Social Choice and Welfare

, Volume 50, Issue 4, pp 625–661 | Cite as

Estimating capabilities with random scale models: women’s freedom of movement

Original Paper
  • 50 Downloads

Abstract

In Sen’s capability approach well-being is evaluated not only in terms of functionings (what they do and who they are) but also in terms of capabilities (what people are free to do and to be). It implies that individuals with the same observed functionings may have different well-being because their choice sets (i.e. capabilities) are different. We utilise a Random Scale Model to measure the latent capability of Italian women to move based on observations of their realized choices. We demonstrate that such models can offer a suitable framework for measuring how individuals are restricted in their capabilities. Our estimations show that the percentage of women predicted to be restricted in their freedom of movement (have restricted capability sets) is 23–25%. If all women were unconstrained, our model predicts that 15–17% of them would choose to do more activities.

References

  1. Anand P, Hunter G, Carter I, Dowding K, Guala F, Van Hees M (2009) The development of capability indicators. J Hum Dev Capab 10(1):125–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anand P, Santos C (2007) Violence, gender inequalities and life satisfation. Revue d’Economie Politique 117:135–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anand P, Roope L, Gray A (2013) Beyond GDP and HDI: the multi-dimensional measurement of wellbeing and progress. Miemo, Open University and University, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  4. Ben-Akiva M, Watanatada T (1981) Application of a continuous spatial choice model. In: Manski CF, McFadden D (eds) Structural analysis of discrete data with econometric applications. The MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 320–343Google Scholar
  5. Bloch F, Rao V (2002) Terror as a bargaining instrument: a case study of Dowry violence in rural India. Am Econ Rev 92:1029–1043CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clark DA (ed) (2012) Adaptation, poverty and development. Palgrave Macmillan, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Dagsvik JK (2013) Making Sen’s capability approach operational: a random scale framework. Theory Decis 74:75–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Di Tommaso ML (2007) Measuring the well being of children using a capability approach: an application to Indian data. J Soc Econ 36:436–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Di Tommaso ML, Shima I, Strøm S, Bettio F (2009) As bad as it gets. Well-being deprivation of sexually exploited trafficked women. Eur J Polit Econ 25:143–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Elster J (1983) Sour grapes: studies in the subversion of rationality. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eswaran M, Malhotra N (2011) Domestic violence and women’s autonomy in developing countries: theory and evidence. Can J Econ Revue canadienne d’Economique 44(4):1222–1263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fleurbaey M (2006) Capabilities, functionings, and refined functionings. J Hum Dev 7(3):299–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ilmakunnas S, Pudney S (1990) A model of female labour supply in the presence of hours retrictions. J Public Econ 41(2):183–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Istat (2006) La Violenza contro le donne. Indagine multiscopo sulle famiglie “Sicurezza delle donne” Anno 2006. Roma, ISTAT. http://www.cismai.it/documenti/ISTAT_la_violenza_contro_le_donne.pdf Accessed 9 Dec 2017
  15. Koopmans TC (1964) On flexibility of future preference. In: Shelly MW II, Bryan GI (eds) Human judgments and optimality. Wiley, New York, pp 243–254Google Scholar
  16. Kreps D (1979) A representation theorem for ‘preference for flexibility’. Econometrica 47:565–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Krishnakumar J (2007) Going beyond functionings to capabilities: an econometric model to explain and estimate capabilities. J Hum Dev 8(1):39–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Krishnakumar J, Ballon P (2008) Estimating basic capabilities: a latent variable approach applied to Bolivia. World Dev 36:992–1010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Luce RD, Suppes P (1965) Preference, utility and subjective probability. In: Luce RD, Bush RR, Galanter E (eds), Handbook of mathematical psychology, vol III, Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Luce RD (1959) Individual choice behavior. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Manski CF (1977) The structure of random utility models. Theory Decis 8(3):229–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McFadden D (1973) Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour. In: Zarembka P (ed), Frontiers in econometrics, Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. McFadden D (1984) Econometric analysis of qualitative response models. In: Griliches Z, Intrilligator MD (eds), Handbook of econometrics, Vol III, Elsevier, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Menon N, Johnson MP (2007) ’Patriarchy and paternalism in intimate partner violence: a study of domestic violence in rural India. In: Misra KK, Lowry JH (eds), Recent studies on Indian women: empirical work of social scientists, Rawat Publications, JaipurGoogle Scholar
  25. Muratore MG, Sabbadini LL (2005) Italian survey on violence against women. Stat J United Nations Econ Commission Eur 22(3, 4):265–278Google Scholar
  26. Nussbaum MC (1999) Sex and social justice. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. Quandt RE (1956) A probabilistic theory of consumer behavior. Q J Econ 70(4):507–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Robeyns I (2003) Sen’s capability approach and gender inequality: selecting relevant capabilities. Feminist Econ 9(2–3):62–92Google Scholar
  29. Robeyns I (2004) Measuring gender inequality in functionings and capabilities: findings from the British household panel survey. In: Bharati P, Pal M (eds) Gender disparity: manifestations, causes and implications. Anmol Publications, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  30. Sen AK (1985) Commodities and capabilities. North-Holland, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  31. Sen A (1991) Welfare, preference and freedom. J Econ 50(1–2):15–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sen AK (1992) Inequality re-examined. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  33. Sen AK (1999) Development as freedom. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  34. Sen AK (2009) The idea of justice. Allen Lane, LondonGoogle Scholar
  35. Thurstone LL (1927) A law of comparative judgment. Psychol Rev 79:281–299Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Research DepartmentStatistics NorwayOsloNorway
  2. 2.Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de MartiisUniversity of TorinoTurinItaly
  3. 3.Collegio Carlo AlbertoMoncalieriItaly
  4. 4.Frisch Center for Economic ResearchOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations