Martha Nussbaum offers an analysis of gender issues in development that flows from the “capabilities” approach to the analysis of quality of life (Nussbaum, 1995). Advocated and developed by Amartya Sen in a variety of writings, [1] this approach attempts to define well-being in an objective way, by identifying a set of core human capabilities that are critical to full human functioning and assessing well-being (and the success of development policies) by the degree to which the individual is in circumstances which lead to the realization of these capabilities. The approach is studiedly critical of standard utility and preference-satisfaction approaches to the measurement of well-being. Along with its predecessor volume, The Quality of Life (Nussbaum and Sen, eds., 1993), the book provides a superb basis for discussions of justice and morality within the context of economic development policy. (It should be noted that the Human Development Report, published annually by the United Nations Development Programme, offers development statistics for about 150 countries that are designed to provide empirical information about quality of life in developing countries. The methodology of these reports is very much influenced by the capabilities theory advanced by Sen, Nussbaum, and others.)
The core of the theory is a principled account of a set of fundamental human capabilities which are held to be essential to a good human life. The Aristotelian origins of the approach are manifest. Martha Nussbaum's essay, “Human Capabilities, Female Human Beings,” provides an effective exposition of the theory (as does David Crocker's piece). It is Nussbaum's contention that we can say a great deal about what is needed for a good human life; and this account is substantially independent of cultural variations (that is, human beings have the same capabilities for functioning in a wide variety of social and cultural settings). The capabilities involved in a good human life may be listed and justified, and the resulting list can serve as both a guide and a critical standard for development policy. Nussbaum devotes much care to the composition of this list; in brief, it includes:
Nussbaum characterizes the significance of this list in these terms: “My claim is that a life that lacks any one of these capabilities, no matter what else it has, will fall short of being a good human life” (p. 85). Further, she maintains that the list, and its associated argumentation, ought to be taken seriously by development theorists in the design of development strategies. Public policy must be guided by a conception of the human good that gives the policy maker strong guidance in selecting goals and priorities for the development process. “The basic claim I wish to make . . . is that the central goal of public planning should be the capabilities of citizens to perform various important functions” (Nussbaum and Glover, p. 87).
[1] See, for example, “Capability and Well-Being” in Nussbaum and Sen, eds., 1993. Crocker (1992) provides a very clear exposition of the theory.
[2] This list largely quotes Nussbaum's language, pp. 83-85.