1. The capability approach is a normative framework used to evaluate individual well-being and social arrangements, design policies, and propose social change.
2. It focuses on people's capabilities, or what they are effectively able to do and be, rather than on happiness or income.
3. The capability approach evaluates policies based on their impact on people's capabilities in various dimensions of well-being, such as health, education, and political participation.
The article provides a comprehensive overview of the capability approach, which is a normative framework for evaluating individual well-being and social arrangements. It discusses the conceptual and theoretical foundations of the approach, including the concepts of functioning and capabilities, the differences between Sen's and Nussbaum's work on capabilities, the role of agency and public reasoning, and criticisms regarding its individualistic nature.
One potential bias in the article is its focus on the positive aspects of the capability approach without adequately addressing its limitations or potential drawbacks. While it briefly mentions that explanatory theories may be necessary to understand poverty, inequality, or well-being, it does not delve into these issues in detail. This omission could lead readers to believe that the capability approach is a comprehensive solution to these complex problems when in reality it is just one tool among many.
Additionally, the article does not provide sufficient evidence or examples to support some of its claims. For example, it states that the capability approach can be used as an alternative evaluative tool for social cost-benefit analysis but does not provide any concrete examples or studies where this has been done. Without supporting evidence, these claims may appear unsubstantiated.
Furthermore, there are missing points of consideration in the article. It does not discuss potential criticisms or counterarguments against the capability approach. For instance, some scholars argue that focusing on capabilities alone neglects important factors such as resources and opportunities that contribute to well-being. By failing to address these counterarguments, the article presents a one-sided view of the capability approach.
The article also lacks balance in presenting both sides of certain debates within the capability approach. For example, it primarily focuses on Sen's perspective while only briefly mentioning Nussbaum's contributions. This imbalance could give readers a skewed understanding of different viewpoints within this field.
Overall, while providing a useful introduction to the capability approach, this article exhibits biases through its one-sided reporting and lack of critical analysis. It would benefit from addressing counterarguments, providing more evidence for its claims, and presenting a more balanced view of the topic.