Chapter- 1 - Shodhgangashodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/36157/7/07...happiness, well-being, health status and living conditions, are the most cited examples of concepts that

1

Chapter- 1

Notion of Quality of Life in the Urban Context

1.1 Introduction- the urban context of quality of life

“Urbanization is a dominant demographic trend and an important component

of global land transformation.”1 It is generally defined as the process of growth

in the proportion of country’s population living in urban areas. It occurs

because people move from rural areas (country side) to urban areas (towns

and cities). Half the world’s population now lives in urban areas. The earth’s

urban population has increased more than 10-fold over the past century, from

0.22 billion in 1900 to 2.9 billion in 1999 and as per UNESA (2011) it was 3.5

billion in 2010. It is expected that by 2030, more than 60 percent (4.9 billion)

of the estimated world population (8.1 billion) will live in cities.2 According to

Pickett (2001), the developed nations have more urbanized populations; close

to 80 percent of the US population is urban. Urbanization also results in a

dramatic rise in the size of cities. By 2008, more than 400 cities had over 1

million population and 19 cities had over 10 million population 3 as against

300 cities with over 1 million population and 14 megacities with over 10

million people indicated by Pickett in 2001.

There are three components to urbanization: ‘natural increase’ (the

difference between the number of births and deaths in a population);

migration; and the reclassification of rural areas as urban or a change in the

criteria of “urban”. The main cause of urban growth today is generally natural

increase, although there is significant variation between countries. In some

parts of the world, the primary influence on urbanization is the movement of

people uprooted by drought, famine, ethnic conflicts, civil strife and so on.

Cities have enormous potential for improving people’s lives, with urban areas

offering better access to health, education, basic infrastructure, information, 1 Pickett (2001:128) 2 Alberti et al., (2003: 1170). 3 Population Reference Bureau (2010).

2

knowledge and opportunity. On the other hand, large population size, high

residential and social density, and great social heterogeneity associated with

urban life is expected to destroy the primordially based social supports and

close relationships characteristic of rural and small town life and replace them

with formal social control mechanisms and impersonal, bureaucratic

organizations.

Urbanism is a complex factor and it refers to the way of life in cities.

According to Kent P. Schwirian and others (1995), “urbanism” as a construct,

is multidimensional with separate demographic, social, economic and

environmental facets. The demographic aspects of urbanism are causally prior

to the others; that is, negative aspects of urbanism increase as the

demographic scale of cities increases. And these negative aspects of urbanism

are differently concentrated in various parts of the city. Simply put, quality of

life (QoL) in some areas of the cities is worse than the others. In other words,

some people may experience an improvement in their quality of life, especially

those migrating from rural areas, and for some (local residents) quality of life

may decline , due to densification, over-exploitation of resources, decline in

the quality and availiability of existing resources and so on. The benefits and

costs of urban growth have raised the need to study the degree to which the

necessary conditions for satisfaction with urban living exists in a given society

or region. Because cities are the epicentre of economic, political and other

activities, and hence are the fulcrum of contemporary existence, it is

important to understand the spectrum of conditions contributing to the

quality of urban life. As a result, greater emphasis is now given to the

assessment of quality of life in urban areas.

1.2 ‘Quality of life’ – as variously understood

Quality of life is a vague and a difficult concept to define, widely used, but with

little consistency. Some writers feel that quality of life cannot be defined

exactly because the definition assigned to the term and the way in which it is

3

used, are contingent upon research objectives and context. Consequently,

there is lack of consensus about its meaning since there is a wide range of

definitions and interpretations of quality of life.4 On the one hand, there are

unidimensional definitions of the concept of quality of life (where quality of

life is regarded as synonymous with health alone or defined solely in terms of

life satisfaction), on the other, a majority of quality of life definitions stress on

the multidimensional nature of the concept, typically manifested in the

specification of a number of quality of life domains. 5

Often there is a tendency to mix quality of life with other concepts, and

to use the different concepts interchangeably. For instance, life satisfaction,

happiness, well-being, health status and living conditions, are the most cited

examples of concepts that are used interchangeably with quality of life.

Though, quality of life is variously defined, but, in general, it is intended to

refer to either the conditions of the environment in which people live, (for

example, air and water pollution, or poor housing), or to some attribute of

people themselves (such as health or educational achievement).6

According to Szalai (1980) life quality refers to the degree of excellence

or satisfactory character of life. A person’s existential state, well-being,

satisfaction with life is determined on the one hand by exogenous (‘objective’)

facts and factors of his life and on the other hand by the endogenous

(‘subjective’) perception and assessment he has of these facts and factors, of

life and of himself. As per Musschenga (1997): the good life is a combination

of enjoyment: positive mental states (the hedonic component), satisfaction:

evaluation of success in realizing a life-plan or personal conception of the

good life (the cognitive-evaluative component) and excellence: the

virtuousness or value of a person’s activities (arètic component).

