Transcript Measuring Freedom - Spotlight | Oxford Poverty & Human

Measuring Freedom
On the Operationalisation of the Capability Approach
Sebastian Silva-Leander
QEH, Oxford
28 May 2008
Introduction
• Is it possible to move beyond functionings in the
measurement of capabilities?
– Can it operate the transition from axiomatic discussion to
operational framework?
– Deconstruct the evolving concept of “capability” into its different
components.
– Identify conceptual hurdles that have prevented the
operationalisation of the capability approach.
– Put it back together in a way that avoids some of the pitfalls.
Caveats
• Synthesis and overview rather than a new
theory
• Stretches across several disciplines
• Comprehensive and didactic rather than
technical
Structure
• Part I: What are we trying to Measure?
• Mapping
• Deconstruction
• Reconstruction
• Part II: How are we going to Measure it?
• Autonomy
• Agency
• Techniques
• Part II: Measuring it!
• Poverty
• Development
1.1. Mapping: A.K. Sen
• Origins of neoclassical economics virtually
indistinguishable from moral philosophy (utility,
maximisation, pareto-optimality)
• Utilitarianism (and economics) as the culmination of the
“naturalist” project in moral philosophy
[1]
• Predictability: is the condition for applying scientific
methodology
2]
• But: The elimination of the Free will means the
elimination of morality : Hobbesian man, maximisation
[3]
1.1. Mapping: Choice
Inputs
rules
income
Outputs
goods
capabilities
functionings
characteristics midfare
Opportunity
Agency
Inputs and outputs are no longer equivalent
Objectives
wellbeing
1.1. Mapping: Literature
Positive
Basic Needs
SWB
Neoclassical
External
Laws
Human
Development
Utilitarian
Nussbaum
Internal
Sen
Income
Goods
Capabilities
Functionings
Rawls
Cohen
Libertarian
Harsanyi
Negative
Wellbeing
1.2. Deconstruction: Justice vs. Freedom
• Qualified priority of liberty avoids the extremes of moral
intrusion and moral skepticism…
• But leaves open the question of trade-offs between
justice and freedom:
• List: Nussbaum vs. Sen
• Context-dependence: role of public reason and discussion.
• Mismatch between the positive language of capability
(i.e. choice) and the normative language of freedom
• Conceptual overlap: Concepts of functionings and capabilities cut
across agency freedom, well-being freedom, etc.
1.2. Deconstruction: Reason vs. Preference
• Things that people value, and have reason to value…
• Adaptive preferences, misinformation, perversion…
• Functionings vs. Capabilities: some functionings, e.g.
health involve substantive freedoms.
• Refined functionings
• Bad health: NHS vs. drug addiction
• Functional interdependence: some capabilities (e.g.
rational choice) may be dependent on the prior
acheivement of certain functionings (e.g. literacy):
• Content Independence of choice // Paternalism
• Dignity and the distinctness of Reason
1.2. Deconstruction: Wellbeing vs. Agency
• Role of public action?
• Discussion on China vs. India (largely instrumental role of
democracy)
• Effective vs. Control Freedom
• Malaria free environment: confuses power and freedom
(Cohen).
• The central issue for freedom is not coincidence with my
preferences, but control, i.e. democracy (robust).
1.3. Reconstruction: Re-mapping
Right:
What (s)he has reason to value
11.
commitment
9.Autonomy
12.
Entitlements
4. Social
Norms/
Custom
(Positive Internal Freedom)
10.
Agency
Freedom
1. External
Freedom
8.Virtue
2.Effective
Freedom
Actual preferences
Potential preferences
7. immorality
3.Regulation
/ Law
6. SelfRestraint
5.Self-Respect
Opportunity:
(negative internal freedom)
Preferences:
Natural
Values
Social
Desires
What (s)he can do
What (s)he wants
1.3. Reconstruction: Formalising
• Opportunity
– Against indirect utility: INS  x, y  X : x ~ y
SM  x, y  X , ( x  y) : x, y  x
– Cardinal:
A B  A  B
• Preference
– Relevance of Preferences:PRF  x, y  X such thatxPy : x y
– Reverse: DOM  A  Z , x  X if a  A : aPx  A ~ A  x
1.3. Reconstruction: Formalising
• Right
A, B  Z , A  B iff max  A  A B  max B   B A
– Unreasonable Pref.:
– Reasonable Pref.: RPR  x, y  X : x x, y
• Agency
A, B  P( X ),  i ,  j  P() :
– Autonomy as IC: ( A,  i )  AIC ( B,  j )  maxi ( A)  max j ( B)
– Process: PP  i, j   and A, B  X : iPj  ( A, i)  ( B, j)
Structure
• Part I: What are we trying to Measure?
