Advertisement

Insights for Measuring Social Value: Classification of Measures Related to the Capabilities Approach

  • Shoko KatoEmail author
  • Shena R. Ashley
  • Rasheda L. Weaver
Original Paper

Abstract

The measurement of performance and the evaluation of social change efforts are vital yet challenging issues for practitioners and researchers in the social sector. Although tools exist to measure social value, they tend to focus on converting non-monetary costs and benefits into monetary terms to demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of operations. The capabilities approach provides a value-based alternative that could potentially enable a broader assessment of a project’s impact; this approach encapsulates societal-level factors, beneficiary perspectives, and a more holistic view of a beneficiary’s life. Ultimately, our goal is to raise the following question in the social sector field: what might a capabilities approach to social value measurement that is suitable for practical application by social sector organizations look like? The purpose of this article is to introduce the theoretical framework and to present what some of the measures and instruments might look like, at least in part, based on applications in other contexts.

Keywords

Social impact Capabilities Social value Performance measurement 

Résumé

La mesure du rendement des initiatives de changement social et leur évaluation sont des enjeux essentiels, quoique complexes pour les praticiens et chercheurs du secteur social. Même si des outils existent pour mesurer la valeur sociale, ils se concentrent surtout sur la conversion de coûts et bénéfices non monétaires en modalités financières pour démontrer la rentabilité d’activités données. L’approche axée sur les capacités procure une option basée sur la valeur qui pourrait donner lieu à une évaluation élargie de l’impact d’un projet. Cette approche intègre des facteurs de niveau sociétal, les points de vue des bénéficiaires et un aperçu plus global de leur existence. Notre objectif ultime est de soulever la question suivante dans le secteur social: à quoi pourrait ressembler une approche de mesure de la valeur sociétale axée sur les capacités, que les organismes du secteur social pourraient utiliser sur le terrain? Le présent article a pour but d’introduire un cadre théorique et quelques mesures et instruments potentiels, au moins en partie, en fonction de leur application dans d’autres contextes.

Zusammenfassung

Die Leistungsmessung und die Bewertung der Bemühungen zum sozialen Wandel sind äußerst wichtige und zugleich schwierige Themen für Praktiker und Forscher im Sozialsektor. Zwar gibt es Instrumente zur Messung des Sozialwertes; doch konzentrieren sich diese in der Regel auf die Umrechnung nicht monetärer Kosten und Nutzen in monetäre Werte, um die Kosteneffizienz der Tätigkeiten zu demonstrieren. Der Befähigungsansatz (Capabilities Approach) bietet eine wertorientierte Alternative, die unter Umständen eine umfassendere Bewertung von Projektauswirkungen ermöglicht. Dieser Ansatz umfasst Faktoren auf der gesellschaftlichen Ebene, Perspektiven der Leistungsempfänger und eine ganzheitlichere Betrachtung des Lebens eines Leistungsempfängers. Letztendlich wird auf die folgende Frage im Sozialsektor abgezielt: Wie könnte ein für die praktische Anwendung seitens der Organisationen im Sozialsektor geeigneter Befähigungsansatz zur Messung des Sozialwertes aussehen? Zweck dieses Beitrags ist es, das theoretische Rahmenwerk vorzustellen und darzulegen, wie sich einige der Bewertungen und Instrumente gestalten könnten, die zumindest teilweise auf Anwendungen in anderen Kontexten beruhen.

Resumen

La medición del rendimiento y la evaluación de los esfuerzos por el cambio social son temas vitales, pero exigentes para los profesionales e investigadores en el sector social. Aunque existen herramientas para medir el valor social, tienden a centrarse en convertir los costes y ventajas no monetarios en términos monetarios para demostrar la rentabilidad de las operaciones. El enfoque de las capacidades proporciona una alternativa basada en el valor que podría permitir potencialmente una evaluación más amplia del impacto de un proyecto; este enfoque sintetiza los factores a nivel societal, las perspectivas del beneficiario y una visión más holística de la vida de un beneficiario. Finalmente, nuestra meta es plantear la siguiente pregunta en el campo del sector social: ¿a qué podría parecerse un enfoque de las capacidades con respecto a la medición del valor social que sea apropiado para la aplicación práctica por parte de las organizaciones del sector social? El propósito del presente artículo es introducir el marco teórico y presentar a qué podrían parecerse algunas de las mediciones e instrumentos, por lo menos en parte, basándose en aplicaciones en otros contextos.

