Hostname: page-component-594f858ff7-hd6rl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2023-06-06T19:19:27.680Z Has data issue: false Feature Flags: { "corePageComponentGetUserInfoFromSharedSession": false, "coreDisableEcommerce": false, "corePageComponentUseShareaholicInsteadOfAddThis": true, "coreDisableSocialShare": false, "useRatesEcommerce": true } hasContentIssue false


Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 March 2014

Ann E. Cudd*
University of Kansas,


This paper presents Sen's theory of agency, focusing on the role of commitment in this theory as both problematic and potentially illuminating. His account of some commitments as goal-displacing gives rise to a dilemma given the standard philosophical theory of agency. Either commitment-motivated actions are externally motivated, in which case they are not expressions of agency, or such actions are internally motivated, in which case the commitment is not goal-displacing. I resolve this dilemma and accommodate his view of commitment as motivation by developing a broader descriptive theory of agency, which recognizes both agent goal-directed and goal-displacing commitments. I propose a type of goal-displacing commitment, which I call ‘tacit commitment’, that can be seen to fit between the horns. Tacit commitments regulate behaviour without being made conscious and explicit. This resolution suggests a means of bridging the normative/descriptive gap in social-scientific explanation.

Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)



Anderson, E. 2001. Unstrapping the straitjacket of ‘preference’: A comment on Amartya Sen's contributions to economics and philosophy. Economics and Philosophy 17: 2138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bicchieri, C. 2006. The Grammar of Society: The Nature and Dynamics of Social Norms. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Binmore, K. 2005. Natural Justice. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bossert, W. and Suzumura, K.. 2009. External norms and rationality of choice. Economics and Philosophy 25: 139152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cudd, A. E. 2006. Analyzing Oppression. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dimock, S. 1999. Defending non-tuism. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 29: 251274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowding, K. 2002. Revealed preference and external reference. Rationality and Society 14: 259284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gauthier, D. 1986. Morals by Agreement. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gauthier, D. 1996. Commitment and choice: an essay on the rationality of plans. In Ethics, Rationality, and Economic Behaviour, ed. Farina, F., Hahn, F. and Vannucci, S., 217243. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Hausman, D. M. 2005. Sympathy, commitment, and preference. Economics and Philosophy 21: 3350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khader, S. 2011. Adaptive Preferences and Women's Empowerment. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kreps, D. M., Milgrom, P., Roberts, J. and Wilson, R.. 1982. Rational cooperation in the finitely repeated prisoners’ dilemma. Journal of Economic Theory 27: 245252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, C., ed., 2010. Amartya Sen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Morris, C., ed. 2010. Ethics and economics. In Amartya Sen, 4059. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Narayan, U. 2002. Minds of their own: choices, autonomy, cultural practices, and other women. In A Mind of One's Own: Feminist Essays on Reason and Objectivity, 2nd edition, ed. Antony, L. M. and Witt, C. E., 418432. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Oldenquist, A. 1982. Loyalties. Journal of Philosophy 79: 173193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pettit, P. 2005. Construing Sen on commitment. Economics and Philosophy 21: 1532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmid, H. B. 2007. Beyond self-goal choice: Amartya Sen's analysis of the structure of commitment and the role of shared desires. In Rationality and Commitment, ed. Peter, F. and Schmid, H. B., 211226. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sen, A. 1973. Behavior and the concept of preference. Economica August: 241–259.Google Scholar
Sen, A. 1974. Choice, orderings and morality. In Practical Reason, ed. Körner, S., 5467. Oxford: Blackwell Press.Google Scholar
Sen, A. 1977. Rational fools: a critique of the behavioral assumptions of economic theory. Reprinted in Philosophy and Economic Theory, ed. Hahn, F. and Hollis, M., 87109. New York, NY: Oxford.Google Scholar
Sen, A. 1980. Description as choice. Oxford Economic Papers, New Series 32: 353369.Google Scholar
Sen, A. 1982. Rights and agency. Philosophy and Public Affairs 11: 339.Google Scholar
Sen, A. 1985a. Goals, commitment, and identity. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 1, reprinted in Rationality and Freedom, 206224. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Sen, A. 1985b. Well-being, agency, and freedom: the Dewey lectures 1984. Journal of Philosophy 82: 169221.Google Scholar
Sen, A. 1986a. Prediction and economic theory. Proceedings of the Royal Society London, A 407: 323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, A. 1986b. Rationality, interest, and identity. In Development, Democracy, and the Art of Trespassing: Essays in Honor of Albert O. Hirschman, ed. Foxley, A., McPherson, M. S. and O’Donnell, G., 343353. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Sen, A. 1987. On Ethics and Economics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sen, A. 1997. Maximization and the act of choice. Econometrica, 65: 745–79. Reprinted in Rationality and Freedom, 158–205. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, A. 1999. Development as Freedom. New York, NY: Random House.Google Scholar
Sen, A. 2001. Reply. Economics and Philosophy 17: 5166.Google Scholar
Sen, A. 2002. Rationality and Freedom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Sen, A. 2006. Identity and Violence: The Illusion of Destiny. New York, NY: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
Sen, A. 2009. The Idea of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar