Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Selecting Capabilities for Quality of Life Measurement

  • Published:
Social Indicators Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The capability approach advocates that interpersonal comparisons be made in the space of functionings and capabilities. However, Amartya Sen has not specified which capabilities should be selected as the relevant ones. This has provoked two types of criticism. The stronger critique is Martha Nussbaum’s claim that Sen should endorse one specific list of relevant capabilities. The weaker claim is that some systematic methodological reasoning should be conducted on how such a selection could be done. I will first suggest that Nussbaum’s claim can be better understood by looking at some of the core differences between her and Sen’s version of the capability approach. Then I will argue against the use of Nussbaum’s list for quality of life measurement on grounds of epistemology and legitimacy. However, procedural methods also have their problems, notably the danger of selection biases. The paper concludes by sketching one possible way to minimize such biases and by briefly discussing a set of methods for the selection of capabilities for quality of life measurement.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • S. Alkire (2002) Valuing Freedoms. Sen’s Capability Approach and Poverty Reduction Oxford University Press New York

    Google Scholar 

  • E. Anderson (1999) ArticleTitleWhat is the point of equality? Ethics 109 287–337 Occurrence Handle10.1086/233897

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • L. Barclay (2003) ArticleTitleWhat kind of liberal is Martha Nussbaum? Sats: Nordic Journal of Philosophy 4 IssueID2 5–24

    Google Scholar 

  • D. Bubeck (1995) Care, Gender and Justice Clarendon Press Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • T. Burchardt (2004) ArticleTitleCapabilities and disability: The capabilities framework and the social model of disability Disability and Society 19 IssueID7 735–751 Occurrence Handle10.1080/0968759042000284213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charusheela, S.: 2004, Ethnocentric Modernism in Development Frameworks: A Limit to Martha Nussbaum’s Universalist Ethics, Mimeo (University of Hawa’I at Manoa).

  • E. Chiappero-Martinetti (2003) Unpaid work and household well-being: a non-monetary assessment A. Picchio (Eds) Unpaid Work and the Economy. A Gender Analysis of the Standards of Living Routledge London

    Google Scholar 

  • D. Cornell (2004) Defending Ideals Routledge New York

    Google Scholar 

  • D. Crocker (2004) Deliberating Democracy: Ethics, Capability, and Democracy University of Maryland mimeo

    Google Scholar 

  • M. Deveaux (2002) ArticleTitlePolitical morality and culture: what difference do differences make? Social Theory and Practice 28 IssueID3 503–518

    Google Scholar 

  • J. Drèze A. Sen (2002) India: Development and Participation Oxford University Press Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • R. Erikson R. Åberg (1987) Welfare in Transition A Survey of Living Conditions in Sweden, 1968–1981 Clarendon Press Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • N. Folbre (1994) Who Pays for the Kids? Gender and the Structures of Constraint Routledge New York

    Google Scholar 

  • S. Fukuda-Parr (2003) ArticleTitle‘The human development paradigm: Operationalizing Sen’s ideas on capabilities Feminist Economics 9 IssueID2/3 301–317 Occurrence Handle10.1080/1354570022000077980

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D. Gasper I. Staveren Particlevan (2003) ArticleTitleDevelopment as freedom – and as what else? Feminist Economics 9 IssueID2/3 137–161 Occurrence Handle10.1080/1354570032000078663

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • A. Jagger (2002) ArticleTitleChalleging women’s global inequalities: Some priorities for Western philosophers Philosophical Topics 30 IssueID2 229–252

    Google Scholar 

  • R. Kapur (2001) ArticleTitleImperial parody Feminist Theory 2 IssueID1 79–88 Occurrence Handle10.1177/14647000122229389

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuklys, W.: 2004, Amartya Sen’s Capability Approach: Theoretical Insights and Empirical Applications (Unpublished PhD dissertation, Cambridge University)

  • Kuklys, W. and I. Robeyns: 2004, ‘Sen’s capability approach to welfare economics’, Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 0415, Cambridge University

  • N. Menon (2002) ArticleTitleUniversalism without foundations? Economy and Society 31 IssueID1 152–169 Occurrence Handle10.1080/03085140120109295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, M.: 1988, ‘Nature, functioning and capability: Aristotle on political distribution’, Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, Supplementary Volume, pp. 145–184

  • M. Nussbaum (2000) Women and Human Development The Capabilities Approach Cambridge University Press Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • M. Nussbaum (2003) ArticleTitleCapabilities as fundamental entitlements: Sen and social justice Feminist Economics 9 IssueID2/3 33–59 Occurrence Handle10.1080/1354570022000077926

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • S. Okin (1989) Justice, Gender and the Family Basic Books New York

    Google Scholar 

  • S. Okin (2003) ArticleTitlePoverty, well-being, and gender: What counts, who’s heard? Philosophy & Public Affairs 31 IssueID3 280–316

    Google Scholar 

  • J. Rawls (1993) Political Liberalism Columbia University Press New York

    Google Scholar 

  • S. Reddy T. Pogge (2003) How Not to Count the Poor Columbia University mimeo

    Google Scholar 

  • Robeyns, I.: 2000, ‘An unworkable idea or a promising alternative? Sen’s capability approach re-examined,’ Center for Economic Studies Discussion paper 00.30, (Katholieke Universiteit Leuven)

  • Robeyns, I. 2002, Gender Inequality: A Capability Perspective (Unpublished PhD dissertation, Cambridge University)

  • I. Robeyns (2003) ArticleTitleSen’s capability approach and gender inequality: selecting relevant capabilities Feminist Economics 9 IssueID2/3 61–92 Occurrence Handle10.1080/1354570022000078024

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • I. Robeyns (2005) ArticleTitleThe capability approach: a theoretical survey Journal of Human Development 6 IssueID1 93–114 Occurrence Handle10.1080/146498805200034266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • J. Roemer (1996) Theories of Distributive Justice Harvard University Press Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • A. Sen (1980) Equality of what? S. McMurrin (Eds) The Tanner Lectures on Human Values University of Utah Press Salt Lake City

    Google Scholar 

  • A. Sen (1984) ArticleTitleThe living standard Oxford Economic Papers 36 74–90

    Google Scholar 

  • A. Sen (1985a) Commodities and Capabilities North Holland Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • A. Sen (1985b) ArticleTitleWell-being, agency and freedom The Journal of Philosophy LXXXII IssueID4 169–221

    Google Scholar 

  • A. Sen (1987) The standard of living G. Hawthorn (Eds) The Standard of Living Cambridge University Press Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • A. Sen (1992) Inequality Re-examined Clarendon Press Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • A. Sen (1993) Capability and well-being M. Nussbaum A. Sen (Eds) The Quality of Life Clarendon Press Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • A. Sen (1997) ArticleTitleMaximization and the act of choice Econometrica 65 IssueID4 745–779 Occurrence HandleMR1458430

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • A. Sen (1999) Development as Freedom Knopf New York

    Google Scholar 

  • A. Sen (2004) ArticleTitleCapabilities, lists, and public reason Feminist Economics 10 IssueID3 77–80 Occurrence Handle10.1080/1354570042000315163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • F. Stewart (2001) ArticleTitleBook review of women and human development by Martha Nussbaum Journal of International Development 13 1189–1202 Occurrence Handle10.1002/jid.773

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • R. Sugden (1993) ArticleTitleWelfare, resources and capabilities: A review of inequality re-examined by Amartya Sen Journal of Economic Literature XXXVI 1947–1962

    Google Scholar 

  • M. Tea (2003) Introduction M. Tea (Eds) Without a Net. The Female Experience of Growing Up Working Class Seal Press Emeryville, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • E. Unterhalter (2003) ArticleTitleThe capabilities approach and gendered education. An examination of South African complexities Theory and Research in Education 1 IssueID1 7–22 Occurrence Handle10.1177/1477878503001001002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • B. Williams (1987) The standard of living: interests and capabilities G. Hawthorn (Eds) The Standard of Living Cambridge University Press Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Political Science, University of Amsterdam, Oudezijds Achterburgwal 237, 1012, Amsterdam, DL, The Netherlands

    Ingrid Robeyns

Authors
  1. Ingrid Robeyns
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ingrid Robeyns.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Robeyns, I. Selecting Capabilities for Quality of Life Measurement. Soc Indic Res 74, 191–215 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-005-6524-1

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-005-6524-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation