International development theorists and practitioners agree that human empowerment is a necessary part of good development. This agreement is encouraging because attention and resources are being directed towards the important goal of empowering the oppressed. It is problematic because the agreement is relatively superficial and masks some deep and important disagreements about the goals and means of development theory, policy, and practice. Chapters One and Two compare the dominant economic growth approach to development with the capability approach, a relatively new (...) alternative. I determine that the capability approach offers a more complete and therefore, superior concept of empowerment. Chapter Three considers Thomas Pogge’s argument for the conclusion that the praise and attention the capability approach receives cannot be justified. I explain that Pogge’s argument is based on a misunderstanding of crucial aspects of the capability approach, including the important role of empowerment. Chapters Four and Five provide detailed consideration of the role of empowerment within both Amartya Sen’s and Martha Nussbaum’s versions of the capability approach. I conclude that although neither scholar consistently uses the term empowerment, the concept of empowerment – both as agency and as capability-set expansion – plays a robust role on both versions of the approach. Moreover, I make the controversial suggestion that many of the differences between Sen and Nussbaum are more a matter of style than substance. Chapter Six considers the concern that Sen does not do enough to engage the role of institutionalized power in generating inequalities that prevent individuals from being empowered. I conclude that despite valuable contributions, Sen fails to provide a complete account of empowerment issues. However, this is not a fatal flaw. Considering both Sen’s contributions, and the fact that the approach is well suited to accommodate a more complete understanding of institutionalized power and of empowerment for development (for example, Naila Kabeer’s Social Relations Approach), it is clear that Sen and the capability approach have offered valuable steps towards a complete concept of empowerment. (shrink)

The role of the Ready-made Garment (RMG) sector in transforming the lives of working women in Bangladesh has been controversial. This study examines the impact of paid employment in the RMG sector on the empowerment of its female workers. The fieldwork includes semi-structured interviews with female garment workers to explore their lived experiences and views. The primary qualitative data analysis draws principally on Kabeer's (1999) three inter-related dimensions (resources, agency, and achievements) of empowerment. The main findings of the research (...) are that women with access to employment opportunities in this sector have become economically empowered and independent. The higher economic capacity gives them greater autonomy and makes them confident to make some household and strategic life choices. Increased access to public spaces and consciousness about their right to make life choices have boosted their self-esteem. The study concludes that paid employment in the RMG sector has a significant positive impact on the economic, social, and psychological empowerment of female workers in the readymade garments sector. However, some critical constraints in the sector continue to limit their potential for being further empowered. The findings offer valuable insights for practitioners and policymakers. (shrink)

“One should always cherish some ambition to do something in the world. They alone rise who strive.” is the great wording of Dr.Ambedkar. There are two fundamental types of human nature. Creative and possessive. Creative humans use human intellect for creative endeavors which enriches human thought; knowledge and wealth thereby contribute to the development of human heritage for the posterity. Possessive people, on the other hand do not believe in the use of human intellect for creative purpose. Gautam Buddha, Jesus (...) Christ, Guru Nanak, Kabeer, Ravidas, Tukarama, Krantiba Jotirao Phoolay, Periyar and Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar they all belong to the great class of Ceative humans called as Humanists in Indian context. Here we studies Ambedkar’s views related to humanism and Buddhism. (shrink)