Chapter 6 moves from combatting capability shortfalls to expanding people’s capability development through capability gains. In addition to promoting people’s basic capabilities for what they can be and do, we can also promote their potential enhanced capabilities when societies are democratic and reduce social inequality. I argue this calls for envisioning the economy as a capability generation process rather than as income generation process (or preference satisfaction process) as the mainstream sees it. I address the relationship between democracy and capabilities, explain democracy in the social contract tradition as a system of public reason, discuss the nature of collective capabilities in terms of the idea of people forming collective intentions, and argue that this all entails seeing democratic societies as “open political systems” that allow for constant innovation and evolution in how diverse kinds of people settle upon and consent to rules that govern the decision-making practices they find functional to living together. Finally, I close by arguing that this is all inconsistent with the mainstream conception of private subjectivity. I return to the idea of a person’s self-narratives as a personal identity capability and suggest understanding it requires we rethink how subjectivity is socially embodied and socially situated – a topic taken up in Part III.

This chapter is the first of two chapters that uses the theory of the reasoning state to harmonize our understanding of other debates. There are two main existing theories of administrative procedure and law. An older, normative theory from the legal tradition argues that administrative law exists to promote values of fairness, transparency, and deliberation. A more recent theory, advocated by Mat McCubbins, Roger Noll, and Barry Weingast, is that administrative law exists to promote political control over administrative bodies. The theory of the reasoning state suggests another view. It indicates the positive value of fairness, transparency, and deliberation in administrative law. Those features, long thought central by legal scholars, lacked a positive foundation. Yet they all serve to promote the publicly credible reasoning of administrative bodies, core to the political value of delegated authority.

In this chapter, I apply the theory of the reasoning state to re-interpret the progressive era rise of the administrative state. Three forces combined to activate the concerns articulated in the theory. First, the economy became far more complex and interdependent after the Civil War, changes that both called for state intervention and also made it highly challenging for the public to effectively audit those interventions. Second, economic power and hence the ability to influence the democratic organs of government became far more unequal, further setting the ground for public distrust of policy outputs. Third, a media revolution occurred around the turn of the century. Changes in print technology and the rise of new media forms, notably the muckrakers, altered the information environment to shed light on abuses of the public trust. Together, these forces spurred (justified) distrust of the prevailing Madisonian form, and led to the rise of progressive era administrative bodies.

This chapter examines how observers — regulated entities and third parties — perceive the decisions made in the experiments of chapter 5. Rather than studying the trustworthiness of decision-making, that is, this chapter studies how procedures affect the trust that observers place in those decisions. Do the reasoning requirements enhance observers’ trust in decision? If so, what drives any changes in trust: the substantive decision, or the procedural accompaniments of the decision? This chapter attempts to isolate these two typically confounded components that plausibly feed into notions of public sector trust and legitimacy. The analysis indicates that both the substantive decision and the procedural accompaniments enhance perceptions of trust and legitimacy.

This is the first of two empirical chapters that probe implications of the theory using novel experiments that borrow from experimental economics. This chapter examines whether important elements of administrative law—e.g., requirements for reason-giving and analysis—affect decision-making. The basic design of the experiments involves providing people with a responsibility to distribute money under some guidelines, and then experimentally manipulates various reason-giving and analytical requirements. The experiments include elements of information asymmetry and provide participants with financial incentives to deviate from the guidelines, features intended to mimic salient characteristics of decision-making by public officials. The chapter shows that reason-giving requirements and forms of judicial review enhance the trustworthiness of those put in positions of responsibility.

This chapter presents the main theoretical argument of the book. It starts by discussing the role of representation in the Madisonian baseline. It then argues that several assumptions that may have held at the founding no longer held by the turn of the (last) century, giving rise to an acute problem of trust between the electorate and representatives. A partial solution to this problem, the chapter contends, is for the legislature to delegate authority to administrative bodies and to constrain their actions through administrative law. Under this scheme, the legislature establishes objectives (e.g., fair and reasonable railroad rates), and administrative bodies establish the means in publicly credible ways. Delegated authority thereby tends to improve the public’s welfare, as well as to serve the electoral interests of representatives who suffer under less suspicion. The appendix to this chapter presents a formalization of this argument.

This chapter lays out the core claims of the book and situates the theory in the literature. It emphasizes the limitations of the common view about expertise as a rationale for the administrative state and begins to substantiate the case for viewing credible reasoning as its distinctive feature. The chapter also contains a roadmap of the remainder of the book, previewing the argument, case studies, empirics, and normative and doctrinal conclusions.

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.

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.