Chinese

对于社会领域的从业人员和研究人员来说,测量绩效和评估社会变革努力非常重要,但也是一个充满挑战的问题。尽管有各种测量社会价值的工具,但他们通常会专注于将非货币成本和好处转换为货币,从而展示运营的成本效率。能力方法提供基于价值的替代方法,潜在允许范围更广的项目影响评估;这种方法涵盖社会层面的因素,受益人观点和受益人生活的更加全面的观点。最终,我们的目标是,提出社会领域的以下问题:适合社会领域组织实际应用到社会价值测量的能力方法看起来像什么?本文的目的是,推出理论框架并展示一些措施和手段的可能样子,至少部分基于在其他背景中的应用。.

Japanese

いまだに社会セクターにおける研究者や専門家にとっては、実践における測定と社会的変化の努力に対する評価は、困難な課題には必要不可欠である。社会的価値を測定するツールは存在するが、実践における費用対効果を提示するために、金銭を基準にして非金銭的コストと利益に変えることに焦点を当てる。可能性のあるアプローチでは、プロジェクトの影響への広範な評価を潜在的に可能にする価値重視の代替手段を提供する。このアプローチは社会的レベルの要因、受益者の観点、受益者の人生における相対的な観点を包含する。最終的に、本研究の目的は、社会セクター分野における以下の疑問点をあげることである。社会セクター組織による実践的な適用における社会的価値の測定では、何が可能なアプローチとなるか。本論文の目的は、理論的な枠組みを示して、少なくとも他の状況下において適用のベースとなる測定と手段がどのようなものであるかを提示することである。.

Arabic

يمثل قياس الأداء وتقييم جهود التغيير الإجتماعي مشاكل حيوية ومعقدة بالنسبة للممارسين والباحثين في القطاع الإجتماعي. على الرغم من وجود أدوات لقياس القيمة الإجتماعية، فإنها تميل إلى التركيز على تحويل التكاليف والفوائد الغير نقدية إلى شروط نقدية لإثبات فعالية تكاليف العمليات. يقدم قدرات النهج بديل قائم على القيمة التي من المحتمل تمكن من إجراء تقييم أوسع لتأثير المشروع؛ يغطي هذا النهج العوامل على مستوى المجتمع المحلي، وجهات نظر المستفيدين، ونظرة أكثر شمولية لحياة المستفيد. في نهاية المطاف، هدفنا هو طرح السؤال التالي في مجال القطاع الإجتماعي: ما الذي ما الذي يمكن أن تعتمده القدرات على قياس القيمة الإجتماعية المناسبة للتطبيق العملي من قبل منظمات القطاع الاجتماعي؟ الغرض من هذه المقالة هو تقديم الإطار النظري وعرض ما قد تبدو عليه بعض التدابير والصكوك، على الأقل جزئيا”، على أساس التطبيقات في سياقات أخرى.

