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.
198 <strong>Wellbeing</strong>, <strong>Freedom</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Justice</strong><br />
A second possible explanation for this misleading equation is that<br />
both the international association <strong>and</strong> the current name of the main<br />
journal in the field have merged both terms: the Human Development<br />
<strong>and</strong> <strong>Capability</strong> Association (HDCA) <strong>and</strong> the Journal of Human Development<br />
<strong>and</strong> Capabilities. This seems to suggest that ‘human development’ <strong>and</strong><br />
‘capabilities’ necessarily go together. But this need not be the case: the<br />
use of a particular title doesn’t make the two things the same (<strong>and</strong> in a<br />
moment, I will give a few examples in which this isn’t the case).<br />
Thirdly <strong>and</strong> most importantly, the equation of ‘human development<br />
approach’ <strong>and</strong> ‘capability approach’ shouldn’t be surprising because<br />
human development aims to shift the focus of our evaluation of the<br />
quality of life <strong>and</strong> the desirability of social arrangements, from material<br />
resources or mental states to people’s functionings <strong>and</strong> capabilities. <strong>The</strong><br />
capability approach is thus a central <strong>and</strong> indispensable element of the<br />
human development paradigm.<br />
Finally, one may believe that the two terms are equivalent given that<br />
some influential authors in the capability literature equate the two terms,<br />
or merge them into one idea (Alkire <strong>and</strong> Deneulin 2009a, 2009b; Fukuda-<br />
Parr 2009; Nussbaum 2011). Let me highlight two examples. Sabina Alkire<br />
<strong>and</strong> Séverine Deneulin (2009a, 2009b) do not distinguish between the<br />
reach of the capability approach <strong>and</strong> the human development approach;<br />
instead, they merge them into one term, “the human development <strong>and</strong><br />
capability approach”. More recently, Martha Nussbaum (2011) has<br />
written on the distinction in her Creating Capabilities. Nussbaum has<br />
suggested that ‘human development approach’ is mainly associated,<br />
historically, with the Human Development <strong>Re</strong>ports, <strong>and</strong> that the term<br />
‘capability approach’ is more commonly used in academia. Nussbaum<br />
prefers the term ‘capabilities approach’ since she also likes to include<br />
non-human animals in her account. However, for those of us, like<br />
me, who are using the capability approach to analyse <strong>and</strong> evaluate<br />
the quality of life as well as the living arrangements of human beings,<br />
this is not a valid reason to make the distinction between ‘the human<br />
development approach’, <strong>and</strong> ‘the capability approach’.<br />
So, should we use ‘human development approach’ <strong>and</strong> ‘capability<br />
approach’ as synonyms, <strong>and</strong> merge them together into ‘the human<br />
development <strong>and</strong> capability approach’? I believe we shouldn’t. I think