Interdisciplinary Studies in the Humanities

The theoretical capacity of Amartya Sen’s capability approach for the concept of citizenship

Document Type : Original Research Paper

Authors

A. Manoochehri 1
S. nariman 2

1 Professor in Political Science, Faculty of Humanities, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran.

2 PhD in Political Thought, Faculty of Humanities, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran.

https://doi.org/10.22631/isih.2017.2039.2561
Abstract
The capability approach has been the subject of increasingly enthusiastic enquiry in development studies and welfare economics over the last three decades. Although Amartya Sen's capability approach was born in the field of economics, it extended very soon to the humanities and to other social sciences. This approach has been applied in many areas and a practical version has been created. In spite of its development within social and political sciences, few efforts to extend it to the citizenship area have been made. This paper attempts to provide an answer to the question whether the capability approach includes elements sufficient for formulating a citizenship hypothesis. On the basis that every citizenship tradition encompasses two dimensions of right and responsibility, if these two concepts are embodied in the capability approach in such a way as to explain the relationship between individual and society, then we can claim that the capability approach has the potential of extending to the field of citizenship. We show that this approach, with its emphasis on elements like "moral right" and "committed responsibility", encompasses sufficient features for the development of "citizenship of capability".

Keywords

""citizenship"
"capability approach"
"amartya sen"
"moral right"
"Responsibility"

Subjects

Baratalipour, M. (2005). Šahrvandi va siyāsat-e nowfazilatgerāyi [Citizenship and the policy of vitures]. Tehran, Iran: Mo'assese-ye Motāle'āt-e Melli/Institute of National Studies.
Behrouz Lak, Gh. (2007). Jahānišodan va Eslām-e siyāsi dar Iran [Globalization and political Islam in Iran]. Tehran, Iran: Sāzmān-e Entešārāt-e Pažuhešgāh-e Farhang va Andiše-ye Eslāmi/Publishing Organization of Institute for Islamic Culture and Thought.
Castles, S., & Davidson, A. (2003). Mohājerat va šahrvandi: Jahāni šodan va siyāsat-e ta'liq [Migration and ccitizenship: Globalization and the ppolitics of belonging] (F. Taghilou, Trans.). Tehran, Iran: Pažuheškade-ye Motāle'āt-e Rāhbordi/Institute for Strategic Studies.
Crocker, D. (1995). Functioning and capability: The foundations of Sen’s and Nussbaum’s development ethic. In: E. Martha, C. Nussbaum, & J. Glover, Women, Culture, and Development: A Study of Human Capabilities (pp. 166-212), Oxford: University Press.
Crocker, D. (2008). Ethics of global development: Agency, capability and deliberative democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University press.
Delanty, G. (2000). Citizenship in a global age: Society, culture, politics. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Faulks, K. (2002). Šahrvandi [Citizenship] (M. T. Delforuz, Trans.). Tehran. Iran: Kavir.
Gasper, D. (2002). Is Sen’s approach an adequate basis for considering human development?. Review of political economy, 14(4), 435-461. doi: 10.1080/0953825022000009898
Gore, C. (1997). Irreducibly social goods and the informational basis of Sen’s capabilities approach. Journal of International Development, 9(2), 235-250. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1328(199703)9:23.0.CO;2-J
Griffiths, J. (2015). Capability, freedom, life: The politics and metaphysics of capability (pp. 1-13). 3rd Annual St Andrews Graduate Conference in International Political Theory, School of International Relations, University of St Andrews.
HDR. (1996). Human development report. New York: Oxford University Press.
HDR. (2000). Human development report. New York: Oxford University Press.
Heater, D. (1999). What is citizenship?. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Held, V. (2006). The ethics of care: Personal, political, and global. Oxford: University Press
Heywood, A. (2008). Darāmdi bar ideologihā-ye siyāsi: Az liberalism tā bonyādgerāyi-ye dini [Political ideologies: An introduction] (M. Rafiei Mehrabadi, Trans.). Tehran, Iran: Daftar-e Motāle'āt-e siyāsi va beynolmelali-ye Vezārat-e Omur-e Xāreje/Institute for Political and International Studies of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (IPIS).
Isin, e., & Wood, P. (1999). Citizenship and Identity. London: sage.
kartal, F. (2001). Liberal and republican conceptualizations of citizenship: A theoretical inquiry. Turkish Public Administration Annual,  27-28, 101-130.
Lipset, S. M. (2004). Dāyerat al-ma'āref-e democrasi [The encyclopedia of democracy] (Vol. 2; K. Fani, & N. Moradi, Trans.). Tehrān, Iran: Markaz-e Čāp va Entešārāt-e Vezārat-e Omur-e Xāreje/Ministry of Foreign Affairs Publishing & Printing Institute.
Lister, R. (1998). Citizenship: Feminist perspectives. New York: New York University Press.
Little, D. (2009). Tabyin dar olum-e ejtemā'i: Darāmadi bar falsafe-ye elm al-ejtemā' [Varieties of social explanation: An introduction to the philosophy of social science] (A. Soroush, Trans.). Tehran, Iran: Serāt.
Manoochehri, A. (2016). Farāsu-ye ranj va ro'yā [Beyond suffering and dream]. Tehran, Iran: Pažuheškade-ye Tārix-e Eslām/Institute For History of Islam.
Marshall, T. (1950). Citizenship and social class; And other essays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mclean, I. (1993). Oxford concise dictionary of politics. London: Oxford University Press.
O'Byrne, D. (2003). The dimensions of global citizenship: Political identity beyond the nation-state. London: Routledge.
Oldfield, A. (1990). Citizenship and community: Civic republicanism and the modern world. London: Routledge.
Pfister, T. (2012). Citizenship and capability? Amartya Sen's capabilities approach from a citizenship perspective. Citizenship Studies, 16(2), 241-254. doi: 10.1080/13621025.2012.667615
Qizilbash, M. (2002). Development, common foes & shared values. Review of Political Economy, 14(4), 463-480. doi: 10.1080/0953825022000009906
Robeyns, I. (2006). The capability approach in practice. Journal of Political Philosophy, 14(3), 351-376.  doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9760.2006.00263.x
Sen, A. (1982). Rights and agency. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 11(1), 3-39.
Sen, A. (1984). Rights and capabilities. In: A. Sen, Resources, Values and Development, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Sen, A. (1985). Rights as goals. In: S. G. Milne, Equality and Discrimination, Paper proceeidings at 11th Conference on Freedom and Justice, Association for Legal and Social Philosophy London: University College.
Sen, A. (1987). The standard of living. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sen, A. (1990). Justice: Means versus freedoms. Philosophy and Public, 19(2), 111-121.
Sen, A. (1992). Inequality re-examined. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Sen, A. (1996). Legal rights and moral rights: Old questions and new problems. Ratio Juris, 9(2), 153-167.  doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9337.1996.tb00233.x
Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sen, A. (2000). Āzādi va barābari [Inequality re-examined] (H. Fesharaki, Trans.). Tehran, Iran: Širāze.
Sen, A. (2002). Rationality and freedom. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Sen, A. (2004). Elements of a theory of human rights. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 32(4), 315-356.  doi: 10.1111/j.1088-4963.2004.00017.x
Sen, A. (2013a). Andiše-ye edālat [The idea of justice] (V. Mahmoudi, Trans.). Tehran, Iran: Kand-o-kāv.
Sen, A. (2013b). Towse'e ya'ni āzādi [Development as freedom] (M. S. Noori Naeini, Trans.). Tehran, Iran: Ney.
Sen, A. (2013c). Axlāq va eqtesād [On ethics and economic] (H. Fesharaki, Trans.). Tehran, Iran: Pardis-e Dāneš.
Smith, M. (1998). Laclau and mouffe: The radical democratic imaginary. London: Routledge.
Stewarte, F., & Deneulin, S. (2002). Amartya Sen's contribution to development thinking. Studies in Comparative International Development, 37(2), 61-70. doi: 10.1007/BF02686262
Torkaman, F., & Bahmanpour, S. (2010). "Naqš-e šahrvandi" bar asās-e ketābhā-ye olum-e ejtemā'i-ye dowre-ye dabirestān [The role of citizenship based on the courses in social sciences in high school]. Tehran, Iran: Journal of Olum-e Raftāri/Behavioral Sciences, 2(3), 9-29.
 
HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE
Boochani, M.H., Sarrafi, M., Tavakolina, J., & Dashti, A. (2017). Manouchehri, A., & Nariman, S. (2017). The theoretical capacity of Amartya Sen’s capability approach for the concept of citizenship. Interdisciplinary Studies in the Humanities, 9(2), 189-210. doi: 10.22035/isih.2017.2039.2561
Send comment about this article
Enter Name.
Enter a valid email address.
Enter a vaid affiliation.
Enter comments (At leaset 10 words)
CAPTCHA Image
Enter Security Code Correctly.
Interdisciplinary Studies in the Humanities
Volume 9, Issue 2 - Serial Number 34
Spring 2017
Pages 189-210

  • Receive Date 11 September 2016
  • Revise Date 07 March 2017
  • Accept Date 26 December 2016

Home

Editorial Board

Publication Ethics

Reviewers

Submission

Contact Us