1 Operationalizing Sen’s approach: methodological issues
By operationalization we mean all the steps between a theory and its empirical application.
Such an application relies on the translation of theoretical concepts into quantifiable variables: in
brief, in Sen’s framework the resources or commodities must be turned into functionings and
capabilities. Henceforth we consider the capability approach primarily as a method for making
interpersonal comparison of well-being. Indeed in Sen’s intention it has a far wider significance:
it is first of all a framework of thought, which aims at highlighting the drawbacks of other
approaches in identifying and defining welfare. Since Sen’s interest seems to be mainly
concerned with this foundational level, he has never provided a formula or “path“ to carry out
welfare measurements and comparisons4. Actually, incompleteness is not surprisingly a
distinctive characteristic of the capability approach, for it depends on the context of the
evaluation, which is as ambiguous and complex as human life and values are.
Sen’s approach requires «a broader informational base, focusing particularly on people’s
capability to choose the life they have reason to value» (Sen,1999:63), to highlight the social and
economic factors which give people the opportunity to do and to be what they consider valuable
for their fulfillment. Thus the capability approach focuses directly on the substantive freedoms
of the individuals involved. In this sense, Sen suggests that well-being (or the standard of
living5) be considered in terms of human functionings and capabilities. Functionings relate to
what a person may value doing or being: they are the living conditions achieved by an individual
and represent a set of interrelated activities and states (“doings” and “beings”) that form her life.
Capabilities concern the ability of an individual to achieve different combinations of
functionings, and define the freedom to choose the life that she prefers. These two categories are
complementary but however distinct: «A functioning is an achievement, whereas a capability is
the ability to achieve. Functionings are, in a sense, more directly related to living conditions,
since they are different aspects of living conditions. Capabilities, in contrast, are notions of
freedom, in the positive sense: what real opportunities you have regarding the life you may
lead» (Sen, 1987:36).
The notion of well-being in the capability framework involves a vast set of functionings and
capabilities to disclose every aspect of life. If the main aim is to assess the overall standard of
living, we nonetheless need to specify a reasonable and manageable subset of functionings and
capabilities. Sen has never provided any list or guideline for the definition of this subset,
stressing on the contrary that it varies through time and across space according to the intrinsic
characteristics of the people concerned, the prevailing social costumes and cultural norms, and
to economic factors. However the operationalization of the capability approach is basically a
matter of pragmatism: «The foundational affirmation of the importance of capabilities can go
with various strategy of actual evaluation involving practical compromises. The pragmatic
nature of practical reason demands this» (Sen, 1999:85). Therefore the sense of the
operationalization is contingent on the nature of the exercise, data constraints and the goals of
the analyst. Hence the capability approach can be used in different ways depending on the
context; it cannot be rigidly formulated because it is intentionally an open and flexible
framework.
All the theoretical issues concerning this approach have been satisfactorily investigated in
Sen’s work and in the related literature, and it is not the aim of this paper to reconsider them.
4 With great disappointment of those who have looked into Sen’s writings for such a “recipe”.
5 The standard of living in Sen’s view has a narrower connotation than well-being, the former relating only to the
individual, while the latter includes also “sympathy” for other individuals. Sen also introduced the even wider
notion of agency, which broadens the notion of well-being by taking into account social commitment. So,
basically, we use the term “well-being” instead of the more appropriate “standard or living” to keep on with the
traditional vocabulary of the literature on the argument.