DEVELOPMENT
The pdf-version - Eesti Koostöö Kogu
The pdf-version - Eesti Koostöö Kogu
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Index<br />
components<br />
EU measures OECD measures<br />
Income and<br />
wealth<br />
Jobs and<br />
wages<br />
Housing<br />
Health<br />
Work-life<br />
balance<br />
Community<br />
Ability to make ends meet<br />
Material deprivation (inability<br />
to afford certain items)<br />
—<br />
Education —<br />
Civic<br />
engagement<br />
Environment<br />
Safety<br />
Life<br />
satisfaction<br />
Satisfaction<br />
with public<br />
services<br />
Quality of<br />
society<br />
Table 3.4.2<br />
Indicators and measures of the OECD Better Life Index<br />
(2011) and the EU Quality of Life Survey (2011)<br />
Housing tenure<br />
Quality of dwelling<br />
Neighbourhood quality<br />
(services, safety,<br />
state of the environment)<br />
Health satisfaction;<br />
Access to health care<br />
Balancing work and family life;<br />
Strain-based conflict<br />
Contact with family members<br />
and friends<br />
Satisfaction with family life<br />
and social life<br />
Various forms of political and<br />
civic participation (except for<br />
elections and engagement)<br />
Is included under housing<br />
Safety in the neighbourhood<br />
(as a housing indicator)<br />
Subjective well-being<br />
By field of service —<br />
Trust in people and public<br />
institutions<br />
Perceived social tensions<br />
Household net-adjusted<br />
disposable income<br />
Household financial wealth<br />
Employment rate<br />
Long-term unemployment rate<br />
Personal earnings<br />
Job security<br />
Rooms per person<br />
Dwelling with basic facilities<br />
(% of people with WC)<br />
Housing expenditure<br />
Life expectancy;<br />
Self-reported health<br />
Employees working very long<br />
hours (over 50 hours per week);<br />
Time devoted to leisure and<br />
personal care (incl. sleep)<br />
Quality of support system<br />
Years in education;<br />
Student skills (average performance<br />
of students aged 15)<br />
Voter turnout;<br />
Consultation on rule-making<br />
Air pollution<br />
Water quality<br />
Assault rate<br />
Homicide rate<br />
Self-reported life satisfaction<br />
greater importance on the social cohesion and differences<br />
between social groups (in addition to the differences<br />
between countries that are important to both).<br />
3.4.2<br />
Indices and measures of the quality of life<br />
Due to the multi-faceted nature of the concept of life<br />
quality, there have not been any reliable indicators for a<br />
long time. Due to the lack of a better indicator, GDP was<br />
often used for this purpose; an approach which today has<br />
been widely criticised (Diefenbacher, Zieschank, 2009;<br />
Toots and Bachmann, 2010). In the 1970s and 1980s, percentage<br />
of social costs of GDP has been used to rankthe<br />
welfare states. Today, the high percentage of welfare costs<br />
is no longer an adequate measure of the country’s social<br />
sustainability.Moreover, this indicator does not provide<br />
–<br />
information about how well-being is distributed among the<br />
individuals or social groups. Thus, the access to healthcare,<br />
in countries with similar level of social expenditures, may<br />
differ. In sum, the GDP did not measure the quality of life<br />
adequately, and, also, it did not cover all of the content that<br />
is included today in the meaning of quality of life (Stiglitz,<br />
Sen, Fitoussi, 2009). Thus, the OECD adopted a complex<br />
framework of measures, which is based on three pillars:<br />
material living conditions, quality of life and the sustainability<br />
of well-being in time. Since by today the Better Life<br />
Index has been compiled only once, the sustainability<br />
dimension cannot be computed yet and– the OECD’s Better<br />
Life Index (BLI) measures well-being in two interconnected<br />
dimensions, by using eleven inidcators(Table 3.4.1). It is<br />
also important that well-being is measured at the micro-<br />
(individual) and meso- (group) levels, because the macro<br />
level (general economic situation, GDP) and an individual<br />
standard of living may diverge.<br />
An important feature of the OECD quality of measurement<br />
is reliance on statistical indicators, and thorough<br />
attention to the quality (incl. comparability) of the statistics<br />
that are used. Some other indices (e.g. the Gallup World<br />
Poll, the European Quality of Life Survey) are based on<br />
opinion polls, about which the OECD has reservations (the<br />
comparison of countries may be nonreliable, the samples<br />
are too small). However, the OECD is also using some<br />
subjective data from the Gallup World Poll for measuring<br />
subjective well-being, until better data become available.<br />
This chapter relies primarily on the OECD Better Life<br />
Index, supplementing them, with data from the European<br />
Quality of Life Survey (EQLS). Many of the indicators of<br />
these two surveys of quality of life overlap, but there are<br />
also differences (Table 3.4.2.). For example, the OECD<br />
includes labour market indicators in the Better Life Index;<br />
the EU acknowledges the importance of employment in<br />
life satisfaction, but does not measure it in connection with<br />
the quality of life. As a whole, in the European Union’s<br />
approach, greater attention to the social side of life quality<br />
can be noticed (e.g. the state of one’s neighbourhood, social<br />
tensions between groups, social and civic engagement, networks,<br />
and perceived social alienation). Satisfaction with<br />
public services is a separate indicator of the EQLS, which<br />
can be explained by the European social model that valuesgovernment<br />
responsibility in securingcitizens welfare.<br />
Although the OECD countries also are welfare states, the<br />
concept of the state as the provider of welfare is significantly<br />
different in Asia and the U.S. than it is in Europe<br />
(Alber and Gilbert, 2010; Alcock and Craig, 2009). Therefore,<br />
it is not possible to make meaningful comparison of<br />
the level of public services in various regions of the world.<br />
3.4.3<br />
Quality of life – the general picture<br />
It is not adequate to place countries into one absolute<br />
ranking in the case of such a multifaceted object, like a<br />
high-quality, or good, life. A country can be at the top,<br />
in regard to certain indicators, and lag behind, in others.<br />
By reducing the various indicators to one composite<br />
score, we would get an “average” result, which would not<br />
provide a adequate picture of the social success. This<br />
is also the argument used by the EQLS to explain why<br />
130<br />
Estonian Human Development Report 2012/2013