There are numerous organizations and websites that offer indices for measuring child well-being. When looking at the different organizations that measure child well-being, it is clear to see that their theoretical approach determines what variables they collect and include in their measurement. While it is true that these indices are often based on what variables other organizations have already collected, it does not necessarily follow that there are no other factors influencing the composition of the index. This study explores different indices, with the aim of developing a clearly defined theoretical framework that is linked to a list of international child well-being variables. My goal is articulating an index, grounded in theory that helps compare countries but at the same time also looks at what children are being able to do in their own societies.   

To frame this discussion, I start with looking at well-being in general. The Capabilities approach, developed by Amartya Sen (1985) and Martha Nussbaum (2003), provides an interesting perspective. Sen and Nussbaum both advocate looking at “what people are actually able to do and to be” (M Nussbaum, 2003, p. 33) when thinking about quality of life and development of nations. Sen (1985) argues for “seeing well-being in terms of functioning vectors and the capability to achieve them” (p. 203). The capabilities approach supposes that the search for human wellbeing and flourishing is a universal search that can take different shapes, as opposed to the human rights approach that supposes an equal human being in different locations. One of the definitions of the Capabilities approach is as conveying “a more concrete focus on specific attainable functioning in a life, and connects to ordinary language’s reference to persons’ skills and powers” (Gasper, 2007, p. 336). The big question remains, can this approach be reconciled with a search for a globally uniform index of child well-being?

Pollard and Lee (2003) reviewed the literature on child well-being with the goal of looking at definitions, indicators and domains. Pollard and Lee found five broad definitions of child well-being that they felt were the most promising in terms of comprehensiveness. They also point to the fact that in the studies they have reviewed well-being was assessed using many different methods: “structured and non-structured interviews, standardized tests, and single-item questions from national data sets” (Pollard & Lee, 2003, p. 66). They suggest that a definition that is operationalized at both individual level (different indicators about the child’s functioning) and environmental (the child’s environment) level is the most promising. They conclude that “Inconsistent use of definitions, indicators, and measures of well-being has created a confusing and contradictory research base” (p. 69).

Ben-Arieh (2012) focused on “state of child” reports published between 2000 and 2010, with the aim of revisiting an earlier research on shifts in the field.  Ben-Arieh looked at shifts in nine characteristic variables that he and others have started measuring in earlier work: “survival or beyond, positive or negative, child rights orientation, well-being or well-becoming, “new” or old domains, adults or children perspective, geographic coverage, focus on composite indices, and policy orientation”(Ben-Arieh, 2012, p. 570). He concluded that these shifts are continuing, albeit at different paces in different regions. He also notes that in the past decade reports are being published at a higher rate than ever before, making the field of child welfare or well-being full with measurements and variables. He notes the fact that these reports are now closely related to policy development although different regions have different relationships. For example in North America 90.7% of the reports have policy relevance, whereas in Africa only 58.3% have policy relevance.

Ben-Arieh, A. (2012). How do we measure and monitor the "state of our children"? Children and Youth Services Review, 34, 569-575. Johnson, R. B., and Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed Methods Research: A Research Paradigm Whose Time Has Come. Educational Researcher, 33(14), pp. 14-26. Gasper, D. (2007). What is the capability approach?: Its core, rationale, partners and dangers. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 36(3), 335-359. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2006.12.001 Nussbaum, M. (2003). Capabilities as fundamental entitlements: Sen and social justice. Feminist Economics, 9(2/3), 33. Nussbaum, M (2000). Women and human development : the capabilities approach. Cambridge ;New York: Cambridge University Press. Pollard, E. L., & Lee, P. D. (2003). Child ewll-being: A systematic review of the literature. Social Indicators Research, 61, 59-78. Sen, A. (1985). Well-Being, agency and freedom: The Dewey lectures 1984. The Journal of Philosophy, 82(4), 169-221. doi: 10.2307/2026184