2016
DOI: 10.1080/19452829.2016.1199169
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Coercive Side of Collective Capabilities: Evidence from the BolivianAltiplano

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 33 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…It is worth pointing out that most of these documents do not deny the opportunity of the concept of human flourishing; rather, they are trying to improve, nuance, or extend some of its uses and meanings. Meanwhile, there are also a few works that specifically reject such criticisms as not appropriate, for example, Godfrey-Wood and Mamani-Vargas [ 53 ], who explore the relationship between collective and individual capabilities, or Skorupski [ 54 ], who justifies the social concern with individuals’ good.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is worth pointing out that most of these documents do not deny the opportunity of the concept of human flourishing; rather, they are trying to improve, nuance, or extend some of its uses and meanings. Meanwhile, there are also a few works that specifically reject such criticisms as not appropriate, for example, Godfrey-Wood and Mamani-Vargas [ 53 ], who explore the relationship between collective and individual capabilities, or Skorupski [ 54 ], who justifies the social concern with individuals’ good.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These authors argue that the problem arises when the strength of the institution to contribute to collective goals frequently depends on its ability to use coercive instruments to override individual freedom. Based on their study of communities in the Bolivian Altiplano (which examines the patriarchal aspects of peasant life), they posit that ‘in order to operate effectively, social institutions need to constrain the individual freedoms of their members […] it is clear that valuable collective capabilities do not come for free’ (Godfrey‐Wood & Mamani‐Vargas, 2017, p. 85). They also make a very interesting distinction between ‘those practices which have coercive elements but which are essential to the generation of valuable collective capabilities, and those which are non‐essential and are more likely to generate non‐valuable ones’ 7 .…”
Section: Rethinking the Common Good From The Capability Approachmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…I consider this to be an appropriate distinction, in that they are not necessarily justifying the first kind of constraint either. Rather, they consider that ‘they are structurally necessary for valuable collective action to be undertaken’ (Godfrey‐Wood & Mamani‐Vargas, 2017, p. 85).…”
Section: Rethinking the Common Good From The Capability Approachmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…characteristics that are needed by the individual to express her full potential at work, are shaped by institutional context. Many critiques have been formulated against the too individualistic perspective in which the capability approach has been developed (Robeyns, 2005; Godfrey-Wood and Mamani-Vargas, 2017), with few considerations of “the embeddedness of economic action in social and political relations and structures” (Leβmann, 2022). Most suggestions to overcome this problem relate to the concept of collective capabilities, including the institutional level (Ibrahim, 2017).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%