Applied Research in Quality of Life

, Volume 11, Issue 4, pp 1189–1205 | Cite as

Relationships Among Social Policy Factors, National Competitiveness, and Happiness

Article
First Online:
Received:
Accepted:

Abstract

The aim of this study is to construct a causal relationship model explaining the relationships between social policy factors and national competitiveness and national happiness; and to analyse how the former affect the latter as final dependent variables. In doing this, the study employs data for OECD member countries. Research regarding the determinants affecting national competitiveness and people’s happiness has tended to focus mainly on personal or collective characteristics such as age, gender, economic infrastructure, etc. As a result, social policy factors, including welfare budget, unemployment support budget and income inequality, have rarely been addressed in the analysis of determinants affecting national competitiveness or happiness, which is regarded as the final policy aim to be achieved by government. In particular, there has been little academic research utilizing OECD database statistics on social policy indicators. Against this background, this study uses the Structural Equation Modeling approach (SEM) to identify the direct and indirect effects of social policy factors on national competitiveness and happiness, and puts forward policy suggestions for attaining these two great goals of social policy.

Keywords

Social policy, National competitiveness, Happiness, SME, Structural relationships 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea Grant funded by the Korean Government (KRF-2013S1A3A2054622).

References

  1. Bjørnskov, C., Drehe, A., & Fischer, J. (2008). On decentralization and life satisfaction. Economics Letters, 99, 147–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Choi, M. O. and Moon, Y. S. (2011). Analysis of happiness determinants in Busan residents. Local Government Studies Review, 15(1), 277–297.Google Scholar
  3. Cakar, F., & Karatas, Z. (2012). The self-esteem, perceived social support and hopelessness in adolescents: the structural equation modeling. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 12(4), 2,406–2,412.Google Scholar
  4. Choi, Y. C. (2008). Relationships between national competitiveness and decentralization. Korean Association of Local Government Studies Summer Conference Proceedings.Google Scholar
  5. Easterlin, R. (1974). Does economic growth improve the human lot? Some empirical evidence. In P. A. David, & M. W. Reder (Eds.), Nations and households in economic growth. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  6. Fukasaku, K., & de Mello, L. (1998). Fiscal decentralization and macroeconomic stability: the experience of large developing countries and transition economies in democracy. In K. Fukasaku, & R. Hausmann (Eds.), Decentralization and deficits in Latin America. Paris: Development Centre of the OECD.Google Scholar
  7. Gao, S., Mokhtarian, P., & Johnston, R. (2008). Exploring the connections among job accessibility, employment, income, and auto ownership using structural equation modeling. The Annals of Regional Science, 42, 341–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Greve, B. (2010). Happiness and social policy in Europe. Northampton: Edward Edgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ha, H. S. (1996). Analysis of determinants affecting quality of life in urban government. Korean Public Administration Review, 30(2), 81–95.Google Scholar
  10. Han, P. H. (1995). Development of Urban Indicators and their Application. KRILA report. Seoul: KRILA.Google Scholar
  11. Hayduck, L. A. (1987). Structural Equation Modeling with LISREL: Essentials and advances. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins.Google Scholar
  12. Helliwell, J.F. and Putnam, R.D. (1995). Education and social capital. Eastern Economic Journal, 33(1), 1–19.Google Scholar
  13. Helliwell, J. F. (2001). Social capital, the economy and well-being. Canada: The Review of Economic Progress.Google Scholar
  14. Helliwell, J.F. and Putnam, R.D. (2005). The social context of well-being in the The Science of Well-Being, edited by F.A. Huppert, N. Baylis and B. Keverne. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Helliwell, J. F. (2006). Well-being, social capital and public policy: what’s new? The Econometrics Journal, 116(March), C34–C45.Google Scholar
  16. Holzinger, K., & Knill, C. (2008). Theoretical framework: causal factors and convergence expectations. In K. Holzinger, C. Knill, & B. Arts (Eds.), Environmental Policy Convergence in Europe: The impact of international institutions and trade. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. IMD (2013). World competitiveness yearbook. Lausanne: IMD.Google Scholar
  18. Lee, J. H. (2010). Relationships between teachers’ psychological exhaustion and their subjective well-being. Korean Teachers’ Education Review, 27(3), 143–164.Google Scholar
  19. Lee, T. J., Park, C. M., & Song, K. S. (2005). Analysis of quality of life of local residents. Korean Local Government Review, 12(4), 75–92.Google Scholar
  20. Lim, H. S. (1996). Conceptual discussions on quality of life. Korean Publ Administration Review, 5(1), 5–18.Google Scholar
  21. Kim, S. K., Jang, Y. S., Cho, H. S., & Cha, M. S. (2008). Happiness Index and Happiness Determinants. Korea health and society research institute report. Seoul: KHSR.Google Scholar
  22. Mogilner, C., Aaker, J., & Kamvar, S. (2011). How happiness affects choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 39, 429–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. OECD (2013). How is life in your region? Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  24. Seligman, E. P. (2004). Can happiness be taught? Daedalus.Google Scholar
  25. Soh, J. K. (1998). Definition of quality of life and its policy implications for urban policy. Regional Community Development Review, 23(1), 65–84.Google Scholar
  26. Stiglitz-Sen-Fitoussi. (2009). Report of the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress. www.stiglitz-sen-fitoussi.fr.
  27. Tanzi, V., & Schuknecht, L. (1998). Can small governments secure economic and social well Being? In H. Grubel (Ed.), How To Spend the Fiscal Dividend: What is the optimal size of government?. Fraser Institute: Vancouver.Google Scholar
  28. UN (2013). World Happiness Report 2013. New York: UN.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. World Economic Forum (2008). Global competitiveness report. Geneva: WEF.Google Scholar
  30. World Value Survey (2013). World Value Survey Database.Google Scholar
  31. Wren-Lewis, S. (2014). How successfully can we measure well-being through measuring happiness? South Africa Journal of Philosophy, 33(4), 417–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Xie, D., Zou, H. and Davoodi, H. (1999). Fiscal decentralization and economic growth in the United States. Journal of Urban Economics, 45, 228–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Zhang, T., & Zou, H. (1998). Fiscal decentralization, public spending and economic growth in China. Journal of Public Economics, 67(2), 221–240 http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/competitiveness.html#ixzz30zQkwt00.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht and The International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies (ISQOLS) 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Chungbuk National UniversityChungcheongbuk-doSouth Korea
  2. 2.Sangmyung UniversityChungcheongnam-doSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations