Ingrid Robeyns

Two of the most important theories in contemporary liberal egalitarianism are Ronald Dworkin’s equality of resources and Amartya Sen’s capability approach. Recently Dworkin has claimed that Sen’s capability approach does not provide a genuine alternative to equality of resources. In this article, we provide both an internal and an external critique of Dworkin’s claim. In the first part of the article we develop an internal critique by providing a detailed analysis of Dworkin’s claim. Andrew Williams has contested Dworkin’s claim, but he has failed to convince Dworkin of his objections. We analyze this debate, and offer an argument that, we hope, settles this dispute. In the second part of the article we argue that an analysis beyond the current parameters of the liberal-egalitarian debate points to three significant differences between Dworkin’s and Sen’s egalitarian theories: the degree to which they rely on an ideal-theoretical approach; their ability to judge social structures that are intertwined with people’s social endowments; and their endorsement of a well-defined criterion to demarcate morally relevant from morally irrelevant inequalities. This broader analysis not only reinforces our conclusion that Dworkin’s equality of resources and Sen’s capability approach are genuinely distinct, but it also suggests some more general insights that may be relevant for a better understanding of contemporary egalitarian thinking.

This paper offers a critique of Martha Nussbaum’s description of the capability approach, and offers an alternative. I will argue that Nussbaum’s characterization of the capability approach is flawed, in two ways. First, she unduly limits the capability to two strands of work, thereby ignoring important other capabilitarian scholarship. Second, she argues that there are five essential elements that all capability theories meet; yet upon closer analysis three of them are not really essential to the capability approach. I also offer an alternative description of the capability approach, which is called the cartwheel view of the capability approach. This view is at the same time radically multidisciplinary yet also contains a foundationally robust core among its various usages, and is therefore much better able to make the case that the capability approach can be developed in a very wide range of more specific normative theories. Finally, the cartwheel view is used to argue against Nussbaum's claim that all capabilitarian political theory needs to be politically liberal.

This book brings together a team of leading theorists to address the question 'What is the right measure of justice?' Some contributors, following Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum, argue that we should focus on capabilities, or what people are able to do and to be. Others, following John Rawls, argue for focussing on social primary goods, the goods which society produces and which people can use. Still others see both views as incomplete and complementary to one another. Their essays evaluate the two approaches in the light of particular issues of social justice - education, health policy, disability, children, gender justice - and the volume concludes with an essay by Amartya Sen, who originated the capabilities approach.

This article addresses the question whether a basic income will be a just social policy for women. The implementation of a basic income will have different effects for different groups of women, some of them clearly positive, some of them negative. The real issues that concern feminist critics of a basic income are the gender-related constraints on choices and the current gender division of labour, which are arguably both playing at the disadvantage of women. It is argued that those issues are not adequately addressed by a basic income proposal alone, and therefore basic income has to be part of a larger packet of social policy measures if it wants to maximise real freedom for all.

On 20 October 2010, the European Parliament proposed to give all women in the European Union (EU) minimally 20 weeks fully paid maternity leave, and to introduce a legal right for all fathers to 2 weeks fully paid paternity leave. In many other countries, individuals and groups are advocating for longer maternity leave, longer paternity leave, and/or longer parental leave. In this paper, I argue for two principles that proposals of maternity/paternity/parental leave systems should respect: the ?principle of non-discrimination? and the ?principle of balancing the interests of all affected parties?. The principle of non-discrimination requires that women should receive paid leave for the number of weeks that are needed as part of their pregnancy and to recover from childbirth, but that any additional weeks should be seen as birth leave rather than maternity leave, and be given on equal terms to men and women. The principle of balancing the interests of all parties suggests that it would be good for newborns, their parents, and for employers and society at large, that parents have enough time to spend with their children. To illustrate its practical relevance, I apply these principles to the current situation in the Netherlands and to the European Parliament's proposal to introduce a minimum of 20 weeks maternity leave and 2 weeks paternity leave

Dans cet article, j’analyse trois logiques normatives qui peuvent fonder les politiques éducatives en portant une attention particulière aux questions liées aux spécificités des sexes. Ces trois modèles éducatifs sont la théorie du capital humain, le discours du droit et l’approche des potentialités. D’abord, je décris cinq rôles que l’éducation peut jouer. Ensuite, j’analyse les trois modèles pouvant fonder les politiques éducatives. La théorie du capital humain pose un certain nombre de problèmes parce qu’elle s’avère économiciste, fragmentée et essentiellement instrumentaliste. Le discours du droit et l’approche des potentialités sont en principe des modèles multidimensionnels et inclusifs et peuvent par le fait même tenir compte des rôles intrinsèques et non éco- nomicistes de l’éducation. Toutefois, selon la manière dont quelqu’un satisfait aux exigences spécifiques des cadres théoriques du droit et des potentialités, ceux-ci peuvent également présenter des difficultés. Je termine cet article en soutenant que la visée intrinsèque des politiques éducatives devrait être d’augmenter les potentialités des individus et que nous devrions employer les discours du droit de façon stratégique, c’est-à-dire lorsqu’il est probable qu’ils amènent les gens à réaliser leurs potentialités.

Are global poverty and inequality on the rise or are they declining? And is the quality of life of the world's poorest people getting worse or better? These questions are often given conflicting answers by economists, the World Bank, and social activists. One reason for this is that assessments of quality of life can be made in terms of people's income, their resources, or their functionings and capabilities. This essay discusses the pros and cons of these evaluative approaches, and it argues that all approaches have complementary strengths and should therefore in principle all be considered. Moreover, being aware that assessments of poverty and inequality can be made using these different frameworks helps us to understand the conflicting claims.