Economics & Sociology

ISSN: 2071-789X eISSN: 2306-3459 DOI: 10.14254/2071-789X
Index PUBMS: f5512f57-a601-11e7-8f0e-080027f4daa0
Article information
Title: Quality of life paradox. Well-being ranking of the selected European countries based on hybrid well-being approach
Issue: Vol. 13, No 2, 2020
Published date: 06-2020 (print) / 06-2020 (online)
Journal: Economics & Sociology
ISSN: 2071-789X, eISSN: 2306-3459
Authors: Tomasz Kwarciński
Cracow University of Economics

Paweł Ulman
Cracow University of Economics
Keywords: : hybrid well-being, capability approach, quality of life, happiness
DOI: 10.14254/2071-789X.2020/13-2/12
Index PUBMS: 8f18d69a-bef7-11ea-9cc3-fa163e0fa1a0
Language: English
Pages: 160-180 (21)
JEL classification: I31, I39, D63
Website: https://www.economics-sociology.eu/?750,en_quality-of-life-paradox.-well-being-ranking-of-the-selected-european-countries-based-on-hybrid-well-being-approach
Licenses:
Abstract

The paper aims to measure individual and social hybrid well-being, which takes into account the Quality of Life Paradox and compares the results of the selected European countries by creating a country ranking. The paradox refers to an existing disparity between the real quality of life experienced by people and their subjective state of being happy. The hybrid well-being approach is a philosophically inspired attempt to overcome the weaknesses of both subjective and objective well-being theories. Based on a multidimensional concept of well-being, which follows Sen and Nussbaum’s capability approach, we have applied the fuzzy sets theory to data from the European Quality of Life Survey to calculate the objective well-being of people living in the selected European countries. Then we have measured fittingness of their objective to subjective well-being by the Fitting Index (FI). Finally, we have constructed the countries’ ranking of well-being and compared it to other rankings based on happiness, functionings achievement, and GDP per capita. The analysis shows that the country ranking based on hybrid well-being differs from the one created on the basis of GDP per capita, and it is not perfectly correlated with other rankings. Therefore, this means that the hybrid well-being based ranking may contain additional information as compared to other rankings. The paper also indicates that citizens of wealthier countries, living in relatively high-quality circumstances, do not have a lower level of subjective well-being (happiness) more often than their counterparts from the Eastern European countries.

Bibliography

1. Alkire, S. (2002). Dimensions of human development. World Development, 30(2), 181-205.

2. Alkire, S. (2016). The capability approach and well-being measurement for public policy. Oxford Handbooks Online. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199325818.013.18

3. Anand P. Hunter G., Carter I., Dowding K., Dowding K., & van Hees M. (2009). The development of capability indicators. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 10(1), 125-152. doi:10.1080/14649880802675366

4. Anand, S., & Sen, A. (1997). Concepts of human development and poverty: A multidimensional perspective. In Human Development Papers (pp.1-20). New-York: UNDP.

5. Andreassen, L., & Tommaso, M. L. (2018). Estimating capabilities with random scale models: Women’s freedom of movement. Social Choice and Welfare, 50(4), 625-661. doi:10.1007/s00355-017-1099-8

6. Angeles, L. (2011). A closer look at the Easterlin paradox. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 40(1), 67-73. doi:10.1016/j.socec.2010.06.017

7. Aristei, D., & B., Bracalente. (2011). Measuring multidimensional inequality and well-being: Methods and empirical applications to Italian regions. Statistica, LXXI(2), 239-266. doi:10.6092/issn.1973-2201/3613

8. Atkinson, A. B., & Bourguignon, F. (1982). The comparison of multi-dimensioned distributions of economic status. The Review of Economic Studies, 49(2), 183-201. doi:10.2307/2297269

9. Balestrino, A., & Sciclone, N. (2001). Should we use functionings instead of income to measure well-being? Theory and some evidence from Italy. Rivista Internazionale Di Scienze Sociali, 109(1), 3-22. doi:10.2307/41624057

10. Besma, B. (2014). Employment measure in developing countries via minimum wage and poverty new fuzzy approach. Opsearch, 52(2), 329-339. doi:10.1007/s12597-014-0176-3

11. Betti, G. (2016). What impact has the economic crisis had on quality of life in Europe? A multidimensional and fuzzy approach. Quality & Quantity, 51(1), 351-364. doi:10.1007/s11135-015-0308-8

12. Betti, B., & Verma, V. (1999). Measuring the degree of poverty in a dynamic and comparative context: A multidimensional approach using fuzzy set theory. ICCS-VI, 11. Lahore, Pakistan.

