Human wellbeing is a phenomenon of immense significance in development discourse but its meaning as well as how it is measured has been a subject of debate among academics and development practitioners (Dodge, Daly, Huyton, and Sanders, 2012; Forgeard, Jayawickreme, Kern, and Seligman, 2011; Jordan, 2008; Saunders, 2008; Seedhouse, 1995). In their article titled, The challenge of defining wellbeing, Dodge et al. (2012) reiterate the fact that although interest in wellbeing research has increased in recent decades, there is yet to be a consensus on its exact definition. While describing the concept of wellbeing as “notoriously difficult to define”, White (2010, p. 160) notes the positive connotation associated with the concept. It is not just about what people feel or do, but the actual experience of what is good, and living it in various aspects of life. In this regard, the view of wellbeing as a state of human experience in which conditions necessary for people to pursue the things they have reason to value are present and accessible, is reinforced (Coulthard, Johnson, and McGregor, 2011).
Like many other social science concepts, wellbeing is not tangible, making it rather difficult to define (Thomas, 2009, p. 11). To Dodge et al. (2012), previous attempts at defining wellbeing
23
have been more of descriptions of the concept than definitions, leading to what Forgeard et al.
(2011, p. 11) describe as “blurred and overly broad definitions” of the concept. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2013) notes that wellbeing
has been used interchangeably with happiness, life satisfaction and quality of life, and often has been defined from generalized, component and focused perspectives. McGillivray (2007) also asserts that in measuring progress towards identifiable benchmarks, the international community uses indicators of wellbeing and gives the examples of such benchmarks as ‘Education for All’ (1978), ‘Health for All’ (1990), and ‘Millennium Development Goals’ (2000). There is now the United Nations ‘Sustainable Development Goals’ (2030). While these are measured at the national or macro level, wellbeing can also be measured at the micro or individual level (White, 2010).
Issues about wellbeing that have been debated over the years in the literature are: what constitutes wellbeing? Should it be economic or social? If economic, what parameters are adequate in judging wellbeing at macro (GDP, GDP per capita, etc.) and micro (income, assets, etc) levels? (McGillivray, 2007; Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2013). If social, what parameters should be used (health, education, networks, etc.)? Should it be subjective or objective? Should both economic and social parameters be used in understanding the wellbeing of populations as well as individuals? Measuring wellbeing in the context of developing countries seems to open more debates because of the complexities of subjective meanings associated with wellbeing, fuelled by cultural values (Copestake and Camfield, 2009). The issue of subjective wellbeing that looks beyond what people have, to what they think and feel about their lives has also attracted attention (Helliwell and Putnam, 2004) and has resulted in the discourse on happiness and life satisfaction as important components.
Regardless of these debates, OECD understands wellbeing includes meeting basic human needs that are in themselves varied, and also the ability to pursue life goals, make progress in life and have a sense of satisfaction with life (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2011). In this sense, and drawing inspiration from earlier works of Stiglitz, Sen, and Fitoussi (2009), Holzmann, Stiglitz, Fox, James, and Orszag (2001) and Hall, Giovannini, Morrone, and Ranuzzi (2010), the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2011) identifies three key pillars that are essential in the measurement of wellbeing. These are: material living conditions (economic wellbeing), quality of life (non-financial attributes
24
that shape people’s ability to tap opportunities and life chances), and socio-cultural and environmental systems sustainability. This is in line with the observation of Forgeard et al. (2011) that wellbeing is a multi-faceted phenomenon that should be measured from multiple objective and subjective sources. A similar idea is also expressed by Helliwell and Putnam (2004) who show the importance of physical, human and social capital in determining wellbeing (Calestani, 2012a; Camfield, Crivello, and Woodhead, 2009). They note for instance that marriage, family ties, friendship networks, civic involvement, etc. are important predictors of life satisfaction and therefore wellbeing.
Earlier studies on wellbeing that focused mainly on economic dimensions and argued that higher income levels or higher consumption will result in improved wellbeing and therefore better life satisfaction, are contested (Qizilbash, 1996). The experience of Western European countries in the 20th century has given rise to what is known as the Easterlin paradox (Easterlin, McVey, Switek, Sawangfa, and Zweig, 2010). Cross-country data on subjective wellbeing shows that economic progress does not necessarily result in higher measures of happiness (Aryeetey and Kanbur, 2005; Graham and Pettinato, 2002; Jordan, 2008; Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, 2013; Searle, 2008). Searle (2008, p. 4) argues that “money and material wealth are not the route to happiness” and makes a case for adoption of subjective (individual self-reported) wellbeing as a better way of looking at wellbeing. Other scholars have also argued that happiness is not an appropriate measure of subjective wellbeing because it only relates to that aspect of life which is limited to attainment of desires, leaving aside other essential aspects of wellbeing like autonomy, mastery, self-acceptance and personal growth (Deaton, 2008; Ryff and Keyes, 1995; Searle, 2008). In recognition of the merits and demerits of conceiving wellbeing from objective and subjective perspectives, Gough, McGregor, and Camfield (2007) agree that wellbeing must be considered from both objective and subjective circumstances of individuals.
Writing from a psychological point of view, Ryan and Deci (2001) observe that research on wellbeing has focused on two approaches. The first looks at wellbeing in terms of attainment of pleasure and avoidance of pain (the hedonic approach). The argument in this approach is that the ultimate goal in life is the pursuit of happiness, and the level of attainment of that goal
vis-à-vis pain and displeasure produces a person’s level of wellbeing (Diener and Lucas, 1999;
Diener, Sapyta, and Suh, 1998; Kahneman, Diener, and Schwarz, 1999; Kubovy, 1999). The second approach focuses on self-actualization and the extent to which individuals are able to
25
function fully in dimensions of life that promote their self-actualization, and the attainment of their valued life goals – the eudaimonic approach (McGregor and Little, 1998; Ryan and Deci, 2000; Ryff and Singer, 1998). Ryan and Deci (2001), however, note that the two approaches overlap and tend to complement each other in deepening understanding of wellbeing although they also challenge the pursuit of happiness in itself as constituting wellbeing. Hence, there is the possibility of combining the two approaches in measuring wellbeing.
Breaking from the traditional economic view of wellbeing, which focuses mainly on income, Sen (1985b), introduces his capability approach to conceptualize wellbeing. Included in this approach are the concepts of capabilities and functionings, which respectively mean what a person is able to be or to do, and the opportunity or freedom to choose from possible lifestyles. For instance, a given set of retirement income can be used in different ways but the opportunity or ability to opt for one or the other may be limited depending on the circumstances of one’s existence. Hence, the totality of people’s wellbeing reflects their ability to do all the things that make life meaningful to them (Alkire, 2008; Chiappero-Martinetti, Spreafico, and Quartapelle, 2012; Gough et al., 2007; Sen, 1993). Sen’s argument is that the effects of social policies in any given country must be evaluated within individuals’ capabilities spaces, which he explains to be the state of beings and doings valued by individuals. In effect, if social policy is meant to improve individual wellbeing, it must reflect in people’s ability or freedom to realise the things they value as important to their wellbeing (Sen, 1992, p. 52; Unterhalter, 2003). In his view, what matters to people is not just the achievement of valued functionings, but also having the freedom and ability to do so (capabilities). Thus the capabilities space is a key input to achieving desired wellbeing.
It appears therefore that Sen’s capability approach advocates a shift in the focus of social policy towards enhancement of individual capabilities. Enhancing people’s capabilities is to improve their freedom to achieve what they have reason to value doing and being (Denuelin, 2009). Although Dean (2009) attempts a critique of Sen’s description of the concept of capabilities, he acknowledges that it is beguiling, and has attracted considerable global attention. There is a sense in which his own description of the concept as representing a critical pivot that connects material resources and human achievements, elucidates the understanding of the concept. Dean goes on to identify two advantages of the concept. First, it goes beyond the conventional distinction between absolute and relative needs as expounded by Townsend and Gordon
26
(1993). Second, it advances the concept of social justice, which had earlier been theorized by Rawls (1972).
Sen’s capability approach has become a dominant approach in discussions on human wellbeing and how it should be measured (Deaton, 2008, p. 53). The UN Human Development Index (HDI) for instance is said to be underpinned by Sen’s capability approach and focuses on literacy (education), life expectancy (health) and gross domestic product per capita (income) (Anand, Santos, and Smith, 2007; Chiappero-Martinetti et al., 2012; United Nations Development Programme, 1990), although it is heavily criticized as a tool for inter-country comparison (McGillivray, 1991). The components of the HDI are seen as important capabilities that are essential for realization of human wellbeing and societal development (Glatzer, 2012). In Sen’s capability approach, which is explained in more detail in section 2.5, individuals combine their income with their individual characteristics, skills and experience to function in areas of their lives that they have reason to value and are meaningful to their wellbeing (functionings). The skills and experiences that combine with income are derived from the events of their lives (Dodge et al., 2012; Searle, 2008).
In contributing to Sen’s capability approach, Deneulin and McGregor (2010) argue for re- constitution of the capability approach to incorporate the social and cultural contexts in which people experience wellbeing. In their view, Sen’s version of the capability approach is individualistic and takes no account of the social and institutional contexts in which individuals live their lives. This view is plausible because individuals do not live their lives in isolation. People are born into family structures and they live and act within the socio-cultural confines of their families. This is especially the case for a developing country like Ghana, although there is evidence of declining family ties (Apt, 2002; Darkwa, 2000; Kumado and Gockel, 2003). Deneulin (2006, 2009) confirms an earlier point by Sen (1999) that human wellbeing is the goal of any development effort. However, development is multidimensional and therefore the use of income as a measure of human wellbeing is problematic because it does not capture the full scope of socio-cultural factors that make up human wellbeing.
Gough et al. (2007, p. 11) simplify Sen’s notion of capabilities and functionings to show that wellbeing is the totality of what a person achieves in various aspects of life (functionings), through the set of resources available to the person, which generate the ability to do and to be (capabilities). The suggestion here is that people vary in their ability or freedom to convert a
27
given set of income to useful functionings, depending on the socio-demographic circumstances of their existence. In the specific case of retirees, the key question is: exactly how and under what circumstances do retirees translate their retirement incomes into achieved functionings in dimensions of life that promote their wellbeing?