nd ed. 1935).Google Scholar
Sen, A. 1970. Collective Choice and Social Welfare. San Francisco: Holden-Day (expanded ed. 2017. London: Penguin).Google Scholar
Sen, A. 1977. ‘On Weights and Measures: Informational Constraints in Social Welfare Analysis’. Econometrica 45/7: 1539–1572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, A. 1980. ‘Equality of What?’ in McMurrin, S. M. (ed.). The Tanner Lectures on Human Values. Cambridge University Press: 195–220 (repr. in Sen 1982: 353–369).Google Scholar
Sen, A. 1982. Choice, Welfare and Measurement. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sen, A. 1985a. Commodities and Capabilities. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Sen, A. 1985b. ‘Well-Being, Agency and Freedom: The Dewey Lectures 1984’. Journal of Philosophy 82/4: 169–221.Google Scholar
Sen, A. 1992. Inequality Reexamined. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Sen, A. 1996. ‘On the Foundations of Welfare Economics: Utility, Capability and Practical Reason’, in Farina, F, Hahn, F and Vannucci, S (eds.). Ethics, Rationality and Economic Behaviour. Oxford: Clarendon Press: 50–65.Google Scholar
Sen, A. 2009. The Idea of Justice. London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
Suzumura, K. 1999. ‘Consequences, Opportunities, and Procedures’. Social Choice and Welfare 16: 17–40 (repr. in Suzumura 2016: 477–504).Google Scholar
Suzumura, K. 2000. ‘Welfare Economics Beyond Welfarist-Consequentialism’. Japanese Economic Review 51: 1–32 (Presidential Address presented at the Japanese Economic Association; repr. in Suzumura 2016: 731–753).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suzumura, K. 2011. ‘Welfarism, Individual Rights, and Procedural Fairness’, in Arrow, K. J., Sen, A. K. and Suzumura, K (eds.). Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 2. Amsterdam: North-Holland: 605–685.Google Scholar
Suzumura, K. 2016. Choice, Preferences, and Procedures: A Rational Choice Theoretic Approach. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Suzumura, K. 2017. ‘John Hicks’s Farewell to Economic Welfarism: How Deeply Rooted and Far Reaching Is His Non-Welfarist Manifesto?’ (rev. version completed on 18 December 2017).Google Scholar
Suzumura, K. and Xu, Y. 2001. ‘Characterizations of Consequentialism and Non-Consequentialism’. Journal of Economic Theory 101: 423–436 (repr. in Suzumura 2016: 505–519).Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] 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
×