Wellbeing, Freedom and Social Justice The Capability Approach Re-Examined, 2017a
Wellbeing, Freedom and Social Justice The Capability Approach Re-Examined, 2017a
Wellbeing, Freedom and Social Justice The Capability Approach Re-Examined, 2017a
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
142 <strong>Wellbeing</strong>, <strong>Freedom</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Justice</strong><br />
the disciplines that have built most expertise in large-scale adaptation<br />
processes, such as sociology <strong>and</strong> social policy studies. Based on the<br />
insights from those disciplines, we know the likely c<strong>and</strong>idates to be<br />
dimensions of adaptation — such as social class, caste or gender. We can<br />
then use indicators of those dimensions to study whether preferences<br />
<strong>and</strong> aspirations systematically differ, as in the earlier mentioned study<br />
by Tania Burchardt (2009). But it is clear that this can only help us to<br />
identify adapted preferences or adapted aspirations; it will not always<br />
tell us whether for each application it is possible to ‘launder’ the data so<br />
as to clean them from processes of unjust adaptations.<br />
<br />
explanatory theory?<br />
In almost all capability applications <strong>and</strong> theories, the capability<br />
approach is developed for conceptual <strong>and</strong> normative purposes, rather<br />
than for explanations. If it is used for conceptual work, then capability<br />
theories do not explain poverty, inequality, or wellbeing, but rather<br />
help us to conceptualize these notions. If capability analyses are used<br />
for normative work, then they help to evaluate states of affairs <strong>and</strong><br />
prescribe recommendations for intervention <strong>and</strong> change.<br />
Nevertheless, the notions of functionings <strong>and</strong> capabilities in<br />
themselves can be employed as elements in explanations of social<br />
phenomena, or one can use these notions in descriptions of poverty,<br />
inequality, quality of life <strong>and</strong> social change. In those cases, the<br />
properties A1 to A4 from module A would still hold, but characteristics<br />
A5 (functionings <strong>and</strong> capabilities as the evaluative space), A6 (other<br />
dimensions of intrinsic values can be important for normative analyses)<br />
<strong>and</strong> A7 (normative individualism) are not applicable.<br />
To the best of my knowledge, few scholars use the capability<br />
approach in this way. Probably this should not be surprising, since the<br />
capability approach may not make a significant difference to this type of<br />
work. Still, there are parallels with existing studies. For example, there<br />
is a large literature on the social determinants of health (e.g. Marmot<br />
2005; Wilkinson <strong>and</strong> Marmot 2003; Marmot et al. 2008). <strong>The</strong> goal here<br />
is to establish a set of functionings related to the general functioning<br />
of being healthy, <strong>and</strong> the determinants are investigated so that social