Martha Nussbaum on Human Development vs GDP Metrics

The capabilities approach focuses on what people are actually able to do and be, rather than just the resources they have. Amartya Sen's capabilities approach focuses on increasing people's overall capabilities to achieve what they value. He argues that justice should be evaluated based on what people are actually able to do and be, not just on resources they possess. Sen argues that capabilities are closely linked to political freedom—when people lack capabilities (such as freedom from famine), it is often due to inadequate political systems rather than lack of resources. Martha Nussbaum proposes a capabilities approach that identifies ten central capabilities that should be guaranteed to all citizens. She argues that these capabilities are non-compensable—meaning that if one capability is lacking, it cannot be compensated by having more of another.

The capability approach faces challenges including: open-ended nature of which capabilities to include (Sen did not prescribe specific capabilities), data intensity in measuring capabilities, and difficulty deciding on dimensions and indicators. Critics argue the approach is too subjective and normative. However, this openness allows researchers to extend the work and develop context-specific capabilities. Martha Nussbaum proposed a list of central capabilities including bodily health, bodily integrity, senses, imagination and thought, emotions, practical reason, affiliation, other species, play, and control over one's environment. In South African studies, people emphasized jobs, housing, education, income, family, and friends as important capabilities.

Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum developed the capabilities approach, which defines capabilities as the different combinations of functionings a person can achieve, reflecting individual freedom to live different types of lives. Nussbaum establishes ten central capabilities essential for human functioning: life, bodily health, bodily integrity, senses and imagination, emotions, practical reason, affiliation, other species, play, and control over one's environment. She argues women are disadvantaged because they are treated as instruments for others' purposes rather than ends in themselves. She criticizes family-oriented public policies for invisibilizing and preventing the development of women's capabilities as human beings in their own right.

The capability approach, developed by Nobel Prize-winning economist Amartya Sen, asks what people can really be or do, rather than telling them to 'pull up their socks' or trying to fix them. Unlike traditional approaches, it understands that what people can be or do depends on both external structural realities and internal beliefs. Martha Nussbaum describes it as a 'counter-theory' because most social policy is developed by elites and fails when implemented. The approach starts with what matters to individuals. Practical implementation focuses on four core capabilities: work and learning, health and vitality, community participation, and relationships. Research shows that relational capability—the ability to form and maintain meaningful relationships—is the most critical, serving as the architectonic element that enables all other capabilities to develop and be sustained over time.

Corrosive disadvantages remove multiple other capabilities even when other life areas appear normal—for example, vulnerability to sexual violence undermines health, work performance, and future prospects. Conversely, fertile capabilities generate many others—education is especially fertile because it creates exit options from bad marriages, enabling employment and political participation. Criticisms that capability theory is Western are factually incorrect. It was developed by Amartya Sen (Indian) and Martha Nussbaum (American), with roots in Bengali Enlightenment thinkers like Rabindranath Tagore. The Human Development and Capabilities Association includes members from 80 countries, ensuring diverse global input and adaptation to local contexts.

People from legal human rights backgrounds sometimes concern that using a capability approach weakens the link with legally enforceable and specific rights. This is partially true because capabilities are not linked article by article to international law and hence are not directly actionable, moving away from purely legal frameworks. However, some human rights are at least in principle enforceable under domestic and international law. The capability approach draws on human rights principles, values, and frameworks in identifying which capabilities should be prioritized. Some versions of the capability approach, such as the equality measurement framework, help integrate equality and human rights thinking and perspectives, bridging the gap between abstract principles and concrete policy analysis.

The capabilities approach provides a theory of basic social justice in nation-states, measuring justice by whether governments allow citizens to develop capabilities. This differs from Rawls's equality of primary goods and Dworkin's equality of resources. Nussbaum argues for equal chance to realize capabilities. She maintains nation-states are central to developing capabilities, rejecting world state proposals. However, rich nations have responsibility to help poor nations, even suggesting 2% of GDP transfers. Regional cooperation models like the European Union's structural funds (transfers from rich to poor nations) could serve as models for global integration. The capabilities approach differs from human rights: human rights (going back to Locke and Stoics) are enshrined in constitutions and allow court appeals for violations, while capabilities focus on what people are actually able to do. Nussbaum sees them as connected, suggesting capabilities approach is a species of human rights approach.

Development is not what states deliver to people but what people become capable of doing, being, and choosing. The capabilities framework argues that true development expands what people can do and be, including access to health, political participation, meaningful relationships, and education. Capabilities do not emerge spontaneously but require institutional scaffolding including laws, services, organizations, and political will. This means international organizations are not optional extras but part of development infrastructure itself. The 1987 Brundtland Commission defined sustainable development as meeting present needs without compromising future generations' ability to meet their own needs, establishing development as an intergenerational moral problem.

The capability approach is deliberately incomplete and very wide-ranging, specifying some dimensions while leaving room for context-specific specification. Many multi-dimensional approaches have nothing to do with the capability approach—just because a measure is multi-dimensional doesn't mean it relates to functionings or capabilities. Measuring capabilities is extremely difficult because we cannot observe counterfactual choices; most measures use latent variables or subjective assessments. The central issue of value (intrinsic vs instrumental) is often unaddressed in empirical work, and the process of making value judgments about dimensions and indicators is frequently unspecified. Human development and the capability approach share the same conceptual framework, with Human Development Reports applying it prospectively to policy. Human security shifts the unit of analysis from the nation-state to the individual, protecting human life from critical threats. Human rights similarly shifts from legal precedent to individual rights. All three frameworks share a focus on the person rather than aggregate economic measures.

