Decentralized behavioral finance: A behavioral–technological framework for urban freedom and participatory governance

The purpose of this paper is to examine whether Amartya Sen's capability approach can suggest an appropriate theory of education for ethical development. Many advocates of Sen's capability approach insist that his approach is superior to rival theories of education, including the human capital theory. This is because Sen emphasizes the purpose and various roles of education for achieving substantial freedom while rival theories focus on the instrumental aspects of education. A focus on rival educational theories often results in the negative effects seen occurring in colonial education. In principle, we agree with the advocates of Sen’s capability approach. However, we doubt that Sen’s emphasis is sufficient for guaranteeing that his capability approach is the appropriate theory of education for application in the context of ethical development. It does not have theoretical completion, and it gives no guidance as to conflict resolution concerning the roles, or value, of education. Nor does it give guidance as to how to implement pedagogical strategies. This incompletion allows economically instrumental values to dominate intrinsic values and non-economically instrumental values, as seen with the educational Millennium Development Goals. This prioritization is what has occurred in colonial education through the application of human capital theory. We suggest that in Sen’s capability approach, firstly, the meaning of the intrinsic value of education should be clarified; secondly, the non-economically instrumental roles of education should be explicated in the context of development; and finally, the priority of the intrinsic and the non-economically instrumental roles of education value should be taken over the economically instrumental values. In this revised theory, people’s substantive freedom is achievable through education, people’s aboriginal identities and values remain intact, and developing countries take seriously pedagogical strategies.

In their recent commentary, Simpson and Hope highlight the importance of measuring the success of widening participation policies but also recognise the challenge that is inherent in the choice of appropriate indicators.1 The major challenge is that each student has their own unique range of different needs and that there is an imperative for policymakers and medical schools to consider how future measures of success can encompass these needs.1 We have also grappled with similar concerns, and our current research is being informed by Sen's capability approach. The capability approach was first proposed by Amartya Sen, a Nobel Laureate in Economic Sciences and Harvard professor, in response to the dilemma of how to design and evaluate international community development projects.2 The predominant approach had been to provide a ‘one size fits all’ intervention for the development of a community, but Sen recognised the moral and practical importance of the individual, and their agency, to make choices about what they considered to be the important and valued outcomes in their lives. He considered that this individual capability of having the opportunity to make valued choices was essential for ensuring social justice. Importantly, Sen also highlighted the importance of measuring the extent to which an individual's chosen valued outcomes could be achieved and also the identification of the conversion factors that enabled and constrained the individual in making their choice and achieving their choice. The potential for adapting Sen's capability approach as a useful lens to view the design and evaluation of medical education interventions has been discussed, with the incorporation of insights from the wider field of education.3 Our experience suggests that Sen's capability approach can offer a useful lens for measuring the success of widening participation policies by measuring the extent to which an individual student can have both the opportunity to choose and achieve their valued outcomes, such as having a sense of belonging and respect for their previous life-experiences. In addition, there can be identification of the various systemic conversion factors that influence this process. We consider that Sen's capability approach can provide the necessary small-level of granularity for measuring the success of widening participation policies and can complement other indicators, such as retention rates or academic scores. This personalised evaluation perspective also provides the essential social justice focus to the measurement process,4 which is aligned to the social justice endeavour of widening participation. John Sandars: Conceptualization; writing - original draft. Pirashanthie Vivekananda-Schmidt: Writing - original draft. Lopa Husain: Writing - original draft. Peter Leadbetter: Writing - original draft. Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

Sen's capability approach is often criticized for its alleged individualism; various approaches have been suggested to overcome this problem. The notion of ‘collective capabilities’ is best known while other suggestions haven't received as much attention or approval. This article surveys the manifold suggestions for how Sen's capability approach can accommodate collectives and introduces the literature. Five strands of literature are identified with a framework that classifies these suggestions according to (a) whether the groups are externally or internally defined and (b) whether the main aim of these groups is to improve the well-being or agency of their members. After discussing the main threads of the literature the article tags Sen's capability approach as an example of structural individualism, proposes the concept of collective functionings, and calls for models of interaction between individuals and collective agency that integrate collective intentions and explore the effects of Giddensian social structure.

The Social Footprint of Hydrogen Production - A Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA) of Alkaline Water Electrolysis

Two of the most important theories in contemporary liberal egalitarianism are Ronald Dworkin's equality of resources and Amartya Sen's capability approach. Recently Dworkin has claimed that Sen's capability approach does not provide a genuine alternative to equality of resources. In this article, we provide both an internal and an external critique of Dworkin's claim. In the first part of the article we develop an internal critique by providing a detailed analysis of Dworkin's claim. Andrew Williams has contested Dworkin's claim, but he has failed to convince Dworkin of his objections. We analyze this debate, and offer an argument that, we hope, settles this dispute. In the second part of the article we argue that an analysis beyond the current parameters of the liberal-egalitarian debate points to three significant differences between Dworkin's and Sen's egalitarian theories: the degree to which they rely on an ideal-theoretical approach; their ability to judge social structures that are intertwined with people's social endowments; and their endorsement of a well-defined criterion to demarcate morally relevant from morally irrelevant inequalities. This broader analysis not only reinforces our conclusion that Dworkin's equality of resources and Sen's capability approach are genuinely distinct, but it also suggests some more general insights that may be relevant for a better understanding of contemporary egalitarian thinking.

