The Origins of the Approach: Berkeley's The Querist
Capabilities
Query 2, Section 1: Whether a people can be called poor, where the common Sort are well fed, cloathed, and lodged?
These three items: food, shelter and clothing are often referred to as basic needs by Sen and other development economists. There are many other basic needs such as sustainable access to clean water but for Berkeley's purposes these are the top three. Necessities, or capabilities like these are an intrical part of the capabilities approach.
Query 7, 1: Whether the real End and Aim of Men be not Power? And whether he who could have every Thing else at his Wish or Will, would value Money?
Query 8, 1: Whether the public Aim in every well govern'd State be not, that each Member, according to his just Pretensions and Industry, should have Power.
Query 9, 1: Whether Power be not refered to Action; and whether Action doth not follow Appetite or Will? (See Emulation)
These three queries deal with a variety of issues like emulation, consumption but most importantly, freedom and power. Sen goes into great detail about positive freedoms and negative freedoms. Positive freedoms enhance life and our personal freedom. Negative freedoms give us freedom from coercion such as murder, rape or enslavement. Berkeley is trying to say that the goal of every state should be that everyone has power, or the capability to do what is necessary for their freedoms, and that might also be the end result of the capabilities approach as well.
Query 248, 2: Whether it would not be of Use and Ornament, if the Towns throughout this Kingdom were provided with decent Churches, Townhouses, Work-Houses, Market-placesm and paved Streets, with some Order taken for Cleanliness?
This query deals with more capabilities but in this case publicly provided ones that allow for a healthy lifestyle and a clean country. Not the basic necessaties that Berkeley is usually focused on but a step toward making a list of capabilities. Query 18, 1: Whether frugal Fashions in the upper Rank, and comfortable Living in the lower, be not the Means to multiply Inhabitants?
Query 41, 1: Whether in the Wastes of America a Man might not possess Twenty Miles square of Land, and yet want his Dinner, or a Coat to his Back?
This seems to be a defense of the capabilities approach being unable to have one fixed set of capabilities for all people. Berkeley is arguing that despite Americans having an ample quantity of land that they can still lack clothing or food. However, for a person who is well endowed with clothing and food they might desire shelter and land. Therefore, capabilities are going to be different for every person depending on personal need and personal desires.
Query 20, 1: Whether the creating of Wants be not the likeliest way to produce Industry in a People? And whether if our Peasants were accustomed to eat Beef, and wear Shoes, they would not be more Industrious?
These two queries address aspects of the capabilities theory in terms of development and well being. Population growth is a contested point in development economics about whether it serves to stimulate economic growth and development or merely continues the cycle of poverty. Berkeley here is on the side of more population leads to a higher rate of economic growth. He also in Query 18 shows his want to have a less stratified society. "Comfortable Living" and "Peasants ... accustomed to eat Beef, and wear Shoes..." show from Berkeleys point of view that increasing these basic needs, or basic capabilities will lead to a society functioning at a higher level. Query 20 also points out the need for a consumption class. Berkeley demonstrates that in order to produce industry a population must have wants.
Query 37, 1: Whether Power to command the Industry of others be not real Wealth? And whether Money be not, in Truth, Tickets or Tokens for converying and recording such Power, and whether it be of great Consequence what Materials the Tickets are made of?
Query 37 can be though of as two things. First, Berkeley's definition of wealth which has little to do with money and more to do with labor power. Secondly, Berkeley is casting an aspersion on paper money and what its true value is. In Berkeley's approach the best end for a society would be for everyone to have equal power, or in this case, equal tokens of power.
Query 44, 1: Whether, if human Labour be the true Source of Wealth, it doth not follow that Idleness should of all Things be discouraged in a wise State?
Berkeley shows a little communistic tinge here although not full-fledgede as the state is merely discouraging idleness. Would it not also follow that full employment despite the consquences would be the practice of a wise state to Berkeley?
Query 144, 2: If there be an open sure way to thrive, without Hazard to ourselves, or Prejudice to our Neighbours, what should hinder us from putting it in practice?
Query 179, 2: Whether hearty Food and warm Cloathing would not enable and encourage the lower Sort to labour?
Query 55, 1: Whether Cunning be not one thing and good Sense another? And whether a cunning Tradesman doth not stand in his own Light?
This is an argument for the capabilities approach to be applied by experts. If even a cunning Tradesman stands in his own Light (because he lacks good sense) then the best of us can be confused by our own means and require direction.
