Abstract
The aim of this work is to analyse the epistemological and methodological aspects of the links between the Partial Order Set (POSET) theory and Sen’s Capability Approach (CA). CA is one of the best-known approaches to well-being and development analysis, founded by the Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen. If the theoretical bases of CA are sound, the empirical aspects have yet to be fully explored. The complexity of CA empirical verifications involves the requirement of statistical and econometric instruments to tackle: “a plurality of evaluative spaces; a plurality of dimensions and a multiplicity of indicators and scales of a quantitative or qualitative nature, and objectively or subjectively measured; a plurality of units of analysis (individuals, households, subgroups of population) and personal heterogeneities and a plurality of environmental contexts, including socio-economic, geographical, cultural and institutional variables” (Chiappero-Martinetti and Roche 2009, p. 5).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
“Being able to live with concern for and in relation to animals, plants, and the world of nature” (Nussbaum 2003, p. 42).
- 2.
Sen’s poverty index is equal to \( {P}_{\mathrm{S}}={P}_0\Big(1-\left(1-G\right)\left(\mu /z\right)\Big) \) where P 0, G, μ, z represent the headcount index, the mean income of the poor, the Gini coefficient of inequality across the poor and the poverty line, respectively (Sen 1976).
- 3.
“In comparing across class barriers, or in contrasting the living conditions of the very rich with those of the very poor, or in assessing social change accompanied by progress (or regress) in all fronts, the dominance partial order may indeed give many unequivocal judgments of the ranking of overall living standard” (Sen 1987 p. 40).
- 4.
“These two considerations—relevance and usability—pull us, to some extent, in different directions. Relevance may demand that we take on board the inherent complexities of the idea of the living standard as fully as possible, whereas usability may suggest that we try to shun complexities if we reasonably can. Relevance wants us to be ambitious; usability urges restraint.” (Sen 1987 p. 27).
References
Agee TD, Crocker MD (2013) Operationalizing the capability approach to assessing well-being. J Socio-Econ 46:80–86
Alkire S, Foster JE (2011a) Counting and multidimensional poverty measurement. J Public Econ 95(7–8):476–487
Alkire S, Foster JE (2011b) Understandings and misunderstandings of multidimensional poverty measurement. J Econ Inequal 9:289–314
Anand S, Sen A (1997) Concepts of human development and poverty: a multidimensional perspective. Human development report background paper
Anand P, van Hees M (2006) Capabilities and achievements: an empirical study. J Socio-Econ 35:268–284
Anand P, Krishnakumar J, Tran NB (2011) Measuring welfare: latent variable models for happiness and capabilities in the presence of unobservable heterogeneity. J Public Econ 95:205–215
Binder M (2013) Subjective wellbeing capabilities: bridging the gap between the capability approach and subjective wellbeing research. Papers on economics and evolution 2013-02
Casadio Tarabusi E, Guarini G (2013) An unbalance adjustment method for development indicators. Soc Indic Res 112(1):19–45
Casadio Tarabusi E, Guarini G (2016) Level dependence of the adjustment for unbalance and inequality for the human development index. Soc Indic Res 126:527–553
Chiappero-Martinetti E, Roche JM (2009) Operationalization of the capability approach, from theory to practice: a review of techniques and empirical applications. In: Chiappero-Martinetti E (ed) Debating global society: reach and limits of the capability approach. Fondazione Giangiacomo Feltrinelli, Milan
Fattore M (2015) Partially ordered sets and the measurement of multidimensional ordinal deprivation. Social Indic Res. doi:10.1007/s11205-015-1059-6
Fattore M, Maggino F, Greselin F (2011) Socio-economic evaluation with ordinal variables: integrating counting and POSET approaches. Statistica & Applicazioni, special issue, pp 31–42
Fattore M, Maggino F, Colombo E (2012) From composite indicators to partial orders: evaluating socio-economic phenomena through ordinal data. In: Maggino F, Nuvolati G (eds) Quality of life in Italy: researches and reflections. Springer, Amsterdam, pp 41–67
Fattore M, Maggino F, Arcagni A (2015) Exploiting ordinal data for subjective wellbeing evaluation. Statistics in transition new series—special issue, pp 1–20
Krishnakumar J (2007) Going beyond functionings to capabilities: an econometric model to explain and estimate capabilities. J Hum Dev 8(1):39–63
Martins NO (2011) The revival of classical political economy and the Cambridge tradition: from scarcity theory to surplus theory. Rev Pol Econ 23(1):111–131
Martins NO (2012) Sen, Srafaa and the revival of classical political economy. J Econ Methodol 19(2):143–157
Nussbaum MC (2003) Capabilities as fundamental entitlements: Sen and social justice. Fem Econ 9(2–3):33–59
Robeyns I (2005) The capability approach: a theoretical survey. J Hum Dev 6(1):93–117
Robeyns I (2006) The capability approach in practice. J Polit Philos 14(3):351–376
Rothschild E, Sen A (2006) Adam Smith’s economics. In: Haakonssen K (ed) The Cambridge companion to Adam Smith. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Sen A (1976) Poverty: an ordinal approach to measurement. Econometrica 44(2):219–231
Sen A (1983) Poor relatively speaking. Oxford economic papers, new series 35(2):153–169
Sen A (1985) Commodities and capabilities. North-Holland, Amsterdam
Sen A (1987) The standard of living. Tanner lectures. Oxford University Press, New Delhi, pp 1–51
Sen A (1989) Development as capability expansion. J Dev Plan 19:41–58
Sen A (1991) The standard of living. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Sen A (1992) Inequality reexamined. Clarendon, Oxford
Sen A (1997) Inequality, unemployment and contemporary Europe. Int Labour Rev 136(2):155–171
Sen A (1999) The possibility of social choice. Am Econ Rev 89:349–378
Sen A (2004) Economic methodology: heterogeneity and relevance. Soc Res 71(3):583–614, originally published in Social Research 56(2), 1989
Sen A (2005) Human rights and capabilities. J Hum Dev 6(2):151–166
Stewart F (2005) Groups and capabilities. J Hum Dev 6(2):185–204
UNDP (1999) Globalisation with human face. Human Development Report, New York
Acknowledgements
I wish to thank Enrico Casadio Tarabusi and Marco Marini for their precious suggestions and the referee for his important comments. Any errors or inaccuracies are my responsibility alone.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Guarini, G. (2017). Partially Ordered Set Theory and Sen’s Capability Approach: A Fruitful Relationship. In: Fattore, M., Bruggemann, R. (eds) Partial Order Concepts in Applied Sciences. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45421-4_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45421-4_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-45419-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-45421-4
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)