Paul Cotterill notes that New Labour is talking about Amartya Sen’s concept of capabilities, but warns that there is “a real danger of Sen being deliberately misinterpreted and misused.”
I fear this is not so much a danger as an inevitability. I say so for three reasons.
1. Sen’s capability approach is, in an important sense, hostile to real-world democracy. He’s pointed out that many of the people who lack capabilities can be quiet and content; this is because they cope with their deprivation by reducing their expectations:
I fear this is not so much a danger as an inevitability. I say so for three reasons.
1. Sen’s capability approach is, in an important sense, hostile to real-world democracy. He’s pointed out that many of the people who lack capabilities can be quiet and content; this is because they cope with their deprivation by reducing their expectations:
The hopeless beggar, the precarious landless labourer, the dominated housewife, the hardened unemployed or the over-exhausted coolie may all take pleasure in small mercies, and manage to suppress intense suffering for the necessity of continuing survival, but it would be ethically deeply mistaken to attach a correspondingly small value to the less of their well-being (On Ethics and Economics, p45).
But electoral politics requires that we do precisely this, because these people keep quiet whilst - by the same token - the rich make too much noise about their exaggerated entitlements.
The capabilities approach, however, requires us to do the exact opposite - to raise the capabilities of the worst off, even though they might be reconciled to poverty, and even though doing so might cost votes. Does New Labour really have the appetite for this? The fact that they cravenly caved into demands to cut inheritance tax suggests not.
2. The focus on capabilities is not a way of wriggling away from income equality. Quite the opposite. Sen has written:
The capabilities approach, however, requires us to do the exact opposite - to raise the capabilities of the worst off, even though they might be reconciled to poverty, and even though doing so might cost votes. Does New Labour really have the appetite for this? The fact that they cravenly caved into demands to cut inheritance tax suggests not.
2. The focus on capabilities is not a way of wriggling away from income equality. Quite the opposite. Sen has written:
Being poor in a rich society is itself a capability handicap…Relative deprivation in the space of incomes can yield absolute deprivation in the space of capabilities. In a country that it generally rich, more income may be needed to buy enough commodities to achieve the same social functioning. (Inequality Re-examined p115)
The list of capabilities required in a rich nation, Sen says, “can be very wide indeed.”
Capabilities, then, require a greater focus on relative poverty, not less.
3. Equality of capabilities requires a massive increase in education spending on the poor.
An important capability is education. This allows us to convert formal opportunities for jobs into actual attainment and hence well-being (pdf), and is associated with better health. A serious concern for equality of capabilities would therefore focus on raising the education of the worst off, to the level of the rich (this is what equality means). But this would require huge rises in spending. We’d need to spend more per head on kids from poor backgrounds than parents do at the best private schools, simply to offset all the factors (poorer nutrition, lower expectations, maybe lower inherited cognitive skills etc) that would cause the poor to do badly even if they did attend the same school as the rich.
Such huge spending increases aren’t going to happen.
So, Paul’s fear is well-founded.
Capabilities, then, require a greater focus on relative poverty, not less.
3. Equality of capabilities requires a massive increase in education spending on the poor.
An important capability is education. This allows us to convert formal opportunities for jobs into actual attainment and hence well-being (pdf), and is associated with better health. A serious concern for equality of capabilities would therefore focus on raising the education of the worst off, to the level of the rich (this is what equality means). But this would require huge rises in spending. We’d need to spend more per head on kids from poor backgrounds than parents do at the best private schools, simply to offset all the factors (poorer nutrition, lower expectations, maybe lower inherited cognitive skills etc) that would cause the poor to do badly even if they did attend the same school as the rich.
Such huge spending increases aren’t going to happen.
So, Paul’s fear is well-founded.
Have you seen the Darrin McMahon series on Happiness?
Posted by: jameshigham | June 29, 2009 at 06:50 PM
A massive increase in spending on education for the poor (who are they?) is certainly not going to happen? But hasn't Mandy authorised Gordon to rabbit on about increasing spending on health, crime prevention and education? "Forget Iran, poppet. Let Milly handle that. You've got to stiff arm Cameron with the usual promises, on and on and on."
Posted by: john problem | June 29, 2009 at 07:04 PM
Does Mandelson actually say "poppet", or are you trying to make a point here?
Posted by: ejh | June 30, 2009 at 09:51 AM
Hi,
Finding a good labor is now days very difficult... We should compare capabilities with experience before hiring.
Posted by: Dubai Property Portal | July 13, 2009 at 10:26 AM