• Mapping
• Deconstruction
• Reconstruction
• Part II: How are we going to Measure it?
• Autonomy
• Agency
• Techniques
• Part II: Measuring it!
• Poverty
• Development
2.1. Autonomy: Impossibility
• Potentials: capability “production function” is informationally
demanding (environmental, social, personal, mental, etc.)
• Haverman and Bershadker’s (2001) “self-reliant poverty”, Burchardt
(2006) time and income poverty
• Dynamics, first-second choices (e.g. going to college)
• Counterfactuals: “hypothetical situations which never occurred
and might never occur” (Brandolini and D’Alessio 1998, p.12).
• Ignores the information contained in choice
• Latent functionings (structural equation modelling)
• HDI: Netherland vs. US (Dowrick, Dunlop and Quiggin 2003cxix)
• Spontaneity: The power to create novel options ex-nihilo
• ‘Fasting’ is qualitatively different from ‘dieting’: it is a novel option that is
not adequately captured by the “maximum” attainable option of eating.
• The range of potential options is not finite (originality)
2.1.Autonomy: Reason, Moral Worth
• Autonomy as purposeful self-restriction
“You must bind me very tight, standing me up against the step of the mast
and lashed to the mast itself so that I cannot stir from the spot. And if I beg
and command you to release me, you must tighten and add to my bonds.”
(Homer, The Odyssey, p.161)
• Opportunity is important because there is an
agent who utilises it to pursue valuable
objectives
• Value is now an integral part of the assessment (this is
Sen’s revolution)
• Move away from the expansionist approach
• Missionaries of Charity’s vow of poverty
• Sustainable development or Swedish welfare system
External
characteristics
Choice Cycle 1
Autonomy
C
O
U
N
T
E
R
Choice
VALUABLE
OBJECTIVES
Freedom
Personal
Characteristics
F
U
N
C
T
I
O
N
I
N
G
S
External
External
Environmental
C
O
M
M
O
D
I
T
I
E
S
Internal
F
A
C
T
U
A
L
S
Choice Cycle 2
2.2. Agency: Assessing Autonomy
• Value: Contextual dependence
•
•
•
•
(1) the expertise-based method,
(2) the empirical or statistical method
(3) the participatory method and
(4) the rights-based method,
• Subjectivity: Inter-individual comparability
• Adaptation: Idiosyncratic, time, social, value (survey
techniques, SWB literature)
• Intentionality: is not externally observable
2.2. Agency: Public Action
• Institutionalisation: laws, institutions render
ephemeral acts permanent
• Political Freedom: translates individual will
into collective will
• Juridical law can be considered as self-imposed (ie.
Autonomous)
• Process: intentionality not necessary
• Consent
• Process of inter-rational validation
• procedural superset.
Private Sphere
Public Sphere
LEGISLATION
Action
Freedom
Liberty
(Art, Science, Politics)
Choice
Political
Individual
Autonomy
Individual
Aesthetic
Ethical
Cognitive
Achievements
INSTITUTIONS
Action
Person 2
Action
Person 3
POLICIES
Choice Cycle 1
Choice Cycle 2, 3, etc.
Structure
• Part I: What are we trying to Measure?
• Mapping
• Deconstruction
• Reconstruction
• Part II: How are we going to Measure it?
• Autonomy
• Agency
• Techniques
• Part II: Measuring it!
• Poverty
• Development
3.1. Poverty: multi-spatial
• 6 dimensions, 2 evaluative spaces:
• dimensions flexible (survey specific, info. value), evaluative
spaces fixed (functionings, agency)
• Intra-dimension corr.> inter-dimension
• Functionings coor. with income; agency corr with “power to
change”
• Formal test: compare agency/functioning poverty
profiles (ordered probit/logit)
•
•
•
•
•
Generalised Hausman: Ho “no difference in coefficients”
Across spaces (income/change): rejected 1%
Within spaces (multidim): rejected, but often of the same sign
Within dim. (agency/funct.): except mobility and employment
Across dim. (robustness): accept except education/mobility
3.1. Poverty: Adaptive Preferences
1.4
corrected
index
fgtmax
fgt2
fgtavg
countavg
countmed
1.2
1
Agency
0.8
0.6
0.4
• FGT more
sensitive to
adaptive pref.
