Definition of equality and framework for measurement: Final Recommendations of the Equalities Review Steering Group on Measurement
In October 2007, a unified Commission on Equality and Human Rights (CEHR) will begin operation in Britain. The Commission will have responsibility for monitoring and promoting human rights and equality on the grounds of gender, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, transgender status, and religion/belief. As a precursor to the Commission, the Prime Minister established the Equalities Review, an independent, high-level, investigation of the causes of persistent inequality and disadvantage in British society. Its final report, Fairness and Freedom, in February 2007 adopted the capability approach as its measurement framework and recommended that all public bodies use the framework to "agree priorities, set targets, and evaluate progress towards equality" (p.110). In particular, the Review recommended that the framework be used by the CEHR to inform its regular 'state of the nation' report. This paper, and its companion, Developing a Capability List: Final Recommendations of the Equalities Review Steering Group on Measurement (CASEpaper 121), were prepared as background papers to assist in the development of the measurement framework for the Equalities Review. It discusses the challenges in translating capability theory into a practical measurement tool in the context of measuring inequality in Britain in the 21st century. This includes the definition of equality, a procedure for generating and revising a list of central and valuable capabilities (this is considered in more detail in CASE/121), a measurement framework for monitoring trends in inequality, exploring the causes of inequality, and identifying possible policy interventions, and, finally, the types of information and analysis which are required.
|Date of creation:||Apr 2007|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://sticerd.lse.ac.uk/case/_new/publications/default.asp|
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Sabina Alkire, 2005. "Subjective Quantitative Studies of Human Agency," Social Indicators Research, Springer, vol. 74(1), pages 217-260, October.
- Paul Anand & Graham Hunter & Ron Smith, 2004.
"Capabilities and Wellbeing: Evidence Based on the Sen-Nussbaum Approach to Welfare,"
Open Discussion Papers in Economics
47, The Open University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Economics.
- Paul Anand & Graham Hunter & Ron Smith, 2005. "Capabilities and Well-Being: Evidence Based on the Sen–Nussbaum Approach to Welfare," Social Indicators Research, Springer, vol. 74(1), pages 9-55, October.
- Miriam Teschl & Flavio Comim, 2005. "Adaptive Preferences and Capabilities: Some Preliminary Conceptual Explorations," Review of Social Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 63(2), pages 229-247.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cep:sticas:/120. 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: ()
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.