Amartya Sen's framework development is defined as the expansion of people's real freedoms and capabilities rather than merely income growth. What is this approach called?

Amartya Sen's framework development is defined as the expansion of people's real freedoms and capabilities rather than merely income growth. What is this approach called?

• A. Gini coefficient
• B. Capability approach
• C. HDI
• D. Line of perfect equality

Answer: (B)

The main idea is that development should be judged by what people are actually able to do and to be—their real freedoms and capabilities—rather than by how much income they have. Amartya Sen’s capability approach shifts the focus from measuring growth in money terms to assessing how well people can lead the lives they value. It distinguishes between functionings (the actual things a person manages to be or do, like being healthy or attending school) and capabilities (the real opportunities to achieve those functionings). Money matters as a means, but it isn’t the end goal; what matters is expanding people’s real choices and freedoms. This approach helps explain why two societies with similar average income can have very different levels of well-being if one enables broader opportunities—health, education, political participation, safety, and dignity—and the other does not. Policy implications emphasize removing unfreedoms that prevent people from using their capabilities, such as poverty, poor health, lack of education, discrimination, or oppressive institutions. The other options don’t fit as the name of this framework: a measure of inequality (Gini coefficient) looks at how income is distributed, not at what people can actually do with their lives; a composite index like the HDI blends several indicators but doesn’t center on the idea of expanding real freedoms and capabilities; and a line of perfect equality is a theoretical idea about income distribution, not a theory of development itself. So the approach described is the capability approach.

The main idea is that development should be judged by what people are actually able to do and to be—their real freedoms and capabilities—rather than by how much income they have. Amartya Sen’s capability approach shifts the focus from measuring growth in money terms to assessing how well people can lead the lives they value. It distinguishes between functionings (the actual things a person manages to be or do, like being healthy or attending school) and capabilities (the real opportunities to achieve those functionings). Money matters as a means, but it isn’t the end goal; what matters is expanding people’s real choices and freedoms.

This approach helps explain why two societies with similar average income can have very different levels of well-being if one enables broader opportunities—health, education, political participation, safety, and dignity—and the other does not. Policy implications emphasize removing unfreedoms that prevent people from using their capabilities, such as poverty, poor health, lack of education, discrimination, or oppressive institutions.

The other options don’t fit as the name of this framework: a measure of inequality (Gini coefficient) looks at how income is distributed, not at what people can actually do with their lives; a composite index like the HDI blends several indicators but doesn’t center on the idea of expanding real freedoms and capabilities; and a line of perfect equality is a theoretical idea about income distribution, not a theory of development itself.

So the approach described is the capability approach.