Measuring and Monitoring the Quality of LifeMeasuring and Monitoring the Quality of LifeLectureLecture

UniversitUniversitàà degli Studi di degli Studi di Firenze,Firenze, April 23April 23--24, 200924, 2009

HeinzHeinz--Herbert Noll Herbert Noll GESIS GESIS -- Leibniz Institute Leibniz Institute forfor thethe SocialSocial SciencesSciencesSocialSocial IndicatorsIndicators Research Centre (Research Centre (ZSiZSi))www.gesis.org/social-indicators

Time Schedule

April 23

� Quality of Life – A Yardstick for Individual and Societal Well-Being� Introduction

� Quality of Life Concepts

� Measuring and Monitoring Quality of Life I� Quality of Life Surveys� Systems of Social Indicators

April 24

� Measuring and Monitoring Quality of Life II� Quality of Life Indices

� Presentation PHD-Project

� Quality of Life Research: Selected Issues

Information on Social Indicators Research Centre:

http://www.gesis.org/social-indicators

Information on Seminar (powerpoint; reading list):http://www.gesis.org/forschung-lehre/veranstaltungen/veranstaltungs-archiv/zentrum-fuer-sozialindikatorenforschung/quality-of-life/

Contact Information:

Email: heinz-herbert.noll@gesis.org

Phone: +49621-1246-241/2

Quality of Life – A Yardstick for Individual and Societal Well-Being

„quality of life“ = 193.000.000 hits

Quality of Life

���� normative conceptualisation of the ‚good life andsociety‘

���� goal of societal development in postindustrialsocieties (policy goal)

QoL as Policy Goal – European LevelMaastricht Treaty (1992), Title II, Article 2

”The Community shall have as its task ....to promote a …sustainable and non-inflationary growth respecting the environment, a high degree of convergence of economic performance, a high level of employment and of social protection, the raising of the standard of living and quality of life , and

economic and social cohesion and solidarity among member states.”

Laeken Declaration (2001)

"...citizens are calling for a community approach …that provides concrete results in terms of more jobs, better quality of life , less crime, decent education and better health care“

Draft European Constitutional Treaty (2003) (Article 1-3, § 1)

"The Union's aim is to promote peace, its values and the well-being of its peoples "

Renewed EU Sustainable Development Strategy (Europe an Council 2006)

Major objective “To create a socially inclusive society by taking into account solidarity between and within generations and to secure and increase the quality of

life of citizens as a precondition for lasting individual well-being ”

QoL as Policy Goal – National Level

Great Britain

� New Economics Foundation: A Well-Being Manifesto For A FlourishingSociety. Seeks to answer the question: “what would politics look like if promotingpeople’s well-being was one of government’s main aims?”

� U.K. Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit: „Life Satisfaction: the state of knowledgeand the implications for government (2002).

France

� In 2008 President Nicolas Sarkozy mandated two Nobel economics prizewinners (Joseph Stiglitz, Amartya Sen) to develop new measure of quality-of-life. Report to be published by end of April 2009.

Quality of life: a new paradigm?Most people would probably agree that there is more to life than money, but it isunlikely they would agree on how to define the “quality of life”. There have been

many attempts at measuring this by looking for objective ways of capturingwhat is inherently a subjective concept. Recent advances in a variety of socialsciences, however, have suggested that there are reliable and replicable ways

of ascertaining certain aspects of well-being and quality of life, and relatingsubjective perceptions to objective phenomenon, such as market based

activities. Joseph Stiglitz: Progress, what progress?

OECD Observer No 272, March 2009

���� Child of the 1960s

� Doubts about material wealth and economic growth as the major goals and indicators(GDP) of societal progress

� Focus on downsides of economic growth growth ("social costs", e.g. Mishan) and private wealth ("public poverty", Galbraith) in policy debates.

� Observation of diminishing marginal utility of material wealth and doubts whether moreeconomic wealth would make live really better (more ≠ better); thus call for ‚quality‘rather than ‚quantity‘!

� Structural and value changes towards ‘post-materialism’ and postindustrial society.

� Quality of life emerged as the new, multidimensional developmental goal ofaffluent, postindustrial societies

Präsident Lyndon B. Johnson : ”The task of the Great Society is to ensure our people the envi-ronment, the capacities, and the social structures …to pursue their individual happiness. Thus theGreat Society is concerned not with how much, but with how good - not with the quantity of goodsbut with the quality of their lives” ( Johnson 1964).

Societal Background for Emergence of „Quality of Life“ - Concept

� Quality of life typically involves "a sense of achievement in one's work, an appreciation of beautyin nature and the arts, a feeling of identification with one's community, a sense of fullfillment ofone's potential" (Campbell, Converse, Rodgers 1976)

� "I have come to the conclusion that the only defensible definition of quality of life is a generalfeeling of happiness" (Milbrath 1978)

� "Quality of life is the overarching goal of the affluent postindustrial society facing ecological risksand the limits of growth " (Glatzer 1992; translation – HHN)

� “Quality of life... (may be) defined as subjective well-being and personal growth in a healthy andprosperous environment“ (Lane 1996)

� “Quality of life includes all major life domains and covers not only the various dimensions of thematerial well-being of individuals, but also immaterial and collective values like freedom, equity,preservation of natural fundamentals of life as well as responsibility for future generations”(Noll 1997).

� "Quality of life is both objective and subjective. Each of these two axes comprises severaldomains which, together, define the total construct. Objective domains are measured throughculturally relevant indices of objective well-being. Subjective domains are measured throughquestions of satisfaction." (Australian Center on quality of Life)

Selected Definitions of Quality of Life

Characteristics and Ambiguities of the ‚QoL‘ -Concept

� multidimensional rather than unidimensional

� different from wealth and material standard of living

� either in the sense of going beyond material wealth by including alsoimmaterial and collective components like freedom, equity, socialcapital, self-actualization, happiness etc.

� or in the sense of a contradiction to material wealth, emphasizingpost-materialist, critical views of the affluent society (limits to growth,ecological concerns, sustainability etc.)

� focussing on the ‚good life‘ of individuals and / or the „good society“

� covering objective living conditions and / or subjective well-being

„In order to measure quality of life, one must have a theory of whatmakes up a good life“ (Cobb 2000: 6)

Two Major Approaches of Conceptualizing and Measuring Quality of Life:

� Swedish Level of Living Apoproach

� American ‚Subjective Quality of Life‘ Approach

� Swedish Level of Living Approach

� Social Policy oriented ; strongly influenced by Richard Titmuss

� Concept of welfare and quality of life focussing on „re sources“ : "individualscommand over, under given determinants mobilizable resources, with whose help he/shecan control and consciously direct his/her living conditions" (Erikson 1974).

Resources include, e.g.income, wealth, education, health, physical and mentalabilities, social capital, power etc.

� The individual citizen is considered as an „active, creative being, and the autono-mous definer of his own end. The resources are mere means to the latter" (Thålin, 1990)

� „The combination of resources and determinants governs the individual‘s conditions.These in turn, in combination with the individual‘s aspiration level, govern his well-being“ (Erikson)

� Measurement and monitoring of quality of life exclusively based on „objectiveindicators“

���� Strong affinity to Amatiya Sen‘s concept of Quality of Life (capabilities, functionings)

� ”based on a view of living as a combination of various ‘doings and beings‘, with quality of life to be assessed in terms of the capability to achieve valuable functionings” (Sen, 1993: 31).

� Functionings ”represent parts of the state of a person – in particular the various things that he or she manages to do or be in leading a life. ... Some functionings are very elementary, such as being adequately nourished, being in good health, etc. ... others may be more complex, but still widely valued, such as achieving self-respect or being socially integrated” (Sen, 1993: 31).

� ‘Capabilities’ - approach developed as part of the ‘Human Development Programme’ of United Nations

���� ‘capabilities’ - approach by Amartya Sen:

(Arndt/Volkert 2007: 5)

� American ‚Quality of Life‘ – Approach

� strongly influenced by social psychology und 'mental health – research', empha-sising the subjective perceptions and feelings of individuals as an independentdimension of reality; e.g. W.I. Thomas: "If men define situations as real, they arereal in their consequences“

� The Human Meaning of Social Change (Campbell/Converse 1972): Crucial question: do people perceive social change as beneficial and progress?

� "Subjective Well-Being" is considered as the ultimate goal and yardstick to beused to assess the current state and development of a society

� tradition of utilitarian philosophy (Bentham: greatest happiness principle); "pursue of happiness" – explicit goal manifested in the American constitution

� Notion of quality of life as a direct experience of individuals: "The Quality of Life must be in the eye of the beholder" (Campbell 1972).

� The individual citizen is considered to be the best ‚expert‘ of his own quality of life

� Measurement and monitoring of quality of life primarily based on „subjectiveindicators“ such as happiness and satisfaction

Erik Allardt (1972)

Quality of Life � Combination of three classes of needs

Having = Material dimensions of level of living;e.g. economic resources, housing conditions, employment conditions,environmental conditions.

Loving = Dimensions of belonging and social relations; e.g. family, relatives, friends and other social networks, membership,volunteering etc.

Being = Availability of options, participation and self actualization, e.g. political participation, fulfilling work and leisure activities.

Typology of Welfare Positions

Objective Living Conditions

Subjective Well-Being

good bad

Good Well-Being Dissonance

Bad Adaptation Deprivation

Source: Zapf 1984, p. 25

German Approach (W. Zapf):

� Quality of Life as a Combination of Objective LivingConditions and Subjective Wellbeing

‚Quality of Persons ‘ - A Resource for Life Quality?

(Robert E. Lane,1996)

���� quality of life not only a state, but also a process which includes subjectiveand objective elements.

� Differential capacity and competences of individuals to add quality totheir lives

���� e.g. depending on education and characteristics of personality

Measuring and Monitoring QoL

Measuring and Monitoring Approaches

� Quality of Life Surveys

� Social Indicators / Systems of Social Indicators

- Calvert-Henderson Quality of Life Indicators (U.S.)

- European System of Social Indicators (GESIS)

- OECD – Social Indicators

- EU-Open-Method-of-Coordination (OMC) Indicators

� Quality of Life Indices

- Human Development Index

- Economist Intelligence Unit‘s Quality-of-Life-Index

- Happy Planet Index

Quality of Life - Surveys

National, e.g.

� Australian Unity Wellbeing Index Survey

� Sweden: Level of Living Survey

� Germany: Welfare Survey

Cross-National, e.g.

� World Value Survey

. � European Values Study

� European Social Survey

� European Quality of Life Survey

Survey-Data for Comparative European Quality of Life Research

� European Values Study

- 4 waves of data collection: 1981; 1990; 1999/2000; 2008/2009 (45 countries)

� Eurobarometer - EU Commission

- since 1973 Standard EB + Central and Eastern EB +CCEB- all EU-member states + candidate countries

� European Social Survey

- since 2002/2003 every two years; round 3 = 25 countries;

Additional information in rotating modules:

Wave 2: Family, Work and Well-being (data release September 2005)

Wave 3: Personal and Social Well-being (data release September 2007)

� European Foundation's 'Quality of Life Survey' (EQOLS)

- 2003; 28 Countries (EU 25 + current CC)

- 2007; ( EU 27 + current CC+Norway)

Life Satisfaction - EVS 1999/2000Skale: 1 = Extremely dissatisfied, 10 = Extremely satisfied

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

UkraineRussia

BelarusLithuaniaRomania

LatviaBulgariaHungaryEstonia

SlovakiaPolandGreeceCroatiaFrance

PortugalCzech Rep

SpainItaly

E. GermanySlovenia

Gt. BritainBelgium

W. GermanySweden

LuxembourgNetherlands

FinlandNth Ireland

AustriaIcelandIreland

MaltaDenmark

Others

NMS

EU 15

Life Satisfaction - ESS 2004 and 2002/2003

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Denmar

kSwitz

erlan

dFinl

and

Luxe

mbo

urg

Nether

lands

Norway

Sweden

Austri

aBelg

iumIre

land

United K

ingdomSpa

inSlov

enia Italy

Germ

any

Israel

Czech

Rep

ublic

Greec

eFra

nce

Poland

Estonia

Portu

gal

Hungar

y

ESS2004 EU 15 ESS 2004 New Members ESS 2004 Others ESS 2002/2003

Scale: 0 = extremely dissatisfied, 10 = extremely satisfied

Life Satisfaction - Change Across Time% very / fairly satisfied

0,0

10,0

20,0

30,0

40,0

50,0

60,0

70,0

80,0

90,0

100,0

1973

1975

1977

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

1 France 2 BELGIUM 3 NETHERLANDS Germany 5 ITALY 6 LUXEMBOURG

7 DENMARK 8 IRELAND United Kindom 11 GREECE 12 SPAIN 13 PORTUGAL

Database: Eurobarometer

EQOLS 2007

Deprivation Items:Adequate home heating, an annual holiday, new furniture to replace worn-out items, a meal withmeat every second day, new clothes, the wherewithal to entertain guests at home

EQOLS 2007

EU-SILC

� EU-SILC = ‚Community Statistics on Income and Living Conditions‘; providing yearly comparative micro-data on income and various aspects of livingconditions (e.g. income, wealth, housing) for EU-Member States and someadditional non-Member States.

� EU-SILC officially launched in 2004 and successively expanded since

� Total sample includes more than 200.000 Households. In 2006 sample sizevaries between 3.600 (Cyprus) and 21.000 households (Italy); Germany ca. 14.000

Non-monetary indicators of deprivation in EU-SILC

• Keep home adequately warm – not able to

• One week annual holiday - cannot afford

• Meal with meat/fish etc. every second day - cannot afford

• Unexpected expenses – cannot face

• Phone - cannot afford

• TV - cannot afford

• PC - cannot afford

• Washing machine - cannot afford

• Car - cannot afford

66

43

28

57

3233

30

7 7

25

14

7

25

86

23

11

7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

EU_Low EU-Intermediate EU_High

%

1-Week-Holiday Face Unexpected Expenses Meal-Meat-Fish_2nd Day Keep Home Warm Car Computer Phone Washing Machine TV-Col.

Frequency of Deprivations by Country-Group

Average Number of Material Deprivations (Sum Index 0-9) - 2006

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

4,5

LU UK AT NL DK BE IE FR DE SE FI IT ES SI GR PT CZ HU SK EE PL LT LV

Subjective assessment of the material situation ofthe household (Data = 2005)

Able to make ends meet?

• 1 with great difficulty• 2 with difficulty• 3 with some difficulty• 4 fairly easily• 5 easily• 6 very easily

Making Ends Meet: With Difficulty / Great Difficulty (2005)

%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

LU AT UK NL DE BE DK FR IE SE IT FI ES SI GR PT CZ HU SK PL EE LT LV

Social Indicators & Indicator Systems

� ”Statistics ...and other forms of evidence - that enable us to assess where we stand andare going with respect to our values and goals.”(Bauer 1966)

� ”a statistic of direct normative interest which facilitates concise, comprehensive and balanced judgements about the condition of major aspects of a society. ...It is a directmeasure of welfare and is subject to the interpretation that if it changes in the ‘right’direction ...things have gotton better, or people are ‘better off’”. (Olson 1969)

� ”measures of social well-being which provide a contemporary view of social conditionsand monitor trends in a range of areas of social concern over time.” (McEwin/Povah 1993)

� ”Social Indicators are used to identify social problems that require action, to developpriorities and goals for action and spending, and to assess the effectiveness of pro-grammes and policies. (United Nations 1994)

� ”social indicators … measuring the means available to people to construct good lives“(Esping-Andersen 2000)

� ”social indicators are an important tool for evaluating a country’s level of social develop-ment and for assessing the impact of policy” (Atkinson et al. 2002)

What are Social Indicators? - Some Definitions

In general Social Indicators should (M. McEwin 1995):

� reflect a particular social idea

� be valid and meaningful

� be sensitive to the underlying phenomenon

� be summary in nature

� be available as time series

� be able to be disaggregated

� be intelligible and easily interpreted

Characteristics of Social Indicators

Types of Social Indicators

- Descriptive Indicators vs. normative Welfare Indicators

- Input- vs. Output - Indicators, Effectivity/Efficiency-Indicators

- Resources- vs. Outcome Indicators

- Objective vs. Subjective Indicators

- Cross-Sectional vs. Longitudinal Indicators

- Indicators vs. Indices

- Policy Indicators vs. Other Indicators

descriptive indicators

= measures of social facts without normative connotation

���� % of population living in single-person households% of population oriented towards postindustrial values

normative welfare indicators

= indicators measuring achievement of societal values (e.g. freedom, security, wealth)and / or political goals (e.g. reduction of unemployment, avoidance of poverty, im-provement of health care, improvement of housing situation)

distinctions:

� goals /objectives (e.g. improvement of housing situation)

� goal dimensions (e.g. availability of housing at reasonable prices; housing conditions)

� indicators (e.g. rooms per person)

� standards, benchmarks (e.g. 1 room per person)

descriptive indicators vs. normative welfare indicators

Examples

- input indicators: public expenditures for education, health,transportation etc.

- output indicators: % of population in good health; saftey in theneighbourhood; math competence of school leavers etc.

Problem: not always evident, whether a certain indicator is an input- oroutput measure: e.g. number of teachers / policemen per population

- efficiency indicators: output / input, e.g. energy efficiency

input- vs. output - indicators, efficiency indicators

� distinction similar to input vs. output, but focus on individuals/households

- resources may be invested to achieve returns in welfare

examples: income, educational degrees, beauty

- conditions are the results of previous investments of individualresources, policies etc.

examples: housing space per person, physical health, level ofconsumption, personal satisfaction

indicators on resources vs. conditions

� objective indicators represent social facts independently of personal perceptionsand evaluations

Examples:- unemployment rate- poverty rate- working hours per week- life expectancy

� subjective indicators are based on individual’s perceptions and evaluations

Examples:- life satisfaction, job satisfaction etc.- relevance of life domains- perception of distributional justice- class identification- party preference

objective vs. subjective Indicators

Fear of CrimeHow safe do you feel or would you feel when walking around in this area at night:

very safe, rather safe, rather unsafe, very unsafe?

MaleWest

MaleEast

FemaleWest

FemaleEast

% unsafe

Risk of Victimization by Violent Crimes

MaleWest

MaleEast

FemaleWest

FemaleEast

- number of victims per 100 000 of population -

Contra (particularly Scandinavian welfare researchers):

- One of their concerns ”with an approach based on people’s own assessment of their degree of satisfaction is that it is partly determined by their level of aspiration” (Erikson, 1993: 77).

- Looking at how satisfied people are, from this point of view is criticized as ”measuring how well they are adapted to their present conditions” ...”people’s opinions and preferences should go into the democratic political process through their activities as citizens, but not through survey questions and opinion polls” (Erikson 1993: 77/78).

Pro :

- subjective indicators represent different reality

- subjective perceptions and evaluations important for human action, e.g. ‘perceptionof safety in the neighbourhood‘

- policy makers need to use subjective indicators along with objective indicators:”...subjective indicators are indispensable in social policy (Veenhoven, 2000: 6), e.g.‘feeling of safety in the neighbourhood’ as a measure of policy success or failure

Views on Subjective Indicators :

Use of objective indicators for welfare measurement

� welfare judgement as result of comparison of reality with normativecriteria (values, goals)

� precondition: consensus about (1) relevant dimensions, (2) ‚good‘ and‚bad‘ conditions and (3) the desired direction of change

� sometimes consensus, but not always;

� possibility of conflicts and trade-offs between goals

� values and goals may change in time

Examples:- unemployment?- educational enrollment?- crime rate?- divorce rate?- working hours per week?- income inequality?

cross-sectional indicators = information on states / stocks at a given point of time

e.g.: rate of poverty; unemployment rate, % of adult population married

longitudinal indicators = information on processes, flows, durations, dynamics

e.g.: Life expectancy, duration of poverty; % of labour force entering unemploymentduring 2003; duration of marriages; average length of stay in hospital

Why need for longitudinal indicators?

- cross-sectional indicators may be misleading:

e.g.: length of unemployment (Schumpeter-Bus)

- longitudinal indicators provide specific information

e.g.: income dynamics, poverty

Cross-Sectional vs. Longitudinal-Indicators

Unemploy-ment spell

Survey – May 15, 2008

timeJan. 2008

���� biased estimate of length of unemployment spells based on cross-sectional data

Poverty in Longitudinal Perspective- n times poor in period 2002-2005 -

Source: Datenreport 2008

Function of policy indicators:

� to provide expert knowledge for political elites, administrations andgovernments

Function of other indicators:

e.g.

� to inform and enlighten citizens and the general public

Policy Indicators vs. Other Indicators

Potential Policy Uses of Indicators (Brown/Corbett 1997)

� description : for the sake of knowledge about society; background information

� monitoring : to track outcomes which may require policy intervention

� setting goals : taking the monitoring function a step further by setting anormative goal to be achieved

� outcomes-based accountability : introduction of consequences in terms ofrewards or punishment in case of failure or success (e.g.Maastricht Criteria)

� programme evaluation : determining which programs and policies areeffecive and shed light on the reasons for success or failure

���� Functions are becoming progressively more ambitious and demanding

� problem definition: help to define or re-define a situation as a problemthat needs to be addressed by policy-making

� agenda setting: attract public attention to issues of societal situation and development and to bring them on the political agenda

� benchmarking: identifying best practice and improving performance bylearning from best practices and the processes by which they are achieved

� policy choice: provide information that helps to decide on choosingadequate measures and policies

� early warning: provide information on upcoming problems (or criticalstates of the system) early enough to react and to avoid negative consequences

Other Potential Policy Uses of Social Indicators:(Innes; Johansson; McRae; Noll, Vogel, Zapf):

� the measure must be pertinent to questions of concern;

� the concepts underlying the measures must be clear and agreed upon;

� the measure must relate to the concept which it is assumed to, and do so in awell understood way;

� the methods to produce the measure must provide reliable results, measuringwhat they purport to without hidden or unexpected bias;

� the measure must be understandable and understood in its concept andlimitations;

� major parties to discussion on opposite sides must accept the measure;

„What makes a good indicator to use in public decisions”?(J. Innes1990: 110).

Problems and Challenges of Using Indicators as Policy Guides(Brown/Corbett 1997)

…political pressures can encourage to use social indicators as ‘weapons’ rather thanpositive tools of public management. � attempts to minimize their power or to control them, e.g. through

Gaming:Those who define social goals and measures of accountability set the terms by whichpolitical success is judged. There are strong interests in defining the terms in ways which willbe more friendly to particular political agendas

Misrepresentation:common for political agents to use a trend in a social indicator to make claims about the effectiveness or failure of particular policies. Often those claims go beyond what canreasonably be inferred from the data (e.g. unemployment statistics)

Manipulation:…ways to manipulate to one’s own advantage … range from the selective presentation of data for certain years or population subgroups to the deliberate manipulation of the data collection process

Indicator Systems

Basic Requirements of Constructing a System of Social Indicators

Key Questions:� how to choose a limited number of subjects / dimensions of measurement

from an unlimited social universe?� how to organize the measurement and monitoring processes?

Key Elements of an Indicator System:� framework or rationale needed to identify and justify the selection of dimensions

of measurement to be addressed� system architecture needed to set up the basic structure and to define pro-

cedures of measurement

Formal Criteria to be respected by constructing systems of (social) indicators:� comprehensiveness� consistency� non-redundancy

Approaches of Indicator (System) Construction

� Data Driven

Data ���� Indicators ���� Classification of Indicators

e.g. Eurostat‘s „list of social Indicators“

� Policy Driven

Policy concerns ���� policy objectives ���� Indicators ���� Data

e.g. Indicators in EU-Open Method of Coordination

� Concept Driven

Concept ���� Measurement Dimensions ���� Indicators ���� Data

e.g. European System of Social Indicators (EUSI)

EuReporting-Project - European System of Social Indicatorshttp://www.gesis.org/en/social_monitoring/social_indicators/EU_Reporting/eusi.htm

Overall objective:

� To develop a theoretically as well as methodologically well-grounded set of social indicators to be used to monitor the development of welfare or quality of life as well as changes in the social structure at the European level.

General Properties:

� comprehensive system� theory-based, concept driven approach� emphasis on welfare measurement, but also general social change� search for most appropriate - valid and reliable - indicators � use of best available databases and comparability across national societies

European System of Social Indicators: Conceptual Framework

Welfare

Measurement

Monitoring Social

Change

Individual Level

Quality of Life

- living conditions

- subjective well being

Values and Attitudes

e.g. - postmaterialism

- gender roles - party preferences

etc.

Societal Level

Quality of Society

Sustainability - natural capital

- human capital

Social Cohesion - disparities, inequali- ties, exclusion

- social relations, ties, inclusion

Social Structure e.g.

- demographic

- social class

- employment etc.

Dimensions of Welfare

• Quality of Life

� Objective Living Conditions

� Subjective Well-Being

• Social Cohesion

� Disparities, Inequalities, SocialExclusion

� Social Ties/Social Capital

• Sustainability

� Human Capital

� Natural Capital

Dimensions of Social Change

� Sociodemographic and -economicStructure

� Values and Attitudes

Life Domains

• Population, Households and Families

• Transportation

• Leisure, Media and Culture

• Social and Political Participation andIntegration

• Income, Standard of Living, and Consumption Patterns

• Education and Vocational Training

• Health

• Housing

• Labour Market and Working Conditions

• Social Security

• Public Safety and Crime

• Environment

• Total Life Situation

Life Domains & Measurement Dimensions

Domain-specific Mea-surement Dimensions

e.g.

Child Care Services

Income Inequality

Trust in EducationalSystem

Health Prevention

Environmental Impacts ofHousing

Occupational structure

Attitudes towardsEnvironmental Protection

Dimensional Structure of the European System of Social Indicators

� �

�

�

�

Life Domains

Dimensions of Welfare and General Social Change

Measurement Dimensions

Subdimensions

Indicators

Additional Elements of Systems Architecture

� Indicators: objective & subjective

� CoverageEU - Member States + Norway, Switzerland, Japan, United States

� Periodicity of ObservationStarting point of time-series: 1980; Yearly observations, as far as dataare available

� Level of Regional Disaggregation: NUTS-1 level or similar level ifpossible

� Data Sources:Aggregated Data: for example EUROSTAT - DatabasesMicrodata: for example ECHP, EU-SILC, Eurobarometer, ESS; ISSP,World-Value-Surveys, Working-Conditions-Surveys,

New Online Information System: sim on

http://www.pictonalities.com/simon_work_in_progress/

���� provides online access to time series data from two indicator systems

� German System of Social Indicators

� European System of Social Indicators

Project sim on - Basic Aims and Objectives

� Provide comfortable access to data from the European and German System of SocialIndicators under a single platform

� Allow to browse and select indicators according to users‘ needs

� Allow to visualize data in different ways (e.g. across time; across countries) and formats

� Allow to display data as tables and provide tools for table manipulation (e.g. transponecolumns and lines)

� Provide tools for data analysis

� Allow to export data and charts in different formats to be used in other applications(e.g. HTML, PDF, Excel-Tables, JPG)

� Provide efficient search and help functions

� Allow bilingual utilization (English, German)

���� aims to „satisfay the growing demand for quantitative evidence on whetherour societies are getting more or less unequal, healthy, dependent andcohesive“

���� list of indicators & social report

���� 4 objectives of social policy used to classify indicators:

- self-sufficiency (by assuring active participation in economy and society)- equity (e.g. equality of opportunity)- health- social cohesion

���� three categories of indicators, following the pressure-state-responsemodel developed in environmental reporting

OECD: Society at a Glance

Social Context

variables notdirectly the target

of policy

SocietalResponse

government policiesand other societal

actions

Social Status

social situations thatare of highest

current priority forpolicy action

Context - Status - Response Model (OECD)

- Social Context Indicators, e.g.

- proportion of population 65 and older- fertility rates- lone parent families- national income

Social Status Indicators, e.g.

- employment- unemployment- jobless households- working mothers

Societal Response Indicators, e.g.

- educational attainment- health care expenditure- early childhood education and care- prisoners

Example fromOECD Report:

Textpage

Example fromOECD Report:

Data-page

���� Key Role for Social Indicators in European Social Poliy

� the objective is…to combine a dynamic economy with socialinclusion and protection ... In achieving this, social indicatorshave a key role to play .“ (Vandenbrouke 2001)

� “promotion of social inclusion within overall strategy of the EU, andthe agreement …to advance social policy …gave an express rolefor social indicators” (Atkinson et al. 2002: 5)

EU – Social Indicators

The Open Method of Coordination (OMC) …

� was established by the European Council of Lisbon (2000) as a tool forimplementing the EU strategy for sustained economic growth and greatersocial cohesion;

� shall contribute to a convergence of social conditions by defining com-mon objectives;

� asks for periodic monitoring of goal attainment based on a set of common indicators , evaluation and peer review;

� establishes indicators and benchmarks as a means of idenifying bestpractices (+ worst practices � naming & shaming) and mutual learning;

� leaves institutional solutions and policy choice to nation states (principleof subsidiarity).

� = soft law / regulation

Application of OMC to three Policy Fields:

- social inclusion / exclusion- adequate and sustainable pensions- health and long-term care

Streamlining of Coordination Processes from 2006 onwards:

� Consolidation of the three policy fields in terms of common objectives and simplified reporting procedures

More Information:

http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/spsi/the_process_en.htm

„Social indicators are widely used for a variety of purposes. It is essential to emphasise that here the

focus is on their use in one very specific context, namely as part of the process of open-coordination -

with the objective of facilitating international comparisons of actual outcomes achieved by national social policies and hence improving the exchange of

best practices“

(Atkinson/Marlier/Nolan 2004)

OMC – Indicators Social Inclusion

���� Study commisioned by the Belgian Government during the Belgian EU-Presidency

- High Level Conference, Antwerp 2001

- Report = Atkinson, T./ Cantillon, B./ Marlier, E./ Nolan, B.: Social Indicators.The EU and Social Inclusion. Oxford University Press, 2002.

“It assesses the strengths and weaknesses of different indicators relevant to social inclusion in Europe, and their usefulness in promoting good practice by member state governments and allowing comparable assessment of social outcomes” (Atkinson et al. 2002: 1).

���� Results of report were fed into work of Indicators Sub-Group and the Report by Social ProtectionCommittee

���� Set of indicators endorsed by European Council (Laeken)

���� Stocktaking and enhancement as part of the Luxembourg EU-Presidency 2005:

“Taking Forward the EU Social Inclusion Process“

- High Level Conference, Luxembourg, 2005. (www.ceps.lu/eu2005_lu/inclusion/)- Report = Atkinson, T./ Cantillon, B./ Marlier, E./ Nolan, B.: The EU and Social Inclusion,

The Policy Press, 2007

Principles of Indicator Construction (Atkinson et al. 2002)

Applied to single indicators, an indicator should ...

� identify the essence of the problem and have a clear and accepted normativeinterpretation

� be robust and statistically validated

� be responsive to effective policy interventions but not subject to manipulation

� be measurable in a sufficiently comparable way across member states, and compara-ble as far as practicable with the standards applied by the UN and the OECD

� be timely and susceptible to revision

…Applied to the whole portfolio of indicators:

� the portfolio should be comprehensive and cover all key dimensions of thecommon objectives;

� the portfolio of indicators should be balanced across different dimensions

� indicators should be mutually consistent and the weight of single indicatorsin the portfolio should be proportionate

� portfolio of indicators should be as transparent and accessible as possibleto the citizens (of the European Union)

Diffferent Classes of Indicators Used:

� Commonly agreed EU indicators: comparative assessment of MS's progress towards the common objectives (outcomes)

� Commonly agreed national indicators based on commonly agreed definitionsand assumptions: provide key information to assess the progress of MS in relation to certain objectives, while not allowing for a direct crosscountry comparison, or not necessarily having aclear normative interpretation.

� Context information: list of context information proposed is indicative

For EU-Indicators and National Indicators also distinction between primary Indicatorswhich cover all essential dimensions of the defined objectives and/or highlight the socialsituation of key sub-populations and secondary indicators supporting these lead indi-cators by providing a greater insight into the nature of the problem

- at risk of poverty rate (below 60% of national equivalised median income) + illustrative threshold values (EU)

- persistent at risk of poverty rate (below current year + at least two of the preceding 3 years)(EU)

- relative median poverty risk gap (difference between median equivalence income of personsbelow threshold and the threshold in % of threshold) (EU)

- long term unemployment rate in % of total active population (EU)

- population living in jobless households: children (children - 0-17 – living in jobless house-holds in % of all children) (EU)

- population living in jobless households: prime age adults (18-59) (EU)

- early school leavers (only lower secondary level) not in education or training (EU)

- employment gap of immigrants (Nat)

- material deprivation (EU – to be developed)

- housing (EU – to be developed)

Social Inclusion Indicators: Primary Indicators���� lead indicators covering the fields that have been considered the most importantelements in leading to poverty and exclusion

- poverty risk by household types

- poverty risk by the work intensity of households

- poverty risk by most frequent activity type

- poverty risk by accomodation tenure status (owner occupies or rent-free; rented)

- Dispersion around the at risk of poverty treshold (% below 40, 50, 70 % median income)

- % persons with low educational attainment (ISCED = 0,1, 2)

- low reading literacy performance of pupils

Social Inclusion Indicators: Secondary Indicators���� supporting lead indicators and describing other dimensions of the problems

Social Inclusion Indicators: Context information

- Income quintile ratio (S80/S20) - This indicator is also included in the overarching portfolio

- Gini coefficient

- Regional cohesion: dispersion in regional employment rates - This indicator is also included inthe overarching portfolio

- Healthy Life expectancy and Life expectancy at birth, at 65, (by Socio-Economic Status whenavailable) - This indicator is also included in the overarching portfolio

- At-risk-of-poverty rate anchored at a moment in time - This indicator is also included in theoverarching portfolio

- At-risk-of-poverty rate before social cash transfers (other than pensions) 15

- Jobless households by main household types (see breakdown of secondary indicator 1a)

- In-work poverty risk, breakdown full-time / part time

- Making work pay indicators (unemployment trap, inactivity trap, low-wage trap.

- Net income of social assistance recipients as a % of the at-risk of poverty threshold for3 jobless household types16.

- Self reported limitations in daily activities by income quintiles, by sex, by age (0-17, 18-64, 65+)

Pattern of Social Indicators for the 25 Member States - Highlighting Less than EU Median Performing Countries

Pattern of Social Indicators for the 25 Member States –Highlighting Possible Best Practices

(Welfare) Quality of Life - Indices

Definition Index:

„An Index is a number that is a composite of two or morenumbers. Indices ... combine different measures in a singlemeasure“ (Kerlinger 1986: 140)

„An index is a variable, who's values result from an arithmetic operation based on a number of other variables“(Diekmann 1995: 208; translation HHN)

���� allow for comprehensive measurement

���� answer the call by 'policy makers' for condensed information

���� improve the chance to get into the media (compared to complexindicator systems)

���� allow to make multi-dimensional phenomena uni-dimensionaland to compare QoL in a transitive way (Ranking)

Why Welfare/Quality of Life - Indices?

Composite Indexes

���� Instruments to make multi-dimensional phenomena uni-dimensional

Advantage of uni-dimensionality

���� allows to compare situations across time or across nations etc. in a transitive way and allows clear cut answers to questions like the following:

� are living conditions getting better or worse across time?

� do people living in city A enjoy a better quality of life than those living in City B?

� is population subgroup x better off than population subgroup y?

Alfredo Niceforo (Kultur und Fortschritt im Spiegel der Zahlen. Wien, Prag undLeipzig: 1930)

� First attempt to develop a summary measure of welfare

“a quantitative symptology of social reality should be able to reduce the numerous indicatorsto only one or a few summary measures" (Niceforo 1930: 27; translation HHN).

… but early resignation!

� “One may transform significant indicators, like e.g. mortality, average wealth, consumption of tobacco, crime, into indices, which in turn could be summed up to a total index. But what would such a synthetic measure be worth, leaving alone the numerousobstacles, which – to my knowledge – cannot be overcome completely (Niceforo 1930: 136f.; translation HHN)

Database

Revisions of GDP in Monetory Units

Indexes Based on Individual Indicators

in Natural Units

Aggregate-Data

Measure of Economic Welfare (Nordhaus/Tobin)

Net National Welfare (Economic Council of Japan)

Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare (Daley/Cobb)

Index of Genuine Progress (Redefining Progress Institute)

Level of Living Index (Drewnowski)

Human Development Index (UNDP)

Index of Social Health (Fordham Institute for Innovation in Social Policy)

Quality of Life Index (E. Diener)

Index of Social Progress (R. Estes)

The Economist Intelligence Unit’s quality-of-life index

Canadian Index of Wellbeing (Atkinson Foundation)

Micro-Data

Index of Living Conditions (Social and Cultural Planning Office, The

Netherlands)

Index of Economic Wellbeing in Tasmania (Department of Health and Human Services)

Living-Conditions-Index (Gesis; Social Indicators Research Centre)

Selected ‚composite‘ Welfare Indices

� how to identify the relevant dimensions of a theoretical construct tobe measured and summarised by an index?

� which and how many indicators are to be selected?

� how to compare apples and pears, or how to standardise dimensions ofmeasurement and indicators (e.g. unemployment rate, life expectancy,life satisfaction)?

� which calculus shall be used to combine indicators to a compositeindex (e.g. multiplicative or additive)

� shall indicators be weighted and how can we generate weights to beused?

General Problems of Constructing Composite Indices fromSingle Indicators:

Living-Conditions-Index – European System of Social Indicators (Gesis-ZSi)

Some Examples

Human Development Index (UNDP)

The Economist Intelligence Unit’s quality-of-life index

The Happy Planet Index (nef)

K o n s t r u k t i o n d e s H u m a n D e v e l o p m e n t I n d e x

Dimensions Indicators Indices

Longevity and Health Life expectancy at birth(min. 25 years, max. 85 years)

Life expectancy Index

Actual xi value - minimum xi valueIndex =

Maximum xi value - minimum xi value

77,2 - 25 52,2Germany = = = 0,87

85,0 - 25 60,0

Knowledge Adult literacy rate(min. 0 %, max. 100 %)

Combined gross enrolment ratio(min. 0 %, max. 100 %)

Educational Attainment Index= [2 (Adult literacy rate) + 1 (enrolment rate)] / 3

Germany = [2 (0.99) + 1 (0,881)] / 3 = 0,954

Decent Standard of Living Real GDP per capita in PPP$(min. $100, max. $40.000)

Adjusted Real GDP per Capita Index

log (21.260) - log (100)Germany = = 0,895

log (40.000) - log (100)

Human Development HDI = (L-E-I + E-A-I + A-GDP-I) / 3

Germany = (0,87 + 0,954 + 0,895) / 3 = 0,906

Human Development Index 1997, 2001 and 2004

0,8500,8600,8700,8800,8900,9000,9100,9200,9300,9400,9500,9600,9700,9800,9901,000

Nor

way

Icel

and

Aus

tral

ia

Irel

and

Sw

eden

Can

ada

Japa

n

Uni

ted

Sta

tes

Sw

itzer

land

Net

herla

nds

Fin

land

Luxe

mbo

urg

Bel

gium

Aus

tria

Den

mar

k

Fra

nce

Uni

ted

Kin

gdom Ital

y

Spa

in

New

Zea

land

Ger

man

y

Hon

g K

ong,

Chi

na (

SA

R)

HDI 1997 HDI 2001 HDI 2004

Economist Intelligence Unit‘s quality-of-life-index

���� Material Wellbeing (GDP per person, at ppp in $)

���� Health ( life expectancy at birth, years)

���� Political Stability and Security ( political stability and security ratings)

���� Family Life ( divorce rate converted into index of 1 - lowest - to 5 – highest - divorce rates)

���� Community Life ( dummy variable taking value 1 if country has either high rate of churchattendance or trade-union membership; zero otherwise)

���� Climate and Geography ( latitude, to distinguish between warmer and colder climates)

���� Job Security ( unemployment rate, %)

���� Political Freedom ( average of indices of political and civil liberties. Scale of 1 (completely free) to 7 (unfree))

���� Gender Equality (ratio of average male and female earnings, latest available data)

Starting Point � life satisfaction scores (1-10) World Value Survey 1999/2000

� Dependent variable in multiple regression including just mentioned andadditional macro-variables

� resulting beta-coefficients used to calculate 'predicted life satisfaction scores'

= Quality of Life Index

The Happy Planet Index (HPI)

The Happy Planet Index shows the ecological efficiency with whichhuman well-being is delivered.

It is the first ever index to combine environmental impact with human well-being to measure the environmental efficiency with which country by

country, people live long and happy lives.

…addressing the relative success or failure of countries in supporting good lives for their citizens, whilst respecting the environmental resource limits

upon which our lives depend …

Analysing its results could help us to move towards a world where we canall live good lives without costing the earth.

How it is calculated

The HPI reflects the average years of happy life produc ed by a given society, nation or group of nations, per unit of planetary resources c onsumed .

Put another way, it represents the efficiency with which countries conv ert the earth’s finite resources into well-being experienced by their citizens.

The Global HPI incorporates three separate indicators : ecological footprint, life-satisfactionand life expectancy:

Ecological Footprint + α

__________________________ x ß

Life satisfaction x Life expectancy

HPI =

Ecological Footprint:

� represents the amount of biologically productive land and sea area needed to regenerate the resources a human population consumes and to absorb and render harmless the corresponding waste.

How is the Ecological Footprint calculated?The Ecological Footprint measures the amount of biologically productive land and water area required to produce the resources an individual, population, or activity consumes and to absorb the waste they generate, given prevailing technology and resource management.

This area is expressed in global hectares (gha), hectares with world-average biological pro-ductivity (1 hectare = 2.47 acres). Footprint calculations use yield factors to take into account national differences in biological productivity (for example, tonnes of wheat per United Kingdom or Argentinian hectare versus world average) and equivalence factors to take into account differences in world average productivity among land types (for example, world average forest versus world average cropland). Footprint and biocapacity results for nations are calculated annually by Global Footprint Network.

L I V I N G P L A N E T R E PO R T 2 0 0 6

Selected Countries for Example….

47.01.156.86.2Ghana

58.91.473.36.4Tunisia

59.11.166.86.6Kyrgyztan

61.20.870.56.1Vietnam

61.91.477.36.3Cuba

67.21.372.47.2Colombia

28.80.945.94.5Ivory Coast

28.89.577.47.4United States

HPIEFLife ExpLife Sat

Some of the Problems with the Happy Planet Index

� How valid and reliable is the „Happy life Years“ (life exp x life sat) – Index?

� Extensive data limitations: e.g. Life satisfaction data are taken from many differentsources, using different scales etc., and for the vast majority of countries evenestimated using regression techniques;

� Transparency and comprehensibility?

� Plausibility of results?

Composite Index ‚Living Conditions‘ as Part of Europea n Indicator Systemhttp://www.gesis.org/fileadmin/upload/dienstleistung/daten/soz_indikatoren/eusi/Doku_Index_Constr.pdf

- index represents mean scores of 7 subindices (Income/Standard of Living,Housing, Housing Area, Education, Health, Social Relations, Work)

- each subindex is based on 1-4 indicators

- each subindex varies within a range from 1 to 5; thus the composite indexalso varies between 1 and 5.

- the living conditions index is based on micro-data (ECHP; EU-SILC) ratherthan macro-data.

4,04,1

3,9

4,0

3,4

3,5

3,0

3,2

3,4

3,6

3,8

4,0

4,2

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

A B DK E FIN GR I IRL P

Living Conditions Index 1995-2001

Living Conditions Index – 2001: Italy and Denmark

4,03,8

3,73,5

3,3

4,33,9

3,4

3,7

4,44,2

4,03,9

3,7

4,54,1

3,7

3,93,7

4,2

3,73,9

4,14,0

3,94,2

4,14,0

4,04,1

4,1

0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5 4,0 4,5 5,0

income level 140%+

income level 110%- <140%

income level 90% - <110%

income level 60% - <90%

income level < 60% median

high level of education

meduim level of education

low level of education

inactive

unemployed

employed

widowed

separated/divorced

married

single

65 years +

45-64 years

26-44 years

15-25 years

female

male

Total

Italy Denmark

"In a chemistry laboratory one learns to be a little cautious about 'combining' substances. But ...the somewhat analogous 'combining'

of information has not been widelyrecognized to have a property analogous to

blowing up in the experimenter's face“(Otis D. Duncan 1984: 227).

Conclusions

- Growing interest and usage of composite QoL-indexes, particularly at thesupranational level (e.g. UNDP, OECD, EU –Joint Research Centre)

- Use of QoL- Indexes aims primarily at media attention through rankings

- information value added questionable

Suggestions

- 'composite indexes' should not be used as 'stand alone'-measures, butrather - if at all – as part of indicator systems

- 'composite indexes' should preferably be based on micro-data, rather thanaggregated data

Quality of Life Research

���� » ...tries to define what a good life is and how well realitymeets these standards« (Veenhoven 1997)

� not only measurement, but also theoretical as well as empirical analysis of QoL

Research on subjective quality of life received much attention in publicdebate recently:

� Enormous media coverage (e.g.The Wall Street Journal, New York Times, TimeMagazin, BBC, Times, Der Spiegel, DIE ZEIT, numerous TV Channels)

� Proposal to complement ‚Economic National Accounts‘ by ‚National Accounts ofWell-Being‘ (Diener & Tov forthcoming)

� Increasing attention in policy making

���� Special Focus on Easterlin-Paradox and its implications

���� New Debate About Material Wealth and Economic Growth as Major PolicyGoals

Source: P. Schyns 2003

Key Questions of Research on Subjective Well-Being:

General:

� what are the components of and how to model SWB (overall; domain-specific)?

� how to measure SWB?

� what is the level of SWB on average and for various populations; how does it changeacross time?

� what are the causes, correlates and consequences of SWB?

� is SWB a state or a trait (e.g. personality vs. external factors)?

Comparative Research:

� what are the crossnational differences in SBW (levels, changes)?

� are there specific patterns of country differences?

� how are country differences to be explained?

� to which extent may causes and correlates of SWB be generalised across countries?

Approaches to Measure SWBConceptual Alternatives:

� Happiness (affective WB)

� Satisfaction (cognitive WB)

- life satisfaction

- domain satisfactions

� Autonomy

� Meaningful Life

� Personal Growth

� Self-Acceptance

� etc.

� Other Concepts, e.g. ‚distress‘, ‚anxiety‘

Hedonic Measures = needsatisfaction

Eudaimonic Mesures = emphasison being, doing, empowerment

Source: nef: National Accounts of Well-being

http://www.nationalaccountsofwellbeing.org

Approaches to Measure SWB

Traditional Survey Method:

- paper & pencil, Capi, Cati etc.

- cross sectional surveys, longitudinal surveys (panel, life history)

New Survey Methods ����

New Survey Methods:

� Experience Sampling Method:

� assessment of experiences in natural settings, in real-time (or close to the occur-rence of the experience being reported), and on repeated time occasions.

� Day Reconstruction Method

� designed to collect data describing the experiences a person has on a given day,through a systematic reconstruction conducted on the following day.

Key advantages of both approaches:

• Joint assessment of activities and subjective experiences

• Information about the duration of each experience• variety of additional opportunities for analysis

Unsolved Problems:

• difficult (& expensive) to apply in large scale data collection programmes

Some Currently Used Survey Questions

Single item questions

• Taking all together, how happy would you say you are: very happy, quite happy, not veryhappy, not at all happy? (standard item in the European Value Studies)

• How satisfied are you with the life you lead? Very satisfied, fairly satisfied, not verysatisfied, not at all satisfied? (standard item in Eurobarometer surveys)

Multiple item questions, e.g.

• Diener's Satisfaction With Life Scale

(1-7 scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree ) - In most ways my life is close to ideal.

- The conditions of my life are excellent. - I am satisfied with my life. - So far I have gotten the important things I want in life. - If I could live my life over, I would change almost nothing

• Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS)

• The Personal Wellbeing Index

The Personal Wellbeing Index (Australian Centre on Quality of Life)

7 Questions Domain

How satisfied are you with…?

1. your standard of living? Standard of Living2. your health? Personal Health

3. what you are achieving in life? Achieving in Life

4. your personal relationships? Personal Relationships5. how safe you feel? Personal Safety

6. feeling part of your community? Community-Connectedness

7. your future security? Future Security8. your spirituality or religion? Spirituality – Religion

Australian Unity Wellbeing Index: Report 18.1, February 2008

Question Wording Life Satisfaction: European Social Survey

Differences in Survey Methodology, e.g.

Question Wording Life Satisfaction : European Values Study

Question Wording Eurobarometer: „satisfied with life you lead“, Scale 1-4

Scale 0-10

Scale 1-10

� What is the level of SWB on average and for various sub-populations?

� How does it change across time?

Source: Datenreport 2008

Satisfaction with ...

Employment Status

Income**

employed unemployed retired lowest quintile

highest quintile

Health West 6,9 6,2 5,6 6,4 6,8 East 6,9 6,0 5,1 6,2 6,4 Work*** West 6,9 - - 6,9 6,9 East 6,8 - - 6,4 7,0 Housework West 6,5 6,3 6,5 6,3 6,6 East 6,7 5,9 6,3 5,9 6,8 Household Income West 6,4 4,1 6,3 4,6 7,3 East 5,7 3,2 5,6 3,2 6,5 Housing West 7,7 6,7 8,0 7,0 8,0 East 7,7 6,6 7,7 6,4 7,9 Leisure West 6,4 7,1 8,1 7,0 6,9 East 6,2 6,9 7,4 6,4 6,7 Child Care Services**** West 6,6 6,2 () 6,5 6,2 East 7,3 7,0 () 6,6 8,3 Personal Income West 6,3 - - 5,2 7,0 East 5,6 - - 4,4 6,4 Family Life West 7,5 6,9 7,7 7,2 7,6 East 7,4 7,1 7,4 7,0 7,4 Personal Network West 7,4 7,0 7,4 7,2 7,5 East 7,4 6,9 7,1 6,9 7,3 Living Standard West 7,2 7,2 7,1 6,1 7,8 East 6,9 6,9 6,6 5,4 7,3 Democracy (2005) West 5,3 4,3 5,1 4,7 5,7 East 4,0 2,8 3,8 2,9 4,6 Database: SOEP 2006

Does SWB vary amongpopulation subgroups?

Source: Datenreport 2008

Life Satisfaction Germany: Mean Scores 1984-2006East/West; Women/Men

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Sca

le 0

-10

Men West Men East Women West Women East

Database: SOEP

Source: Datenreport 2008

Selected Correlates / Determinants of SWB- Gender: Usually little - if at all - difference between men and women

- Age, Age differences not very pronounced; some studies (Blanchflower/Oswald2007) found U-shaped life course pattern (minimum in middle ages, ca. mid 40s); ����

- Health: Strong positive association (probably two-way)

- Education: Affects well-being directly and indirectly. Direct influences include the positive effecton self-confidence and self-estimation. Indirect influences refer to higher employmentprobability, better job quality, higher expected salary and better health

- Income ����

- Religion Positive effect of religiosity (denomination, churchgoing, prayer) on SWB: "At least interms of life satisfaction, religion is the opium of the people" (Clark/Lelkes 2009:17)

- Inequality According to Alesina et al. (2004) large negative effect of income inequality onSWB, but only in Europe, not U.S.

- Culture Only few explicit studies (e.g. Diener/Suh 2000); usually treated as 'black box'; someevidence for culturally determined differences in expressing dissatisfaction (e.g.mediterranean vs. scandinavian countries)

- Impact of life events, e.g. unemployment, marriage, divorce, retirement, health impairments ����

Life Satisfaction

Satisfaction with Health

Source: Datenreport 2008

SWB - Causes and Correlates

Example Income: Does Money Buy Happiness?

� 4 Perspectives:

- Within Nation Correlations - Crossectional

- Between-Nation Differences - Crossectional

- Income Change Individual Level Across Life Time

- Income Change National Level Across Time

23

45

67

89

10P

redi

cted

val

ues

on s

cale

0 -

10

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000EURO

Life Satisfaction by Household-Income* – Germany 2004

* Equivalised HH-Income, modified OECD ScaleDatabase: SOEP

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

EU

15

NM

S

Luxe

mbo

urg

Irel

and

Den

mar

k

Net

herla

nds

Aus

tria

Bel

gium

Sw

eden UK

Fra

nce

Fin

land

Ger

man

y

Ital

y

Spa

in

Cyp

rus

Por

tuga

l

Mal

ta

Slo

veni

a

Gre

ece

Cze

ch R

epub

lic

Hun

gary

Slo

vaki

a

Pol

and

Est

onia

Lith

uani

a

Latv

ia

Bul

garia

Rom

ania

Tur

key

life

satis

fact

ion

bottom quartile

2nd quartile

3rd quartile

top quartlie

Within Nation Differences: Life Satisfaction by HH-Income

Source: Böhnke (2005): Life Satisfaction, Happiness and Sense of Belonging. Luxembourg.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000 50000 55000

GDP per capita 2000

Life

sat

isfa

ctio

n 20

00

L

M

HR

RUS

B

F

HU

CZ

UA

BG

GRPL

BY

EST

ES

SLO

IRLDK

FIN

S

A

D

SK

P

IS

GB

Between-Nation Differences:Life Satisfaction by GDP per Capita (in PPP)

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

1973

=10

0

GDP/capita

Life Satisfaction

France

Ireland

Database:Eurobarometer; OECD

Income Change National Level

0,0

50,0

100,0

150,0

200,0

250,0

300,0

350,0

400,0

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

1973

=10

0

GDP/capita

Life Satisfaction

Growth in income and wealth not accompa-nied by corresponding increase of SWB!

80,0

90,0

100,0

110,0

120,0

130,0

140,0

150,0

160,0

170,0

180,0

1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

1981

=10

0

GDP/capita

Life Satisfaction

Greece

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

1985

=10

0 GDP/capita

Life Satisfaction

Portugal

Database:Eurobarometer; OECD

Easterlin Paradox however challenged recently:

“…our time series comparisons, as well as evidence from international panel data, appear to point to an important relationship between economic growth and growth in subjective well-being . …taken as a whole, the time series evidence is difficult to reconcile with earlier claims that eco nomic growth yields no boost to happiness .”

“Thus, we conclude that the accumulation of new data (and our re-analysis of earlier data) has not been kind to the Easterlin Paradox. Our findings clearly falsify this strong form of adaptation—those enjoying materially better circumstances also enjoy greater subjective well-being. However, milder forms of adaptation are potentially consistent with our findings.”

(Stevenson / Wolfers 2008)

Income Change Individual Level

does SWB increase with growing income?

– yes, but ...

- effect usually only temporary

- effect stronger at lower income levels (diminishing marginal returns)

- relative income growth more important than absolute

���� not generally true, but…Two processes at work:

1) ���� mechanism of rising aspirations and expectations: the more we getthe more we want

or …

���� ‘hedonic treadmill’: more and more income and material wealth is requiredto maintain the same level of SWB (at least diminishing marginal returns ofincome and material wealth)

2) ���� alternative explanation: it is not average absolute income growth that matters,but relative improvements compared to standards of comparison(Relative Income Hypothesis)

� „frog-pond-effect“ = people derive satisfaction from being a big frog in a smallpond or only above average friends‘, neighbours‘, colleagues‘ income growthleads to increase in SWB

Why don’t we get happier across time, when we have more?

SWB = variable state or invariable trait?

Robert Cummins‘ „homeostatic theory of SWB“

���� departs from observation that „despite very different circumstances ofliving, the World‘s populations have an average level of life satisfactionthat varies only about 20 percent. This is a strong indication that life satisfaction is not free to vary over its entire range“ (Cummins 2001)

���� life satisfaction and subjective OoL-scores consistently yield a mean of75 and a standard deviation of 2.5. That is life satisfaction and subjectiveOoL-scores across population samples usually fall into the 70-80 % scalemaximum range (Cummins et al.)

Explanation suggested:

���� active internal homeostasic system manages to maintain SWB for eachindividual within a ‚set point range‘, that is each person has an in-built‚set-point‘ for their normal level of SWB

In consequence:

���� limited role of external circumstances for explaining levels of SWB

- ‚under maintenance conditions ... there should be no systematicrelationship between the objective circumstances of people‘s lives andtheir SWB‘

- If people experience an event which ‚depresses their SWB belowthreshold, homeostatic control should improve their levels of SWB overtime‘.

However, set-point theory at least to some degree contra-factual:

� variations across time, across countries, across status categories, and acrossindividual life course underestimated

� variations correlate to considerable degree with external circumstances, e.g.living conditions

� impact of adaptation mechanisms or „system of homeostatic control“ limited andthus overestimated by this theory

Life Satisfaction - EVS 1999/2000Skale: 1 = Extremely dissatisfied, 10 = Extremely satisfied

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

UkraineRussia

BelarusLithuaniaRomania

LatviaBulgariaHungaryEstonia

SlovakiaPolandGreeceCroatiaFrance

PortugalCzech Rep

SpainItaly

E. GermanySlovenia

Gt. BritainBelgium

W. GermanySweden

LuxembourgNetherlands

FinlandNth Ireland

AustriaIcelandIreland

MaltaDenmark

Others

NMS

EU 15

Impact of life events: divorce

Database: German Household Panel Study; Source: Andress 2004

Impact of life events: health impairmentNeed for Help/Care and Changes in Health- and Life Satisfaction

Source: Weick 2006:14

Critical views on „homeostatic theory of SWB“

Easterlin (mimeo): „...the psychologists‘ setpoint model is questionable. Life events... such as marriage, divorce, and serious disability, have a lasting effect on happiness, and do not simply deflect the average person temporarily above or belowa setpoint given by genetics and personality“

Veenhoven (1997: 19): „happiness does not remain the same over time: particularlynot over the length of a lifetime ... Happiness is not insensitive to change in living-conditions ...Happiness is not entirely an internal matter “

BruceHeadey (2007): The Set-point Theory of Well-being N eeds Replacing –On the Brink of a Scientific Revolution?

The key challenge to set-point theory comes from evidence in the German Socio-EconomicPanel…The SOEP data show that close to 20% of a national representative sample haverecorded substantial and apparently more or less permanent changes in their life satisfactionduring the last 20 years. About 6% recorded gains of 2 or more points (close to 1.5 standarddeviations) on a 0-10 life satisfaction scale, and more than twice that number – about 13% -recorded substantial and apparently permanent declines. Changes of this magnituderecorded by close to one fifth of a national sample are really not compatible with set-pointtheory as currently understood.

Set-point theory implies that it is very unlikely that adults, and especially older people, canbecome happier or do anything much to improve their own happiness. Nor can Governmentshelp. So if set-point theory is overturned, …it will open up the whole field of SWB researchagain, and lead to a search for the causes of long term change and improvement in SWB.

- are there differences in SWB between countries?

- are there certain patterns of country differences?

- how can differences between countries be explained?

Cross-National QoL-Research

Why are the Belgians so much happier than the French …and why are the Dutch so much happier than the Germans?

Levels of Explanation:

- aggregate level characteristics of societies: e.g. GDP, Income inequality, Welfare State Type,Health Care System, Cultural Traits, Values etc.

- individual level characteristics (objective conditions; subjective perceptions): e.g. income,employment situation, family status, health status, housing conditions, age etc.

- combination of both

Methodological Concerns:

- differences in SWB might reflect language differences (+ other problems of equivalence anddata comparability)

- differences in SWB might be due to response behavior

Source:

J. Delhey 2004

…the end!

Congratulations and thanks for your attention!