Well-being measurement and the economic agent: a personalist perspective

Abstract

Purpose

The aim is to contribute to the personalist economics research agenda by exploring how personalist thought can theoretically inform the question of well-being and its measurement.

Design/methodology/approach

The paper draws on the work of personalist philosopher Emmanuel Mounier. After reviewing relevant aspects of Mounier's political economic thought, the second section considers the conceptual implications for a personalist well-being measure and analyses its key tenets: integrality; heterogeneity; objectivity vs. subjectivity; and autonomy and freedom. The third section consists of a dialogue between Mounier's personalist philosophy and some aspects of Sen's capability approach applied to the issue of well-being measurement, which echoes and parallels some fundamental dimensions of personalist thought.

Findings

Firstly, the conceptual analysis offers preliminary avenues for moving towards measuring well-being using an agent model that aligns more closely with the model of the economic agent as person, as is articulated by personalists and incorporating personalist principles. Secondly, the brief analysis of ways in which aspects of Sen's capability theory dialogue with personalist economic principles demonstrate the potential for personalist principles to be incorporated into welfare assessment theory.

Originality/value

Personalist economics strives to re-think the foundations of economic theory by introducing the acting person as the economic agent, as opposed to the individual. Dissatisfaction with a range of mainstream economic well-being indicators suggests that there is a deficit in the normative and ontological assumptions that underlie conventional welfare economic models.

Peer review

The peer review history for this article is available at: https://publons.com/publon/10.1108/IJSE-02-2023-0084.

Citation

Wdowin, J. (2023), "Well-being measurement and the economic agent: a personalist perspective", International Journal of Social Economics, Vol. 50 No. 10, pp. 1471-1484. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSE-02-2023-0084