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 />
179<br />
on situations in which we need to prioritise — but the domain of ethical<br />
questions is broader than that.<br />
In conclusion, the basic needs approach in practice is, for pragmatic<br />
<strong>and</strong> political reasons, now part of the human development paradigm.<br />
At the theoretical level, though, capability scholars neglect to take the<br />
philosophy of needs seriously or to draw on the theoretical resources<br />
of those theories to strengthen particular capabilitarian theories <strong>and</strong><br />
applications.<br />
<br />
only address the government?<br />
Some capability scholars believe that the capability approach is a theory<br />
about public policy or state action. For example, Nussbaum (2011, 19)<br />
writes that it is an essential element of the (general) capability approach<br />
that it ascribes an urgent task to government <strong>and</strong> public policy. In her<br />
own capabilities theory of justice, Nussbaum makes very clear that she<br />
sees the government as the actor of change. But is it right to see the<br />
government as the only agent of change or of justice in the capability<br />
approach? I think the literature offers ample evidence that this is not<br />
the case.<br />
<strong>The</strong> first thing to note is that, while the dominant view is that<br />
the capability approach is related to public policy <strong>and</strong> assumes the<br />
government as the main or only agent of change, <strong>and</strong> while Nussbaum<br />
highlights the government as the actor of change in her account of the<br />
capability approach in Creating Capabilities, not all capability scholars<br />
endorse this focus on the government. For example, as Frances Stewart<br />
(2005, 189) writes:<br />
Given that improvements in the position of the poor rarely happen solely<br />
through the benevolence of governments, <strong>and</strong> are more likely to occur<br />
because of political <strong>and</strong> economic pressures, organisation of groups<br />
among the poor is important — even essential — to achieve significant<br />
improvements.<br />
<strong>The</strong> view that the capability approach is government-focussed may thus<br />
be reinforced by the fact that Nussbaum makes this claim, but other<br />
capability scholars are developing theories or applications that address<br />
other agents of change. A prominent example is the work of Solava