Advertisement

How We Measure Well-Being: The Data Behind the History of Well-Being

  • M. Joseph Sirgy
  • Richard J. Estes
  • Audrey N. Selian
Chapter
Part of the International Handbooks of Quality-of-Life book series (IHQL)

Abstract

The end of World War II marked a turning point in the history of human consciousness. An era of untold tragedy and human suffering associated with well-being planted the seeds for an awakening not only amongst scholars and policy makers but amongst the general public as well. The awakening was recognition of the need for more scientifically rigorous data pertaining to well-being in the past, the present and, as possible, for the near-term future. For the first time, a more sophisticated range of scientifically rigorous metrics and measures for use in capturing quality of life and well-being began to emerge in response to this need for more effective and efficient public and private policy planning. This chapter outlines the core “metrics” and the “points of departure” for the regional chapters in Part III. This chapter also presents the basic concepts and types of data from which quality-of-life researchers formulate and empirically capture the history of well-being.

Indicators of well-being tend to be linked in a system of inputs and outputs. Outputs traditionally are viewed as data that show outcomes—subjective as well as objective outcomes that represent both need satisfaction and level of experienced personal happiness. Inputs reflect institutional or governmental efforts (i.e., “social investments”) that are required to make particular outcomes possible, e.g., providing more robust systems of health care; developing more effective, cost-efficient approaches to national defense; building communications and transportation infrastructure; developing law enforcement and justice systems that protect the legal rights of citizens while prosecuting offenders with careful attention to the protection of their rights as well; and affording efficient public and private sector spending allocated to bringing greater coherence to these investments. Other scholars have concerned themselves with the development of “equity indicators,” i.e., social indicators that assess the changing needs of the social status of what are referred to by the United Nations as “historically disadvantaged population groups,” e.g., women, children, and youth; the elderly; poor persons; indigenous peoples; members of racial, ethnic, and sexual minority groups; and persons with irreversible disabilities. This chapter also looks at the forces that have shaped and continue to shape our societies through technology and technological innovations.

This method outlines indicator types with the express purpose of providing context to the flow of the volume. As a key point of departure, each regional analysis utilizes the subcomponent indicators of the Human Development Index (HDI). This chapter provides the foundations upon which HDI data and additional types of information are used to paint a picture of the evolution of well-being in its broadest sense. A concerted effort is made to provide a balance between granular, rigorous analyses and the bigger-picture conclusions that emanate from an appreciative approach committed to understanding the bigger picture and the upward wave that carries forward and elevates many of the data points that tell the positive story of human experience on our planet.

Keywords

Quality of life Well-being Life satisfaction Happiness Subjective indicators Objective indicators Output indicators Input indicators Equity indicators Human development index 

