# _1._ **_Introduction_**

The purpose of this paper is to fit distributional<sup>impact analysiswithin</sup><sup>_the logic of_</sup> _social evaluation_ and to illustrate its implementation<sup>usingdata fromthe1994 Integrated</sup> Household Survey in Guinea'. The perspective of development as empowerment, advocated by Sen(1999) and outlined<sup>intheWorldDevelopmentReport(WDR)</sup> 2000/2001, entails essentially the expansion<sup>andthedistributionofsocioeconomic</sup> opportunities with implications for individual<sup>andcollective well-being.Distributional</sup> analysis, a key input in policy formulation<sup>andevaluation, involvesacomparisonof</sup> alternative distributions of some indicator of<sup>the livingstandard.</sup> There is an intimate relationship between<sup>evaluationanddevelopmentto the</sup> extent that the very definition of development<sup>involvesanevaluativejudgment.The</sup> domain of development hinges on the<sup>notionof thethings thatareworthpromoting(Sen</sup> 1989). The concept of living standard<sup>thereforeplaysafundamentalrolebothinthe</sup> formulation of development objectives<sup>andintheassessmentofdevelopment</sup> effectiveness. However, this multidimensional concept<sup>isnoteasy toimplement</sup> empirically. The identification of the<sup>valuable dimensionsof the living standarddepends</sup> essentially on the underlying view about<sup>personal characteristicsandsocialarrangements</sup> that are deemed important in the realization of<sup>any life plan.</sup> The Millennium Development Goals<sup>(MDGs)setbythe UnitedNationswith</sup> respect to development and poverty eradication<sup>areconsistentwiththe</sup><sup>_empowerment_</sup> approach to development. They identify _income, health, education,_<sup>_shelter_and</sup> _governance_ as critical components of<sup>the livingstandard.Ingeneralthesegoalsareset</sup> for the year 2015 relative to 1990 and<sup>aremeantto provide guidanceto both nationaland</sup> international policies and programs. For our<sup>current purposes, we selectconsumption per</sup> _capita_ as an indicator of opportunities<sup>for well-beingat thehouseholdlevel.It will be</sup> obvious that the methodology discussed<sup>inthispapercaneasilybe extendedtoother</sup> dimensions of living that may be represented<sup>by a quantitativevariabledistributed overa</sup> population.

Fundamentally, evaluation involves the examination<sup>andweighingofa</sup> phenomenon according to some explicit<sup>orimplicityardstick(Weiss21998).Wecan</sup> leam a great deal about an evaluative<sup>approachbydistinguishing</sup><sup>_theinformation_</sup> _required for passing judgments_ from that which<sup>has no directevaluativerole (Sen1999).</sup> The information pertains to the _valuable_<sup>_aspects_of the objectof evaluation,and to the</sup> rule for _combining_ these valuable elements<sup>into anaggregative judgment.Forinstance,</sup> the utilitarian approach to social evaluation<sup>is basedonthe utilitysumtotal in thesocial</sup> states under consideration. In this framework,<sup>attentionisfocusedonindividualwell-</sup>

> ' Enquete Integrale avec Module Budget-Consommation<sup>(EIBC).The survey was carriedout by the</sup> National Statistical Office within the Ministry<sup>of Plan and Cooperation.</sup>

> 2 More explicitly, this author defines evaluation<sup>as"a</sup><sup>_systematic_assessmentof the</sup><sup>_operation_and/orthe</sup> _outcomes_ of a program or policy, compared<sup>toasetofexplicitorimplicit</sup><sup>_standards,_asameansof</sup> contributing to the _improvement_ of the program<sup>or policy".</sup>

1