Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
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