Hello, i need help is writing my business assignment, which is due on April 4th, 2021. I have attached the files that includes the guidelines on how to write the report and what should be the format

They also do not account for the harmful effects of global development, e.g., environmental degradation.

Like the CA, the HDI emphasizes well- being, not just income, by measuring development in terms of broad criteria. emotional well-being play & recreation The Human Development Index measures global economic development in terms of criteria such as education, economic opportunities, health, & lifespan. participation in social & political groups bodily integrity & sexual freedom The Capabilities Approach (especially that of Nussbaum) goes beyond even the HDI by including broad metrics such as... 1 Amartya Sen Utilitarianism cannot measure development as accurately as the Capabilities Approach . 2 Utilitarianism cannot account for non-utility principles such as rights & freedoms. Utilitarianism allegedly provides too much room to justify the disenfranchisement of minorities. The 'tyranny of the majority ':

utilitarianism sacrifices the minority for the sake of the happiness of the many. The CA tries to avoid this problem by focusing on maximizing individual capacities within a social context. This is underpinned by a recognition of the innate dignity of other people as fellow human beings. This entails a recognition of each & every individual as an end-in- themselves . Innate Dignity People as Ends Development is thus measured in terms of a person's capacity to attain their own goals in life.

In what sense is this different from Mill's GHP? CA appropriates key ideas from the history of economic & moral philosophy, especially Aristotle, Smith, & Marx. The CA's concepts, e.g., “capacity,” “quality of life,” & “freedom,” appeal to Aristotle's idea of “flourishing .” A “capacity”/“capability” is a real ability to realize one's “functions” (e.g., real ability to enjoy a long life, participate in society, access education, etc.).

In plain terms, this means that economics ought to allow people to develop their talents & freely pursue lives of their choosing. A n e g at iv e form of freedom. It is a, e.g., fr e e d o m fr o m personal & political domination. A p o s itiv e form of freedom. It is a, e.g., fr e e d o m t o educate oneself, realize one's ambitions, etc. This perspective is underpinned by a distinction between two types of freedom. The CA is a “freedom -centre perspective” focusing on “quality of life an d on substantive freedoms , rather than just income or wealth.” W hile the Capabilities Approach seems like a “departure from the established tradition of economics” (viz., the “income - centred analysis” of “contemporary economics”), it borrows from a tradition that was “part of professional economics right from the beginning.” Markets are justified because laissez faire capitalism is the most efficient system of production, distribution, & exchange. Utilitarian Argument In contrast to traditional & centralized economies, markets provide greater freedom to realize one's own goals & capacities. Freedom Argument Sen distinguishes between two different moral argument s for free markets. Contemporary economic theory rests on the first argument, the argument from “ market mechanism .” The “discipline of economics has tended to move away from focusing on the value of freedom to that of utilities, income and wealth.” Thus, this argument involves a moral “underappreciation of the full role of the market mechanism.” Sen prefers the moral force of the second case for capitalism, the argument from “ substantive freedom .” Not only are markets not always “efficient,” & not only are there “serious arguments for regulation in some cases” (e.g., Smith's support for regulating banks), but this shift from “freedom to utility” has led to the “neglect of the central value of freedom itself.” To support his preference for the second argument, Sen offers the thought- experiment of a “fully centralized system.” Assume here that the dictator produces the “same economic result” as capitalism. This hypothetical economy would be run by an all- knowing & benevolent dictator. “[Something essential would be] missing in such a scenario, to wit, the freedom of the people to act as they like in deciding on where to work, what to produce, what to consume... [Individuals with the] same income...may still have very good reason to prefer the scenario of free choice over that of submission to order.” Sen also uses the example of the Civil W ar to illustrate why the freedom-argument is superior to the utility-justification. The “commodity baskets” consumed by slaves was relatively similar to the “incomes of free agricultural labourers.” And, yet, free-soiling was a condition preferable to that of slavery. Why? Even Marx, notes Sen, supported the North with “favorable remarks on capitalism as against the unfreedom of precapitalist labor arrangements.” Marx distinguished the “formal freedom” of wage - workers from the “real unfreedom” of precapitalist labour.

