The approach by “ capacities “, Defended by Amartya Sen, has renewed the conception of freedom in economics. The volume of the Reasons Practical collection proves the coherence of Sen’s theses as it presents applications, taking into account the European context.
Bringing together the contributions of specialists from several disciplines, this very rich volume testifies to the complexity of reception, in various sectors of social sciences and philosophy, of the so -called “approach by capacities “, Developed by Amartya K. Sen. This approach has underpinned innovative research projects and the articles here brought to testimony. Above all, the volume contributes to revealing the main epistemological problems that surround the development and implementation of this approach.
Normative sciences, positive sciences
By developing the approach by capacities, A. Sen wanted to renew the descriptive bases of normative approaches. As several of the articles together underline (notably those of Nicolas Favarque, Albert Ogien and Robert Salais), this approach is part of the classical contributions of A. Sen to the normative theory of collective choices, and in particular its information classification project of social ethics criteria. A. Sen has appeared to question the distinction between descriptive aspects and evaluative aspects of social studies. Nevertheless, the alleged dichotomy between the descriptive (or explanatory) aspects and the normative (or evaluative) aspects cannot simply be excluded. This is particularly highlighted in this very useful volume, since one of the starting points for contributions is a critical question on the concrete mobilization of capacity theory in contexts of handling social data.
We appreciate in this regard in this regard in this regard, by Albert Ogien, of the debate between A. Sen and J. Rawls, as well as the examples developed (J. de Munck and J.-F. Oriane on parental leave in Belgium, I. Ferreras on the control of working time by employees of supermarkets). Insofar as theory refers to human potential, the difficulties of operationalization in databases are important. In addition, the problem of empirical relevance has this particular, here, that it arises more in terms of evaluative or normative concerns (empirically identify the conditions favorable to the development of the virtualities of individuals) than in terms of empirical regularities between the variables.
This is what calls for a simultaneous questioning of the operationalization of concepts and the normative relevance of shaping social data, such as it can be renewed by the approach in terms of capacities. As Jean de Munck and François Eymard-Duvernay notably point out, this engages our representation of economic, political and social agents-in particular, the degree of reflexivity that the theorist lends to them. Indeed, the approach by capacities is distinguished by its constitutive incompleteness: in a specific sense, we can say that it is not a question of “ applied theory “(At least in the version of the theory that we owe to A. Sen), because the categories in which the capacities are identified are intended to emerge from observation, but also of democratic dialogue and the endogenous determination of social objectives. The result is an enlargement of the directory of concerns loaned to agents, which is at the heart of the meeting of evaluative aspects and descriptive aspects.
Another node is explored: that of the evaluative challenges of the selection of descriptive data and categories (within the framework of an overall, designed by Albert Ogien, of a strong association between quantified description and public policies). In an economically liberal environment, the construction of goods by the markets becomes a power issue (F. Eymard-Duvernay), as also the negotiation of conventions which offer references to social policies (example of European criterion for the employment rate, developed in a very original and stimulating manner by R. Salais, which shows how the conventions structuring the description of individual capacities is also a powerful means of blocking claims).
Social rights and capacities
From a normative point of view, reflection on capacities is related to social objectives. The reference of A. Sen to “ duties “Is in this respect a natural benchmark and we appreciate the translation given here of its important article of 2004,” Elements of a human rights theory ». In particular, the contribution of a. Sen makes it possible to specify how capabilities can be used to define “ rights in the extended sense “, Or legitimate claims, which can be considered as social objectives. The assumed incompleteness of the capacity approach makes it possible to understand social rights as devices or constructions which, in their institutional detail, can take different forms and incarnate in terms of methods which are not entirely provided in advance.
It should be noted that with the development of capacity theory, we have not attended a pure and simple substitution of a discourse on freedom to discourse-attached to economic tradition-on well-being. It is in reality to better appreciate the complex dimensions of well-being that economists, when they were receptive to the impulse given by A. Sen, wanted to give their place to considerations of freedom, and especially freedom of choice. Because of their singular position to this articulation of perspectives on freedom and perspectives on well-being, the capacities in the sense of A. Sen seem to be prepared to serve as a support for the specification of social rights, precisely associating these dimensions.
From the approach advocated by A. Sen emerges a rather optimistic vision of the incompleteness of the specification of rights-with. Attention then is made to the specification and concretization process, which in particular envelops the forms of democratic decision and the expression of needs or priorities in the deliberative debate. To approach this process, it is notably necessary to take an interest, with J. de Munck, in the new capacities created by the association (p. 31), but also (as N. Favarque points out, p. 59), under the conditions of the democratic debate around the selection of valuable supports. The attention to the conditions of the debate then renews the question of equality, this time through the prism of the concrete political capacity of individuals (studied by James Bohman in his 1997 article here translated, “ Deliberation, political poverty and capacities », And by J.-M. Bonvin).
One may wonder if there is not a tension between the collective aspect of the realization of duties and the type of individualization of the evaluation bases which underpins the approach by capacities. This makes it possible to go beyond the considerations of resources and access to goods, which is deemed necessary because of the diversity of individual factors in the conversion of resources to well-being. But the collective specification of priorities and methods of concretization of capacities can certainly not descend to the individual level. It is at this level that a more explicit consideration of social relations and conditions, of which B. Zimmermann notes the disappearance outside the field of the analysis framework, could be necessary.