Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to examine whether Amartya Sen's capability approach can suggest an appropriate theory of education for ethical development. Many advocates of Sen's capability approach insist that his approach is superior to rival theories of education, including the human capital theory. This is because Sen emphasizes the purpose and various roles of education for achieving substantial freedom while rival theories focus on the instrumental aspects of education. A focus on rival educational theories often results in the negative effects seen occurring in colonial education. In principle, we agree with the advocates of Sen’s capability approach. However, we doubt that Sen’s emphasis is sufficient for guaranteeing that his capability approach is the appropriate theory of education for application in the context of ethical development. It does not have theoretical completion, and it gives no guidance as to conflict resolution concerning the roles, or value, of education. Nor does it give guidance as to how to implement pedagogical strategies. This incompletion allows economically instrumental values to dominate intrinsic values and non-economically instrumental values, as seen with the educational Millennium Development Goals. This prioritization is what has occurred in colonial education through the application of human capital theory. We suggest that in Sen’s capability approach, firstly, the meaning of the intrinsic value of education should be clarified; secondly, the non-economically instrumental roles of education should be explicated in the context of development; and finally, the priority of the intrinsic and the non-economically instrumental roles of education value should be taken over the economically instrumental values. In this revised theory, people’s substantive freedom is achievable through education, people’s aboriginal identities and values remain intact, and developing countries take seriously pedagogical strategies.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
In this paper, “extreme poverty” means that the living cost of a person a day is below the poverty line. At 2005 Purchasing Power Parity, that is $1.25 a day (World Bank 2008). According to the World Development Report (2000), worldwide poverty rose from 1.2 billion in 1987 to 1.5 billion in 2000 and if recent trends persist, it will reach 1.9 billion by 2015.
Post-development theorists have raised concerns about psychological or material harms in development. Post-development theorists from developing countries argue that we should abandon the project of development, practiced for over 60 years. This is because development projects led by developed countries lead to recipients of developing countries thinking of themselves as inferior and ignorant, and they lead to recipients doubting the value of their own culture and identity (Escobar 1995; Pieterse 2000; Sachs 1992).
“Ethical development” is not synonymous with “economic development,” which focuses on the growth of monetized activity. Qizilbash argues that “ethical development” should be “(a) consistent with the demands of social justice, (b) consistent with the demands of human freedom, and (c) concerned with human beings as ends rather than means and with human well-being” (1996). Ethical development is also distinct from “human development,” which can be expressed as a process of enlarging people’s choices, in that the former focuses on ethical perspectives, including all values of human development.
In addition to the weakness in a specific context of development, the human capital theory to education has been criticized generally for the following two weaknesses. First, the human capital model of education does not explain people’s various motives for attaining education for noneconomic reasons, because this theory does not account for the intrinsic value of education. For example, some people find the study of science, even when unlikely to use what is learned, intrinsically satisfying. Instead, they enjoy the discovery of new knowledge. This is because the benefits of education exceed its role as human capital in commodity production (Sen 1999, 2000). Second, this economy-oriented logic, on which the human capital theory of education is based, ironically could result in the abandonment of education. This is because this logic compels people to compare investment in education with alternative types of investments. This comparison comes only from a material perspective, and when an alternative investment is more profitable than education, abandoning education is more acceptable. For example, according to the human capital model of education, in a society with no women in the labor market, some might promote the abandonment of educating girls and women.
The economically instrumental roles of education are commonly found in both Sen’s capability approach and the human capital theory to education. These roles help people to find jobs, to be less vulnerable in the labor market, to be better informed as consumers, to be more able to find information on economic opportunities, etc. In addition to these personal roles, educated individuals can help the society develop economically. For example, according to Sen’s analysis, the economic growth of East Asia, especially Japan, results from a high rate of literacy gained through education (Sen 1999). Thus, education plays an economically instrumental role at both individual and social levels.
‘Freedom’ here entails that the students have substantial opportunities to choose real preferences without obstacles.
The Cherokee developed their own written language in the 1800s in response to the colonization of their culture in order to preserve their culture. This would be an example of the preserving of literacy in a native language for intrinsic reasons as opposed to instrumental reasons (http://www.omniglot.com/writing/cherokee.htm).
References
Anderson, E. (2007). Fair opportunity in education: A democratic equality perspective. Ethics, 117(4), 595–622.
Carnoy, M. (1974). Education as cultural imperialism. New York: Longman.
Crocker, D. (2008). Ethics of global development: Agent, capability, and deliberative democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Dewey, J. (2008). The middle works of John Dewey (Vol. 9). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Dreze, J., & Sen, A. (2002). India: Development and participation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Escobar, A. (1995). Encountering development: The making and unmaking of the third world. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Farrar, J. (2012). An assessment of human development in Uganda: The capabilities approach, millennium development goals, and human development index. The Josef Korbel Journal of Advanced International Studies, 4, 74–101.
Fraser, N. (1997). Justice interruptus: Critical reflection on the “Postsocialist” condition. Abingdon: Routledge.