References

  1. Alleyne, M. D. (1995). International power and international communication (pp. 1–38). New York: St. Martin’s Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrews, F. M., & Withey, S. B. (1976). Social indicators of well-being: Americans’ perceptions of life quality. New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Argyle, M. (1996). Subjective well-being. In A. Offer (Ed.), In pursuit of the quality of life (pp. 18–45). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bilbao-Osorio, B., Dutta, S., & Lanvin, B. (Eds.) (2014). The global information technology report 2014, rewards and risks of big data (p. 9). World Economic Forum/INSEAD/Johnson Business School. http://www.weforum.org/issues/global-information-technology
  5. Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., & Rodgers, W. L. (1975). The quality of American life: Perceptions, evaluations, and satisfactions. New York: Russell Sage.Google Scholar
  6. Cummins, R. A., Li, N., Wooden, M., & Stokes, M. (2014). A demonstration of set-points for subjective wellbeing. Journal of Happiness Studies, 15(1), 183–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dahl, R. (1996). Democratic theory and democratic experience. In S. Benhabib (Ed.), Democracy and difference: Contesting the boundaries of the political (pp. 336–339). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Deutsch, K. W. (1963). The nerves of government: Models of political communication and control (p. 316). New York: Free Press of Glencoe.Google Scholar
  9. Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 542–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Drewnowski, J., & Scott, W. (1966). The level of living index. Geneva: UN Research Institute for Social Development.Google Scholar
  11. Easterlin, R. A. (2001). Income and happiness: Towards a unified theory. Economic Journal, 111, 465–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Estes, R. J. (1998). Trends in world social development, 1970–1995. Development challenges for a new century. Journal of Developing Societies, 14, 11–39.Google Scholar
  13. Estes, R. J. (2010). The world social situation: Development challenges at the outset of a new century. Social Indicators Research, 98, 363–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Estes, R. J. (2012). Development challenges and opportunities confronting economies in transition. In K. C. Land, A. C. Michalos, & M. J. Sirgy (Eds.), Handbook of social indicators and quality of life research (pp. 433–457). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Estes, R. J. (2015). Development trends among the world’s socially least developed countries (SLDCs): Reasons for cautious optimism. In B. Spooner (Ed.), Globalization in progress: Understanding and working with world urbanization (pp. 23–70). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  16. First Peoples Worldwide. (n.d.). Who are indigenous peoples. Retrieved from http://www.firstpeoples.org/who-are-indigenous-peoples
  17. Fountain, J. E. (2002). Toward a theory of federal bureaucracy for the twenty first century. In E. C. Kamarck & J. S. Nye (Eds.), Governance.com: Democracy in the information age. Visions of governance in the 21st century (p. 137). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  18. Gallup Organization. (2014a). Interview questions. Retrieved from http://www.glassdoor.com/Interview/Gallup-Interview-Questions-E7246.htm
  19. Gallup Organization. (2014b). Personal satisfaction with life, 1980–2013. Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/poll/1672/satisfaction-personal-life.aspx
  20. Gates, S. (2013). World happiness report 2013 ranks happiest countries around the globe. The World Post (a partnership of The Huffington Post and Berggruen Institute). http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/09/world-happiness-report-happiest-countries_n_3894041.html. Accessed 24 Jan 2016.
  21. Hagerty, M., Vogel, J., & Møeller, V. (Eds.). (2002). Assessing quality of life and living conditions: The state of the art. [Special issue]. Social Indicators Research, 58, 1–440.Google Scholar
  22. Huffington Post. (2012, December 20). Positive countries: What nation smiles the most, rests the best and enjoys life to the fullest? Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/20/positive-countries-well-being-rest-enjoy-life-smile_n_2332050.html
  23. International Technology and Engineering Educators Association Survey (ITEEA). (2001, 2004). http://www.iteaconnect.org/TAA/Publications/TAA_Gallup.html
  24. Lloyd, K. M., & Auld, C. J. (2002). The role of leisure in determining quality of life: Issues of content and measurement. Social Indicators Research, 57(1), 43–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
  26. McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media: The extensions of man (1st ed., p. 67). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  27. Michalos, A. C. (2005). Arts and the quality of life: An exploratory study. Social Indicators Research, 71, 11–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Michalos, A. C. (Ed.). (2014). Encyclopedia of quality of life and well-being research. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  29. Michalos, A. C., & Kahlke, P. M. (2008). Impact of arts-related activities on the perceived quality of life. Social Indicators Research, 89, 193–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Michalos, A. C., & Zumbo, B. D. (2003). Leisure activities, health and the quality of life. In A. C. Michalos (Ed.), Essays on the quality of life (pp. 217–238). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Morris, D. M. (1979). Measuring the condition of the world’s poor: The physical quality of life index. New York: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  32. Nuclear Threat Initiative. (2014). Architects of a safer world: 2013/14 Annual Report. Retrieved March 6, 2015, from http://www.nti.org/media/pdfs/NTI_2013-2014_Annual_Report.pdf?_=1412719948
  33. Orlikowski, W. J. (1992). The duality of technology: Rethinking the concept of technology in organizations. Organization Science, 3(3), 398–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rosenau, J. N., & Singh, J. P. (2002). Information technologies and global politics: The changing scope of power and governance (p. 312). Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  35. Sirgy, M. J. (2011). Theoretical perspectives guiding QOL indicator projects. Social Indicators Research, 103, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sirgy, M. J. (2012). The psychology of quality of life: Hedonic well-being, life satisfaction, and eudaimonia (2nd ed.). Dordrechet: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. (2014). SIPRI yearbook 2014. Armaments, disarmament and international security. Retrieved from http://www.sipri.org/yearbook/2014
  38. Surowiecki, J. (2005). Technology and happiness. MIT technology review. Retrieved from http://www.technologyreview.com/review/403558/technology-and-happiness/
  39. United Nations. (2005). United Nations millennium project. Retrieved from http://www.unmillenniumproject.org/
  40. United Nations. (2014). The millennium development goals report, 2014. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/2014%20MDG%20report/MDG%202014%20English%20web.pdf
  41. United Nations Development Programme. (1992). Human development report 1992: Global dimensions of human development. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  42. United Nations Development Programme. (2005). Human development report 2005: International cooperation at a crossroads. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  43. United Nations Development Programme. (2014). Human development report 2014: Sustaining human progress—reducing vulnerabilities and building resilience. New York: UNDP.Google Scholar
  44. Veenhoven, R. (1988). The utility of happiness? Social Indicators Research, 20, 334–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Veenhoven, R. (1991). Is happiness relative? Social Indicators Research, 24, 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Veenhoven, R. (2014). The world database of happiness. Rotterdam: Erasmus University Rotterdam. Retrieved from http://worlddatabaseofhappiness.eur.nl/.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. VMware New Way of Life Study. (2013). http://info.vmware.com/content/APAC_AP_NewWayOfLife
  48. World Values Survey. (2014). Data and documentation. Retrieved from http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSContents.jsp

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Joseph Sirgy
    • 1
  • Richard J. Estes
    • 2
  • Audrey N. Selian
    • 3
  1. 1.Pamplin College of Business, Department of MarketingVirginia Polytechnic Institute & State University (Virginia Tech)BlacksburgUSA
  2. 2.School of Social Policy and PracticeUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA
  3. 3.Halloran PhilanthropiesGenevaSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations