Amartya Sen: Global Justice, Freedom, and Capability

Learning Outcomes:

1. Understand Amartya Sen’s contributions to Global Justice.
2. Analyze Sen’s notion of Freedom and its connection to capability.
3. Examine Sen’s Capability Approach and its influence on Post-Modern Social Philosophy.
4. Grasp the importance of Sen’s rejection of transcendental institutionalism.

Amartya Sen, a Nobel laureate, is one of the most influential thinkers in the realm of social and political philosophy, especially concerning issues of global justice, freedom, and capabilities. His works diverge from traditional Western approaches that focused on the structure of ideal institutions, proposing instead a more pragmatic, human-centered perspective rooted in individual agency and social functionality. Sen’s ideas challenge and expand post-modernist social philosophy, focusing on pluralism, contextual justice, and human development.

Sen’s Departure from Traditional Justice Theories

Amartya Sen departs from traditional justice theories that emphasize ideal institutions, particularly in his critique of John Rawls’ theory of justice. While Rawls focuses on an ideal distribution of resources through the “veil of ignorance,” Sen argues for a more comparative approach to justice that evaluates actual outcomes and lived experiences.

1. Transcendental Institutionalism: Sen critiques the transcendental focus in most Western theories, which aim to define a perfect society or set of institutions. In his view, such ideal theorizing offers little guidance in dealing with the concrete injustices of the real world. Sen’s argument against transcendental institutionalism is built on the premise that real-world justice requires comparative judgments of how different societies function, rather than the establishment of some utopian, unreachable set of principles.
2. Comparative Justice: Instead of ideal structures, Sen proposes a comparative model that prioritizes identifying what increases justice or decreases injustice in the real world. His approach is built on making comparisons across societies, recognizing that justice is context-sensitive and must reflect the complexities of actual human lives.
3. Capabilities vs. Resources: While theories like Rawls’ are resource-based, Sen introduces the idea that capabilities, or what individuals are actually able to do or be, should be the central metric in evaluating justice. This is a crucial shift that moves the conversation from the mere allocation of resources to the substantive freedoms and opportunities that individuals enjoy.

Important Concept: Sen’s rejection of ideal institutionalism does not equate to relativism but instead calls for more attention to real-world conditions and diversity across societies.

The Concept of Freedom: Positive and Negative

A key aspect of Sen’s work is his emphasis on freedom as the core of human welfare and social justice. His conception of freedom is pluralistic, moving beyond the conventional duality of positive and negative freedom.

1. Negative Freedom: Sen acknowledges the traditional notion of negative freedom, where individuals are free from external constraints or interference by others. This concept aligns with liberal thought, which places high value on personal autonomy and non-interference.
2. Positive Freedom: However, Sen stresses that freedom also involves positive elements, such as the actual ability to act upon one’s autonomy. Positive freedom, in Sen’s framework, refers to the capability of individuals to pursue goals they have reason to value, underscoring that the absence of constraints is not enough if one lacks the resources, skills, or support to make meaningful choices.
3. Development as Freedom: Sen’s book Development as Freedom (1999) expands on this idea, arguing that development should be seen as a process of expanding the real freedoms that individuals enjoy. Economic growth, for Sen, is only valuable to the extent that it enhances the capabilities of individuals to lead the lives they have reason to value. This freedom-centered approach directly ties development to human dignity, shifting away from narrow metrics like GDP.

Process Flow: Freedom → Capability → Justice → Social Welfare

The Capability Approach

The capability approach is central to Sen’s philosophy and represents a shift from evaluating justice in terms of wealth, income, or utility to assessing people’s capabilities—what they can actually achieve and be. It’s a human-centric perspective that emphasizes plurality and individual agency.

1. Functionings and Capabilities: Sen distinguishes between “functionings” and “capabilities.” Functionings refer to the various things a person may value being or doing (e.g., being well-nourished, having access to education). In contrast, capabilities refer to the opportunities or freedoms to achieve those functionings. Hence, while a person might be wealthy (a resource-based metric), they may not have the capability to live a healthy life if healthcare is inaccessible. The capability approach emphasizes the diversity of human needs and choices.
2. Well-being and Agency: Sen emphasizes two aspects of human life: well-being and agency. Well-being focuses on a person’s ability to achieve states they have reason to value, such as being free from hunger or disease. Agency, meanwhile, refers to the freedom to pursue one’s own goals and values, even if they do not directly enhance personal well-being.
3. Public Policy and Capabilities: In terms of social and political philosophy, Sen’s approach suggests that public policy should focus on enhancing people’s capabilities rather than merely increasing economic outputs. This perspective is revolutionary in its emphasis on the qualitative aspects of human life and development, providing a more comprehensive understanding of justice.

Global Justice and Human Rights

Sen’s contributions to the idea of global justice are profound, rejecting both relativism and universalism in favor of a more contextual, pluralistic approach. He critiques the contractarian tradition, which centers on justice within the boundaries of a single society, and instead advocates for a model of global justice that takes into account global disparities and injustices.

1. Global Injustice: For Sen, global justice must begin with addressing concrete injustices, such as poverty, inequality, and oppression. The focus is not on creating a global institutional framework, but on assessing how different policies, institutions, and practices impact people’s capabilities across the globe.
2. Human Rights and Justice: Sen ties his concept of justice to human rights, arguing that human rights are best understood as freedoms or capabilities that individuals have reason to value. Unlike more rigid views of human rights as derived from natural law or divine edicts, Sen sees them as social and political demands that emerge from lived experiences of injustice.
3. Pluralism in Global Justice: Sen’s pluralism allows for different societies to pursue different paths to justice, as long as they respect the freedoms and capabilities of individuals. He avoids the imperialism of one-size-fits-all solutions, which often ignore local contexts and cultural values.

Important Note: Sen argues that economic development is not an end in itself but a means to expand people’s capabilities, situating human development as the most critical aspect of global justice.

The Legacy and Criticism of Sen’s Philosophy

While Sen’s theories have been widely influential, they have not escaped criticism. Scholars have debated the feasibility and practicality of his capability approach in real-world policymaking.

1. Critique of Practicality: Some critics argue that measuring capabilities, especially on a large scale, is an inherently subjective and difficult task. Unlike resources, capabilities are not easily quantifiable, making their implementation in policymaking challenging.
2. Tension with Libertarianism: Sen’s emphasis on positive freedom has also been critiqued by libertarians, who argue that his approach requires state intervention to provide the conditions for individual capabilities. For libertarians, any form of positive freedom risks infringing on negative liberties by mandating the redistribution of resources.
3. Cultural Relativism: Others have questioned the extent to which Sen’s theory can genuinely respect cultural differences while also upholding universal standards of freedom and capability. Balancing global justice with cultural pluralism remains one of the challenges in applying his philosophy to diverse societies.

MCQ: What is the central focus of Amartya Sen’s Capability Approach?
A. Distribution of resources
B. Equal access to institutions
C. Enhancing individuals’ actual opportunities and freedoms
D. Maximizing economic growth
Correct Answer: C

Sen’s work continues to shape debates in political philosophy, economics, and development studies, offering a nuanced and context-sensitive framework that prioritizes human well-being and freedom above abstract, institutional ideals.