Paper short abstract:

This article engages with the contemporary literature (e.g. Robeyns, 2017; Baujard and Gilardone, 2017 and Erasmo, 2024, among others) that examines the Capability Approach from a historical perspective. It provides an overview and a categorisation of its main streams since the first Cambridge and Pavia conferences. It focuses on key questions that remain to be solved by the approach.

Paper long abstract:

Research Context

Amartya Sen's groundbreaking article "Equality of What" (1979) is often considered as the genesis of the Capability Approach (Crocker, 1995; Qizilbash, 1996). Much has been written on how Sen has tried many different evaluative approaches in the field of social welfare, such as ‘the meta-ranking approach’ (1974, 1979), ‘the named goods approach’ (1979), ‘the vector view’ (1980-1), ‘the capabilities right system’ (1982), ‘the positional approach’ (1983) and ‘the intersection approach’ (1986). But in the history of the Capability Approach, it seems that Sen has maintained an incredible degree of analytical coherence throughout his many articles and books dedicated to the capability approach based on his work as a social choice theorist (Sen, 1970, 2017). An investigation of the genesis of Martha Nussbaum’s Capabilities Approach provides a similar history, starting with her collaborative work with Sen (Nussbaum and Sen, 1989 and 1993) towards more elaborated forms of her approach (2000) grounded on her Aristotelian background (Nussbaum, 1990, 1992).

However, it seems reasonable to argue from a historical perspective that the Capability Approach today has evolved into an ecosystem of frameworks that is broader than the ones put forward by its two main exponents in the last century. First, because they changed their approaches in important aspects (e.g. Sen, 2009 and Nussbaum, 2022) leading to distinct potential variants of their own approaches. Secondly, because there is enough diversity within the standard approaches and their applications, as highlighted by recent contributions, such as Robeyns (2017), Baujard and Gilardone (2017), Comim, Fennell and Anand (2018) and Erasmo (2024), among others. Finally, because there are many original queries raised by the approach that have not been totally settled, for instance about its individualistic foundations.

Methodology

Given this context, we provide here a historical overview and a categorisation of the main streams of the Capability Approach in the 21st century, starting from the first Cambridge and Pavia Conferences that launched the HDCA and finishing with the most recent contributions presented at last year’s HDCA conference.

The objective is to provide not only a historical account of the evolution of the Capability Approach but also an analytical discussion about the sort of issues that remain unsettled within the approach. In a moment that we will celebrate 20 years of HDCA in this conference, it seems suitable to take stock of the path pursued by distinct research lines within the capability scholarship in order to examine its structural limitations and future possibilities.

Conclusions

We focus here on the issues that remain to be addressed by the approach, highlighting what separates and what brings together capability scholars.

Some key references

Baujard, A. and Gilardone, M. (2017) Sen is not a capability theorist. Journal of Economic Methodology, vol. 24, n. 1, p. 1-19.

Crocker, D. (1995) “Functioning and Capability: The Foundations of Sen's and Nussbaum's Development Ethic, Part 2”. In: Nussbaum, M. and Glover, J. (1995) Women, Culture and Development: a study of human capabilities.

Erasmo, V. (2024) Who are the capability theorists?: a tale of the origins and development of the capability approach.

Gasper, D. (2017). What is the capability approach? Its core, rationale, partners and dangers, pp. 217–242 in Gasper, D. and St Claire, A. (eds.), Development Ethics. London, Routledge

Nussbaum, M. (1992) Human functioning and social justice: in defense of Aristotelian essentialism. Political Theory, vol. 20, n. 2, pp. 202-246

Nussbaum, M. (2000). Women and Human Development: A Study in Human Capabilities, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Nussbaum, M. (2022) Justice for Animals: our collective responsibility. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Nussbaum, M. and Sen, A. (1993) The Quality of Life. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Nussbaum and Sen, Amartya (1989). ʻInternal Criticism and Indian Rationalist Traditionsʼ, in M. Krausz (ed.), Relativism, Interpretation and Confrontation. Notre Dame, Ind.: Notre Dame University Press.

Qizilbash, M. 1996. Capabilities, well-being and human development: a survey, Journal of Human Development, vol. 33, no. 2, 143–62

Robeyns, I. and Byskov, M. F. 2020. The Capability Approach, The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2023/entries/capability-approach