4 Scottish Executive Social Research (2006: 10). 5 Quality of life is a concept that has been operationalized using both unidimensional and multidimensional measures, i.e. in terms of satisfaction with life in general, or of satisfaction with specific “domains” of life considered separately (Scottish Executive Social Research 2006: 23). 6 Pacione (2003:19).

4

Figure 1.1 presents a schematic model showing various dimensions of

quality of life. This model examines a combination of measurable spatial,

physical and social aspects of the environment and the perception of these.

This perception is not only related to the objective characteristics of the

environment but also personal and contextual aspects. In this approach

quality of life consists of health, physical environment, natural environment,

personal development and security.

Figure 1.1 Quality of life components (van Irene Kamp et al., 2003)

In recent years, the question of quality of life has attracted a lot of

attention and is increasingly becoming the object of theoretical and empirical

research in various disciplines. Lambiri and others (2007:2) draw our

Quality of life

Security

Personal development

Health

Physical environment

Natural resources, goods and services

Community development

Mental health

Administration of justice crime and safety

Housing

Personal economic security and standard of

living

Individual development through

Individual development through recreation and leisure

Community structure

Social networks and group relations

Political participation

Social infrastructure and services

Natural Goods

Visual perception and scenic quality Nuisance

Climate Pollution

Physical health

5

attention to two important reasons for the increasing interest in quality of life

studies in the field of urban economics. The first reason is linked with the

policy implications of quality of life considerations: politicians, policymakers

and planners are constantly involved in environmental, social and economic

issues that are directly linked with the quality of life, at a national, regional,

urban and neighbourhood levels. For instance, urban planners are charged

with managing the objective urban environment (e.g., approving buildings,

zoning land-use and planning transport infrastructure) and are interested in

how their decisions affect the resident’s satisfaction with urban living.

Moreover, there is an increasing interest to measure and compare quality of

life because of its potential use as a political tool.

The second reason provided by the authors for the increasing attention

to the study of quality of life is that it is a factor that determines to a great

extent location decisions of households and businesses: “there is a clear link

between quality of life considerations and location choices of firms and

individuals, justifying why quality of life is used as a tool for place promotion

and city marketing policies aiming ‘to put an area on the map’.”

One can find references to quality of life in human ecology as well. There

are examples of models built within the discipline of human ecology that have

combined anthropological, biological, epidemiological, psychological and

sociological perspectives to provide a holistic view of the quality of life. Figure

1.2 is a schematic of a conceptual model of factors that contribute to an

individual’s quality of life from a human ecological perspective. The model

describes the basic relationships between component parts of a place in terms

of its physical, social and economic realms. The model also defines the

interaction between the domains, which gives a picture of how the concepts of

liveability, quality of life and environmental sustainability relate to each other.

In this approach quality of life is created by an ongoing interaction

between community, environmental and economic qualities. Liveability is

6

considered to be the result of the interaction between the physical and social

domains, and sustainability as the result of the interaction between the

physical and economic domains. The interaction among these three domains

is alternately defined as quality of life. 7

Figure 1.2 A conceptual model of factors that contribute to quality

of life of an individual from a human ecological perspective (Shafer et al., 2000)

In the field of economics, quality of life has been viewed as an economic

good 8

1. Quality of life is scarce and people are prepared to trade it off with

other things that make them equally happy, in order to have it.

2. Households and businesses make decisions on where to locate based on

quality of life considerations.

3. Quality of life is a public good; community resources need to be

allocated to it.

7 van Irene Kamp et al., (2003:9). 8 Explained in Lambiri et al., (2007:3).

Quality of Life

Liveable

Environmentally Sustainable

Environment Community

Economic qualities

Equitable Accessibility

7

From the individual perspective and at that level, quality of life is the

result of the satisfaction an individual achieves as a result of the consumption

of market goods, leisure, public goods and other characteristics (physical and

social) of the environment in which it is located.

Within the same discipline, quality of life is often associated, also

sometimes from the individual perspective, with the concept of his/her social

well-being, and traditionally has been mainly linked with monetary factors

such as GDP, price levels and cost of life. However, economic thinking has

moved away from this simplistic vision of quality of life towards more complex

definitions that consider income and consumption as only poor measures of

the quality of life since they are not able to fully explain what people can

achieve with their economic resources and can hide strong differences and

inequalities among people. Also, because, the quality of life is something

more than simply a given amount of resources (however defined). Health,

longevity, knowledge and education, social relations, subjective feelings are

constitutive elements of human life that cannot be ignored if one is interested

in assessing the quality of life of people. 9

1.3 The interlinked concepts- ‘quality of life’ and ‘well-being’

There are competing views about the relationship between quality of life and

well-being. Some regard the terms as interchangeable while others regard

well-being as one component of the broader concept of quality of life. 10

Quality of life is most commonly regarded as combining both subjective and

objective dimensions, while well-being is conceptualized as either subjective

or combination of the subjective or objective dimensions. Writers, who

consider well-being as interchangeable with quality of life, differentiate

between well-being – which is assessed only in terms of objective conditions -

and subjective well-being, which is well-being as defined, or assessed, by

9 Chiappero Martinetti (2000:1). 10 Dasgupta (2001).

8

individuals themselves, and which may include subjective response to

objective conditions. 11

Economists, on the other hand, “make a clear distinction between well-

being, which in their view pertains to individuals, and quality of life, which

they see as concerned with comparisons of welfare between individuals

(through social indicators), an objective viewed with scepticism. However

economists' models of subjective well-being are similar to quality of life

models to the extent that subjective well-being is associated with a range of

objective, external factors relating to an individual’s life.” These external

characteristics or factors relate to individuals’ gender, age, family,

employment status, income, education, as well as external characteristics of

the social environment in which individuals live including GDP, the quality of

governance and levels of interpersonal trust (social relationships).12

A major contribution in this field of research comes from the work of

Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen (1987, 1993). Sen considers income and

consumption as components of quality of life, but emphasizes assessing

quality of life in terms of the capability of individuals to achieve valuable

functionings: “capabilities (….) are notions of freedom, in the positive sense:

what real opportunities you have regarding the life you lead.” 13 “In assessing

the quality of life, Sen argues, we must be concerned with intrinsic values-

things that are valuable in themselves- rather than instrumental ones which

are means to other ends. Positive freedoms and valuable functionings are

amongst the chief objects of intrinsic importance. […] Well-being- valuable

states of being- is part of his conception of valuable functioning, and the

quality of life is to be judged, in part, in terms of ability to achieve well-

being.”14

11 Scottish Executive Social Research (2006: 32). 12 Ibid., 33-34. 13 Sen (1985:36). 14 Qizilibash, (1998: 53).

9

The well-being of a person can be seen in terms of the quality of the

person’s being.15 In this perspective living may be seen as consisting of a set of

interrelated ‘functionings’ and an overall evaluation of well-being has to take

the form of an assessment of these constitutive elements. Closely related to

the notion of functioning is that of the capability to function, i.e. the various

combinations of ‘beings’ and ‘doings’ that a person can achieve. The capability

is, thus, a set of vectors of functionings that reflects the person’s freedom to

choose what kind of life to live.16 So, if achieved functionings constitute a

person’s well-being, then the capability to achieve functionings will constitute

the person’s freedom- the real opportunities for a person to have well-being

and include also the freedom to have alternatives other than the chosen

combinations.

The thrust of Sen’s Capability Approach is that development be judged

“in terms of the expansion of substantive human freedoms.” These substantive

human freedoms are “seen in the form of individual capabilities to do things

that a person has reason to value”.17 Following Sen, the development of the

city or nation has to be assessed in terms of what its residents are able to do or

be, such as being able to read and write, to live in a clean environment, to live

long and healthy lives, or to participate in the life of the community. Here, one

can ask if it is sufficient to assess development achievements in the space of

individual freedoms or individual capabilities, as is implied by Sen’s

Capability Approach? To answer this Deneulin (2008:107-108) discusses the

notion of ‘socially dependent individual capabilities’, introduced by Sen, and

asserts that “the freedom and agency that each individual enjoys are

inescapably qualified and constrained by the social, political and economic

opportunities that are available to us. Individual freedoms are inescapably

linked to the existence of social arrangements, and our opportunities and

prospects depend crucially on what institutions exist and how they function.”

Development and the expansion of freedom cannot occur without the

15 Sen (1992: 39). 16 Ibid., 40. 17 Deneulin (2008:106).

10

presence of key institutions such as market, public services, the judiciary,

political parties, the media, etc.

By developing his Capability Approach to understand people’s quality of

life, Sen has responded to weaknesses he detected in other theories that dealt

with human well-being. In particular, he addressed strong criticism towards

the utilitarian approach, no matter how utility might be defined. Through this

approach, he proposes a view that sees a person’s well-being in terms of his or

her ‘functionings’, i.e., what the person succeeds in doing or being.

Functionings are people’s achievements and reflect their state of existence.

Well-being, therefore, is not only about the possession of commodities or the

happiness or desire fulfilment commodities may produce, it also evaluates the

conversion of the characteristics of those goods into functionings according to

the person who possesses them. Thus, capabilities and functionings achieved

are strictly related to the intrinsic characteristics of people.

“What mainly characterises Capability Approach with respect to other

multi-dimensional approaches of well-being is that it is not simply a way to

enlarge the evaluative well-being to variables other than income, but it is a

radically different way to conceive the meaning of well-being.” 18

Lastly, the crux of the discussion on Capability Approach can be

summarized with the help of Figure 1.3. The figure relates commodities (with

their characteristics) to the capabilities, the functionings and the level of well-

being (reducing poverty) reached.

Figure.1.3 Overview of the Capability Approach (Dubois and Rousseau, 2008)

18 Chiappero -Martinetti (2000:3).

Capabilities Functionings Well-being/ Poverty

Commodities & assets

11

Attempts have been made to identify the dimensions of well-being by

compiling a list of valuable capabilities or needs. Some commentators insist

that there are universal dimensions of well-being that are fundamental to

human life and are in fact knowable. For instance, after an extensive survey of

the Quality of Life literature, Robert Cummins (1996) identified seven

domains of well-being which together constituted well-being. The author

developed a Comprehensive Quality of Life Survey instrument that collects

subjective and objective indicators in these seven domains. Martha Nussbaum

(2000) has widely circulated and defended a list of ten central human

capabilities, with the intention that these should provide the basis for

“constitutional principles that should be respected and implemented by the

governments of all nations.” In analyzing a large study of Voices of the Poor

from twenty-three developing countries, Deepa Narayan et al., (2000) found

that six dimensions of well-being emerged as important, in very different ways,

to poor people all over the world.19 Sen, however, chooses not to give a list of

valuable functionings, ie., an adequate account of what the good life is.

According to Sen’s conception of well-being, poverty is understood as basic

capability failure, inequality reflects disparities in key human capabilities, and

development involves capability expansion.

To conclude, quality of life cannot be defined exactly, and therefore one

may likely to choose to study various facets and dimensions of the term rather

than attempt to define it explicitly. What is implied by quality of life varies

according to the way the term is operationalized in each study. The individual

orientations of the wide range of disciplines concerned with quality of life are

one factor influencing definitions of quality of life and explaining the diversity

of definitions.

Within the literature it is not clear what contributes to quality of life, and

what are the outcomes of quality of life. Different authors have arrived at

different conclusions:20

19 Others include Ramos (2005) and Alkire (2002). 20 Scottish Executive Social Research (2006: 12).

12

“Happiness and a feeling of well-being will also result from QOL.

When one rates his or her life as having quality, one will

concurrently have a sense of self-esteem and pride regarding his or

her life. It must be noted that a confounding scenario seems to be

apparent with each of these consequences of quality of life in that

each can contribute to, as well as result from quality of life.”

However, from the vast majority of studies reviewed on quality of life it

can be concluded that there are three alternative approaches to measure and

define quality of life: 1) social indicators approach, 2) subjective well-being,

and 3) economic indices.

Social indicators are societal measures that reflect people’s objective

circumstances in a given cultural or geographic unit. Social indictors are based

on objective, quantitative statistics rather than on individuals’ subjective

perceptions of their social environment. Subjective well-being, in contrast, is

concerned with individuals’ subjective experience of their lives. 21

The concept of “well-being” suffers from the same type of definitional

problem as quality of life. The definition of well-being varies within individual

disciplines. From an economic standpoint well-being can be defined or

measured in two ways: 1) purely in terms of objective indicators, and 2)

subjective well-being which can be defined and measured as both satisfaction

with life in general (unidimensional) and satisfaction with different aspects, or

domains, of life (multidimensional). The examples of the latter could be,

satisfaction or dissatisfaction with household income, house/flat, spouse, job,

social life, amount of leisure time and use of leisure time. Subjective well-

being is primarily concerned with an individual’s own internal judgment of life

domains both cognitive (satisfaction) and emotional (“happiness”).22

21 Diener and Suh (1997). 22 The view Sen has explained through his Capability Approach. If we understand well-being in this respect then Sen is actually talking about subjective well-being.

13

In this regard, subjective well-being is similar to quality of life models

that combine objective and subjective dimensions: since there exist important

associations between how individuals describe their levels of satisfaction with

observable conditions of both themselves and the society they live in.

In this thesis, we provide measures of people’s evaluative reactions to

their lives and society by providing two distinct accounts of quality of life that

can together be termed as subjectively perceived quality of life as against a

completely objective perception. The aim is to capture the multidimensional

nature of quality of life and well-being and quantify it for the purposes of

empirical research. There are, however, problems of measurement arising

mainly from the complex and vague nature of the concepts. The next section,

explains in detail the issue of complexity and vagueness in these concepts.

1.4 Complexity and vagueness in the concepts of ‘Well-being’ and

‘Quality of Life’

The notions of ‘well-being’ or ‘poverty’, ‘quality of life’ or ‘standard of life’ are

intrinsically complex and vague.23 This is mainly due to the fact that they

involve a plurality of interrelated variables, dimensions, and spaces with no

clear-cut boundaries between them. While some of the social sciences

(sociology and psychology in particular) acknowledge the intrinsically

complex and vague nature of poverty, and well-being, the same may not be

true for economics.

Often complexity and vagueness are perceived in economic analysis as

elements of weakness within a theoretical framework, and potential obstacles

to its operationalization. It is widely believed that overly complex concepts are

or can be vague, and that when a concept is not delineated by clear boundaries,

it is not accurate. Moreover, theoretical frameworks that are excessively

23 Chiappero- Martinetti (2008).

14

complex can be difficult to apply at the empirical level, which makes them less

appealing.24

A clear distinction between complexity and vagueness is required, not

only at a semantic level but also in terms of the choice of the most appropriate

tools to be used, for representing and capturing these two distinct though

interrelated issues.

In the context of the work we propose to undertake in this thesis,

complexity refers merely to the nature of concepts such as well-being, poverty

or quality of life. It describes multifaceted, multidimensional concepts

consisting of many interrelated elements and patterns for which the whole

cannot be fully understood by separately analyzing its components. In other

words, what determines complexity is not only the existence of many parts

and how they are related to one another, but also the necessity of considering

them jointly.25 According to Chiappero-Martinetti (2008), complexity can be

understood at two different levels:

1) intrinsic (or conceptual) complexity, which pertains to the nature of a

given phenomenon, and can be partially or fully reflected in the way in

which the phenomenon has been conceived and conceptualized;

2) complexity in measurement, which arises as we move from the

elaboration phase of theoretical concepts to their operationalization,

and mainly refers to the choice of technical tools adopted for empirical

investigations.

The degree of complexity increases as the number of dimensions, and

the level of specifications of each dimension, grow. Complexity can

progressively increase when a plurality of socio-economic, institutional and

24 Ibid. 25 A view adopted by Chiappero-Martinetti (2008). We found this view quite relevant for our study and refer to her work very often in order to understand why concepts like well-being, quality of life, or poverty are considered vague and complex in the Capability Approach. What does vagueness and complexity in these concepts mean, and how can vague and complex concepts be measured.

15

environmental considerations, along with heterogeneous social constraints

and cultural norms affecting individual well-being, are taken into account. The

degree of complexity involved in the theoretical formulation of a concept

(intrinsic complexity), should be distinguished from the technical issues that

arise when the concept is translated into a quantitative or qualitative measure

of well-being (complexity in measurement). Such a distinction is useful

because at times, relatively simple concepts can be hard to measure when we

have only imperfect information and lack knowledge or the precise tools to

measure complexity. Further concepts and theories with a high degree of

complexity can at times be operationalized with a relatively high degree of

accuracy.

Vagueness is another distinctive feature of many concepts and

phenomena. Many propositions in ordinary language are inherently vague,

and their meanings almost invariably context dependent. Taking example

from Chiappero-Martinetti (2008:275), “young” or “big” or “beautiful” are

vague linguistic concepts in the sense that they do not have exact and

universal definitions (various meanings are possible, and clear cut-off points

between a given concept and its opposite- such as “old”, “small”, “ugly”- do

not exist); moreover, their connotations can change according to the

situations to which they are applied. Again, it is useful to distinguish between:

1) intrinsic vagueness, which refers to the nature of a given concept or

phenomenon; and 2) vagueness in measurement, which relates to the way in

which vagueness can be accounted for.

For instance, Chiappero-Martinetti (2008:279) explains that the idea of

poverty is intrinsically vague, no matter whether it is measured in terms of

income or nutrition, physical health or any other relevant-single or multiple-

dimension of human well-being. This is so because vagueness of poverty

relates to the idea that the predicate “poor” is per se vague since

16

• there can be cases where it is not clear whether or not the predicate

applies26;

• along a hypothetical scale of well-being, an exact point at which a poor

person ceases to be a poor person does not really exist.

What this implies is that vagueness is not always context-dependent; by

and large, phenomena that are intrinsically vague will maintain their nature

under any circumstances. Poverty can and should be defined in a different way

according to different contexts, but in any space and in any time it will always

maintain its intrinsic vagueness. Finally, the “amount” of vagueness does not

depend on the number of dimensions or variables taken into consideration.

In fact, vagueness is related to the indeterminacy about how and whether it is

possible to identify in each space (even when poverty is identified in a unique

space or in the case of a plurality of focal variables taken into account)

thresholds below which a person will be characterized as poor. This

vagueness about the ‘bottom line’ or thresholds in each dimension is

sometimes called ‘vertical vagueness’ and is distinct from vagueness about the

dimensions of well-being which are relevant to the poverty evaluation exercise

called the ‘horizontal vagueness’ (Qizilbash, 2003).

The idea of vagueness as a lack of clear-cut borderline relates very well

with the concepts of indeterminacy and fuzziness and it should be

distinguished from imprecision (or inexactness). There can be two types of

imprecision: measurement imprecision and intrinsic imprecision. The former

is associated with the degree of exactness with which a given quantity can be

measured, and depends on the quantity of information available and the

quality of measurement tools as well as the statistical correctness of our

measurements. The latter is related to the properties of a phenomenon and

not to the measurement of these properties. While the first type of imprecision

is negatively related to the degree of exactness of a given measurement tool,

26 Chiappero- Martinetti (2008) explains that not only predicates, but also adverbs such as “very” or “many”, are intrinsically vague. The use of categorization such as “very poor” or “extreme poverty” actually increases the degree of vagueness.

17

the second type does not diminish with an increase in the precision of a given

metric. 27

1.4.1 Fuzzy sets theory – a tool to account for vagueness and complexity

Intrinsic vagueness and indeterminacy are fundamental properties of the

fuzzy sets theory, which is a precise, well-specified, accurate tool for dealing

with intrinsically vague and fuzzy predicates.

Fuzzy sets theory is not just a simple generalization of the crisp or

classical set theory, but is a flexible and rigorous mathematical tool that helps:

1) in representing quantitative (continuous or discrete) and qualitative

variables, and 2) to quantify linguistic attributes as well as hedges or

qualifiers28 by using plurality of functional forms.

Compared to a crisp sets theory, it offers a broader class of aggregation

functions for combining elementary sets- complement, union, intersection,

and averaging operators- and the appropriate aggregation operator can be

chosen according to different contexts and purposes. The fuzzy sets theory

captures a dimension of uncertainty (corresponding to the notion of

ambiguity and uncertainty related to the notion of vagueness) that traditional

statistical tools, based on classical logic and crisp sets are unable to

comprehend. The type of uncertainty discussed here is related to the notion of

vagueness as the difficulty in defining sharp boundaries and precise

distinctions.

27 Chiappero- Martinetti (2008:283). 28 We present Chaippero-Martinetti’s explanation of hedges or qualifiers: Linguistic variables are words or sentences expressed in natural language. Age, for instance, is a quantitative variable when it is expressed in terms of years, but becomes a linguistic variable when referred to with a (fuzzy) predicate such as, for instance, old or young. A linguistic hedge or fuzzy qualifier modifies the meaning of a predicate or, more generally, of a fuzzy set: very, close to, quite, fairly, are all examples of hedge. Like adverbs and adjectives in language, these qualifiers change the shape of fuzzy sets. For instance, applying the hedge very to the linguistic variable or fuzzy set of young people, we obtain a different fuzzy set, and thus a different representation of the corresponding membership function.

18

To summarize what we have stated, there is intrinsic complexity (i.e.,

multidimensionality) and intrinsic vagueness (i.e., difficulty in “drawing a

line”) on the one hand, and complexity and vagueness in measurement on the

other, and these should be separated, at least conceptually. Intrinsic

complexity and vagueness are features of many concepts and phenomena and

definitely features of well-being, poverty and quality of life. This, however,

should not be considered as a constraint or hindrance that compromises the

value of any approach.

In terms of the measurement issue, there is a range of multivariate

techniques for dealing with multidimensionality, while the choice of tools to

account for vagueness is limited. Chiappero-Martinetti (2008) emphasizes

that fuzzy sets theory is a better tool to account for vagueness as well as

complexity compared to other techniques which are based on classical,

bivalent logic and probability theory.

