Skip to main content

A Happy Nation? Opportunities and Challenges of Using Subjective Indicators in Policymaking

Social Indicators Research volume 114, pages 13–28 (2013)Cite this article

Abstract

This article seeks to combine decades of academic research with emerging policy demands by systematically assessing the state of the knowledge on using subjective indicators in public policy. In particular, it outlines opportunities that arise from a new focus on subjective information as a basis for policy decisions and challenges that ought to be overcome. The paper presents pros and cons of using subjective (versus objective) indicators, and it discusses six ways in which information on citizens’ subjective well-being (SWB) can advance the policymaking process: Monitoring progress, informing policy design, policy appraisal, examining the divergence of objective and subjective quality of life, ranking public institutions and allocating resources, as well as informing development strategies and goals. In doing so, best practice examples are presented and put in context. Finally, subjective measures “beyond SWB” are discussed and a new measure for the overall satisfaction with society is suggested. The next frontier for research and practice will be to build on the potential outlined here and to address the deficits in order make the most out of subjective indicators and the unique value they can add to the policymaking process.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Notes

  1. The main exception here is variable selection in the regression model where experts do influence the result of the model. Hence, it should be done with utmost care and neutrality.

  2. We are grateful to Ruut Veenhoven for this suggestion.

References

  • Allardt, E. (1993). Having, loving, being: An alternative to the Swedish model of welfare research. In M. Nussbaum & A. Sen (Eds.), The quality of life (pp. 88–94). Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bartolini, S., Bilancini, E., and Pugno, M. (2008). Did the Decline in Social Capital Depress Americans’ Happiness? Quaderni del Dipartimento di Economica Politica, Siena, n. 540—Agosto 2008.

  • Berger-Schmitt, R. (2002). Considering social cohesion in quality of life assessments. Concept and Measurement. Social Indicators Research, 58, 403–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bjornskov, C. (2010). How comparable are the Gallup World Poll life satisfaction data? Journal of Happiness Studies, 11, 41–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bulmahn, T. (2000). Das vereinte Deutschland—Eine lebenswerte Gesellschaft? Zur Bewertung von Freiheit, Sicherheit und Gerechtigkeit in Ost und West. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 52, 405–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiesi, A. M. (2002). Social Cohesion and related concepts, In N. Genov, Advances in sociological knowledge(235–253). International Social Science Council, Paris.

  • Cummins, R. A., Eckersley, R., et al. (2003). Developing a national index of subjective wellbeing: The Australian Unity Wellbeing Index. Social Indicators Research, 64, 159–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delhey, J. (2004). Life satisfaction in an enlarged Europe. Dublin: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delhey, J. (2010). From materialist to post-materialist happiness? National affluence and determinants of life satisfaction in cross-national perspective. Social Indicators Research, 97(1), 65–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delhey, J., Böhnke, P., et al. (2002). Quality of life in a European perspective. The Euromodule as a new instrument for comparative welfare research. Social Indicators Research, 58(1), 161–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delhey, J., & Kroll, C. (2012). A “happiness test” for the new measures of national well-being: How much better than GDP are they?. Social Science Research Center Berlin (WZB): WZB Discussion Paper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delhey, J., Newton, K., et al. (2011). How general is trust in ‘most people’? Solving the radius of trust problem. American Sociological Review, 76(5), 786–807.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diener, E., & Kahnemann, D. (2009). The Easterlin paradox revisited, revised and perhaps resolved. SINET Social Indicators Network News, 100, 1–3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diener, E., & Suh, E. (1997). Measuring quality of life: Economic, social, and subjective indicators. Social Indicators Research, 40, 189–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dolan, P., Layard, R., & Metcalfe, R. (2011). Measuring subjective well-being for public policy. London: Office for National Statistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Easterlin, R. A. (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 (pp. 89–125). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Easterlin, R. A. (2003). Building a better theory of well-being. IZA Discussion Paper. Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit. Bonn.

  • Eckersley, R. (2000). The state and fate of nations: implications of subjective measures of personal and social quality of life. Social Indicators Research, 52, 3–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eckersley, R. (2011). Whatever happened to western civilization. The cultural crisis, 20 years later. The Futurist (Nov–Dec), 16–22.

  • Etzioni, A. (1968). The active society. A theory of societal and political processes. London and New York: Collier-Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferriss, A. L. (1988). The uses of social indicators. Social Forces, 66, 601–617.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fujiwara, D., & Campbell, R. (2011). Valuation Techniques for Social Cost-Benefit Analysis: Stated Preference, Revealed Preference and Subjective Well-Being Approaches. Her Majesty’s Treasury and Department of Work and Pensions (DWP), London.

  • Gasper, D. (2010). Understanding the diversity of conceptions of well-being and quality of life. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 39, 351–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gertner, J. (2010). The Rise and Fall of the G.D.P. New York Times, MM60.

  • Gross National Happiness Commission Bhutan. (2012). GNH Screening Tool. Retrieved 26 November, 2012, from http://www.gnhc.gov.bt/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/GNH-Screening-Tool.pdf.

  • Halpern, D. (2010). The hidden wealth of nations. Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helliwell, J. F., Layard, R., et al. (Eds.) (2012). World Happiness Report, The Earth Institute (Columbia University), CIFAR, and Centre for Economic Performance (London School of Economics).

  • Kahneman, D., Deaton, A. (2010). High income improves evaluation of life but not emotional well-being. Freely available online through the PNAS open access option (www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/ 10.1073/pnas.1011492107).

  • Kahneman, D., & Krueger, A. B. (2006). Developments in the measurement of subjective well-being. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20(1), 3–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keyes, C. L. M., Fredrickson, B. L., et al. (2012). Positive psychology and quality of life. In K. C. Land, A. C. Michalos, & M. J. Sirgy (Eds.), Handbook of social indicators and quality of life research (pp. 99–112). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kroll, C. (2011a). Different things make different people happy: Examining social capital and subjective well-being by gender and parental status. Social Indicators Research, 104(1), 157–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kroll, C. (2011b). Measuring progress and well-being: Achievements and challenges of a new global movement. Berlin: Friedrich Ebert Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kroll, C. (2013). Global development and happiness: How can data on subjective well-being inform development theory and practice? Institute of Development Studies Working paper.

  • Kroll, C., Layard, R. (2011). Happiness matters. Social Europe Journal. Retrieved November 2011, from www.social-europe.eu/2011/11/happiness-matters.

  • Layard, R. (2005). Happiness: Lessons from a new science. New York: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Layard, R. (2006). Happiness and public policy: A challenge to the profession. Economic Journal, 116, C24–C33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Layard, R., Nickell, S., et al. (2010). Does relative income matter? Are the critics right? In E. Diener, J. F. Helliwell, & D. Kahneman (Eds.), International differences in well-Being. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matheson, J. (2011). National statistician’s reflections on the national debate on measuring national well-being. London: Office for National Statistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michalos, A. C. (1985). Multiple discrepancies theory (MDT). Social Indicators Research, 16, 347–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Myers, D. G. (2000). The funds, friends, and faith of happy people. American Psychologist, 55(1), 56–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nettle, D. (2005). Happiness. The Science behind your Smile. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noll, H. -H. (2000). Konzepte der Wohlfahrtsentwicklung: Lebensqualität und “neue” Wohlfahrtskonzepte. Berlin: WZB Discussion Papers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norris, P. (Ed.). (1999). Critical citizens: Global support for democratic government. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oswald, A., Wu, S. (2010). Objective confirmation of subjective measures of human well-being: Evidence from the USA. Science, 327(5965), 576–579.

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ringen, S. (2006). Reflections on Inequality and Equality. WZB Discussion Papers. Social Science Research Center Berlin (WZB).

  • Schiefer, D., van der Noll, J., et al. (2012). Cohesion radar: Measuring cohesiveness. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen, A. (1991). The standard of living. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevenson, B., Wolfers, J. (2008). Economic growth and subjective well-being: Reassessing the Easterlin paradox. Brookings papers on economic activity.

  • Stiglitz, J. E., Sen, A., et al. (2009). Report by the commission on the measurement of economic performance and social progress, Paris.

  • Thomas, W. I., & Thomas, D. S. (1928). The child in America. Behavior problems and programs. New York: Knopf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Maesen, L., & Walker, A. C. (2005). Indicators of social quality: Outcomes of The European scientific network. European Journal of Social Quality, 5(1/2), 8–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veenhoven, R. (2001). Why social policy needs subjective indicators. Discussion Paper Series Social Science Research Center Berlin, Berlin.

  • Veenhoven, R. (2004). Subjective measures of well-being. In M. McGillivray (Ed.), Human well-being: Concept and measurement (pp. 214–239). Houndsmill: Palgrave McMillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Veenhoven, R. (2012). Happiness, also known as “life satisfaction” and “subjective well-being”. In K. C. Land, A. C. Michalos, & M. J. Sirgy (Eds.), Handbook of social indicators and quality of life research (pp. 63–77). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Veenhoven, R., & Hagerty, M. (2006). Rising happiness in nations 1946–2004. Social Indicators Research, 79, 421–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zapf, W. (1984). Individuelle Wohlfahrt: Lebensbedingungen und wahrgenommene Lebensqualität. In W. Glatzer, W. Zapf (Eds.), Lebensqualität in der Bundesrepublik, (pp.13–26). Frankfurt a. M. and New York: Campus.

  • Zapf, W. (2000). Social reporting in the 1970s and in the 1990s. Social Indicators Research, 51, 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Bremen International Graduate School of Social Sciences, Jacobs University, Campus Ring 1, 28759, Bremen, Germany

    Christian Kroll

  2. School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Jacobs University, Campus Ring 1, 28759, Bremen, Germany

    Jan Delhey

Authors
  1. Christian Kroll
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jan Delhey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christian Kroll.

Additional information

Christian Kroll and Jan Delhey have contributed equally to the article.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kroll, C., Delhey, J. A Happy Nation? Opportunities and Challenges of Using Subjective Indicators in Policymaking. Soc Indic Res 114, 13–28 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-013-0380-1

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-013-0380-1

Keywords

  • Subjective well-being
  • Happiness
  • Social indicators
  • Policymaking
  • Perceived quality of society