Citizenship and capability? Amartya Sen's capabilities approach from a citizenship perspective

Abstract

Abstract This article deals with the potential contribution of Amartya Sen's capabilities approach (CA) for studying citizenship. Although the CA cannot be described as a genuine citizenship theory it has informed recent attempts to reformulate social citizenship. Moreover, it shares important aims and assumptions with radical citizenship approaches, which emphasise democracy, voice, and difference. Especially, Sen's ideas can help formulate positive notions of equality. However, a fruitful dialogue between those perspectives has to lead over some controversial issues. In this context, this article suggests more substantive notions of agency and interaction as well as integrating rights and rights language. Keywords: citizenshipcapabilitiesrightsrights languageAmartya Sen Acknowledgements This article was written as a contribution to the research project 'Free Movement of Persons, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship in the European Union' within the CAPRIGHT Network and funded by the Seventh Framework Programme of the European Commission (Integrated Project No. CIT4-CT-2006-028549). I am particularly grateful to Patrizia Nanz and Dawid Friedrich. Moreover, I want to thank the two anonymous referees and the editorial team of Citizenship Studies for their helpful comments and suggestions. Notes 1. In his various defences of the CA, Sen has elaborated his concept of capability in contrast to abstract parameters, such as resources, rights, primary goods or utilities but also in contrast to more concrete indicators, such as income, Gross National Product or mortality. 2. One reason may be that Sen and Nussbaum take a global perspective mainly focusing on global questions of inequality, poverty or development rather than citizenship. Nevertheless, at its core the CA constitutes an explicit and very powerful argument in favour of democracy. 3. In this context, Sen critically engages with the accounts of, for example, Dworkin, Nozick or Rawls. 4. In this context, Nussbaum (Citation1999) characterises policies that are mainly targeted at functionings as paternalistic while policies which aim to create capabilities are characterised as pluralist. 5. According to Vandenberg (Citation2000, pp. 4–5) essentially contested concepts are, first 'ascriptive', i.e. normative and analytical elements are inextricably linked; second, they are 'internally complex' and open to divergent interpretations and, third, they refer to an (historical) 'exemplar', which is also open to diverging interpretations of its exemplary meaning. 6. Although the radical school might be even more diverse, liberal and republican approaches also involve various conceptual subtypes and stretch across the whole political spectrum.