Suchergebnisse

This essay applies Amartya Sen's Capability Approach to the way democracy is practiced in the Philippines by Filipinos. The author has reached the conclusion that negative freedom does not secure for people their well-being. Thus, even after the removal of the dictator Ferdinand Marcos, the Philippines still remains poor. In this essay, the author argues that Filipinos should empower themselves morally in terms of their positive freedoms or capability, and the Church can be at the frontlines of this initiative, in order to achieve national development.

Resumen: The capabilities approaches (CA) have been originated in the work of the economist Amartya Sen on inequality. Sen, born in India in 1933, is currently Emeritus Professor of Harvard University. He is still active in teaching and researching. He was always concerned with the problem of social justice, poverty and equality. This has led him to hold a broad notion and an ethical view of economics. Driven by these concerns, Sen tackled the topics of inequality and quality of life, and during the 80s he formulated the capability approach. Sen's capability approach is a broad normative framework for the evaluation and assessment of individual well-being, development of countries, present socio-economic situation and social arrangements in order to implement right policies. For Sen, human agency is a crucial element of human well-being in a broad sense that goes beyond utility and that is related to the quality of life. Human agency entails freedom: Freedoms are capabilities of performing some actions, called by him "functionings". These capabilities and functionings compose a good life. Capabilities, for Sen, are a better way of assessing well-being than utility or income (for a good survey, see e.g., Sen 1993 and Ingrid Robeyns 2005). Nobody would deny that this is good news. A concern among scholars, however, has arisen about the operationality of Sen's CA. Traits as the incommensurability of capabilities and their ambiguous definition (see Sen 1999: 76- 7) are sufficient reasons for this concern. As Robert Sugden affirms, "it is natural to ask how far Sen's framework is operational" (1993: 1953). Some arguments for this lack of operationality might be summarized in terms of the inexact or "vague" character of practical reason, the capacity that lies behind the whole CA (on the central role of practical reason within the CA see Nussbaum 1987: 47 and 1995a). For Sen, indeed, the capabilities's ambiguity, both in their definition and in their election, is a positive feature because it reflects and respects the freedom and the differences of the persons (1993: 33-34): for him, asserting ambiguity and fuzziness is not a weakness but a strength.

As regards freedom, Amartya Sen's thesis is simple. Free­- dom is both the primary end and the principal means of develop­ ment. Insofar as many have been critical o f approaches to devel­- opment that emphasize growth in Gross Domestic Product (GDP), rising personal incomes, industrialization, technological advance, or social modernization, we should be glad that such a distinguished economist is apparently tooting our own horn. Yet there are some issues in Sen's basic assumptions about the nature o f people and his lack o f a feasible prescription for reaching his stated goals that make Development as Freedom in need o f some modifications and nuances. The center of Sen's vision is what he calls a 'capability approach', where the basic concern of human development is 'our capability to lead the kind of lives we have reason to value,' rather than the usual concentration on rising GDP, technical progress, or industrializa­- tion. His approach 'inescapably focuses on the agency and judg­- ment of individuals' including their capability, responsibility, and opportunity. Raising human capability is good because it improves the choices, wellbeing, and freedom of people. Further, human ca­- pability plays a significant role in influencing social change and in influencing economic production. In this context, the author pro­ poses a creative interpretation and criticism of Sen's approach to freedom.

This paper explores a landmark production in the history of Asian intercultural theatre, Singaporean director Ong Keng Sen and Japanese playwright Kishida Rio's Lear (1997/1999). A lavish production underwritten by the Japan Foundation Asia Center, Lear helped establish Ong's "fiercely intercultural" aesthetic as an internationally recognisable brand (Peterson 2003: 81). It also drew critique as a symbolic apologia for neoliberal globalisation. The critical literature on Lear has yielded trenchant insights into the global political significance of intercultural performance. At the same time, however, it has tended to overshadow questions of the work's aesthetic specificity and local significance. This paper seeks to recuperate Lear's local meanings both as a text and as a uniquely Singaporean political allegory. In the paper's first section, I outline the play and its critique as late capitalist spectacle. In the following section, I bracket this critique and return to the texts at hand. Finally, I move back outward by tracing a Brechtian tension between Kishida's text, Ong's realisation, and the Singaporean state's "choreography" of racial, cultural and linguistic difference.

