A hybrid version of well-being: An attempt at operationalisation
Objectives: This paper aims to investigate the possibility of constructing a hybrid version of well-being and making an attempt at its operationalisation.
Research Design & Methods: The theoretical framework is based on the capability approach of Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum, while the empirical part of the paper refers to a fuzzy set theory.
Findings: We propose three measures of hybrid well-being, referring to (1) the minimum formula, (2) a mobility index, and (3) the concept of internalities.
Implications / Recommendations: We are convinced that it is not only possible to create a philosophically informed measure of well-being, but also that this kind of measure can be crucial in the context of public policy due to its sensitivity to autonomy and adaptation problems.
Contribution / Value Added: Findings of this research can be seen as an attempt to merge philosophical investigation with economics theories and applications.
well-being; hybrid well-being; capability approach; autonomy; adaptation
Alkire, S. (2002). Dimensions of human development. World Development, 30(2), 181–205.
Betti, G. et al. (2006). On the construction of fuzzy measures for the analysis of poverty and social exclusion. Statistica & Applicazioni, 4(1), 77–97.
Boelhouwer, J. & Noll, H. (2014). Objective quality of life. In A. C. Michalos (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research. Dordrecht – Heidelberg – New York – London: Springer.
Cerioli, A. & Zani, S. (1990). A fuzzy approach to the measurement of poverty. In C. Dagum (Ed.), Income and Wealth Distribution, Inequality and Poverty (pp. 272–284). Berlin: Springer Verlag.
Cheli, B. (1995). Totally fuzzy and relative measures of poverty in dynamic context. Metron, LIII(3–4), 183–205.
Cummins, R. (2000). Objective and subjective quality of life: An interactive model. Social Indicators Research, 52(1), 55–72.
Dolan, P. & Peasgood, T. (2008). Measuring well‐being for public policy: Preferences or experiences? The Journal of Legal Studies, 37(S2), S5–S31.
Kagan, S. (2009). Well-being as enjoying the good. Philosophical Perspectives, 23(1), 253–272.
Kraut, R. (2007). What is Good, and Why. The Ethics of Well-Being. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
Kraut, R. (2013). Desire and the human good. In R. Shafer-Landau (Ed.), Ethical Theory: An Anthology (pp. 286–293). Wiley-Blackwell.
Nussbaum, M. (2003). Capabilities as fundamental entitlements: Sen and social justice. Feminist Economics, 9(2), 33–59.
Panek, T. (2011). Ubóstwo, wykluczenie społeczne i nierówności. Teoria i praktyka pomiaru. Warszawa: Oficyna Wydawnicza SGH.
Parfit, D. (1984). Reasons and Persons. New York: Oxford University Press.
Raj, Ch. (2015). Behavioral economics and public policy: A pragmatic perspective. American Economic Review, 105(5), 1–33.
Seligman, M. (2011), Flourish. North Sydney, Australia: William Heinemann.
Sen, A. (2005). Commodities and Capabilities. Delhi – New York: Oxford University Press.
Tatarkiewicz, W. (1976). Analysis of Happiness. Warsaw: PWN.
Tiberius, V. (2014). Well-being, philosophical theories of. In A. C. Michalos (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research. Dordrecht – Heidelberg – New York – London: Springer.
Ulman, P. & Soltes E. (2015). The monetary and nonmonetary aspects of poverty in Poland and Slovakia. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, 3(1), 61–73.
Woodard, C. (2015). Hybrid theories. In G. Fletcher (Ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Philosophy of Well-Being (pp. 161–174). Abingdon: Routledge.
Zadeh, L. A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8, 338–353.