Disentangling the Circularity in Sen’s Capability Approach: An Analysis of the Co-Evolution of Functioning Achievement and Resources
- 466 Downloads
There is an ambiguity in Amartya Sen’s capability approach as to what constitutes an individual’s resources, conversion factors and valuable functionings. What we here call the “circularity problem” points to the fact that all three concepts seem to be mutually endogenous and interdependent. To econometrically account for this entanglement we suggest a panel vector autoregression approach. We analyze the intertemporal interplay of the above factors over a time horizon of 15 years using the BHPS data set for Great Britain, measuring individual well-being in functionings space with a set of basic functionings, comprising “being happy”, “being healthy”, “being nourished”, “moving about freely”, “being well-sheltered” and “having satisfying social relations”. We find that there are indeed functionings that are resources for many other functionings (viz. “being happy”) while other functionings (“being well-sheltered” and “having satisfying social relations”) are by and large independent, thus shedding light on a facet of the capability approach that has been neglected so far.
KeywordsCapability approach Vector autoregressions Functioning selection Co-evolution of functionings Circularity problem
- Alkire, S. (2002). Valuing freedoms—Sen’s capability approach and poverty reduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Anand, P., Santos, C., & Smith, R. (2008). The measurement of capabilities. In: Basu, K., & Kanbur, R., (Eds.) Arguments for a better world: Essays in Honor of Amartya Sen (Vol. 1, Chap. 16 pp. 283–310). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Becker, G. S. (1964). Human capital—A theoretical and empirical analysis, with special reference to education. New York/London: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
- BHPS. (2009). British household panel survey. http://www.iser.essex.ac.uk/ulsc/bhps/.
- Binder, M., & Broekel, T. (2008). Applying a robust non-parametric efficiency analysis to measure conversion efficiency in Great Britain. SSRN working paper No. 1104430. Accepted for publication in: Journal of Human Development and Capabilities.Google Scholar
- Binder, M., & Coad, A. (2010). An examination of the dynamics of happiness using vector autoregressions. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, forthcoming, doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2010.06.006
- Chiappero-Martinetti, E., & Salardi, P. (2007). Well-being process and conversion factors. An estimation of the micro-side of the well-being process. Mimeo.Google Scholar
- Coad, A. (2010). Exploring the processes of firm growth: Evidence from a vector auto-regression. Industrial and Corporate Change, forthcoming, doi:10.1093/icc/dtq018.
- Deutsch, J., Ramos, X., & Silber, J. (2003). Poverty and inequality of standard of living and quality of life in Great Britain. In M. J. Sirgy, D. Rahtz, & A. C. Samli (Eds.), Advances in quality-of-life theory and research (Chap. 7 pp. 99–128). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic PublishersGoogle Scholar
- Frederick, S., & Loewenstein, G. F. (1999). Hedonic adaptation. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Well-Being: The foundations of hedonic psychology (pp. 302–329). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
- Gardner, J., & Oswald, A. (2004). How is mortality affected by money, marriage, and stress? Journal of Health Economics, 23, 1181–1207.Google Scholar
- Graham, C., Eggers, A., & Sukhtankar, S. (2004). Does happiness pay? An exploration based on panel data from Russia. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 55, 319–342.Google Scholar
- Grossman, M. (2005). Education and nonmarket outcomes. NBER working paper, no. 11582, http://www.nber.org/papers/w11582.
- Kuklys, W. (2005). Amartya Sen’s capability approach—theoretical insights and empirical applications. Berlin: SpringerGoogle Scholar
- Lelli, S. (2001). Factor analysis vs. fuzzy sets theory: Assessing the influence of different techniques on Sen’s functioning approach. Center for economic studies discussion paper series 01.21.Google Scholar
- Levy, H., & Jenkins, S. P. (2008). Documentation for derived current and annual net household income variables, BHPS waves 1–16. Institute for Social and Economic Research, University of Essex, Colchester.Google Scholar
- Myers, D. G. (1999). Close relationships and quality of life. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Well-Being: The foundations of hedonic psychology (pp. 374–391). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
- Nussbaum, M. C. (2000). Women and human development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Ramos, X. (2008). Using efficiency analysis to measure individual well-being with an illustration for Catalonia. In N. Kakwani & J. Silber (Eds.), Quantitative approaches to multidimensional poverty measurement (Chap. 9 pp. 155–175). Basingstoke: Palgrave MacmillanGoogle Scholar
- Robeyns, I. (2006). Gender inequality in functionings and capabilities: Findings from the British household panel survey. In P. Bharati & M. Pal (Eds.), Gender disparity: Its manifestations, causes and implications (Chap. 13 pp. 236–277). Anmol, Delhi.Google Scholar
- Sen, A. K. (1984). Rights and capabilities. In Resources, Values and Development (pp. 307–324). Cambridge/Mass: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Sen, A. K. (1985a). Commodities and capabilities. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
- Sen, A. K. (1992). Inequality reexamined. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
- Stevenson, B., & Wolfers, J. (2008). Economic growth and subjective well-being: Reassessing the Easterlin paradox. NBER working paper no. 14282.Google Scholar
- Taylor, M. F. E. (2009). British household panel survey user manual volume a: Introduction, technical report and appendices. In: J. Brice, N. Buck, & E. Prentice-Lane (Eds.), Colchester: University of Essex.Google Scholar
- UNDP. (2006). Human development report. http://hdr.undp.org/hdr2006/report.cfm.