Capability approach

The capability approach (also referred to as the capabilities approach) is an economic theory conceived in
the 1980s as an approach to welfare economics.[1] In this
approach, Amartya Sen brings together a range of ideas
that were hitherto excluded from (or inadequately formulated in) traditional approaches to the economics of welfare. The core focus of the capability approach is on what
individuals are able to do (i.e., capable of).

of utility (happiness, desire-fulllment or choice) or access to resources (income, commodities, assets). Poverty
is understood as capability-deprivation. It is noteworthy
that the emphasis is not only on how humans actually
function but also on their having the capability, which is
a practical choice, to achieve outcomes that they value
and have reason to value.[4] Someone could be deprived
of such capabilities in many ways, e.g. by ignorance, government oppression, lack of nancial resources, or false
consciousness.

Assessing capability

This approach to human well-being emphasizes the importance of freedom of choice, individual heterogeneInitially, Sen argued for ve components in assessing ca- ity and the multi-dimensional nature of welfare. In signicant respects, the approach is consistent with the
pability:
handling of choice within conventional microeconomics
1. The importance of real freedoms in the assessment consumer theory, although its conceptual foundations enable it to acknowledge the existence of claims, like rights,
of a persons advantage
which normatively dominate utility-based claims (see Sen
2. Individual dierences in the ability to transform re- (1979)).
sources into valuable activities
3. The multi-variate nature of activities giving rise to
happiness

2 Key terms

4. A balance of materialistic and nonmaterialistic fac2.1

tors in evaluating human welfare

Functionings

5. Concern for the distribution of opportunities within In the most basic sense, functionings consist of beings
society
and doings.[5] As a result, living may be seen as a set
of interrelated functionings. Essentially, functionings are
Subsequently, and in collaboration particularly with the states and activities constitutive of a persons bepolitical philosopher Martha Nussbaum, development ing. Examples of functionings can vary from elementary
economist Sudhir Anand and economic theorist James things, such as being healthy, having a good job, and beFoster, Sen has helped to make the capabilities approach ing safe, to more complex states, such as being happy,
predominant as a paradigm for policy debate in human having self-respect, and being calm. Moreover, Amartya
development where it inspired the creation of the UNs Sen contends that functionings are crucial to an adequate
Human Development Index (a popular measure of hu- understanding of the capability approach; capability is
man development, capturing capabilities in health, edu- conceptualized as a reection of the freedom to achieve
cation, and income). In addition, the approach has been valuable functionings.[5]
operationalised with a high income country focus by Paul In other words, functionings are the subjects of the capaAnand and colleagues.[2][3] Furthermore, since the cre- bilities referred to in the approach: what we are capable,
ation of the Human Development and Capability Associ- want to be capable, or should be capable to be and/or
ation in the early 2000s, the approach has been much dis- do. Therefore, a persons chosen combination of funccussed by political theorists, philosophers, and a range of tionings, what they are and do, is part of their overall casocial scientists, including those with a particular interest pability set the functionings they were able to do. Yet,
in human health.
functionings can also be conceptualized in a way that signies an individuals capabilities. Eating, starving, and
fasting would all be considered functionings, but the functioning of fasting diers signicantly from that of starving because fasting, unlike starving, involves a choice and
is understood as choosing to starve despite the presence of

The approach emphasizes functional capabilities (substantive freedoms, such as the ability to live to old age,
engage in economic transactions, or participate in political activities); these are construed in terms of the substantive freedoms people have reason to value, instead
1

NUSSBAUMS CENTRAL CAPABILITIES

other options.[5] Consequently, an understanding of what 2.3 Agency

constitutes functionings is inherently tied together with an
understanding of capabilities, as dened by this approach. Amartya Sen denes an agent as someone who acts and
brings about change, whose achievement can be evaluated
in terms of his or her own values and goals.[7] This diers
from a common use of the term "agent" sometimes used
in economics and game theory to mean a person acting on
2.2 Capabilities
someone elses behalf.[7] Agency depends on the ability to
personally choose the functionings one values, a choice
Capabilities are the alternative combinations of function- that may not correlate with personal well-being. For exings that are feasible for a person to achieve. Formula- ample, when a person chooses to engage in fasting, they
tions of capability have two parts: functionings and op- are exercising their ability to pursue a goal they value,
portunity freedom the substantive freedom to pursue though such a choice may not positively aect physical
dierent functioning combinations.[6] Ultimately, capa- well-being. Sen explains that a person as an agent need
bilities denote a persons opportunity and ability to gen- not be guided by a pursuit of well-being; agency achieveerate valuable outcomes, taking into account relevant per- ment considers a persons success in terms of their pursuit
sonal characteristics and external factors. The important of the whole of their goals.[5]
part of this denition is the freedom to achieve, because if freedom had only instrumental value (valuable as For the purposes of the capability approach, agency pria means to achieve an end) and no intrinsic value (valu- marily refers to a persons role as a member of society,
able in and of itself) to a persons well-being, then the with the ability to participate in economic, social, and povalue of the capability set as a whole would simply be litical actions. Therefore, agency is crucial in assessing
dened by the value of a persons actual combination of ones capabilities and any economic, social, or political
functionings.[5] Such a denition would not acknowledge barriers to ones achieving substantive freedoms. Conthe entirety of what a person is capable of doing and cern for agency stresses that participation, public debate,
should be fostheir resulting current state due to the nature of the op- democratic practice, and empowerment,
[8]
tered
alongside
well-being.
tions available to them. Consequently, the capability set
outlined by this approach is not merely concerned with Alkire and Deneulin pointed out that agency goes toachievements; rather, freedom of choice, in and of itself, gether with the expansion of valuable freedoms. That is,
is of direct importance to a persons quality of life.[5]
in order to be agents of their lives, people need the freeFor example, the dierence between fasting and starving, dom to be educated, speak in public without fear, express
can estabon persons well-being, is whether the person is choosing themselves, associate, etc.; conversely, people
[6]
lish
such
an
environment
by
being
agents.
In
summary,
[7]
not to eat. In this example, the functioning is starving
the
agency
aspect
is
important
in
assessing
what
a person
but the capability to obtain an adequate amount of food
[9]
can
do
in
line
with
his
or
her
conception
of
the
good.
is the key element in evaluating well-being between individuals in the two states. In sum, having a lifestyle is not
the same as choosing it; well-being depends on how that
lifestyle came to be.[5] More formally, while the combi- 3 Nussbaums central capabilities
nation of a persons functionings represents their actual
achievements, their capability set represents their oppor- Nussbaum (2000) frames these basic principles in terms
tunity freedom their freedom to choose between alter- of 10 capabilities, i.e. real opportunities based on pernative combinations of functionings.[7]
sonal and social circumstance. She claims that a political
An extension of the capabilities approach was published order can only be considered as being decent if this order
in 2013 in Freedom, Responsibility and Economics of secures at least a threshold level of these 10 capabilities
[10]
the Person. This book explores the interconnected con- to all citizens. The capabilities approach has been very
inuential
in
development
policy where it has shaped the
cepts of person, responsibility and freedom in economics,
evolution
of
the
human
development
index (HDI), has
moral philosophy and politics. It tries to reconcile the
been
much
discussed
in
philosophy,
and
is increasingly
rationality and morality of individuals. It presents a
inuential
in
a
range
of
social
sciences.
methodological reection (phenomenology versus Kantian thought) with the aim to re-humanise the person, The core capabilities Nussbaum argues should be supthrough actions, and through the values and norms that ported by all democracies are:
lead to corresponding rights and obligations that must be
ordered. The book extends the capabilities approach in
1. Life. Being able to live to the end of a human life
a critical form. In particular, it considers freedom in reof normal length; not dying prematurely, or before
lation to responsibility, that is, the capacity of people to
ones life is so reduced as to be not worth living.
apply moral constraints to themselves. By contrast, Sens
2. Bodily Health. Being able to have good health, incapability approach considers freedom as a purely funccluding reproductive health; to be adequately nourtional rationality of choice.

3
ished; to have adequate shelter.
3. Bodily Integrity. Being able to move freely from
place to place; to be secure against violent assault, including sexual assault and domestic violence; having opportunities for sexual satisfaction
and for choice in matters of reproduction.

9. Play. Being able to laugh, to play, to enjoy recreational activities.

10. Control over ones Environment.
(a) Political. Being able to participate eectively
in political choices that govern ones life; having the right of political participation, protections of free speech and association.

4. Senses, Imagination, and Thought. Being able to use

(b) Material. Being able to hold property (both
the senses, to imagine, think, and reasonand to do
land and movable goods), and having property
these things in a truly human way, a way informed
rights on an equal basis with others; having
and cultivated by an adequate education, including,
the right to seek employment on an equal basis
but by no means limited to, literacy and basic mathwith others; having the freedom from unwarematical and scientic training. Being able to use
ranted search and seizure. In work, being able
imagination and thought in connection with expeto work as a human, exercising practical reariencing and producing works and events of ones
son and entering into meaningful relationships
own choice, religious, literary, musical, and so forth.
of mutual recognition with other workers.
Being able to use ones mind in ways protected by
guarantees of freedom of expression with respect to
both political and artistic speech, and freedom of Although Nussbaum did not claim her list as denite and
religious exercise. Being able to have pleasurable unchanging, she strongly advocated for outlining a list of
central human capabilities.[11] However, Sen argues that
experiences and to avoid non-benecial pain.
an exact list and weights would be too dicult to dene.
5. Emotions. Being able to have attachments to things For one, it requires specifying the context of use of caand people outside ourselves; to love those who love pabilities, which could vary. Also, Sen argues that part
and care for us, to grieve at their absence; in general, of the richness of the capabilities approach is its insisto love, to grieve, to experience longing, gratitude, tence on the need for open valuational scrutiny for makand justied anger. Not having ones emotional de- ing social judgments. He is disinclined to in any way development blighted by fear and anxiety. (Supporting value the domain of reasoning in the public sphere. Inthis capability means supporting forms of human as- stead, Sen argues that the task of weighing various casociation that can be shown to be crucial in their de- pabilities should be left to the ethical and political convelopment.)
siderations of each society based on public reasoning.[12]
Along with concerns raised about Nussbaums list, Alkire
6. Practical Reason. Being able to form a conception and Black also argue that Nussbaums methodology runs
of the good and to engage in critical reection about counter to an essential thrust of the capabilities approach
the planning of ones life. (This entails protection for which has been the attempt to redirect development thethe liberty of conscience and religious observance.) ory away from a reductive focus on a minimally decent
life towards a more holistic account of human well-being
7. Aliation.
for all people.[8]
That said, applications to development are discussed in
Sen (1999), Nussbaum (2000), and Clark (2002, 2005),
and are now numerous to the point where the capabilities
approach is widely accepted as a paradigm in development. The programme of work operationalising the capability approach by Anand and colleagues draws heavily
on Nussbaums list as a relatively comprehensive, highlevel account of the space in which human well-being
or life quality is experienced. This work argues that the
(b) Having the social bases of self-respect and subitems on Nussbaums list are too distinct to be monnon-humiliation; being able to be treated as a itored by single question and that a dashboard of some
dignied being whose worth is equal to that 40-50 indicators is required to inform the development
of others. This entails provisions of non- of empirical work.
discrimination on the basis of race, sex, sexual
orientation, ethnicity, caste, religion, national
origin and species.
(a) Being able to live with and toward others, to
recognize and show concern for other humans,
to engage in various forms of social interaction; to be able to imagine the situation of another. (Protecting this capability means protecting institutions that constitute and nourish
such forms of aliation, and also protecting
the freedom of assembly and political speech.)

4 Measurement of capabilities

8. Other Species. Being able to live with concern for

and in relation to animals, plants, and the world of The measurement of capabilities was, in the early days,
nature.
thought to be a particular barrier to the implementation

4 MEASUREMENT OF CAPABILITIES

and use of the approach. However, two particular lines

of work, in research and policy have sought to show that
meaningful indicators of what individuals (and in some
cases governments) are able to do can be developed and
used to generate a range of insights.
In 1990, the UN Human Development report published
the rst such exercise which focused on health, education and income which were equally weighted to generate
the Human Development Index. At the same time, and
subsequently, researchers recognizing that these three areas covered only certain elements of life quality have
sought to develop more comprehensive measures. A major project in this area has been the capabilities measurement project in which Anand has led teams of philosophers, economists and social scientists to generate that
gives a full and direct implement of the approach drawing particular on the key relations and concepts developed
in Sen (1985) but also on work to do with the content of
the approach. The earliest work in this project developed
a set of around 50 capability indicators which were used
to develop a picture of quality of life and deprivation in
the UK. Subsequently, Anand and colleagues have developed datasets for the USA, UK and Italy in which all the
elements of Sens framework are reected in data which
permits all three key equations, for functionings, experience and capabilities, to be estimated.

sal principles. It prioritizes physical well-being, which is

crucial to leading a good human life. However, further
analysis suggests this emphasis can serve as a point of
contention.
Asserting a set of human capabilities is a formative goal
for all cultures and a bold statement by Nussbaum. In
the ten capabilities Nussbaum proposes, it is important
to draw attention to the overwhelming importance on life
(the physical health and well-being). This overwhelming
focus has been criticized for undervaluing spiritual life
and well-being. It implies that physical and spiritual life
are separate entities - reminiscent of the secular treatment
of religion in contemporary Western society.[13]
This is further armed when Nussbaum speaks about
practical reason as the sixth capability. She states, this
entails protection of the liberty of conscience,[13] which
suggests the practice of spiritual life is separate from that
of physical life. This type of reasoning simplies the
complicated nature of religion. Religion for some can
be understood as two isolated entities - church and state.
However, for others, religion cannot be understood in isolation with their physical lives as they are deeply intertwined.
Further, Nussbaum argues that emancipating women requires dismantling culture. She states, Cultures are not
museum pieces, to be preserved intact at all costs.[13]
However, this view of culture neglects the socialization
that allows certain cultures to persistently act against the
physical, psychological and social well-being of women.
Chipping away at aspects of a culture that endanger
women does not eliminate that socialization. Attacking the monolith of tradition and culture without tackling the socialization of cultural values can only treat the
symptoms of a patriarchal culture, which can later return.

In a series of papers, they have shown that both their primary data and some secondary datasets can be used to
shed on the production and distribution of life quality for
working age adults, those in retirement, very young children, those vulnerable to domestic violence, migrants, excluded traveller communities and the disabled. They use
these applications to argue that the capability framework
is a particularly good t for understanding quality of life
across the life course and that it provides a relatively universal grammar for understanding the elements of human
wellbeing.
4.2

4.1

Women and cultural universals

Nussbaum tries to apply the capability approach to

feminism.[13] While she acknowledges that feminism is
multi-faceted and that making universal claims about fundamental human principles can be interpreted as imperialistic, she nonetheless argues that a universal approach
is necessary to battle injustices against women. This task
Nussbaum has undertaken illustrates the ne line between
the respect and preservation of a culture and the conicting agenda it has in emancipating women from patriarchal
structures.
The ten capabilities Nussbaum proposes are to universalize fundamental human rights and principles that allow for the greatest good in all human beings. By identifying the crucial elements of a good human life, this
argument tries to neutralize the debate between respecting culture and the imperialist nature of applying univer-

Monetary vs. non-monetary measures

of well-being

Monetary and non-monetary measures of well-being

are ideal when used to complement each other.[3] Understanding the various aspects of economic development process not only helps address issues of inequality and lags in human development, but also helps to
pinpoint where countries lag, which once addressed can
further promote well-being and advancement. As the
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2006) notes:
Well-being has several dimensions of
which monetary factors are only one. They
are nevertheless an important one, since richer
economies are better placed to create and
maintain other well-being-enhancing conditions, such as a clean environment, the likelihood that the average person will have a right to
10 years or more of education, and lead a com-

4.3

Shift to alternative measures

paratively long and healthy life. Well-being

will also be increased by institutions that enable citizens to feel that they control their own
lives, and that investment of their time and resources will be rewarded. In turn, this will lead
to higher incomes in a virtuous circle.[14]

Another critique by Waring is that the output-based measures ignore negative eects of economic growth[16][18]
and so commodities that lower social welfare, such as nuclear weapons, and oil extraction which causes spills, are
considered a good input. The anti-bads or the defensive expenditures to ght bads are not counted as a deduction in accounting systems (p. 11).[16][18][19] Furthermore, natural resources are treated as limitless and negaSimon Kuznets, the developer of GNP, cautioned against tive outputs such as pollution and associated health risks,
using the measure as an indicator of overall welfare, are not deducted from the measures.[19]
which speaks to the unintended use of output-based meaTechnical and misinterpretation critiques
sures as indicators of human welfare.
When GNP and GDP were developed, their intended use
was not for measuring human well-being; the intended
4.2.1 Critique of output-based measures
use was as an indicator of economic growth, and that
does not necessarily translate into human well-being.[14]
The use of GDP and GNP as an approximation of well- Kuznets has often made this point, in his words, distincbeing and development have been critiqued widely, be- tions must be kept in mind between quantity and qualcause they are often misused as indicators of well-being ity of growth, between costs and returns and between the
and human development when in fact they are only telling short and long run. Goals for more growth should specify
about the economic capacity of a country or an average more growth of what and for what (p. 9).[20]
income level when expressed on a per person basis. In Nussbaum also points out that GNP and GDP omit inparticular, feminist economics and environmental eco- come distribution and the opportunity or ability to turn
nomics oer a number of critiques. Critics in these elds resources into activities (this critique stems directly from
typically discuss gender inequalities, insucient repre- Capabilities Approach).[17] Kuznets terms this as a probsentation of environmental costs of productions and gen- lem of obtaining an unduplicated total of all output,
eral issues of misusing an output-based measure for un- (p. 15)[21] this suggests that people are only seen as conintended purposes. In sum, the conclusion of Capabili- sumers and not as potential producers, hence any prodties Approach is that people do not just value monetary ucts purchased by an individual are not seen as being
income, and that development is linked to various indica- consumed in the productive process of turning out other
tors of life satisfaction and hence are important in mea- goods (p. 15)[21]
suring well-being. Development policies strive to create
an environment for people to live long, healthy creative These accounting measures also fail to capture all forms
of work and only focus on engagement in work 'for pay
lives.[3][15][16]
or prot'", (p. 133)[22] leaving out contributions to a soFeminist critiques
ciety and economy, like volunteer work and subsistence
Nussbaum highlights some of the problematic assump- farming. Kuznets provides the example of the process
tions and conclusions of output-based approaches to de- by which farmers devote time and energy to bringing virvelopment. First, she notes that GNP and GDP do not gin land into cultivation.[21] Furthermore, GNP and GDP
consider special requirements to help the most vulnera- only account for monetary exchanges, and place no value
ble, such as women.[17] Specically, Nussbaum mentions on some important intangibles such as leisure time.[19]
that output-based approaches ignore the distribution of
needs for the varying circumstances of people, for example a pregnant woman needs more resources than a non- 4.3 Shift to alternative measures
pregnant woman or a single man.[17]
Also, output-based measures ignore unpaid work, which
includes child rearing and the societal advantages that result from a mothers work. Marilyn Waring, a political
economist and activist for womens rights, elaborates on
the example of a mother engaged in child care, domestic
care and producing few goods for the informal market, all
of which are usually done simultaneously.[18] These activities provide economic benets, but are not valued in
national accounting systems; this suggests that the denition of unemployment used in output-based measures is
inappropriate.[18] (See the article on Feminist economics,
section Well-being).
Environmental critiques

Capabilities Approach has been highly inuential thus far

in human development theories and valuational methods
of capturing capabilities,[2] the theory has led to the creation of the HDI, IHDI and GII and their uses among
international organizations such as the United Nations
and others. In 1990 in the Human Development Report
(HDR)commissioned by the UNDP set out to create a
distribution-sensitive development measure.[23]
This measure was created to rival the more traditional
metrics of GDP and GNP, which had previously been
used to measure level of development in a given country, but which did not contain provisions for terms of
distribution.[24] The resulting measure was entitled the

4 MEASUREMENT OF CAPABILITIES

Human Development Index, created by Mahbub ul Haq

in collaboration with Sen and others. The purpose was
to create an indicator of human development, especially
one that would provide a general assessment and critique
of global human development to shed light on persistent
inequality, poverty and other capability deprivations despite high levels of GDP growth.[12]
Currently the HDI continues to be used in the Human
Development Report in addition to many other measures
(based on theoretical perspectives of Capabilities) that
have been developed and used by the United Nations.
Among these indices are the Gender-related Development Index (GDI), the Gender Empowerment Measure
(GEM), introduced in 1995, and the more recent Gender
Inequality Index (GII) and the Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index (IHDI), both adopted in 2010.

and penalizes the score of the country if, indeed, large

gender disparities in those areas exist. This index is used
in unison with the HDI and therefore also captures the elements of capabilities that the HDI holds. In addition, it
considers womens capabilities which has been a focus in
much of Sens and Nussbaums work (to list a few: Nussbaum, 2004a; Nussbaum, 2004b; Sen, 2001; Sen, 1990.)

4.4.3 Gender empowerment measure

The Gender Empowerment Measure (GEM) is considerably more specialized than the GDI. The GEM focuses
particularly on the relative empowerment of women in a
given country.[24] The empowerment of women is measured by evaluating womens employment in high-ranking
economic positions, seats in parliament, and share of
household income. Notably this measurement captures
more of Nussbaums 10 Central Capabilities, such as,
4.4 Capabilities-based indices
Senses, Imagination and Thought; Aliation; and ConThe following are a few of the major indices that were trol Over Ones Environment.
created based on the theoretical grounds of Capabilities
Approach.
4.4.4 Gender inequality index
4.4.1

Human development index

The Human Development Index takes into consideration a number of development and well-being factors that
are not taken into account in the calculation of GDP
and GNP. The Human Development Index is calculated
using the indicators of life expectancy, adult literacy,
school enrollment, and logarithmic transformations of
per-capita income.[23] Moreover, it is noted that the HDI
is a weighted average of income adjusted for distributions and purchasing power, life expectancy, literacy and
health (p. 16)[25]

In the 2013 Human Development Report the Gender Inequality Index, which was introduced in 2011, continues
to adjust the GDI and the GEM. This composite measurement uses three dimensions: reproductive health, empowerment, and labor force participation.[27] When constructing the index the following criteria were key: conceptual relevance to denitions of human development
and theory; Non-ambiguity so that the index is easily interpreted; Reliability of data that is standardized and collected/processed by a trustworthy organization; No redundancy found in other indicators; and lastly Power of
discrimination, where distribution is well distinguished
among countries and there is no bunching among top
and bottom countries (p. 10).[28] This index also captures
some of Nussbaums 10 Central Capabilities (Senses,
Imagination and Thought; Aliation; and Control Over
Ones Environment).

The HDI is calculated for individual countries with a

value between 0 and 1 and is interpretedas the ultimate development that has been attained by that nation
(p. 17).[25] Currently, the 2011 Human Development Report also includes the Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index which accounts for exactly the same things
that the HDI considers however the IHDI has all three dimensions (long and healthy life, knowledge and a decent 4.4.5 Other measures
standard of living) adjusted for inequalities in the distriIn 1997, the UNDP introduced the Human Poverty Inbution of each dimension across the population.[26]
dex (HPI), which is aimed at measuring poverty in both
industrialized and developing countries. The HPI is a
4.4.2 Gender-related development index
nonincome-based measure of poverty (p. 100) which
focuses on human outcomes in terms of choices and
The Gender-related Development Index is dened as a opportunities that a person faces (p. 99).[29] In supdistribution-sensitive measure that accounts for the hu- port of this index, Sakiko Fukuda-Parra development
man development impact of existing gender gaps in the economist and past Director of The Human Development
three components of the HDI (p. 243).[24] In this way, Report Ocedierentiates between income poverty
the GDI accounts for shortcomings in the HDI in terms and human poverty. Human poverty can be interpreted as
of gender, because it re-evaluates a countrys score in the deprivations to lead a long healthy and creative life with
three areas of the HDI based on perceived gender gaps, a decent standard of living.[29]

5.2

4.5

Resource-based approaches

Alternative measures of well-being

As noted above, to a great extent, Nussbaums Central

Human Capabilities address issues of equality, political
freedom, creativity and the right to the self, as do the various indices that are based on capabilities. It is evident
that these measures are very subjective, but this fact is in
the essence of dening quality of life according to Nussbaum and Sen. Nussbaum refers to Sen in saying that,
although measures of well-being may be problematic in
comparative, quantiable models due to their subjective
matter, the protection of and commitment to human development are too important of matters to be left on the
sidelines of economic progress. Well-being and quality of
life are too important to be left without intentional focus
towards political change,[11]
Measures such as the HDI, GDI, GEM, GII, IHDI and the
like are crucial in targeting issues of well-being and indicators of quality of life. Anand, et al. (2009) can be summarized as demonstrating that it is possible to measure
capabilities within the conventions applied to standard
household survey design, contrary to earlier doubts about
the ability to operationalise the capabilities approach.

5
5.1

Contrast with other approaches

Utility-based or subjective approaches

Much of conventional welfare economics today is

grounded in a utilitarian approach according to the classical Benthamite form of utilitarianism, in which the most
desirable action is the one that best increases peoples psychological happiness or satisfaction.[6] The "utility" of a
person stands for some measure of his or her pleasure
or happiness. Some merits associated with this approach
to measuring well-being are that it recognizes the importance of taking account of the results of social arrangements in judging them and the need to pay attention to
the well-being of the people involved when judging social arrangements and their results.[7] Amartya Sen, however, argues this view has three main deciencies: distributional indierence, neglect of rights, freedoms and
other non-utility concerns, and adaptation and mental
conditioning.[7]
First o, for some more than others, it may take much less
to bring about happiness, but subjecting them to lesser
opportunities for resources and benets is by no means
fair or just. For example, a paralyzed person generally
requires more resources to be happy than someone who
is not. Thus, distributional indierence refers to ignoring
extents of inequalities in whats needed to obtain happiness on an individual level. Secondly, the utilitarian approach attaches no intrinsic value (ethics) to claims of
rights and freedoms, which some people value independently of their contribution to utility.

7
Lastly, Amartya Sen makes the argument that the
utilitarian view of individual well-being can be easily
swayed by mental conditioning and peoples happiness
adapting to oppressive situations. The utility calculus can
essentially be unfair to those who have come to terms with
their deprivation as a means for survival, adjusting their
desires and expectations. The capability approach, on the
other hand, doesn't fall victim to these same criticisms because it acknowledges inequalities by focusing on equalizing peoples capabilities, not happiness, it stresses the
intrinsic importance of rights and freedoms when evaluating well-being, and it avoids overlooking deprivation
by focusing on capabilities and opportunities, not state of
mind.

5.2 Resource-based approaches

Another common approach in conventional economics,
in economic policy and judging development, has traditionally been to focus on income and resources. These
sorts of approaches to development focus on increasing resources, such as assets, property rights, or basic
needs.[6] However, measuring resources is fundamentally
dierent from measuring functionings, such as the case
in which people don't have the capability to use their resources in the means they see t. Arguably, the main difculty in a resource- or income-based approach to wellbeing lies in personal heterogeneities, namely the diversity of human beings.[7]
Dierent amounts of income are needed for dierent individuals to enjoy similar capabilities, such as an individual with severe disabilities whose treatment to ensure the
fulllment of basic capabilities may require dramatically
more income compared to an able-bodied person. All
sorts of dierences, such as dierences in age, gender,
talents, etc. can make two people have extremely divergent opportunities of quality of life, even when equipped
with exactly the same commodities. Additionally, other
contingent circumstances which aect what an individual
can make of a given set of resources include environmental diversities (in geographic sense), variations in social
climate, dierences in relational perspectives, and distribution within the family.[7]
The capability approach, however, seeks to consider all
such circumstances when evaluating peoples actual capabilities. Furthermore, there are things people value other
than increased resources. In some cases, maximizing resources may even be objectionable. As was recognized in
the 1990 Human Development Report, the basic objective of development is to create an enabling environment
for people to live long, healthy, and creative lives. This
end is often lost in the immediate concern with the accumulation of commodities and nancial wealth that are
only a means to expansion of capabilities. Overall, though
resources and income have a profound eect on what we
can or cannot do, the capability approach recognizes that
they are not the only things to be considered when judg-

REFERENCES

ing well-being, switching the focus from a means to a

good life to the freedom to achieve actual improvements
in lives, which one has reason to value.

[7] Sen, Amartya (2001). Development as freedom. Oxford New York: Oxford University Press.
ISBN
9780192893307.

[8] Alkire, Sabina (2005). Capability and functionings:

denition & justication. HDCA Introductory Brieng
Note (Human Development and Capability Association
(HDCA)).

See also
Demographic economics
Economic development
Ethics of care
Human Development and Capability Association
International Association for Feminist Economics
International development
Journal of Human Development and Capabilities
Important publications in development economics
Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative
Sustainable development
UN Human Development Index
Welfare economics
Womens education and development

References

[1] Sen, Amartya (1985). Commodities and capabilities.

Amsterdam New York New York, N.Y., U.S.A: NorthHolland Sole distributors for the U.S.A. and Canada, Elsevier Science Pub. Co. ISBN 9780444877307.
[2] Dowding, Keith; Martin, Van Hees; Anand, Paul; Hunter,
Graham; Carter, Ian; Guala, Francesco (2009). The development of capability indicators. Journal of Human
Development and Capabilities (Taylor and Francis) 10 (1):
125152. doi:10.1080/14649880802675366.
[3] Anand, Paul; Santos, Cristina; Smith, Ron (2009), The
measurement of capabilities, in Basu, Kaushik; Kanbur,
Ravi, Arguments for a better world: essays in honor of
Amartya Sen 1, Oxford New York: Oxford University
Press, pp. 283310, ISBN 9780199239115
[4] Sen, Amartya (2001). Development as freedom. Oxford
New York: Oxford University Press. p. 291. ISBN
9780192893307.
[5] Sen, Amartya (1992). Inequality reexamined. New York
Oxford New York: Russell Sage Foundation Clarendon
Press Oxford Univ. Press. ISBN 9780198289289.
[6] Alkire, Sabina (2009), The human development and capability approach, in Deneulin, Sverine; Shahani, Lila,
An introduction to the human development and capability
approach freedom and agency, Sterling, Virginia Ottawa,
Ontario: Earthscan International Development Research
Centre, pp. 2248, ISBN 9781844078066

[9] Crocker, David A (1995), Functioning and capability:

the foundations of Sens and Nussbaums development
ethic, in Nussbaum, Martha; Glover, Jonathan, Women,
culture, and development: a study of human capabilities,
Oxford New York: Clarendon Press Oxford University
Press, pp. 153199, ISBN 9780198289647
[10] Nussbaum, Martha (March 2011). Creating Capabilities
The Human Development Approach. Belknap Press. pp.
3031. ISBN 9780674050549.
[11] Nussbaum, Martha (2003). Capabilities as fundamental entitlements: Sen and social justice. Feminist Economics (Taylor and Francis) 9 (2-3): 3359.
doi:10.1080/1354570022000077926.
[12] Sen, Amartya (2005). Human rights and capabilities.
Journal of Human Development (Taylor and Francis) 6
(2): 151166. doi:10.1080/14649880500120491. Pdf
version
[13] Nussbaum, Martha (2005), Women and cultural universals, in Cudd, Ann E; Andreasen, Robin O, Feminist theory: a philosophical anthology, Oxford, UK Malden, MA:
Blackwell Pub, pp. 302324, ISBN 9781405116619
[14] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD, ed. (2006), Alternative measures of wellbeing, Economic policy reforms: going for growth 2006,
Paris: OECD, pp. 129142, doi:10.1787/growth-2006en, ISBN 9789264035911
[15] Martha Nussbaum (19 May 2011). Creating capabilities
(Video). Harvard: YouTube.
[16] Terre Nash (1995). Whos Counting? Marilyn Waring on Sex, Lies and Global Economics (Motion picture).
Canada: National Film Board of Canada (NFB) and Studio B. See Whos Counting? Marilyn Waring on Sex, Lies
and Global Economics.
[17] Nussbaum, Martha (2004), Promoting womens capabilities, in Benera, Lourdes; Bisnath, Savitri, Global
tensions: challenges and opportunities in the world economy, New York: Routledge, pp. 200214, ISBN
9780415934411
[18] Waring, Marilyn (2003). Counting for something!
Recognising womens contribution to the global economy through alternative accounting systems. Gender & Development, special issue - women reinventing globalisation (Taylor and Francis) 11 (1): 3543.
doi:10.1080/741954251.
[19] Stanton, Elizabeth A (February 2007). The human development index: a history. Massachusetts: Political
Economy Research Institute - PERI, University of Massachusetts Amherst. Working paper no. 127.

[20] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD (2001). The well-being of nations:
the role of human and social capital. www.oecd.org/
dataoecd/36/40/33703702.pdf (Paris: Centre for Educational Research and Innovation, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). p. 9. ISBN
9789264185890.
[21] Kuznets, Simon (January 1947).
Measurement
of economic growth.
The Journal of Economic
History (Cambridge Journals) 7 (s1):
1034.
doi:10.1017/S0022050700065190.
[22] Benera, Lourdes (2003), Paid and unpaid labor: meanings and debates, in Benera, Lourdes, Gender, development, and globalization: economics as if all people
mattered, New York: Routledge, pp. 131160, ISBN
9780415927079
[23] Klasen, Stephan; Schler, Dana (2011). Reforming the
gender-related development index and the gender empowerment measure: implementing some specic proposals.
Feminist Economics (Taylor and Francis) 17 (1): 130.
doi:10.1080/13545701.2010.541860.
[24] Klasen, Stephan (2006). UNDPs gender-related measures: some conceptual problems and possible solutions.
Journal of Human Development - special issue, Revisiting the Gender-related Development Index (GDI) and
Gender Empowerment Measure (GEM) 7 (2): 243274.
doi:10.1080/14649880600768595.
[25] Schischka, John (910 September 2002), The capabilities approach as a metric for economic development: an
application in Nepal, Conference proceedings - promoting womens capabilities, examining Nussbaums capabilities approach, von Hgel Institute, St Edmunds College,
Cambridge: The Pennsylvania State University CiteSeerX
Archives, CiteSeerX: 10.1.1.197.7649
[26] United Nations Development Programme, UNDP, ed.
(2011). Statistical annex: technical notes - technical note
2: calculating the inequality-adjusted Human Development Index. Human development report 2011: sustainability and equity: a better future for all. New York Basingstoke: United Nations Palgrave Macmillan. p. 169.
ISBN 9780230363311.
[27] United Nations Development Programme, UNDP, ed.
(2013). Chapter 1: The state of human development
(progress of nations, equity and human development):
Gender and womens status. Human development report
2013: the rise of the South: human progress in a diverse
world. New York, NY: United Nations Development Programme. p. 31. ISBN 9789211263404.
[28] Gaye, Amie; Klugman, Jeni; Kovacevic, Milorad; Twigg,
Sarah; Zambrano, Eduardo (2010). 3: Introducing the
gender inequality index - 3.1: Selection of dimensions and
indicators. In United Nations Development Programme,
UNDP. Human development research paper 2010/46 Measuring key disparities in human development: the gender inequality index. New York, NY: United Nations Development Programme. pp. 910.

[29] Fukuda-Parr, Sakiko (1999). What does feminization

of poverty mean? It isn't just lack of income. Feminist Economics (Taylor and Francis) 5 (2): 99103.
doi:10.1080/135457099337996.

8 Further reading
Alkire, Sabina (2002). Valuing freedoms: Sens
capability approach and poverty reduction. Oxford New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN
9780199245796. Hardback.
Alkire, Sabina (February 2002). Dimensions of
human development. World Development (Elsevier) 30 (2): 181205. doi:10.1016/S0305750X(01)00109-7.
Alkire, Sabina (2005).
Why the capability approach?".
Journal of Human Development (Taylor and Francis) 6 (1): 115135.
doi:10.1080/146498805200034275.
Anand, Paul (May 2005). Capabilities and health.
Journal of Medical Ethics (BMJ Publishing Group
Ltd & Institute of Medical Ethics) 31 (5): 299303.
doi:10.1136/jme.2004.008706.
Anand, Paul (October 2005). Introduction. Social Indicators Research (Springer) 74 (1): 18.
doi:10.1007/s11205-005-6517-0.
Anand, Paul; Hunter, Graham; Smith, Ron (October 2005). Capabilities and well-being: evidence
based on the SenNussbaum approach to welfare.
Social Indicators Research (Springer) 74 (1): 955.
doi:10.1007/s11205-005-6518-z.
Anand, Paul; Dolan, Paul (January 2005).
Introduction: Equity, capabilities and health. Social Science & Medicine - special issue: equity, capabilities and health (Elsevier: Science Direct) 60 (2):
219222. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.04.031.
Anand, Paul (December 2005). QALYs and capabilities: a comment on Cookson. Health Economics: Health Economics Letter (Wiley) 14 (12):
12831286. doi:10.1002/hec.1002.
Anand, Paul; van Hees, Martin (April 2006).
Capabilities and achievements: an empirical
study. The Journal of Socio-Economics: special section - The Socio-Economics of Happiness
(Elsevier: Science Direct) 35 (2): 268284.
doi:10.1016/j.socec.2005.11.003.
Anand, Paul; Santos, Cristina (2007). Violent
crime, gender inequalities and well-being: models based on a survey of individual capabilities
and crime rates for England and Wales. Revue
d'conomie politique (Cairn) 117 (1): 135160.

10
Anand, Paul (April 2011). New directions in
the economics of welfare: Special issue celebrating Nobel Laureate Amartya Sens 75th
Journal of Public Economics (Elbirthday.
sevier: Science Direct) 95 (3-4): 191192.
doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2010.12.007.
Ballet, Jrme; Bazin, Damien; Dubois, Jean-Luc;
Mahieu, Franois-Rgis (2014). Freedom, responsibility and economics of the person. London New
York: Routledge. ISBN 9780415596985.

8 FURTHER READING
Nussbaum, Martha; Sen, Amartya (2004), Nonrelative virtues: an Aristotelian approach, in
Nussbaum, Martha; Sen, Amartya, The quality of
life, New York: Routledge, pp. 242269, ISBN
9780415934411
Nussbaum, Martha (2000). Women and human development: the capabilities approach. Cambridge
New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN
9780521003858.

Clark, David (2002). Visions of development:

a study of human values.
Cheltenham, UK
Northampton, Massachusetts, USA: Edward Elgar.
ISBN 9781840649826.

Riddle, Christopher A (2014). Disability and justice: The capabilities approach in practice. Lexington: Lexington Books / Rowman & Littleeld.
ISBN 9780739178027.

Clark, David (2006), Capability approach (definition)", in Clark, David, The Elgar companion
to development studies, Cheltenham, Glos, UK:
Edward Elgar Publishing, pp.
3244, ISBN
9781843764755 Draft pdf version.

Riddle, Christopher A (2013). Well-Being and the

capability of health. Topoi (Springer) 32 (2): 153
160. doi:10.1007/s11245-013-9167-x.

Crocker, David A (November 1992). Functioning

and capability:
the foundations of Sens
and Nussbaums development ethic.
Political Theory (Sage) 20 (4):
584612.
doi:10.1177/0090591792020004003.
Deneulin, Sverine; Shahani, Lila (2009). An introduction to the human development and capability approach freedom and agency. Sterling, Virginia
Ottawa, Ontario: Earthscan International Development Research Centre. ISBN 9781844078066.
Fukuda-Parr, Sakiko (2003).
The human
development
paradigm:
operationalizing
Sens ideas on capabilities.
Feminist Economics (Taylor and Francis) 9 (2-3): 301317.
doi:10.1080/1354570022000077980.
Fukuda-Parr, Sakiko; Kumar, A. K. Shiva (2009).
Handbook of human development: concepts, measures, and policies. New Delhi New York: Oxford
University Press. ISBN 9780195692334.
Kaufman, Alexander (2004). Capabilities equality
basic issues and problems. New York New York:
Routledge. ISBN 9780415499781.

Riddle, Christopher A (2010). Indexing, capabilities, and disability. Journal of Social Philosophy (Wiley) 41 (4): 527537. doi:10.1111/j.14679833.2010.01514.x.
Robeyns, Ingrid (2003). Sens capability approach
and gender inequality: selecting relevant capabilities. Feminist Economics, special issue on the work
of Amartya Sen (Taylor and Francis) 9 (2-3): 6192.
doi:10.1080/1354570022000078024.
Robeyns, Ingrid (2005). The capability approach:
a theoretical survey. Journal of Human Development (Taylor and Francis) 6 (1): 93117.
doi:10.1080/146498805200034266.
Sen, Amartya (September 1979). Utilitarianism
and welfarism. The Journal of Philosophy (JSTOR)
76 (9): 463489. doi:10.2307/2025934.
Sen, Amartya (1988), The concept of development, in Srinivasan, T.N.; Chenery, Hollis, Handbook of development economics 1, Amsterdam New
York New York, N.Y., U.S.A: North-Holland Sole
distributors for the U.S.A. and Canada, Elsevier Science Pub. Co, pp. 223, ISBN 9780444703378

Kuklys, Wiebke (2005). Amartya Sens capability approach theoretical insights and empirical applications. Berlin New York: Springer. ISBN
9783540261988.

Sen, Amartya (1989). Development as capability

expansion. Journal of Development Planning 19
(1): 4158.

Otto, Hans-Uwe; Schneider, Klaus (2009). From

employability towards capability. Luxembourg:
Inter-Actions. ISBN 9782959973369.

Reprinted in Sen, Amartya (2004), Development as capability expansion, in

Kumar, A. K. Shiva; Fukuda-Parr,
Sakiko, Readings in human development:
concepts, measures and policies for a development paradigm, New Delhi New
York: Oxford University Press, ISBN
9780195670523

Nussbaum, Martha; Sen, Amartya (1993). The

quality of life.
Oxford England New York:
Clarendon Press Oxford University Press. ISBN
9780198287971.

11
Also reprinted in Sen, Amartya (2012),
Development as capability expansion,
in Saegert, Susan; DeFilippis, James,
The community development reader, New
York: Routledge, ISBN 9780415507769
Sen, Amartya (2004), Capability and well-being,
in Nussbaum, Martha; Sen, Amartya, The quality
of life, New York: Routledge, pp. 3053, ISBN
9780415934411
Sen, Amartya (2010). The idea of justice. London:
Penguin. ISBN 9780141037851.
United Nations Development Programme, UNDP
(1990). Human development report 1990. New
York: Oxford University Press for the U.N.D.P.
ISBN 9780195064810.

External links
Human Development and Capability Association
Journal of Human Development
The Measurement of Human Capabilities
Oxford Poverty & Human Development Initiative
(OPHI)

12

10

10
10.1

TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES

Text and image sources, contributors, and licenses

Text

Capability approach Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capability_approach?oldid=660736009 Contributors: Phil Boswell, Goethean,

Yakkity0, Pascal666, Gugganij, Pgan002, Piotrus, Shenme, Mandarax, Helvetius, Bgwhite, Jlittlet, Alynna Kasmira, Farmanesh, NickelShoe, Betacommand, Metamagician3000, Tim bates, Robosh, RomanSpa, JHunterJ, Agswallow, Hu12, CmdrObot, Thomasmeeks,
M.W.A., BenTremblay, JenLouise, Magioladitis, Rich257, R'n'B, Saraid, Sonigel, Karsten11, Cath sal, Ktr101, Enciclopedia123, Iohannes Animosus, Studip101, Pa68, Addbot, Yobot, AnomieBOT, Central Gannet, Omnipaedista, FrescoBot, Lynn Wilbur, EmausBot,
GoingBatty, Pachaa, Ccanel, Krisinaz, FaithSara, DStrassmann, Ethicsinpractice, BattyBot, Teashias, BerikG, LupeAguilera, YFdyhbot, TheJJJunk, Khazar2, The Vintage Feminist, BreakfastJr, Jacqooolantern, Lee P., Cleverdickie, Bronx Discount Liquor, Stamptrader,
DewinneA and Anonymous: 40

10.2

Images

10.3

Content license

Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0