Versions of the approach. Xxx and Xxxxxxxx It is necessary to distinguish between the work of Xxxxxxx Xxx and Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxx who have developed distinct but overlapping versions of the CA. Xxxxxxx Xxx’x version of the CA is governed by an interest in economic assessments of quality of life. Researchers that have drawn on his work have therefore typically sought to criticise human-capital models of development and argue for the need to understand quality of life in terms of human capability (see: Xxxxx et al. 2008; Xxxxxx 2005; Xxxxxx 2002). The clearest example of this, and perhaps the approach’s most notable contribution, has been the introduction of the Human Development Approach and Human Development Index used by the United Nations Human Development Reports Office (UN 2016, v), which Xxx played a significant role in framing (though not every aspect of his work on the CA is present here). Sen’s version of the approach is sometimes associated with large-scale quantitative research, which uses the notion of ‘human capability’ as an evaluative space for the comparison of individual wellbeing (Xxxx 2012, p.65-68). Sen’s work, and the literature that has grown from it, can be characterised as employing technical empirical methodologies, emphasising the measurement of human capability as a means to assess quality of life, and typically engages in debates on economic policy and aspects of academic fields with a stake in these debates (notably development, health, education, and social policy fields). In contrast, Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxx’x version of the CA is governed by an interest in constructing a theory of social justice (2001; 2011). The methodological focus here is technical but typically focused on philosophical argument and analysis, encouraging qualitative accounts of the social world. The literature that has grown from Xxxxxxxx’x work has, consequently, emphasised the need to establish a more philosophical understanding of human capability and its relationship to human flourishing with the aim of incorporating it into a liberal political framework (Xxxxxxx 2008). These efforts have led to some key differences between Sen and Xxxxxxxx’x approach,8 most clearly seen in Xxxxxxxx advocating the use of a list of Central Capabilities; a specification of universal political entitlements that are fundamental to living a truly human life (2011). Such a list is deliberately absent from Xxx’s approach because, for Sen, the focus of the approach is to be able to assess capabilities and not defi...
