ASSETS ENDOWMENTS (AS FACTOR OF PERCEPTION ) As factors of perception

ASSETS ENDOWMENTS (AS FACTOR OF PERCEPTION ) As factors of perception

Figure 7: Asset-Capabilities Relationship

„Functioning‟, the ability to „do‟ or to „be‟, can be either classified for consumption or production activities. It can be attained only if people have both pertinent

„abilities‟, i.e. owning or having access to relevant commodities/capital/resources/input, and supportive circumstances in their environment. Commodities, abilities, and

circumstances are classified as assets. Therefore, functioningis is a function of ability (abilities), commodity (commodities), and circumstances that make achievement of certain functionings possible. The quantity and variety of assets determine the variety of available functionings, or capabilities. Because commodities and circumstances provide opportunities to people and their abilities, it also can be said that capabilities represent the sum of opportunities and abilities, as listed in Table 6.

C = Σ Functionings Functionings = f (available assets) C= Σ f (available assets) C= Σ f (commodities, abilities, circumstances) C= Σ f (Tangible-Non-financial assets, Tangiblefinancial assets, Intangible

human-attached assets, Intangible sociallydetermined assets)

Capability

Intangible Assets level

Tangible Assets

Land, Money, Tools,

Skill,

Values, Norms, =Σ

Infrastructure, Bonds etc.

Knowledge,

Management, Human Functionings

Hours

interrelations, Organization Financial

= ΣBenefits Commodities give

Circumstances give from Assets

Abilities

Opportunities

Opportunities TOTAL ASSETS DETERMINE CAPABILITIES

Table

6. Assets Classification as Sources of Capabilities

Above scheme depicts the integration of terms and the classification logic within the literature on CA and assets. It shows the relationship between terms and provides a basis to integrate both concepts. Classified assets as described in literature on asset may

be categorized into three main concepts in CA, which make functionings possible. Material assets, such as land, money, tools, infrastructure and bonds are financial and non-financial commodities. Intangible assets such as values, norms, management, human interrelations, organization, are classified under circumstances. Human resources assets such as skills, knowledge, hours, which are also intangible, are in the CA classified under abilities. Commodities and circumstances give opportunities to persons having abilities to select and achieve functionings.

Based on above logical relationship between assets and capability and the acceptance of the capability approach to well-being, this paper develop so called

“Capability Index” (CI) to be indicator in evaluating development success. A higher index implies that a community has experienced a higher improvement on their capability

level, i.e. their state of freedom to choose. Because the level of freedom to choose indicates the level of well-being, which includes happiness, a higher CI may also indicate

a higher level of happiness.

Basically, the formula to calculate CI is developed based on the

following insight, which are gained from the case study.

1. Happiness due to higher quality of life, or the level of well-being is determined by higher level of freedom to choose, or referred to as capability level. Positive changes are more strongly perceived and significantly improve the feeling of happiness

2. The capability level is determined by the variety of possible functionings provided by assets

3. The variety of possible functionings is determined by the level of availability and accessibily of assets, and the level of opportunities or constraint given by them

4. The level of availability and accessibily of assets may be improved or decreased, and so are functionings, which are facilitated or constrainted by assets.

5. Functionings, besides as a process of using particular assets, which may be also facilitated or constrained by other assets, is actually also a process of producing and reproducing new additional assets

6. The improvement of capability, which represent quality of life or well-being, is then determined by the reciprocal relationship between a variety of assets and a variety of functionings.

Based on these assumptions, the relationship between capability level, functionings, and assets are expressed as follows:

Capability level is equal to the sum of possible functionings Current capability level = the level of available functionings, which is determined

by the degree of opportunities/help/contraints given by the current level of availability and accessibility of assets

In relation to the way people make evaluation, the following are principles to be used in the CI formula:

The degree of opportunities/help/contraints given by assets is evaluated by people by saying whether assets give facilitation (or help) or constrains to them to choose and perform functionings.

The level of current assets availability and accessibility of assets is evaluated by people by saying better, worse, or not so much different.

To get these two variables, practically in the survey, the community is asked to evaluate whether the current condition of listed assets is getting better, worse, or does

not change compared 3 to their previous condition. Further, the community is asked to evaluate the level of opportunities given by current assets for them to achieve certain

preferred functionings: they asked to answer whether assets give opportunities/help, or even constraints. People‟s perceptions on assets availability/accessibility as well as their

perception on the benefits giving by assets are scored. Three-points scale is used to evaluate the current level of assets availability and

accessibility. Only three points (better, worse, and not so much different) are decided to elicit respondents‟ evaluation of their assets condition. But for functionings, unlike assets,

because, it is not only observed and perceived by people but may also be created in people ‟s mind, the perceptual scale used is broadened in order to give a larger spectrum of answer, which include moderate answers. A five-point scale is used to evaluate the level of opportunities given by current assets to choose and perform a particular functioning (Very helpful, helpful, un-clear, constraining, and very constraining).

Scoring is needed to convert people ‟s perceptual evaluation to be quantitatively measurable. A range between -2 to 2 is proposed to convert the qualitative scale to the quantitative score. The range between -2 to 2 is decided to make the computation and interpreation of index simple, while still able to represent the contrasting answers of people ‟s evaluation. The „better‟ statement for assets availability and accessibility is scored as 2, worse as -2, and not so much different (no change) as 0. For the evaluation on the level of opprtunities given by assets, score 2 is given for very helpful answer, 1 for helpful answer, -1 for contraining answer, and -2 for very constraining answer (see Table 7.).

3 Comparison also can be done between different places

Perceptual evaluation scale of Perceptual evaluation scale of assets availability and

opportunities or constraints given accessibility

by assets to perform or create functionings

BETTER (score 2) VH = Very Helpful (score 2) WORSE (score 0)

H = Helpful (score 1)

NSMD (not so much a Different) (score -2)

UC = Unclear (score 0)

C = Constraining (score -1) VC=Very Constraining (score -2)

Table1 7: Proposed perceptual evaluation scale

Based on all the above principles, the formula to compute CI is as follows =

LAF + ABS (LAF) X CI (AIM EI = – 100)% + 800 /300 -2

Notation: CI = Capability Index= the extension of freedom to choose LAF = The average Level of Opportunities given by Assets AIM = The average Level of Assets Improvement ABS = absolute value

When CI formula is simulated, it gives consistent results to measure well-being and happiness based on CA, as shown in Table 8.

LAF AIM

MEANINGS, for instance 200

CI RANK

People is experiencing a perfectly happy situation.. 100

2.00 Highest

100 1.00 Commodities and Circumstances optimize, even improve the existing basic abilities and give a great 50 50 0.75 opportunities to a variety of functionings -200

100 0 0.67 The improvement of assets do not facilitate expected -100

100 0.33 functionings, in fact,its constrains -50

0 0 0.67 The situation is acceptable. Assets may not be 50 -50

0.58 improved, but their existance still gives opportunities

0 -100 0.67 to functionings 100

People are unhappy. The lack of improvement of assets may constrain the opportunities to achieve

-100 0 0.00 expected functionings -100

People are very unhappy/desperate. Commodities and Circumstances reduce the existing (basic) abilities &

constrain functionings

Table 8: Simulation of CI Formula on Extreme or Specific Situations

To analyse the applicability of the framework, the paper conducts an empirical testing. The testing is aimed to test whether the formula included in the framework is able to maintain the concept of in CA that sees well-being evaluation as relative, contextual, and idiosyncratic. The main tool (kit) used in the survey is quisionare, which is provided for people to evaluate the available assets. The quisionare guides people to state their evaluation of the level of assets availability and accessibility, and the level of opportunities given by assets, which may make them able to choose or perform particular/preferred functionings. Assets to be evaluated are categorized to be: Tangible Individual Assets (X1), Tangible Public Assets (X2), Intangible Individual Human Assets (X3), Social Institutional Assets (X4), and Economic Institutional Assets (X5). Table 9 is the basic form of quisionaire.

