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 />
209<br />
heterodox directions, taking note of a variety of information in making<br />
the wide-ranging judgements that have to be made”. <strong>The</strong> reference<br />
to ‘heterodoxy’ that Sen makes here is limited to the informational<br />
basis of evaluations, yet in other work he has challenged some of the<br />
behavioural assumptions underlying mainstream welfare economics<br />
(e.g. Sen 1977a, 1985b). However, other economists believe that we need<br />
a much more radical heterodox <strong>and</strong> pluralist turn in economics, which<br />
would also affect meta-theoretical views, the range of methods that can<br />
be used (e.g. including qualitative methods), giving up on the belief that<br />
economics can be value-free, <strong>and</strong> engaging much more — <strong>and</strong> much<br />
more respectfully — with the other social sciences, <strong>and</strong> indeed also with<br />
the humanities. What can these heterodox economists expect from the<br />
capability approach?<br />
<strong>The</strong> answer to that question flows from the description of the<br />
state of economics that was given in section 4.10.1. <strong>The</strong> unwillingness<br />
of mainstream welfare economics to genuinely engage with other<br />
disciplines (Fourcade, Ollion <strong>and</strong> Algan 2015; Nussbaum 2016) clashes<br />
with the deeply interdisciplinary nature of the capability approach. <strong>The</strong><br />
modular view of the capability approach that was presented in chapter 2<br />
makes it possible to see that a heterodox capabilitarian welfare economics<br />
is certainly possible. It could not only, as all non-welfarist welfare<br />
economics does, include functionings <strong>and</strong>/or capabilities as ends in the<br />
evaluations (A1) <strong>and</strong> possibly include other aspects of ultimate value<br />
too (A6), but it could also include a rich account of human diversity<br />
(B3), a richly informed account of agency <strong>and</strong> structural constraints<br />
(B4 <strong>and</strong> B5) <strong>and</strong> it could widen its meta-theoretical commitments<br />
(B7) to become a discipline that is broader <strong>and</strong> more open to genuine<br />
interdisciplinary learning. Yet the modular account also makes it very<br />
clear that mainstream welfare economists can make a range of choices<br />
in those modules that are more in line with the status quo in current<br />
welfare economics, which would result in a very different type of<br />
capabilitarian welfare economics.<br />
In short, while both types of capabilitarian welfare economics will<br />
depart in some sense from welfarist welfare economics, we are seeing<br />
the emergence of both mainstream capabilitarian welfare economics <strong>and</strong><br />
heterodox capabilitarian welfare economics. <strong>The</strong> problem for the first<br />
is that it will have few means of communication with other capability