The capability approach, developed by Nobel laureate economist Amartya Sen and later expanded by Martha Nussbaum, represents a fundamental paradigm shift in political theory and development economics by focusing on human beings' actual freedom to be and do things in the world, rather than on resources (as in Rawlsian theory) or outcomes (as in utilitarianism); this approach argues that people with different circumstances require different amounts of resources to achieve equal capabilities—for example, someone needing a wheelchair requires more resources to have the same capability of mobility as an able-bodied person—and has significantly influenced international development policy, leading organizations like the United Nations to prioritize human development over GDP per capita as a measure of societal progress.

The capabilities approach faces significant criticism. Critics argue it is too idealistic and abstract for practical policy implementation, lacking measurable indicators like GDP. Cultural relativists contend her universal list imposes Western values, potentially representing Eurocentrism that ignores cultural particularities. Additionally, the list was developed primarily from Nussbaum's personal perspective without democratic participation from affected communities. These criticisms highlight tensions between universal human rights frameworks and cultural diversity, as well as challenges in translating philosophical concepts into actionable policy.

The capabilities approach identifies minimum requirements for flourishing: freedom from violence, access to food, and community participation. People may choose to fast, but starving due to lack of access differs from voluntary fasting. Critics call it universalist, but this is preferable to relativism that avoids judgment. However, the approach tends to be philosophical and disconnected from mechanism analysis—it provides a wish list without identifying what blocks capabilities. Barriers may be interpersonal (violence) or structural (property distribution). The approach needs to connect with mechanism analysis to be practically useful.

One critique of the capability approach is that it failed to provide a list of minimum capabilities that people should have. Martha Nussbaum and other scholars attempted to provide lists of minimum capabilities. Another critique is that the approach is too individualistic and pays little attention to groups and social structures. When writing about social policy, students should clearly state the aim of the policy being analyzed and describe the content and implementation.

The capability approach faces challenges including: open-ended nature of which capabilities to include (Sen did not prescribe specific capabilities), data intensity in measuring capabilities, and difficulty deciding on dimensions and indicators. Critics argue the approach is too subjective and normative. However, this openness allows researchers to extend the work and develop context-specific capabilities. Martha Nussbaum proposed a list of central capabilities including bodily health, bodily integrity, senses, imagination and thought, emotions, practical reason, affiliation, other species, play, and control over one's environment. In South African studies, people emphasized jobs, housing, education, income, family, and friends as important capabilities.

The Capability Approach critiques three main alternatives: GDP per capita fails to address distributional inequalities and ignores health, education, and political freedom; utilitarianism focuses on aggregate satisfaction while ignoring marginalized populations and adaptive preferences; resources approach treats money as a multi-use instrument but fails to capture what people can actually do and be. The Capability Approach emphasizes heterogeneity of capabilities, distributional importance, and the unreliability of preferences as indicators. It connects capabilities to human rights, requiring positive state action rather than mere non-interference.

Gross National Happiness (GNH) is an alternative measure of national progress that prioritizes well-being over economic growth. Bhutan was the first country to adopt GNH as its official development philosophy. Unlike GDP, which measures economic output, GNH considers psychological well-being, cultural preservation, environmental conservation, and good governance.

Bhutan, a small Himalayan kingdom between China and India, has pioneered an alternative approach to national development by measuring progress through Gross National Happiness (Felicidade Interna Bruta - FIB) rather than traditional economic indicators like GDP. This philosophy prioritizes cultural preservation, environmental conservation, and spiritual well-being over industrialization and consumption. The country maintains strict tourism controls (minimum $50/day spending) to protect its unique culture, practices clockwise religious rituals, and has transitioned from monarchy to democracy while resisting Westernization pressures. This model demonstrates that national progress can be defined by holistic well-being rather than purely economic metrics.

This segment explores Bhutan's unique approach to national well-being. Bhutan is the only country where the constitution mandates that parliament work toward the real happiness of its people. The Fourth King, after losing his father at a young age, spent three years traveling throughout the country to understand what makes people happy. He created the Gross National Happiness Index, which prioritizes happiness over GDP, recognizing that wars and other factors can increase GDP without improving genuine well-being. The speaker learned that simple things like time for enjoyable activities, community connection, and connection with nature significantly increase perceived happiness.

Bhutan uses Gross National Happiness (GNH) as its development index instead of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). GNH measures the well-being and happiness of citizens through four pillars: sustainable development, cultural preservation, environmental conservation, and good governance. The index considers factors like housing, income, literacy, happiness, and quality of sleep. Education and healthcare are provided free of charge to all Bhutanese citizens.

Bhutan replaced GDP with Gross National Happiness (GNH) as its national priority. GNH measures psychological well-being, community vitality, cultural preservation, and environmental conservation. While Bhutan cannot yet rank in happiness surveys, it represents an alternative approach to national development.