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Alkire, S. (2007). Choosing dimensions: The capability approach and multidimensional poverty. Chronic Poverty Research Centre Working Paper No. 88.Google Scholar
  2. Alkire, S., & Santos, M. E. (2013). A multidimensional approach: Poverty measurement & beyond. Social Indicators Research, 112(2), 239–257.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(1), 125–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anand, P., Hunter, G., & Smith, R. (2005). Capabilities and well-being: Evidence based on the Sen-Nussbaum approach to welfare. Social Indicators Research, 74(1), 9–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Anand, P., & van Hees, M. (2006). Capabilities and achievements: An empirical study. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 35(2), 268–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Anich, R., Biggeri, M., Libanora, R., & Mariani, S. (2011). Street children in Kampala and NGO’s actions: Understanding capabilities deprivation and expansion. In M. Biggeri, J. Ballet, & F. Comim (Eds.), Children and the capability approach (pp. 107–136). New York: Pulgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Arvidson, M., & Lyon, F. (2014). Social impact measurement and non-profit organisations: Compliance, resistance, and promotion. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 25(4), 869–886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Azevedo, V., & Robles, M. (2013). Multidimensional targeting: Identifying beneficiaries of conditional cash transfer programs. Social Indicators Research, 112(2), 447–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Baliamoune-Lutz, M. N. (2004). On the measurement of human well-being: Fuzzy set theory and Sen’s capability approach (pp. 22 pages): World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER), Working Papers: UNU-WIDER Research Paper RP2004/16.Google Scholar
  10. Baliamoune-Lutz, M. N., & McGillivray, M. (2006). Fuzzy well-being achievement in Pacific Asia. Journal of the Asia Pacific Economy, 11(2), 168–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Batana, Y. M. (2013). Multidimensional measurement of poverty among women in Sub-Saharan Africa. Social Indicators Research, 112(2), 337–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Battiston, D., Cruces, G., Lopez-Calva, L. F., Lugo, M. A., & Santos, M. E. (2013). Income and beyond: Multidimensional poverty in six Latin American Countries. Social Indicators Research, 112(2), 291–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bérenger, V., & Verdier-Chouchane, A. (2007). Multidimensional measures of well-being: Standard of living and quality of life across countries. World Development, 35(7), 1259–1276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Biggeri, M., Libanora, R., Mariani, S., & Menchini, L. (2006). Children conceptualizing their capabilities: Results of a survey conducted during the First Children’s World Congress on Child Labour. Journal of Human Development, 7(1), 59–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Brandolini, A., & D’Alessio, G. (1998). Measuring well-being in the functioning space. In Paper Presented at the General Conference of the International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, Cracow, Poland.Google Scholar
  16. Chiappero-Martinetti, E. (2000). A multidimensional assessment of well-being based on Sen’s functioning approach. Rivista Internazionale di Scienze Sociali, 108(2), 207–239.Google Scholar
  17. Clark, D. A. (2005). Sen’s capability approach and the many spaces of human well-being. The Journal of Development Studies, 41(8), 1339–1368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Clark, D. A., & Qizilbash, M. (2008). Core poverty, vagueness and adaptation: A new methodology and some results for South Africa. The Journal of Development Studies, 44(4), 519–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Comim, F. (2008). Measuring capabilities. In F. Comim, M. Qizilbash, & S. Alkire (Eds.), The capability approach: Concepts, measures and applications. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Comim, F., Qizilbash, M., & Alkire, S. (2008). The capability approach: Concepts, measures and applications. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dubois, J.-L., & Trani, J.-F. (2009). Extending the capability paradigm to address the complexity of disability. ALTER–European Journal of Disability Research/Revue Européenne de Recherche sur le Handicap, 3(3), 192–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. El-Harizi, K., & Klemick, H. (2007). Measuring and accounting for community capabilities in Kordofan, Sudan. IFPRI Discussion Paper.Google Scholar
  23. Gigler, B.-S. (2006). Enacting and interpreting technology-from usage to well-being: Experiences of Indigenous Peoples with ICTs. In H. Rahman (Ed.), Empowering Marginal Communities with Information Networking (pp. 124–164). Hershey: IGI Global.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Grunfeld, H., Hak, S., & Pin, T. (2011). Understanding benefits realisation of iREACH from a capability approach perspective. Ethics and Information Technology, 13(2), 151–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Klasen, S. (2000). Measuring poverty and deprivation in South Africa. Review of Income & Wealth, 46(1), 33–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kuklys, W., & Robeyns, I. (2004). Sen’s capability approach to welfare economics.Google Scholar
  27. Lechman, E. (2014). Human poverty–measuring relative deprivation from basic achievements. A comparative study for 144 world countries in the time span 1990–2010. In GUT Faculty of Management and Economics Working Paper Series A (Economics, Management, Statistics) No 11/2013 (11).Google Scholar
  28. Lecy, J., Schmitz, H., & Swedlund, H. (2012). Non-governmental and not-for-profit organizational effectiveness: A modern synthesis. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 23(2), 434–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lelli, S. (2001). Factor analysis vs. fuzzy sets theory: Assessing the influence of different techniques on Sen’s functioning approach. In Center for Economic Studies Discussions Paper Series.Google Scholar
