自由的价值:能力测量的当前发展和概念问题综述

IF 1.8 3区 社会学 Q3 DEVELOPMENT STUDIES
Jasper Ubels, K. Hernandez-villafuerte, M. Schlander
{"title":"自由的价值:能力测量的当前发展和概念问题综述","authors":"Jasper Ubels, K. Hernandez-villafuerte, M. Schlander","doi":"10.1080/19452829.2022.2053506","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In health economics, proponents of the capability approach argue that the value of health improvements should be evaluated us broad domains which reflect the capabilities of an individual. Instruments have been developed to measure these domains. These instruments operationalise the measurement of capability in different ways. The objective of this study is to analyze specifically how instruments operationalise the capability approach. Using a comprehensive pearl growing search methodology, we identified ten instruments. The content of these instruments was analysed in three stages. First, the definition of capability that was used for the development of an instrument was identified. Then, an analysis was conducted on how this definition was operationalised in the instrument’s development. Lastly, the content of the instruments was compared with the concept “option freedom”, which provides a more comprehensive definition of capability, to study whether the instruments measure capability or other aspects that are relevant for wellbeing assessment. We conclude that, despite using a shared definition of capability, the instruments differ in their methods to measure capability. Some instruments might miss content that reflect the burdens that people experience while achieving their capabilities in certain contexts. This might be due to the unclear conceptualisation of capability by Sen.","PeriodicalId":46538,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Human Development and Capabilities","volume":"23 1","pages":"327 - 353"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Value of Freedom: A Review of the Current Developments and Conceptual Issues in the Measurement of Capability\",\"authors\":\"Jasper Ubels, K. Hernandez-villafuerte, M. Schlander\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/19452829.2022.2053506\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT In health economics, proponents of the capability approach argue that the value of health improvements should be evaluated us broad domains which reflect the capabilities of an individual. Instruments have been developed to measure these domains. These instruments operationalise the measurement of capability in different ways. The objective of this study is to analyze specifically how instruments operationalise the capability approach. Using a comprehensive pearl growing search methodology, we identified ten instruments. The content of these instruments was analysed in three stages. First, the definition of capability that was used for the development of an instrument was identified. Then, an analysis was conducted on how this definition was operationalised in the instrument’s development. Lastly, the content of the instruments was compared with the concept “option freedom”, which provides a more comprehensive definition of capability, to study whether the instruments measure capability or other aspects that are relevant for wellbeing assessment. We conclude that, despite using a shared definition of capability, the instruments differ in their methods to measure capability. Some instruments might miss content that reflect the burdens that people experience while achieving their capabilities in certain contexts. This might be due to the unclear conceptualisation of capability by Sen.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46538,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Human Development and Capabilities\",\"volume\":\"23 1\",\"pages\":\"327 - 353\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"7\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Human Development and Capabilities\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/19452829.2022.2053506\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"DEVELOPMENT STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Human Development and Capabilities","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/19452829.2022.2053506","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DEVELOPMENT STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

摘要

在健康经济学中,能力方法的支持者认为,健康改善的价值应该在反映个人能力的广泛领域进行评估。已经开发出测量这些域的仪器。这些工具以不同的方式对能力的测量进行操作。本研究的目的是具体分析仪器如何操作能力方法。使用综合珍珠生长搜索方法,我们确定了十种工具。分三个阶段对这些仪器的含量进行了分析。首先,确定了用于开发仪器的能力的定义。然后,对该定义如何在仪器开发中实施进行了分析。最后,将工具的内容与“选择权自由”的概念进行比较,该概念提供了更全面的能力定义,以研究工具衡量的是能力还是与福祉评估相关的其他方面。我们的结论是,尽管使用了一个共享的能力定义,这些工具在测量能力的方法上是不同的。有些工具可能会错过反映人们在特定环境中实现其能力时所经历的负担的内容。这可能是由于麦凯恩对能力的概念不明确。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Value of Freedom: A Review of the Current Developments and Conceptual Issues in the Measurement of Capability
ABSTRACT In health economics, proponents of the capability approach argue that the value of health improvements should be evaluated us broad domains which reflect the capabilities of an individual. Instruments have been developed to measure these domains. These instruments operationalise the measurement of capability in different ways. The objective of this study is to analyze specifically how instruments operationalise the capability approach. Using a comprehensive pearl growing search methodology, we identified ten instruments. The content of these instruments was analysed in three stages. First, the definition of capability that was used for the development of an instrument was identified. Then, an analysis was conducted on how this definition was operationalised in the instrument’s development. Lastly, the content of the instruments was compared with the concept “option freedom”, which provides a more comprehensive definition of capability, to study whether the instruments measure capability or other aspects that are relevant for wellbeing assessment. We conclude that, despite using a shared definition of capability, the instruments differ in their methods to measure capability. Some instruments might miss content that reflect the burdens that people experience while achieving their capabilities in certain contexts. This might be due to the unclear conceptualisation of capability by Sen.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
6.70%
发文量
23
期刊介绍: Journal of Human Development and Capabilities: A Multi-Disciplinary Journal for People-Centered Development is the peer-reviewed journal of the Human Development and Capabilities Association. It was launched in January 2000 to promote new perspectives on challenges of human development, capability expansion, poverty eradication, social justice and human rights. The Journal aims to stimulate innovative development thinking that is based on the premise that development is fundamentally about improving the well-being and agency of people, by expanding the choices and opportunities they have. Accordingly, the Journal recognizes that development is about more than just economic growth and development policy is more than just economic policy: it cuts across economic, social, political and environmental issues. The Journal publishes original work in philosophy, economics, and other social sciences that expand concepts, measurement tools and policy alternatives for human development. It provides a forum for an open exchange of ideas among a broad spectrum of academics, policy makers and development practitioners who are interested in confronting the challenges of human development at global, national and local levels.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信