From “Efficiency” to “Capability”: Dewey, Ambedkar, and the Capabilities Approach
1. Introduction
John Dewey’s Democracy and Education (1916) and Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar’s Annihilation of Caste (1936; later revised editions) develop a strikingly non-technocratic concept of “efficiency.” In both authors, social efficiency and individual efficiency are not reducible to productivity, output, or social conformity. Rather, they are normative ideals indexed to democratic participation, free association, and the dismantling of rigid hierarchies that block people from forming and revising life-plans in interaction with others. Dewey frames education for democracy as the cultivation of capacities for shared life; Ambedkar radicalizes the same democratic standard against caste, arguing that caste destroys both the social conditions of association and the individual power to choose and change a vocation.
Amartya Sen’s and Martha Nussbaum’s capability approach (late 1970s onward) is likewise a normative framework that evaluates human welfare and justice not primarily by resources, formal rights, or preference-satisfaction, but by what people are actually able to do and to be - their real opportunities (capabilities) to achieve valued “functionings.”
In this essay I argue that Dewey’s and Ambedkar’s paired notions of social and individual efficiency can be read as proto-capability concepts: they articulate (i) a view of the person as an agent whose powers are developed and exercised in social interaction, and (ii) a view of social organization as just insofar as it secures the effective conditions for that development and exercise. The capability approach, in turn, supplies a more explicit evaluative vocabulary - capability, functioning, capability set, conversion factors, and (in Nussbaum) capability thresholds - that helps to systematize what Dewey and Ambedkar diagnose and demand, especially in cases of structural hierarchy such as caste.
Many thanks to the philosophy lessons at the University of Antwerp (UA) in Belgium (Europe), the 38th Hyderabad Book Fair (2025) at the Telangana Kala Bharati (NTR Grounds) in Hyderabad, Telangana (India), and the Karnataka State Central Library (Seshadri Iyer Memorial Hall) in Bengaluru, Karnataka (India).
2. Dewey: Social Efficiency, Individuality, and Democracy as Associated Living
2.1 Efficiency beyond output: participation and choice
In Democracy and Education, Dewey explicitly cautions against treating social efficiency as mere service, output, or externally imposed “good.” Detached from plural goods and individual self-direction, “social efficiency” becomes “hard and metallic.”
His positive proposal is that social efficiency, as an educational end, should mean the “cultivation of power to join freely and fully in shared or common activities.”
Two features matter for relating Dewey to the capability approach:
- Substantive participation: social efficiency is defined by the ability to enter shared practices in a way that is free and full, not coerced, segregated, or merely instrumental.
- Plural goods and individual direction: Dewey links social efficiency to “faith in the social utility of encouraging every individual to make his own choice intelligent,” resisting a single imposed account of the good life.
2.2 Hierarchy as the enemy of efficiency
Dewey diagnoses the supposed opposition between “social efficiency” and the “high worth of personality” as a historical product of feudal social organization, where some are permitted self-development while others are confined to production.
Against this, Dewey’s democratic ideal is explicitly anti-stratificatory: democracy is “more than a form of government”; it is a mode of associated living in which social barriers (including class barriers) are broken down through broader participation and varied points of contact.
In short, for Dewey, individual development and social participation are internally related: individuality is not a private possession insulated from society, but something achieved through communicative interaction and shared inquiry in a democratic form of life.
3. Ambedkar: Caste as the Destruction of Social and Individual Efficiency
3.1 Deweyan democracy redeployed against caste
Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar’s Annihilation of Caste both echoes and weaponizes Dewey’s democratic standard. He defines fraternity/democracy in explicitly associational terms - “social endosmosis,” “varied and free points of contact,” and democracy as a “mode of associated living, of conjoint communicated experience.”
This near-verbatim overlap with Dewey’s famous formula is widely noted in scholarship and commentary on Ambedkar’s Deweyan inheritance.
Ambedkar’s phrase “social endosmosis” is a metaphor borrowed from biology.
- In biology, endosmosis refers to a kind of osmosis in which water moves into a cell/organism through a semi-permeable membrane.
- Ambedkar repurposes the image to describe what a healthy, democratic society requires: an unblocked, continuous “inward-outward” circulation of people, interests, and ideas across social groups, so that changes in one part of society can be communicated to and taken up by other parts. He writes that an ideal society should be “mobile,” full of “channels for conveying a change,” with “many interests consciously communicated and shared,” and “varied and free points of contact”; “in other words there must be social endosmosis.”
Ambedkar immediately glosses the normative meaning: social endosmosis is “fraternity,” which is another name for democracy, and he links it to democracy understood not merely as government but as a “mode of associated living” grounded in shared experience.
In the argument of Annihilation of Caste, caste blocks social endosmosis by design - through enforced separation, restrictions on commensality and intermarriage, and the wider system of graded inequality - thereby preventing the free social mixing and communication that democracy (as fraternity) presupposes.
3.2 Social efficiency: caste blocks common activity and shared life
Ambedkar’s social diagnosis is direct: what binds a society is shared participation such that members experience common success and failure; caste prevents common activity, thereby preventing a unified social life.
This is a structural argument: caste is not simply prejudice at the level of attitudes, but an institutionalized segmentation of interaction - precisely the opposite of the democratic associative conditions that both Dewey and Ambedkar treat as constitutive of social flourishing.
3.3 Individual efficiency: caste blocks occupational choice and mobility
Ambedkar then gives a definition that makes the Dewey–capabilities bridge especially explicit:
- “Social and individual efficiency requires us to develop the capacity of an individual to the point of competency to choose and to make his own career.”
Caste violates this principle by assigning tasks in advance on inherited status rather than aptitude and training, and by restricting people’s ability to change occupations in response to economic change - thereby producing both personal degradation and systemic inefficiency (including unemployment).
Ambedkar’s argument thus links:
- Freedom of occupational choice (an individual dimension),
- Mobility and adaptive reorganization of labor (a social/economic dimension), and
- Democracy as fraternity (the associational dimension),
into one unified normative critique: caste destroys both the person’s power to author a life and the society’s capacity to function as an integrated democratic whole.
4. The Capability Approach: Sen and Nussbaum
4.1 Sen: capabilities as substantive freedoms
Amartya Sen’s capability approach proposes “capabilities” and “functionings” as the appropriate informational basis for evaluating advantage and injustice: functionings are beings and doings (e.g., being educated, being nourished, participating in community life), while capability is the genuine freedom/opportunity to achieve alternative combinations of functionings - one’s “capability set.”
This framework is designed precisely to capture the gap between (a) formal rights or nominal liberties and (b) the effective power to realize them in practice.
A crucial feature for linking Sen to caste/hierarchy is Sen’s emphasis that people convert resources into functionings under varying social and institutional conditions; the same resource bundle may yield radically different capabilities depending on social structure.
4.2 Nussbaum: capabilities as entitlements and thresholds
Martha Nussbaum develops the capability approach as a theory of basic justice, defending a list of central capabilities as “fundamental entitlements” that governments owe to each person up to a threshold level.
Her account makes explicit that capabilities are not merely internal talents: they are often “combined capabilities,” requiring social, political, and material conditions (e.g., rights, education, protections against domination) for their exercise
5. Relating Efficiency to Capability
5.1 Conceptual alignment: “efficiency” as effective capability
Dewey’s and Ambedkar’s “efficiency” is best read as effective agency under democratic social conditions, not as maximization of output. Dewey’s social efficiency - the cultivated power to join freely and fully in shared activities - maps naturally onto Sen’s idea of a person’s real opportunity to achieve functionings that involve association, learning, and participation.
Ambedkar’s individual efficiency - competency to choose and make one’s own career - is even more directly capability-like: it foregrounds the space of genuine options (capability set) rather than a formally permitted but socially blocked “choice.”
5.2 Structural hierarchy as capability deprivation
Ambedkar’s analysis of caste anticipates the capability approach’s core insight that institutional arrangements can deprive people of capabilities even when some liberties exist on paper. Caste fixes social interaction, status, and occupation, thereby shrinking:
- the capability for affiliation/association (blocked by segregation and “anti-social spirit”),
- the capability for practical reason and life-planning (blocked by predestination of work),
- the capability for economic agency (blocked by restrictions on changing occupations),
- and the capability for political-democratic standing (blocked by graded inequality).
