Predicting the quality of life in the United States
- 36 Downloads
A principal components analysis performed by David M. Smith on 47 U.S. state level indicators of social well-being yielded several components. The first two of these are socio-economic well-being and social pathology. Structural hypotheses are offered to explain state differences in these components. The structural variables condensed by a principal components analysis of state political, economic and social structure measures are differentiation, flexibility-rigidity, and progressive industrialization. These, along with several population measures, determine a substantial part of the variance in the two measures of social well-being.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- MacCannell, Earle Dean: 1968, ‘Structural differentiation and rigidity in forty-eight states of the United States’, unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Cornell University.Google Scholar
- PerloffHarvey S. et al., 1960, Regions, Resources and Economic Growth, (Washington, Resources for the Future).Google Scholar
- SchmooklerJacob: 1966, Invention and Economic Growth (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.).Google Scholar
- SheldonEleanor Bernert and ParkeRobert: 1975, ‘Social Indicators’ in Science, May 16, pp. 693–699.Google Scholar
- SmithDavid M.: 1973, The Geography of Social Well-Being in the United States, (McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York), Chapter 7 ‘An inter-state analysis’, and Chapter 8, ‘An inter-city analysis’, pp. 79–120.Google Scholar
- Young, Frank W. and Fujimoto, Isao: 1965, ‘Social differentiation in Latin American communities’, Economic Development and Cultural Change XIII No. 3, April.Google Scholar
- Young, Ruth C. and Moreno, Jose A.: 1965, ‘Economic development and social rigidity: A comparative study of the forty-eight states’, Economic Development and Cultural Change XIII, No. 4, July.Google Scholar