  30. Maas, K., & Liket, K. (2011). Social impact measurement: Classification of methods. In R. Burritt, S. Schaltegger, M. Bennett, T. Pohjola, & M. Csutora (Eds.), Environmental Management Accounting and Supply Chain Management (Vol. 27, pp. 171–202). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Maier, F., Meyer, M., & Steinbereithner, M. (2014). Nonprofit organizations becoming business-like: A systematic review. In Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly., 45, 64–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mitra, S. (2013). Towards a multidimensional measure of governance. Social Indicators Research, 112(2), 477–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mitra, S., Jones, K., Vick, B., Brown, D., McGinn, E., & Alexander, M. (2013). Implementing a multidimensional poverty measure using mixed methods and a participatory framework. Social Indicators Research, 110(3), 1061–1081.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mulgan, G. (2010). Measuring social value. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 8(3), 38.Google Scholar
  35. Murtaza, N. (2012). Putting the lasts first: The case for community-focused and peer-managed NGO accountability mechanisms. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 23(1), 109–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Nussbaum, M. (2001). Women and human development: The capabilities approach. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Nussbaum, M., & Sen, A. (1993). Introduction. In M. Nussbaum & A. Sen (Eds.), The quality of life. New York: Oxford University Press, USA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Polonsky, M. J., & Grau, S. L. (2008). Evaluating the social value of charitable organizations: A conceptual foundation. Journal of Macromarketing, 28(2), 130–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Qizilbash, M. (2002). Development, common foes and shared values. Review of Political Economy, 14(4), 463–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Qizilbash, M., & Clark, D. A. (2005). The capability approach and fuzzy poverty measures: An application to the South African context. Social Indicators Research, 74(1), 103–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ridley, B., & Watts, M. F. (2014). Using the capability approach to evaluate the well-being of adult learners with dis/abilities. In L. Florian (Ed.), The Sage Handbook of Special Education (Second (Edition ed., pp. 421–434). London: SAGE Publications Ltd.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Robeyns, I. (2003). Sen’s capability approach and gender inequality: Selecting relevant capabilities. Feminist Economics, 9(2–3), 61–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Robeyns, I. (2005). The capability approach: A theoretical survey. Journal of Human Development, 6(1), 93–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Robeyns, I. (2006). The capability approach in practice. Journal of Political Philosophy, 14(3), 351–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Roche, J. M. (2013). Monitoring progress in child poverty reduction: Methodological insights and illustration to the case study of Bangladesh. Social Indicators Research, 112(2), 363–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Santos, M. E. (2013). Tracking poverty reduction in Bhutan: Income deprivation alongside deprivation in other sources of happiness. Social Indicators Research, 112(2), 259–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sarkodie, A. O., Agyei-Mensah, S., Anarfi, J. K., & Bosiakoh, T. A. (2014). Education and employment outcomes in Ghana through the lens of the capability approach. Etude de la Population Africaine, 28(2), 797–815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Schischka, J., Dalziel, P., & Saunders, C. (2008). Applying Sen’s capability approach to poverty alleviation programs: Two case studies. Journal of Human Development, 9(2), 229–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sen, A. (1992). Inequality Reexamined. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Sen, A. (1993). Capability and well-being. In M. C. Nussbaum & A. Sen (Eds.), The Quality of Life. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Sen, A. (2004). Capabilities, lists, and public reason: Continuing the conversation. Feminist Economics, 10, 77–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14(3), 207–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Trani, J.-F., & Bakhshi, P. (2008). Challenges for assessing disability prevalence: The case of Afghanistan. ALTER–European Journal of Disability Research/Revue Européenne de Recherche sur le Handicap, 2(1), 44–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Trani, J.-F., Bakhshi, P., & Rolland, C. (2011). Capabilities, perception of well-being and development effort: Some evidence from Afghanistan. Oxford Development Studies, 39(4), 403–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Trani, J.-F., Biggeri, M., & Mauro, V. (2013). The multidimensionality of child poverty: evidence from Afghanistan. Social Indicators Research, 112(2), 391–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. UN Development Programme. (1990). Human Development Report 1990. Concept and Measurement of Human Development. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. UN Development Programme. (1995). Human Development Report 1995. Gender and Human Development. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Van Ootegem, L., & Verhofstadt, E. (2012). Using capabilities as an alternative indicator for well-being. Social Indicators Research, 106(1), 133–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wagle, U. R. (2009). Capability deprivation and income poverty in the United States, 1994 and 2004: Measurement outcomes and demographic profiles. Social Indicators Research, 94(3), 509–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wagle, U. R. (2014). The counting-based measurement of multidimensional poverty: The focus on economic resources, inner capabilities, and relational resources in the United States. Social Indicators Research, 115(1), 223–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Watts, M., & Ridley, B. (2007). Evaluating musical dis/abilities: Operationalizing the capability approach. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 30(2), 149–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Willems, J., Boenigk, S., & Jegers, M. (2014). Seven trade-offs in measuring nonprofit performance and effectiveness. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 25(6), 1648–1670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wolff, J., & De-Shalit, A. (2007). Disadvantage. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Yu, J. (2013). Multidimensional poverty in China: Findings based on the CHNS. Social Indicators Research, 112(2), 315–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society for Third-Sector Research and The Johns Hopkins University 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Rutgers School of Business-CamdenCamdenUSA
  2. 2.The Urban InstituteWashingtonUSA
  3. 3.Department of Community Development and Applied EconomicsUniversity of Vermont, College of Agriculture and Life SciencesBurlingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations