Advertisement

Social Indicators Research

, Volume 58, Issue 1–3, pp 33–46 | Cite as

Why Social Policy Needs Subjective Indicators

  • Runt Veenhoven
Article

Abstract

There are many qualms about subjective indicators, and some believe that social policy would be better for not using them. This paper consists of a review of these objections. It is argued that policy makers need subjective indicators, the main reasons being:

1. Social policy is never limited to merely material matters; it is also aimed at matters of mentality. These substantially subjective goals require subjective indicators.

2. Progress in material goals can not always be measured objectively. Subjective measurement is often better.

3. Inclusive measurement is problematic with objective substance. Current sum-scores make little sense. Using subjective satisfaction better indicates comprehensive quality.

4. Objective indicators do little to inform policy makers about public preferences. Since the political process also does not reflect public preferences too well, policy makers need additional information from opinion polls.

5. Policy makers must distinguish between `wants' and `needs’. Needs are not observable as such, but their gratification materialises in the length and happiness of peoples' lives. This final output criterion requires assessment of subjective appreciation of life-as-a-whole

Keywords

Policy Maker Social Policy Subjective Measurement Output Criterion Final Output 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Andrews, F. and S. Withey: 1976, Social Indicators of Wellbeing: American Perceptions of Quality of Life (Plenum Press, New York).Google Scholar
  2. Boelhouwer, J. and I. Stoop: 1999, ‘Measuring wellbeing in the Netherlands’, Social Indicators Research. 48, pp. 51-75.Google Scholar
  3. Campbell, A, P.E. Converse and W.L. Rodgers: 1975, The Quality of American Life (Institute for Social Research, Ann Arbor).Google Scholar
  4. Frank, R.: 1999, Luxury Fever. Why Money Fails to Satisfy in an Era of Excess (The Free Press, New York).Google Scholar
  5. Glatzer, W. and W. Zapf: 1984, Lebensqualität in der Bundesrepublik (Quality of life in West Germany) (Campus, Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (English summary in Social Indicators Research, 1987 vol. 19, pp. 1-171).Google Scholar
  6. Inglehart, R.: 1990, Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Society (Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
  7. Johansson, S.: 2001, ‘Conceptualizing and measuring Quality of life for national policy’, Social Indicators Research, this issue.Google Scholar
  8. Kacapyr, E.: 1996, Index of Wellbeing (American Demographics).Google Scholar
  9. Kanahan, D., E. Diener and N. Schwartz (eds.): 1999, Wellbeing, the Foundations of Hedonic Psychology (Russel Sage Foundation, New York).Google Scholar
  10. Katona, G.: 1975, Psychological Economics (Elsevier Scientific Publishers, Amsterdam, Netherlands).Google Scholar
  11. Lane, R.: 2000, The Loss of Happiness in Marker Democracies (Yale University Press, USA).Google Scholar
  12. Manning-Gibbs, R.A.: 1972, Relative Deprivation and Self-reported Happiness of Blacks 1946–1966. PhD dissertation University of Texas, USA.Google Scholar
  13. Noll, H-H.: 1994, Zustand der offentliche Sicherkeit beintrachtegt Wohlbefinden der Bürger ISI-bulletin, nr. 12, pp. 5-8.Google Scholar
  14. Schoenmakers, A.: 1998, Leefbaarheidsmonitor Zeeburg (Bureau Onderzoek Op Maat (Boom), Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam).Google Scholar
  15. Schwartz, N. And F. Starck: 1999, ‘Reports of subjective wellbeing: judgemental processes and their methodological implications’, in D. Kanahan, E. Diener and N. Schwartz (eds.), Wellneing, the Foundations of Hedonic Psychology (Russel Sage Foundation, New York, pp. 61-84).Google Scholar
  16. VanPraag, B.M., Th. Goedhart and A. Kapteyn: 1980, ‘The poverty line: A pilot survey in Europe’, Review of Economics and Statistics 63, pp. 461-465.Google Scholar
  17. Veenhoven, R.: 1996, ‘Happy life expectancy: a comprehensive measure of quality-of-life in nations’, Social Indicators Research 39, pp. 1-58.Google Scholar
  18. Veenhoven, R.: 1997, ‘Progrès dans la compréhension du bonheur’ (Advances in the understanding of happiness), Revue Québécoise de psychologie 18, pp. 29-47.Google Scholar
  19. Veenhoven, R.: 1998, ‘Vergelijken van geluk in landen’ (Comparing happiness across nations) Sociale Wetenschappen 41, pp. 58-84.Google Scholar
  20. Veenhoven, R.: 1999, ‘World Database of Happiness: continuous register of research on subjective enjoyment of life’, Available: http://www.eur.nl/fsw/research/happinessGoogle Scholar
  21. Veenhoven, R.: 2000a, ‘The four qualities of life: ordering concepts and measures of the good life’, Journal of happiness studies 1, pp. 1-39.Google Scholar
  22. Veenhoven, R.: 2000b, ‘Wellbeing in the welfare state: level not higher, distribu-tion not more equitable’, Journal of comparative policy analysis 2, pp. 91-125.Google Scholar
  23. Veenhoven, R. and P. Ouweneel: 1995, ‘Livability of the welfare state, length of life and appreciation of life in nations varying in state welfare effort’, Social Indicators Research 36, pp. 1-48.Google Scholar
  24. Veenhoven, R. and W. Saris: 1996, ‘Satisfaction in 10 countries’, in Saris et al. (eds.), A Comparative Study of Satisfaction with Life in Europe (Eötvös University Press, Budapest, Hungary, pp. 223-231).Google Scholar
  25. Vile, M.J.: 1999, Politics in the USA (Routledge, London).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Runt Veenhoven
    • 1
  1. 1.Erasmus University Rotterdam and University of UtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations