Critics and modifications

There Is No List of Capabilities

In his review of Amartya Sen's "Commodities and Capabilities," Robert Sugden of the University of East Anglia noted what he thought was a serious lack of insight in Sen's approach. "This is an important idea, but Sen has disappointingly little to say about how these sets are to be valued; he makes a few suggestions but only to show how unsatisfactory they are." (Sugden, 821) In the point of view of Sugden, there is a need for a ranking of capabilities because in order to judge whether or not someone is living a full life, we need to know what the scale is that judges that happy life.

Sugden is referring to Sen's inability to create any list for use. Sen, in a paper in Feminist Economics, responds to the question as to whether or not a list of capabilities can be drawn. He combats the argument that he does not refer to lists because they cannot be created. Instead, he makes the point that lists can and have been made and refers to his efforts in the development of the Human Development Index. The importance is that the researches understand for what purpose the list is being created. His one objection towards lists is that there can be no final list. A list of capabilities, according to Sen, must always be flexible in order to fit different situations. While some capabilities will stay the same on every list- food, water, shelter, etc., as time changes, there will become new inventions and circumstances that might in turn create new capabilities.

Sugden's largest criticism, however, was on the lack of value placed on certain capabilities. There must be a way that we can judge economic development, according to Sugden, by looking at what capabilities a country supports and then ranking the importance of those versus the value of the capabilities lacking. Sen does not believe in a value system of rankings because the value of capabilities differs from situation to situation. "We may have to give priority to the ability to be well nourished when people are dying of hunger in their homes, whereas the freedom to be sheltered may rightly receive more weight when people are in general well fed, but lack shelter." (Sen 78)

When looking at economic development in a nation, it is important, then, to take into account the current circumstances of that nation. After doing so, Sen believes it possible to create some sort of flexible list of capabilities in which to use in evaluating economic development.

Martha Nussbaum, however, points out that while Sen has a social goal, the lack of guidance through a carefully selected list of capabilities hampers the strength of his argument. "They give us a general sense of what societies ought to be striving to achieve, but because of Sen’s reluctance to make commitments about substance (which capabilities a society ought most centrally to pursue), even that guidance remains but an outline. And they give us no sense of what a minimum level of capability for a just society might be." (Nussbaum 35) She believes that Sen falls short because he does not create a guidline for societies to follow because he is unable or unwilling to select certain concrete capabilities as necessary.

Nussbaum Weighs In

Why is it that developing this list is so important? The answer, in terms of Nussbaum's point of view, is that a list can serve as a guidline when developing a society. Nussbaum's primary concern is that of social justice. How can a society ever ensure that people are equal and share equal capabilities, as is Sen's goal, if we do not know what those important capabilities are?

Nussbaum believes that the capabilities approach can be used when looking at social justice and gender equality. Instead of measuring equality in terms of materials- because an equal distribution of things does not always work as different people need different things, and in terms of utility- because some people (in this case women) develop adaptive preferences which conform to their present situation, one should measure equality in terms of equality of capabilities. That is, we should measure the development of a country and also social justice as whether or not people are able to have access to a certain number of entitlements, or set list of capabilities that all should have access to (Nussbaum 34). Most importantly though, Nussbaum believes that a list of minimal capabilities or necessities should be made to establish a bare minimum a society should achieve. She also believes that a certain line needs to be drawn as to the amount of a certain capability needs to exist for that capability to be called "present" in a society.

"To the extent that rights are used in defining social justice, we should not grant that the society is just unless the capabilities have been effectively achieved." (Nussbaum 36) That is to say, a society is not just until the people are capable of obtaining their rights. The list of capabilities then does not specify a certain end in a just society, but opens up individuals to the opportunity of equality. This is important because it helps keep Sen's focus on flexability alive. No one is defining the end result of being able of living a long and healthy life or of having the opportunity to play. People are given these "freedoms" and it is up to them to decide what they want to do with them.

Nussbaum's list of 10 essential capabilities for a just society:

1. Life
2. Bodily Health
3. Bodily Integrity- move freely from place to place
4. Senses, Imagination, and Thought
5. Emotions- to have connections to things outside of ourselves
6. Practical Reason- to determine what is good and to plan one's life
7. Affiliation- to be able to live with others and to have self respect
8. Other species- to live with other species other than humans
9. Play
10. Control over one's environment- both political and material

(Nussbaum 42)

This list was meant to be open ended and for each capability valued with the government never stressing one as more important than the others. If one of these is not entact in a society, then Nussbaum would call that society unjust. She does note, probably to appease Sen, that the list is open ended and is not set in stone as a religious ultimatum to tell people what they can or cannot do, but is a moral guidline for people of all different beliefs to follow (Nussbaum 44).

• But the question must be asked- is a society that has these ten capabilities always a just one?

Friedrich Hayek's Knowledge Problem

"The peculiar character of the problem of a rational economic order is determined precisely by the fact that the knowledge of the circumstances of which we must make use never exists in concentrated or integrated form but solely as the dispersed bits of incomplete and frequently contradictory knowledge which all the separate individuals possess." (Hayek 1945)

The basic idea behind Hayek's work here is that the act of planning, or trying to get Y result by doing X, is a futile action. It is impossible for a centralized planning effort because those who plan use aggregates to formulate ideas on how to acquire desired results. The problem is that when aggregates are created, small differences between individuals are lost or ignored so that a generalization can be made. In economics, Hayek argues, this will lead to incorrect conclusions on how to reach a goal because the economy is comprised of all of these little differences that are constantly changing and act to form its own order through the market (Hayek 1945).

Applied to our situation and a set list of 10 capabilities that lead to a just society, Hayek would stick behind the conclusions of the knowledge problem. The difficulty in creating a list that will cause a certain outcome is the following, when using the logic described above from Hayek's article on the knowledge problem:

1. Generalization in capabilities- how does Nussbaum know that there is no small detail the list is missing that is needed in order for the list to work?
2. What exactly does this just society look like? Is it just? That is, how do we know that if X can cause Y, is Y a desirable effect?
3. Do these capabilities, when together, cause a just society? Is there proof?

Simply stated, there is no way of knowing that this list alone would work in creating a society of equality where everyone is free to live a choiceworthy life. Actually, Hayek might point out that if government interferes in the lives of people so as to deliver to society the capabilities necessary for a choiceworthy life, is this life better than that which the market dictates? Hayek does not believe that social justice can be the end result of central planning because of a lack of knowledge on the behalf of the planners as well as any possible hidden motives that might add bias to their efforts.

Economist Berczak in his book does a great job in analyzing what social justice is to Hayek and what can be done to bring that about in Hayek's point of view. In his book, he points out that Hayek believes social justice or a just society is one in which individuals are free to make their own decisions. This sounds a bit like Sen's idea, that he wants a life to be one full with the freedom of choice. The difference between the two, or more importantly, between Hayek and Nussbaum is in the way Hayek seeks to accomplish this social justice. Hayek believes that in order to gain this justice and for people to be able to make their own free decisions, they must be placed in a protected sphere so that they can do so. In other words, they cannot be coerced or forced to think a certain way or to do a certain thing. The government, then, should embrace a protective role and not an interfering one. They can do this by using common law as a predictable and constant tool to create a predictatble environment where people can anticipate their surroundings. In this way, Hayek believes, everyone will know the community they are acting in and everyone will have the same opportunity in this free and protected market (even if property ownership is different because of the opportunity of credit).

In his book, Berzyak next goes on to explain the role of the government and common law judges in creating this free and open sphere of activity needed for social justice. It is important for our purpose that we just briefly touch upon this point because we will finish by looking at Berzyak and how he uses Sen to improve upon the shortcomings of Hayek's idea here. Hayek believed then that the marked operated by natural law, or nature's law, and that common law, what is enforced by society, can be very close to natural law. When the two are close, the people will be free to make their own decisions and have justice. Common laws, in order to accomplish this, must be "general laws" and "universally aplicable laws." (Burczak Ch.3 p8) This means that they are long term so that they are predictable and that they apply to everyone. These laws are developed by judges in the common law system. They are able to look back at the list of legal precedents to see the evolving law and then to continue to follow those natural precedents as nature itself intended. In this way, everyone will have a fair chance to make decisions in the market place according to their own preferences, which are impossbile to be accounted for in aggregate models (Burczak Ch.3 p9-12).

Theodore A. Burczak and His Compromise

The main difference, so far, between Sen's capabilities argument and that of Hayek is the way in which equality of choice is achieved. Hayek believes that an equal playing field can be achieved simply by creating a society where its predictable rules make an environment where no one is coerced and everyone can choose what it is they want. Sen's argument, and also Berczak's would contend otherwise.

Alone, a common law system cannot guarantee a choiceworthy life- be able to obtain certain necessities to gain the "attainment of certain functions." (Berczak Ch5. pg3) That is people should be able to have access to certain things in their life, and with that access, their life is then one worth living. As pointed above, Hayek's line of thinking places five different objections to Sen and Nussbaum's approach of the "choiceworthy life." Berczak, in his book, comes back with five responses to the five critiques that show a way that Sen or Nussbaum might respond.

1. People can use their reasoning to agree on some basic kind of idea on what is good and necessary in life. Based on John Rawls' famous theory of justice, Berczak points out that there is a "thin theory of good." When comparing with Asian cultures, Berczak was also able to find some equal evaluations on what is good and just. The result is that people can agree, vaguely, on what it is is best for a society, against Hayek's objections (Berczak Ch5. pg4-5).
2. People practice adaptive preferences even when situations are horrible in an attempt to get through life. Just because someone who is homeless says that they are happy does not mean that this situation is acceptable. Tied in with the first point, there is a common standard agreed upon of necessities, and society should strive so that everyone has those things (Berczak Ch5. pg7).
3. People should be treated equally in a different conceptual space than under the law. Sen is a consequentialist in that we must look at the end result. People can be seen as equal under the law, yet some may starve to death or be without shelter. Equality then must come under a different sphere- the opportunity to obtain certain essential functionings (freedom in flourishing) (Berczak Ch5 pg10).
4. Claims individuals can make on society

Group 6: Amartya Sen's Capabilities Approach