Lastly, the meaning of vagueness discussed in this thesis is basically

related to the nature of a given concept and suits well to ideas of well-being

and quality of life. Even if the measurement of these concepts do not formally

require to identify a clear cut-off point below which someone ceases to be

well-off, nonetheless it seems to be reasonable to assume that well-being

achievements, such as healthy living or education and knowledge, or

participation to the social life can be better described in terms of partial

fulfilment more than an “in or out” condition.

1.5 Research questions and overview of thesis 1.5.1 Research questions

This thesis answers the following research questions

1. Should income be the only criterion to identify poverty /depict living

conditions or we need other indicators to supplement income?

19

2. If one is to follow a multidimensional approach, instead of income or

consumption based approach to estimate well-being, can we still expect

misleading results? Accompanying questions are:

i. In what respect is notion of well-being vague?

ii. How can vagueness be captured in any estimation of well-being?

3. How does well-being vary among different socio-economic groups if one

is to measure it according to Sen’s Capability Approach?

4. Is the quality of life of households assessed in terms of access to and

satisfaction from basic services identical across Delhi or does it vary?

Do locational attributes and economic condition matter in

characterizing the quality of life of households?

1.5.2 Objectives of the study

Based on the research questions, the specific objectives of the study are

1. To compare results from an income- based approach to analyzing

poverty/ living conditions with that of social indicators approach.

2. To depict the living conditions of households in different parts of Delhi

by capturing the intrinsic vagueness in the concept of poverty.

3. To evaluate how individuals’ value their ‘beings and doings’, and how

individual assessment of well-being varies across socio-economic

groups and between subsets and sets of functionings.

4. To characterize the quality of life of households across Delhi based on

the extent of access different economic groups of households have to

basic services, and how the access varies as locational attributes change.

1.5.3 Hypotheses

The thesis proposes to test the following hypotheses

1. Income is the most accurate indicator of poverty and people’s living

conditions.

2. Vagueness of poverty has no bearing on the estimates of living

conditions.

20

3. Well-being achievements can be explained primarily on the basis of

economic condition of the individuals.

3.1 The degrees of achievement in any functioning or in subsets of

functionings are independent of individuals’ characteristics:

age, gender, present status of individuals, their nature of

employment, level of education and marital status.

4.1. The extent of access to basic services is comparable between colonies

approved by the Delhi Development Authority, colonies within the

Delhi Cantonment Board and the New Delhi Municipal Council on the

one hand and colonies that are unauthorized and for low income group

on the other.

4.2. The extent of access to basic services in the lowest categories of

colonies (i.e., F and G) and the best categories of colonies (i.e., A and B)

cannot be differentiated.

4.3. The highest and the lowest economic classes have similar access to and

satisfaction from basic services.

1.5.4 Overview of thesis

This thesis aims at examining the quality of life of people living in different

parts of the National Capital Territory (NCT) of Delhi. Quality of life is

quantified using three approaches. The first approach combines an

assessment of the living conditions of the households in Delhi with an account

of the vagueness of poverty. The notion of ‘vulnerability’ is introduced to

depict the living conditions of households.

In the second approach, quality of life is measured in terms of individual

assessment of well-being following Amartya Sen’s Capability Approach.

Finally, in the third approach, an account of quality of life is provided by

estimating the extent of access both the rich and the poor households, living in

different parts of Delhi, have to basic services and how this access and the

resulting satisfaction varies as locational attributes change.

21

Even though the second and third approaches are considered as distinct

pieces of research, they are, however, fundamentally related; at the centre of

both the approaches, it is the human life and the state of its existence that is

being discussed. Also, these two approaches address the same basic question:

What makes a good life? On the one hand, it is the availability of basic services

that are important for ensuring a certain quality of life, and on the other ( as

per Sen’s approach) good life includes many intrinsically important

functionings. These functionings include everything from basic material such

as being in good health and being adequately fed to others such as ability to

act freely.

This thinking is in line with the view Dasgupta and Weale (1992: 119)

have about the measures of quality of life:

“Measures of quality of life can take one of two forms: they can

reflect the constituents of well-being, or alternatively, they can be

measures of the access people have to the determinants of well-being.

Indices of health, welfare, freedom of choice, and more broadly, basic

liberties, are instances of the first; those indices which reflect the

availability of food, clothing, shelter, potable water, legal aid,

education facilities, health care, resources devoted to national security,

and income in general, are examples of the latter. In principle it does

not matter which route we take. Changes in a suitable aggregate of

either the constituents, or the determinants, can be made to serve as a

measure of changes in the quality of life in a society.”

The constituents of well-being, which Dasgupta and Weale talk about,

correspond to the various functionings (defined in Sen’s Capability Approach)

based on which the individual assessment of well-being is examined in this

thesis. While the determinants of well-being correspond to the extent of access

people have to basic services translated into their quality of life.

