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-5b777bbd6c-ks5gx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-06-18T09:19:49.004Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

9 - Complexity and vagueness in the capability approach: strengths or weaknesses?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 September 2009

By
Enrica Chiappero-Martinetti
Edited by
Flavio Comim ,
Mozaffar Qizilbash  and
Sabina Alkire
Enrica Chiappero-Martinetti
Affiliation:
Associate Professor in Economics University of Pavia; Director of the Human Development Capability and Poverty International Research Centre (HDCP-IRC) Institute for Advanced Study Pavia
Flavio Comim
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge
Mozaffar Qizilbash
Affiliation:
University of York
Sabina Alkire
Affiliation:
University of Oxford
Get access

Summary

So far as laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain. And so far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.

(Albert Einstein 1922)

All traditional logic habitually assumes that precise symbols are being employed. It is therefore not applicable to this terrestrial life but only to an imagined celestial existence [… .] logic takes us nearer to heaven than most other studies.

(Russell 1923, pp. 88–9)

All economists know the economy is complex – very complex. That is one of the reasons why society needs economists – to try to make that complexity somewhat simpler and more understandable.

(Colander 2000, p. 1)

Introduction

Concepts of poverty and well-being, like many – probably most – issues and phenomena relating to the human sciences are intrinsically complex and vague, though no more so than crucial economic concepts such as utility, rationality, or recession. This is largely due to the fact that they involve a plurality of interrelated variables, dimensions, and spaces with no clear-cut boundaries between them. While both common sense and some of the social sciences (sociology and psychology in particular) plainly acknowledge the intrinsically complex and vague nature of poverty and well-being, the same cannot be said for economics. Only infrequently mentioned, rarely acknowledged at the foundational level, almost always feared and avoided from an empirical point of view, complexity and vagueness are often perceived in economic analysis as elements of weakness within a theoretical framework, and potential obstacles to its operationalization.

Type
Chapter
Information
The Capability Approach
Concepts, Measures and Applications
 , pp. 268 - 309
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2008

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.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Alkire, S. 2002. Valuing freedoms. Sen's capability approach and poverty reduction, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anand, P., Hunter, G. and Smith, R. 2005. ‘Capabilities and wellbeing: Evidence based on the Sen–Nussbaum approach to welfare’, Social Indicators Research, 79, pp. 9–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arthur, W. B., Durlauf, S. and Lane, D. (eds.) 1997. ‘The economy as an evolving complex system II’, Santa Fe Institute Studies in the Sciences of Complexity, vol. 27, Reading, USA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Atkinson, A. B. 2002. ‘Multidimensional deprivation: contrasting social welfare and counting approaches’, mimeo, Oxford: Nuffield College.
Atkinson, A. B., Cantillon, B., Marlier, E. and Nolan, B. 2002. Social indicators. The European Union and social inclusion, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balestrino, A. and Sciclone, N. 2000. ‘Should we use functionings instead of income to measure well-being? Theory and some evidence from Italy’, Rivista Internazionale di Scienze Sociali, 109: 1–20.Google Scholar
Balestrino, A. and Carter, I. (eds.), 1996. Functioning and capabilities: normative and policy issues, Notizie di Politeia, 12, 43/44, Milan.Google Scholar
Baliamoune-Lutz, M. 2004. ‘On the measurement of human well-being: fuzzy set theory and Sen's capability approach’, Research paper 2004/16, Helsinki: Wider UN.
Bibi, S. 2003. ‘Measuring poverty in a multidimensional perspective: a review of literature’, mimeo, Québec: Université Laval.
Bottiroli-Civardi, M. and Chiappero-Martinetti, E. 2006. ‘Measuring poverty within and between population subgroups’, IRISS Working Paper Series 2006–06, IRISS at CEPS/INSTEAD.
Bourguignon, F. and Chakravarty, S. R. 2002. ‘Multidimensional poverty orderings’, working paper 2002–22, Paris: DELTA.
Bourguignon, F. and Chakravarty, S. R. 2003. ‘The measurement of multidimensional poverty’, in Journal of Economic Inequality, 1: pp. 25–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandolini, A. and D'Alessio, G. 1998. ‘Measuring well-being in the functioning space’, mimeo, Rome, Italy: Banca d'Italia.
Burchardt, T. 2002. ‘Constraint and opportunity: women's employment in Britain’, mimeo, ESRC Research Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, London: London School of Economics.
Cargile, J. 1969. ‘Thesorites paradox’, in British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 20: pp. 193–202. Reprinted in Keefe, R. and Smith, P. 2002: pp. 89–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chakravarty, S., Mukherjee, D. and Ramade, R. 1998. ‘On the subgroup and factor decomposable measures of multidimensional poverty’, in Research on Economics Inequality, 8: pp. 175–194.Google Scholar
Chapman, G. P. 1985. ‘The epistemology of complexity and some reflections on the symposium “The science and praxis of complexity” ’, mimeo, Montpellier, The United Nation University.
Chiappero-Martinetti, E. 1994. ‘A new approach to evaluation of well-being and poverty by fuzzy set theory’, in Giornale degli economisti e annali di economia', 7–9: pp. 367–388.Google Scholar
Chiappero-Martinetti, E. 1996. ‘Standard of living evaluation based on Sen's approach: some methodological suggestion’, in Balestrino A. and Carter I. (eds.), pp. 37–54.
Chiappero-Martinetti, E. 2000. ‘A multidimensional assessment of well-being based on Sen's functioning approach’, in Rivista Internazionale di Scienze Sociali, 58: pp. 207–239.Google Scholar
Cilliers, P. 1998. Complexity and post-modernism: understanding complex systems, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Clark, D. and Qizilbash, M. 2002. ‘Core poverty and extreme vulnerability in South Africa’, discussion paper 2002–3, The Economics Research Centre, School of Economic and Social Studies, University of East Anglia.
Coates, J. 1996. The claims of common sense: Moore, Wittgenstein, Keynes and the social sciences, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colander, D. (ed.) 2000. Introduction to complexity and the history of economic thought, London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comim, F. 2000. ‘Marshall and the role of common sense in complex systems’, in Colander, D. (ed.), pp. 155–192.
Comim, F. 2001a. ‘Operationalizing Sen's capability approach’, mimeo, Cambridge, UK: University of Cambridge.
Comim, F. 2001b. ‘System-level poverty and socially sustainable development’, mimeo, Cambridge, UK: University of Cambridge.
Comim, F. and Kuklys, W. 2002. ‘Is poverty simply about poor individuals?’, mimeo, Cambridge, UK: University of Cambridge.
Cox, E. 1994. The fuzzy systems handbook, Chestnut Hill, M.A., USA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Dagum, C. and Costa, M. 2002. ‘Analysis and measurement of poverty. Univariate and multivariate approaches and their policy implications. A case study: Italy’, in Dagum, C. and Ferrari, G. (eds.).
Dagum, C. and Ferrari, G. (eds.) 2002. Household behaviour, equivalence scales and well-being, Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Doyal, L. and Gough, I. 1991. A theory of human need, Basinkstoke: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duclos, J., Sahn, D. and Younger, S. 2002. ‘Robust multidimensional poverty comparisons’, The Economic Journal, 116, 514, pp. 943–968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dutta, I., Pattanaik, P. and Xu, Y. 2003. ‘On measuring deprivation and the standard of living in a multidimensional framework on the basis of aggregate data’, in Economica, 70, 2, pp. 197–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edgington, D. 2002. ‘Vagueness by degree’, in Keefe. R. and Smith, P. (eds.), pp. 294–316.
Einstein, A. 1922 ‘Geometry and experience’ in his Sidelights of relativity, London: Methuen, pp. 25–56.Google Scholar
Erikson, R. 1993. ‘Descriptions of inequality: the Swedish approach to welfare research’, in Nussbaum, M. and Sen, A. K. (eds.), pp. 67–83.
Erikson, R. and Aberg, R. 1987. Welfare in transition. A survey of living conditions in Sweden 1968–1981, Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Evans, G. and McDowell, J. (eds.) 1976. Truth and meaning, Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Fine, K. 1975. ‘Vagueness, truth and logic’, in Synthese, 30, pp. 265–300. Reprinted in Keefe and Smith (eds.), pp. 119–150.
Fukuda-Parr, S. and Shiva Kumar, A. K. (eds.) 2003. Readings in human development, New Delhi: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Garcia Diaz, R. 2003. Multidimensional Poverty, mimeo, York, UK: University of York.
Goguen, J. A. 1969. ‘The logic of inexact concepts’ in Synthese, 19, pp. 325–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haack, S. 1996. Deviant logic, fuzzy logic: beyond the formalism, Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Hajek, P. 1998. Metamathematics of fuzzy logic, Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publisher.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Hayek, F. A. 1964. ‘The theory of complex phenomena’, in The critical approach to science and philosophy: essays in honor of Karl R. Popper, Bunge, Mario (ed.), New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Hayek, F. A. 1967. ‘The theory of complex phenomena’, in Studies in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics, Chicago, University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Jackman, H. 2004. ‘Temporal externalism and epistemic theories of vagueness’, in Philosophical studies, 117, 1–2, pp. 79–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keefe, R. and Smith, P. (eds.) 2002. Vagueness: a reader, Cambridge, USA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kempson, R. 1977. Semantic theory, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Keynes, J. M. 1960a. Collected writings of John Maynard Keynes: vol. 7, the ‘General Theory’ of employment, interest and money, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Keynes, J. M. 1960b. Collected writings of John Maynard Keynes: vol. 13, The ‘General Theory’ and after, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Klasen, S. 2000. ‘Measuring poverty and deprivation in South Africa’, in Review of Income and Wealth, 46, 1, pp. 33–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klir, G. J. and Yuan, B. 1995. Fuzzy sets and fuzzy logic. Theory and application, New Jersey: Prentice Hall International Editions.Google Scholar
Kuklys, W. 2003. ‘Measurement and determinants of welfare achievement–evidence from the UK’, mimeo, Cambridge, UK: University of Cambridge.
Kuklys, W. 2004. ‘A monetary approach to capability measurement of the disabled – evidence from the UK’, Papers on strategic interaction, 8–2004, Jena, Germany: Max Planck Institute for Research into Economic Systems.
Lelli, S. 2001. ‘Factor analysis vs. fuzzy sets theory: assessing the influence of different techniques on Sen's functioning approach’, Public Economics working paper series 121, Leuven, Belgium: Center for Economic Studies.
Lelli, S. 2003, ‘What money can't buy: the relevance of income redistribution for functioning levels’, mimeo, Leuven, Belgium: Center for Economic Studies.
Lukasiewicz, J. 1920. ‘Philosophical remarks on many-valued systems of propositional logic’, in Polish Logic: 1920–1939, McCall, Storrs (ed.) 1967. Oxford: Oxford Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Maasoumi, E. 1999. ‘Multidimensioned approaches to welfare analysis’, in Silber, J. (ed.).
Machina, K. F. 1976. ‘Truth, belief and vagueness’, in Journal of Philosophical Logic, 5, p. 47–78. Reprinted in Keefe R. and Smith P. (eds.), pp. 174–203.
Mehlberg, H. 1958. The reach of science. Toronto: Toronto University Press, pp. 256–259. Reprinted in Keefe R. and Smith P. (eds.), pp. 85–89.Google Scholar
Montgomery, M. 2000. ‘Complex theory: an Austrian perspective’, in Colander D. (ed.), pp. 227–240.
