Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of the Capability Approach
- The Cambridge Handbook of the Capability Approach
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Acknowledgements
- General Introduction
- Part I Historical Antecedents and Philosophical Debates
- Introduction to Part I
- 1 The Capabilities Approach and the History of Philosophy
- 2 Karl Marx and the Capabilities Approach
- 3 Utility and Capability
- 4 Intellectual History and Defending the Capabilities Approach
- 5 Sen, Smith and the Cambridge Tradition
- 6 The Capability Approach to Well-Being and Freedom from the Viewpoint of Welfare Economics and Social Choice Theory
- 7 Resources or Capabilities?
- 8 Taking Multidimensionality Seriously
- 9 The Capabilities Approach and Political Liberalism
- 10 Selecting a List
- 11 Individualism and the Capability Approach
- 12 The Politics of Wonder
- Part II Methods, Measurement and Empirical Evidence
- Part III Issues in Public Policy
- Index
- References
7 - Resources or Capabilities?
An Introduction to the Debate
from Part I - Historical Antecedents and Philosophical Debates
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 November 2020
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of the Capability Approach
- The Cambridge Handbook of the Capability Approach
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Acknowledgements
- General Introduction
- Part I Historical Antecedents and Philosophical Debates
- Introduction to Part I
- 1 The Capabilities Approach and the History of Philosophy
- 2 Karl Marx and the Capabilities Approach
- 3 Utility and Capability
- 4 Intellectual History and Defending the Capabilities Approach
- 5 Sen, Smith and the Cambridge Tradition
- 6 The Capability Approach to Well-Being and Freedom from the Viewpoint of Welfare Economics and Social Choice Theory
- 7 Resources or Capabilities?
- 8 Taking Multidimensionality Seriously
- 9 The Capabilities Approach and Political Liberalism
- 10 Selecting a List
- 11 Individualism and the Capability Approach
- 12 The Politics of Wonder
- Part II Methods, Measurement and Empirical Evidence
- Part III Issues in Public Policy
- Index
- References
Summary
This chapter gives an introduction to the debate between resourcists and capabilitarians on the best metric for interpersonal comparisons of ‘advantage’. It starts by identifying a number of factors that complicate the debate and should be kept in mind while reading this body of literature. The remainder of the chapter zooms in on the philosophical literature about justice, addressing two main topics. The first is the existence of immense human diversity, which resourcists like Rawls and Pogge insufficiently acknowledge and address according to capabilitarians. The second topic is neutrality towards the good life, a value which capabilitarians like Nussbaum fail to respect according to resourcists. In the course of the chapter, several theoretical distinctions are identified that underlie the debate: chance versus choice, natural versus social causes, ideal versus non-ideal theories of justice and distributive justice versus justice as recognition. The difference between resourcists and capabilitarians, so it is concluded, is as much a difference in how they frame the debate about justice as a difference in the evaluative space that they defend.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of the Capability Approach , pp. 126 - 145Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2020
References
Anderson, E. S. 2010. ‘Justifying the Capabilities Approach to Justice’, in Brighouse, H and Robeyns, I (eds.). Measuring Justice: Primary Goods and Capabilities. Cambridge University Press: 81–100.Google Scholar
Arneson, R. J. 2010. ‘Two Cheers for Capabilities’, in Brighouse, H and Robeyns, I (eds.). Measuring Justice: Primary Goods and Capabilities. Cambridge University Press: 101–128.Google Scholar
Barclay, L. 2003. ‘What Kind of Liberal is Martha Nussbaum?’ SATS: Nordic Journal of Philosophy 4/2: 6–23.Google Scholar
Browne, J. and Stears, M. 2005. ‘Capabilities, Resources, and Systematic Injustice: A Case of Gender Inequality’. Politics, Philosophy & Economics 4/3: 355–373.Google Scholar
Cohen, G. A. 1989. ‘On the Currency of Egalitarian Justice’. Ethics 99/4: 906–944.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deneulin, S. 2002. ‘Perfectionism, Paternalism and Liberalism in Sen and Nussbaum’s Capability Approach’. Review of Political Economy 14/4: 497–518.Google Scholar
Dworkin, R. 1981a. ‘What Is Equality? Part I: Equality of Welfare’. Philosophy & Public Affairs 10/3: 185–246.Google Scholar
Dworkin, R. 1981b. ‘What Is Equality? Part II: Equality of Resources’. Philosophy & Public Affairs 10/4: 283–345.Google Scholar
Dworkin, R. 2000. Sovereign Virtue: The Theory and Practise of Equality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Ferkany, M. 2012. ‘The Objectivity of Wellbeing’. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 93/4: 472–492.Google Scholar
