IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/uto/dipeco/201005.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Making Amartya Sen’s Capability Approach Operational: A Random Scale Framework for Empirical Modeling

Author

Abstract

Amartya Sen has developed the so-called capability approach to take account of the view that income on its own is not enough to measure economic inequality. This is because knowledge about people’s income does not tell us what they are able to acquire with that income. For example, people with the same income may not have access to health and transportation services, schools and opportunities in the labor market. Recently, there has been growing interest in empirical studies based on the capability approach. Most of these, however, are only loosely related to quantitative behavioral microeconomic theory, at least in a concrete and empirically operational way. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that the theory of random scale (utility) models (RSM) offers a suitable and powerful framework for representing and accounting for some key aspects of Sen’s theory. In this paper we reinterpret the concepts Sen has proposed within the RSM framework, with particular reference to representations that are operational in empirical contexts.

Suggested Citation

  • Dagsvik John K., 2010. "Making Amartya Sen’s Capability Approach Operational: A Random Scale Framework for Empirical Modeling," Department of Economics and Statistics Cognetti de Martiis. Working Papers 201005, University of Turin.
    • Handle: RePEc:uto:dipeco:201005
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.est.unito.it/do/home.pl/Download?doc=/allegati/wp2010dip/5_wp_dagsvick.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paul Anand & Graham Hunter & Ron Smith, 2005. "Capabilities and Well-Being: Evidence Based on the Sen–Nussbaum Approach to Welfare," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 74(1), pages 9-55, October.
    2. McFadden, Daniel L., 1984. "Econometric analysis of qualitative response models," Handbook of Econometrics, in: Z. Griliches† & M. D. Intriligator (ed.), Handbook of Econometrics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 24, pages 1395-1457, Elsevier.
    3. Joseph A. Herriges & Catherine L. Kling, 1999. "Nonlinear Income Effects in Random Utility Models," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 81(1), pages 62-72, February.
    4. Daniel McFadden, 2001. "Economic Choices," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(3), pages 351-378, June.
    5. Edward R. Morey & Robert D. Rowe & Michael Watson, 1993. "A Repeated Nested-Logit Model of Atlantic Salmon Fishing," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 75(3), pages 578-592.
    6. Sen, Amartya, 1997. "On Economic Inequality," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198292975.
    7. Van Praag, Bernard, 1971. "The welfare function of income in Belgium: An empirical investigation," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 11(3), pages 337-369.
    8. Dagsvik, John K, 1994. "Discrete and Continuous Choice, Max-Stable Processes, and Independence from Irrelevant Attributes," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 62(5), pages 1179-1205, September.
    9. Dagsvik, John K. & Strom, Steinar & Jia, Zhiyang, 2006. "Utility of income as a random function: Behavioral characterization and empirical evidence," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 51(1), pages 23-57, January.
    10. Seidl, Christian, 1994. "How sensible is the Leyden individual welfare function of income?," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 1633-1659, October.
    11. Kapteyn, Arie & Wansbeek, Tom, 1985. "The individual welfare function : A review," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 6(4), pages 333-363, December.
    12. Sugden, Robert, 1993. "Welfare, Resources, and Capabilities: A Review [Inequality Reexamined]," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 31(4), pages 1947-1962, December.
    13. John K. Dagsvik & Anders Karlström, 2005. "Compensating Variation and Hicksian Choice Probabilities in Random Utility Models that are Nonlinear in Income," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 72(1), pages 57-76.
    14. Paul Anand & Cristina Santos & Ron Smith, 2007. "The measurement of capabilities," Open Discussion Papers in Economics 67, The Open University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Economics.
    15. van Praag, Bernard M. S. & Kapteyn, Arie, 1994. "How sensible is the Leyden individual welfare function of income? A reply," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 38(9), pages 1817-1825, December.
    16. van Praag, Bernard M. S., 1991. "Ordinal and cardinal utility : An integration of the two dimensions of the welfare concept," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 50(1-2), pages 69-89, October.
    17. Flinn, C. & Heckman, J., 1982. "New methods for analyzing structural models of labor force dynamics," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 115-168, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. John K. Dagsvik, 2012. "Making Sen's capability approach operational. A random scale framework," Discussion Papers 710, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    2. John Dagsvik, 2013. "Making Sen’s capability approach operational: a random scale framework," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 74(1), pages 75-105, January.
    3. Dagsvik, John K. & Strom, Steinar & Jia, Zhiyang, 2006. "Utility of income as a random function: Behavioral characterization and empirical evidence," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 51(1), pages 23-57, January.
    4. Dagsvik, John K., 2018. "Invariance axioms and functional form restrictions in structural models," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 85-95.
    5. Martin Binder, 2014. "Subjective Well-Being Capabilities: Bridging the Gap Between the Capability Approach and Subjective Well-Being Research," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 15(5), pages 1197-1217, October.
    6. Plug, Erik J. S. & van Praag, Bernard M. S. & Hartog, Joop, 1999. "If we knew ability, how would we tax individuals?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(2), pages 183-211, May.
    7. John Dagsvik & Stine Røine Hoff, 2011. "Justification of functional form assumptions in structural models: applications and testing of qualitative measurement axioms," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 70(2), pages 215-254, February.
    8. John K. Dagsvik & Zhiyang Jia, 2006. "Labor Supply as a Choice among Latent Job Opportunities. A Practical Empirical Approach," Discussion Papers 481, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    9. Dagsvik, John K, 2017. "Invariance Axioms and Functional Form Restrictions in Structural Models," Memorandum 08/2017, Oslo University, Department of Economics.
    10. Ada Ferrer-i-Carbonell & Bernard Van Praag, 2003. "Income Satisfaction Inequality and its Causes," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 1(2), pages 107-127, August.
    11. Marley, A. A. J., 2002. "Random utility models and their applications: recent developments," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 289-302, July.
    12. Ada Ferrer-i-Carbonell, 2013. "Happiness economics," SERIEs: Journal of the Spanish Economic Association, Springer;Spanish Economic Association, vol. 4(1), pages 35-60, March.
    13. Wim Groot & Henriëtte Maassen van den Brink & Erik Plug, 2004. "Money for health: the equivalent variation of cardiovascular diseases," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(9), pages 859-872, September.
    14. A. de Palma & K. Kilani, 2003. "Compensating Variation for Discrete Choice Models," THEMA Working Papers 2003-02, THEMA (THéorie Economique, Modélisation et Applications), Université de Cergy-Pontoise.
    15. Brown, Gordon D. A. & Gardner, Jonathan & Oswald, Andrew J. & Qian, Jing, 2005. "Does Wage Rank Affect Employees' Wellbeing?," IZA Discussion Papers 1505, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    16. Min Qiang Zhao & Ju-Chin Huang, 2018. "The Representative Consumer Approximation Bias in Discrete Choice Welfare Analysis," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 71(4), pages 969-984, December.
    17. Thor O. Thoresen & Zhiyang Jia & Peter J. Lambert, 2013. "Distributional benchmarking in tax policy evaluations," Discussion Papers 765, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    18. Dagsvik, John K. & Strøm, Steinar & Locatelli, Marilena, 2021. "Marginal compensated effects in discrete labor supply models," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).
    19. Richard Batley & Thijs Dekker, 2019. "The Intuition Behind Income Effects of Price Changes in Discrete Choice Models, and a Simple Method for Measuring the Compensating Variation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 74(1), pages 337-366, September.
    20. Bernard M.S. van Praag, 2004. "The Connexion Between Old and New Approaches to Financial Satisfaction," CESifo Working Paper Series 1212, CESifo.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:uto:dipeco:201005. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Laura Ballestra or Cinzia Carlevaris (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/detorit.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.