22

Some of the services that are considered important for this work are:

availability of medical facilities and schooling options close-by, availability of

green spaces in the neighbourhood, access to piped water on premises,

adequacy of transport services, quality and ease of market facilities in the

vicinity, condition of roads in the neighbourhood, regular maintenance

services in the neighbourhood, and law and order situation in the locality. We

have also sought people’s perception about their economic status and working

conditions, social interactions and leisure activities, health status,

psychological distress, if any, and housing conditions to measure well-being in

consistence with Sen’s Capability Approach.

The chapters in the thesis are organized as follows.

In the introductory chapter, a review of alternative approaches to define

quality of life is presented and its linkages to the concept of well-being are

investigated. The latter part of the chapter, examines the intrinsically

complex and vague nature of concepts of quality of life and human well-being

and suggests a mathematical tool to capture this vagueness and complexity.

Chapter-2 presents a brief history of Delhi dating back to 1450 BC; the

earliest reference to its settlement, expansion in Delhi’s urban area since 1901,

trends in urbanization of Delhi and a brief note on the civic administrative

divisions in the National Capital Territory of Delhi. The latter part of the

chapter explains the survey process using relevant maps.

In chapter-3, an analytical framework is developed to capture vagueness

that arises when we try to quantify ‘well-being’ or ‘quality of life’. An

assessment of the living conditions of households in Delhi with an account of

the vagueness of poverty is presented. The vagueness relates to the idea that

there is no clear cut borderline between those who are ‘poor’ (in terms of any

particular indicator be it income or an indicator that depicts quality of life),

and ‘non-poor’. In between these two extreme positions there is ambiguity

23

and people belong to the set of the poor and non-poor to some degrees.

Applications of the Capability Approach have used techniques to capture the

vagueness of notions such as poverty, well-being and inequality more

explicitly than other work on multidimensional measurement. However, the

richness of such theoretical argumentation is not easy to translate into

practical terms. Significant attempts have been made to analyze such

vagueness using fuzzy sets theory. The fuzzy poverty measures are not

measures of intensity, but they are seen as measures of vulnerability, where it

relates to the possibility of being classified as poor. These concepts are

explained in detail in chapter-3. Using the 2001 Census of India data on

housing amenities which has many relevant indicators of living conditions in

Delhi, we draw a contrast between estimates based on ‘income’ poverty and

those based on ‘human’ poverty. From the 2001 Census of India data on

houses, household amenities and assets given in the H-series of the Census,

we take five dimensions to depict the living conditions of households in the

nine districts of the National Capital Territory of Delhi. These dimensions are:

source of drinking water, type of fuel used for cooking, source of lighting, type

of latrine in the premises and specified asset availability. In addition, the

extent of green cover (relative area under green area) in each of the nine

districts is also taken as an indicator of living conditions. Notions like

‘definitely poor’ and ‘extremely vulnerable’ are introduced to explain how

vagueness can be analyzed using fuzzy poverty measures. This sets the basis

for using fuzzy set theoretic approach in analyzing quality of life in the

subsequent chapters.

In chapter-4 quality of life is measured in terms of individual assessment

of well-being in consistence with Sen’s Capability Approach. In the Capability

Approach, well-being is seen as a broad and fuzzy concept that is intrinsically

complex and vague in the sense that it is not possible to contain within clear

and unquestionable boundaries. Fuzzy sets theory is considered as a useful

tool for the treatment of ‘inexact knowledge’ and approximate reasoning. The

chapter explains in detail how this theory can be used to provide an account of

24

the level of achievements in terms of certain well-being dimensions. The unit

of analysis is an individual and the data are drawn from the survey carried

out in 2009 in the National Capital Territory of Delhi covering 330

households corresponding to 1,267 individuals aged 18 years and above.

In the last approach and assessment of the quality of life, presented in

chapter-5, the focus is not directly on individuals per se, but on the

geographical dimension of quality of life i.e., comparing different locations

according to a number of indicators that are assumed to reflect quality of life

of households in those areas. The unit of analysis in this case is a household

and the data are drawn from the same household survey conducted in 2009

comprising 330 households in the National Capital Territory of Delhi. The

indicators, in this context, are a few important services that people need to

have access to. Using fuzzy sets theory, we estimate 1) the extent of access

households have to basic services and the satisfaction that households derive

from these services, and 2) how satisfaction and the access varies (a) as

locational attributes change, (b) between the rich and the poor households.

Chapter- 6 presents a synthesis and conclusions.