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
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
4. Critiques <strong>and</strong> Debates<br />
171<br />
elsewhere (Robeyns 2016a), the environment is not a capability,<br />
since capabilities are real opportunities for beings <strong>and</strong> doings. <strong>The</strong><br />
environment <strong>and</strong> the services that its ecosystems give to human beings<br />
are absolutely necessary for human life to be possible in the first place,<br />
but that doesn’t warrant giving it the conceptual status of a ‘capability’.<br />
It would have been better, in my view, to introduce a term showing that<br />
there are substitutable <strong>and</strong> non-substitutable preconditions for each<br />
capability, <strong>and</strong> that there are absolutely necessary (or crucial) versus<br />
less central preconditions. An environment that is able to deliver a<br />
minimal level of ecosystem services to life on our planet is both a<br />
non-substitutable as well as an absolutely necessary precondition for<br />
human wellbeing understood in terms of capabilities. <strong>The</strong>re are many<br />
other preconditions for human wellbeing, but a minimum level of<br />
sustainable ecosystem services is one of the very few — perhaps even<br />
the only one — that is both non-substitutable <strong>and</strong> absolutely necessary.<br />
That makes it hugely important — perhaps even more important than<br />
some capabilities (which could be accommodated by including it in<br />
proposition A6), but the absolute priority it should receive does not<br />
warrant us to call it a capability.<br />
<br />
specific list of capabilities?<br />
At an earlier stage of the development of the capability approach, a<br />
rather heated debate took place on whether or not it was necessary<br />
for Sen to list the capabilities he felt were relevant for the issue under<br />
consideration. This ‘question of the list’ debate wasn’t always very<br />
helpful, since participants were not making the distinction between<br />
capability theories <strong>and</strong> the capability approach, which, as I will show<br />
in this section, is crucial to answer this question. Several scholars have<br />
criticized Sen for not having specified which capabilities matter or for<br />
not giving us some guidelines on how the selection of capabilities could<br />
be conducted (e.g. Sugden 1993; Roemer 1996; Nussbaum 2003a). As is<br />
well known, Sen has explicitly refrained from committing himself to<br />
one particular list of capabilities. But should Sen (or anyone else) do so?<br />
In order to answer that question, it is important to keep the distinction<br />
in mind between the general capability approach, <strong>and</strong> particular<br />
capability theories. As Mozaffar Qizilbash (2012) rightly points out, Sen