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.
202 <strong>Wellbeing</strong>, <strong>Freedom</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Justice</strong><br />
capabilities) <strong>and</strong> it is much more powerful in policy or political terms<br />
(being informed about what works <strong>and</strong> what doesn’t).<br />
In sum, I think it is not correct to equate the capability approach<br />
<strong>and</strong> the human development approach. <strong>The</strong> two are theoretically <strong>and</strong><br />
historically related, but they are not exactly the same. For those who work<br />
within development studies <strong>and</strong> are endorsing a critical assessment of<br />
the development policies that have been pursued as part of the so-called<br />
‘Washington consensus’, it is underst<strong>and</strong>able that the two may seem to<br />
be the same, or at least so close that they can be merged. But that is only<br />
if one looks at the two notions from a specific perspective. Merging the<br />
two would do injustice to the work of other thinkers using the capability<br />
approach, <strong>and</strong> it would also ultimately hamper the development of the<br />
capability approach over its full scope.<br />
<br />
change welfare economics?<br />
Of all the (sub)disciplines where the capability approach is relevant,<br />
welfare economics may well be the one where it is most difficult<br />
to describe its impact. <strong>The</strong> reason is that the capability approach<br />
could be seen in two very different lights, depending on one’s own<br />
position towards the current state of economics: either as an improved<br />
modification of mainstream welfare economics, or else as a path that<br />
could lead us to a very different type of welfare economics, which would<br />
radically break with some mainstream assumptions <strong>and</strong> practices.<br />
One could say that the welfare economists interested in the capability<br />
approach have two very different agendas: the first group only wants<br />
some changes in the normative focus, <strong>and</strong> possibly in some of the<br />
ontological <strong>and</strong> behavioural assumptions in the theory development,<br />
but no methodological or meta-theoretical changes, whereas the second<br />
group wants a paradigm change or a scientific revolution, in which there<br />
would be meta-theoretical <strong>and</strong> methodological pluralism (module B7)<br />
<strong>and</strong> much richer or thicker accounts of human agency (module B3) <strong>and</strong><br />
structural constraints (module B5). In addition, it makes a difference<br />
whether we analyse the possibilities for a capabilitarian theoretical<br />
welfare economics or for a capabilitarian empirical welfare economics.