the measurement of capabilities

The Measurement of Capabilities

Paul AnandEconomics, The Open University andHealth Economics Research Centre, Oxford University

4th University of Verona Winter SchoolCanazei, 2009

Overview – Data for Capabilities Measurement

I. Motivation (Utility and Social Choice)II. Capabilities Approach to Welfare Economics:

Context, Theory and Operationalisation IssuesIII. The Capabilities Measurement Project

phase 1 pilot + BHPSphase 2 ocap (UK, Argentina, Scotland)phase 3 child development, oxcap19

IV. Exercise

Capabilities Measurement Project – Some Collaborators and Advisors

Philosophy and Social Science

Ian CarterKeith DowdingFrancesco GualaMartin van HeesGraciela TonenMaria Sigala

Economics

Ron SmithGraham HunterJaya KrishnakumarPeter MoffatCristina Santos

Amartya Sen

Some publications

Journal of Human Development (2009)

Chapter in Festschrift for Amartya Sen Arguments for a Better World, Oxford University Press, Basu and Kanbur, (2008)

Some publications

Journal of Human Development (2009)

Chapter in Festschrift for Amartya Sen Arguments for a Better World, Oxford University Press, Basu and Kanbur, (2008)

Social Indicators Research, Journal of Health Economics, Journal of Medical Ethics, Health Economics etc

I. Motivation from Utility Theory

The case:rational agents can violate all the axioms

of EUtherefore there is room for empirical

explorations of preference in welfare economics

Classical Decision Theory

Expected value

Expected Utility

Subjective Expected Utility

Modern Decision Theory

Subjective ExpectedUtility Theory

Prospect TheoryNon-Transitive

UtilityRank Dependent

Theory

Von Neumann and Morgernstern’s Axiomatisation of Transitive Utility

Axioms A1 Completeness A2 Transitivity A3 Independence A4 Continuity Representation and Uniqueness Theorems A1-A4 hold iff o1><o2 implies/implied by u(o1)><u(o2) and u (L) = ∑p.u(oi) If u(.), then a.u(.)+b where a is in Re+ and b is in Re

Fishburn’s Axiomatisation of Intransitive Utility Theory (1988 p80)

Axioms A1 Continuity A2 Convexity A3 Symmetry Representation and Uniqueness Theorems A1-A3 hold iff Re LxL:u where u is SSB functional (CONTEXT DEPENDENCE) L1PL2 implies/implied by u(L1, L2) > 0 If u(.,.), then r.u(.,.) where r is in Re Definition - SSB functional skew-symmetry: u(a,b)=-u(b,a) bilinearity: u is linear in each argument

The Logical Consistency Argument

“The proof of intransitivity is a simple example of reductio ad absurdum. If the individual is alleged to prefer A to B, B to C, and C to A, we can enquire which he would prefer from the collection of A, B and C. Ex-hypothesi, he must prefer one, say he prefers A to B or C. This however contradicts the statement that he prefers C to A, and hence the alleged intransitivity must be false.

Tullock (Oxford Economic Papers 1964 p403)

A problem with Tullock’s Argument: Validity

Tullock assumes expansion consistency – is this normatively essential?

Health care and freedom of information example

F={access to all records, access to no records}Preference ranking: no access>access to all

A problem with Tullock’s Argument: Validity

Tullock assumes expansion consistency – is this normatively essential?

Health care and freedom of information example

F={access to all records, access to no records}Preference ranking: no access>access to all

F={access to all records, access to electronic records, access to no records}

Preference ranking: access to all>access to electronic>no access

Conclusion – Tullocks’s argument is question begging as it relies on the normative appeal of expansion consistency

Semantic embeddedness - The Constitutional Argument

“The theory…is so powerful and simple, and so constitutive of concepts assumed by further satisfactory theory… that we must strain to fit our findings or interpretations, to fit the theory. If length is not transitive, what does it mean to use a number to measure length at all? We could find or invent an answer, but unless or until we do, we must strive to interpret ‘longer than’ so that it comes out transitive. Similarly for ‘preferred to’.

Davidson Action and Events (1980 p237)

Money Pump Arguments

Asynchronous Consistency Interpretation

Pab, Pbc, Pca means:F1={a,b} → swap b for a and pay e’F2={b,c} → swap c for b and pay e’’F3={a,c} → swap a for c and pay e’’’

Then one F prevails and this defines CNo room for inconsistency to violate dominance


Chaining Interpretation

Pab, Pbc and Pca mean:

If F1={a,b} then swap b for a and pay e’if F2={b,c} then swap c for b and pay e’’if F3={a,c} then swap a for c and pay e’’’

And then c + F2 F1 and F3 → C2 C1 and C3 = c – e’ – e’’ – e’’’

FishburnLavalle/Anand/Sugden objection: if F2, F1 and F3 is the choice sequence then preferences for components may not be relevant or helpful

But why would anyone think that?


One reason: if…then and the structure of material implication

A→ x, B→ y and C→ z impliesA and B and C → x and y and z

However, counterfactuals don’t have this structure in general


The conference goers nightmare example:

A1=lose cash → have a beerA2=lose travellers cheques → have a

beerA3=lose credit cards → have a gin and

tonic


The conference goers nightmare example:

A1=lose cash → have a beerA2=lose travellers cheques → have a beerA3=lose credit cards → have a gin and tonic

A1 A2 and A3 does not imply have 2 beers and a gin and a tonic

Counterfactuals don’t have a chaining structure in general

When context can matter (I)

Possible world 1: small apple, orange


Possible world 2: orange, large apple


Possible world 3: small apple, large apple


Possible world 1: small apple, orange Possible world 2: orange, large apple Possible world 3: small apple, large

apple

Possible responses


Possible world 1: small apple, orange Possible world 2: orange, large apple Possible world 3: small apple, large apple

Possible responsesLarge apple: size, transitivitySmall apple: politeness

A game where context can matter (Blythe 1972 and Packard 1982)

Scores on Face Die α 1 1 4 4 4 4 Die β 3 3 3 3 3 3 Die γ 5 5 2 2 2 2

RulesUmpire selects two dieEach player throws onceHighest number wins

But can’t we redescribe the choice problem?

Translation Possibility TheoremAll intransitive behaviour can be given a

description where transitivity is not violated. Conversely, all transitive behaviour can be given an intransitive description.

Translation

i. Cab, Cbc and Cca

Translation

i. Cab, Cbc and Cca

ii. Refine primitive descriptionl = a out of a and bm = b out a and bn = b out and b and co = c out of b and cp = a out of a and cq = c out a and c

Translation

i. Cab, Cbc and Cca

ii. Refine primitive descriptionl = a out of a and bm = b out a and bn = b out and b and co = c out of b and cp = a out of a and cq = c out a and c

iii. i can then be rewritten Clm, Cno, Cqp

Translation

i. Cab, Cbc and Cac

Translation

i. Cab, Cbc and Cac

ii. Refine primitive description and map onto new language as follows:

l = a out of a and bm = b out a and bm = b out and b and cn = c out of b and cn = a out of a and cl = c out a and c

Translation

i. Cab, Cbc and Cac

ii. Refine primitive description and map onto new language as follows:

l = a out of a and bm = b out a and bm = b out and b and cn = c out of b and cn = a out of a and cl = c out a and c

iii. i can then be rewritten Clm, Cmn, Cnl

Consequence for Empirical Work on Welfare

If rational agents can have intransitive preferences then preference is unlikely to have much apriori structure

From Decision Theory to Social Choice

II. The Capabilities Approach to Welfare Economics, Context, Theory and Operationalisation Issues

The Social Choice and Philosophical Background

Sen’s 3 variables and their equations United Nation’s HDI

(only 3 dims and not distinct for rich countries)

Modern Social Choice and Welfare Theory

Sum UtilityMaximisation(Utilitarian

WelfareEconomics)

What about Non-utility Claims

likeRights

and Responsibilities?

What about Non-welfareOutcomes

Like Freedoms?

What about theDistribution?

What PreferencesCount?

What DimensionsMatter?

