Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of the Capability Approach
- The Cambridge Handbook of the Capability Approach
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Acknowledgements
- General Introduction
- Part I Historical Antecedents and Philosophical Debates
- Part II Methods, Measurement and Empirical Evidence
- Introduction to Part II
- 13 Social Choice and the Capability Approach
- 14 On Capability and its Measurement
- 15 Analyzing Capabilities
- 16 Implementing the Capability Approach with Respect for Individual Valuations
- 17 Capability, Opportunity, Outcome and Equality
- 18 The Distribution of Capabilities
- 19 Inter-Group Disparities in the Distribution of Human Development
- 20 Multidimensional Inequality and Human Development
- 21 The Research Agenda on Multidimensional Poverty Measurement
- 22 Measuring Gender Inequality Using the Capability Approach
- 23 Econometric and Statistical Models for Operationalizing the Capability Approach
- 24 Expanding Capabilities through Participatory Action Research
- Part III Issues in Public Policy
- Index
- References
16 - Implementing the Capability Approach with Respect for Individual Valuations
An Illustration with Colombian Data
from Part II - Methods, Measurement and Empirical Evidence
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 November 2020
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of the Capability Approach
- The Cambridge Handbook of the Capability Approach
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Acknowledgements
- General Introduction
- Part I Historical Antecedents and Philosophical Debates
- Part II Methods, Measurement and Empirical Evidence
- Introduction to Part II
- 13 Social Choice and the Capability Approach
- 14 On Capability and its Measurement
- 15 Analyzing Capabilities
- 16 Implementing the Capability Approach with Respect for Individual Valuations
- 17 Capability, Opportunity, Outcome and Equality
- 18 The Distribution of Capabilities
- 19 Inter-Group Disparities in the Distribution of Human Development
- 20 Multidimensional Inequality and Human Development
- 21 The Research Agenda on Multidimensional Poverty Measurement
- 22 Measuring Gender Inequality Using the Capability Approach
- 23 Econometric and Statistical Models for Operationalizing the Capability Approach
- 24 Expanding Capabilities through Participatory Action Research
- Part III Issues in Public Policy
- Index
- References
Summary
In many applications of the capability approach it is necessary to rank individuals with respect to their well-being. This raises the difficult question of how to select the weights to be attached to the relevant functionings or capabilities that constitute well-being. In this chapter, we explore the possibility of using individual valuations to set these weights and we propose to use equivalent income as a specific well-being measure that is consistent with these individual valuations. We discuss its implementation and compare the results to four alternative well-being measures based on Colombian data for 2008: income, subjective well-being, the official SISBEN index, and the Colombian Multidimensional Poverty Index (CMPI). To do that, we estimate the valuations of the individuals using a life satisfaction equation. We find that there is remarkably little overlap between the alternative measures when used to identify the worst-off. The different well-being measures identify different individuals as worst-off. The equivalent income measure identifies individuals with a lower income, who are in worse health, live in a house of lower value and have a larger chance of being unemployed. This finding highlights the empirical relevance of the selection of the well-being measure when implementing the capability approach.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of the Capability Approach , pp. 307 - 332Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2020
References
Alkire, S. and Foster, J. 2011a. ‘Counting and Multidimensional Poverty Measurement’. Journal of Public Economics 95: 476–487.Google Scholar
Alkire, S. and Foster, J. 2011b. ‘Understandings and Misunderstandings of Multidimensional Poverty Measurement’. Journal of Economic Inequality 9: 289–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anand, P., Santos, C. and Smith, R. 2009. ‘The Measurement of Capabilities’, in Basu, K and Kanbur, R (eds.). Arguments for a Better World: Essays in Honor of Amartya Sen. Oxford University Press: vol. 1, 283–310.Google Scholar
Angulo, R., Díaz, Y. and Pardo, R. 2016. ‘The Colombian Multidimensional Poverty Index: Measuring Poverty in a Public Policy Context’. Social Indicators Research 127: 1–38.Google Scholar
Benjamin, D. J., Heffetz, O., Kimball, M. S. and Rees-Jones, A. 2012. ‘What Do You Think Would Make You Happier? What Do You Think You Would Choose?’ American Economic Review 102: 2083–2110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burchardt, T. 2014. ‘Deliberative Research as a Tool to Make Value Judgements’. Qualitative Research 14/3: 353–370.Google Scholar
Camacho, A. and Conover, E. 2011. ‘Manipulation of Social Program Eligibility’. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 3/2: 41–65.Google Scholar
Crocker, D. A. 2007. ‘Deliberative Participation in Local Development’. Journal of Human Development 8/3: 431–455.Google Scholar
Decancq, K. and Lugo, M. A. 2013. ‘Weights in Multidimensional Indices of Well-Being: An Overview’. Econometric Reviews 32/1: 7–34.Google Scholar
Decancq, K. and Neumann, D. 2016. ‘Does the Choice of Well-Being Measure Matter Empirically?’ in Adler, M and Fleurbaey, M (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Well-Being and Public Policy. Oxford University Press: 553–587.Google Scholar
Decancq, K. and Schokkaert, E. 2016. ‘Beyond GDP: Using Equivalent Incomes to Measure Well-Being in Europe’. Social Indicators Research 126: 21–55.Google Scholar
Decancq, K., Fleurbaey, M. and Schokkaert, E. 2015a. ‘Happiness, Equivalent Income and Respect for Individual Preferences’. Economica 82: 1082–1106.Google Scholar
Decancq, K., Fleurbaey, M. and Schokkaert, E. 2015b. ‘Inequality, Income and Wellbeing’, in Atkinson, A and Bourguignon, F (eds.). Handbook of Income Distribution. New York: Elsevier: vol. 2A, 67–140.Google Scholar
Decancq, K., Fleurbaey, M. and Schokkaert, E. 2017. ‘Wellbeing Inequality and Preference Heterogeneity’. Economica 84: 210–238.Google Scholar
DellaVigna, S. 2009. ‘Psychology and Economics: Evidence from the Field’. Journal of Economic Literature 47: 315–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeSalvo, K., Bloser, N., Reynolds, K., He, J. and Muntner, P. 2005. ‘Mortality Prediction with a Single General Self-Rated Health Question’. Journal of General Internal Medicine 20: 267–275.Google Scholar
Diener, E., Helliwell, J. and Kahneman, D. (eds.). 2010. International Differences in Well-Being. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fleurbaey, M. 2009. ‘Beyond GDP: The Quest for a Measure of Social Welfare’. Journal of Economic Literature 47: 1029–1075.Google Scholar
Fleurbaey, M. and Blanchet, D. 2013. Beyond GDP: Measuring Welfare and Assessing Sustainability. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleurbaey, M. and Maniquet, F. 2011. A Theory of Fairness and Social Welfare. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fleurbaey, M. and Schokkaert, E. 2013. ‘Behavioral Welfare Economics and Redistribution’. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics 5/3: 180–205.Google Scholar
Fleurbaey, M., Luchini, S., Muller, C. and Schokkaert, E. 2013. ‘Equivalent Income and the Economic Evaluation of Health Care’. Health Economics 22/6: 711–729.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Flórez, C. E, Sánchez, L. M., Espinosa, F. and Angulo, R. 2011. ‘El Indice SISBEN III’. Mimeo. The Hague: HDCA Conference.Google Scholar
Helliwell, J. F., Layard, R. and Sachs, J. (eds.). 2015. World Happiness Report 2015. New York: Sustainable Development Solutions Network.Google Scholar
Krauss, A. and Graham, C. 2013. ‘Subjective Wellbeing in Colombia: Some Insights on Vulnerability, Job Security, and Relative Incomes’. International Journal of Happiness and Development 1: 233–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Narayan, D. 2000. Voices of the Poor: Can Anyone Hear Us? New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press for the World Bank.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M. 2000. Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
OECD. 2016. OECD Reviews of Labour Market and Social Policies: Colombia 2016. Paris:OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
Ravallion, M. 2011. ‘On Multidimensional Indices of Poverty’. Policy Research working paper, no. 5580. Washington, DC: World Bank.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schokkaert, E. 2007. ‘Capabilities and Satisfaction with Life’. Journal of Human Development 8/3: 415–430.Google Scholar
Sen, A. 1976. ‘Poverty: An Ordinal Approach to Measurement’. Econometrica 44: 219–231.Google Scholar
Sen, A. 2004. ‘Capabilities, Lists, and Public Reason: Continuing the Conversation’. Feminist Economics 10/3: 77–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, A. 2017. Collective Choice and Social Welfare, expanded ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Stiglitz, J., Sen, A. and Fitoussi, J.-P. 2010. Mismeasuring Our Lives: Why GDP Doesn’t Add Up. New York: New Press.Google Scholar
Sunstein, C. R. 2000. ‘Deliberative Trouble? Why Groups Go to Extremes’. Yale Law Journal 110: 71–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Praag, B. and Ferrer-i-Carbonell, A. 2007. Happiness Quantified: A Satisfaction Calculus Approach. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Vélez, C. E. and Robles, M. 2008. ‘Determining the Parameters of Axiomatically Derived Multidimensional Poverty Indices: An Application Based on Reported Well-Being in Colombia’, in Kakwani, N and Silber, J (eds.). Quantitative Approaches to Multidimensional Poverty Measurement. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan: 210–225.Google Scholar
Vélez, C. E., Castaño, E. and Deutsch, R. 1998. ‘An Economic Interpretation of Colombia’s SISBEN: A Composite Welfare Index Derived from the Optimal Scaling Algorithm’. Mimeo. Inter-American Development Bank and Universidad de Antioquia.Google Scholar