In Sen’s terms, caste functions as a powerful social conversion factor: it prevents individuals from converting education, income, or legal status into real functionings because social rules, stigma, and exclusion intercept the conversion.
5.3 Democracy as both capability and capability-forming social process
A deeper convergence concerns democracy. Dewey defines democracy as a “mode of associated living” that breaks down barriers through participation and varied interaction; Ambedkar explicitly repeats this definition while tying it to fraternity and “social endosmosis.”
Sen, for his part, treats public reasoning and democratic practice as integral to assessing and advancing human advantage, not merely as an instrument for other ends.
Nussbaum builds political participation into her capability list under “control over one’s environment” and emphasizes the institutional preconditions for equal standing.
Accordingly, the relationship is twofold:
- Democracy as a valued functioning/capability: participating in collective self-rule and social life is itself part of what it is to live well.
- Democracy as the enabling condition for capability expansion: only a society with robust free association and non-hierarchical interaction can sustain the educational, economic, and civic conditions under which people develop and exercise their powers.
6. Differences and Added Value of the Capability Framework
Despite strong family resemblance, the capability approach is not merely Dewey/Ambedkar in new terminology.
- First, Dewey’s “efficiency” is embedded in a pragmatist philosophy of growth and education as ongoing reconstruction of experience; it is less a metric of distributive justice than a theory of how persons and publics are formed.
- Second, Sen’s approach is explicitly an evaluative space for comparing states of affairs and diagnosing injustice (often in policy contexts), while remaining officially non-committal about a single comprehensive ranking of goods; Dewey is likewise pluralist, but his focus is institutional-educational rather than primarily comparative-evaluative.
- Third, Nussbaum’s capabilities are framed as basic entitlements with thresholds, a move that goes beyond Dewey’s chapter-level treatment of aims and beyond Ambedkar’s rhetorical-philosophical diagnosis by offering a more systematic account of minimum justice.
What the capability approach adds, then, is a sharper analytic and normative toolkit for stating what is wrong with caste/class hierarchies: they are not only insults to dignity or violations of abstract equality, but mechanisms of capability deprivation - they shrink what people can actually do and be, individually and together as a society (capability deficit on a societal level, sub-optimal performance of society).
7. Conclusion
John Dewey’s social efficiency (free and full participation in shared activities) and Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar’s’s paired social and individual efficiency (fraternal democracy plus competent life-choice, especially vocational choice) converge on a core normative thought: a society is just and educative insofar as it enables persons to develop and exercise powers in association with others, under conditions that dismantle hierarchical barriers to interaction and choice.
Amartya Sen’s and Marha Nussbaum’s capability approach generalizes this thought into a framework of welfare and justice: to assess societies we must ask what people are actually able to do and be, given real social and institutional conditions. Under that lens, caste appears exactly as Ambedkar describes it: a social order that destroys both social integration and individual life-authorship by choking off the conversion of formal liberties into substantive freedoms.
References (selection)
Ambedkar, B. R. Annihilation of Caste. Key passages on common activity, division of labourers, and democracy as associated living.
Dewey, John. Democracy and Education (1916). Definitions of democracy and social efficiency; critique of “hard and metallic” service ideals.
Glassman, M., & Patton, R. (2014). Capability through participatory democracy: Sen, Freire, and Dewey. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 46(12), 1353-1365.
Keer, D. (1995). Dr. Ambedkar: life and mission. Popular Prakashan.
Mukherjee, A. P. (2009). B.R. Ambedkar, John Dewey, and the meaning of democracy. New Literary History, 40(2), 345-370.
Nussbaum, M. C. (2007). Capabilities as fundamental entitlements: Sen and social justice. In Capabilities equality (pp. 54-80). Routledge.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. “The Capability Approach.”
Alkire, S. (2016). The capability approach and well-being measurement for public policy. - OPHI (Oxford Poverty & Human Development Initiative). Working paper on capability approach concepts including conversion factors.
Stroud, Scott R. “The American Question: Ambedkar, Columbia University, and the ‘Spirit of Rebellion’.” (For documented Dewey–Ambedkar connection.)
Reacties
Een reactie posten