Introduction
In philosophy and economics, few theories have garnered as much attention as the Capability Approach, a concept developed by the renowned Indian economist and philosopher, Amartya Sen. This groundbreaking approach, born in the 1980s, has been instrumental in shifting the focus of moral significance from traditional methods to the individual’s capability of achieving the kind of lives they value.
The Birth of the Capability Approach
Traditional ethical evaluation methods, such as utilitarianism or resourcism, primarily focus on subjective well-being or the availability of means to a good life. However, Sen’s Capability Approach takes a different route. It defines a person’s ability to live a good life in terms of their access to valuable ‘beings and doings’, such as good health or loving relationships. This approach has been extensively used in human development contexts, including by the United Nations Development Programme.
Beyond Development: The Capability Approach
The Capability Approach has not only been confined to the realm of development. It has also attracted academic interest for its potential application in evaluating social arrangements beyond development contexts, such as gender justice. This has led to further development of this approach into a capability theory of justice by philosopher Martha Nussbaum.
Nussbaum’s Capability Theory of Justice
Building on Sen’s work, Martha Nussbaum has developed a Capability Theory of Justice that is grounded in human dignity. Her theory includes a list of fundamental capabilities and a threshold. Nussbaum’s theory, despite facing criticism for its perceived cultural bias and over-reliance on legal and moral philosophy, is often seen as a more philosophically rigorous development of Sen’s Capability Approach.
The Capability Approach
Martha Nussbaum’s theory of justice centers on the concept of human capabilities and dignity. She argues that a just society should ensure all individuals have the opportunity to develop and exercise a set of core capabilities that are essential for human flourishing. Nussbaum proposes a list of ten central capabilities, including
- life,
- bodily health,
- bodily integrity,
- senses and imagination,
- emotions,
- practical reason,
- affiliation,
- interaction with other species,
- play,
- and control over one’s environment.
Her approach aims to provide a partial theory of justice based on human dignity, this list of fundamental capabilities, and the idea of a threshold level that all people should be able to reach. Nussbaum’s theory is internationalist in scope, arguing that these capabilities should be guaranteed to all human beings globally, regardless of factors like gender, race, or nationality. While her work builds on Amartya Sen’s capability approach, Nussbaum’s version is more systematic and extensive, offering a more concrete framework for evaluating social justice and guiding policy decisions.
The Relationship Between Capability Theory of Justice and Self-Determination Theory
Nussbaum’s Capability Theory of Justice and Self-Determination Theory (SDT) both emphasize the importance of certain fundamental elements for human well-being and flourishing, though they approach these elements from different angles. Nussbaum’s Capability Theory identifies a list of essential capabilities that individuals must have the opportunity to develop and exercise to live a life of dignity (listed above). SDT focuses on three basic psychological needs: autonomy, competence, and relatedness, which are considered crucial for psychological growth, integrity, and well-being.
Research has shown that there is a substantial association between the capabilities identified by Nussbaum and the basic psychological needs posited by SDT, suggesting that fulfilling these needs can mediate the relationship between capabilities and overall well-being. Essentially, while Nussbaum’s theory provides a broader framework for social justice by ensuring the development of essential human capabilities, SDT offers a more focused psychological perspective on what is necessary for individuals to thrive. Both theories converge on the idea that meeting these fundamental requirements is critical for human wellness, indicating a complementary relationship between the two approaches in understanding and promoting human well-being.
Criticisms and Theorising
Like any theory, the Capability Approach has faced its share of criticism. Critics have raised concerns about its perceived illiberalism, under-theorisation, individualism, and information gaps. In response, several philosophers have developed theoretical accounts to elaborate on the Capability Approach. For instance, Ingrid Robeyns proposed a procedural approach for selecting capabilities for specific purposes, while Elizabeth Anderson suggested a justice theory based on equal capability of democratic citizenship.
Conclusion
The Capability Approach and Nussbaum’s Capability Theory of Justice have significantly influenced the discourse on social justice and human development. Despite the criticisms, these theories continue to provide a valuable framework for evaluating social arrangements and advocating for a more equitable society. As we continue to grapple with issues of inequality and injustice, the Capability Approach offers a unique lens through which we can envision a more just world.
- Who Is Telling Artificial Intelligence Models What Is or Is Not Ethical? - October 6, 2025
- Rethinking Constitutional Interpretation after Bruen and Dobbs: Toward a Contextualized Historical-Structural Framework - October 2, 2025
- The Distinction Between Freedom and Liberty in the Context of the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers - September 20, 2025
