Capability as Freedom

I’ve been reading lately about a new approach to social and political freedom.  This theory, although not new, shows why the conventional focus on performance, utility, and output doesn’t adequately promote liberty and may, contrary to popular opinion, stifle or slow development.  The argument is put forward by economist Amartya Sen in his book Development as Freedom.  His general theory is that freedom – defined as the capability of individuals to freely choose and pursue their respective goals and interests – is the basic end and the most effective means to economic development and sustainability.  The most harmful of all unfreedoms is the inability to choose and pursue particular goals or desires.  This unfreedom is a severe denial of basic social and political justice.

Substantive freedom, the ideal goal of any democratic society requires that its citizens have the capability to choose a life they have reason to value.  “Capability,” as defined by Amartya Sen, refers to the “alternative combination of functionings that are feasible for her to achieve.”  Or, more simply, the freedom to choose and achieve various lifestyles.  This requires that a special attention be paid not only to the “primary goods,” such as high income or private property, but also to “the relevant personal characteristics that govoern the conversion of primary goods into the person’s ability to promote her ends.”  So, not only must a person’s basic needs be met, so too must their ability to convert these goods into something useful.  Most importantly, the capability approach goes beyond the basic utilities idea by focusing on individual choice, not just “sum ranking.”  This requires “getting personal” by paying attention to the distribution of the utility to individuals.  It adds an individual component to a study that is, more often than not, an impersonal inquiry.

Conventional measures of a state’s well being like GDP per capita, or industrial capacity, leaves out one crucial factor:  the individual.  Simply living in a wealthy nation doesn’t ensure a long and healthy life.  In fact, as Sen points out, African American men living in the United States have a lower life expectancy than those living in China or Kerala, India.  This despite America’s strong economic standing and high GDP per capita.  Instead of looking at aggregate measures of wealth, the capability approach looks at how capable an individual is of pursuing one’s interests and ambitions.  A lack a adequate health care prevents one from carrying out life’s goals; it inhibits one from living a free and life.  Sickness and death are formidable impediments.

The reason I like the capability approach to social and political justice is that is takes the focus away from aggregate measures of quality and focuses instead on the individual components that make up the system.  It is here that one finds the engine for change and the bastion of ideas.  The agency of human power is the most forceful and perhaps the most ignored aspect in societies.  Individuals are the active agents that produce change.  By focuses on more personal traits, such as general well-being, relative economic security, self-respect, and the opportunity to choose and pursue goals and ambitions, the opportunity approach seeks to analyze the individual within the system in order to make life for that individual as free and uninhibited as possible. The last trait being the crux of the capability approach.  It is in the self-interest of any state seeking development to allow it’s citizens a free and unobstructed path to their goals.  Health care, basic social services, strong political and civil liberties, and a relatively unobstructed market are the best means to meet the capability approach’s basic end:  individual freedom to live a decent life.

Practically speaking, the capability approach justifies positions such as providing universal health care, which just so happens to be a major policy consideration in America right now.  Providing basic and advance medical services to people at affordable prices allows people to live longer, more enjoyable, and thus more productive lives.  The denial of such basic services is a capability deprivation.  Either being denied medical services or being economically deterred from seeking medical help limits one’s capability to seek a preferable lifestyle.  It seems almost ridiculous that the most economically powerful country in the world would deny people such basic liberties as adequate and affordable health care.

The argument could also be extended to include access to information, via platforms such as the internet.  As fellow PC author Michael Kramer pointed out, the invention and subsequent expansion of the internet as a information gathering tool may be one of the greatest achievements in human rights.  Thus, access should be easily obtained and access unrestrained.  The capability approach is easily extended to support his arguments for easy and unrestrained access to the cyber world. Information, more so today than ever, is power.  Power can be used as a capability agency.  Without access to the internet, one is denied a vital service to getting ahead in life and arguably denied what may soon be seen as a basic civil right.  As Michael accurately pointed out:  “Modern high speed internet facilitates economic growth and supports the public welfare.”  Denial of this civil right not only prohibits the capabilities of individuals and denies the basic freedom to gather information, it also indirectly harms society as a whole.  Ensuring access to high speed internet for every individual fits nicely into the capability approach to individual liberty and justice.

The greatest justice and the paragon of freedom is being able to choose how you want to live.