Online from: 2006
Subject Area: Business Ethics and Law
Options: To add Favourites and Table of Contents Alerts please take a Emerald profile
|Title:||Well-being for all as a human development objective: Developing the concept and its criteria with citizens|
|Author(s):||Gilda Farrell, (Council of Europe, Strasbourg, France)|
|Citation:||Gilda Farrell, (2008) "Well-being for all as a human development objective: Developing the concept and its criteria with citizens", Society and Business Review, Vol. 3 Iss: 2, pp.119 - 132|
|Keywords:||Behaviour, Human nature, Human resource development, Psychology, Social anthropology|
|Article type:||Conceptual paper|
|DOI:||10.1108/17465680810880053 (Permanent URL)|
|Publisher:||Emerald Group Publishing Limited|
Purpose – While defining the well-being for all as the objective of human development, this paper aims to draw attention to the deficiencies resulting from the “simplification” inherent in its implementation, especially by institutions, and to the advantages to be derived from determining the concept's policy implications and the ensuing priorities and strategies via a bottom-up- or grassroots-approach.
Design/methodology/approach – The paper uses criteria from grassroots approaches to define well-being for all.
Findings – The approach to well-being for all could help moving towards a new “political culture” rather than a new measurement.
Practical implications – The analysis identifies the links between “components” of well-being so that action does not continue to be blind, that is to say disregards the fact that, in a complex, changing world, it is necessary to identify the key areas and aspects that offer potential for a renewed organisation of responsibilities, in other words to achieve a new social compromise on the exercise of responsibility.
Originality/value – Apart from fine-tuning the definitions what interests us is how to transform a concept into a shared political priority for all concerned in a given context. The paper clarifies this, since a gulf can emerge between a concept's origins (strongly rooted in theories concerning human potential to reason in terms of the common good) and the methods of designating the powers capable of implementing it (for instance the choice may be narrowed down to government agencies and market players alone, disregarding citizens or civil society organisations and the need to engage in new forms of co-responsibility).
Existing customers: login
to access this document
To purchase this item please login or register.
Complete and print this form to request this document from your librarian