Here I defend the view that freedom requires more than merely opportunities to act but also the provision of resources needed for agents to enjoy capabilities to pursue valued activities and ways of life.

To the modern political philosopher Amartya Sen, democracy appears a universal good, but others have seen it as a product of European and American thought bound up with colonialism, and have looked for qualities better attuned to ‘Asian’ values like consensus or the connection of human beings to nature. Gandhi presented himself as a man of transparent truth and integrity, so echoing Socrates, the Christian puritan tradition and (except in regard to violence) Robespierre. He disliked Parliamentary democracy, but needed it in order to secure independence. His encounter with Charlie Chaplin highlights the central problem: Was the Mahatma a staged role that he played, or an expression of his authentic self? Many were impressed, but some like Jinnah and Ambedkar were not. Rabindranath Tagore shared Gandhi’s objections to metropolitan Western-style electoral democracy, but distrusted Gandhi’s authoritarianism. As an artist, Tagore saw performance as an essential feature of human nature. He found no way in which he could himself enter the political arena, and fell back upon being an educator.

In recent years the relationship of the capability approach (CA) to non-Western, especially indigenous, theories has ignited a growing literature. This offers a unique space to expand considerations of environmental justice, to frame intercultural public policies on issues of self-determination or valuations of the natural world and to study the CAs philosophical foundations. This chapter contributes to the literature, engaging current trends in Latin America and focusing on discussions around the idea of buen vivir (BV) and the contributions these make to exploring collective and environmental issues. The BV framework emerges from the regions indigenous philosophies and focuses on a harmonic understanding of the life cycle. The chapter uses two further indigenous notions, ayllu (community) and Pachamama (Mother Earth), that highlight the relational ontology underpinning BV. Through analysis of this epistemological framework, the chapter revisits some of the normative foundational challenges in the CA, reminding us of the importance of providing social and collective spaces to reflect on the ethical value that non-human others and nature have for discussions of development.

This chapter explores aspects of Sen’s analysis of self-interest and commitment, seeking to highlight their interplay by probing some imagined situations. Detailing three facets of self-interest the author detects in traditional economic theory and the two forms of committed behaviour he then identifies (not confining one’s goals to the pursuit of ones own welfare and not basing one’s choices exclusively on one’s goals at the expense of those of others), the implied eightfold pattern of interrelations between these subtle concepts is presented, illustrated by a hypothetical internet dating conundrum. Sen’s stress on the self as a reasoning, self-scrutinizing agent who may but (in contrast with much prevailing theory) need not choose on the basis of self-interest underpins an account of rational choice that pays more respect to individual freedom, with significance in economics. Using an example outlining conflicting duties and pressures UK MPs might have felt during Brexit votes, Sen’s account is defended against attacks that, through reliance on strained definitions of interests and goals, seem to over-exploit the potential malleability of language.

In Chapter 7, I discuss the latest crisis of capitalism and Amartya Sen’s journey to rescue capitalism from the capitalists. I begin by discussing the increasing vulnerability of capitalist societies at the end of the twentieth century due to the deregulatory environment encouraged by the Chicago School. I use Karl Polanyi’s double-movement theory to explain the rise of the Chicago School and its assault on the “relationship capitalism” that had evolved in the postwar period. While the new “investor capitalism” was successful at unleashing the power of the market, it also increased the vulnerability of capitalist societies to opportunistic self-interest. This increased vulnerability was fully realized in the 2007–08 mortgage-backed security crisis that nearly collapsed the global financial system. After describing the near collapse of the global financial system, I discuss the implications of the collapse for the neoclassical theory out of Chicago. This leads to a discussion of Amartya Sen’s journey from India to the West to rescue capitalism from the capitalists. This discussion introduces the role of the East in the development of capitalism and its future promise. I conclude by discussing Sen’s critique of capitalism based on Adam Smith’s original moral foundation.

This chapter shows that Sen’s (2009) non-welfarist approach to justice is greatly influenced by 1) his work on famines; 2) his empirical work on gender inequalities, specifically within the Indian society, that helped him to refine his approach to hunger; and 3) his involvement in the creation of the human development approach. All these engagements – seemingly completely separate from his theoretical work in welfare economics – have, in fact, fostered the formulation of a novel approach in which agency and public reasoning are the core elements.

The concept of sustainability explained in Chapter 2 is further developed in terms of human capabilities proposed by Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum. Human capabilities are defined as “real freedoms that people have reasons to value.” Some of these capabilities may be quite elementary, such as being adequately nourished and escaping premature mortality, while others are more complex, such as having the literacy required to participate actively in political life. In contrast to utility-based and resource-based approaches (that is, utilitarianism and Rawls’s theory of justice, respectively), human capabilities provide a robust informational basis for interpersonal comparisons that is necessary to reduce injustices and advance good societies. They are relevant for all types of capital (natural, economic, human and social) as well as for private and public goods and wealth.

After reviewing how Sen’s and Nussbaum’s works have incorporated religion in the capability approach through religious narratives and teachings, the chapter furthers this engagement by exploring the contribution of specific religious narratives and teachings to public reasoning and capability expansion. It does so in reference to the Catholic tradition and the global socio-ecological crisis. The chapter is divided into three sections. The first section overviews how religion has been addressed in the capability approach literature. Religion, or relation with a higher source of being, has been considered a relevant dimension of well-being, an important source of agency, and an influence in the formation of people’s values. The second section introduces the relational anthropological dimension of the capability approach. It discusses how the Christian narrative of the parable of The Sower can enhance the universal reach of the capability approach and expand its notion of relationships. The third section highlights the connection between individual choices and social structures, as well as the need for motivational attitudes for transforming and removing injustices. It does so through the religious contribution of the latest social teaching of the Catholic tradition, the papal encyclical Laudato Si’: On the Care of our Common Home.

This chapter examines certain connections between Karl Marx and the capabilities approach. It contains a brief discussion of Marx’s influence upon, and reception by, contemporary capability theorists. However, the chapter is primarily concerned with identifying, and reflecting on, certain formal and substantive affinities between Marx’s account of human flourishing and the capabilities approach. Those formal affinities include Marx’s ‘pluralistic’ account of value; his ‘normative individualism’; and his opposition to wholly ‘subjective’ accounts of advantage. Those substantive affinities include the overlap between certain modern accounts of ‘central capabilities’, and the extensive account of the necessary conditions of human flourishing that can be reconstructed from Marx’s writings. In addition to these questions of influence and affinity, the chapter considers whether his work might provide a critical perspective on some contemporary versions of the capabilities approach. Marx’s insistence on the value of fulfilling work and meaningful community, for instance, draws attention to particular capabilities that might be underestimated by others. More generally, Marx’s account of the threshold conditions of the good life suggests that, in pursuing the social and other changes that best promote human flourishing, we should not set our sights too low.

This chapter explores the social origins of famine and outlines the book's fresh moral economic perspective on humanitarian aid – it updates and reconfigures moral economy as a tool for understanding prioritisations of transnational charity. The chapter draws on scholar-activists including Peter Singer, Amartya Sen, and E. P. Thompson, among others.