Theory (Sen 1985 pp11-4)Sen’s Three Equations

EQ 1. fi = fi(xi) - heterogeneity in conversion

EQ 2. ui = hi(fi) - happinessEQ 3. Qi = {f1,f2,…fm}/endowment -

advantage

xi is vector of commodities possessed by i

f(.) converts resources into activities (doings/beings aka functionings)

“Qi represents the freedom a person has in terms of the choice of functionings, given his personal features Fi…and his command over commodities xi.”

National Income Accounting

WilliamPetty

1600s RichardStone

1930son

Environ-mental

Criticismsof GDP

1970s SocialIndicatorsMovement

1980s on

AmartyaSen

CapabilitiesandHDI

1985/90-

Limits to Gross National Product per capita

Ignores defensive expenditures Ignores value of household work Ignores differences in needs (not so important if adequate equivalence

scales exist) Emphasises material affluence (eg ignores qol at work, rights violations,

how we spend our time (eg Kahneman et al 2004))

Measures monetary value of production or cost of consumption but measurement of human welfare could be more complete

This is a moving target:GNP

Satellite Accounts, Social Accounting Matrices (non-monetary indicators as complements)

HDIMore dimensions, breakdowns

Some Early Empirical Capabilities Research

Human Development Index

Schokkaert and van Ootegem (1990) Enrica Chiappero Martinetti (1994, 2000) Laderchi (1997) Kuklys (2005)

Andrea Brandolini (1999)

“The purpose is to assess the operational content of the approach ie the empirical methods to measure functionings and capabilities…much of what one can do depends the available data….we discussed the practical difficulties of moving to capabilities and proposed to remain in the (refined) functionings space.”

Source: Plenary paper given to the International Economics Association Congress, Buenos Aires

Capabilities Measurement Project (Summary to Date)

Phase I (2000-2006)Primary and secondary dataDevise methodology for capability assessmentConduct national UK survey using

OCAP - 2005 versionSome ideas econometric issues associated with use of capability data

Phase II (2007-2008)extending applications and analyses of capabilities measurement

OCAP - Glasgow public health SHORT versionOCAP - Argentina - Spanish translation

Phase III (2009-OXCAP19 Oxford mental health and coercionChild Development and Old Age

Capabilities Measurement and Assessment

Our approach

1. Elicit indicators of Qi

2. Estimate ui = hi(Qi)

A. Capabilities as ScopeAnand and van Hees (2006)

Question TypesAchievements and ScopePerceived distribution of scope

DomainsHappinessSuccessHealthIntellectual StimulationSocial RelationsEnvironmentsPersonal IntegrityOverall Options

ModelsOverall Options SatisfactionIndividual Achievements

Questions

a. Generally, my life is happy (strongly agree...)b. I feel the scope to seek happiness in my life is

(very good…)c. The proportion of the population who have severely limited

opportunities to seek happiness is (0-9%,…)

a. I have satisfying social relations (strongly agree…)b. I feel the scope to form satisfying social relations in my life is (very

good…)c. The proportion of the population who have severely limited

opportunities to form satisfying social relations is (0-9%)

a. I live a health life for my age (strongly agree…)b. I feel the scope to live a healthy life for my age is (very good…)c. The proportion of the population who have severely limited

opportunities to live healthy lives for their age is (0-9%)

Some ConclusionsEach achievement is a function of its respective

capability

Estimates of other capabilities are often anchored on own capabilities with notable exceptions

Greatest scope: health/environmentLeast scope: social relations/personal integrity

Issues to be Addressed Sample Size Secondary Data Question Type

B. Some secondary data?Anand Hunter and Smith (2005) Social Indicators Research

AimExplore links between satisfaction

and capabilities using BHPS data

Econometric Approach

s = a + bC + e

s = a + bC + cP + e

pjhat = sj-sjhat j=10 life domains

s = a + bC + cPhat + e

Hausman Wu Test for endogeneity: c=0

Adaptation Issues

If Complete and Instantaneous ‘Goods’ would have no observable impact on life satisfaction

There is some evidence of adaptation especially to improvements so capabilities which impact life satisfaction are only the utilitarian capabilities

Two Conclusions

Person specific effects significant

Secondary data exists but is sparse

C. AHRB Project to Measure Capabilities

Research QuestionCan we measure capabilities across a wide spectrum of human domains within the conventions applicable to national household and social surveys?

