Advertisement

Social Indicators Research

, Volume 140, Issue 1, pp 157–173 | Cite as

Capabilities, Subjective Wellbeing and Public Policy: A Response to Austin (2016)

  • Robert A. CumminsEmail author
  • Kenneth C. Land
Article
  • 308 Downloads

Abstract

It has recently been claimed that Sen’s capabilities approach can be used to advise the formation of public policy related to human wellbeing. It has also been proposed that measures of subjective wellbeing are inadequate for this purpose. These ideas are examined in relation to capabilities, using the same reference material as the proposing author. The theory of subjective wellbeing homeostasis is used as the alternative framework by which to understand the potential of subjective wellbeing for policy advice. This examination reveals an almost complete lack of evidence that capability measurement could fulfill the suggested role. While subjective wellbeing has more potential for this purpose, caveats to its employment for policy advice are also evident.

Keywords

Capabilities Subjective wellbeing Public policy Measurement Homeostasis Theory 

Notes

Acknowledgement

This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea Grant funded by the Korean Government (NRF-2013S1A3A2054622).

References

  1. Allan, B. A., & Duffy, R. D. (2014). Examining moderators of signature strengths use and well-being: Calling and signature strengths level. Journal of Happiness Studies, 15(2), 323–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anand, P., Hunter, G., Carter, I., Dowding, K., Guala, F., & Van Hees, M. (2009a). The development of capability indicators. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 10(1), 125–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anand, P., Santos, C., & Smith, R. (2009b). The measurement of capabilities. In K. Basu & R. Kanbur (Eds.), Festschrift for Prof Amartya Sen (pp. 283–310). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Andrews, F. M., & Withey, S. B. (1976). Social indicators of well-being: American’s perceptions of life quality. New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Austin, A. (2016). On well-being and public policy: Are we capable of questioning the hegemony of happiness? Social Indicators Research, 127(1), 123–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Biswas-Diener, R., & Diener, E. (2001). Making the best of a bad situation: Satisfaction in the slums of Calcutta. Social Indicators Research, 55, 329–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blalock, H. M., Jr. (1964). Causal inferences in nonexperimental research. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  8. Blore, J. D., Stokes, M. A., Mellor, D., Firth, L., & Cummins, R. A. (2011). Comparing multiple discrepancies theory to affective models of subjective wellbeing. Social Indicators Research, 100(1), 1–16. doi: 10.1007/s11205-010-9599-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brenner, B. (1975). Quality of affect and self-evaluated happiness. Social Indicators Research, 2(3), 315–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brickman, P., & Campbell, D. T. (1971). Hedonic relativism and planning the good society. In M. H. Appley (Ed.), Adaptation-level theory: A symposium (pp. 287–302). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  11. Burchardt, T. (2006). Happiness and social policy: Barking up the right tree in the wrong neck of the woods. In L. Bauld, T. Maltby, & K. Clarke (Eds.), Analysis and debate in social policy (pp. 145–164). Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
  12. Burchardt, T., & Vizard, P. (2007). Definition of equality and framework for measurement: Final recommendations of the Equalities Review Steering Group on Measurement. London: LSE, Centre for the Analysis of Social Exclusion. CASE paper 120. http://sticerd.lse.ac.uk/dps/case/cp/CASEpaper120.pdf.
  13. Burchardt, T., & Vizard, P. (2014). Using the capability approach to evaluate health and care for individuals and groups in England. In S. Ibrahim & M. Tiwari (Eds.), The capability approach: From theory to practice (pp. 148–170). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  14. Capic, T., Li, N., & Cummins, R. A. (2017). Confirmation of subjective wellbeing set-points: Foundational for subjective social indicators. Social Indicators Research. doi: 10.1007/s11205-017-1585-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cummins, R. A. (2010). Subjective wellbeing, homeostatically protected mood and depression: A synthesis. Journal of Happiness Studies, 11, 1–17. doi: 10.1007/s10902-009-9167-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cummins, R. A. (2013). Subjective wellbeing homeostasis. In D. S. Dunn (Ed.), Oxford bibliographies Online. http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199828340/obo-9780199828340-0167.xml.
  17. Cummins, R. A. (2014). Can happiness change? Theories and evidence. In K. M. Sheldon & R. E. Lucas (Eds.), Stability of happiness: Theories and evidence on whether happiness can change (pp. 75–97). Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cummins, R. A. (2016a). The theory of subjective wellbeing homeostasis: A contribution to understanding life quality. In F. Maggino (Ed.), A life devoted to quality of life—festschrift in Honor of Alex C Michalos (Vol. 60, pp. 61–79). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cummins, R. A. (2016b). Happiness is the right metric to understand the functioning of society. Society, 53(3), 273–277. doi: 10.1007/s12115-016-0011-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cummins, R. A., Li, L., Wooden, M., & Stokes, M. (2014). A demonstration of set-points for subjective wellbeing. Journal of Happiness Studies, 15, 183–206. doi: 10.1007/s10902-013-9444-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cummins, R. A., Woerner, J., Weinberg, M., Collard, J., Hartley-Clark, L., & Horfiniak, K. (2013). Australian Unity Wellbeing Index: -Report 30.0—The wellbeing of Australians: Social media, personal achievement, and work. Melbourne: Australian Centre on Quality of Life, School of Psychology, Deakin University. http://www.acqol.com.au/reports/survey-reports/survey-030-report-part-b.pdf.
  22. Cummins, R. A., et al. (2017). Why self-report variables inter-correlate: The role of Homeostatically Protected Mood. Journal of Wellbeing Assessment (submitted).Google Scholar
  23. Davern, M., Cummins, R. A., & Stokes, M. (2007). Subjective wellbeing as an affective/cognitive construct. Journal of Happiness Studies, 8(4), 429–449. doi: 10.1007/s10902-007-9066-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. DEFRA. (2005). Securing the future: delivering UK sustainable development strategy. London: Department for Environment, food and Rural Affairs.Google Scholar
  25. Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Donovan, N., & Halpern, D. (2002). Life satisfaction: The state of knowledge and implications for Government. London: Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit.Google Scholar
  27. Easterlin, R. A. (1974). Does economic growth improve the human lot? Some empirical evidence. In P. David & M. Reder (Eds.), Nations and households in economic growth (pp. 89–125). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  28. Eiser, J. R., & Stroebe, W. (1972). Categorization and social judgement. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  29. Equalities and Human Rights Commission. (2007). Fairness and freedom-The final report of the equalities review. London: Author.Google Scholar
  30. Gannotti, M. E., Minter, C. L., Chambers, H. G., Smith, P. A., & Tylkowski, C. (2011). Self-concept of adults with cerebral palsy. Disability and Rehabilitation, 33(10), 855–861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gittins, R. (2010). The happy economist: Happiness for the hard-headed. Melbourne: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  32. Hammond, T., Weinberg, M. K., & Cummins, R. A. (2014). The dyadic interaction of relationships and disability type on informal carer subjective well-being. Quality of Life Research, 23(5), 1535–1542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Headey, B., & Wearing, A. (1989). Personality, life events, and subjective well-being: Toward a dynamic equilibrium model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 731–739. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.57.4.731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Helson, H. (1964). Adaptation-level theory: An experimental and systematic approach to behavior. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  35. Huxley, A. (1932). Brave new world. London: Chatto and Windus.Google Scholar
  36. Ibrahim, S., & Tiwari, M. (2014). The capability approach: From theory to practice. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. International Wellbeing Group. (2013). Personal wellbeing index manual (Vol. 5). Melbourne: Deakin University. http://www.acqol.com.au/iwbg/index.php.
  38. Joshanloo, M. (2013). A comparison of Western and Islamic conceptions of happiness. Journal of Happiness Studies, 14(6), 1857–1874.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Keyes, C. L. M., & Annas, J. (2009). Feeling good and functioning well: Distinctive concepts in ancient philosophy and contemporary science. Journal of Positive Psychology, 4(3), 197–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Krishnakumar, J., & Ballon, P. (2008). Estimating basic capabilities: A structural equation model applied to Bolivia. World Development, 36(6), 992–1010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lai, L. C. H., & Cummins, R. A. (2013). The contribution of job and partner satisfaction to the homeostatic defense of subjective wellbeing. Social Indicators Research, 111(1), 203–217. doi: 10.1007/s11205-011-9991-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Land, K. C. (1983). Social indicators. Annual Review of Sociology, 9, 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Land, K. C. (2015). The Human Development Index. In W. Glatzer, L. Camfield, V. Møller, & M. Rojas (Eds.), Global handbook of quality of life: Exploration of well-being of nations and continents (pp. 133–157). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Land, K. C., Lamb, V. L., & Zang, X. (2017). Objective and subjective indices of well-being: resolving the Easterlin paradox. In G. Brule & F. Maggino (Eds.), Metrics of subjective well-being. New York: Springer. (in press).Google Scholar
  45. Learmonth, Y. C., Hubbard, E. A., McAuley, E., & Motl, R. W. (2014). Psychometric properties of quality of life and health-related quality of life assessments in people with multiple sclerosis. Quality of Life Research, 23(7), 2015–2023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lenzen, M., & Cummins, R. A. (2013). Happiness versus the environment—a case study of Australian lifestyles. Challenges, 4, 56–74. doi: 10.3390/challe4010056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lepper, J., & McAndrew, S. (2008). Developments in the economics of well-being: Treasury Economic Working Paper 4. London: HM Treasury.Google Scholar
  48. Lykken, D. T., & Tellegen, A. (1996). Happiness is a stochastic phenomenon. Psychological Science, 7(3), 186–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Merriam-Webster. (2016). Online dictionary. Retrieved from http://www.merriam-webster.com.