The principles of using quisionaire are as follows : *) Filled by comparing the current situation to the past in the same place, or, especially

for individual capability, assets to the current place to the previous place (origin) in case of migrants or travelers

**) N = number of respondents ***) n = number of kinds of assets in the same class ****)% = (frequency of answer/n)100 % *****) value = BETTER (score 2), WORSE (score 0), NSMD (not so much different)

(score -2), VH = Very Helpful (score 2); H = Helpful (score 1), UC = Un Clear (score 0), C = Constraining (score -1), VC=Very Constraining (score -2)

******) Score = n x value

Perception to Benefit from Assets No

Perception to Assets Improvement

ASSETS ELEMENTS

ASSETS CATEGORY better

1 Space (land) to stay X1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 Space (land) to generate income

X1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 transport Tools (Bike, Car, Motorcycle)

X1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 Information Tools (Radio, TV, News paper)

X1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 5 Comunication Tools (Telephone, Comp-Net)

X1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 6 Income/material for daily Necesities

X1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 7 Saving

0.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 -1.00 -2.00

0.00 85.71 28.57 14.29 -28.57 0.00 X1 0.00 100.00 8 environment Quality (landscape, water, air, built env)

Score 57.14286

X2 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 9 Land productivity

X2 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 10 (freedom from) Disaster *)

X2 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 11 Disaster Mitigation *)

X2 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 12 Availability of Public Transport Infra

X2 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 13 Quality of Public Transport Infra

X2 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 14 Education Facility and Support

X2 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 15 Health Facility

X2 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 16 Market Facilities

X2 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 17 Access to Clean Water

X2 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 18 Recreation Facility

X2 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 19 Library

X2 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 20 Internet Net

0.00 40.00 10.00 0.00 -5.00 0.00 X2 60.00 45.00 21 Self/CommEducation Level

Score

70.00 -10.00

X3 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 22 Self/CommHealth Quality

X3 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 23 Communication Skill/Ability

X3 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 24 Creativity/Innovation Skill

X3 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 25 Strugling Spirit/Survival Power

0 0 8 0 -4 0 X3 8 4 26 Community Membership/Kindship/Identity

Score

16 -8

X4 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 27 Trust

X4 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 28 Social Cooperation

X4 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 29 Solidarity

X4 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 30 Community Forum

0 -3.333333 0 X4 -6.666667 3.333333 31 Access to Credits

X5 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 32 Access to Job

X5 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 33 Opportunity to Set Up Bussiness

X5 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 34 Opportunity to Aspirate in Public Decision

X5 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 35 Access to Material Consumption

X5 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 36 Access to Material Input (for ec. production)

X5 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 37 Opportunity to Product Marketing

X5 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 38 Affordability to Health Cost/Acces to Gov's suport program

X5 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 39 Access to Health Insurance

X5 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 40 Affordability to Education Cost/Acces to Gov's suport program

X5 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 41 Affordability to Housing Cost/Acces toGov's suport program

X5 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 42 Affordability to Transport cost

0.00 9.52 11.90 0.00 -4.76 0.00 X5 23.81 16.67 *) Added Hyphotetically, not really expresed by informant during fieldwork

X AVARAGE

AIM LAF iCI X AVERAGE

Table 9: The basic format used to compile the results of the capability survey

CI can be used to assess: iCI = individual Capability Index: the level of freedom to choose by a person at

a certain time and place aiCI = Aggregated Individual Capability Index: the average level of freedom to

choose by a community at a certain time and place pCI = Place’s Capability Index: the level of opportunity provided by place at a

certain time due to the existence of assets at the place Procedure to employ CI for each purpose is as follows:

1. Assessing Individual well-being/happiness (iCI) to:

a. Show the development of self and place (periodic development in the same place) through computing:

i. AIM by filling the perception of current-actual assets at a place by comparing it to similar assets at the previous time (BETTER, WORSE, NSMD/not so much different)

ii. LAF by filling perception of the level of function provided by assets at the current place currently (VH, H, UC, C, VC)

b. Show self well-being/happiness in a new place (migrants, temporary residents) through computing:

i. AIM: filling perception of assets at the current place by comparing it to assets at the previous place (BETTER, WORSE, NSMD/not so much different)

ii. LAF: filling perception of the level of function provided by assets at the current place (VH, H, UC, C, VC)

2. Assessing Average Individual well-being/happiness (aiCI) to

a. Show Aggregated individual well-being/happiness (aiCI) through computing the sum of individual capability per total respondents

b. Indicating Disparity among individuals through calculating Standard Deviation

3. Assessing Place‟s determination to community‟s well-being/happiness (pCI) to

a. Show Place‟s determination to community‟s well-being/happiness =opportunities provided by place due to the existence of assets to the population/group of population through computing:

i. AIM: filling proportion of (BETTER, WORSE, NSMD/not so much different) perception of current-actual assets at a place by comparing it to similar assets at the previous time.

ii. LAF: filling proportion of (VH, H, UC, C, VC) perception of the level of function provided by assets at the current place.

b. Indicating (AVAILABILITY AND ACCESSIBILITY) to give opportunity to population/group to “functioning” of assets at the place and

IMPROVEMENT of those assets based on the SCORE of each Assets Type.

The interpretation of CI result is that HIGHER INDEX= HIGHER CAPABIITY= HIGHER FREEDOM TO CHOOSE VARIETY OF FUNCTIONING=HIGHER QUALLITY OF LIVING=HIGHER LEVEL OF HAPPINESS. Specifically, the resultant score can be interpreted as (or see table 8.2) :

 Highest = 2 : respondent experiencing very perfect happy situation because his “FUNCTIONING”is becoming higher. The IMPROVEMENT is, for instance, at least 200 % or even more. Beyond respondent expectation

 1 = respondent experiencing happy situation because his “”FUNCTIONING”is becoming higher, The IMPROVEMENMT is, for instance, at least 100 % (doubled).

 -1 = respondent experiencing desperate situation because his “FUNCTIONING”is becoming lower, The reduction is, for instance, at

least 100 % (almost diminishing).  Lowest = 2 : respondent experiencing totally unhappy (totally desperate) situation because his “FUNCTIONING”is becoming minus. The reduction of assets is, for instance, at least 200 % or even more.

To test the applicability and consistency of the formula to the principle of CA in evaluating well-being, the CI framework is tested through quantitative survey. The empirical testing is done in 15 villages within a subdistrict (Tempuran). The selection considers that villages in the subdistrict are rich in variation; ranging from a village which is quite urbanized and industrialized to a relatively isolated village. There are also villages which are economically based on home industry as well as agriculture. Random sampling is employed to 10% households in every village. Total respondents then are 450 households. A local development facilitator who has practiced for several years in the villages does the survey. Respondents are selected randomly from the list provided by the village administrator.

Basically respondents are asked to answer two questions. The first is similar to the question to the respondents in the snowballing survey: they are asked to give an evaluation whether their current quallity of life is better,worse, or not so much different compared to the previous days. In the scond question, the are asked to evaluate assets in terms of their availability/accessibiity and in terms of the level of opportunities or constraints they give to people. The evaluation is done by filling a form (survey kits).

As respondents ‟ answers are compiled, the individual‟s score of CI can be computed. When put in a graph, the score of individual CI and the score of perception of quality of life shows a consistent correlation (figure 8.). This shows that the formula is applicable to be used to evaluate the level of quality of life, or well-being.

ICI 0.00 Score of Perp of QoL -0.50 1 30 59 88 117 146 175 204 233 262 291 320 349 378 407 436

-1.00 -1.50 -2.00 -2.50

Figure 8: Graph Showing Correlation between iCI and

Score of Perception of Quality of Life

The relativeness of the concept of well-being is maintained when it is evaluated using the proposed framework. The relativeness is apparent when giving attention to the composition of assets. As shown in figure 9, every community needs almost the same level of assets in agregate to achieve the same score of CI, but the composition of assets is contextual.

