David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
There are two main motivations for undertaking this thesis on Sen’s capability approach and microfinance. One is to evaluate Sen’s capability approach by considering moral philosophy (utilitarianism and John Rawls’ theory of justice) and developmental ethics contexts. The other is to analyse the impact of microfinance on poverty reduction in accordance with Sen’s approach. This thesis argues that Although Sen’s capability approach has drawbacks, both as a general moral theory and as a theory of justice, it does bring up important aspects of development and poverty reduction. When the empirical evidence is combined with criteria from the capability approach, microfinance is a relative failure as a poverty-reducing approach. The evidence that micro-loans reduce poverty is weak, and there are moral arguments against the group lending approach that is used to assure repayments. Other services sometimes associated with microfinance – savings and insurance — do help the poor, however. However, we should notice that the conclusion I propose here does not exclude the possibility that perhaps microfinance does help promote some other freedoms that are of significance locally
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library||
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Scott A. Anderson (2003). Sabina Alkire, Valuing Freedoms: Sen's Capability Approach and Poverty Reduction:Valuing Freedoms: Sen's Capability Approach and Poverty Reduction. Ethics 113 (3):678-680.
Serena Olsaretti (2005). Endorsement and Freedom in Amartya Sen's Capability Approach. Economics and Philosophy 21 (1):89-108.
Mozaffar Qizilbash (2006). Capability, Happiness and Adaptation in Sen and J. S. Mill. Utilitas 18 (1):20-32.
Sabina Alkire (2002). Valuing Freedoms: Sen's Capability Approach and Poverty Reduction. OUP Oxford.
Douglas A. Hicks (2002). Gender, Discrimination, and Capability: Insights From Amartya Sen. Journal of Religious Ethics 30 (1):137 - 154.
Melanie Walker (2010). Critical Capability Pedagogies and University Education. Educational Philosophy and Theory 42 (8):898-917.
Thomas Pogge (2002). Can the Capability Approach Be Justified? Philosophical Topics 30 (2):167-228.
Mozaffar Qizilbash (2007). Social Choice and Individual Capabilities. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 6 (2):169-192.
Andrew Askland (1998). The Sen of Inequality. Journal of Philosophical Research 23:399-415.
Jay Drydyk (2012). A Capability Approach to Justice as a Virtue. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 15 (1):23-38.
Ravinder Rena (2008). Women's Enterprise Development in Eritrea Through Microfinance. ICFAI University Journal of Entrepreneurship and Development 5 (3):41-58.
Jude Browne & Marc Stears (2005). Capabilities, Resources, and Systematic Injustice: A Case of Gender Inequality. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 4 (3):355-373.
Ingrid Robeyns (2003). Valuing Freedoms: Sen's Capability Approach and Poverty Reduction, Sabina Alkire. Oxford University Press, 2002, VII+340 Pages. [REVIEW] Economics and Philosophy 19 (2):371-377.
Séverine Deneulin (2006). Amartya Sen's Capability Approach to Development and Gaudium Et Spes. Journal of Catholic Social Thought 3 (2):355-372.
Roland Pierik (2006). Reparations for Luck Egalitarians. Journal of Social Philosophy 37 (3):423–440.
Added to index2011-11-15
Total downloads20 ( #141,043 of 1,725,989 )
Recent downloads (6 months)7 ( #92,620 of 1,725,989 )
How can I increase my downloads?