Suchergebnisse

This article explores Amartya Sen's understanding of freedom, and performs two central functions, one classificatory and the other substantive in nature. First, I situate his reflections within canonical understandings of liberty, finding an irreducible pluralism incorporating positive liberty in 'capability' alongside negative and republican liberty in 'process', which is subsequently unified in the notion of 'comprehensive outcomes'. Secondly, I attempt to find a normative referent for the intrinsic value of choice, and thereby indirectly that of freedom, in his account. In contrast to the liberal subjectivity one might – I believe, mistakenly – attribute to Sen's deployment of neoclassical economic frameworks, I instead argue for a re-interpretation of his account, inspired by the sociological literature on embodiment. Here, an 'encumbered' subject must inherit and transcend a normative totality to become an agent in the fullest sense.

Abstract
Amartya Sen's capabilities approach to development defines development as an increase in freedoms citizens have to choose preferred development options. While Sen's more recent writings are theoretical and philosophical his work was originally based in social choice theory, which comprises a tradition in quantifying and analyzing collective preferences, or choices among preferences. This article argues that such aggregation procedures can be useful in research devoted to communication for development (C4D). They can be employed in evaluating the outcomes of processes intended to facilitate participation in decision making, in both small and large-scale project settings.

AbstractAmartya Sen's capabilities approach to development defines development as an increase in freedoms citizens have to choose preferred development options. While Sen's more recent writings are theoretical and philosophical his work was originally based in social choice theory, which comprises a tradition in quantifying and analyzing collective preferences, or choices among preferences. This article argues that such aggregation procedures can be useful in research devoted to communication for development (C4D). They can be employed in evaluating the outcomes of processes intended to facilitate participation in decision making, in both small and large-scale project settings.

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.

Amartya Sen's capability approach redefined development in terms of people and their quality of life. Since development suggests the idea of positive change, it highlights what is worth changing, the desirable outcome and the desirable way to achieve it. This influential framework has succeeded in engaging different disciplines in constructive debate. There is a growing, and dispersed, literature adding and critiquing it. Hence, providing a current conceptual account of the approach, on its own terms, to assess its contribution to the project it undertakes, address its alleged shortcomings, and point to avenues to further the debate seems warranted. This is particularly timely given its 30 years of influence over public policy, as evidenced by the United Nations' Human Development Reports

Amartya Sen's recent works on identity have emerged at the same time as a much wider and growing literature on the topic across the disciplines of politics, philosophy, and economics. This article outlines some of Sen's claims and attempts a partial elucidation of their relationship to some strands in the relevant literatures on identity, community, and justice. It thereby frames Sen's works in such a way as to facilitate comparisons with other views on identity and multiculturalism, community, justice, and recognition which feature in this volume and the relevant literatures. Framing Sen's work in this way also helps to clarify Sen's position in relation to those of Bhikhu Parekh and certain communitarian thinkers.

AbstractThis article reviews debates about the application of Amartya Sen's capabilities theory to the understanding and regulation of media and communications. It argues that Sen's insistence on the complexity of ethical reasoning, and the underlying complexity of “the good,” makes the capabilities approach the most suitable general approach for considering what media justice is. In particular, the advantages of Sen's approach compared with Martha Nussbaum's specification of particular human capabilities are discussed. Possible supplements of capabilities thinking by the concept of recognition are also discussed, and their limits noted.

AbstractThis article reviews debates about the application of Amartya Sen's capabilities theory to the understanding and regulation of media and communications. It argues that Sen's insistence on the complexity of ethical reasoning, and the underlying complexity of “the good,” makes the capabilities approach the most suitable general approach for considering what media justice is. In particular, the advantages of Sen's approach compared with Martha Nussbaum's specification of particular human capabilities are discussed. Possible supplements of capabilities thinking by the concept of recognition are also discussed, and their limits noted.

Kuklys examines how Nobel Prize-winning economist Amartya Sen?s approach to welfare measurement can be put in practice for poverty and inequality measurement in affluent societies such as the UK. Sen argues that an individual?s welfare should not be measured in terms of her income, but in terms what she can actually do or be, her capabilities. In Chapters 1 and 2, Kuklys describes the capability approach from a standard welfare economic point of view and provides a comprehensive literature review of the empirical applications in this area of research. In the remaining chapters, novel econometr

Abstract
When planning China's future revolution, Sun Yat-sen at one time used the model of the West. Since China is after all a part of Asia, however, and as his understanding of the corrupt and critical state of the Western system of capitalism grew, he eventually looked once again to Asia. He advocated collaborating with Japan, and approved of allying with various oppressed peoples in Asia. He planned to join forces with other Asian nations in order to stop Western encroachment in Asia. He divided the world into two major categories: the oppressors and the oppressed. He sought independence, equality, prosperity, and power for the oppressed, and proposed a new world order of peace and justice. He considered nationalism to be the basis of cosmopolitanism. Only by restoring national equality to the oppressed nations would those nations be able to move toward cosmopolitanism. For Sun, societies should deal appropriately with the relationship between cosmopolitanism and nationalism, both of which necessarily were to endure profound, universal judgment from people around the world. Humankind was to reawaken and rally together to help their own respective cultures. China's traditional morality was to spread to merge with the morally good elements of every country in the world, creating the foundation for building a new world citizen morality.