This support illustrates his “affinity with libertarian concentration on freedom as opposed to utility.” Thus, the utility or market mechanism argument falls into certain contradictions (e.g., benevolent dictator & Civil War dilemmas). As such, the substantive or positive freedom argument is the most compelling moral justification for free markets. 04 03 02 01 The CA's development- as- freedom idea, not the utilitarian income-based model, is the most adequate metric for evaluating global development. The “process of development” should be measured by its contributions to the “history of overcoming...unfreedoms.” Like Smith, Keynes, & Mill, Sen places a special emphasis on “education” as one of the most important criteria for assessing global economic development.

Here, developing one's intellectual, emotional, & creative capabilities, & freely realizing one's goals in life is the basic moral standard. In contrast to Utilitarianism , the CA does not focus on “average well -being,” but treats “each person as an end” (Nussbaum in Enderle). It focuses on “choice or freedom,” i.e., the “power of self -definition” to develop capacities given the “opportunities available” (Nussbaum in Enderle). By recognizing “each person as an end” & their “real opportunities or substantial freedoms ,” the CA is a “people -centred” framework (Enderle). Economic institutions should “provide opportunities for individuals to develop capabilities to function at a level worthy of human dignity.” This is a business ethics which begins from the innate dignity of individuals. The fundamental question in judging moral issues in business: Are “people allowed to thrive, to develop their capabilities freely, and to live a life worthy of human dignity”? “This approach is resolutely pluralist..the capability achievements that are central for people are different” (Nussbaum in Enderle). The Capabilities Approach adheres to a pluralist theory of value. Pluralism Multiculturalism But this approach also provides a “foundation” for ethics which is “universal” in the sense that it includes multicultural values. The Capabilities Approach is able to move “across cultures...and comprehends all human beings” (Enderle). Open-Ended Values Marginalized groups who are not given real opportunities are unable to develop abilities & pursue desires.

Enderle provides the example of micro-loans which empowered impoverished women in the South.

CA is cognizant of “entrenched social injustice and inequality” (Nussbaum in Enderle). Bertland suggests that CA can provide a “foundation” for a virtue ethics which is “universally recognizable” in that its pluralism encompasses a range of multicultural values. Virtue Ethics & CA The problem with Aristotle is that his “aristocratic” predispositions prevent him from grasping that cultural “diversity” implies a “diversity of ends,” whereas he imposed “one goal.” Aristotle “This is where the capabilities approach enters [to correct Aristotle]...with the fundamental moral insight that humans are free and have dignity.” This respect for “dignity” implies that individuals shou ld be free to pursue a “variety of capabilities” & “construct a unique lif e” as “they see fit.” Many of these women were entering into the official labour-market for the first time. During W W2, with men fighting overseas & plants converted to wartime production, Ford hired 1000s of female employees. They were offered real opportunities which enabled them to develop capabilities previously out of their reach. “These women not only helped win a war, they paved the way for future generations to achieve economic and personal independence” (Jim Vella, President of FMC). With the end of WW2, 'Rosie the Riveters' were displaced to make way for returning soldiers.

Thus, Ford's history with women in the workplace is ambivalent, involving both opportunity & marginalization .

A 1968 walkout (by female machinists paid 15% less than men) led to the Equal Pay Act in the US.

Their success provided them with a newfound sense of political power & personal independence . 2 3 4 1 These advances changed the gendered landscape of the boardroom, with women occupying executive positions in upper- management. However, in the 1980s & 1990s, conditions remained so poor in some Michigan & Illinois factories that women were fired for reporting harassment.

Since then, Ford underwent an extensive remodelling campaign. W omen, including minorities, were hired at a faster rate in Chicago & Detroit factories. 5 These policies enabled women to develop capacities (including managerial & executive capabilities). Despite Ford's rebranding efforts, there have been a number of notable recent incidents. At its Chicago assembly plant, a large number of Af rican-American women stepped forward to complain about sexual harassment & a string of class - action lawsuits were settled outside of court. “Their story reveals the stubborn persistence of harassment in an industry once the exclusive preserve of men.” Hence, although the boardroom has been opened-up to women, some employees complain about a class-based disconnect. “They don’t even go on the floor, so they don’t know what goes on.” There is a disparity between the opportunities available at the executive- level & the treatment afforded to them on the factory-floor.