Applied Research in Quality of Life

, Volume 11, Issue 2, pp 343–367 | Cite as

Family Policy Indicators and Well-Being in Europe from an Evolutionary Perspective

  • Almudena Moreno-Mínguez
  • Luis-Carlos Martínez-Fernández
  • Ángel Carrasco-Campos
Article

Abstract

Social progress and the evolution of civilizations have traditionally been predominant fields of study for sociology and important topics on political action for modern states as part of the concept of the Welfare State. The study, assessment, and design of social policies related to welfare have always focused on material indicators. However, some recent studies (Pfau-Effinger and Geissler 2005; Gauthier 1996; Held 2006; Daly and Lewis 2000) argue for the inclusion of subjective indicators to cater for aspects traditionally relegated to families’ private lives such as care or the perception of happiness. This article deals with the need to go beyond welfare to well-being from an evolutionary perspective. To do this, we propose a comparative study of different variables used by the European Social Survey (2010) and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) family policy database (2013b) to analyze (a) possible variations in family policy in European countries, (b) links between well-being and the family policies being implemented, (c) the extent to which traditional indicators can measure the development of families’ needs, and (d) ways in which these indicators could be improved.

Keywords

Welfare Well-being Care Social change Progress Evolutionary paradigm 

References

  1. Ash, N., et al. (Eds.). (2010). Ecosystems and human well-being. Washington: Island Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bailey, R. C. (1995). Ecosystem geography. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  3. Bauman, Z. (2000). Liquid modernity. Cambridge: Politi.Google Scholar
  4. Bettio, F., & Plantenga, J. (2008). Care regimes and the European employment rate. In L. Costabile (Ed.), Institutions for social well being. Alternative for Europe. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  5. Blum, L. (1998). Gilligan and Kohlberg: implications for moral theory. Ethics, 98, 472–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bohnke, P. (2006). First European quality of life survey: Life satisfaction, happiness and sense of belonging. Dublin: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions.Google Scholar
  7. Bonoli, G., Boyd, R., & Richerson, P. (2005). Solving the puzzle of human cooperation. In S. Levinson (Ed.), Evolution and culture (pp. 105–132). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bonoli, G., Boyd, R., & Richerson, P. (2010). Transmission coupling mechanisms: cultural group selection. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 365, 3787–3795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boyd, R., & Richerson, P. J. (2005). Solving the puzzle of human cooperation. Evolution and culture, 105–132.Google Scholar
  10. Boyd, R., & Richerson, P. J. (2010). Transmission coupling mechanisms: cultural group selection. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 365(1559), 3787–3795.Google Scholar
  11. Carrasco-Campos, A., Martínez, L. C., & Moreno, A. (2013). Critical review of well-being measure from an interdisciplinary perspective. Prisma Social, 11, 91–122.Google Scholar
  12. Castells, M. (1996). The rise of the network society. The information age: Economy, society and culture, vol. I. Cambridge: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  13. Castells, M. (1997). The rise of the network society. The information age: Economy, society and culture, vol. II. Cambridge: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  14. Castells, M. (1998). The rise of the network society. The information age: Economy, society and culture, vol. III. Cambridge: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  15. Castles, F. (2003). The world turned upside down: below replacement fertility, changing preferences and family-friendly public policy in 21 OECD countries. Journal of European Social Policy, 13, 209–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chourabi, H., et al. (2012). Understanding Smart Cities: An Integrative Network. Proceedings of the 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS2012), 4, 2289–2297.Google Scholar
  17. Comte, A. (1856). A general view of positivism [Discours sur l'Esprit positif, 1844]. London.Google Scholar
  18. Consejo Económico y Social de España. (2013). Distribución de la renta en España, desigualdad, cambios estructurales y ciclos. Informe 03|2013. Madrid: CES.Google Scholar
  19. Comité de las Regiones (1999). Evaluar la calidad de vida en las regiones y ciudades europeas. Luxemburgo: Oficina de Publicaciones Oficiales de las Comunidades Europeas.Google Scholar
  20. Daly, M., & Lewis, J. (2000). The concept of social care and the analysis of contemporary welfare states. British Journal of Sociology, 51(2), 281–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dawkins, R. (1996). The blind watchmaker: Why the evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design. WW Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  22. Demangeot, J. (1992). Les milieux “naturels” du globe. Paris: Masson.Google Scholar
  23. Diener, E., & Eunkook, S. (1997). Measuring quality of life: economic, social and subjective indicators. Social Indicators Research, 40, 189–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dolan, P., Peasgood, T., and White, M. (2006). Review of research on the influences on personal well-being and application to policy making. Available from Defra at http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130123162956/http:/www.defra.gov.uk/sustainable/government/publications/pdf/WellbeingProject2.pdf. Accessed 28 January 2014.
  25. Dugatkin, L. A., Mesterton-Gibbonsand, M., & Houston, A. I. (1992). Beyond the prisoner’s dilemma: Toward models to discriminate among mechanisms of cooperation in nature. Trends in ecology & evolution, 7(6), 202-205.Google Scholar
  26. Durkheim, E ([1893] 1997). The Division of Labor in Society. New York: Free Press, 1997.Google Scholar
  27. Ejrnæs, A., & Boje, T. P. (2008). Family policy and welfare regimes. In A. Ejrnæs, T. P. Boje, J. Lewis, & A. Plumien (Eds.), Report 3: Labour market and social policies. Aberdeen: University of Aberdeen.Google Scholar
  28. Escobedo, A. (2009). International review of leave policies and related research 2009. In P. Moss & B. Fusilier (Eds.), Employment relations research series. London: Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform.Google Scholar
  29. European Comission (1999). ESDP. European Spatial Development Perspective. Towards Balanced and Sustainable Development of the Territory of the European Union. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.Google Scholar
  30. European Comission. (2011). Territorial agenda of the European Union 2020. Towards an inclusive, smart and sustainable Europe of diverse regions. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.Google Scholar
  31. European Environment Agency (2009). Ensuring quality of life in Europe’s cities and towns. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.Google Scholar
  32. European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions. (2010). Second European quality of life survey family life and work. Dublin: Eurofound.Google Scholar
  33. European Smart Cities (2007). Smart cities. Ranking of European medium-sized cities. Viena: Centre of Regional Science, Vienna University of Technology, Department of Geography-University of Ljubljana and Research Institute for Housing, Urban and Mobility Studies-Delft University of Tecnology.Google Scholar
  34. Fahey, T., & Smyth, E. (2004). Do subjective indicators measure welfare? Evidence from 33 societies. European Societies, 6(1), 5–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Flaquer, L. (2004). La articulación entre familia y Estado de Bienestar en los países de la Europa del sur. Papers, 73, 27–58.Google Scholar
  36. Gauthier, A. H. (1996). The state and the family. A comparative analysis of family policies in industrialized countries. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  37. Gauthier, C. (2006). La política sobre formación inicial de docentes en Québec. Revista de educación, 340, 165–185.Google Scholar
  38. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Gintis, H., et. al. (2003). Explaining altruistic behavior in humans. Evolution and Human Behavior, 24(3), 153–172.Google Scholar
  40. Gómez Mendoza, J., Fernández-Muñoz, S., & Mata Olmo, R. (2001). El paisaje, calidad de vida y territorio. Análisis Local, 37, 27–40.Google Scholar
  41. Greve, B. (2010). Happiness and Social Policy in Europe. Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  42. Griffin, J. (1986). Well-being: Its meaning, measurement and moral importance. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  43. Hamilton, W. D. (1964). The genetical evolution of social behaviour. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 7(1), 1–16.Google Scholar
  44. Heintzman, P. (1999). Leisure and spiritual well-being relationships: a qualitative study. Proceedings of the Ninth Canadian congress on leisure research, May 12–15. Wolfville: Acadia University.Google Scholar
  45. Held, V. (2006). The ethics of care: Personal, political, and global. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Helliwell, J. F., Layard, R., & Sachs, J. (Eds.). (2013). World happiness report 2013. Sustainable Development Solutions Network.Google Scholar
  47. Hrdy, S. B. (2009). Mothers and others. The evolutionary origins of mutual understanding. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Hull, D. L. (1980). Individuality and selection. Annual review of ecology and systematics, 11(1), 311–332.Google Scholar
  49. Inglehart, R. (1990). Culture shift in advanced society. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  50. International Federation for Family Development (2012). Family policy and demographic change: The role of the European Union. The Family Watch.Google Scholar
  51. Jensen, C. (2008). Worlds of welfare services and transfers. Journal of European Social Policy, 18(2), 151–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Jensen, P., & Pfau-Effinger, B. (2005). ‘Active’ citizenship: the new face of welfare. In A. Goul, A. Guillemard, P. Jensen, & B. Pfau-Effinger (Eds.), The changing face of welfare. London: Policy Press.Google Scholar
  53. Kamerman, S. B., & Kahn, A. J. (Eds.). (1978). Family policy: Government and families in fourteen countries. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Kohlberg, L. (1982). Moral development. In J. M. Broughton & D. J. Freeman-Moir (Eds.), The cognitive developmental psychology of James Mark Baldwin: Current theory and research in genetic epistemology. Norwood: Ablex Publishing Corp.Google Scholar
  55. Kremer, K. (2007). How welfare states care. Culture, gender and parenting in Europe. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Kuronen, M. (2010). Research on Families and Family Policies in Europe: State of the Art. Available from: http://hdl.handle.net/2003/27686. Accessed 28 January 2014.
  57. Lapuerta, I., González, M. J., & Baizán, P. (2011). Individual and institutional constraints: an análisis of parental leave use and duration in Spain. Population Research and Policy Review, 30, 185–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Leva, G. (2005). Indicadores de calidad de vida urbana. Teoría y metodología. Buenos Aires: Universidad Nacional de Quilmes.Google Scholar
  59. Lewis, J., & Guillari, S. (2005). The adult worker model family, gender equality and care: the search for new policy principles and the possibilities and problems of a capabilities approach. Economy and Society, 34(1), 76–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Lucero, P., et al. (2007). Calidad de vida y espacio: una mirada geográfica desde el territorio local. Hologramática, 7, 99–125.Google Scholar
  61. MA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment). (2003). Ecosystems and human well-being. Washington: Island Press.Google Scholar
  62. Mace, R. (2014). When not to have another baby: An evolutionary approach to low fertility. Demographic Research, 30, 1074–1096.Google Scholar
  63. Malthus, T. R. ([1798] 2004). An Essay on the Principle of Population. Oxford, NY: Oxford Univ. Press.Google Scholar
  64. Matessi, C. & Jayakar, S. D. (1976). Conditions for the evolution of altruism under Darwinian selection. Theoretical Population Biology, 9(3), 360–387.Google Scholar
  65. Martín López, B., González, J., Díaz, S., Castro, I., & García, M. (2007). Biodiversidad y bienestar humano: el papel de la diversidad funcional. Ecosistemas, 16(3), 69–80.Google Scholar
  66. Montes, C., & Sala, O. (2007). La Evaluación de los Ecosistemas del Milenio. Las relaciones entre el funcionamiento de los ecosistemas y el bienestar humano. Ecosistemas, 16(3), 137–147.Google Scholar
  67. Moreno Mínguez, A. (2007). Familia y empleo de la mujer en los Estados del bienestar del sur de Europa. Incidencia de las políticas familiares y laborales. Madrid: Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas.Google Scholar
  68. Moreno Minguez, A. (2010). Family and gender roles in Spain from a comparative perspective. European Societies, 12(2), 85–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Moreno Mínguez, A. (Ed.). (2013). Family well-being. European perspectives. Social indicators series, 49. London: Springer.Google Scholar
  70. Nussbaum, M. C., & Armatya, S. (Eds.). (1993). The quality of life. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  71. O’Brien, M. (2009). Fathers, parental leave policies and infant quality of life: international perspectives and policy impact. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 624(1), 190–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. OECD. (2011a). Doing better for families. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  73. OECD. (2011b). Income, inequality, divided we stand. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  74. OECD. (2011c). How’s Life? Paris: OECD Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. OECD. (2012). Why inequality keeps rising. París: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  76. OECD (2013a). Guidelines on measuring subjective well-being. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  77. OECD. (2013b). OECD Family database. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  78. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Ostrom, E. (1992). Crafting Institutions for self-governing irrigation systems. San Francisco: Institute for Contemporary Studies.Google Scholar
  80. Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  81. Pacione, M. (2003). Urban environmental quality and human wellbeing: a social geographical perspective. Landscape and Urban Planning, 65(1–2), 19–30.Google Scholar
  82. Parsons, T. (1991). Thomas Robert Malthus. In C. Camic (Ed.), Talcott Parsons, the early essays. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, Heritage of Sociology Series.Google Scholar
  83. Pfau-Effinger, B., & Geissler, B. (2005). Care arrangements in European societies. In B. Pfau-Effinger & B. Geissler (Eds.), Care and social integration in European societies. Bristol: Policy Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Prescott-Allen, R. (2001). The wellbeing of nations. Washington: Island Press.Google Scholar
