Journals / Journal of Economy Culture and Society / 2018 / Sayı: 58

Beyond the Conventional -A Sociological Criticism of Sen’s Capability Approach-

Gelenekselin Ötesi -Sen’in Yapabilirlik Yaklaşımının Sosyolojik Bir Eleştirisi-

Pages
229–245
Publication Date
2018-12-07
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

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.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis: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.
📊
Key Findings & Data: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.
💡
Conclusion & Impact: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.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Yapabilirlik yaklaşımı · sosyal adalet · sosyoloji

Abstract

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.

Özet

İlk olarak Amartya Sen tarafından geliştirilen yapabilirlik yaklaşımı kalkınma, refah, yoksulluk, sosyal seçim kuramı, eşitsizlik ve adalet ile ilgilenmeyi amaç edinmiş bilim insanları ve siyasa yapıcılar tarafından sıklıkla başvurulan yeni bir değerlendirme çerçevesidir. Söz konusu yaklaşım, bireylere ve onları çevreleyen çok çeşitli sosyal/kurumsal farklılıklara ilişkin sosyolojik bir bakış açısını kullanarak, faydacı, liberteryen ve Rawlsçu sosyal adalet teorileri gibi kimi ana akım siyasal adalet yaklaşımlarını eleştirmektedir. Bu sebeple, ilgili literatürde sıklıkla “sosyolojik yönelim” olarak işaret edilmektedir. Bu çalışma, yapabilirlik yaklaşımının sosyal ve kurumsal çeşitliliklere işaret eden sosyolojik perspektifi daha çok rekabet halinde olduğu adalet teorilerini eleştirmek için kullandığını, fakat “bireylerin bir nedene dayalı olarak değer verdiklerini gerçekleştirebilmeleri” olarak ortaya koyduğu kendi özgün önerisinin analitik dokusunu oluşturmak için aynı sosyolojik bakış açısını kullanmadığını tartışarak, kendisine atfedilen bu özelliği tam anlamıyla hak etmediğini iddia etmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

ARUN, M. O. (2018). Beyond the Conventional -A Sociological Criticism of Sen’s Capability Approach-. Journal of Economy Culture and Society, Sayı: 58, 229–245. https://ajindex.com/articles/92331

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (18)

  1. Alkire, S. (2005). Why the capability approach. Journal of Human Development, 6(1), 115–133.
  2. Alkire, S. (2008). Using the capability approach: Prospective and evaluative analyses. In F. Comim, M. Qizilbash & S. Alkire (Eds.), The capability approach: Concepts, measures and applications (pp. 26–51).
  3. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  4. Alkire, S., & Deneulin, S. (2009). The human development and capability approach. In S. Deneulin & L. Shahani (Eds.), An introduction to the human development and capability approach (pp. 22–48).
  5. London, UK: Earthscan. Bentham, J. (2005). An introduction to the principle of morals and legislation. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1789) Campbell, T. (2010).
  6. Justice. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Dean, H. (2009). Critiquing capabilities: The distractions of a beguiling concept. Critical Social Policy, 29(2), 261–278.
  7. Deneulin, S. (2005). Promoting human freedoms under conditions of inequalities: A procedural framework. Journal of Human Development, 6(1), 75–92.
  8. Deneulin, S., & McGregor, A. (2010). The capability approach and the politics of a social conception of well-being. European Journal of Social Theory, 13(4), 501–519.
  9. Evans, P. (2002). Collective capabilities, culture, and Amartya Sen’s development as freedom. Studies in Comparative International Development, 37(2), 54–60.
  10. Fokuo, J. K. (2009). The lighter side of marriage: Skin-bleaching in post-colonial Ghana. African and Asian Studies, 8(1–2), 125–146.
  11. Hill, M. T. (2003). Development as empowerment. Feminist Economics, 9(2–3), 117–135.
  12. Hume, D. (1998). An enquiry concerning the principle of morals. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1751) Hunter, M. (2007). The persistent problem of colorism: Skin tone, status, and inequality. Sociology Compass, 1(1), 237–254.
  13. KONDA Araştırma. (2011). Kürt meselesinde algı ve beklentiler. İstanbul, Turkey: İletişim Yayınları.
  14. Locke, J. (1956). The second treatise of government and a letter concerning toleration. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell Publishing. (Original work published 1689) Lister, R. (2004).
  15. Poverty. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
  16. Marx, K. (1999). Critique of the Gotha Programme. in Jon Elster (Ed.), Karl Marx: A reader (pp. 291 –294). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1875) Miller, D. (1976).
  17. Social justice. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
  18. Navarro, V. (2000). Development and quality of life: A critique of Amartya Sen’s de