Over the last 30 years the Indian philosopher-economist Amartya Sen has developed an original normative approach to the evaluation of individual and social well-being. The foundational concern of this 'capability approach' is the real freedom of individuals to achieve the kind of lives they have reason to value. This freedom is analysed in terms of an individual's 'capability' to achieve combinations of such intrinsically valuable 'beings and doings' ('functionings') as being sufficiently nourished and freely expressing one's political views. In this account, 'development' is conceived as the expansion of individuals' capability, and thus as a concept tha

Purpose: The present paper tries to cross-examine Sen's notion of justice and to find a midway between the ideal and non-ideal theorizing of justice. Besides, searching for reconciliation between Rawls and Sen, the present paper also attempts to go beyond Sen, while critically engaging with his idea of justice. Methodology: This study has applied qualitative method; however, both the historical and analytical methods are employed for reaching out the conclusive findings of the study. As the sources of this paper are basically secondary, all necessary and relevant materials are collected from a range of related books, articles, journals, newspapers, and reports of various seminars and conferences that fall within the domain of the study area. Main Findings: While analyzing Sen's critique of Rawlsian theory, the study finds that the Rawlsian theory cannot be discarded only as a theory that formulates ideal justice and is not redundant. The study while revisiting Sen's notion finds that there is also a possibility of reconciliation between ideal and non-ideal theorizing of justice. Application: This study will be useful in understanding the debate between ideal versus non-ideal theories of justice that has lately been haunting the political philosophy. Besides, it will also be useful in searching for reconciliation between Rawls' and Sen's paradigms of justice and thereby offering a conception of justice that is reasonable and true in assessing issues of justice in the present scenario. Novelty/ Originality: Revisiting Sen's notion of justice and analyzing such dimensions of politics, the study will benefit the reader to evaluate the debate between ideal versus non-ideal theorizing of justice. Moreover, by searching for a possibility between Rawls and Sen, the study will contribute towards developing an alternative approach and understanding of justice.

WOS: 000461225600005 ; Adam Smith is known as the most important theorist of the market economy and the founder of modern economics. However, there is a literature around Smith's thoughts which are not compatible with each other. In this literature, Smith is brought into an object of ideological debate depending on the preferences of the political economists. Amartya Sen's thought about Smith is remarkable. According to Sen, the thought of Smith is misinterpreted in contemporary economic theory. This misinterpretation continues today through several themes such as rationality of human behavior, market economy and the role of state in the economy. The claims in Smith's writing is not based on self-interest, but is addressed to sympathy and general rules of behavior. The role of state in regulating market is presented in Smith's analysis. According to Sen, how to establish a tolerant society and the tips of how to take place the idea of justice are also available in Smith's thoughts. Sen's reading of Smith has two connotations: one of them is discipliner and the other one is politics. The discipliner connotation which is developed based on Smith is Sen's reading and enhancement requests of economics discipline outside a narrow framework. The political connotation is implicit criticism of economic liberalism. In this study, the ideational influence of Adam Smith on Amartya Sen is examined. The effect gives an opportunity to understand the thriving commercial community and philosophical base of economics discipline.

The paper analyzes the contribution of Amartya Sen's The Idea of Justice for development studies. The influence of Sen's book for thinking about development is likely to parallel that of John Rawls's Theory of Justice in political theory. This paper argues that The Idea of Justice has a limited reach in relation to addressing concrete cases of injustice because it is built only on the dual foundations of freedom and reasoning. On the basis of real world examples of unjust situations derived from Sen's body of writings itself, the paper discusses the limits of The Idea of Justice. It contends that remedying injustice requires an understanding of how justice is structural and which recognizes that discussion of justice is inseparable from reasoning about the nature of the good society. The paper concludes by pointing out The Idea of Justice's ambiguous relationship with liberalism.

This thesis asks whether Amartya Sen's idea of "development as freedom" is inconsistent with certain theoretical insights of American legal realism. Specifically, it examines whether Sen's apparent optimism with respect to free markets is undermined by Robert Hale's arguments about the ubiquity of coercion in economic relations and law's implication in the distribution of resources and power in society. It also asks whether taking the expansion of "freedom" as the object of development ignores the Hohfeldian insight that designing particular legal rules is a legislative act that creates winners and losers and is the site of political struggle and conflicting visions. Along the way to answering these questions, it looks at Sen's ethical framework for decision- making (or "theory of justice"), as set forth in Development as Freedom and other texts. This involves in-depth analysis of Sen's engagement with utilitarianism, welfare economics, libertarianism, and Rawls's theory of Justice, and an explanation of how he critiques and modifies these political and ethical theories. This thesis concludes that the political legal realist critiques of Sen's work ultimately miss the mark, largely because his evaluative framework does not compel any particular social arrangements or distributive outcomes. Sen's development theory can be viewed as a theory of values- a way of framing discussions, debates, and democratic decision making processes- rather than a formula compelling particular results. Far from being inconsistent with key insights of the legal realists, this perspective might be conceived as precisely the kind of "critical theory of values" that Felix Cohen enigmatically called for over seventy years ago. This thesis also seeks to correct a potential misconception of the relationship between Sen's theory of development and the post-Washington Consensus policy agendas of the International Financial Institutions. It concludes that no fair reading can establish that IFI policies - including their continuing attachment to particular market-centered, institutional forms- are compelled or even explained by Sen's evaluative framework. On the contrary, Sen's theory of development provides fruitful avenues for critique of the technocratic rhetoric of "good governance" and "best practices" found in current law and development discourse.