Query 67, 1: Whether a country inhabited by People well fed, cloathed, and lodged, would not become every Day more populous? And whether a numerous Stock of People in such Circumstances would not constitue a flourishing Nation; and how far the Product of our own Country may suffice for the compassing of this End?
Query 121, 1: Whether, if the Arts of Sculpture and Painting were encouraged amoung us, we might not furnish our Houses in a much nobler Manner with our own Manufacture?
Query 132, 1: Whether they might not eat, drink, play, dress, visit, sleep in good Beds, sit by good Fires, build, plant, raise a Name, make Estates, and spend them?
Query 134, 1: Whether a general Habit of living well would not produce Numbers and Industry? And whether considering the Tendency of Human Kind, the Consquence thereof would not be foreign Trades and Riches, how unnecessary fo'ever?
Query 118, 1: Suppose the Bulk of our Inhabitants had Shoes to their Feet, Cloaths to their Backs, and Beef in their Bellies? Might not such a State be eilgible for the Publick, even though the 'Squires were condemned to drink Ale and Cyder?
Emulation
Query 10, Section 1: Whether Fashion doth not create Appetites, and whether the prevailing Will of a Nation is not the Fashion?
Query 14, Section 1: Whether reasonable Fashions are a greater restraint on Freedom than those with are unreasonable?
Query 18, 1: Whether the imitating those Neighbours in our Fashions, to whom we bear no Likness in our Circumstances, be not one Cause of Distress to this Nation?
Conspicious Consumption
Query 62, 1: Whether, consquently, the fine Gentlemen, whose Employment is only to dress, drink and play, be not a public Nuisance?
Query 63, 1: Whether Necessity is not to be hearkened to before Convenience, and Convenience before Luxury?
Query 65, 1: Whether there be any Instance of a State wherein the People, living neatly and plentifully, did not aspire to Wealth?
Query 66, 1: Whether Nastiness and Beggary do not, on the contrary, extinguish all such Ambition, making Men listless, hopeless, and slothful?
All four of these queries represent a different aspect of Berkeley's take on conspicious consumption which ties into the capabilities approach as it is one of the causes of the inequity between classes thus leading most into poverty and very few into the lofty lives of the fortunate elite. Queries 62 and 63 address the problem of having some live very well at the expense of or merely in front of the impoverished masses. For Berkeley these elites are a public nuisance whose luxury and convenience should be supressed so that the many may have necessity. Moreover, these elites living their lives on full display causes emulation so that the lower class desire to have more, and consume which damages their pysche. Query 65 deals with a sort of what if Utopian society that assumes with state influence (income redistribution policies perhaps?) people can live according to their means and happily but not desire wealth.
Domestic Reinvestment
Query 61, 1: Whether he whose Luxury consumeth foreign Products, and whose Industry produceth nothing domestic to exchange for them, is not so far forth injurious to his Country?
Query 64, 1: Whether to provide pentifully for the Poor, be not feeding the Root, the Substance whereof will shoot upwards into the Branches, and cause the Top to flourish?
Query 61 deals with domestic reinvestment, or investment in that people should buy goods produced by their own country rather than rely on foreign produced goods that will only hur the nation at large. He also in query 64, champions a bottom-up approach to development with investment in the poor. Investment in terms of human capital and monetary investment will lead to a stronger nation because of a stronger mass.
Other Queries of interest
Query 68, 1: Whether a People, who had provided themselves with the Necessaties of Life in good Plenty, would not soon extend their Industry to new Arts and new Branches of Commerce?
Query 85, 1: Whether, if all the idle Hands in this Kingdom were employed on Hemp and Linen, we might not find sufficient Vent for these Manufactures?
Query 105, 1: Whether, as our Exports are lessened we ought not to lessen our Imports? And whether these will be not be lessened as our Demands and these as our Wants, and these as our Customs or Fashions? Of how great Consequence therefore are Fashions to the Publick?
Query 120, 1: Whether a Nation within itself might not have real Wealth, sufficient to give its Inhabitants Power and Distinction, without the Help of Gold and Silver?
Query 136, 1: Whether the Numbers and Welfare of the Subjects be not the true Strength of the Crown?
Query 53, 2: Whether we are by Nature a more stupid People than the Dutch? And yet whether these Things are sufficiently considered by our Patriots?
