1. Luc Van Ootegem & Elsy Verhofstadt Presentation at the conference “New directions in Welfare” Oxford 29 June – 1 July 2009 © Luc Van Ootegem & Elsy Verhofstadt Challenges for Direct Capabilities Measurement

2. 1. Introduction 2. From triangle to questionnaire 3. Description of the samples 4. The meaning of primary data 5. Modelling of well-being 6. Conclusion Van Ootegem & Verhofstadt 2 Structure

3. Functionings Achieved Capabilities Valuation Non-welfarism Consumption Income or wealth Happiness Welfarism Introduction Van Ootegem & Verhofstadt 3

4. “Listing” = which functionings and capabilities? “Indexing” = how to value and the weighting problem Observability? Challenges Functionings Achieved Capabilities Valuation Van Ootegem & Verhofstadt 4 Introduction

5. Secondary data-base research Functionings Achieved Capabilities Valuation Van Ootegem & Verhofstadt 5 Solution is data-driven: Re-interpretation of existing data and empirical results  Almost all empirical research Introduction

6. Primary data-base research Functionings Achieved Capabilities Valuation Van Ootegem & Verhofstadt 6  Large potential to think about good questions Introduction Anand & van Hees, 2006 Anand et al., 2009

7. Van Ootegem & Verhofstadt 7 Two challenges 1.Real meaning of primary data –Functionings versus capabilities –Self-reporting versus valuation –Objective versus subjective functionings 2. Explanatory models –Life satisfaction –Functionings –Capabilities

8. 1. Introduction 2. From triangle to questionnaire 3. Description of the samples 4. The meaning of primary data 5. Modelling of well-being 6. Conclusion Van Ootegem & Verhofstadt 8

9. Functionings Achieved Capabilities Valuation Van Ootegem & Verhofstadt 9 From triangle

10. Van Ootegem & Verhofstadt 10 To questionnaire Level /MeasurementObjective OSubjective SValuation V Capabilities QOQSQVQ Achieved Functionings BOBSBVB Questionnaire-versionAll versionsVersion1Version2 Version 3 and 4: Refined Functionings General satisfaction: all versions ‘How satisfied are you with your life as a whole? Give a score from 1 to 10, where 1 indicates very unsatisfied and 10 very satisfied.’

11. Van Ootegem & Verhofstadt 11 Life domains

12. Van Ootegem & Verhofstadt 12 Subjective measurement and Valuation Questions for life domain: ‘happy life’ −SQ: How are the possibilities for you … to seek happiness in your life −SB: Generally, I lead a happy life −VQ: I am satisfied with the possibilities…to seek happiness in my life −VB: I am satisfied with … the extent of happiness in my life  Scales −SQ: from 1 ‘completely unsatisfactory’ to 7 ‘excellent’ −SB/VQ/VB: from 1’completely disagree’ to 7 ‘completely agree’

13. Objective measurements

14. Van Ootegem & Verhofstadt 14 Examples Life domain: ‘do sports’ −SQ: How are the possibilities for you … to do sports −SB: I do sports sufficiently −VQ: I am satisfied with the possibilities…to do sports −VB: I am satisfied with … the sports I am doing −OB: How many hours a week do you play sports? −OQ: You do this: (thick the most important reason)  at the insistence of others or pressed by the circumstances  to find favour in someone’s eyes  because you think it is important  because it is fully in keeping with your belief and it fits your own principles and values

15. 1. Introduction 2. From triangle to questionnaire 3. Description of the samples 4. The meaning of primary data 5. Modelling of well-being 6. Conclusion Van Ootegem & Verhofstadt 15

16. Van Ootegem & Verhofstadt 16 Goal, population, samples Goal of research: primarily of a methodological nature Population: First year Bachelor students in business economics at the University College Ghent Samples: −Each version is tested with a different sample −4 samples of about 120 students (483 in total) −Each sample is representative for the population

17. Van Ootegem & Verhofstadt 17 Socio-economic characteristics (SEC) 1.Personal characteristics: sex, relational position, number of siblings 2.Indicators of social background: educational level mother, situation parents, parental home, strictness parents 3.Variables related to student life: accommodated in student’s apartment, having a job while student, pay for studies 4.Capacity: hours of maths and final score in third stage secondary education, chance to pass 5.Personality: Big-five personality traits (extraversion, altruism, punctuality, emotional stability, creativity) + question refering to the mood

18. 1. Introduction 2. From triangle to questionnaire 3. Description of the samples 4. The meaning of primary data 5. Modelling of well-being 6. Conclusion Van Ootegem & Verhofstadt 18

19. Van Ootegem & Verhofstadt 19 Two challenges 1.Real meaning of primary data –Functionings versus capabilities –Self-reporting versus valuation –Objective versus subjective functionings 2. Explanatory models for –Life satisfaction –Functionings –Capabilities

20. Van Ootegem & Verhofstadt 20 Functionings vs capabilities

21. Van Ootegem & Verhofstadt 21 Self-reporting vs valuation

22. Objective and subjective measurements of functionings

23. Van Ootegem & Verhofstadt 23 The meaning of… Respondents do not distinguish between subjective reporting and valuation (as being satisfied with) The set of capabilities is perceived as larger than the achieved functionings Subjective measurement of functionings correlates with objective measurements

24. 1. Introduction 2. From triangle to questionnaire 3. Description of the samples 4. The meaning of primary data 5. Modelling of well-being 6. Conclusion Van Ootegem & Verhofstadt 24

25. Functionings Achieved Capabilities Valuation Three levels Three equations Van Ootegem & Verhofstadt 25 Well-being models

26. Y = f (X) Life satisfaction Functionings Capabilities SEC Valuation Functioning Achieved Capabilities Van Ootegem & Verhofstadt 26 Well-being models

27. General satisfaction

28. Y = f (X) Functionings Capabilities SEC Valuation Functioning Achieved Capabilities Van Ootegem & Verhofstadt 28 Well-being models

29. Van Ootegem & Verhofstadt 29 Functionings

30. Van Ootegem & Verhofstadt 30 Functionings

31. Van Ootegem & Verhofstadt 31 Comparing results… Student specific variables (‘non-successful previous attempt to higher education’ and thinking to have a higher ‘chance to pass this year’) have an influence on some functionings, but only the ‘chance to pass’ has a direct effect on general life satisfaction. General life satisfaction is not directly gender-related, but some functioning levels are. The parental situation clearly influences some functioning levels while the impact on general satisfaction can only be found on a lower significance level.

32. Y = f (X) Capabilities SEC Valuation Functioning Achieved Capabilities Van Ootegem & Verhofstadt 32 Well-being models

33. Capabilities

34. Van Ootegem & Verhofstadt 34 Comparing results… Extraverted students have more life satisfaction, an effect that vanishes when controlling for functionings. Extraversion has no direct influence on the more psychological functionings.  It is not extraversion as such that creates life satisfaction. Satisfaction originates from the indirect effect of extraversion via capabilities on (higher) functionings. A similar reasoning holds for ‘mood’ and to a lower extent for ‘emotional stability’.

35. 1. Introduction 2. From triangle to questionnaire 3. Description of the samples 4. The meaning of primary data 5. Modelling of well-being 6. Conclusion Van Ootegem & Verhofstadt 35

36. Van Ootegem & Verhofstadt 36 Conclusion Concrete questioning does make a difference. Respondents do not make a significant difference (in most of the cases) between subjective reporting on and valuation of a functioning level or capability set. The capability set is larger than the achieved functionings. General life satisfaction is strongly influenced by (higher) reported functioning levels, and not by (higher) capabilities. Achieved functionings are higher when the (reported) capabilities are higher.