06.09.2021 Views

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

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

2. Core Ideas <strong>and</strong> the Framework<br />

29<br />

<br />

versus capability theories<br />

<strong>The</strong> above preliminary definition highlights that the capability<br />

approach is an open-ended <strong>and</strong> underspecified framework, which<br />

can be used for multiple purposes. It is open-ended because the general<br />

capability approach can be developed in a range of different directions,<br />

with different purposes, <strong>and</strong> it is underspecified because additional<br />

specifications are needed before the capability approach can become<br />

effective for a particular purpose — especially if we want it to be<br />

normative (whether evaluative or prescriptive). As a consequence, ‘the<br />

capability approach’ itself is an open, general idea, but there are many<br />

different ways to ‘close’ or ‘specify’ this notion. What is needed for this<br />

specifying or closing of the capability approach will depend on the<br />

aim of using the approach, e.g. whether we want to develop it into a<br />

(partial) theory of justice, or use it to assess inequality, or conceptualise<br />

development, or use it for some other purpose.<br />

This distinction between the general, open, underspecified capability<br />

approach, <strong>and</strong> its particular use for specific purposes is absolutely<br />

crucial if we want to underst<strong>and</strong> it properly. In order to highlight that<br />

distinction, but also to make it easier for us to be clear when we are<br />

talking about the general, open, underspecified capability approach,<br />

<strong>and</strong> when we are talking about a particular use for specific purposes,<br />

I propose that we use two different terms (Robeyns 2016b, 398). Let us<br />

use the term ‘the capability approach’ for the general, open, underspecified<br />

approach, <strong>and</strong> let us employ the term ‘a capability theory’ or ‘a capability<br />

analysis, capability account or capability application’ for a specific use of<br />

the capability approach, that is, for a use that has a specific goal, such<br />

as measuring poverty <strong>and</strong> deriving some policy prescriptions, or<br />

developing a capabilitarian cost-benefit analysis, or theorising about<br />

human rights, or developing a theory of social justice. In order to<br />

improve readability, I will speak in what follows of ‘a capability theory’<br />

as a short-h<strong>and</strong> for ‘a capability account, or capability application, or<br />

capability theory’. 14<br />

14 I kindly request readers who are primarily interested in the capability approach<br />

for policy design <strong>and</strong> (empirical) applications to read ‘capability application’ every<br />

time the term ‘capability theory’ is used.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!