The creative wealth of nations: can the arts advance development?

Abstract

beauty, its baseness and nobility, its boredom and excitement, its devastation and creativity” (281). Reflecting on my own (limited) experience of war, drawn from analysing contemporary civil wars, particularly in Africa, and following recent wars in Libya, Syria and Ukraine so graphically presented to us through television reporting, I find plenty of horror. But where is the beauty? Plenty of baseness, and perhaps some nobility; certainly, boredom and excitement and massive devastation – and undoubtedly some creativity emerging in poetry, plays and novels, as well as music, from more distant wars. Yet while there are positives, for me, they in no way balance the negatives. How does war fit into the capability approach? It is there, of course, in terms of its (largely negative) impact on human capabilities. But what does the approach have to say about individuals who choose to use their capabilities to oppress, fight and kill? Are these capabilities people “have reason to value”? Most of us adopting the capability approach would say they were not. But those who attack – not in self-defence, but because they wish to dominate – appear to believe they do have reason to value these activities. Can we rule them out, nonetheless, because they damage the capabilities of others? If so, we need to apply the same restriction to all capabilities – my building a house may restrict your view, negatively affecting your capabilities. Many capabilities have similar external effects. Or should we follow the “perfectionist” approach, as suggested by Khader and Kosko in 2019, predetermining some high-level capabilities necessary for a flourishing life and rejecting those that run counter as lacking a “reason to value”? This is one of many avenues for future work suggested by MacMillan’s excellent, provocative book.