Fraser, N. 1995. ‘From Redistribution to Recognition: Dilemmas of Justice in a “Post-Socialist” Age’. New Left Law Review 212: 68–93.Google Scholar
Freeman, J. (ed.) 1999. John Rawls: Collected Papers. London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Gaus, G., Courtland, S. D. and Schmidtz, D. 2018. ‘Liberalism’, in Zalta, E. N. (ed). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (spring 2018 ed.). Stanford University. Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2018/entries/liberalism/ (accessed 24 February 2020).Google Scholar
Kymlicka, W. 1989. ‘Liberal Individualism and Liberal Neutrality’. Ethics 99/4: 883–905.Google Scholar
Lamont, J. and Favor, C. 2017. ‘Distributive Justice’, in Zalta, E. N. (ed). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (winter 2017 ed.). Stanford University. Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2017/entries/justice-distributive/ (accessed 24 February 2020).Google Scholar
Nelson, E. 2008. ‘From Primary Goods to Capabilities: Distributive Justice and the Problem of Neutrality’. Political Theory 36/1: 93–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nussbaum, M. C. 2000. Women and Human Development: The Capability Approach. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M. C. 2003. ‘Political Liberalism and Respect: A Response to Linda Barclay’. SATS: Nordic Journal of Philosophy 4/2: 25–44.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M. C. 2006. Frontiers of Justice: Disability, Nationality, Species Membership. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M. C. 2011a. Creating Capabilities: The Human Development Approach. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M. C. 2011b. ‘Perfectionist Liberalism and Political Liberalism’. Philosophy & Public Affairs 39/1: 3–45.Google Scholar
Oosterlaken, I. 2013. ‘Is Pogge a Capability Theorist in Disguise? A Critical Examination of Thomas Pogge’s Defence of Rawlsian Resourcism’. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 16/1: 205–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierik, R. 2006. ‘Reparations for Luck Egalitarians’. Journal of Social Philosophy 37/3: 423–440.Google Scholar
Pierik, R. and Robeyns, I. 2007. ‘Resources Versus Capabilities: Social Endowments in Egalitarian Theory’. Political Studies 55/1: 133–152.Google Scholar
Pogge, T. 2002. ‘Can the Capability Approach be Justified?’ Philosophical Topics 30/2: 167–228.Google Scholar
Putnam, D., Wasserman, D., Blustein, J. and Asch, A. 2019. ‘Disability and Justice’, in Zalta, E. N. (ed). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (fall 2019 ed.). Stanford University. Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2019/entries/disability-justice/ (accessed 24 February 2020).Google Scholar
Rawls, J. 1985. ‘Justice as Fairness: Political, Not Metaphysical’. Philosophy and Public Affairs 14: 223–251.Google Scholar
Rawls, J. 2001. Justice as Fairness: A Restatement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Robeyns, I. 2003. ‘Is Nancy Fraser’s Critique of Theories of Distributive Justice Justified?’ Constellations 10/4: 538–554.Google Scholar
Robeyns, I. 2005a. ‘Assessing Global Poverty and Inequality: Income, Resources, and Capabilities’. Metaphilosophy 36/1–2: 30–49.Google Scholar
Robeyns, I. 2005b. ‘The Capability Approach: A Theoretical Survey’. Journal of Human Development 6/1: 94–114.Google Scholar
Robeyns, I. 2008. ‘Ideal Theory in Theory and Practice’. Social Theory and Practice 34/3: 341–362.Google Scholar
Robeyns, I. 2009. ‘Justice as Fairness and the Capability Approach’, in Basu, K and Kanbur, R (eds.). Arguments for a Better World: Essays in Honor of Amartya Sen. Oxford University Press: vol. 1, 397–413.Google Scholar
Robeyns, I. 2010. ‘Gender and the Metric of Justice’, in Brighouse, H and Robeyns, I (eds.). Measuring Justice: Primary Goods and Capabilities. Cambridge University Press: 215–236.Google Scholar
Robeyns, I. 2016a. ‘Capabilitarianism’. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities 17/3: 397–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robeyns, I. 2016b. ‘The Capability Approach’, in Zalta, E. N. (ed). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (winter 2016 ed.). Stanford University. Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/capability-approach/ (accessed 24 February 2020).Google Scholar
Terzi, L. 2010. ‘What Metric of Justice for Disabled People? Capability and Disability’, in Brighouse, H and Robeyns, I (eds.). Measuring Justice: Primary Goods and Capabilities. Cambridge University Press: 150–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veenhoven, R. 2007. ‘Subjective Measures of Well-Being’, in McGillivray, M (ed.). Human Well Being: Concept and Measurement. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan: 214–239.Google Scholar