Consideration concerning the Concept of "Capability" in Amartya Sen

Abstract

This paper examines Amartya Sen's "human functionings" and "capability". I also discuss the function of Talcott Parsons' "living systems" and his concept of "capability", my purpose is to show that capability in both Sen and Parsons is similar. Asserting that it is impossible to judge "well-being" through an analysis of wealth and its properties alone, Sen advocates considering human functionings. Sen writes : "A functioning is the achievement of a person : what he or she manages to do or to be." Furthermore, what Sen calls "capability" is the total complex of the various combinations of things that a person achieves. Capabilities Sen calls are concretely GNP per person, average life expectancy and literacy adopted as HDI (Human Development Index) by UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). Parsons makes a study of action theory in human throughout. And, he proposes the idea of "generalized symbolic media in interaction". I think that this is an analysis what Pareto calls "residue". Parsons describes the expression of meaningful symbol that constitutes residue as "capability". Then he writes that this capability is the best single criterion of a value element as distinguished from the factors of heredity and environment (Parsons 1937, The Structure of Social Action : 271). Both Sen and Parsons study to start from the theorem of Pareto. I think that Sen deals with capability in concrete, practical manner, while Parsons' capability is an analytical and abstract. Nevertheless, to both of them capability is a criterion for human happiness.