Freedom in the Space of Equality: A Response to Certain Liberal Egalitarian Objections to Amartya Sen's Capabilities Approach

Will short-term constraints affect long-term growth? Empirical analysis from the Beibu Gulf Mangrove National Natural Reserve of China

The use of Sen's Capability Approach (CA) in disability research has become increasingly popular, and this paper reviews how CA has been used to inform empirical disability research. We conducted a critical interpretive synthesis of 43 articles identified from Web of Science and Scopus databases. Our findings unveil the multifaceted role of Capability Approach (CA) as both a foundational framework for disability research, and an outcome measurement tool, enabling researchers to assess capabilities, well-being, and functionings. Our review accomplishes more than just demonstrating the versatility of CA in various disability research designs but also makes a significant contribution to the field by proposing a novel future research framework grounded in the CA perspective. This framework offers valuable guidance for researchers aiming to advance disability scholarship through a capabilitarian lens. By building on the strengths CA identified in this review, future research can leverage CA to create a more inclusive and holistic approach to disability.

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Notes In 2003 Madoko Saito first set out to consider what she termed ‘the underexplored’ relationship between the capability approach and education (Saito, 2003 Saito, M. 2003. Amartya Sen's capability approach to education: A critical exploration. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 37(1): 17–33. (doi:10.1111/1467-9752.3701002)[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). Although, Sen, Nussbaum and Gasper had all written about capabilities and education in the 1990s, Saito began a trend for commentators from within education, to consider the scope of the capability approach for questions about education as theory, practice, and a field of empirical research. Some significant milestones in the development of this literature have been a number of edited volumes (Walker and Unterhalter, 2007 Walker, M. and Unterhalter, E. 2007. Sen's Capability Approach and Social Justice in Education, Edited by: Walker, M. and Unterhalter, E. London: Palgrave. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]; Otto and Ziegler, 2010 Otto, H. and Ziegler, H. 2010. Education, Welfare and the Capabilities Approach. A Euroepan Perspective, Edited by: Otto, H. and Ziegler, H. Opladen: Barbara Budruch Publishers. [Google Scholar]; Biggeri et al., 2011 Biggeri, M., Ballet, J. and Comim, F. 2011. Children and the Capability Approach, Edited by: Biggeri, M., Ballet, J. and Comim, F. London: Palgrave. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]; Boni and Walker, 2013 Boni, A. and Walker, M. 2013. Human Development and Capabilities: Re-imagining the University of the Twenty First Century, London: Routledge. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]) and some special journal issues, notably Studies in the Philosophy of Education (vol. 28, no. 5, 2009), the Journal of Human Development and Capabilities (vol. 13, no. 3, 2012), and the Cambridge Journal of Education (vol. 42, no. 3, 2012). A number of monographs have also been produced. Additional informationNotes on contributorsElaine UnterhalterElaine Unterhalter is Professor of Education and International Development at the Institute of Education, London, UK

In addressing operational challenges such as poverty or economic development, many researchers and practitioners wish to build upon insights raised by Sen's capability approach and related writings. This paper argues that the comprehensive reach and foundation of the human development and capability approach has a value independent from and additional to their practical outworkings, and yet also that operational specifications are both possible and vital to the further development of the approach. The paper begins with a thumbnail sketch of the core concepts of the capability approach, and supplements these with additional informational and principle requirements that Sen argues to be necessary for a more complete assessment of a state of affairs. It traces some important avenues along which the Human Development Reports and other empirical studies have operationalized certain aspects of Sen's capability approach. The paper then articulates further developments that might be expected, arguing that such developments must also build upon cutting edge research in other fields. It also identifies certain ‘value judgments’ that are inherent to the capability approach and should not be permanently dismissed by some methodological innovation.

Amartya Sen's Capability Approach is increasingly influential in the literature of development economics. It has contributed to development discourse by strengthening the multidimensional approach to poverty analysis and stressing the importance of focusing on agency and empowerment. Nevertheless, the Capability Approach has not yet been applied comprehensively beyond development economics. This article assesses the contribution of the Capability Approach to the field of development planning, by comparing it with the rights-based approach (RBA) and the sustainable-livelihoods framework (SLF). The article argues that by focusing on the capability space, power relations, and participation, the Capability Approach has the potential to become a normative framework to radicalise development practices.

A practical reasoning theory of development ethhics: furthering the capabilities approach

This article argues that Amartya Sen's capabilities approach to development should be employed as an overarching conceptual framework for studies of communication for development and social change ( CDSC), presenting two justifications. First, the capabilities approach offers CDSC researchers a definition of development, one that is interdisciplinary, cosmopolitan, and oriented to public communication. This approach resembles the scope of modernization theory but is free of modernization theory's dichotomous thinking, neoliberal assumptions, and ethnocentrism. Second, CDSC research can contribute to the capability approach's analysis of communication. I review key capabilities concepts and illustrate the relevance to the capabilities approach of CDSC theory and research. A conclusion summarizes benefits of a capabilities approach to the study of CDSC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is well known that Sen's capability approach and preference utilitarianism have different distributional values. The purpose of this paper is to discuss how Sen's capability approach might be operationalised for allocation decisions and cost-effectiveness analysis in health care. The paper identifies several requirements for measuring health or well-being in line with the capability approach. Among them is the need for objective assessments of capabilities. This paper also shows that from the perspective of the capability approach a portion of productivity changes are irrelevant for allocation decisions.

Starts with an overview of the problem of capability and valuation in the context of Amartya Sen's capability approach. It describes the book as an attempt to operationalize the capability approach, and takes as a focal problem the need for a methodology by which Oxfam field staff in Pakistan could identify which ‘valuable’ capabilities a development activity had expanded or contracted. The rest of the chapter identifies the problem more precisely: Sen's capability approach is introduced, and several salient criticisms of it are reviewed; the need for a framework is discussed; and the approach taken by John Finnis summarized. Finally, the key terms and sources used in the book are introduced, and the structure of the book is outlined, showing the relation of each chapter to the overall topic. The chapters are tethered to the problem of how to identify, obtain, and process the information that is required to implement the capability approach in the assessment of poverty reduction initiatives at the micro‐economic level.