Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Impact of Democracy on Well-being

  • Published:
Social Indicators Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Can governance impact directly on well-being? In this paper we examine subjective well-being using data for a cross section of countries from the World Values data set. We find that regional democratic satisfaction impacts on both individual happiness and life satisfaction. However, the impact is less evident for women, rich people and for those in rich countries. The fact that the governance variable analysis is based on regional differences in democratic satisfaction reminds us that governance and indeed happiness often differs within countries as well as between them. The use of regional satisfaction in this manner helps overcome endogeneity problems which would be present if we were to use individual democratic satisfaction. Other significant determinants of happiness include settlement size, marital status, income, unemployment and being part of a linguistic minority/majority grouping.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Using data from the World Values Survey.

  2. At 1997 prices.

  3. Certain key variables are not included in the fifth wave. These include democratic satisfaction.

  4. We include country fixed effects, hence the impact of religion is related to the individual rather than on the culture of the country.

References

  • Alvarez-Diaz, A., Gonzalez, L., & Radcliff, B. (2010). The politics of happiness: on the political determinants of quality of life in the American states. Journal of Politics, 72, 894–905.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bohnke, P. (2008). Does Society matter? Life satisfaction in the enlarged Europe. Social Indicators Research, 87, 189–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonini, A. N. (2008). Cross-national variation in individual life satisfaction: Effects of national wealth, human development, and environmental conditions. Social Indicators Research, 87, 223–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruni, L., & Stanca, L. (2008). Watching alone: Relational goods, television and happiness. Journal of Economics Behavior and Organization, 65, 506–528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caporale, G. M., Georgellis, Y., Tsitsianis, N., & Yin, Y. P. (2009). Income and happiness across Europe: Do reference values matter? Journal of Economic Psychology, 30, 42–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, A. E., & Oswald, A. J. (1994). Unhappiness and unemployment. Economic Journal, 104, 648–659.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, A. E., Oswald, A. J., & Warr, P. (1996). Is job satisfaction U-shaped in age? Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 69, 57–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cullis, J., Hudson, J., & Jones, P. (2011). A different rationale for redistribution: Pursuit of happiness in the European Union. Journal of Happiness Studies, 12, 323–341.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deaton, A. (2008). Income, health and well being around the world: Evidence from the Gallup World Poll. Journal of Economic Perspectives., 22, 53–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Di Tella, R., MacCulloch, J., & Oswald, A. J. (2001). Preferences over inflation and unemployment: Evidence of surveys of happiness. American Economic Review, 91, 335–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Di Tella, R., MacCulloch, J., & Oswald, A. J. (2003). The macroeconomics of happiness. Review of Economics and Statistics, 85, 809–827.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diener, E., Gohm, C. L., Suh, E. M., & Oishi, S. (2000). Similarity of the relations between marital status and subjective well-being across cultures. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 31, 419–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dolan, P., Peasgood, T., & White, M. (2008). Do we really know what makes us happy? A review of the economic literature on the factors associated with subjective well-being, Journal of Economic Psychology, 29, 94–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dorn, D., Fischer, J. A. V., Kirchgassner, G., & Sousa-Poza, A. (2007). Is it culture or democracy? The impact of democracy and culture on happiness, Social Indicators Research, 82, 505–526.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dorn, D., Fischer, J. A. V., Kirchgassner, G., & Sousa-Poza, A. (2008). Direct democracy and life satisfaction revisited: New evidence for Switzerland. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9, 227–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Easterlin, R. A. (2001). Income and happiness: Towards a unified theory. Economic Journal, 111, 465–484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fahey, T., & Smyth, E. (2004). Do subjective indicators measure welfare? Evidence from 33 European societies. European Societies, 6, 5–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferriss, A. L. (2002). Religion and the quality of life. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, 199–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiorina, M. P. (1976). The voting decision: Instrumental decision and expressive aspects. Journal of Politics, 21, 601–625.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fosu, A., Bates, R., & Hoeffler, A. (2006). Institutions, governance and economic development in Africa: An overview. Journal of African Economies, 15(Supplement 1), 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frey, B. S., & Stutzer, A. (2000). Happiness, economy and institutions. Economic Journal, 110, 918–938.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frey, B. S., & Stutzer, A. (2002a). Happiness and Economics: How the Economy and Institutions Affect Human Well-Being. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frey, B. S., & Stutzer, A. (2002b). What can economists learn from happiness research? Journal of Economic Literature, 40, 402–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gitmex, A. S., & Morcol, G. (1994). Socio-economic status and life satisfaction in Turkey. Social Indicators Research, 31, 77–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, C., & Pettinatio, S. (2001). Happiness, markets, and democracy: Latin America in comparative perspective. Journal of Happiness Studies, 2, 237–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guiso, L., Sapienza, P., & Zingales, L. (2008). Alfred Marshall lecture—Social capital as good culture. Journal of the European Economic Association, 6, 295–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayo, B., & Seifert, W. (2003). Subjective well-being in Eastern Europe. Journal of Economic Psychology, 24, 329–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helliwell, J. F., & Huang, H. F. (2008). How’s your government? International evidence linking good government and well-being. British Journal of Political Science, 38, 595–619.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, J. (1985). Economic theory and the cities. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hudson, J. (2006). Institutional trust and subjective well being across the EU. Kyklos, 59, 43–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Inglehart, R. F. (1999). Trust, well-being and democracy. In M. E. Warren (Ed.), Democracy and trust (pp. 88–120). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Inglehart, R., Foa, R., Peterson, C., & Welzel, C. (2008). Development, freedom and rising happiness: A global perspective (1981–2007). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 264–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Inglehart, R., & Klingemann, H. (2000). Genes, culture, democracy, and happiness. In E. Diener & E. M. Suh (Eds.), Culture and subjective well-being (pp. 165–183). Cambridge, London: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Layard, R. (2006). Happiness and Public Policy: A challenge to the profession. Economic Journal, 116, C24–C33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Namazie, C., & Sanfey, P. (2001). Happiness in transition: The case of Kyrgyzstan. Review of Development Economics, 5, 392–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owen, A. L., Videras, J., & Willemsen, C. (2008). Democracy, participation, and life satisfaction. Social Science Quarterly, 89, 987–1005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pittau, M. G., Zelli, R., & Gelman, A. (2010). Economic disparities and life satisfaction in European regions. Social Indicators Research, 96, 339–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Royuela, V., & Surinach, J. (2005). Constituents of quality of life and urban size. Social Indicators Research, 74, 549–572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanfey, P., & Teksoz, U. (2007). Does transition make you happy? Economics of Transition, 15, 707–731.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schyns, P. (1998). Crossnational differences in happiness: Economic and cultural factors explored. Social Indicators Research, 43, 3–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Selim, S. (2008). Life satisfaction and happiness in Turkey. Social Indicators Research, 87, 531–562.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snoep, L. (2008). Religiousness and happiness in three nations: A research note. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9, 207–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tesch-Romer, C., Motel-Klingebiel, A., & Tomasik, M. J. (2008). Gender differences in subjective well-being: Comparing societies with respect to gender equality. Social Indicators Research, 85, 329–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsou, M.-W., & Liu, J.-T. (2001). Happiness and domain satisfaction in Taiwan. Journal of Happiness Studies, 2, 269–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veenhoven, R. (2000). Freedom and happiness: A comparative study in forty-four nations in the early 1990s. In E. Diener & M. Eunkook (Eds.), Culture and subjective well-being (pp. 257–288). Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vermunt, R., Spaans, E., & Zorge, F. (1989). Satisfaction, happiness and subjective well-being of Dutch students. Social Indicators Research, 21, 1–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, M., Schneider, F., & Halla, A. (2009). The quality of institutions and satisfaction with democracy in Western Europe: A panel analysis. European Journal of Political Economy, 25, 30–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Work, R. (2002). Overview of decentralisation worldwide: A stepping stone to improved governance and human development, paper presented at the 2nd International conference on decentralisation “Federalism: The future of decentralizing states?”, Organised by the UNDP, Manila, Philippines.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Economics, Matej Bel University, Tajovskeho 10, 975 90, Banska Bystrica, Slovak Republic

    Marta Orviska

  2. Department of Economics, University of Economics in Bratislava, Dolnozemska, 1, 852 19, Bratislava, Slovak Republic

    Anetta Caplanova

  3. Department of Economics, University of Bath, Bath, BA2 7AY, UK

    John Hudson

Authors
  1. Marta Orviska
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anetta Caplanova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. John Hudson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to John Hudson.

Data Appendix: Variable Definitions

Data Appendix: Variable Definitions

1.1 Attitudinal Variables

Happiness:

A dependent variable; coded 1 if the individual responded that taking all things together they were not at all happy to 4 very happy

Life satisfaction:

A second dependent variable; scaled from dissatisfied (1) to satisfied (10)

Democratic satisfaction:

Coded 1 if the respondent is very dissatisfied satisfied with the way democracy is developing in their country to 4 (very satisfied)

1.2 Socio Economic Variables

Male:

Binary variable, coded 1 if the respondent is a man

Age:

Age of the respondent in years

Married:

Binary variable, coded 1 if the respondent is married

Widow:

Binary variable, coded 1 if the respondent is widowed

Children:

Binary variable, coded 1 if the respondent has children

Education:

Coded from 1 (no formal education) to 9 (university level education with degree)

Income:

Coded from 1 to 10 reflecting increasing levels of household income—the exact classification varies from country to country. In effect this is a relative income measure

Savings:

Coded 1 if the respondent’s family saved money in the previous year to 4 if they spent savings and borrowed money

Poor health:

The self-perceived state of the individual’s health. A Binary variable, coded 1 if in poor or very poor health

Unemployed:

Binary variable, coded 1 if the respondent is unemployed

Location:

Coded 1–8 (large city) reflecting the size of the settlement in which the individual lives

Religious Group:

Binary variables, coded 1 if the individual identified themselves as members of a religious group (Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, Jew, Muslim, respectively)

Linguistic Minority:

The proportion of the country’s population having as their first language the same as the respondent, where first language is defined as the one normally spoken at home

Religious Minority:

The proportion of the country’s population having the same religion as the respondent

GDPPC:

The level of GDP per capita in the individual’s country in the year 2000 in US$ purchasing power parity (Source: World Bank data set)

Countries included: Albania, Argentina, Bangladesh, Bosnia, Canada, Chile, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iran, Japan, Jordan, Kyrgyz, Macedonia, Mexico, Moldova, Montenegro, Morocco, Peru, Philippines, Puerto Rico, Serbia, South Africa, Spain, Tanzania, Uganda, USA, Vietnam,

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Orviska, M., Caplanova, A. & Hudson, J. The Impact of Democracy on Well-being. Soc Indic Res 115, 493–508 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-012-9997-8

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-012-9997-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation