Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Comparison of the Well-Being of Agricultural and Non Agricultural Households Using a Multicriterial Approach

  • Published:
Social Indicators Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The territorial approach of rural development requires taking into account economic, social and environmental features. Therefore, among the goals of the rural development policy the well-being of the target population cannot be disregarded. However, well-being is a multidimensional phenomenon and its measure could be complicated since many indicators (with different scale, units of measure, burden, trends) have to be estimated and analyzed. With a composite indicator which summarizes a bulk of information this concern can be overcome. A multicriteria approach of aggregation is proposed because cardinal aggregation involving in undesirable compensatory property.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. A (not exhaustive) list includes: the Index of Living Standards proposed by the Fraser Institute; the Weighted Index of Social Progress (WISP) of the University of Pennsylvania; the Index of Economic Well-Being (IEWB) by the Centre for the Study of Living Standards; the Index of Social Health (ISH) of Fordham University; the Oregon Benchmarks by the Oregon Progress Board; the Quality of Life Index (QOL) proposed by the University of Illinois; the Canadian Index of Well-being (CIW) of the Institute of Well-being; the Economic Living Standard Index (ELSI) proposed by the New Zealand Government (Bergheim 2006).

  2. The indicators with no statistically significance difference between agricultural households and non agricultural households are not reported.

  3. The existence of statistically significant differences between the two categories of households will be assessed using the mean t-test, χ2 test or Nonparametric equality-of-medians test.

Reference

  • Bergheim, S. (2006). Measures of well-being there is more to it than GDP. Research report. Global Growth Centres, Frankfurt am Main.

  • Casini, L. (1995). Pianificazione territoriale e ambiente. Agribusiness, Management e Ambiente, 2(1), 77–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Casini, L., Ciaccia, D., Pizzoli, E., & Boncinelli, F. (2013). Il reddito delle famiglie agricole italiane: stima e analisi. Economia e Diritto Agroalimentare, 18(2), 287–302.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castle, E. (1998). A conceptual framework for the study of rural places. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 80(3), 621–631.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, J. (1999). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dasgupta, P. (1999). Valuation and evaluation: Measuring the quality of life and evaluation policy. Background paper prepared for the World Bank’s annual World Development Report, 2000. World Bank, Washington DC.

  • Diaz-Balteiro, L., & Romero, C. (2004). In search of a natural systems sustainability index. Ecological Economics, 49(3), 401–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Echavarri, R. A., & Permanyer, I. (2008). Ranking profiles of capability sets. Social Choice and Welfare, 31(3), 521–535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Esty, D. C., Levy, M. A., Srebotnjak, T., & de Sherbinin, A. (2005). Environmental sustainability index: Benchmarking national environmental stewardship. New Haven: Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eurostat. (1997). Manual on the economic accounts for agriculture and forestry (Rev.1). Luxembourg: Eurostat.

  • Eurostat. (2010). GDP and beyond: Focus on measuring economic development and well-being. Sigma—The bulletin of European statistics. Luxembourg: Eurostat.

  • FAO & World Bank. (2008). Tracking results in agriculture and rural development in less-than-ideal conditions a sourcebook of indicators for monitoring and evaluation. Rome: FAO & World Bank.

  • Fleurbaey, M., Schokkaert, E., & Decancq, K. (2008). What good is happiness?. Working paper 20. Oxford, UK: Oxford Poverty & Human Development Initiative.

  • Foster, J. E. (2010). Freedom, opportunity and wellbeing. Working paper N. 35. Oxford, UK: Oxford Poverty & Human Development Initiative

  • Frank, R. H. (1997). The frame of reference as a public good. Economic Journal, 107(445), 1832–1847.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frey, B. S., & Stutzer, A. (2002). Happiness and economics: How the economy and institutions affect human well-being. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grosh, M., & Glewwe, P. (2000). Designing household survey questionnaires for developing countries: Lessons from 15 years of the Living Standards Measurement Study. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herrero, C., Iturbe-Ormaetxe, I., & Nieto, J. (1998). Ranking opportunity profiles on the basis of the common opportunities. Mathematical Social Sciences, 35(3), 273–289.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hopkins, J., & Morehart, M. (2004). Assessing farm household well-being beyond farmers and farm income. Amber Waves 2, 8.

  • Hoskins, B. L., & Mascherini, M. (2009). Measuring active citizenship through the development of a composite indicator. Social Indicators Research, 90(3), 459–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ISTAT. (2006). La Rilevazione sulle forze di lavoro: contenuti e metodologie. Metodi e Norme, N. 32, Rome.

  • ISTAT. (2008). L’indagine europea sui redditi e le condizioni di vita delle famiglie (EU-SILC). Metodi e Norme, N. 37, Rome.

