The paper is motivated by sustained interest in the capabilities approach to welfare economics combined with the paucity of economic statistics that measure capabilities at the individual level. Specifically, it takes a much discussed account of the normatively desirable capabilities constitutive of a good life, argued to be comprehensive at a high level of abstraction, and uses it to operationalize the capabilities approach by developing a survey instrument which is then used to elicit information about capabilities at the individual level. The paper explores the extent to which these capabilities are covariates of life satisfaction measure (utility) and investigates aspects of robustness and sub-group differences using standard socio-demographic variables as well as a relatively novel control for personality. In substantial terms, we find that there is some evidence of quantitative, but no qualitative, gender and age differences in the capabilities-life satisfaction relationship. Furthermore, we find that indicators from a wide range of life domains are linked to life satisfaction, a finding that supports the multi-dimensional approaches to poverty and quality of life and the view that people do not just value income (opulence in Sen's language) per se. Our most important contribution, however, is primarily methodological and derives from the demonstration that within the conventions of household and social surveys, human capabilities can be measured with the aid of suitably designed statistical indicators.JEL Codes: D60, C80

No abstract

capabilities, happiness, Nussbaum, Sen,

No abstract

5There is growing interest in operationalising the capability approach to measure quality of 6 life. This paper reports the results of a research project undertaken in 2007 that sought to 7 reduce and refine a longer survey in order to provide a summary measure of wellbeing and 8 capability in the realm of public health. The reduction and refinement of the questionnaire 9 took place across a number of stages, using both qualitative (five focus group discussions and 10 17 in-depth interviews) and quantitative (secondary data analysis, N=1,048 and primary data 11 collection using postal surveys and interviews, N=45) approaches. The questionnaire was 12 reduced from its original 60+ questions to 24 questions (including demographic questions). 13Each of Nussbaum's ten Central Human Capabilities are measured using one (or more) of the 14 18 specific capability items which are included in the questionnaire (referred to as the OCAP-15 18). Analysis of the questionnaire responses (N=198) found that respondents differed with 16 respect to the levels of capabilities they reported, and that these capabilities appear to be 17 sensitive to one's gender, age, income and deprivation decile. An index of capability, 18 estimated by assuming equal weight for each capability question, found that the average level 19 of capability amongst respondents was 12.44 (range 3-17.75). This index was found to be 20 highly correlated with a measure of health (EQ-5D) and wellbeing (global QoL), although 21 some differences were apparent. This project operationalised the capability approach to 22 produce an instrument to measure the effectiveness (and cost effectiveness) of public health 23 interventions; the resulting OCAP-18 appears to be responsive and measure something 24 supplementary to health and wellbeing, thus offers a promising addition to the current suite of 25 outcome measures that are available. Sen's Capability Approach (Sen 1985;1993) would appear to provide a possible solution to 77 the limitations of QALYs, as it expands the evaluative space (so it can include non-health 78 outcomes like empowerment, participation, housing, and crime) to consider whether a 79 programme/policy/intervention enhances an individual's capability (Lorgelly et al. 2010). 80Previous evaluative approaches focus on subjective-wellbeing (utilitarism) or the availability 81 5 of means for a good life (resourcism). The alternative paradigm of the capability approach 82 instead suggests that the focus of wellbeing should be a set of valuable 'beings and doings' 83 (for example being in good health or having loving relationships), which can be measured by 84 opportunities (capabilities) or outcomes (functionings) (Sen 1992). Sen desires that policies 85 ought to promote the "capabilities of persons to lead the kind of lives they value -and have 86 reason to value ' (Sen 1999, p.18). Of interest in its application to public health is the 87 evaluative space; it diverges from narrow utility space, which is concerned with the pleasure 88 obtained from...