Advertisement

Theoretical Framework

  • Jyoti Rao
Chapter

Abstract

Philosophical discussions on the theoretical framework of Amartya Sen’s capability theory are taken up under this chapter. Brief discussion on the concept of “justice” and “distributive justice” in this chapter helps in understanding the theoretical position of Sen’s capability in the wider debate on the theories of justice. This chapter explains Sen’s criticism of the contemporary utilitarian theory, followed by defining “capability” and “functionings” and the idea of equality as per Sen. The chapter explains the historical evolution of political institutions parallel to the development of political theories in the English society, and the impact on private property rights. Relevance of applicability of Sen’s capability theory in deriving fairer compensation is explained in this chapter.

Keywords

Justice Distributive justice Utilitarian theory Well-being Capability Functioning Property rights Political theory 

Bibliography

  1. Adler, M. (2011). Well-Being and Interpersonal Comparisons. In M. Adler, Well-Being and Fair Distribution: Beyond Cost-Benefit Analysis (pp. 1–130). Oxford Scholarship Online. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195384994.003.0004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arneson, R. J. (2006). Distributive Justice and Basic Capability Equality: ‘Good Enough’ Is Not Good Enough’. In A. Kaufman (Ed.), Capabilities Equality: Basic Issues and Problems (pp. 17–43). New York, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Ashcraft, R. (2013). Locke’s Two Treatises of Government. Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
  4. Barker, S. E. (1979). Social Contract: Essays by Locke, Hume, and Rousseau. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Barrow, R. (2015). Utilitarianism: A Contemporary Statement. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Barzel, Y. (1989). Economic Analysis of Property Rights. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Basu, K., & Kanbur, R. (2008). Arguments for a Better World: Essays in Honor of Amartya Sen: Volume I: Ethics, Welfare, and Measurement. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Basu, K., & Lopez-Calva, L. F. (2011). Functionings and Capabilities. In K. J. Arrow, A. Sen, & K. Suzumura (Eds.), Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare (Vol. 2, pp. 153–187). Amsterdam: North-Holland (Elsevier). Retrieved February 09, 2016, from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016972181000016X
  9. Benson, B. L. (2008). The Evolution of Eminent Domain – A Remedy for Market Failure or an Effort to Limit Government Power and Government Failure. The Independent Review, XII(3), 423–432. Retrieved March 14, 2015, from http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+evolution+of+eminent+domain%3a+a+remedy+for+market+failure+or+an...-a0172775628
  10. Burrows, P. (1991, February). Compensation for Compulsory Acquisition. Land Economics, 67(1), 49–63. Retrieved November 06, 2015, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3146485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Claassen, R. (2015). The Capability to Hold Property. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 16(2), 220–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cohen, C. E. (2006). Eminent Domain After Kelo v City of New London: An Argument for Banning Economic Development Takings. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 29(2), 491–568.Google Scholar
  13. Cohen, G. A. (1989). On the Currency of Egalitarian Justice. Ethics, 99(4), 906–944.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cohen, G. A. (1993). Equality of What? On Welfare, Goods, and Capabilities. In M. Nussbaum, & A. Sen (Eds.), The Quality of Life (pp. 9–30). Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dworkin, R. (2000). Sovereign Virtue: The Theory and Practice of Equality. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Epstein, R. A. (1985). Takings: Private Property and the Power of Eminent Domain. Cambridge, Massachusetts, London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Freeden, M. (2004). Ideology, Political Theory and Political Philosophy. In G. F. Gaus, & C. Kukathas (Eds.), Handbook of Political Theory (pp. 3–17). London: SAGE Publications Ltd.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gauthier, D. (1986). Morals by Agreement. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  19. Hare, R. M. (1981). Moral Thinking: It’s Levels, Methods and Point. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Honoré, T. (1987). Making Law Bind: Essays Legal and Philosophical. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Houser, R. E. (2004). The Cardinal Virtues: Aquinas, Albert and Philip the Chancellor. Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies.Google Scholar
  22. Kant, I. (1889). Kant’s Critique of Practical Reason and Other Works on the Theory of Ethics (4th ed.). (T. K. Abbott, Trans.) London: Longmans, Green.Google Scholar
  23. Kolm, S.-C. (1991). Philosophical Reasons for Equity. Paris: CERAS.Google Scholar
  24. Kolm, S.-C. (1996). Modern Theories of Justice. Massachusetts: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  25. Konjovic, M. (2013, February 11). In Search of Social Justice: The Capabilities Approach v. Resourcist Theories. Central European University, Department of Philosophy. Budapest: CEU, Budapest College. Retrieved February 11, 2016, from Central European University Library: http://www.etd.ceu.hu/2013/konjovic_marko.pdf
  26. Kuklys, W. (2005). Amartya Sen’s Capability Approach: Theoretical Insights and Empirical Applications. Germany: Springer.Google Scholar
  27. Leontief, W. (1966). Essays in Economics: Theories and Theorizing. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Lessnoff, M. (1990). Social Contract Theory: Readings in Social and Political Theory. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  29. McKechnie, W. S. (1914). Magna Carta: A Commentary on the Great Charter of King John (2nd ed.). New York: Burt Franklin.Google Scholar
  30. Meidinger, E. E. (1980). The “Public Uses” of Eminent Domain: History and Policy. Environmental Law, 11(1), 1–66.Google Scholar
  31. Miceli, T. J. (2011). The Economic Theory of Eminent Domain: Private Property Public Use. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Miceli, T. J., & Segerson, K. (2014). Regulatory Takings. In J. M. Duke, & J. Wu, The Oxford Handbook of Land Economics (pp. 668–697). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Miceli, T. J., & Sirmans, C. (2007). The Holdout Problem, Urban Sprawl, and Eminent Domain. Journal of Housing Economics, 16, 309–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Miller, D. (2017). Justice. Retrieved February 20, 2018, from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: https://plato.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/encyclopedia/archinfo.cgi?entry=justice
  35. Mills, H. E. (1982). A Treatise Upon the Law of Eminent Domain. Littleton, Colorado: Fred B. Rothman & Company.Google Scholar
  36. Mulgan, T. (2014). Understanding Utilitarianism. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  37. Ng, Y.-K. (2003). From Preference to Happiness: Towards a More Complete. Social Choice and Welfare, 20(2), 307–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nussbaum, M. C. (2000). Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nyamaka, D. M. (2011, June). Social Contract Theory of John Locke (1932–1704) in the Contemporary World. (S. Works, Ed.) St. Augustine University Law Journal, 49–60. Retrieved March 22, 2015, from http://works.bepress.com/; http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1009&context=dmnyamaka
  40. Pigou, A. C. (1938). The Economics of Welfare (4th ed.). London: Macmillan & Company.Google Scholar
  41. Rao, J., Tiwari, P., & Hutchison, N. E. (2017). Capability Approach to Compulsory Purchase Compensation: Evidence of the Functionings of Land Identified by Affected Landowners in Scotland. Journal of Property Research, 34(3), 305–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rawls, J. (1972). A Theory of Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Rawls, J. (1982). Social Unity and Primary Goods. In A. Sen, & B. Williams (Eds.), Utilitarianism and Beyond (pp. 159–186). Cambridge, London, New York, New Rochelle, Melbourne, Sydney, Paris: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rawls, J. (1993). Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Rawls, J. (2001). Justice as Fairness: A Restatement. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Reynolds, S. (2010). Studies in Legal History: Before Eminent Domain: Toward a History of Expropriation of Land for the Common Good. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  47. Robeyns, I. (2016). The Capability Approach. Retrieved February 21, 2018, from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/capability-approach/
  48. Roemer, J. E. (1996). Theories of Distributive Justice. Cambridge, London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Scanlon, T. M. (1975). Preference and Urgency. The Journal of Philosophy, 72(19), 655–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Schumpeter, J. A., & Stiglitz, J. E. (2010). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. London, New York: Routledge Classics.Google Scholar
  51. Scottish Law Commission. (2014, December). Discussion Paper on Compulsory Purchase. Edinburgh: Scottish Law Commission. Retrieved August 09, 2016, from http://www.scotlawcom.gov.uk/law-reform/law-reform-projects/compulsory-purchase/
  52. Sen, A. (1979a). Equality of What?, The Tanner Lecture on Human Values. Stanford University. Retrieved April 11, 2016, from http://tannerlectures.utah.edu/_documents/a-to-z/s/sen80.pdf
  53. Sen, A. (1979b). Personal Utilities and Public Judgements: Or What’s Wrong with Welfare Economics. The Economic Journal, 89(355), 537–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sen, A. (1985). Commodities and Capabilities. Amsterdam, New York, Oxford: North Holland.Google Scholar
  55. Sen, A. (1993). Capability and Well-Being. In M. Nussbaum, & A. Sen (Eds.), The Quality of Life (pp. 30–53). Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sen, A. (1995). Inequality Reexamined. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sen, A. (1999). Commodities and Capabilities. Amsterdam, New York, Oxford: North Holland.Google Scholar
  58. Sen, A. (2003). Development as Capability Expansion. In S. Fukuda-Parr, & A. S. Kumar (Eds.), Readings in Human Development: Concepts, Measures and Policies for a Development Paradigm (pp. 41–58). New Delhi: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Sen, A., & Williams, B. (Eds.). (1982). Utilitarianism and Beyond. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Shapiro, I. (2003). Two Treatises of Government and a Letter Concerning Toleration. (J. Dunn, R. W. Grant, & I. Shapiro, Eds.) New Haven, London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Stonebuck, W. B. (1972). A General Theory of Eminent Domain. Washington Law Review, 47(4), 553–608.Google Scholar
  62. The Yale Law Journal. (1957). Eminent Domain Valuations in an Age of Redevelopment: Incidental Losses. The Yale Law Journal, 67(1), 61–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Waldron, J. (2016, Winter). Property and Ownership. Retrieved June 12, 2016, from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/property/
  64. Wells, T. (2016). Sen’s Capability Approach. Retrieved February 05, 2016, from Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: http://www.iep.utm.edu/sen-cap/
  65. Wenar, L. (2017). John Rawls. Retrieved February 11, 2016, from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rawls/
  66. West, E. G. (2001). Property Rights in the History of Economic Thought: From Locke to J. S. Mill. Retrieved February 03, 2016, from http://www.compilerpress.ca/Competitiveness/Anno/Anno%20West%20Property.htm#Edwin
  67. Weston, P. E., & Townsend, R. N. (2009). Welfare Economics. New York: Nova Science Publishers.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jyoti Rao
    • 1
  1. 1.University of MelbourneMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations