This paper explores how Amartya Sen’s concept of agency might inform the selection of quantitative agency measures at the individual or household level. Existing measures used in development tend to focus on control but not effective freedom, on goals the agent has reason to value rather than goals she values, and on own rather than ‘other-regarding’ agency The development of stronger and more nuanced measures of individual agency could support the kinds of agency that make some individuals agents of change that benefits others.
In recent years, the action of individuals to confront situations of serious oppression and deprivation has led many working on poverty reduction to introduce measures of agency into poverty analyses. A number of studies draw on the human development and capability approach developed by Amartya Sen, which views people, including poor people, as active agents. People with high levels of agency act in line with their values. In Sen’s account:
- Agency is exercised with respect to the multiple goals that a person values
- It includes effective power, (a person’s or group’s power to achieve chosen results) as well as direct control (a person’s ability to make choices and to control procedures directly (irrespective of success)
- It may advance any goals that a person thinks are important – for themselves, their community or some other entity – and may not necessarily enhance their own well-being
- It should advance objectives that people not only value but have good reason to value: identifying agency involves an assessment of the value of the agent’s goals.
- The agent’s responsibility for a state of affairs should be incorporated into his or her evaluation of it.
Considerable interest and new research on agency measurement is emerging. However:
- Existing measures tend not to focus on agency that helps others.
- Proxy measures of agency such as literacy, food expenditure, and ownership of land assume that the conversion of assets to agency occurs evenly, which it may not. Agency caused by a different trigger can be overlooked.
- Current indicators of agency focus on agency as direct control and less clearly on agency as effective power. Therefore, they do not convey whether the actions were successful in achieving the desired goals.
- Measurement of effective power is more challenging because it is less immediate and entails an analysis of the situation and some ability to predict others’ actions.
- Current measures of agency focus on domains that are presumed to be those that people value. However, people’s own opinions are not investigated.
In order to be able to support poor people’s agency more effectively, it is important to:
- Interpret proxy measures of agency with care – distinctive and direct measures of agency are also required.
- Develop indicators to measure agency not only as direct control but also as effective power.
- Understand that responsible agents may advance goals that do not necessarily expand their own well-being, and may decrease it. It is important to support people who wish to create capabilities for others.
- Be aware that other-regarding agency is complex and may require analysis rather than simple measurement.
- Understand that people may not grasp their potential effective power and that such oversight might lead to inaction.
