Treść książki

Przejdź do opcji czytnikaPrzejdź do nawigacjiPrzejdź do informacjiPrzejdź do stopki
24
PartI.Theory
areessentialtodoso.Deprivedpeoplehavelimitedopportunitiestomakesubstantive
choicesandtakevaluableactions.Thus,livinginpovertylimitstheircapabilities.
Sendefinesperson’scapabilitiesas“alternativecombinationsoffunctioningsthat
arefeasibleforhim/hertoachieve.Capabilityisthusakindoffreedom:the
substantivefreedomtoachievealternativefunctioningcombinations”(Sen1999:75).
Inotherwords,capabilitiesarethefreedomsthatpeoplehavetochoosealifestyle,
toleadthekindoflifetheyhavereasontovalue,giventheirpersonalfeaturesand
theircommandovercommodities.
AmartyaSen’sequalsdevelopmenttoexpansionofpeople’scapabilitiesand
consequentlytherealfreedomsthatpeopleenjoy.“Developmenthastobemore
concentredwithenhancingthelivesweleadandthefreedomsweenjoy.”(Sen
1999:14)Hereindevelopmentinvolvesboth“theprocessthatallowsthefreedom
ofactionanddecisions,andtheactualopportunitiesthatpeoplehave,giventheir
personalandsocialcircumstances”(Sen1999:14-17).Development,asseen
byAmartyaSen,expandstherangeofchoiceopentoindividualsandtosocieties
atlarge,andtheultimategoaloftheprocessofdevelopmentistoenablepeopleto
livethekindoflifetheyhavereasontovalue.
“Developmentrequirestheremovalofmajorsourcesofunfreedom:povertyas
wellastyranny,pooreconomicopportunitiesaswellassystematicsocial
deprivation,neglectofpublicfacilitiesaswellasintoleranceoroveractivityof
repressivestates.”(Sen1999:3)
DavidA.Clark(2006)reviewedbothcritiquesandrecentadvantagesinthe
capabilityapproach.HeacknowledgedmajorstrengthsofSen’sframework,suchas
flexibility,aconsiderabledegreeofinternalpluralism,whichallowsresearchersto
developandapplyitinmanydifferentways.Furthermore,itrecogniseshuman
heterogeneityanddiversity,drawsattentiontogroupdisparities(gender,race,class,
caste,age,andsoon),andtakesintoconsiderationthatdifferentpeople,culturesand
societiesmayhavedifferentvaluesandaspirations.
CriticismofSen’sapproachisinrelationtoitsapplicationinpractise(Alkire
2002andNussbaum2000,2003,citedinClark2006).Atfirst,commentatorshave
criticisedSenforfailingtoidentifyacoherentlistofvaluablecapabilities.The
secondlineofcriticismcastsdoubtontheusefulnessofthecapabilityapproachfor
makinginter-personalcomparisonsofwell-being.Finally,theinformational
requirementsofthecapabilityapproachcanbeextremelyhigh.Evaluationdepends
onacquiringdataonmultiplefunctionings,whereastherelevantindicatorsmaynot
beavailable.