AMARTYA SEN's 'COMPARATIVE APPROACH' to justice (as opposed to RAWLS' 'TRANSCENDENTAL INSTITUTIONALISM') argues:

1. AMARTYA SEN in 'The Idea of Justice' (2009) critiqued RAWLS's transcendental institutionalism. 2. RAWLS: identifies perfectly JUST INSTITUTIONS through ideal theory in the original position. 3. SEN's CRITIQUE: this approach is both REDUNDANT (we don't need to know the perfectly just society to compare existing arrangements) and INSUFFICIENT (it doesn't tell us what to do in the imperfect world). 4. SEN's COMPARATIVE APPROACH: 5. (i) Focus on COMPARING actual real-world options for improving justice — relational comparison; 6. (ii) PUBLIC REASONING and democracy as the GROUND for justice (not contractual ideal); 7. (iii) Capability approach — focus on substantive freedoms; 8. (iv) Plurality of reasons for judgment; 9. (v) Drawing on global (not Eurocentric) intellectual traditions. 10. Influence: development economics, capability-based welfare, comparative constitutional law. 11. Hence option B is correct. _Source: Legal Research Methodology + Jurisprudence — Amartya Sen, 'The Idea of Justice' (2009)_