Transcript Presentation

Happiness or resources?
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
Directive: To suggest indicators for monitoring
the development of the quality of life to
supplement GNP/capita
Investigator: Robert Erikson
Secretary: Anton Blanck
Criteria for an official measure of QoL
(relevant for advanced industrial societies)
Based on relevant research
In line with international recommendations
Related to policy interventions
Expected to change when conditions change
Difficult to manipulate
Easy to interpret
Facilitates analysis of distributions, associations and
group differences
Four interpretations of QoL
Affluence
Happiness
Meaningfulness
Freedom of action
QoL as Affluence
Needs 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.
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 scale
Seems to be only weakly related to social
conditions
Cannot normally be expected change in the
average – except perhaps at a major catastrophe
like war
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)
Happiness: life satisfaction
Only a limited association with demographic and social
circumstances (R2<10%). However,
People with higher incomes are on average more satisfied
Unemployment is fairly strongly negatively correlated
with life satisfaction
Physical health is only weakly related to satisfaction,
while mental health clearly is so (identity?)
Those around 40 are less satisfied than younger or older
persons
Those with higher education are slightly more satisfied
than those with lower
People living together are on average more satisfied than
those living alone
But does it change?
Life satisfaction and Real Income Per Capita in the
United States, 1973–2004
(Clark et al. 2008)
UK life satisfaction and GDP (1973-2002)
http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/news.php/101/a-prosperous-nation-sdc-e-bulletin
Life Satisfaction (Euro-barometer) in Five European
Countries, 1973–2004
(Clark et al. 2008)
QoL as Happiness
Subjective wellbeing (SWB) is related to
unchanging personality factors and depends on
the relation between factual circumstances and
aspiration levels
But aspiration levels adapt to life circumstances
Thus, 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.
QoL as Meaningfulness
John Stuart Mill: It is better to be Socrates
dissatisfied than a fool satisfied
– there are other goals in life than always being
satisfied
Is it better to avoid sorrow than to mourn for a
deceased partner?
QoL as Meaningfulness
A meaningful life is supposed to imply living in
accordance with human nature with basic needs
satisfied
It is assumed to depend on the extent to which a
person is fully functioning
Eudaimonic (EWB) and psychological well-being
(PWB) have been suggested as measures of
meaningfulness of life
QoL as Meaningfulness
EWB 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
QoL as Meaningfulness
Empirical assessments of EWB and PWB seem to
be close to those of subjective wellbeing, SWB
Thus, EWB, PWB and SWB are all fairly highly
correlated with each other
They are highly dependent on personality factors
They cannot on average be expected to change
over time
QoL as Freedom of action
Resources 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
QoL as Freedom of action
Difficult to pinpoint resources and conversion
factors
However, outcomes indicate the individual’s control
over resources and related conversion factors
Accordingly we have to measure a mix of resources
and outcomes
A 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
Johansson 1979
The central social concerns
OECD
Stiglitz et al. 2009
Health
Health status
Health
Housing
Housing conditions
Family and social relations
Social connections
Social connections
Knowledge
Education and skills
Education
Employment and work conditions
Jobs and earnings
Personal activities
Economic resources
Income and wealth
Income and consumption
Political resources
Civic engagement and governance Political voice and governance
Security of life and property
Personal security
Recreation and culture
Work-life balance
Insecurity
Environmental quality
Environmental conditions
Subjective wellbeing
Subjective wellbeing
Which interpretation of QoL?
No interpretation is generally ‘the right one’, it
depends on the purpose at hand
Affluence is important but is too restricted for a
measure intended to indicate societal
development
Happiness/life satisfaction and meaningfulness
cannot be expected to vary over time and are
thus unsuitable for measures intended to show
societal development
Freedom of action as measured by a number of
components then seems to be most appropriate
Should subjective well-being be included
among the components?
In my view not:
As average it is expected to remain constant
over time
May distract the attention from factual
differences and change
The basis and aim of governments’ actions
should be citizens’ conditions rather than their
consciousness
One measure?
The associations between the components are
positive but not all that great
That 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
Inequality and co-variation
By 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.
Conclusion
A 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 level
This makes it possible to assess average societal
change, distributions, differences between
social groups, and associations among
components.
THE END
Some references
Clark, 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, 95–144
Cummins, R. A. (2010): Subjective Wellbeing, Homeostatically Protected Mood and Depression: A Synthesis. Journal of Happiness Studies
11:1–17
Diener, 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 Library
Robeyns, 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 Progress
Stiglitz, J. E., A. Sen and J-P. Fitoussi (2010): Mismeasuring Our Lives: Why GDP Doesn't Add Up London: The New Press
Waterman 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