  • Kahneman, D., Diener, E., & Schwarz, N. (1999). Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., Krueger, A. B., Schkade, D., Schwarz, N., & Stone, A. A. (2004). Toward national well-being accounts. American Economic Review, 94(2), 429–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., Krueger, A. B., Schkade, D., Schwarz, N., & Stone, A. A. (2006). Would you be happier if you were richer? A focusing illusion. Science, 312(5782), 1908–1910.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katchova, A. (2008). A comparison of the economic well-being of the farm and non-farms households. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 60(3), 733–747.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kranich, L. (1996). Equitable opportunities: An axiomatic approach. Journal of Economic Theory, 71(1), 131–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Layard, R. (2006). Happiness and public policy: A challenge to the profession. The Economic Journal, 116(510), 24–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, G. K. L., & Chan, E. H. W. (2008). The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) approach for assessment of urban renewal proposals. Social Indicators Research, 89(1), 155–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lun, G., Holzer, D., Tappeiner, G., & Tappeiner, U. (2006). The stability of rankings derived from composite indicators: Analysis of the “Il Sole 24 Ore” quality of life report. Social Indicators Research, 77(2), 307–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mishra, A. K., El-Osta, H. S., Morehart, M. J., Johnson, J. D., & Hopkins J. W. (2002). Income, wealth, and the economic well-being of farm households. Economic report 812. USDA Economic Research Service, Washington DC.

  • Munda, G. (2005). Measuring sustainability: A multi-criterion framework. Environment. Development and Sustainability, 7(1), 117–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munda, G., & Nardoa, M. (2009). Noncompensatory/nonlinear composite indicators for ranking countries: A defensible setting. Applied Economics, 41(10), 1513–1523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munda, G. (2012). Choosing aggregation rules for composite indicators. Social Indicators Research, 109(3), 337–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ng, Y. (1996). Happiness surveys: Some comparability issues and an exploratory survey based on just perceivable increments. Social Indicators Research, 38(1), 1–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, M. C., & Sen, A. K. (1993). The quality of life. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2003). Farm household income. Issues and policy responses. Paris: OECD.

  • OECD. (2006). Alternative measures of well-being. Social, employment and migration working papers N. 33. Paris: OECD.

  • OECD. (2008). Handbook on constructing composite indicators methodology and user guide. Paris: OECD.

  • OECD. (2011). How’s life? Measuring well-being. Paris: OECD.

  • Oswald, A. J. (1997). Happiness and economic performance. Economic Journal, 107(445), 1815–1831.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pattanaik, P. K., & Xu, Y. (2000). On ranking opportunity sets in economic environments. Journal of Economic Theory, 93(1), 48–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosen, R. (1991). Life itself: A comprehensive inquiry into nature, origin, and fabrication of life. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saltelli, A. (2007). Composite indicators between analysis and advocacy. Social Indicators Research, 81(1), 65–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sen, A. K. (1979). The welfare basis of real income comparisons: a survey. Journal of Economic Literature, 17(1), 1–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen, A. K. (1980). Equality of what. In S. M. McMurrin (Eds.), The tanner lectures on human value (pp. 195–220). Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen, A. K. (1982). Choice, welfare, and measurement. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen, A. K. (1988). The concept of development. In H. Chenery & T. N. Srinivasan (Eds.), Handbooks of Development Economics.. North-Holland: Elsevier Science Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Start, D. (2001). The rise and fall of the rural non-farm economy: Poverty impacts and policy options. Development Policy Review, 19(4), 491–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stiglitz, J. E., Sen, A. K., & Fitoussi, J. (2009). Report by the commission on the measurement of economic performance and social Progress. http://www.stiglitz-sen-fitoussi.fr/documents/rapport_anglais.pdf.. Accessed 24 Dec 2011.

  • UN. (2012). Rural households livelihoods and well-Being statistics on rural development and agriculture household income, 2nd Edn. The Wye Group Handbook, FAO, Rome. http://www.fao.org/wairdocs/am087e/am087e.pdf. Accessed 10 July 2012.

  • UNDP. (2013). Human development report 2013. The rise of the south human progress in a diverse world. Washington DC: UNDP.

  • Van Praag, B. M., & Frijters, P. (1999). The measurement of welfare and well-being: the Leyden approach. School of economics and finance discussion papers and working papers series. School of Economics and Finance, Queensland University of Technology.

  • Wolff, E. N., Zacharias, A., & Caner, A. (2005). Household wealth, public consumption and economic well-being in the United States. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 29(6), 1073–1090.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Bank. (2008). World development report 2008 Agriculture for development. Washington DC: World Bank.

  • Xu, Y. (2002). Functioning, capability and the standard of living: An axiomatic approach. Economic Theory, 20(2), 387–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, P., Ang, B. W., & Poh, K. L. (2006). Comparing aggregating methods for constructing the composite environmental index: An objective measure. Ecological Economics, 59(3), 305–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, P., & Ang, B. W. (2009). Comparing MCDA aggregation methods in constructing composite indicators using the Shannon-Spearman measure. Social Indicators Research, 94(1), 83–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dipartimento di Gestione dei Sistemi Agrari, Alimentari e Forestali, University of Florence, Piazzale delle Cascine, 18, 50144, Florence, Italy

    Fabio Boncinelli & Leonardo Casini

Authors
  1. Fabio Boncinelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Leonardo Casini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fabio Boncinelli.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Boncinelli, F., Casini, L. A Comparison of the Well-Being of Agricultural and Non Agricultural Households Using a Multicriterial Approach. Soc Indic Res 119, 183–195 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-013-0488-3

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-013-0488-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation