Rather, we intend to highlight the methodological issues that must be considered in order to
operationalize the capability approach in a dynamic framework.
In short, these are:
• the meaning and the space of operationalization;
• the locus of operationalization;
• the role of indicators;
• the importance of personal and social conversion factors;
• the selection and the aggregation of functionings.
1.1 The meaning and the space of operationalization
In general, Sen’s approach requires the translation of goods and services (i.e. commodities)
into valuable beings and doings (i.e. functionings), from which the various combinations of
achievable functionings (i.e. capabilities) may be chosen. In other words, commodities, sifted by
personal and social conversion factors, allow the achievement of a number of beings and doings,
which may be represented by the vectors of functionings (or the capability set). The choice of a
specific subset (a vector) of functionings generates a given level of well-being.
Figure 1 - The capability approach: a general view
Commodities
Personal and
social conversion
factors
Vectors of
functionings
Choice
Achieved
functionings
Well-being
In order to render a dynamic simulation of the capability approach we must introduce a major
simplification6: we restrict the model to the space of the chosen vector of functionings. Doing so
we avoid the issue of the measurement of capabilities, and bypass the problem of their
unobservability7. As Brandolini and D’Alessio point out (1998:12): «...embodying freedom into
the notion of well-being is very demanding from an informational viewpoint, since the attempt
to measure capabilities implies the hypothetical situations which never occurred and might never
occur must be taken into account». Therefore we too stick to Basu’s suggestion - reported in
Brandolini and D’Alessio (1998:15)-: «.to go along with Sen and evaluate well-being on the
basis of functionings, but be content with achievements, instead of capabilities». Sen himself
suggests that at a practical level the most appropriate focus of attention shouldn’t always lie in
6 We are aware of other areas of incompleteness with respect to the foundational theory, for instance:
• we ignore the distinction between “commodities” and “commodities characteristics”, because we consider
this transformation to be part of the role of conversion factors;
• we do not distinguish between fundamental capabilities and basic capabilities;
• we do not introduce the category of refined functionings.
7 In fact their potential nature can become actual only after an individual’s process of choice.
4