WOS: 000452652500013 ; The capability approach initially developed by Amartya Sen is a new evaluative framework frequently used by scholars and policy makers who aim to deal with issues related to development, welfare, poverty, social choice theory, inequality and justice. Drawing upon a sociological account of various diversities related to individuals' characteristics and their social/institutional surroundings, the approach criticizes some mainstream political theories of social justice such as the utilitarian, libertarian and Rawlsian models of social justice. Therefore, it is usually addressed as a "sociological turn" within the relevant literature. This work argues that this is not a fully-deserved characteristic since the approach employs a sociologically-informed perspective of various diversities primarily to criticize rival theories of justice, but not to configure the analytical texture of its own authentic proposal that advocates "individuals' ability to achieve what they have reason to value" as the focal point of assessment of social justice.

Mirroring trends elsewhere in Southeast Asia, Cambodia has witnessed a pronounced shift towards stricter authoritarianism over recent years. The state appears more firmly ruled by prime minister Hun Sen than at any time during the past three decades, while the de facto status of the Cambodian People's Party (CPP) more closely resembles the single party regimes of neighboring states. One of the major tools of political control and expansion of authority employed by the hierarchical CPP network is the construction of major infrastructure projects, most notably hydropower dams and irrigation schemes. This article focuses attention on the hydraulic infrastructure aspects of exacting political authority and social control by the elite over the nation, drawing upon Wittfogelian perspectives for a conceptual framework. It maintains that Cambodia increasingly represents a modern variant of a hydraulic society, but primarily functions as a satellite hydraulic state of China. The growing influence of China over Cambodia's hydraulic development has helped elevate Hun Sen to resemble a neo-classic hydraulic despot. Hydraulic society concepts help provide partial understanding of contemporary power relations and party-state ascendency, including the longevity and resilience of Hun Sen's supremacy.

The hierarchical nature of the firm affects stakeholders' well-being. This is our main motivation in analysing the firm through the perspective of Sen's capability approach—a social justice theory for the evaluation of any institution, organization or policy aimed at providing well-beings. In order to work out the inherent relation between the capability approach and the economic analysis of the law, we show the strict link between capabilities and entitlements, which we call capabilities-as-entitlements, and investigate if and how corporate governance, i.e., the configuration of entitlements in a firm, enhances or diminishes capabilities of stakeholders. We underline the role that the public use of reason and a sufficientarian criterion play in mitigating conflicts among stakeholders, permitting the reach of a balance amongst all of them and the identification of the capabilities that allow stakeholders to exercise democratic citizenship in corporation. We build several indexes that are able to measure and compare capabilities developed within and between corporate governance regimes.

On the one hand, the contemporary world is a place of sheer abundance; on the other, it is a place where the poverty is widespread, people's needs are unsatisfied, and the natural and socioeconomic systems remain unstable. The negligence/absence of human rights and basic political needs pose a direct threat to development. One of the most effective answers to such a threat is the idea of sustainable development, which works towards the goal of satisfying the needs of present generations without depriving the future generations of their options and basic needs. Amartya Sen's concept of development, understood as a process of extending basic civil rights and freedoms as well as improving the effectiveness of social security networks is crucial for intellectual reflection on the idea of sustainable development.

On the one hand, the contemporary world is a place of sheer abundance; on the other, it is a place where the poverty is widespread, people's needs are unsatisfied, and the natural and socioeconomic systems remain unstable. The negligence/absence of human rights and basic political needs pose a direct threat to development. One of the most effective answers to such a threat is the idea of sustainable development, which works towards the goal of satisfying the needs of present generations without depriving the future generations of their options and basic needs. Amartya Sen's concept of development, understood as a process of extending basic civil rights and freedoms as well as improving the effectiveness of social security networks is crucial for intellectual reflection on the idea of sustainable development. ; Publication of English-language versions of the volumes of the "Annales. Ethics in Economic Life" financed through contract no. 501/1/P-DUN/2017 from the funds of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education devoted to the promotion of scholarship.

Mirroring trends elsewhere in Southeast Asia, Cambodia has witnessed a pronounced shift towards stricter authoritarianism over recent years. The state appears more firmly ruled by prime minister Hun Sen than at any time during the past three decades, while the de facto status of the Cambodian People's Party (CPP) more closely resembles the single party regimes of neighboring states. One of the major tools of political control and expansion of authority employed by the hierarchical CPP network is the construction of major infrastructure projects, most notably hydropower dams and irrigation schemes. This article focuses attention on the hydraulic infrastructure aspects of exacting political authority and social control by the elite over the nation, drawing upon Wittfogelian perspectives for a conceptual framework. It maintains that Cambodia increasingly represents a modern variant of a hydraulic society, but primarily functions as a satellite hydraulic state of China. The growing influence of China over Cambodia's hydraulic development has helped elevate Hun Sen to resemble a neo-classic hydraulic despot. Hydraulic society concepts help provide partial understanding of contemporary power relations and party-state ascendency, including the longevity and resilience of Hun Sen's supremacy.