The OECD Guidelines on Subjective Well-Being

Transcription

1 The OECD Guidelines on Subjective Well-Being Marco Mira d Ercole OECD Statistics Directorate Subjective Well-Being: Its Measurement and Use in Public Policies and Decision-Making in Mexico and Latin America, April 2013, Mexico City

2 OECD Guidelines on Measuring Subjective Well-being Released on 20 March 2013 (World Happiness Day)

3 What are these Guidelines? They provide advice on the collection and use of measures of subjective well-being They aim to provide support for national statistical offices and other producers of subjective well-being data in designing, collecting, and publishing measures of subjective wellbeing They cover: Concept and validity Methodological issues Best practice in measuring subjective well-being The output and analysis of subjective well-being measures Prototype question modules on subjective well-being

4 What is subjective well-being? Good mental states, including all of the various evaluations, positive and negative, that people make of their lives, and the affective reactions of people to their experiences (OECD, 2013).. but subjective well-being is only one dimension of the broader notion of human well-being

5 Why have these guidelines been produced? It is increasingly recognised that it is important to go beyond monetary measures, such as GDP, in measuring the progress of societies Ultimately, it is well-being that is the focus of policy People s subjective perceptions, evaluations, and experiences are a crucial component of overall wellbeing

6 Why have these guidelines been produced? The Sen/Stiglitz/Fitoussi commission identified subjective well-being as a key element of quality of life for national statistical offices to report on: Recommendation 1: Measures of subjective well-being provide key information about people s quality of life. Statistical offices should incorporate questions to capture people s life evaluations, hedonic experiences and priorities in their own surveys Since then, initiates by many NSOs to incorporate SWB measures in their surveys, but with risk of different and non-comparable measures Evaluative measures (Mexico, Italy, UK, Morocco, Europe) Affect measures (ATUS, French TUS) For official measures of subjective well-being to be useful it is essential they are collected in a consistent manner To facilitate comparisons To provide a common baseline for developing better questions

7 What do the Guidelines cover? Four chapters, dealing with: Concept and validity (Chapter 1) Methodological considerations (Chapter 2) Measurement approach (Chapter 3) Reporting, analysing and interpreting the data (Chapter 4)

8 1. Concept and validity (a) Subjective well-being is multi-dimensional Much evidence on the quality of subjective well-being measures: adequate in some respects (validity, response burden).... But significant challenges in others (signal to noise, choice of questions, cultural response bias)

9 1. Concept and validity (b) SWB is multi-dimensional Life satisfaction (remembered cognitive evaluation of life as a whole and its dimensions) Affect (experienced feelings) Positive affect (happiness, joy, contentment) Negative affect (sadness, anger, worry) Psychological well-being positive functioning: meaning, competence, autonomy 9

10 1. Concept and validity (c) Weak correlation among the different dimensions of subjective well-being across individuals Correlation Coefficients for Purpose, Life Satisfaction, Positive Affect and Negative Affect 362,000 individuals across (37 countries overall) Purpose Purpose Life Satisfaction Positive Affect Negative Affect Life Satisfaction Positive Affect Negative Affect Sources: Gallup World Poll,

11 2. Statistical quality (a) Construct validity 11

12 2. Statistical quality (b) Refusal to answer for life evaluations questions Gallup World Poll, waves 1-5 World values Survey, % 20% 4% 3% Life Satisfaction Education Marital Status 15% 10% Life Satisfaction Income 2% 1% 5% 0% 0% 1 12

13 OECD recommendations There is a large body of evidence on the validity and reliability of measures of subjective well-being Although subject to some important methodological limitations, there is no case for considering measures of subjective well-being beyond the scope of official statistics Official measures of subjective well-being should be collected possibly as experimental data series However, measures of subjective well-being are still subject to a number of methodological challenges: Signal to noise ratio Choice of question matters Cultural response bias National statistical agencies are in a unique position to improve the evidence base on many of the outstanding issues by collecting high-quality data

14 3. Methodology: signal-to-noise ratio (1) The problem Available measures largely derived from non-official sources, with two implications for S/N: Time-series: trend in LE in France is upward and significant, but hard to detect and measured with errors (Eurobarometer) Cross-country: Log-linear relationship between GDP and LE means that even big rises in income yield very small changes in LE for developed countries (Gallup World Poll) 14

15 3. Methodology: signal-to-noise ratio (2) The response (general principles recommended by OECD Guidelines) Measure frequently (at least annually) Enumeration (number of days sampled) should take place over a full year, if possible If year-long enumeration is not possible, ensure collection is spread proportionately over the days of the week Large sample size is of crucial importance

16 3. Methodology: signal-to-noise ratio (3) Why to measure annually?

17 3. Methodology: choice of dimension The problem: Limited data has led researchers to work with whatever has been available, i.e. evaluations and affects often used interchangeably in investigations Measures of affect are affected by changes in circumstances in different ways than LS: choice of which SWB dimension is used has strong effect on conclusions Using only measures for one dimension implies that results can be dominated by response styles (e.g. a cultural predisposition or aversion to making extreme responses) The solution: It is important that quality information on both affect and life evaluation is available 17

18 3. Methodology: which survey questions? (a) The problem: Despite an increasing body of knowledge about how best to measure subjective well-being, different bodies use widely different questions 18

19 3. Methodology: which survey questions? (b) The solution: General principles Use a 0-10 scale, anchored by verbal labels Labels should represent conceptual absolutes (completely satisfied/completely dissatisfied) Ask subjective well-being questions as early in the survey as possible (preferably immediately after demographics) In any survey module include, only one primary evaluative measure, flow from the general to the specific, and use consistent ordering of positive and negative questions

20 3. Methodology: which survey questions? (c) Example A core question module aims to provide a minimal set of questions covering all dimensions of subjective well-being that could be included in household surveys:

21 3. Methodology: cultural response bias (a) The problem: Life evaluation across OECD+ countries, mean values in Modest Japanese? Extreme Mexicans? Cantril ladder (0-10 life evaluation measure) Source: Gallup World Poll data, reported in How s Life? OECD, 2011

22 3. Methodology: cultural response bias (b) Life evaulation 2010 (mean average Cantril Ladder score, 0-10 scale) The problem: Relationship between life evaluation and household income per capita SVK POL CZE SVN FIN IRL NLDSWE AUT DEU BEL GBR FRA ITA ESP GRC DNK LUX HUN PRT Household net adjusted disposable income per capita 2009 (US $ at 2000 PPPs) Source: based on data reported in How s Life? (OECD, 2011)

23 3. Methodology: cultural response bias (c) The solution: Cultural bias is a real problem but there are things that can be done to minimise it (general principles): Collecting information in a consistent way across countries removes other sources of bias Collect information on life evaluations, affect, and psychological wellbeing Collect information on other co-variates (objective and psychological) Use a robust process of translation, including back-translation

24 Measurement approach Six question modules A: Core B: Life evaluation C: Affect D: Eudaimonia E: Domain evaluation F: Experienced well-being Intended Modules B, to C, be D, used and as E a are common not intended baseline to for be Two used all options countries in full, are or included all surveys for collecting Covers Intended experienced all as dimensions well-being a resource in for a minimal countries way to The develop Encouraged only their questions for own inclusion questionaires we encourage in all Time all Use countries Surveys to use

25 What is next? The Guidelines do not provide the final word on measuring SWB The evidence base on measures of subjective well-being can be expected to improve dramatically over the next few years particularly as better quality data becomes available through national statistical offices collecting the measures outlined in the Guidelines The OECD is planning to review progress on the measurement of subjective well-being over the next few years with a view to deciding: Whether the Guidelines need revising Whether it is possible and desirable to move towards a greater degree of international standardisation During 2013 and 2014 the OECD will be promoting the uptake of the Guidelines with workshops in Europe, America, and the Asia-Pacific regions

26 Where can I find the Guidelines? Many thanks for your attention! Marco.mira@oecd.org