Advertisement

Social Indicators Research

, Volume 136, Issue 3, pp 907–930 | Cite as

What Matters Most to People? Evidence from the OECD Better Life Index Users’ Responses

  • Carlotta Balestra
  • Romina Boarini
  • Elena TosettoEmail author
Article

Abstract

The OECD Better Life Index is an interactive composite index that aggregates a country’s well-being outcomes through the weights defined by online users. This paper analyses these weights by analysing the responses given by close to 88,000 users since 2011 to date. The contribution of this paper is threefold. First, it investigates the factors shaping users’ preferences over a set of 11 well-being dimensions, while most of the previous empirical works in the area have focused on factors affecting support for a specific well-being domain (e.g. redistribution, environmental concerns) at a time. Second, it provides insights into users’ preferences for a large group of countries, which differ in terms of culture and living conditions. Third, a finite mixture model (FMM) approach is used to test for heterogeneity in the effect of satisfaction levels on the weight attached to a given BLI dimension across sub-population groups. Various empirical models are used to identify responses’ patterns and see whether they can be accounted for respondents’ characteristics and their perceived level of well-being. The paper finds that health, education and life satisfaction are the aspects that matter the most in OECD countries. Descriptive statistics show that men assign more importance to material conditions than women; while women in general value quality of life more than men. Environment, housing, civic engagement, safety and health become more important with age, while life satisfaction, education, work-life balance, jobs and income are particularly important for those younger than 35. There are also regional patterns in users’ findings, for instance civic engagement is particularly important in South America, while safety and work-life balance matter tremendously in Asia-Pacific. Furthermore, an additional analysis carried out on a subset of observations finds that for several well-being dimensions (i.e. jobs, housing, community, health, education, civic engagement, safety, life satisfaction and work-life balance) there is a positive and linear relationship between individual preferences and self-reported satisfaction in those dimensions. Finally, the check for heterogeneity in the relationship of satisfaction to preferences in well-being dimensions, via an FMM analysis, reveals that, in the case of income and education, two classes of individuals with distinct effects of satisfaction levels on preferences are identified.

Keywords

Better life index Composite index OECD Users Preferences Well-being 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not represent the official views of the OECD or of its member countries. The authors thank the two anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful comments and suggestions.

Supplementary material

References

  1. Adler, M., & Dolan, P.(2008). Introducing “Different Lives” approach to the valuation of health and well-being, ILE Research Paper 08-05.Google Scholar
  2. Adler, M., Dolan, P., & Kavetsos, G. (2014). Understanding “Life choices” Happiness or something else?. London: Mimeo, London School of Economics.Google Scholar
  3. Becchetti, L., Corrado, L., & Fiaschetti, M. (2013). The heterogeneity of wellbeing “expenditure” preferences: Evidence from a simulated allocation choice on the BES indicators, CEIS Research Paper 297, Tor Vergata University, CEIS, revised 12 Nov 2013.Google Scholar
  4. Benjamin, D. J., Heffetz, O., Kimball, M. S., & Szmbrot, N. (2014a). Beyond happiness and satisfaction: Toward well-being indices based on stated preferences. American Economic Review, 104, 2698–2735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Benjamin, D. J., Kimball, M. S., Heffetz, O., & Rees-Jones, A. (2012). What do you think would make you happier? What do you think you would choose? American Economic Review, 102, 208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Benjamin, D. J., Kimball, M. S., Heffetz, O., & Rees-Jones, A. (2014b). Can marginal rates of substitution be inferred from happiness data? Evidence from residency choices. American Economic Review, 104(11), 3498–3528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bernheim, B. D. (2009). Behavioral welfare economics. Journal of the European Economic Association, 7(2–3), 267–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bernheim, B. D., & Rangel, A. (2009). Beyond revealed preference: Choice theoretic foundations for behavioral welfare economics. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 124(1), 51–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clark, A. E., & Fawaz Y. (2015). Retirement and the marginal utility of income. PSE Working Papers n 2015-25.Google Scholar
  10. Clark, A. E., & Oswald, A. J. (2002). A simple statistical method for measuring how life events affect happiness. International Journal of Epidemiology, 31, 1139–1144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Decancq, K., Fleurbaey, M., & Schokkaert, E. (2015a). Happiness, equivalent incomes and respect for individual preferences. London: Economica, London School of Economics.Google Scholar
  12. Decancq, K., Fleurbaey, M., & Schokkaert, E. (2015b). Inequality, income and well-being. In A. B. Atkinson & F. Bourguignon (Eds.), Handbook on income distribution (Vol. 2, pp. 67–140). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  13. Decancq, K., & Lugo, M.-A. (2013). Weights in multidimensional indices of well-being: An overview. Econometric Reviews, 32, 7–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Decancq, K., & Neumann, D. (2014). Does the choice of well-being measure matter empirically? An illustration with German data. IZA Discussion paper 8589 (unpublished data)Google Scholar
  15. Decancq, K., & Schokkaert, E. (2016). Beyond GDP: Using equivalent incomes to measure well-being in Europe. Social Indicators Research, 126, 21. doi: 10.1007/s11205-015-0885-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Decoster, A. & Haan, P (2010). Empirical welfare analysis in random utility models of labour supply. IZA discussion paper 6012.Google Scholar
  17. Murtin F., Boarini R., Cordoba J., & Ripoll M. (2015). “Beyond GDP: Is there a law of one shadow price?”, OECD Statistics Working Papers, 2015/05, OECD Publishing, Paris. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5jrqppxzss47-en.
  18. OECD. (2011). How’s life? Measuring well-being. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  19. OECD. (2013). How’s Life? 2013 measuring well-being. Paris: OECD Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. OECD. (2015). How’s Life? 2015 measuring well-being. Paris: OECD Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Schwandt, H. (2015). Do people seek to maximize their subjective well-being? IZA discussion paper 9450Google Scholar
  22. Stiglitz, J., Sen, A. & Fitoussi, J-P. (2009). Report by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.OECD Statistics DirectorateParis, Cedex 16France

Personalised recommendations