Abstract. The complexity and diversity of current social phenolmena are pressing against traditional economic theories which, by themselves, are unable to give a proper explanation to the continuous changes our society is facing. In this context, the need for multi- and inter-disciplinary appears to be particularly intense when one tries to explain and asses the quality of today human life. Thus, economics cannot afford to be an isolate or an "autistic" science solely preoccupied by the efficient allocation of scarce resources. Nevertheless, the new social science, in spite its multi- and inter- disciplinary character should also pay serious attention to its conceptual hypothesis and methodological foundations. Following this line of thought, the present paper aims to analyze the recent studies in quality of life in order to find out and synthetize the most important conceptual and methodological foundations of this new field of research.
Keywords: quality of life, observation, methodology, inductivism, empiricism, well-being.
1. Quality of life between reality and perception. The direct vs. indirect observation
From an epistemological perspective, one could argue that, especially in social sciences such as economics where the data used in theories are no more than the result of intuitive reactions to more or less conjectural situations, the economist is constrained to develop artificial situations designed to remove details which can be considered irrelevant for a particular theory. As Seabright argues (Nussbaum and Sen, 1993, p.397), a social theory, in this particular case an economic theory, deploys a variety of moral concepts in accordance with our intuitions about their application. On the other hand, the simple individual is not a scientist. He has no reason to abstract away some details and focus only to issues considered to be relevant for a theory which he does not even know. Every individual possess his own intuition scale which is different from any other individual scale. Hence, the divergences between theoretical statements and empirical observations are very common. More than that, there are not only different perceptions between individuals and scientists but between different individuals. Following this argument, two options are possible: 1) it appears that the removed details from a theory are as important as its statements or 2) direct observation is not a reliable method to test a theory because data are biased by particular perceptions. The consequences of the first conclusion are paramount for the methodology of social sciences because it implies that there are no universal statements or general theories. Of course, this hypothesis attracted and still attracts a number of scientists to a line of thought usually called epistemological anarchy. Nevertheless, as intriguing this hypothesis might be, it far exceeds the purpose of this paper.
We should further continue with the second conclusion consequences on measuring quality of life. In this context, it appears that one of the most important issues in directly assessing quality of life using the traditional statistical tools such as interview polls and empirical studies in raised by the fact that people perceive their well-being in a very relative manner. Individuals tend to focus on theoretical irrelevant details and to form their opinion on very subjective and conjectural facts. According to Van Praag (Nussbaum and Sen, 1993, p. 323) perceptions are highly relative to surrounding social issues. In fact, one might add that these perceptions are also very sensitive to cultural issues. In this context, it is obvious that measuring quality of life using, let say, a satisfaction scale could be a very daunting task which can produce hardly relevant results. Consistent with the above argument, one of the most important problems in quality of life research consists in an increasing gap between the results of statistical reporting and individual perceptions of welfare. Although real income has risen in many countries throughout the last decades, self-reported well-being of the population has not increased in step (CAE/SVR - Report, 2011, p. 3). This inconsistency may be partially explained through a differentiation between living standards and quality of life. While the standard of living of individuals is represented by the command that they have over scarce resources, quality of life consist in the outcomes that result. Following this argument, one may argue that the individual disposition is irrelevant for his standard of living but very relevant for his life quality.
In consequence, the issue of individual preferences and perceptions which cannot be directly observed is another difficulty of empirical nature. In this context, the researcher may have to apply indirect observation methods through which a series of complementary data can be extracted and interpreted in favor of the study. The use of indirect observation method raises two problems. On the one hand, the alternative use of direct and indirect methods may lead to inconsistency and incompatibility between the data obtained. On the other hand, processing indirect data in order to extract conclusive information is subject to the risk of different theoretical interpretations. Nevertheless, as recent studies reveal, indirect observation seems to be the favorite tool in assessing quality of life dimensions.
