ABSTRACT
This article sketches a re-conceptualization of sustainable development (SD) on the basis of Sen’s capability approach (CA). The notion of sustainable development was developed as a compromise in a political process and has been reinterpreted (some say diluted) again and again over the last 20 years. When modelling the notion through the lenses of the capability approach, difficulties occur that are at the core of SD and of CA or that are due to their combination. This article shows why it is not easy to replace ‘needs’ in the Brundtland definition of SD with ‘capabilities’. In our model, the differences between systemic and individual levels become clear and herewith the necessity to include both when dealing with issues of SD. The most salient difficulties relate to the multidimensionality and dynamics on both levels. Confronted with these difficulties, demanding individuals to consciously choose sustainable actions seems to be heroic. We propose two ways to alleviate the cognitive and moral burden on individuals by concentrating on the natural environment and by introducing collective institutions. Both alleviations are far from evident, however; this concerns their justification as well as their operationalization.
Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. It contains within it two key concepts: the concept of ‘needs’, in particular the essential needs of the world’s poor, to which overriding priority should be given; and the idea 95of limitations imposed by the state of technology and social organization on the environment’s ability to meet present and future needs. (World Commission on Environment and Development [WCED], 1987, p. 43)
