ABSTRACT
This chapter discusses three evaluative approaches that can be used to assess well-being, poverty, and inequality in the context of globalization and global justice. By spelling out these three approaches, and by looking at their differences and their respective weaknesses and strengths, it sheds some light on the different languages and conflicting claims made by advocates and critics of global capitalism regarding the current levels and trends in global inequality and poverty. These three frameworks are income metrics, resourcism, and the capability approach. The chapter analyzes a core difference between Rawlsian resources and the capability approach: the question of whether conceptualizations of inequality and social justice should account for naturally caused inequalities. It claims that these frameworks can best be seen as complementary, rather than purely rival alternatives. The chapter also analyzes Thomas Pogge's claim that capability metrics, and the Human Development Index in particular, conceal global inequality.
