This essay applies the conceptual framework of the Welfare Economics / Development Studies — most prominently associated with Amartya Sen — to re-read the Ukraine IGF 2013 Kyiv conference. Target audience: researchers, doctoral students, policy analysts, and executives.
Introduction: The Problem
As Sen argues in Development as Freedom, well-being should be measured not by resource possession but by capabilities — what people are actually able to do and be. Ukraine IGF is a forum for socially constructing internet-mediated capabilities.
This essay argues that the multistakeholder process of Ukraine IGF becomes intelligible in its specificity only through the concept of Capabilities and functionings, and that the concept itself undergoes transformation under the new material of digital space. Describing this mutual transformation is the task of this essay.
Realizing digital capabilities
Discussions at Kyiv move beyond mere connectivity rates to ask about the achievability of functionings — education, health, political participation, cultural expression. In Ukraine's context, expanding the digital capability set represents true development uncaptured by income metrics.
Each session's agenda-setting can be read as a contemporary restaging of the Amartya Sen-type problematic.
The national-level IGF (Ukraine IGF) is an attempt to redefine the modern category of the nation-state in the digital era.
Development as freedom
Amartya Sen's concepts are not confined to abstract philosophical discussion; they apply to the concrete agenda items debated at the 2013 conference. We examine that application below.
1. Application to "接続性"
Discussion of "接続性" can be positioned, from the perspective of Amartya Sen's Capabilities and functionings, as a central problematic. In Ukraine's context, the three layers of regulatory design, social implementation, and citizen participation around 接続性 are particularly at stake.
2. Application to "プライバシー"
Discussion of "プライバシー" can be positioned, from the perspective of Amartya Sen's Capabilities and functionings, as a derivative problematic. In Ukraine's context, the three layers of regulatory design, social implementation, and citizen participation around プライバシー are particularly at stake.
3. Application to "デジタル経済"
Discussion of "デジタル経済" can be positioned, from the perspective of Amartya Sen's Capabilities and functionings, as a peripheral yet important problematic. In Ukraine's context, the three layers of regulatory design, social implementation, and citizen participation around デジタル経済 are particularly at stake.
4. Application to "国内法整備"
Discussion of "国内法整備" can be positioned, from the perspective of Amartya Sen's Capabilities and functionings, as a peripheral yet important problematic. In Ukraine's context, the three layers of regulatory design, social implementation, and citizen participation around 国内法整備 are particularly at stake.
5. Application to "政府＋民間協働"
Discussion of "政府＋民間協働" can be positioned, from the perspective of Amartya Sen's Capabilities and functionings, as a peripheral yet important problematic. In Ukraine's context, the three layers of regulatory design, social implementation, and citizen participation around 政府＋民間協働 are particularly at stake.
Implications for Executives and Practitioners
The philosophical reflection of this essay is not merely academic. The Amartya Sen perspective carries three practical implications for executives operating in Ukraine.
First, it raises the reflexive question of how the firm's business model connects to the logic of Capabilities and functionings. Second, in dialogue with regulators and civil society, it suggests dimensions of consensus formation that purely technical arguments cannot reach. Third, it indicates that the long-term ground of business legitimacy lies not so much in technical advantage or market share as in participation in such philosophical-normative debates.
Academic Positioning and Future Research
The argument of this essay attempts to graft a philosophical perspective onto the mainstream political-science and legal approaches to internet governance research. Three future research questions follow.
- Verification of the applicability of Amartya Sen's framework to other IGF conferences
- Comparative contrast between Welfare Economics / Development Studies and other theoretical traditions
- Exploration of dialogue possibilities with the indigenous intellectual traditions of Ukraine
In particular, the third point has the potential to liberate IGF research from West-centric debate and open a more multi-layered discursive space.
Primary Sources
- IGF Secretariat. Annual Reports of Ukraine IGF.
- Ukraine IGF 2013 Kyiv Conference Materials.
- Japan IGF Support Organization. https://japanigf.jp/
- Nakazawa Yuki Blog. https://nkzw.jp/category/igf/
Secondary Sources (Philosophy)
- Works of Amartya Sen (representative texts of Welfare Economics / Development Studies)
*This piece belongs to the academic essays (philosophy series). The author's views do not necessarily represent those of any institutional affiliation. Feedback and critique are welcome.*
更新履歴
第1稿投稿 2026年6月6日 9時24分（記事コンテンツアップ）
— 中澤祐樹
