On quality of life measures for official use Robert Erikson Sofi Stockholm University Social Monitoring and Reporting in Europe Villa Vigoni October 27 2015 A Governmental Committee ID: 1012692
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Happiness or resources?" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
1. Happiness or resources? On quality of life measures for official useRobert EriksonSofiStockholm University"Social Monitoring and Reporting in Europe" Villa Vigoni, October 27, 2015
2. A Governmental CommitteeDirective: To suggest indicators for monitoring the development of the quality of life to supplement GNP/capitaInvestigator: Robert EriksonSecretary: Anton Blanck
3. Criteria for an official measure of QoL(relevant for advanced industrial societies)Based on relevant researchIn line with international recommendationsRelated to policy interventionsExpected to change when conditions changeDifficult to manipulateEasy to interpretFacilitates analysis of distributions, associations and group differences
4. Four interpretations of QoLAffluenceHappinessMeaningfulnessFreedom of action
5. QoL as AffluenceNeeds satisfaction through the flow of goods and services GDP/capita: An important aggregate measure, but it includes too much while missing essential aspects of peoples conditions. The QoL measure should complement GDP or perhaps NNI per capita, not be a substitute.
6. QoL as Happiness (affective wellbeing)U-index: “The proportion of time of a day an individual spends in an unpleasant state”One measure (National Time Accounting)A cardinal scaleSeems to be only weakly related to social conditionsCannot normally be expected change in the average – except perhaps at a major catastrophe like war
7. QoL as Happiness (Life satisfaction)Cantril: imagine a ladder from the worst possible to the best possible life for you, where do you stand? (0-10). Used by Gallup for many years in several countries Diener’s scale 5 items ( scaled 1-7): In most ways my life is close to my 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. Eurobarometer: On the whole how satisfied are you with the life you lead? (1-4)
8. Happiness: life satisfactionOnly a limited association with demographic and social circumstances (R2<10%). However,People with higher incomes are on average more satisfiedUnemployment is fairly strongly negatively correlated with life satisfactionPhysical health is only weakly related to satisfaction, while mental health clearly is so (identity?) Those around 40 are less satisfied than younger or older personsThose with higher education are slightly more satisfied than those with lowerPeople living together are on average more satisfied than those living aloneBut does it change?
9. Life satisfaction and Real Income Per Capita in the United States, 1973–2004(Clark et al. 2008)
10. UK life satisfaction and GDP (1973-2002)http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/news.php/101/a-prosperous-nation-sdc-e-bulletin
11. Life Satisfaction (Euro-barometer) in Five European Countries, 1973–2004(Clark et al. 2008)
12. QoL as HappinessSubjective wellbeing (SWB) is related to unchanging personality factors and depends on the relation between factual circumstances and aspiration levelsBut aspiration levels adapt to life circumstancesThus, we can expect very minor change in SWB. Gallup’s results indicate that this actually is the case in the developed world The individual level of well-being may change over time related to demographic events, but these cancel out on the national level.
13. QoL as MeaningfulnessJohn Stuart Mill: It is better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied – there are other goals in life than always being satisfiedIs it better to avoid sorrow than to mourn for a deceased partner?
14. QoL as MeaningfulnessA meaningful life is supposed to imply living in accordance with human nature with basic needs satisfiedIt is assumed to depend on the extent to which a person is fully functioningEudaimonic (EWB) and psychological well-being (PWB) have been suggested as measures of meaningfulness of life
15. QoL as MeaningfulnessEWB and PWB are closely related and are suggested to include qualities like Effort in pursuit of excellence Intense involvement in activities Autonomy Personal growth Self-acceptance Life purpose Positive relatedness
16. QoL as MeaningfulnessEmpirical assessments of EWB and PWB seem to be close to those of subjective wellbeing, SWBThus, EWB, PWB and SWB are all fairly highly correlated with each otherThey are highly dependent on personality factors They cannot on average be expected to change over time
17. QoL as Freedom of actionResources and outcomes / capabilities and functionings. Johansson (1970): The individual’s command over resources with which s/he can control and consciously direct her living conditions Sen (1992; 1999): Substantive freedoms Capabilities Functionings Conversion factors
18. QoL as Freedom of actionDifficult to pinpoint resources and conversion factorsHowever, outcomes indicate the individual’s control over resources and related conversion factorsAccordingly we have to measure a mix of resources and outcomesA start in resources/capabilities leads to QoL as measured in terms of the essential social concerns, which, since at least the late 1960s, have been measured by statistical offices to display welfare
19. The central social concernsJohansson 1979 OECD Stiglitz et al. 2009HealthHealth statusHealthHousingHousing conditions Family and social relationsSocial connectionsSocial connections KnowledgeEducation and skillsEducationEmployment and work conditions Jobs and earningsPersonal activitiesEconomic resourcesIncome and wealth Income and consumptionPolitical resourcesCivic engagement and governancePolitical voice and governanceSecurity of life and propertyPersonal security InsecurityRecreation and cultureWork-life balance Environmental qualityEnvironmental conditions Subjective wellbeingSubjective wellbeing
20. Which interpretation of QoL?No interpretation is generally ‘the right one’, it depends on the purpose at handAffluence is important but is too restricted for a measure intended to indicate societal developmentHappiness/life satisfaction and meaningfulness cannot be expected to vary over time and are thus unsuitable for measures intended to show societal developmentFreedom of action as measured by a number of components then seems to be most appropriate
21. Should subjective well-being be included among the components?In my view not:As average it is expected to remain constant over timeMay distract the attention from factual differences and changeThe basis and aim of governments’ actions should be citizens’ conditions rather than their consciousness
22. One measure? The associations between the components are positive but not all that greatThat is, they imply the capacity to act, but not necessarily in the same way – compare health and income If the different components are not referring to the same latent dimension we may hide more than we illuminate by putting them together in one measure
23. Inequality and co-variationBy collecting data at individual level, it will be possible not only to report the average Quality of Life of a nation, but also variation (inequality) and on how conditions in one respect co-varies with the conditions in other domains.
24. ConclusionA quality of life measure for official use, intended to make it possible to judge how societies develop, should best be based on freedom of action, conceptualised as a set of components measured at the individual levelThis makes it possible to assess average societal change, distributions, differences between social groups, and associations among components.
25. THE END
26. Some referencesClark, A. E., P. Frijters, and M. A. Shields (2008): Relative Income, Happiness, and Utility: An Explanation for the Easterlin Paradox and Other Puzzles. Journal of Economic Literature 2008, 46:1, 95–144Cummins, R. A. (2010): Subjective Wellbeing, Homeostatically Protected Mood and Depression: A Synthesis. Journal of Happiness Studies 11:1–17Diener, E. and Kuh, E. (1997): Measuring Quality of Life: Economic, social and Subjective Indicators. Social Indicators Research, 40: 189-216.Easterlin, R. A. (2001) Income and happiness: Towards a unified theory. Economic Journal 111: 465–484.Inglehart, R. and Rabier, J.-R. (1986): "Aspirations Adapt to Situations – But Why Are the Belgians So Much Happier Than the French" i F. M. Andrews (red.) Research on the Quality of Life. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan.Johansson, S. (1970): Om Levnadsnivåundersökningen. Stockholm: Allmänna Förlaget. Johansson, S. (1979): Mot en teori för social rapportering. Stockholm: Institutet för social forskning.Krueger, A. B., D. Kahneman, C. Fischler, D. Schkade, N. Schwarz, and A. Stone. (2009a): National Time Accounting: The Currency of Life i Measuring the Subjective Well-Being of Nations. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press: 9-86 Layard, R. (2005/2011): Happiness: Lessons from a New Science (Second Edition) London: Penguin.Mill, J.S. (1859/1910): Utilarianism, London: Everyman’s LibraryRobeyns, I. and R. J. van der Veen (2007): Sustainable quality of life: Conceptual analysis for a policy-relevant empirical specification. Bilthoven and Amsterdam: Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency and University of Amsterdam.Ryff, C. D. and Keyes, C. L. M. (1995): The Structure of Psychological Well-Being Revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1995, 4, 719-727.Sen, A. (1985): Commodities and Capabilities. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Sen, A. (1992): Inequality Reexamined. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Sen, A. (1999): Development as freedom. New York, Knopf.Stewart, F., “Basic Needs, Capabilities and Human Development,” in A. Offer (ed.): Pursuit of the Quality of Life, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1996.Stiglitz, J. E., A. Sen and J-P. Fitoussi (2009): Report by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social ProgressStiglitz, J. E., A. Sen and J-P. Fitoussi (2010): Mismeasuring Our Lives: Why GDP Doesn't Add Up London: The New PressWaterman A. S. m. fl. (2010): The Questionnaire for Eudaimonic Well-Being: Psychometric properties, demographic comparisons, and evidence of validity. The Journal of Positive Psychology 5: 41–61