  50. Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, state and utopia. Malden, MA: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  51. Nussbaum, M. (2000). Women and human development: The capabilities approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. O’Donnell, G., Deaton, A., Durand, M., Halpern, D., & Layard, R. (2014). Wellbeing and policy. London: Legatum Institute.Google Scholar
  53. OECD. (2013). OECD Guidelines on Measuring Subjective Well-being. Paris: OECD Publishing. doi: 10.1787/9789264191655-en.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Office for National Statistics. (2011). Measuring subjective well-being for public policy: Recommendations on measures. Newport: Office for National Statistics.Google Scholar
  55. Office for National Statistics. (2012). Measuring national well-being: Life in the UK 2012. Newport: Office for National Statistics. http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/wellbeing/measuring-national-well-being/first-annual-report-on-measuringnational-well-being/art-measuring-national-well-being-annual-report.html.
  56. O’Neill, J. (2006). Happiness: Lessons for a new science. New Political Economy, 11(3), 447–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. O’Neill, J. (2008). Sustainability, well-being and consumption: The limits of hedonic approaches. In K. Soper & F. Trentmann (Eds.), Citizenship and consumption (pp. 172–190). London: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  58. Piantadosi, S., Byar, D. P., & Green, S. B. (1988). The ecological fallacy. American Journal of Epidemiology, 127(5), 893–904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Rawls, J. (1972). A theory of justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Rawls, J. (1999). The law of peoples. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Renn, D., Pfaffenberger, N., Platter, M., Mitmansgruber, H., Höfer, S., & Cummins, R. A. (2009). International Well-being Index: the Austrian version. Social Indicators Research, 90, 243–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Russell, J. A. (1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 1161–1178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On Happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 141–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Sen, A. (1985). Commodities and capabilities. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
  65. Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. New York: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
  66. Sen, A. (2004). Capabilities, lists, and public reason: Continuing the conversation. Feminist Economics, 10(3), 77–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Smith, A. (1776). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the Wealth of Nations (1 edn, Vol. 2). London: W. Strahan. http://books.google.bg/books?id=C5dNAAAAcAAJ&pg=PP7#v=onepage&q&f=true Retrieved Sept 09 2014.
  68. Srinivasan, T. (1994). Human development-A new paradign or reinvention of the wheel? American Economic Review, 84(2), 238–243.Google Scholar
  69. Stiglitz, J., Sen, A., & Fitoussi, J.-P. (2010). Report by the commission on the measurement of economic performance and social progress. Paris: Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress http://www.stiglitz-sen-fitoussi.fr/documents/rapport_anglais.pdf.
  70. Sugden, R. (1993). Welfare, resources, and capabilities: a review of inequality reexamined by Amartya Sen. Journal of Economic literature, 31, 1947–1962.Google Scholar
  71. Sugden, R. (2003). Opportunity as a space for individuality: its value and the impossibility of measuring it. Ethics, 113(4), 783–809.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Tinkler, L., & Hicks, S. (2011). Measuring subjective well-being. UK: Office for National Statistics http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/user-guidance/well-being/wellbeing-knowledge-bank/understanding-wellbeing/measuring-subjective-well-being.pdf.
  73. Tomlinson, M., & Kelly, G. (2013). Is everybody happy? The politics and measurement of national wellbeing. Policy and Politics, 41(2), 139–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Tomyn, A. J., & Cummins, R. A. (2011). Subjective wellbeing and homeostatically protected mood: Theory validation with adolescents. Journal of Happiness Studies, 12(5), 897–914. doi: 10.1007/s10902-010-9235-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Tomyn, A. J., Weinberg, M. K., & Cummins, R. A. (2015). Intervention efficacy among ‘at risk’ adolescents: A test of Subjective Wellbeing Homeostasis Theory. Social Indicators Research, 120(3), 883–895. doi: 10.1007/s11205-014-0619-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Veenhoven, R. (2005). Happiness in hardship. In L. Bruni & P. L. Porta (Eds.), Economics and happiness (pp. 243–266). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Weijers, D. (2013). Intuitive biases in judgments about thought experiments: The experience machine revisited. Philosophical Writings, 41(1), 17–31.Google Scholar
  78. WHO Regional Office for Europe. (2012). Measurement of and target-setting for well-being; Second meeting of the expert group, Paris, 25–26 June 2012. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe.Google Scholar
  79. Yik, M., Russell, J. A., & Steiger, J. H. (2011). A 12-point circumplex structure of core affect. Emotion, 11(4), 705–731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of PsychologyDeakin UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.Department of SociologyDuke UniversityDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations