1. Welzijnsmeting en Beleid: ‘Happiness’ en/of ‘Capabilities’ ?
Luc Van Ootegem & Elsy Verhofstadt
26 Januari 2012
© Luc Van Ootegem & Elsy Verhofstadt

2. Van Ootegem & Verhofstadt 2
Structure
Introduction and concepts
Policy: happiness or capabilities?
Measurement of capabilities
4. Conclusion and suggestions
Van Ootegem & Verhofstadt

3. Van Ootegem & Verhofstadt 3
What is well-being?
Consumption
Income or wealth
Happiness
Welfarism
Non-welfarism
Valuation
Functionings
Achieved
Capabilities
Van Ootegem & Verhofstadt

4. Introduction (happiness)
Happiness is used as a catchall for a wide variety of subjective experiences
Utility
Positive and negative affect
Momentary feelings and emotions
Happiness
Satisfaction with life as a whole …
Van Ootegem & Verhofstadt 4

5. Introduction (capabilities)
Functionings describe what the individual is “doing and being” in life.
Capabilities are the various combinations of functionings (beings and doings) that the person can achieve.
A Capability-set is a set of vectors of functionings,
reflecting the person’s freedom to lead one type of life or another...to choose from possible livings.
Van Ootegem & Verhofstadt 5

6. Introduction (agency)
The key idea of the capability approach is that social arrangements should aim to expand people’s capabilities – their freedom to promote or achieve valuable beings and doings.
Agency: the ability to pursue goals that one values and has reason to value.
= ‘The freedom and the ability to choose for a better / certain life’
Van Ootegem & Verhofstadt 6

7. Van Ootegem & Verhofstadt 7
Introduction (A. Sen)
Van Ootegem & Verhofstadt 7

8. Challenges for Applications
Functionings
Achieved
Capabilities
Valuation
“Indexing” = how to value / the weighting problem
“Listing” = which functionings
and capabilities?
Definition and observability
measurement
Van Ootegem & Verhofstadt 8

9. Van Ootegem & Verhofstadt 9
Listing and weighting
Application requires:
Listing: which dimensions are considered / important ?
Weighting: relative importance of the dimensions (that are listed)?
and : Who determines the weights ?
Strong simplification: we will use an aggregate indicator and make use of survey information at individual level
Van Ootegem & Verhofstadt 9

10. Introduction (development)
From Capabilities and Well-being to Human Development (Alkire, 2009 / HDCA):
“Human development is a process of expanding people’s real freedoms – their valuable capabilities – and empowering people as active agents of equitable development on a shared planet”
Van Ootegem & Verhofstadt 10

11. Van Ootegem & Verhofstadt 11
HDCA
Van Ootegem & Verhofstadt 11

12. Van Ootegem & Verhofstadt 12
Introduction (SD)
From individual Well-being, Capabilities and Human Development to Sustainable Development
Sustainable development is “development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (1987, Brundtland Report).
Van Ootegem & Verhofstadt 12

13. Sustainable development
Functionings
Capabilities
Valuation
Individual Well-being
Other’s (now and future) Well-being
Valuation
Functionings
SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENT
Capabilities
Van Ootegem & Verhofstadt

14. Van Ootegem & Verhofstadt 14
Structure
Introduction and concepts
Policy: happiness or capabilities?
Measurement of capabilities
4. Conclusion and suggestions
Van Ootegem & Verhofstadt

16. Happiness consequences
Applied Positive Psychology research has shown that happy people:
live longer and are more healthy
are more productive
have more friends
are more creative
have more confidence …
Van Ootegem & Verhofstadt 16

17. So happiness is relevant and very popular
BUT
So happiness is relevant and very popular
BUT
Is it also a good indicator of individuals’ well-being ?
Van Ootegem & Verhofstadt

18. Van Ootegem & Verhofstadt 18
Criteria
1. Agency (freedom to prefer a – better - life)
2. What do we measure / what is the meaning ?
3. Ethical implication of what is measured
Van Ootegem & Verhofstadt