0.2
0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Functionings
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
3.1.Poverty: Stochastic Dominance
-5
-4
-3
Dominated
-2
-1
Dominance
0 Order
1
2
Dominating
3
4
5
0
Dominating (poor)
0.1
Undominated (indeterminate)
0.2
Mann-WHitney Test Score
0.3
0.4
Vasanta
Dominated (non-poor)
0.5
Union rep. individual
0.6
Intersect. rep.
0.7
Lily
0.8
Intersect distrib. Vidyarani
0.9
Union distrib.
1
1st order dom m/x
2nd order dom m/x
3rd order dom m/x
no dominace m/x
no dominance x/m
1st order dom x/m
3rd order dom x/m
2nd order dom x/m
3.2.Development: as Freedom?
• Opportunity: GDP
• Aggregate quantity of opportunity (may need to be adjusted, e.g.
Israel, Maldives)
• GDP may be endogenous to collective decision (e.g. Scandinavian
countries).
• Process: Political Freedom
• Not a dimension
• GDP may be endogenous to collective decision (e.g. Scandinavian
countries).
• Objective: MDGs
• Pros: rights based, weighed,
• Cons: computationally heavy
• Measuring effort: social spending, relative achievement.
3.2. Development: Single Indicator
• Comparisons of income distributions
• Intuitive interpretation: probability that someones income in A > in B
• Pros: valid across time/countries, conceptual counterpart of income,
but not correlated with income,
• Cons: not universally accepted, collective decision to sacrifice
welfare of some memebers of the community (US social consensus)
• But: empirically capture information contained in HDI/MDGs.
• Truncation by political freedom
• If fully democratic, the full distribution counts: even the income of
Bill Gates is theoretically at the disposal of the community, if they
decided to redistribute it for other purposes.
• If undemocratic, the incomes of the rulers are not accessible for the
masses.
3.2. Development: Ranking
gdpcens
gdpprob
concordance
69%
68%
size of correction (small)
(-0.3)
(-6.4)
concordance (large)
73%
60%
size of correction (large
(-21.2)
(-29.8)
Correlations
Truncated Income Dist.
GDP 0.9363*
gini -0.5189*
polfree -0.5683*
hdi -0.8809*
Top 10
Luxemburg
Bottom 10
Losers
(comp/GDP)
Winners
(comp/HDI)
Losers
(comp/HDI)
Solomon Islands
Colombia
Botswana
Kazakhstan
China
South Africa
China
Chad
Benin
Sao Tome and
Principe
Guinea
Namibia
Lebanon
Denmark
Mozambique
Guyana
Turkmenistan
Djibouti
Tajikistan
Japan
Guinea-Bissau
Cape Verde
Lebanon
Solomon Islands
Vietnam
Norway
Burundi
Samoa
Angola
Gabon
Turkmenistan
Finland
Ethiopia
Bangladesh
Equatorial Guinea
Benin
Libya
Germany
Burkina Faso
Latvia
Gabon
Mauritius
Cuba
Canada
Niger
Jamaica
Brazil
St. Lucia
Qatar
Iceland
Sierra Leone
Sierra Leone
Saudi Arabia
Oman
Barbados
Austria
Belgium
Mali
Central African
Republic
Winners
(comp/ GDP)
“But how do those, Socrates, who are trained to the art of
ruling which you seem to me to consider as happiness,
differ from those who undergo hardships from necessity,
since they will have (though it be with their own consent)
to endure hunger, and thirst, and cold, and want of sleep,
and suffer all other inconveniences of the same kind?
For I, for my own part, do not know what difference it
makes to a man who is scourged on the same skin,
whether it be voluntary or involuntary, or, in short, to one
who suffers with the same body in all such points,
whether he suffer with his consent or against it, except
that folly is to be attributed to him who endures troubles
voluntarily.” (Xenophon Memorabilia, 17-18, p.390)