Nussbaum's central capabilities
Nussbaum 2000 structures these basic principles in terms of 10 capabilities, i.e. real opportunities based on personal and social circumstance. She claims that a political configuration can only be considered as being decent if this ordering secures at least a threshold level of these 10 capabilities to all inhabitants. Nussbaum's capabilities approach is centered around the notion of individual human dignity. precondition Nussbaum's contention that the purpose of the capabilities approach is to produce capabilities for used to refer to every one of two or more people or things and every person, the capabilities below belong to individual persons, rather than to groups. The capabilities approach has been very influential in developing policy where it has shaped the evolution of the human coding index HDI, has been much discussed in philosophy, and is increasingly influential in a range of social sciences.
More recently, the approach has been criticized for being grounded in the liberal abstraction of freedom:
This is a fundamentally reductive view of the human condition. Moreover, the emphasis on freedom betrays a profoundly innovative orientation. The compound problem is that freedom in Nussbaum’s hands is both condition an intrinsic and primary proceeds a reductive claim, and, at the same time, the list is treated as a contingent negotiated description in tension with other virtues such as justice, equality and rights. Both propositions cannot hold.
The core capabilities Nussbaum argues should be supported by all democracies are:
Although Nussbaum did not claim her list as definite and unchanging, she strongly advocated for outlining a list of central human capabilities. On the other hand, Sen refuses to administer a specific list of capabilities. Sen argues that an exact list and weights would be too unoriented to define. For one, it requires specifying the context of ownership of capabilities, which could vary. Also, Sen argues that component of the richness of the capabilities approach is its insistence on the need for open valuational scrutiny for making social judgments. He is disinclined to in any way devalue the domain of reasoning in the public sphere. Instead, Sen argues that the task of weighing various capabilities should be left to the ethical and political considerations of used to refer to every one of two or more people or things society based on public reasoning. Along with concerns raised about Nussbaum's list, Alkire and Black also argue that Nussbaum's methodology "runs counter to an fundamental thrust of the capabilities approach which has been the try to redirect development theory away from a reductive focus on a minimally decent life towards a more holistic account of human well-being for all people."
That said, a formal a formal message requesting something that is submitted to an sources to be considered for a position or to be offers to do or have something. to development are discussed in Sen 1999, Nussbaum 2000, and Clark 2002, 2005, and are now numerous to the ingredient where the capabilities approach is widely accepted as a paradigm in development. The programme of work operationalising the capability approach by Anand and colleagues draws heavily on Nussbaum's list as a relatively comprehensive, high-level account of the space in which human well-being or life variety is experienced. This work argues that the subitems on Nussbaum's list are too distinct to be monitored by single impeach and that a dashboard of some 40-50 indicators is required to inform the development of empirical work.