Fukude-Parr, S. (2011). Theory and policy in international development: Human development and capability approach and the millennium development goals. International Studies Review, 13(1), 122–132.
Harbison, F. H., & Myers, C. A. (1964). Education, manpower and economic growth, strategies of human resource development. New York: McGraw Hill.
Hinchcliffe, G. (2007). Truth and the capability of learning. Journal of Philosphy of Education, 41(2), 221–232.
Hinchcliffe, G., & Terzi, L. (2009). Introduction to the special issue ‘Capabilities and education’. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 28(5), 387–390.
Hinchliffe, G. (2009). Capability and education. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 28, 403–413.
Morán, R. (2003). Escaping the poverty trap. Washington, DC.: Inter-American Development Bank.
Nandy, A. (1997). Colonization of the mind. In M. Rahnema (Ed.), The post-development reader (pp. 168–178). London: Zed Books.
Nussbaum, M. (1997). Cultivating humanity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Oh, S.-C., & Kim, K.-S. (2000). Japanese colonial education as a contested Terrain: What did koreans do in the expansion of elementary schooling? Asia Pacific Education Review, 1(1), 75–89.
Peters, R. S. (1970). Ethics and education. London: Ceorge Allen & Unwin Ltd.
Pieterse, J. N. (2000). After post-development. Third World Quarterly, 21(2), 175–191.
Pogge, T. (2002). Can the capability approach be justified? Philosophical Topics, 30(2), 167–228.
Prah, K. K. (2007). Democracy, education, literacy and development. In Keynote address 10th Year Jubilee Celebrations of the Centre for International Education.
Qizilbash, M. (1996). Ethical development. World Development, 24(7), 1209–1221.
Rahnema, M., & Bawtree, V. (1997). The post development reader. London: Zed Books.
Robeyns, I. (2006). Three models of education: Rights, capabilities and Human capital. Theory and Research in Education, 4(1), 69–84.
Sachs, W. (1992). The development dictionary. London: Zed Books.
Saito, M. (2003). Amartya Sen’s capability approach to education: A critical exploration. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 37(1), 17–33.
Sen, A. (1971). Crisis in Indian education. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute of Public Enterprise.
Sen, A. (1984). Resources, values and development. Oxford: Basil Blackwel.
Sen, A. (1985). Commodities and capabilities. Amsterdam: North Holland.
Sen, A. (1992). Rationality and freedom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Sen, A. (1994). Beyond Liberalization: Social opportunity and Human capability. New Delhi: Institute of Social Sciences.
Sen, A. (1999). Development as Freedom. New York: Knopf.
Sen, A. (2000). Consequential evaluation and practical reason. The Journal of Philosophy, 97(9), 477–502.
Sen, A. (2002). Rationality and freedom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Sen, A. (2006). In G. Isabel & K. Stephan (Eds.), Perspectives on the economic and human development of India and China. Göttingen: Universitätsverlag Göttingen.
Taylor, C. (1995). Philosophy arguments. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Terzi, L. (2007). The capability to be educated. In M. Walker & E. Unterhalter (Eds.), Amartya Sen’s capability approach and social justice in education (pp. 25–43). New York: Palgrave.
Thompson, A. R. (1981). Education and development in Africa. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Todaro, M. P., & Smith, S. C. (2009). Economic development (10th ed.). Essex: Addison Wesley.
Trapnell, L. A. (2003). Some key issues in intercultural bilingual education teacher training programmes—As seen from a teacher training programme in the peruvian Amazon Basin. Comparative Education, 39(2), 165.
UNESCO (2002). Education for all.
UNESCO (2006) Annual Report 2006.
United Nations Development Programme (2015). A new sustainable development agenda. Retreived from http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/mdgoverview.html.
Unterhalter, E. (2003). The capabilities approach and gendered education: An examination of South African complexities. Theory and Research in Education, 1(1), 7–22.
Unterhalter, E. (2009). Education. In L. Shahani & S. Deneulin (Eds.), An introduction to the human development and approach: Freedom and agency. London: Routledge.
Unterhalter, E. (2012). Trade-off, comparative evaluation and global obligation: reflections on the poverty, gender and education millennium development goals. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities: A Multi-Disciplinary Journal for People-Centered Development, 13(3), 335–351.
Unterhalter, E., & Walker, M. (Eds.). (2007). Amartya Sen’s capability approach and social justice in education. New York: Palgrave.
Walker, M. (2006). Towards a capability-based theory of social justice for education policy-making. Journal of Education Policy, 21(2), 163–185.
World Bank (2000). World Development Report 2000. A World Bank Publication.
World Bank (2008). World Development Report 2008. A World Bank Publication.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This paper is based on the seventh chapter of Mok’s Ph.D. dissertation (Development Ethics as Recognition). However, it is extensively revised and newly written with the cooperation of both authors.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mok, K., Jeong, W. Revising Amartya Sen’s capability approach to education for ethical development. Asia Pacific Educ. Rev. 17, 501–510 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-016-9449-2
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-016-9449-2