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.
210 <strong>Wellbeing</strong>, <strong>Freedom</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Social</strong> <strong>Justice</strong><br />
theories, since it does not adopt many of the interdisciplinary choices<br />
that most other capability theories make. <strong>The</strong> problem for the latter is<br />
that it will not be taken seriously by mainstream economics, since it<br />
does not meet the narrow requirements of what counts as economics<br />
according to the vast majority of mainstream economists. Taking<br />
everything together, a capabilitarian welfare economics is possible,<br />
but (a) it will be harder to develop the capability approach in welfare<br />
economics than in some other disciplines because of the methodological<br />
<strong>and</strong> meta-theoretical clashes <strong>and</strong> restrictions, <strong>and</strong> (b) the difficult<br />
position that welfare economics occupies within mainstream economics<br />
will become even more challenging, since moving in the direction of the<br />
capability approach conflicts with the criteria that the gatekeepers in<br />
mainstream economists impose on anyone who wants to do something<br />
considered ‘economics’. This may also explain why there is much less<br />
work done in welfare economics on the capability approach, compared<br />
to some other disciplines or fields in which the capability approach has<br />
made a much bigger impact.<br />
<br />
In this chapter, we have engaged with a range of critiques that have<br />
been voiced about the capability approach, or debates that have<br />
developed in the capability literature. While I hope that I have been<br />
fair in representing all viewpoints, I have in many cases argued for a<br />
particular way of looking at the problem, <strong>and</strong> in a significant number of<br />
cases argued that critiques must be reformulated in order to be sound,<br />
or did not sufficiently appreciate the modular structure of the general<br />
capability approach or the distinction between the capability approach<br />
<strong>and</strong> capability theories. Several of the critiques presented in this chapter<br />
had bite as a critique of a particular type of capability theory, but not of<br />
the capability approach in general.<br />
<strong>The</strong> next <strong>and</strong> final (<strong>and</strong> very short!) chapter will not provide a<br />
summary of the previous chapters, but rather offer some thoughts <strong>and</strong><br />
speculations on what the future of the capability approach could look<br />
like, which issues will need to be addressed to unlock its full potential,<br />
<strong>and</strong> which limitations will always need to be reckoned with.