19. Which country do you prefer?
Characteristic
Belgium
Brazil
Years of schooling of adults > 15 year
9.3
4.9
GDP capita in ppp 2009 $
9 400 $
% of population having 1 $ a day or less
< 2 % %
Daily happiness experience (Galup) (../10)
7.3
7.5
China
Life expectancy at birth (2010) 79 74
% of population older than 25 years with a higher educational degree 27 1
% of population “struggling or suffering” 44 91
Mortality rate among children per 1000 births
4.38
16.51
Children that don't reach the age of 5 (per 1000) 5 21
7.6
Characteristic
Belgium
Brazil
Years of schooling of adults > 15 year
9.3
4.9
GDP capita in ppp 2009 $
9 400 $
% of population having 1 $ a day or less
< 2 % %
China
Life expectancy at birth (2010) 79 74
% of population older than 25 years with a higher educational degree 27 1
% of population “struggling or suffering” 44 91
Mortality rate among children per 1000 births
4.38
16.51
Children that don't reach the age of 5 (per 1000) 5 21
Characteristic
Country A
Country B
Years of schooling of adults > 15 year
9.3
4.9
GDP capita in ppp 2009 $
9 400 $
% of population having 1 $ a day or less
< 2 % %
Life expectancy at birth (2010) 79 74
% of population older than 25 years with a higher educational degree 27 1
% of population “struggling or suffering” 44 91
Mortality rate among children per 1000 births
4.38
16.51
Children that don't reach the age of 5 (per 1000) 5 21
Van Ootegem & Verhofstadt 19

20. Agency and happiness
“Agency” = You prefer living in country A (Belgium) to living in country B (Brazil or China) because you choose for the living conditions in country A.
AGENCY (corresponding with dominance in this example) contradicts with happiness because
… happiness is lower in Belgium
Van Ootegem & Verhofstadt 20

21. What is / or could be “wrong with being happy” ?
Agency and happiness
What is / or could be “wrong with being happy” ?
(examples of Brasil and China)
adaptation to situation with “misery”
aspirations and “high hopes” for the future
Van Ootegem & Verhofstadt 21

22. Happiness not always wrong
Belgium
Sierra Leone
% of population (>15y) able to read and write
99%
35%
Expected years of schooling
16 year
7 year
HDI (and ranking)
0.87 (18)
0.32 (158)
Satisfaction with life as a whole
7.25
3.55
Belgium
Sierra Leone
% of population (>15y) able to read and write
99%
35%
Expected years of schooling
16 year
7 year
HDI (and ranking)
0.87 (18)
0.32 (158)
You would not like to live in Sierra Leone
And you are right, also looking at the satisfaction with life data
Van Ootegem & Verhofstadt 22

23. From macro to micro level
The example in previous section was “constructed” and on a macro level
Do the happiness reports of people in Flanders satisfy the dominance principle?
(the following slides use representative data for Flanders, LEVO, 2010)
Van Ootegem & Verhofstadt

24. Van Ootegem & Verhofstadt 24
Micro level
income
42%
15%
health
23%
20%
Van Ootegem & Verhofstadt 24

25. Van Ootegem & Verhofstadt 25
Micro level
income
9.6%
health
9.5%
Van Ootegem & Verhofstadt 25

26. Happiness is not compatible with the dominance- requirement
Conclusion
Happiness is not compatible with the dominance- requirement
some countries with worse living conditions have a higher happiness score than a country dominating on all living conditions
if we use individual satisfaction as well-being indicator in Flanders, almost 20% does not fulfill the basic requirement of dominance!
This could lead to policy conclusions that are “wrong” and are contradicting “agency” (=dominance)
Van Ootegem & Verhofstadt 26

27. Van Ootegem & Verhofstadt 27
Criteria
1. Agency (freedom to prefer a better life)
2. What do we measure / what is the meaning ?
Happiness ‘cannot be measured‘
The information is not interpersonally comparable
 Cardinal interpretation is not possible (and that is exactly what is done in the happiness literature)
3. Ethical meaning of what is measured
Van Ootegem & Verhofstadt

28. Using alternative happiness questions
When reporting a happiness score, every individual has his own ‘frame of reference’
Experiments with alternative happiness questions making some ‘frame of reference’ explicit:
AWC: Happiness with comparison to an Average World Citizen (external reference point – 5/10)
ACSA: Anamnestic Comparative Self Assessment of happiness (internal reference point: worst / best moment in life)
Van Ootegem & Verhofstadt

29. Van Ootegem & Verhofstadt 29
Criteria
Agency (freedom to prefer a better life)
What do we measure / what is the meaning ?
Ethical implication of what is measured
(assuming that measurability is no problem)
= Sen : happiness or utility is not the right metric for well-being
Van Ootegem & Verhofstadt

30. Van Ootegem & Verhofstadt 30
Ethical shortcomings
“Physical-condition neglect”
mental attitude of the person does not sufficiently take into account the real physical conditions
expensive tastes
adaptation to objective circumstances
“Valuation neglect”
valuing a life is a reflective activity; ‘being happy’ or ‘being satisfied’ is only one element of this
Van Ootegem & Verhofstadt

31. Van Ootegem & Verhofstadt 31
”It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, is of a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question. The other party to the comparison knows both sides.”
(John Stuart Mill)
Van Ootegem & Verhofstadt

32. What when using capabilities ?
Agency
Respects agency and respects preferences (capabilities are ‘before’ preferences)
2. What do we measure?
Can we measure capabilities? And if so, is this measurement interpersonally comparable?
3. Ethical meaning
 Using a non-utility approach is an answer for the ethical shortcomings of using happiness
Van Ootegem & Verhofstadt

33. Van Ootegem & Verhofstadt 33
Structure
Introduction and concepts
Policy: happiness or capabilities?
Measurement of capabilities
4. Conclusion and suggestions
Van Ootegem & Verhofstadt

34. Van Ootegem & Verhofstadt 34
Measurement
In literature, few attempts to measure capabilities (Anand & Van Hees, 2006)
Van Ootegem L. & Verhofstadt E. (2012): a questionnaire with students to try out the measurement of functionings and capabilities (Social Indicators Research, forthcoming)
Conclusions:
 Measurement of functionings and capabilities is possible making use of survey questions
Van Ootegem & Verhofstadt

35. Primary data gathering
From a population of students to representative samples: LEVO 2009 / 2010 / 2011 …
(N approximately 1500)
Measuring satisfaction and capabilities in general:
“how is your satisfaction with life in general ?”
“how do you consider your possibilities / opportunities in life in general ?”
Van Ootegem & Verhofstadt

36. Van Ootegem & Verhofstadt 36
Some results
Approaching well-being from the angle of life satisfaction or from the point of view of capabilities: does it make a difference?
Three preliminary / noteworthy results
Comparing subgroups
Life cycle differences
Determinants
Van Ootegem & Verhofstadt

37. (1) Comparing subgroups
Satisfaction
Capabilities
Total (representative) sample
7,39
7,40
Subgroups
Working full-time
7,63
7,64
Working part-time
7,51
7,53
Student
7,49
7,86
Pensioner
7,42
7,27
Unemployed
6,36
6,90
Incapable to work
5,98
6,28
Househusband/wife
7,16
7,57
(LEVO 2010)
Van Ootegem & Verhofstadt

38. Van Ootegem & Verhofstadt 38
(2) Life cycle
(LEVO 2010)
Van Ootegem & Verhofstadt

39. Van Ootegem & Verhofstadt 39
(3) Determinants
Conclusions based on students questionnaire:
(Van Ootegem L. & Verhofstadt E., Social Indicators Research, 2012)
The capabilities interpretation of well-being points to an important role of the parents (especially when they are divorced or rather strict)
The information on satisfaction is more related to personal and situational characteristics (such as not being single or the number of family visits).
Van Ootegem & Verhofstadt

40. Van Ootegem & Verhofstadt 40
(3) determinants
Conclusions based on LEVO 2010:
Income, health, live in pleasant environment, attitude and emotionally concerned (-) are important for both (satisfaction and capabilities)
Capabilities versus satisfaction
Capabilities : educational level, act according to personal vision, conscientious
Satisfaction : social life, selfish (-)
Van Ootegem & Verhofstadt

41. Van Ootegem & Verhofstadt 41
Structure
Introduction and concepts
Policy: happiness or capabilities?
Measurement of capabilities
4. Conclusion and suggestions
Van Ootegem & Verhofstadt

42. Van Ootegem & Verhofstadt 42
Theory
Happiness
Capabilities
Agency
What do we measure?
Ethical meaning
In theory, for policy objectives
in favour of the use of a capabilities concept of well- being
But more research needed on the issue of measurement / operationalisation.
 we have presented / used an approach using self- reported capabilities
Van Ootegem & Verhofstadt

43. What when using self- reported capabilities ?
Agency
What about agency and respect for preferences?
2. Measurement
Question of interpersonal comparability remains
3. Ethical meaning
 Using a non-utility approach is an improvement, irrespective of the kind of data used
Van Ootegem & Verhofstadt

44. Does it make a difference?
Approaching well-being from the angle of life satisfaction or from the point of view of capabilities does make a difference!
 Results (preliminary) making use of self-reported measures, in summary :
Capabilities: more future oriented
Satisfaction: more backward looking
Van Ootegem & Verhofstadt

45. Van Ootegem & Verhofstadt 45
and/or ... and more
General conclusion: we need an operationalisation of capabilities complementary to happiness- information
And there is more: if we are in favour of the use of a muldi-dimensional concept of well-being (see triangles), questions are then:
How to weight very different dimensions ?
Who is to decide on the weights ?
Important role for the civil society
Van Ootegem & Verhofstadt

46. Van Ootegem & Verhofstadt 46
1. Consistency
Role Civil Society
Moving from Individual Well-being
to Sustainable Development
This implies that there is need for higher weights (more attention) for
Capabilities
Human development
Sustainable development
So that we can move “beyond individualism” (...and beyond happiness)
Van Ootegem & Verhofstadt