Social Indicators Research

, Volume 129, Issue 2, pp 717–737 | Cite as

Estimating Capabilities with Structural Equation Models: How Well are We Doing in a ‘Real’ World?

  • Jaya Krishnakumar
  • Florian Chávez-JuárezEmail author


Measuring capabilities is a major challenge for the operationalization of the capability approach. Structural equation models (SEM) are being increasingly used as one possible methodology for estimating capabilities, but a certain skepticism remains about their appropriateness. In this paper, we perform a unique simulation experiment for testing the validity of such estimators. Using an agent-based modeling tool, we simulate a ‘real’ life scenario with individuals of heterogeneous characteristics and behaviors, having different capability sets, and making different decisions. We then run a SEM (MIMIC) model on the data generated in this simulated world to estimate the individual capabilities. Thus our data generating process is completely disconnected with the econometric model used for estimation. Our results support the idea that SEM can coherently estimate the true capabilities. We find that the linear predictor from the structural part of the SEM provides better results than the ‘classical’ factor scores based on the full model.


Latent variables MIMIC SEM Simulation  Capability approach 

JEL Classification

C10 C15 D63 I00 I20 


  1. Addabbo, T., & Di Tommaso, M. (2009). Children capabilities and family characteristics in italy. In M. Biggeri, J. Ballet, & F. Comim (Eds.), Children and the Capability Approach: Child Labour, Education and Participation (Chap 6). New Delhi: Sage India.Google Scholar
  2. Addabbo, T., Di Tommaso, M., & Maccagnan, A. (2014). Gender differences in italian children capabilities. Feminist Economics, 20(2), 90–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anand, P., Hunter, G., Carter, I., Dowding, K., Guala, F., & van Hees, M. (2009). The development of capability indicators. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 10, 125–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anand, P., Krishnakumar, J., & Tran, N. B. (2011). Measuring welfare: Latent variable models for happiness and capabilities in the presence of unobservable heterogeneity. Journal of Public Economics, 95(3–4), 205–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Di Tommaso, M. (2007). Children’s capabilities: A structural equation model for india. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 36, 436–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Epstein, J., & Axtell, R. (1996). Growing artificial societies—Social science from the bottom up. Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  8. Gilbert, N. (2008). Agent based models (1st ed.)., Quantitive Applications in Social Sciences New York: SAGE Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Huang, J., Jennings, N., & Fox, J. (1995). Agent-based approach to health care management. Applied Artificial Intelligence: An International Journal, 9(4), 401–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hurwitz, J., & Peffley, M. (1987). How are foreign policy attitudes structured? a hierarchical model. The American Political Science Review, 81(4), 1099–11120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Janssen, M., & Jager, W. (1999). An integrated approach to simulating behavioural processes: A case study of the lock-in of consumption patterns. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 2(2):
  12. Judd, C., & Milburn, M.A. (1980). The structure of attitude systems in the general public: Comparisons of a structural equation model. American Sociological Review, 45(4):pp. 627–643,
  13. Krishnakumar, J. (2007). Going beyond functionings to capabilities: An econometric model to explain and estimate capabilities. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 8(1), 39–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Krishnakumar, J., & Ballón, P. (2008). Estimating basic capabilities: A structural equation model applied to bolivia. World Development, 36(4), 992–1010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Krishnakumar, J., & Nagar, A. (2008). On exact statistical properties of multidimensional indices based on principal components, factor analysis, mimic and structural equation models. Social Indicators Research, 86(3), 481–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kuklys, W. (2005). Amartya Sen’s capability approach: Theoretical insights and empirical applications. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  17. MacCallum, R. C., & Austin, J. T. (2000). Applications of structural equation modeling in psychological research. Annual Review of Psychology, 51(1), 201–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Schelling, T. C. (1969). Models of segregation. American Economic Review, 59(2), 488–493.Google Scholar
  19. Schelling, T. C. (1971). Dynamic models of segregation. The Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 1(2), 143–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
  21. Wagle, U. (2005). Multidimensional poverty measurement with economic well-being, capability and social inclusion: A case from kathmandu, nepal. Journal of Human Development, 6(3), 301–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Economics and Econometrics, Geneva School of Economics and Management (GSEM)University of GenevaGenevaSwitzerland
  2. 2.División de EconomíaCentro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas (CIDE)Mexico CityMexico

Personalised recommendations