in defining well-being «in terms of a person’s ability to do valuable acts or reach valuable states
of being» (Sen, 1993:30), since there would be no difference between the latter and the
commodities basis. If, on the contrary, we introduce personal and social conversion factors,
well-being will differ substantially from the undifferentiated notion of welfare based on income
and/or commodities: «Indeed if human beings would not be diverse, then inequality in one
space, say income, would be more or less the same in another space, like functionings or
capabilities» (Robeyns, 2000:6).
1.5 The selection and the aggregation of functionings
The selection of functionings and their aggregation are fundamental but troublesome issues in
any attempt to operationalize the capability approach. In general, the broader the evaluative
space, the closer we get to the inclusion of all possible elements of well-being; but, at the same
time, the larger will be the informational basis required. Therefore, the trade-off between the
wish to portray a comprehensive picture of well-being and the possibility of managing the
informational complexity, can only be solved by choosing a compromise alternative. Sen
himself states: «the capability approach can often yield definite answers even when there is no
complete agreement on the relative weights to be attached to different functionings» (Sen,
1992:46). Though CFM’s evaluative space is limited to the one of achieved functionings, a
balance between completeness and complexity must still be found. Therefore we have to rely on
a minimum set of functionings including, in a developed society, health, education, and social
interactions as main dimensions of well-being11. In fact, given the openness and the flexibility of
the capability framework, its operationalization is highly context-dependant, and there is no
“right” or “complete” or even “better” list of functionings. It is the social, political and economic
environment, the purpose of the applicative exercise, and other practical constraints which
shape both the evaluative space and the relative importance of its elements. In Sen’s words:
«The answer to these questions [Which functionings are we to select? How do we weigh them
vis-à-vis each other?] must surely depend on the purpose at hand.....There is no need here for
different people, making their respective judgments, to agree on the same list, or on the same
weight for the different items; we are individually free to use reason as we see fit. A framework
for the analysis of well-being is just that - not a complete solution of all evaluation problems,
nor a procedure for interpersonal agreement on relevant judgments.» (Sen, 1996:116).
Usually multidimensional studies of well-being are mostly concerned with material living
conditions, while the capability approach, especially when applied to developed countries, must
deal also with relational and self-improving activities such as recreation, culture, education. As
aforementioned the functionings chosen are: Physical and Psychological Health, Education and
Training, and Social Interactions. In our opinion these functionings represent a good starting
point to capture the complexity of well-being in developed countries, since, encompassing both
material and immaterial aspects of human life, they are the basis of economic and social
development and cohesion.
The aggregative issue raises interesting questions. First of all, as pointed out earlier, our locus
of operationalization is a single (though aggregate, i.e. an administrative region) reference unit:
thus avoiding the problem of aggregating diversities (functionings) among different individuals
or groups12. In fact we do not merge the achieved functionings into a synthetic index, since in a
dynamic model all the elements interact, so that letting one of them vary would change the
11 Some literature includes income-related functionings. In our opinion income is a means to well-being and
therefore it matters only instrumentally to the extent that it can help to acquire functionings and capabilities. So in
CFM we do not include income, nor any other income-related functioning.
12 It is worth pointing out that this kind of aggregation seems to have no significance in Sen’s framework, since
functionings and capabilities are “properties” of individuals or of groups, in a derivative sense.
8