Capabilitarianism
Publication date
2016
Editors
Advisors
Supervisors
Document Type
Article
Metadata
Show full item recordCollections
License
Abstract
This paper offers a critique of Martha Nussbaum’s description of the capability approach, and offers an alternative. I will argue that Nussbaum’s characterization of the capability approach is flawed, in two ways. First, she unduly limits the capability to two strands of work, thereby ignoring important other capabilitarian scholarship. Second, she argues that there are five essential elements that all capability theories meet; yet upon closer analysis three of them are not really essential to the capability approach. I also offer an alternative description of the capability approach, which is called the cartwheel view of the capability approach. This view is at the same time radically multidisciplinary yet also contains a foundationally robust core among its various usages, and is therefore much better able to make the case that the capability approach can be developed in a very wide range of more specific normative theories. Finally, the carthwheel view is used to argue against Nussbaum’s claim that all capabiliarian political theory needs to be politically liberal.
Keywords
Capabilities, Capability Approach, Amaryta Sen, Martha Nussbaum, political liberalism, ethics, political philosophy, welfare economics, interdisciplinary research, evaluations
Citation
Robeyns, I A M 2016, 'Capabilitarianism', Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 397-414. https://doi.org/10.1080/19452829.2016.1145631