I’ve not read Owen’s piece yet and I’m looking forward to doing so.

However, I’ve read this recent and shorter article sparked by what appear to be a false analysis in Reuters that claims that the unemployment problem in the US is structural. http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/beat-the-press/reuters-invents-qstructuralq-unemployment-in-the-absence-of-any-evidence?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed:+beat_the_press+(Beat+the+Press)

I thought your readers may find this refutation interesting in the face of claims that productivity (another structural issue) is poor in NZ. It has some useful, admittedly macro pointers when looking for signs of structural causes for an economic problem, and I’m keen to share the approach. It also includes questions of trade and the transfer work to be performed by a low paid work force abroad.

Jim

I’m incredibly taken by the ‘capabilities’ approach to freedom. Theoretically it appeals as emphasising both the importance of choosing ones own life path and the role society plays in constructing an environment that determines choices. It provides progressives with a language of social progress that is also the language of opportunity.

I’ve been interested to read a little about how Sen’s ideas fit into political philosophy more generally. This excerpt from the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy describes the capabilities approach as an answer to the enduring question ‘what is it that should be distributed equally?’ Answers can include only political rights (libertarians), resources (Rawls), responsibilities (egalitarians), outcomes (the extreme left) and capabilities (Sen).
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/equality/#ConDisEquEquWha

I read there has been debate on whether the capabilities proponents seek to equalize should be prescribed. Apparently Sen initially argued that the capabilities should be vague and undefined, but the direction this report takes suggests a change of heart. Martha Nussbaum had originally worked with Sen but did later seek to specify the capacities that should be equalized: Life, bodily health & integrity, senses, imagination, thought, emotions, affiliations, play, practical reason among others. Though some of it is quite wacky I think it is interesting to see the humanist interpretation she brings to this project.

If ‘holistic economics’ is born in response to the arbitrary nature of GDP calculations and perhaps misplaced enthusiasm in this single measure, we should be careful of replicating the same mistake. I’m sceptical on whether a composite measure of quality of life or well-being is useful – surely it is a matter of widening the frame of economic and social indicators rather than collapsing them all into one. (Incidentally, did anyone else think it was bizarre to see NZ ranked third in this year’s Human Development Index also created by Sen?) It strikes me that the greater contribution these authors make is to arm progressives with the language to critique the narrow account of equality favoured by the right and to use it is a basis for advocacy of progressive ideals. I’m also sceptical that leaders from the left or right can adopt these ideas yet resist the temptation to replace capabilities with a normative concept of wellbeing or quality of life. For example is social cohesion a capability or is it a vehicle for reactionary fears of immigration and diverse family structures?