Two people receive the same monthly income. Person A is able-bodied; Person B uses a wheelchair and requires an accessible vehicle to commute. According to the capabilities approach, are their situations equally just on the basis of equal income?
AYes — equal income ensures equal opportunity; the approach requires only resource equality
BYes — justice is about preferences, and Person B may prefer their current arrangement
CNot necessarily — equal resources can produce unequal capabilities because conversion factors differ, and Person B requires more resources to achieve the same mobility capability
DNot necessarily — Person B should receive fewer resources to correct for their extra reliance on public support
The capabilities approach's central insight is that converting resources into capabilities is uneven. A wheelchair user needs more resources to achieve the same mobility capability as an ambulatory person — the same income leaves them with fewer real freedoms. Justice requires attending to what people can actually do and be, not merely what resources they hold. A resource-egalitarian scheme that ignores conversion factors will produce systematic capability inequality despite formal resource equality.
Question 2 Multiple Choice
What is the key distinction between a 'capability' and a 'functioning' in Nussbaum's capabilities framework, and what does justice require of each?
ACapabilities are internal traits; functionings are external goods — justice requires distributing both equally
BCapabilities are real opportunities to live in various ways; functionings are actually achieved states — justice requires guaranteeing capabilities but leaves choice over functionings to individuals
CCapabilities are what the state provides; functionings are what individuals achieve — justice requires equal capabilities and maximizing functionings
DCapabilities concern physical freedoms; functionings concern political and rational freedoms — justice requires both
A capability is the real opportunity to live in a certain way; a functioning is the actual achievement of that way of living. A just society guarantees capabilities — the real freedom to be well-nourished, politically active, or educationally developed — but does not compel specific functionings. Someone who can eat well but freely chooses to fast retains the capability; justice does not require that they eat. This preserves individual autonomy while insisting on substantive, not merely formal, freedom. Collapsing the distinction would mean treating forced achievement as equivalent to free choice.
Question 3 True / False
A just society, according to the capabilities approach, must ensure that every person reaches a threshold of each central capability, but need not equalize capabilities across all persons above that threshold.
TTrue
FFalse
Answer: True
Nussbaum's framework is explicitly a threshold theory, not an equality theory. The floor — a minimum adequate level of each central capability — is what justice requires. Someone who enjoys extraordinary capabilities does not need to be reduced; someone falling below the threshold has a justice claim. This distinguishes the capabilities approach from strict equality theories while still making strong demands on social arrangements, particularly for those most vulnerable to conversion-factor disadvantages.
Question 4 True / False
The capabilities approach is a welfarist theory of justice because it evaluates social arrangements by measuring how satisfied or happy people are with their lives.
TTrue
FFalse
Answer: False
The capabilities approach explicitly rejects preference satisfaction and subjective welfare as the metric of justice. Sen developed the approach partly in response to the problem of adaptive preferences: people who have lived under deprivation may adapt their desires downward and report high satisfaction despite having very few real freedoms. A welfare-based approach would judge their situation just; the capabilities approach tracks what they can actually do and be, regardless of their reported satisfaction. This is why the approach is classified as a real-freedom or substantive-opportunity framework, not a welfarist one.
Question 5 Short Answer
Why does the capabilities approach hold that distributing equal resources is insufficient to achieve justice? What concept explains the gap between having resources and having real freedom?
Think about your answer, then reveal below.
Model answer: Equal resources produce unequal capabilities because people differ in their ability to convert resources into real freedoms — a gap explained by conversion factors. These include individual characteristics (disability, age, health), social arrangements (gender norms, discrimination, legal restrictions), and environmental conditions. A woman in a society that restricts her movement cannot convert formally equal legal rights into real freedom to pursue her projects. Justice must attend to these factors, ensuring that the threshold of central capabilities is met for everyone, not merely that formal entitlements are equalized.
The conversion factor insight bridges the capabilities approach's two main predecessors: rights theories (which focus on formal entitlements) and welfare theories (which track outcomes). The capabilities approach accepts the rights focus on individual freedom while insisting those rights must be substantive — that formal equality of resources or legal standing is compatible with severe real-world unfreedom. Sen's original formulation was deliberately open-ended about which capabilities matter; Nussbaum's list of central capabilities specifies the threshold but has been criticized as reflecting particular cultural values.