The Measurement of Capabilities

Developing the OCAP (2005) instrument

Analysis by Sex and Age Violence and the Extension to Risk Latent Class and Multi-dimensional

deprivation

Framework for QuestionsThe OCAP 2005 instrument

Nussbaum’s List

ComprehensiveRobust (similar to others)Don’t require universal claimsHas normative grounding

Question Categories

Life Bodily Health Bodily Integrity Senses Imagination and Thought Emotions Practical Reason Affiliation Nature Leisure Control over one’s Environment

Bodily Health

Being able to have good health, including reproductive health; to be adequately nourished; to have adequate shelter

2 Bodily Health Being able to have good health, BHEALTH (Q57) Does your health in any way limit your daily activities compared to most people of your age? Yes, No. BHPS including reproductive health; BREPRODUCT (Q61) Are you able to have children? Yes, No, Don't know, Prefer not to answer If No Please indicate the reason(s) you are not able to have children. I cannot have children because of: Q62_1 My age; Q62_2 I have had a vasectomy / hysterectomy; Q62-3 Another

medical condition; Q62_4 My partner being unable / unwilling; Q62_5 Another reason; Q62_6 Prefer not to answer. to be adequately nourished BNOURISH (Q59) Do you eat fresh meat, chicken or fish at least twice a week? Yes/No BHPS If No Q60 For which of the following reasons, if any, do you NOT eat fresh meat, chicken or fish at least twice a

week? [Please tick all that apply] I am vegetarian/vegan, I cannot afford to, I do not like eating fresh meat, chicken or fish that often, I do not have

time to prepare fresh food., Some other reason to have adequate shelter. BSHELTER (Q85) Is your current accommodation adequate or inadequate for your current needs? More than adequate, Adequate, Inadequate, Very inadequate BCANMOVE (Q86) Are you prevented from moving home for any reason? Yes, No If yes Q87 What prevents you from moving home? Lack of money/finances; The Council would be unlikely to re-house me; Family responsibilities and/or schooling; I

could not move out of my current accommodation because of some other reason

HEALTH STATUS

Does your health in any way limit your daily activities compared to most people of your age?

Yes, No. BHPS

REPRODUCTION

Are you able to have children? NEWYes, No, Don't know, Prefer not to answer

If no please indicate the reason(s) you are not able to have children

I cannot have children because of: Q62_1 My ageQ62_2 I have had a vasectomy / hysterectomyQ62_3 Another medical conditionQ62_4 My partner being unable / unwillingQ62_5 Another reasonQ62_6 Prefer not to answer

NOURISHMENT

Do you eat fresh meat, chicken or fish at least twice a week?

Yes/No BHPS with additions

If No(Q60)For which of the following reasons, if any, do you NOT eat

fresh meat, chicken or fish at least twice a week? [Please tick all that apply]

I am vegetarian/veganI cannot afford toI do not like eating fresh meat, chicken or fish that often I do not have time to prepare fresh foodSome other reason

ADEQUATE SHELTER

BSHELTER (Q85)Is your current accommodation adequate or inadequate for your

current needs?More than adequate, Adequate, Inadequate, Very inadequate

BCANMOVE (Q86)Are you prevented from moving home for any reason?

Yes, No

If yes (Q87)What prevents you from moving home?

Lack of money/finances; The Council would be unlikely to re-house me; Family responsibilities and/or schooling; I could not move out of my current accommodation because of some other reason

5 Types of Capability Indicators

Type 1. OpportunitiesType 2. AbilitiesType 3. ConstraintsType 4. Functionings + ReasonsType 5. Functionings + Universality

Analyses

Sex/age differences + links to happiness for all Capabilities (Anand et al 2009)

Vulnerability to Violent Crime, gender inequalities, links to income, personality and life satisfaction

Health as a determinant of capability deprivation

Dependent Variable SWB2 Capability Variables Coeff. S.Error t-Stat Prob. BSHELTER 0.27 0.09 2.93 0.00 CDASALTP -0.17 0.08 -2.01 0.04 CSEXSAT 0.25 0.07 3.33 0.00 ELOVE 0.08 0.03 3.03 0.00 EFEELING 0.11 0.03 4.14 0.00 ESTRAIN -0.13 0.04 -3.24 0.00 FGOOD 0.09 0.03 3.17 0.00 FPLAN 0.12 0.02 5.10 0.00 FEVALUATE -0.06 0.03 -2.15 0.03 FROLE 0.36 0.05 6.89 0.00 GCONCERN 0.09 0.03 2.69 0.01 GHOLIDAY 0.27 0.08 3.28 0.00 GWORTH 0.35 0.04 7.86 0.00 JRACEWP -0.54 0.17 -3.18 0.00 JRACEWF 0.08 0.03 2.26 0.02 JSEARCH -0.05 0.02 -2.20 0.03 JSKILLSW 0.08 0.03 2.61 0.01 (linear approximations) Adjusted R-squared 0.53 Akaike info criterion 2.62 Schwarz criterion 2.73 Durbin-Watson stat 1.83

Gender DifferencesDependent Variable SWB2 Female Male Variable Coeff. S. Error t_Stat. Prob. Coeff. S. Error t_Stat. Prob. BSHELTER 0.39 0.13 3.05 0.00 0.02 0.15 0.14 0.89 CDASALTP -0.18 0.10 -1.75 0.08 -0.18 0.17 -1.10 0.27 CSEXSAT 0.14 0.11 1.29 0.20 0.29 0.11 2.70 0.01 ELOVE 0.12 0.03 3.54 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.62 0.54 EFEELING 0.04 0.04 1.00 0.32 0.16 0.04 3.91 0.00 ESTRAIN -0.04 0.05 -0.69 0.49 -0.16 0.06 -2.44 0.02 FGOOD 0.16 0.04 3.93 0.00 0.05 0.04 1.37 0.17 FPLAN 0.11 0.04 3.17 0.00 0.09 0.04 2.52 0.01 FEVALU8 -0.03 0.04 -0.90 0.37 -0.02 0.04 -0.62 0.54 FROLE 0.41 0.07 5.91 0.00 0.30 0.08 3.64 0.00 GCONCERN 0.13 0.05 2.60 0.01 0.08 0.06 1.32 0.19 GHOLIDAY 0.12 0.11 1.09 0.28 0.27 0.14 2.00 0.05 GWORTH 0.32 0.06 5.09 0.00 0.28 0.07 3.92 0.00 JRACEWP -0.23 0.26 -0.88 0.38 -0.73 0.23 -3.24 0.00 JRACEWF 0.04 0.05 0.87 0.39 0.07 0.05 1.56 0.12 MDSWORKF -0.40 0.14 -2.89 0.00 -0.11 0.15 -0.73 0.47 JSEARCH -0.03 0.04 -0.87 0.38 -0.05 0.03 -1.37 0.17 JSKILLSW 0.02 0.04 0.44 0.66 0.11 0.04 2.63 0.01 MWORK -0.03 0.23 -0.13 0.90 -0.75 0.25 -3.02 0.00 MAGE -0.03 0.02 -1.92 0.06 0.01 0.02 0.80 0.42 MAGE2 0.00 0.00 1.19 0.24 0.00 0.00 -0.58 0.56 MGHI 0.03 0.04 0.89 0.37 0.10 0.04 2.30 0.02 MRSOUTH -0.16 0.14 -1.14 0.25 -0.17 0.15 -1.14 0.26 MRMIDWLS 0.14 0.14 0.99 0.32 -0.11 0.15 -0.71 0.48 MRNORTH -0.13 0.13 -1.00 0.32 -0.12 0.14 -0.82 0.41 MRSCOT 0.13 0.18 0.73 0.47 -0.12 0.18 -0.63 0.53 PXTRAVRT 0.08 0.03 2.39 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.78 0.44 PAGREEBL -0.06 0.04 -1.34 0.18 0.00 0.05 -0.08 0.93 PCONSCS -0.07 0.04 -1.80 0.07 0.00 0.04 0.01 0.99 PSTABLE 0.13 0.04 3.52 0.00 0.14 0.04 3.32 0.00 POPEN -0.01 0.04 -0.32 0.75 -0.05 0.05 -1.13 0.26 Mean dependent var 4.82 4.80 Adjusted R-squared 0.58 0.54 Akaike info criterion 2.57 2.64 Schwarz criterion 2.87 2.98 Durbin-Watson stat 1.67 1.65

Violent Crime, Gender Inequalities and Life Satisfaction (Anand and Santos 2007)

Data Past Experience/Future vulnerability to domestic, sexual and other

forms of assault Current experience of Safety in local area during day and night

Emerging Themes1. Violence in general has a negative impact on life satisfaction

whether you use self report or local area reports2. Self-reported vulnerability to future assault drives out past

experience of violence in happiness equations3. Some evidence that higher relative earning females are more at risk

of domestic violence

Health and Capability Poverty

Data Does health limit your daily activities for your age All capabilities, life satisfaction and socio-economic

covariates

Analysis (latent class) Can we identify a ‘super-poor’ group

What are capability classes related to?

BC

AN

MO

VE

0-1

Mean

BN

OR

ISH

0-1

Mean

BS

HLT

ER

0-1

Mean

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

Cluster1Cluster2Cluster3Cluster4Cluster5Cluster6

GA

GE

F0-1

Mean

GA

GE

P0-1

Mean

GC

ON

CR

N0-1

Mean

GG

EN

DF

0-1

Mean

GG

EN

DP

0-1

Mean

GH

OLD

AY

0-1

Mean

GIM

GN

E0-1

Mean

GM

EA

L0-1

Mean

GR

AC

EF

0-1

Mean

GR

AC

EP

0-1

Mean

GR

ELF

0-1

Mean

GR

ELP

0-1

Mean

GS

EX

OR

F0-1

Mean

GS

EX

OR

P0-1

Mean

GW

OR

TH

0-1

Mean

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

Cluster1Cluster2Cluster3Cluster4Cluster5Cluster6

Table 6b Wald Statistics for Health Status and Other Predictors of Class Membership in a Six Latent Class Model

Covariate Model Diagnostic Statistics

Health Status

51.97, 5.50e-10

31.5533, 7.30e-06

42.5177, 4.60e-08

25.6563, 0.0001

30.7661, 1.00e-05

Household Income

31.0012, 9.30e-06

21.9757, 0.00053

26.8417, 6.10e-05

12.0814, 0.034

20.9303, 0.00083

Controls for Age

No Yes

Personality: pagree pconsc

popen pstable pxtravt

29.036, 2.3e- 05 24.1576, 0.0002

55.0846, .3e-10 49.8809, 1.50e-

09 19.8605, 0.0013

29.3056, 2.00e-

05

21.8305, 0.00056 60.14, 1.10e-11 50.2556, 1.20e-

09 24.708, 0.00016

Controls for Regions

No Yes

Notes Cell entries indicate the value of the Wald statistic and its associated p value respectively. Controls for age comprise age and its square. Coefficients for all models in Table 3 are available on request.

POVERTY CLASSES AND THEIR SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILES

Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Cluster 4 Cluster 5 Cluster 6

cluster size 23.7% 20.79% 19.05% 18.30% 10.13% 8.02%

HS 78.49% 82.96% 85.74% 61.45% 67.95% 47.01%

mghi 3.19 3.31 3.33 2.93 2.86 2.32

pagreeable 4.73 4.88 5.50 4.93 5.23 4.41

pconscientious 5.12 5.53 5.87 4.9 5.42 4.7

popen 4.86 4.58 5.36 4.60 5.55 5.22

pstable 4.47 4.87 5.32 3.61 4.70 3.41

pextravert 4.09 4.07 4.84 3.53 4.14 3.51

mage 42.19 46.17 50.63 39.65 47.14 38.14

mmale 59.73% 54.22% 45.55% 40.73% 10.64% 38.41%

mrmidwls 25.05% 29.76% 20.58% 18.30% 18.99% 13.47%

mrnorth 25.15% 28.93% 28.50% 24.78% 32.82% 38.71%

mrscot 10.25% 8.05% 10.64% 12.77% 7.02% 3.45%

mrsouth 16.61% 21.57% 27.10% 24.48% 13.09% 29.58%

Work in Progress and Concluding Thoughts:Limits to Income as a Measure of Welfare

with Krishnakumar et al

GLLAMM (generalised linear and latent mixed models)ordinal response, unobserved heterogeneity, potential endogeneity

Use FIML Results

A ordered probitB ordered probit with instrumentationC gllammD gllamm with lambdas set to zero

sd of eta significant in C and Dunobserved heterogeneity plays a larger role in fitting life satisfaction when it is shared by the capabilities

Capabilities and health-care measurement – a thought

Eq5d is a hybrid measure Affected by adaptation so gives biased

estimates of health-gain from medical interventions

More objective self-reports about ‘normal activities’ might be helpful

Capabilities and Welfare over the Lifespan- Very Young Children

Mother and Child module GSOEP Birth and 2years Data for all three equations:

f1=f(parenting regime, household affluence, local environment)

u2-u0=g(f1…f9)C=h(f1…f9)


Data for all three equations:

Functionings Sing Singing children’s songs with or to the

child Walk Talking walks outdoors Paint Painting or doing arts and crafts Read Reading or telling stories Look Looking at picture books Play Going to the playground Visit Visiting other families with children Shop Going shopping with the child Watch Watching television or videos with the child


Data for all three equations:CapabilitiesTalking, Everyday Skills, Movement, Social Skills Talking t1 Understands brief instructions such as ‘go get your shoes’ t2 Forms sentences with at least two words t3 Speaks in full sentences (with four or more words) t4 Listens attentively to a story for five minutes or longer t5 Passes on simple message such as dinner is ready Eskills e1 Uses a spoon to eat, without assistance and without dripping e2 Blows his/her nose without assistance e3 Uses the toilet to do ‘number two’ e4 Puts on pants and underpants the right way around e5 Brushes his/her teeth without assistance

f1=f(parenting regime, household affluence, local environment)u2-u0=g(f1…f9)C=h(f1…f9)

xsing talk2 2,1 2,2 2,i i i if a b Q b nationality

Capabilities and Functions Simultaneous Equations – 3SLS

Capabilities (Development) Eq

Functionings (Targeting) Eq

xsing1 1,1 1,2 1,

talki i i iQ a b f b age

Talking Capabilities and Singing Activities(Being sung to functioning)

b Se P

Talking equation

Mother Singing 2.573947 1.139581 0.023903

Age 0.084253 0.014116 2.39E-09

_cons -1.06683 1.222908 0.383007

Mother Singing equation

Talk -0.03992 0.044706 0.371832

Nationality -0.16612 0.046607 0.000365

_cons 1.098385 0.186239 3.69E-09

Aic 1570.972

Bic 1595.837

N 466

The Capabilities Measurement Project Emerging Conclusions

Methodological/Theoretical ThemesIt IS possible to measure capabilitiesSecondary data exists but more can be generatedSen’s 3 key formal equations can be estimatedSuggests a link between welfare and the life courseA Behavioural interpretation of links between capabilities and functionings is possible

Substantive ThemesExperienced utility (welfare) appears HIGHLY multi-dimensionalThere is evidence of a small group in UK with low all round capabilitiesHealth is strongly related to capability deprivationSome forms of deprivation are not obviously adapted to eg vulnerability to domestic violence and discrimination at work

Future work…

Future agenda:

expand questions in leisure/nature/workexpand sub-population coverage to make more detailed use of response categories (disability/reproductive choice/children)extend applications beyond England, Scotland and Argentina

expand econometric and economic theory applied to data

replicate internationally

Future work…

Future agenda:

expand questions in leisure/nature/workexpand sub-population coverage to make more detailed use of response categories (disability/reproductive choice/children)extend applications beyond England, Scotland and Argentina

expand econometric and economic theory applied to data

replicate internationally

THANK YOU!

Exercise

You are invited to develop a proposal for empirical research, informed by the capabilities approach. In groups, spend 10-15 mins developing a proposal. Please briefly summarise your proposal.

The proposal can take any shape you want but should say:

(i) What model(s) are being estimated(ii) What data is to be used(iii) What econometric problems will be investigated

the measurement of capabilities

Documents