Subjective Well-being Across the Lifespan in Europe and Central Asia
- 364 Downloads
Using data from the Integrated Values Survey (IVS), the Life in Transition Survey (LiTS), and the Russia Longitudinal Monitoring Survey (RLMS), we analyse the relation between age and subjective well-being in the World Bank’s Europe and Central Asia (ECA) region and compare it to that in Western Europe. Although our results generally confirm previous studies’ findings of a U-shaped relation between subjective well-being and age for most of the lifecycle, we also find that well-being in ECA declines again after the 70s, giving rise to an S-shape relation across the entire lifespan. When controlling for socio-demographic characteristics, this pattern generally remains robust for most of our cross-sectional and panel analyses. Hence, despite significant heterogeneity in the pattern of well-being across the lifespan within the ECA region, we do not observe high levels of cross-country or cross-cohort variation.
KeywordsAge Subjective well-being Eastern Europe Central Asia Life satisfaction
JEL ClassificationC23 D1 I31 J1
We thank the staff at the various institutions that provided us with the data needed for this report, including the Integrated Values Survey, the Life in Transition Survey, and the Russia Longitudinal Monitoring Survey. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the views of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/World Bank and its affiliated organizations, or those of the Executive Directors of the World Bank or the governments they represent. We would like to thank two anonymous referees for valuable comments on an earlier version of this paper. All errors are our own.
- Blanchflower, D. G. and Oswald, A. J. (2011). ‘Antidepressants and age’, IZA Discussion Paper No. 5785.Google Scholar
- Clark, A. (2007), ‘Born to be mild? Cohort effects don’t (fully) explain why well-being is U-shaped in age’, IZA Discussion Paper No. 3170.Google Scholar
- Clark, A. and Oswald, A. J. (2006), ‘The curved relationship between subjective well-being and age’, Paris-Jourdan Sciences Economiques Working Paper No. 29, Paris School of Economics.Google Scholar
- Easterlin, R. (2016). ‘Paradox lost?’, IZA Discussion Paper No. 9676.Google Scholar
- Fischer, J. A. (2009). ‘Happiness and age cycles-return to start…? On the functional relationship between subjective well-being and age’, OECD social, employment and migration paper no. In 99, Paris. OECD: Publishing.Google Scholar
- Graham, C., Eggers, A., & Skhtankar, S. (2004). Does happiness pay? An exploration based on panel data from Russia. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 55(3), 319–342.Google Scholar
- Heeringa, S. G. (1997).’Russia Longitudinal Monitoring Survey (RLMS) Sample Attrition, Replenishment, and Weighting in Rounds V-VII’, Available at: http://www.cpc.unc.edu/projects/rlms-hse/project/samprep/samprep.pdf
- Hellevik, O. (2015). The U-shaped age–happiness relationship: real or methodological artifact?’. Quality and Quantity, 1–21. doi: 10.1007/s11135-015-0300-3.
- Russell, J. E., & Fraas, J. W. (2005). An application of panel regression to pseudo panel data. Multiple Linear Regression Viewpoints, 31(1), 1–15.Google Scholar
- Uglanova, E. (2014). Gender dimensions of subjective well-being in Russia. In E. Eckermann (Ed.), Gender, Lifespan and Quality of Life, Social Indicators Research Series (Vol. 53). Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
- Van Landeghem, B. (2008). ‘Human well-being over the life cycle: longitudinal evidence from a 20-year panel’, LICOS discussion paper no. In 213/2008. Leuven: Catholic University.Google Scholar