Public policy as human policy: a prolegomenon to a conceptual framework and method of analysis
Abstract
Public policy has a normative and a causal character. On the one hand, it proposes a desirable state of affairs, determines which indicators ought to be changed and the direction of that change. On the other, it suggests how to reach that state, establishes the way to that goal. The economic approach has dominated public policy conceptually, loading opulence indicators with value. Quantitative statistical methods have dominated the study of causality, privileging exactness and the search for one model of best fit. As alternatives, to each, this article presents the Human Development and Capability Approach as a conceptual framework and Fuzzy Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis as a method of analysis. The former focuses on human beings and their quality of life. The latter allows the study of multiple conjunctural causation. Their combination in public policy analysis can potentially contribute to its effectiveness.Keywords:
human development; capability approach; public policy; fuzzy sets; qualitative comparative analysis.References
Alkire, Sabina (2010). Human Development: Definitions, Critiques and Related Concepts, Human Development Research Paper 2010/01.
——— (2009), “Concepts and Measures of Agency”, en Kaushik Basu y Ravi Kanbur, Arguments for a Better World, Essays in Honor of Amartya Sen, Volume I, New York, US, Oxford University Press.
——— (2007). “Measuring Agency: Issues and Possibilities”, Indian Journal of Human Development, 1(1): pp. 169–175.
——— (2005). “Subjective Quantitative Studies of Human Agency”, Social Indicators Research, 74(): pp. 217–260.
Alkire, Sabina y Séverine Deneulin (2010a). “A Normative Framework for Development”, en Séverine Deneulin y Lila Shahani, An Introduction to the Human Development and Capability Approach, London, UK, Earthscan.
——— (2010b). “The Human Development and Capability Approach”, in Séverine Deneulin y Lila Shahani, An Introduction to the Human Development and Capability Approach, London, UK, Earthscan.
Andresen, Nils (2004). “Methodological individualism, rational choice and development economics: a response to Kjosavik”, Forum for Development Studies, 31(1): pp. 115–125.
Baliamoune-Lutz, Mina (2006). “On the measurement of human well-being: Fuzzy-set theory and Sen’s capability approach”, en Mark McGillivray y Matthew Clark, Understanding Human Well-being, New York, US, United Nations University Press.
Bhargava, Rajeev (1992). Individualism in the social sciences. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Birkland, Thomas (2011). An Introduction to the Policy Process. New York, US, Routledge.
Berg-Schlosser, Dirk, Gisèle De Meur, Benoît Rihoux y Charles Ragin (2009). “Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) as an Approach” en Benoît Rihoux y Charles Ragin, Configurational Comparative Methods: Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and Related Techniques, Thousand Oaks, US, SAGE Publications
Bryman, Alan (1984). “The Debate about Quantitative and Qualitative Research: A Question of Method or Epistemology?” The British Journal of Sociology, 35(1): pp. 75–92.
Caldwell, Bruce (1994). Beyond Positivism. Economic Methodology in the Twentieth Century. New York, US, Routledge.
Camerer, C., Issacharoff, S., Loewenstein, G., O’Donoghue, T. y M. Rabin. (2003). “Regulation for Conservatives: Behavioral Economics and the case for Asymmetric Paternalism”, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 151: pp. 1211–1254.
Chiappero-Martinetti, Enrica (2006). “Capability Approach and Fuzzy Set Theory: description, aggregation and inference issues” en Achille Lemmi y Gianni Betti, Fuzzy Set Approaches to Multidimentional Poverty Measurement. New York, US, Springer, Economic Studies in Inequality, Social Exclusion and Well-Being.
——— (1994), “A new approach to evaluation of well-being and poverty by fuzzy set theory”, Giornale degli economisti e annali di economia, 7(9), pp. 367–388.
Clark, David y Mozaffar Qizilbash (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.
Clower, Robert., G. Dalton, M. Harwitz, y A. Walters (1966), Growth Without Development: an economic survey of Liberia. US: Northwestern University Press.
Comim, Flavio (2008). “Measuring Capabilities” en Sabina Alkire, Favio Comim y Mozaffar Qizilibash, The capability approach in human development: concepts, applications and measu- rement, London, UK, Cambridge University Press.
Crocker, David e Ingrid Robeyns (2010). “Capability and agency” en Chistopher Morris, Amartya Sen, Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press.
Dasgupta, Partha (2001). Human Well-being and the Natural Environment. Oxford, UK, Oxford University Press.
Dowrick, Steve (2007). “Income-based Measures of Average Well-being”, en Mark Gillivray, Human Well-being: Concept and Measurement, New York, US, Palgrave Macmillan.
Garcés, Pablo (2018). “Do many roads lead to Rome? Multiple causation in monetary transfers and how to approach it”, Revista Estudios de Políticas Públicas, 7(1), pp. 1–11.
——— (2016). “Beyond Positivism: Fuzzy Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis and Pragmatist Research”, Revista PUCE, 103, pp. 439–459.
——— (2014). “El Desarrollo y sus descontentos: económico, humano y buen vivir”, Revista Axioma, 1(12), pp. 27–33.
Haq, Mahbub ul (2004). “The Human Development Paradigm”, en Sakiko Fukuda-Parr y Shiva Kumar, Readings in Human Development, New York, US, Oxford University Press.
——— (1995). Reflections on Human Development. New York, US: Oxford University Press.
Hvinden, Bjorn y Rune Halvorsen (2017). “Mediating Agency and Structure in Sociology: What Role for Conversion Factors?”, Critical Sociology, pp. 1–17.
Kay, John (1991). “Economics and Business”, The Economic Journal, 101(404), pp. 57–63.
King, Gary, Robert Keohane y Sidney Verba (1994). Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific inference in qualitative research, NJ, US, Princeton University Press.
Klugman, Jeni, Francisco Rodríguez y Hyung-Jin Choi (2011). “The HDI 2010: new controversies, old critiques” Journal of Economic Inequality, 9(), pp. 249–288.
Kydd, Andrew (2008). “Methodological Individualism and Rational Choice” en Christian Reus- Smit y Duncan Snidal, The Oxford Handbook of International Relations, Oxford, UK, Oxford University Press.
McGillivray, Mark (2007). “Human Well-being: Issues, Concepts and Measures” en Mark Gillivray,Human Well-being: Concept and Measurement, New York, US, Palgrave Macmillan.
Medina, Iván, Pablo Castillo, Priscilla Álamos-Concha y Rihoux, Benoît (2017). Análisis Cualitativo Comparado (QCA), Madrid, España, Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas.
Meier, Kenneth, Jeffrey Brudney y John Bohte (2009). Applied Statistics for Public and Nonprofit Administration. Belmont, US, Thomson Wadsworth.
Nussbaum, Martha (2011). Creating Capabilities: the Human Development Approach, London, UK, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
——— (2001). Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach. New York, US, Cambridge University Press.
Qizilbash, Mozaffar (2003). “A note on the measurement of poverty and vulnerability in the South African context”. Journal of International Development, 14, pp. 757–772.
Ragin, Charles (2008). Redesigning Social Inquiry. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
——— (2000). Fuzzy-Set Social Science. London, UK, University of Chicago Press.
——— (1987). The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies, Los Angeles, US, University of California Press.
Ranis, Gustav, Frances Stewart y A. Ramirez (2000). “Economic Growth and Human Development”,
World Development, 25(2), pp. 197–209.
Rihoux, Benoît y Charles Ragin (2006). “Introduction” en Benoît Rihoux y Charles Ragin, Configurational Comparative Methods: Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and Related Techniques, Thousand Oaks, US, SAGE Publications.
Rihoux, Benoît, Iona Rezsöhazy y Damien Bol (2011), “Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) in Public Policy Analysis: An Extensive Review”, German Policy Studies, 7(3), pp. 9–82.
Robeyns, Ingrid (2008). “Sen’a Capability Approach and feminist concerns” en Sabina Alkire, Favio Comim y Mozaffar Qizilibash, The capability approach in human development: concepts, appli- cations and measurement, London, UK, Cambridge University Press.
——— (2005), “The Capability Approach: a theoretical survey”, Journal of Human Development, 6(1), pp. 93–114.
Rosenberg, Alexander (2012). Philosophy of Social Science, Fourth edition, Boulder, US, Westview Press.
Sen, Amartya (1999). Development as Freedom, New York, US, Oxford University Press.
——— (1990). “Development as Capability Expansion”, en Keith Griffin y John Knight, Human Development and the International Development Strategy for the 1990s, London, UK, Macmillan.
——— (1985). “Well-Being, agency and freedom. The Dewey Lectures 1984”, Journal of Philosophy,
, pp. 169–221.
Stiglitz, Joseph, Amartya Sen y Jean-Paul Fitoussi (2010). Mis-measuring Our Lives, why GDP doesn’t add up. The Report by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress. London, UK: The New Press.
Smithson, Michael y Jay Verkuilen (2006). Fuzzy Set Theory: Applications in the Social Sciences.
London, UK, SAGE Publications.
Thaler, Richard (2015). Misbehaving: the making of behavioral economics. New York, US: W. W. Norton & Company.
Varone, Frédéric, Benoît Rihoux y Axel Marx (2006). “A New Method for Policy Evaluation? Longstanding Challenges and the Possibilities of Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA)” en Benoît Rihouxy H. Grimm, Innovative Comparative Methods for Policy Analysis: Beyond the Quantitative-Qualitative Divide. US: Springer.
Wagemann, Claudius (2012). “¿Qué hay de nuevo en el método comparado?: QCA y el análisis de los conjuntos difusos”, Revista Mexicana de Análisis Político y Administración Pública, 1(1), pp. 51–75.
Wolff, Jonathan y Avner de-Shalit (2013). Disadvantage. London, UK, Oxford University Press.
Zimmermann, Hans-Jürgen (2001). Fuzzy Set Theory and its Applications. Massachusetts, US, Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Zimmermann, Bénédicte (2006). “Pragmatism and the Capability Approach: Challenges in Social Theory and Empirical Research”, European Journal of Social Theory, 9(4), pp. 467–484.
Twitter