IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Harsanyi, Sen ou Bentham. Quelle perspective adopter pour l'évaluation du bien-être en santé ?

Listed author(s):
  • Philippe Tessier
Registered author(s):

    Health economists oppose two views of the normative foundations of economic evaluation: a welfarist view, which defines social welfare as a function of individual utilities only, and an extra-welfarist view grounded on Sen’s capability approach. In this paper, we contribute to this debate by investigating the ability of three theories of individual wellbeing (well-being as the satisfaction of preferences, as reported happiness or according to the capability approach) to value individual autonomy and to deal in a satisfactory way with the moral consequences of psychological adaptation. Our analysis underlines the failure of theories of well-being as decision or experienced utility to meet these requirements. We present and discuss possible theoretical and operational solutions using measures of individual well-being relying on Sen’s capability notion and using experienced utility as a valuable functioning. Classification JEL : I10, I31, D61

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: free

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: free

    Article provided by Presses de Sciences-Po in its journal Revue économique.

    Volume (Year): 60 (2009)
    Issue (Month): 6 ()
    Pages: 1309-1333

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:cai:recosp:reco_606_1309
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cai:recosp:reco_606_1309. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Jean-Baptiste de Vathaire)

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.