IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jecmet/v27y2020i1p18-35.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Beyond ‘having reason to value’: why we should adopt a procedure-independent and value-neutral definition of capabilities

Author

Listed:
  • Morten Fibieger Byskov

Abstract

Sen has famously defined the notion of capabilities as the doings and beings that we ‘have reason to value,’ which is still widely regarded within the capability literature as the correct or only definition of the concept of capabilities. In this paper, I argue that capability theorists should abandon Sen’s definition because it suffers from two issues - namely, procedure-dependence and value-ladeness - that make it unsuitable to encompass the many different applications of the capability approach and the capability terminology. In contrast, I argue that the concept of capabilities should be defined minimally as ‘the real freedom to achieve certain doings and beings’. This definition avoids the two issues identified with Sen’s definition: first, the procedure by which we select relevant capabilities can be tailored relative to the particular application and, second, can thus accommodate applications of the capability approach which also focus on non-valuable capabilities.

Suggested Citation

  • Morten Fibieger Byskov, 2020. "Beyond ‘having reason to value’: why we should adopt a procedure-independent and value-neutral definition of capabilities," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(1), pages 18-35, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:jecmet:v:27:y:2020:i:1:p:18-35
    DOI: 10.1080/1350178X.2019.1608584
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/1350178X.2019.1608584
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/1350178X.2019.1608584?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:jecmet:v:27:y:2020:i:1:p:18-35. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RJEC20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.