Nguyen, H. T. and Walker, A. 1999. First course in fuzzy logic. Boca Rato, Florida, USA: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M. and Sen, A. K. (eds.) 1993. The quality of life, wider studies in development economics, Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Qizilbash, M. 2002. ‘A note on the measurement of poverty and vulnerability in the South African context’, in Journal of International Development, 14, pp. 757–772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Qizilbash, M. 2003. ‘Vague language and precise measurement: the case of poverty’, in Journal of Economic Methodology, 10, 1, pp. 41–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reitsma, F. 2003. ‘A response to simplifying complexity’, in Geoforum, 34, pp. 13–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robeyns, I. 2000. ‘An unworkable idea or a promising alternative? Sen's capability approach re-examined’, Discussion Paper 2000.30, Leuven, Belgium, Center for Economic Studies.
Robeyns, I. 2002. ‘Gender inequality: a capability perspective’. Doctoral thesis, Cambridge: Cambridge University.
Robeyns, I. 2003. ‘The capability approach: an interdisciplinary introduction’ mimeo, Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.
Roemer, J. 1996. Theories of distributive justice, Cambridge, USA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Russell, B. 1923. ‘Vagueness’, in Australasian Journal of Philosophy and Psychology, 1, pp. 84–92. Reprinted in Keefe and Smith (eds.), pp. 61–68.
Sainsbury, R. M. 1990. ‘Concepts without boundaries’, Inaugural Lecture given at King's College, London, 6 November 1990. Reprinted in Keefe and Smith (eds.), pp. 251–264.
Schokkaert, E. and Ootegem, L. 1990. ‘Sen's concept of the living standard applied to the Belgian unemployed’, in Recherches Economiques de Louvain, 56, 3–4, pp. 429–450Google Scholar
Sen, A. K. 1985. Commodities and capabilities, Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Sen, A. K. 1989. ‘Economic methodology: heterogeneity and relevance’, in Social Research, 56, 2, pp. 299–329.Google Scholar
Sen, A. K. 1992. Inequality re-examined, Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Sen, A. K. 1997. On economic inequality. Expanded edition with a substantial annexe by Foster, James and Sen, Amartya, Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Sen, A. K. 1999. Development as freedom, New York: Alfred A. Knopf Press.Google Scholar
Sen, A. K. 2003. ‘Development as capability expansion’, in Fukuda-Parr, S. and Shiva Kumar, A. K. (eds.). Originally published in Journal of Development Planning, 1989, 19, pp. 41–58.
Silber, J. (ed.) 1999. Handbook of income inequality measurement, Boston: Kluwer Academic Publisher.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sorensen, R. 2002. ‘Vagueness’, in Zalte E. (ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, available on line: http://plata.stanford.edu/archives/fall2002.
Srinivasan, T. N. 1994. ‘Human development: a new paradigm or reinvention of the wheel?’, in American Economic Review, papers and proceedings, 84, pp. 238–243.
Stewart, F. 1985. Basic needs in developing countries, Baltimore, USA: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Sugden, R. 1993. ‘Welfare, resources and capabilities: a review of Inequality Re-examined by Amartya Sen’, in Journal of Economic Literature, 36, pp. 1947–1962.Google Scholar
Tappenden, J. 1995. ‘Some remarks on vagueness and a dynamic conception of language’, in Southern Journal of Philosophy, 33, pp. 193–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsui, K. Y. 2002. ‘Multidimensional poverty indices’, in Social Choice and Welfare, 19, pp. 69–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tye, M. 1989. ‘Supervaluationism and the law of excluded middle’, in Analysis, 49, pp. 141–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
United Nations Development Program, 1990, 1995, 1997. Human Development Reports, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Williamson, T. 1994. Vagueness, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wright, C. 1976. ‘Language-mastery and the sorites paradox’, in Evans G. and McDowell J. (eds.), pp. 223–247. Reprinted in Keefe and Smith (eds.), pp. 151–173.
Ysander, B. C. 1993. ‘Comment to Erikson's work “Descriptions of inequality” ’, in Nussbaum M. and Sen, A. K. (eds).
Zadeh, L. A. 1975. ‘Fuzzy logic and approximate reasoning’, in Synthese, 30, pp. 407–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zadeh, L. A. 1975. ‘A fuzzy set interpretation of linguistic hedges’, in Journal of Cybernetics, 2, pp. 4–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zadeh, L. 1976. ‘A fuzzy algorithmic approach to the definition of complex and imprecise concepts’ in International Journal of Man-machine studies, 8, pp. 249–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zadeh, L. A. 1978. ‘Fuzzy sets as a basis for a theory of possibility’, in Fuzzy sets and systems, 1, pp. 3–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zadeh, L. and Kacprzyk, J. (eds.) 1992. Fuzzy logic for the management of uncertainty, New York, USA: J.Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Zhang, Q. 1998. ‘Fuzziness – vagueness – generality – ambiguity’ in Journal of pragmatics, 29, pp. 13–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimmerman, H. J. 1991. Fuzzy sets theory and its applications, Boston: Kluwer Academic Publisher.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@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
×