Irreducibly social goods and the informational basis of Amartya Sen's capability approach

Abstract

This paper argues that Sen's capability approach requires that judgements about the relative goodness of states of aairs must be based exclusively on`properties' of individuals. Functionings and capabilities are seen, like utility and opulence, as objects of value which individuals have Ð achieved or attainable eects which are disembedded from the institutional contexts of human activity. If such contexts are intrinsically valuable for individual well-being, as some`communitarians' argue, the capability approach is inappropriate for assessing social justice, societal well-being and development, and inequalities in individual well-being across cultures or in multicultural societies.A central theme in the work of Amartya Sen, and a key for understanding an important strand within it, is the analysis of what he calls the`informational basis of evaluative judgements'. In short, this involves examination, for dierent evaluative systems, of the types of information which are included as intrinsically important, and the (usually implicit)`informational constraints', which`rule out classes of information from having a direct and ®rst-hand role in evaluative judgement in that system' (Sen 1991, p. 16). He originally applied this type of analysis to assess Arrow's Impossibility Theorem (Sen, 1970), but in the 1970s and 1980s he used it to develop critiques of utilitarianism, welfarism, and Rawls' theory of justice. Moreover, in the constructive strand of his work in this area, he has sought to develop and re®ne a new approach to evaluation, the capability approach, and to argue that the informational basis of this approach makes it particularly relevant for a number of evaluative purposes.Sen regards the informational basis of evaluative judgements as important for various reasons. Firstly, in any evaluation, the selection of objects of value is logically

Education as a common good from the capability approach

“…We understand there is a sort of (hermeneutical) contradiction in speaking—as Gore does—of ‘dominant values’ if they undermine a sense of individual self‐respect. But we agree with him that it ‘is needed to assess the implication of the communitarian perspective and the social nature of culture [and education] for the capability approach’ (Gore, 1997, p. 247). Although Gore does not refer specifically to education, we believe that education should be considered as a common good (both local and global) of humanity.…”

The circle of vulnerability and the myth of choice

“…The findings indicate that this lack of capabilities was partly because of the respondents' difficulties in interpreting and interacting with the new government policy. This implies that the government failed to communicate the scheme and its intentions clearly to its audiences (Gore, 1997;Deneulin, 2014;Every Australian Counts, 2019) and to provide enough support during the transition. However, given the intertwining nature of carers' capability and the vulnerability framework, social marketing strategies from the government targeting at least one element of the vulnerability framework would be likely to have an effect on the other factors and may decrease the risk of vulnerability overall.…”

Understanding human well-being

“……”