Capability deprivation and poverty

Abstract

The strength of Sen’s concept of poverty lies in the fact that it goes beyond the traditional concepts of poverty and is able to grasp the complexity of poverty. At the same time, the strength of Sen’s concept of poverty is also its weakness. It is very abstract indeed. Income does not tell us much about poverty according to the capability deprivation approach since poverty is more than being short of money or about income inequalities. However, while income plays an important role in achieving capabilities, it is the capability sets of different persons that should be compared with each other to see what real opportunities different persons actually have. Adam Smith and the classical economics have had a strong influence on Sen, something which he admits himself. Sen follows the Smithian tradition arguing that poverty should mainly be fought by the market mechanisms, complemented by public action. In addition, John Rawls has had significant influence on Sen’s notion of social justice. Partly in opposition to Rawls’ theory of social justice, Sen presents his own theory of justice, based not only on his previous work in welfare economics and social choice theory, but also on his philosophical thoughts. Institutions and processes in which the individual’s capabilities (including human rights) are in focus. The impact of Sen’s ideas on policies on how to fight poverty, capability deprivation, and social injustices is against mainstream economics: social reforms—such as improvements in education and public health—must precede economic reform. His views encourage policy makers to pay attention not only to alleviating immediate suffering but also to finding ways to replace the lost income of the poor—for example through public works.