Social Indicators Research

, Volume 133, Issue 2, pp 413–430 | Cite as

A Model and Indicator of Aggregate Need Satisfaction for Capped Objectives and Weighting Schemes for Situations of Scarcity

Article

Abstract

Normative criteria for evaluations of economic and social outcomes are often formulated in terms of social welfare functions which are essentially and importantly non-satiable. However, there are good reasons to consider certain normative criteria and many policy objectives to be capped, i.e. bounded, and thus satiable provided sufficient resources are made available for their satisfaction. Inspired by the Foster–Greer–Thorbecke class of indicators, this paper uses an interdisciplinary approach to develop a model for assessing outcomes in terms of capped objectives based on an understanding of individual shortfalls from the objective, denoted needs. We present an indicator to measure need satisfaction in a population of individuals with heterogeneous needs and highlight an aggregation problem under scarcity. For such situations, we develop three ways in which the indicator can be weighted that reflect respectively concerns over the frequency, depth and severity of the need shortfalls and show that normative evaluations based on these weighting schemes can conflict, yielding mutually inconsistent outcome rankings. The indicator can be adapted to measure a wide variety of phenomena, e.g. health needs, education shortfalls, deprivation, etc., and it is suited for targeting exercises and other policy implementations. In particular, it allows for exogenous weighting schemes, i.e. weights that can incorporate non-shortfall characteristics relevant for the evaluation, e.g. age, gender, ethnicity, etc. The indicator thus enables new ways for researchers to promote and study satiable objectives in a wide variety of contexts relevant to economic and social policy, e.g. human development programs, poverty reduction, healthcare policies, etc.

Keywords

Capped objectives Social choice Priority weights Aggregation Scarcity 

References

  1. Alkire, S. (2002). Valuing freedoms: Sen’s capabilities approach and poverty reduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alkire, S. (2005). Needs and capabilities. Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement, 57, 229–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alkire, S., & Foster, J. (2011). Counting and multidimensional poverty measurement. Journal of Public Economics, 95(7–8), 476–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alkire, S., Foster, J., Suman, S., Santos, M. E., Roche, J. M., & Ballon, P. (2015). Multidimensional poverty measurement analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bognar, G., & Hirose, I. (2014). The ethics of health care rationing. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Broome, J. (2015). Equality versus priority: A useful distinction. Economics and Philosophy, 31(2), 219–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Crisp, R. (2003). Equality, priority, and compassion. Ethics, 113(4), 745–763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Daoud, A. (2007). (Quasi)Scarcity and Global Hunger: A sociological critique of the scarcity postulate with an effort to synthesis. Journal of Critical Realism, 6(2), 199–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Daoud, A. (2011). Sufficiency, abundance and scarcity: contributions to social and economic theory. Dissertation, University of Gothenburg.Google Scholar
  10. Dorsey, D. (2012). The basic minimum: A welfarist approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Doyal, L., & Gough, I. (1991). A theory of human need. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Foster, J., Greer, J., & Thorbecke, E. (1984). A class of decomposable poverty measures. Econometrica, 52(3), 761–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Foster, J., Greer, J., & Thorbecke, E. (2010). The Foster–Greer–Thorbecke (FGT) poverty measure: 25 years later. Journal of Economic Inequality, 8(4), 491–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Foster, J., & Sen, A. (1997). On economic inequality: After a quarter century. In A. Sen (Ed.), On economic inequality (pp. 109–219). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  15. Gough, I. (2015). Climate change and sustainable welfare: the centrality of human needs. Cambridge Journal of Economics, doi:10.1093/cje/bev039.
  16. Herlitz, A. (2012). Choice: An essay on pluralism, value conflicts and decision-making. Dissertation, European University Institute.Google Scholar
  17. Herlitz, A., & Horan, D. (2016a). Measuring needs for priority setting in healthcare planning and policy. Social Science and Medicine, 157, 96–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Herlitz, A., & Horan, D. (2016b). Prioritizing the “worse off” under attainability constraints: An indeterminacy problem for distributive fairness. UCD Geary Institute for Public Policy Discussion Paper Series, Geary WP2016/08.Google Scholar
  19. Hicks, J. R., & Allen, R. G. D. (1934). A reconsideration of the theory of value. Economica, 1(2), 52–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hirose, I. (2015). Moral aggregation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Horan, D. (2012). Essays on innovation, R&D policy and industrial clusters. Dissertation, European University Institute.Google Scholar
  22. Juth, N. (2015). Challenges for principles of need in health care. Health Care Analysis, 23(1), 73–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Marozzi, M. (2014). Measuring trust in European Public Institutions. Social Indicators Research, 123(3), 879–895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Marozzi, M. (2015) Construction, robustness assessment and application of an index of perceived level of socio-economic threat from immigrants: A study of 47 European countries and regions. Social Indicators Research, doi:10.1007/s11205-015-1037-z.
  25. Mitchell, P. M., Roberts, T. E., Barton, P. M., & Coast, J. (2015). Assessing sufficient capability: A new approach to economic evaluation. Social Science and Medicine, 139, 71–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. OECD (2008). Handbook on constructing composite indicators: methodology and user guide, OECD 2008, ISBN 978-92-64-04345-9.Google Scholar
  27. Pareto, V. (1974). Manuale di economia politica con una introduzione alla scienza sociale. Padova: Cedam.Google Scholar
  28. Parfit, D. (1997). Equality and priority. Ratio, 10(3), 202–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Parfit, D. (2012). Another defence of the priority view. Utilitas, 24(3), 399–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Saisana, M., Saltelli, A., & Tarantola, S. (2005). Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis techniques as tools for the quality assessment of composite indicators. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, 168, 307–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schumpeter, J. A. (1954). History of economic analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Sen, A. (1976). Poverty: An ordinal approach to measurement. Econometrica, 44(2), 219–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sen, A. (1979). Issues in the measurement of poverty. Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 81(2), 285–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sen, A. (1981). Poverty and famines: An essay on entitlement and deprivation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Sen, A. (1992). Inequality reexamined. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Shields, L. (2012). The prospects for sufficientarianism. Utilitas, 24(1), 101–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Temkin, L. (1993). Inequality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Temkin, L. (2012). Rethinking the good: Moral ideals and the nature of practical reasoning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wiggins, D. (1987). Claims of need. In D. Wiggins (Ed.), Needs, values, truth (pp. 1–58). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Wiggins, D. (2005). An idea we cannot do without: What difference will it make (e.g. to moral, political and environmental philosophy) to recognize and put to use a substantial concept of need? Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement, 80, 25–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Philosophy, Linguistics and Theory of ScienceUniversity of GothenburgGothenburgSweden
  2. 2.Department of Philosophy, RutgersThe State University of New JerseyNew BrunswickUSA
  3. 3.School of Politics and International Relations, and the UCD Geary Institute for Public PolicyUniversity College DublinDublinIreland

Personalised recommendations