Score of QoL Assets composition

Figure 9: The Unique Composition of Assets in relation to the score of CI

Figure 10. shows that the consistent relation happens between the score of quality of life (QoL) and the agregated score of all types of assets. Nevertheless, the empirical testing informs that there is no consistent relation between score of QoL to a particular assets. The compplosition of assets constructs perception of QoL or CI will be varied among Figure 10. shows that the consistent relation happens between the score of quality of life (QoL) and the agregated score of all types of assets. Nevertheless, the empirical testing informs that there is no consistent relation between score of QoL to a particular assets. The compplosition of assets constructs perception of QoL or CI will be varied among

TEMPUREJO (Cip = 0.61) PRINGOMBO (Cip = 0.81)

0,00 0,50 TIA FTIA TPA FTPA IIA FIIA SIA FSIA EIA FEIA 0,00

-1,00 -0,50 TIA FTIA TPA FTPA IIA FIIA SIA FSIA EIA FEIA

-2,00 -1,00

TIA = tangible individual assets; FTIA= functionings provided by TA TPA= tangible public assets ; FTPA = functionings provided by TPA IIA = individual intangible assets; FIIA = functionings provided by IIA SIA=social institutional assets; FSIA = functionings provided by SIA EIA =economic institutional assets; FEIA = functionings provided by EIA

Figure 11. Graphs showing unique composititon of assets determining capabilities

When placed to show the spatial variation, the data from the testing that shows the variation of the village‟s capability index (CI) becomes a capability map. Figure 12.is an example of a capability map that shows the variation of CI of 15 villages in the subdistrict of Tempuran. This capability map resulting from framework testing shows consistency to the conclusions argued in this paper that well being, as showen by CI, is relative and idiosyncratic.

Figure 12: An Example of Capability Map

2nd Case: Capability Survey for Planning Exercise in Java North Coastal Region: (Semarang, Kendal, Demak, Jepara)

In order to test the usefulness of capabiity survey to plan ing practices, it has been tested to be used to identify prioritized reginal problem. The testng survey was included in planing eercise of undergraduate planning student of Gadjah Mada University, which took some region in Java North Coastal regions, in the Central Java Province, Indonesia. Those included Semarang, Kendal, Demak, and jepara Regency. The survey was conducted in the end of August 2011.

Jepara Regency

Semarang Regency

Percapita GDP Population

Density

Dominan

2010 Capability Region

(person/km2)

Number of

Respondent’s

(Million Rupah)

(Million Rupah) Index

Farmer and

Trader and

Industrial worker

Farmer and

Insdustrial

Semarang 1,555,984.00

Worker

Using the same quisionaire as in Magelang Regency, the survey is expected to be able to assess community well being as indicated using CI and in the same time to identy problem prioritized in regional development planning based on community‟s perception

on listed assets. Following are some presented results of the survey.

Capabilit y Index

Demak Jepara

Kendal

Semarang

Percapita GDP (Million Rupah)

Kendal Semarang

Capability Index

G O V T O F FI C IA L

F A R M E R T R A D E R F IS H E R M A N

IN D .L A B O R E R

H A N D IC R A F T W O R K E R

T E A T C H E R C O N S T .W

B U S S IN E S S M A N

Table... is the recap of negative-perrcieved assets that assumed as indicating of prioritized field of regional planning problems.

score of Perception On Contributin to

No

Category Availability/accessibility capability 6 Income/material for daily Necesities

0.40 11 Disaster Mitigation Availabilty*)

TIA

-0.04

0.25 18 Recreation Facility

0.12 20 Internet Net

TPA

-0.65

0.09 0.12 21 Self/CommEducation Level

TPA

0.25 0.34 23 Communication Skill/Ability

IIA

0.23 0.32 24 Creativity/Innovation

IIA

0.06 0.47 26 Community Membership/Kindship/Identity

IIA

0.37 0.62 27 Inter Community Trust

SIA

0.33 0.49 32 Access to Job

SIA

0.14 0.34 33 Opportunity to Set Up Bussiness

EIA

0.07 0.39 34 Opportunity to Aspirate in Public Decision

EIA

0.21 0.37 Access to Material Input (for ec. 36 production)

EIA

0.03 0.66 38 Health Cost

EIA

0.58 39 Access to Health Insurance

EIA

-0.02

0.07 0.39 40 Education Cost

EIA

0.15 0.52 41 Access to Housing

EIA

0.40 42 Transport cost

Figure ..and figure...... shows the sort of planning problem. Lower score is higher prioritized.