13. Betti, G., Cheli, B., Lemmi, A., & Verma, V. (2006). On the construction of fuzzy measures for the analysis of poverty and social exclusion. Statistica & Applicazioni, 4(1), 77-97.

14. Betti, G., Soldi, R., & Talev, I. (2016). Fuzzy multidimensional indicators of quality of life: The empirical case of Macedonia. Social Indicators Research,127(1), 39-53. doi:10.1007/s11205-015-0965-y

15. Boelhouwer, J., & Noll, H. (2014). Objective quality of life. In Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research. Dordrecht, Heidelberg, New York, London: Springer.

16. Cerioli, A., & Zani, S. (1990). A fuzzy approach to the measurement of poverty. In C. Dagum, (Ed.), Income and wealth distribution, inequality and poverty: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Income Distribution by Size: Generation, Dist

17. Cheli, B. (1995). Totally fuzzy and relative measures of poverty in dynamic context. Metron, 53(3-4), 183-205.

18. Comim, F. (2005). Capabilities and happiness: Potential synergies. Review of Social Economy, 63(2), 161-176. doi:10.1080/00346760500129871

19. D’Silva, J. L., & Samah, A. A. (2018). Holistic well-being of Japanese retirees in Malaysia. Journal of International Studies, 11(3), 95-103. doi:10.14254/2071-8330.2018/11-3/8

20. Dainer, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95(3), 542-575. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.95.3.542

21. Dang, A. (2014). Amartya Sens capability approach: A framework for well-being evaluation and policy analysis? Review of Social Economy,72(4), 460-484. doi:10.1080/00346764.2014.958903

22. De Rosa, D. (2018). Capability approach and multidimensional well-being: The Italian case of BES. Social Indicators Research, 140(1), 125-155. doi:10.1007/s11205-017-1750-x

23. Decancq, K., & Schokkaert, E. (2016). Beyond GDP: Using equivalent incomes to measure well-being in Europe. Social Indicators Research, 126(1), 21-55. doi:10.1007/s11205-015-0885-x

24. Di Tella, R., & Macculloch, R. (2008). Gross national happiness as an answer to the Easterlin paradox? Journal of Development Economics, 86(1), 22-42. doi:10.1016/j.jdeveco.2007.06.008

25. Dudek, H., & Szczęsny, W. (2017). Correlates of multidimensional indicator of quality of life – Fractional outcome model approach. Statistika, 97(4), 46-61.

26. Easterlin, R. (1974). Does economic growth improve the human lot? Some empirical evidence”. In A. David & W. Reder, (Eds.), Nations and Households in Economic Growth: Essays in Honour of Moses Abramovitz (pp. 98-125). New York: Academic Press.

27. Easterlin, R., & Angelescu, L. (2009). Happiness and growth the world over: Time series evidence on the happiness-Income paradox. In IZA Discussion Paper (Vol. 4060).

28. Gasper, D. (2005). Subjective and Objective Well-Being in Relation to Economic Inputs: Puzzles and Responses. Review of Social Economy,63(2), 177-206. doi:10.1080/00346760500130309

29. Graham, C. (2011). Does more money make you happier? Why so much debate? Applied Research in Quality of Life, 6(3), 219-239. doi:10.1007/s11482-011-9152-8

30. Helliwell, J., Layard, R., & Sachs, J. (2018). World Happiness Report 2018. New York: Sustainable Development Solutions Network.

31. Hurka, T. (2019). On ‘hybrid’ theories of personal good. Utilitas, 31(4), 450-462. doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/S0953820819000256

32. Jebb, A. T., Tay, L., Diener, E., & Oishi, S. (2018). Happiness, income satiation and turning points around the world. Nature Human Behaviour, 2(1), 33-38. doi:10.1038/s41562-017-0277-0

33. Kahneman, D., & Deaton, A. (2010). High income improves evaluation of life but not emotional well-being. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(38), 16489-16493. doi:10.1073/pnas.1011492107

34. Kolm, S. C. (1977). Multidimensional egalitarianism. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 91, 1-13.

35. Krishnakumar, J. (2007). Going beyond functionings to capabilities: An econometric model to explain and estimate capabilities. Journal of Human Development, 8(1), 39-63. doi:10.1080/14649880601101408

36. Kwarciński, T., & Ulman, P. (2018). A hybrid version of well-being: An attempt at operationalisation. Zarządzanie Publiczne, 4(46)/2018, 30-49. doi:10.15678/zp.2018.46.4.03

37. Martinetti, E. C. (2000). A multidimensional assessment of well-being based on Sen’s functioning approach. Rivista Internazionale Di Scienze Sociali, 108(2), 207-239.

38. Mishchuk, H., & Grishnova, O. (2015). Empirical study of the comfort of living and working environment – Ukraine and Europe: Comparative assessment. Journal of International Studies, 8(1), 67-80. doi:10.14254/2071-8330.2015/8-1/6

39. Moss, J. (2013). The foundations of well-being. Australian Economic Review,46(1), 62-69. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8462.2013.12001.x

40. Nussbaum, M. (2003). Capabilities as fundamental entitlements: Sen and social justice. Feminist Economics, 9(2-3), 33-59. doi:10.1080/1354570022000077926

41. Panek, T. (2010). Multidimensional fuzzy relative poverty dynamic measures in Poland. Statistics in Transition, 11(2), 361-379.

42. Panek, T. (2011). Ubóstwo, wykluczenie społeczne i nierówności: Teoria i praktyka pomiaru. Warszawa: Oficyna Wydawnicza Szkoła Główna Handlowa.

43. Pugno, M. (2015). Capability and happiness: A suggested integration from a dynamic perspective. Journal of Happiness Studies, 16(6), 1383-1399. doi:10.1007/s10902-014-9559-7

44. Robeyns, I. (2017). Wellbeing, freedom and social justice: The capability approach re-examined. Cambridge, UK: Open Book.

45. Sachs, J., & Sachs, J. (2018). America’s health crisis and the Easterlin paradox. In J. Helliwell & R. Layard, (Eds.), World happiness report (pp. 146-159). New York: Sustainable Development Solutions Network.

46. Sen, A. (2009). The idea of justice. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

47. Sen, A. (2005). Commodities and capabilities. Delhi New York: Oxford University Press.

48. Smeeding, T. M., Saunders, P., Coder, J., Jenkins, S., Fritzell, J., Hagenaars, A. J., . . . Wolfson, M. (1993). Poverty, inequality, and family living standards impacts across seven nations: The effect of noncash subsidies for health, education and housi

49. Stevenson, B., & Wolfers, J. (2008). Economic growth and subjective well-being: Reassessing the Easterlin paradox. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 2008(1), 1-87. doi:10.1353/eca.0.0001

50. Stiglitz, J., Sen, A., & Fitoussi, J. (2009). Report of the commission on the measurement of economic ... Retrieved from http://library.bsl.org.au/jspui/bitstream/1/1267/1/Measurement_of_economic_performance_and_social_progress.pdf

51. Tsui, K. (1995). Multidimensional generalizations of the relative and absolute inequality indices: The Atkinson-Kolm-Sen approach. Journal of Economic Theory, 67(1), 251-265. doi:10.1006/jeth.1995.1073

52. Ulman, P., & Šoltés, E. (2015). The monetary and non-monetary aspects of poverty in Poland and Slovakia. Entrepreneurial Business and Economics Review, 3(1), 61-73. doi:10.15678/eber.2015.030105

53. Zadeh, L. (1965.). Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8(3), 338-353. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0019-9958(65)90241-X