  85. Rode, J., et al. (2007). The effect of work. Family conflict on intention to quit: The mediating roles of job and life satisfaction. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 2, 65–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Rossing, W. A. H., et. al. (1999). Designing land use options and policies: Fostering cooperation between Kasparov and Deep Blue?. In Leeuwis, C. (ed.). Integral Design: Innovation and Resource Management. Wageningen: Mansholt Institute.Google Scholar
  87. Ryff, C. (1989). In the eye of the beholder. Views of psychological well-being among middle-aged and older adults. Psychology and Aging, 4(2), 195–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Saraceno, C. (Ed.). (2008). Families, ageing and social policy: Intergenerational solidarity in European welfare states. Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  89. Saraceno, C., & Keck, W. (2010). Can we identify intergenerational policy regimes in Europe? European Societies, 12(59), 696.Google Scholar
  90. Scheiber, M. F., Carver, C. S., and Bridges, M. W. (2001). Optimism, pessimism, and psychological well-being. In: Optimism and pessimism: Implications for theory, research, and practice. Washington, D.C: American Psychological Association, 189–216.Google Scholar
  91. Sen, A. (1980). Description as choice. Oxford Economic Papers, 32.Google Scholar
  92. Sen, A. (1985). Well-being, agency, and freedom. The Dewey Lectures 1984. Journal of Philosophy, 82.Google Scholar
  93. Smith, J. (1982). Evolution and the theory of games, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  94. Spencer, H. (1857). Progress: its law and causes. The Westminster Review, 67, 445–485.Google Scholar
  95. Starke, P., Kaasch, A., & van Hooren, F. (2013). The welfare state as crisis manager. Explaining the diversity of policy responses to economic crisis. Palgrave: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Stiglitz, J. E., Sen, A. and Fitoussi, J. P. (2009). Report by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress.Google Scholar
  97. Thévenon, O. (2011). Family policies in OECD countries: a comparative analysis. Population and Development Review, 37(1), 57–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Tranos, E., & Gertner, D. (2012). Smart networked cities? Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 25(2), 175–190.Google Scholar
  99. Turchin, P. (2003). Historical dynamics: Why states rise and fall. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  100. Turchin, P. (2005). War and peace and war. Upper Saddle River: Pi Press.Google Scholar
  101. Uhlendorff, U. Rupp, M., and Euteneuer, M. (Eds.) (2011). Wellbeing of Families in Future Europe. Challenges for Research and Policy. FAMILYPLATFORM, Euorpean Commission.Google Scholar
  102. van Dijk, J. (1991). De netwerkmaatschappij: sociale aspecten van nieuwe media. Samsom: Alphen aan den Rijn.Google Scholar
  103. Wallace, C., & Abbott, P. (2012). Social quality, the quality of life and families in Europe. In A. Moreno Mínguez (Ed.), Family well-being: European perspectives. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  104. Watson, D., Pichler, F., & Wallace, C. (2009). Subjective well-being in Europe. Dublin: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions.Google Scholar
  105. Wilson, E. O. (1975). Sociobiology: the new synthesis. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  106. Wilson, E. O. (1980). Resolution for the eighties. Harvard Magazine, 70, 20–25.Google Scholar
  107. Wilson, E. (1981). Genes, mind and culture: The Co evolutionary process. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  108. Wilson, D. S. (2007). Evolution for everyone: How Darwin’s theory can change the way we think about our lives. New York: Bantam Dell.Google Scholar
  109. Wilson, D. S. (2011). The neighborhood project: Using evolution to improve my city, one block at a time. New York: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
  110. Wilson, D. S. & Sober, E. (1989). Reviving the superorganism. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 136, 337–356.Google Scholar
  111. Wynne-Edwards, V. C. (1962). Animal dispersion in relation to social behaviour. Edimburgh, Oliver & Boyd.Google Scholar
  112. Zimmerman, S. (2001). Family policy: Constructed solutions to family problems. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Zimmerman, S. (2013). Conceptualizing family well-being. In A. Moreno Mínguez (Ed.), Family well-being. European Perspectives, Social Indicators Series, 49. London: Springer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht and The International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies (ISQOLS) 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Almudena Moreno-Mínguez
    • 1
  • Luis-Carlos Martínez-Fernández
    • 2
  • Ángel Carrasco-Campos
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Sociology and Social WorkUniversity of ValladolidSegoviaSpain
  2. 2.Department of GeographyUniversity of ValladolidSegoviaSpain
  3. 3.Department of Sociology and Social WorkUniversity of ValladolidSegoviaSpain

Personalised recommendations