Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-2lccl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T23:16:33.027Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

14 - Measuring the independence of ‘dependent’ persons based on the capability approach

from Part III - Social Choice and Capabilities in Action

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2024

By
Hideyuki Kobayashi  and
Reiko Gotoh
Edited by
Flavio Comim ,
P. B. Anand  and
Shailaja Fennell
Flavio Comim
Affiliation:
Universitat Ramon Llull
P. B. Anand
Affiliation:
University of Bradford
Shailaja Fennell
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge
Get access

Summary

This chapter is an attempt to formulate an individual capability to live independently, by shedding light on patients who live at home and use home caring services. Theoretically, if all individuals have the same resources and the same utilization ability, then we can assume that they have the same capability sets, from which each individual can choose any functionings vector based on his or her diverse evaluation functions. With this theory in mind, the authors first design a questionnaire to measure the effectivity of nursing services in terms of patients’ achievements of functionings, which are relevant for ‘independence’. Second, the chapter estimates the frontiers of capability sets of individuals with the same resources and the same utilization ability, by plotting and connecting their dispersed functioning vectors. This chapter does not explicitly mention individual evaluation functions themselves but, interestingly, the ‘fractal structure’ of capabilities implicitly indicates individuals own conceptions of independent lives.

Keywords

Individual capability formulationcapability frontier estimationfractal structure of capabilityindependent lives
Type
Chapter
Information
Social Choice, Agency, Inclusiveness and Capabilities , pp. 305 - 322
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2024

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aigner, D. J., and Chu, S. F. (1968) On estimating the industry production function. American Economic Review, 58 (4): 826–39.Google Scholar
Basu, K. (1987) Achievements, capabilities and the concept of well-being. Social Choice and Welfare, 4 (1): 69–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Basu, K., and Lopez-Calva, L. F. (2011) Functionings and capabilities. In Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 2, Arrow, K. J., Sen, A. K., and Suzumura, K. (eds.): 153–87. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Becker, G. (1965) A theory of the allocation of time. Economic Journal, 75: 493–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker, G. (1976) The Economic Approach to Human Behavior. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coast, J., Flynn, T. N., Natarajan, L., Sproston, K., Lewis, J., Louviere, J. J., and Peters, T. J. (2008a) Valuing the ICECAP capability index for older people. Social Science and Medicine, 67 (5): 874–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coast, J., Peters, T. J., Natarajan, L., Sproston, K., and Flynn, T. N. (2008b) An assessment of the construct validity of the descriptive system for the ICECAP capability measure for older people. Quality of Life Research, 17 (7): 967–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coulter, A., and Cleary, P. (2001) Patients’ experiences with hospital care in five countries. Health Affairs, 20 (3): 244–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Couzner, L., Crotty, M., Norman, R., and Ratcliffe, J. (2013) A comparison of the EQ-5D-3L and ICECAP-O in an older post-acute patient population relative to the general population. Applied Economics & Health Policy, 11 (4): 415–25.Google Scholar
Gotoh, R. (2014a) Equality of capabilities: how should we identify the boundary of an individual’s capability? Paper presented at the 14th SAET conference on current trends in economics, Tokyo, Waseda University, 21 August.Google Scholar
Gotoh, R. (2014b) Reconceptualization of the capability approach: opportunity set/autonomy/identity. Keizai Kenkyu, 65 (4): 318–31 [in Japanese].Google Scholar
Grewal, I., Lewis, J., Flynn, T. N., Brown, J., Bond, J., and Coast, J. (2006) Developing attributes for a generic quality of life measure for older people: preferences or capabilities? Social Science and Medicine, 62 (8): 1891–901.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jenkinson, C., Coulter, A., and Bruster, S. (2002) The Picker Patient Experience questionnaire: development and validation using data from inpatient surveys in five countries. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 14 (5): 353–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kobayashi, H., Takemura, Y., and Kanda, K. (2011) Patient perception of nursing service quality: an applied model of Donabedian’s structure–process–outcome approach theory. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 25 (3): 419–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Labarere, J., Francois, P., Auquier, P., Robert, C., and Fourny, M. (2001) Development of a French inpatient satisfaction questionnaire. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 13 (2): 99–108.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lancaster, K. J. (1966) A new approach to consumer theory. Journal of Political Economy, 74 (2): 132–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, A. K. (1980) Equality of what? In The Tanner Lectures in Human Values, vol. 1, McMurrin, S. M. (ed.): 197–220. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sen, A. K. (1985) Commodities and Capabilities. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Sen, A. K. (2009) The Idea of Justice. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Sen, A. K., and Williams, B. (eds.) (1982) Utilitarianism and Beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsuchiya, A., Ikeda, S., Ikegami, N., Nishimura, S., Sakai, I., Fukuda, T., Hamashima, C., Hisashige, A., and Tamura, M. (2002) Estimating an EQ-5D population value set: the case of Japan. Health Economics, 11 (4): 341–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
United Nations (2006) Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. New York: United Nations. www.un.org/disabilities/documents/convention/convention_accessible_pdf.pdf.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×