IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/rsocec/v63y2005i2p269-289.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What Informational Basis for Assessing Job-Seekers?: Capabilities vs. Preferences

Author

Listed:
  • Jean-Michel Bonvin
  • Nicolas Farvaque

Abstract

The evaluative function of local public actors has been exacerbated in recent years with the individualisation of social policies. One of their tasks is to select the appropriate informational basis in order to assess welfare claimants. Amartya Sen's capability approach offers a theoretical and normative framework to analyse this evaluative function. In particular, it insists on the importance of “objectivating” people's preferences with reference to their capabilities. The weight that is to be attached to individual preferences in the course of public action can be a matter of controversy. Claimants “capability for voice”, we argue, should be developed. This capability refers to their effective possibility to express their concerns with regard to the choice of the informational basis. It is argued that local institutions prohibiting capability for voice will produce adaptive preferences, whereas procedural institutions promoting reflexive public evaluation and capability for voice will result in a fairer wording of individual preferences. At a situated level, the way to connect subjective and objective information when assessing people very much depends on the position of the evaluator. Several illustrations show that the fairness of evaluation, and its impact on the people's capability set, depend on this positional perspective.

Suggested Citation

  • Jean-Michel Bonvin & Nicolas Farvaque, 2005. "What Informational Basis for Assessing Job-Seekers?: Capabilities vs. Preferences," Review of Social Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 63(2), pages 269-289.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:rsocec:v:63:y:2005:i:2:p:269-289
    DOI: 10.1080/0034676500130614
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0034676500130614
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/0034676500130614?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dean, Hartley, 2003. "Re-conceptualising welfare-to-work for people with multiple problems and needs," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 338, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    2. Alkire, Sabina, 2005. "Valuing Freedoms: Sen's Capability Approach and Poverty Reduction," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199283316.
    3. Sen, Amartya K, 1979. "Personal Utilities and Public Judgements: Or What's Wrong with Welfare Economics?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 89(355), pages 537-558, September.
    4. repec:ilo:ilowps:342121 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Sen, Amartya, 1991. "Welfare, preference and freedom," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 50(1-2), pages 15-29, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Vanessa Beck, 2018. "Capabilities and Choices of Vulnerable, Long-Term Unemployed Individuals," Work, Employment & Society, British Sociological Association, vol. 32(1), pages 3-19, February.
    2. Valeria Pandolfini, 2021. "Fostering the professional capital of teachers in digital capabilities," International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS), vol. 5(12), pages 455-461, December.
    3. Emanuela Abbatecola & Florence Lefresne & Joan Miquel Verd & Josiane Vero, 2012. "Individual working lives through the lens of the capability approach: evaluation of policies and items for debate," Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research, , vol. 18(1), pages 83-89, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hamid Hasan, 2019. "Confidence in Subjective Evaluation of Human Well-Being in Sen’s Capabilities Perspective," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 20(1), pages 1-17, January.
    2. Kuklys, W. & Robeyns, I., 2004. "Sen’s Capability Approach to Welfare Economics," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 0415, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    3. Antoinette Baujard, 2007. "Commensurable freedoms in the capability approach," Post-Print halshs-00294563, HAL.
    4. Antoinette Baujard, 2006. "Une critique opérationnelle du welfarisme dans la prise de décision publique," Post-Print halshs-00155130, HAL.
    5. Bleichrodt, Han & Quiggin, John, 2013. "Capabilities as menus: A non-welfarist basis for QALY evaluation," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 128-137.
    6. Steven Pressman & Gale Summerfield, 2000. "The Economic Contributions of Amartya Sen," Review of Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(1), pages 89-113.
    7. Wiebke Kuklys & Ingrid Robeyns, 2004. "Sens's Capability Approach to Welfare Economics," Papers on Strategic Interaction 2004-03, Max Planck Institute of Economics, Strategic Interaction Group.
    8. John Dagsvik, 2013. "Making Sen’s capability approach operational: a random scale framework," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 74(1), pages 75-105, January.
    9. Simon, Judit & Anand, Paul & Gray, Alastair & Rugkåsa, Jorun & Yeeles, Ksenija & Burns, Tom, 2013. "Operationalising the capability approach for outcome measurement in mental health research," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 187-196.
    10. Sabina Alkire, 2011. "Multidimensional Poverty and its Discontents," OPHI Working Papers 46, Queen Elizabeth House, University of Oxford.
    11. Jane Hall & Marion Haas & Stephen Leeder, 1998. "Contemporay and emerging issues in public health, CHERE Project Report No 8," Research Reports 8, CHERE, University of Technology, Sydney.
    12. Mina Baliamoune-Lutz, 2004. "On the Measurement of Human Well-being: Fuzzy Set Theory and Sen's Capability Approach," WIDER Working Paper Series RP2004-16, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    13. Kjell Brekke & Hilde Lurå & Karine Nyborg, 1996. "Allowing disagreement in evaluations of social welfare," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 63(3), pages 303-324, October.
    14. Ballester, Miguel A. & de Miguel, Juan R. & Nieto, Jorge, 2004. "Set comparisons in a general domain: the Indirect Utility Criterion," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 139-150, September.
    15. Vincenzo Atella & Jay Coggins & Federico Perali, 2005. "Aversion to inequality in Italy and its determinants," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 2(2), pages 117-144, January.
    16. Tony J Culyer & Alan Wagstaff, 1991. "Need, equality and social justice," Working Papers 090chedp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    17. Antoinette Baujard, 2016. "Utilitarianism and anti-utilitarianism," Chapters, in: Gilbert Faccarello & Heinz D. Kurz (ed.), Handbook on the History of Economic Analysis Volume III, chapter 40, pages 576-588, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    18. Antoinette Baujard & Muriel Gilardone, 2017. "Sen is not a capability theorist," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(1), pages 1-19, January.
    19. Martin Binder & Tom Broekel, 2011. "Applying a Non-parametric Efficiency Analysis to Measure Conversion Efficiency in Great Britain," Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(2), pages 257-281.
    20. Suzumura, Kotaro & Xu, Yongsheng, 2001. "Characterizations of Consequentialism and Nonconsequentialism," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 101(2), pages 423-436, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:rsocec:v:63:y:2005:i:2:p:269-289. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RRSE20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.