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.
4. Critiques <strong>and</strong> Debates<br />
195<br />
shape their own destinies. 12 What is ultimately important is that people<br />
have the freedoms (capabilities) to lead the kind of lives they want to<br />
lead, to do what they want to do <strong>and</strong> be the person they want to be.<br />
Once they have these freedoms, they can choose to act on them in line<br />
with their own ideas of the kind of life they want to live. For example,<br />
every person should have the opportunity to be part of a community<br />
<strong>and</strong> to practice a religion, but if someone prefers to be a hermit or an<br />
atheist, they should also have this option. Now, it is certainly true that<br />
individual freedoms <strong>and</strong> agency are a hallmark of liberalism. But is this<br />
enough to conclude that the capability approach, in contrast to specific<br />
capability theories, is a liberal framework? 13<br />
First, given the interdisciplinary context in which the capability<br />
approach is operating, it is very important that the word ‘liberal’ is<br />
not confused with the word ‘liberal’ in daily life. In ordinary language,<br />
‘liberal’ has different political meanings in different countries, <strong>and</strong><br />
can cover both the political right or left. In addition it is often used to<br />
refer to (neo)liberal economic policies that prioritise free markets <strong>and</strong><br />
the privatization of public companies such as water suppliers or the<br />
railways. In contrast, philosophical liberalism is neither necessarily left<br />
or right, nor does it a priori advocate any social or economic policies.<br />
<strong>The</strong> first misunderst<strong>and</strong>ing to get out the way is that capabilities as<br />
freedoms refer exclusively to the ‘free market’ <strong>and</strong> thus that the capability<br />
approach would always lead to an endorsement of (unfettered) markets<br />
as the institutions that are capabilities-enhancing. Sen does argue that<br />
people have reason to value the freedom or liberty to produce, buy, <strong>and</strong><br />
sell in markets. This point, however, is part of his more general work on<br />
development, <strong>and</strong> it is very different to the highly disputed question in<br />
economics <strong>and</strong> politics regarding the benefits <strong>and</strong> limits of the market<br />
as a system of economic production <strong>and</strong> distribution. Functionings<br />
<strong>and</strong> capabilities are conceptualizations of wellbeing achievements <strong>and</strong><br />
wellbeing freedoms, <strong>and</strong> the question of which economic institutions<br />
are the best institutional means to foster functionings <strong>and</strong> capabilities<br />
12 Sen’s work on identity testifies to the great faith he puts in people’s power to choose<br />
whether or not to adopt certain group memberships <strong>and</strong> identities. See e.g. Sen<br />
(2009b).<br />
13 In earlier work, I argued that on those grounds we could conclude that the capability<br />
approach is a liberal theory. I now think this conclusion was premature.