Cited by 91African cultural and philosophical studiesDevelopment, Ethics, and SocietyIncome, Poverty, and Inequality

What Can the Capabilities Approach Learn from an Ubuntu Ethic? A Relational Approach to Development Theory

Open access
Hoffmann, Nimi, Metz, Thaddeus·2017·World Development

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.04.010

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Authors
Hoffmann, N., & Metz, T.
Affiliations
  • Rhodes University (ZA)
  • University of Johannesburg (ZA)
Venue
World Development
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-09
Volume
97
Pages
153-164
ISSN
0305-750X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2610530263
Cited by
91
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 3
FWCI
24.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • World Development (publishedVersion)
  • Sussex Research Online (University of Sussex) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PhilPapers (PhilPapers Foundation) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › African cultural and philosophical studies
  • Social Sciences › Development › Development, Ethics, and Society
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Income, Poverty, and Inequality
Keywords
capability approach, Ubuntu ethics, relationality, eudaimonia, human well-being, functioning, African ethics, development theory, normative ethics, Global South

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review