2. Subjective well-being and quality of life dimensions. The up to bottom vs. bottom to up approach
The subjectivity and complexity of social phenomenon require particular approaches in order to obtain relevant empirical observation which can be used in assessing the quality of life of an individual. A brief literature review offers at least two possible approaches. The first one is directly derived from the, so called, utilitarian doctrine initiated by Jeremy Bentham and perfected by John Stuart Mill and which resisted as the dominant approach in the philosophy of science for almost two centuries. According to the utilitarian approach, quality of life essentially depends on the level of welfare of the individual, where welfare is defined as the pleasure or desire satisfaction one obtains from using goods or, in broader terms, resources. This simple definition succeeds to elegantly solve two apparently incompatible methodological problems for any social science: the universality of a scientific theory, on the one hand, and individualism which is specific to human behavior, on the other hand. (Serban-Oprescu, 2011, p. 175). The clear and simple result of the utilitarian approach is that welfare is in a relation of direct proportionality with the capacity of the individual to acquire goods. As long as an individual is able to acquire and command resources he found the path towards better individual welfare. Nevertheless, welfare is not similar for two different individuals because in the case of the two, the utility of consumption of the same type of goods may differ substantially. In this context, by the identification of a common feature of a quantifiable financial instrument by means of income and consumption, the utilitarian approach succeeds to provide a basic measure unit for assessing welfare. On the other hand, by only highlighting aggregate welfare, the utilitarian approach felt into the trap of holism and gradually loses its ability to capture the non-material aspects which are decisive for assessing quality of life. The traditional utilitarian approach, unfortunately reduces the quality of life is phenomenon to a simple problem of distribution of resources and monetary calculus of income and expenses. Nevertheless, the task identifying a global indicator for measuring subjective well-being from which can be derived other relevant indicators is still tempting and the researches published by Bruno S. Frey are very relevant for this matter. But, the difficulty of finding an accurate direct method for measurement of subjective well-being still remains. Once this difficulty could be overcome, such an observation method might be used in constructing an aggregate indicator of quality of life that could even replace the classical economic indicators. Although extremely tempting, this approach encounters a methodological problem: for the time being there are no observation tools able to directly gather data on a person's happiness level. Due the complexity of the phenomenon and the discrepancy between reality and perception an independent scientific observer cannot be free from any bias and fully capable of objective comparison.
The second approach for assessing quality of life is rooted in recent researches on functioning and capabilities made by Amartya Sen and his followers. According to this approach the individual must not track welfare in the classical sense which can be financially measured, but a superior condition opposed to the current one, which is given neither by the quantity of owned goods, nor by the level of welfare and hence cannot be limited to the evaluation through resources (Serban-Oprescu, 2011, p. 175). In other words, quality of life derives from emotional states and these states are not limited to material means (Alkire, 2009, p. 3). This approach is based on the premise that there are various factors affecting quality of life and only some of which can be assessed monetary and also suggests an indirect welfare assessment based on observation of individual aspects of human existence. Following this approach an observation methodology in three steps was created and also applied (CAE/SVR - Report, 2011, pp. 17-18). First step consists in organizing the various aspects that influence quality of life in several relevant dimensions, the second implies the identification of relevant indicators for every dimension and third step is the condensation of each dimension to one significant indicator.
According to this methodology, the first challenge is to systematize the various dimensions that can be significant for the quality of life. The most daunting and sensitive task on this particular level of analysis is to determine the relevant dimensions for quality of life. In any case, selection is always subjective and will always endanger the study results to the risk of being considered irrelevant because certain variables were excluded from the start.
The second step consists in choosing individual indicators relevant to a certain quality of life dimension and raises the question significance due to its inductivist character. The key question on this level is: How many observations are needed to obtain a "large number"? or, in other words, when accumulated observations are sufficient to be relevant to the circumstances? Unfortunately, there is no single answer to these questions and any response may present vulnerability in a certain context.
In the third step the epistemological problem of aggregation and relevance is raised: as the primary observation data are processed in increasingly more complex statements, the significance of these statements tend to fall. A simple way to avoid this problem is to design not just a single but a series of indicator of quality of life. Thus the aggregation problem is solved, but there still remains the issue of significance.
To synthetize, we should highlight the fact that the capabilities approach confronts itself with two evaluation shortcomings: one at the level of the element aggregation which composes the living standard and another regarding the tangible assessment of these elements. (Serban-Oprescu, 2011, p.176). But according to Alkire these problems are easily to overcome when the results are very important: "Rather, the capability approach is applied differently depending on the purpose of the measure, the place and situation (or, if comparability is required, the places to be compared), the level(s) of analysis, the data available, the institutions it will guide, and the kind of analyses that the measure will catalyze or inform. The methods by which it is applied are, similarly, plural. The concrete purpose of the application provides necessary definition." (Alkire, 2009, p. 7).
3. Quality of life dimensions and indicators
Following the observation and research methodology resulted from the capabilities approach, recent studies, such as Report of Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress which was released to public in 2009, identifies eight relevant dimensions of quality of life as presented in the figure 4.
The SSF Commission Report goes even further by launching a series of recommendation which should be taken into consideration when assessing quality of life. In brief, these recommendations are: 1) assessment of material welfare through indicators that measure the consumption and income rather than production itself; 2) analysis should be focused on household perspective; 3) study of income and consumption jointly with wealth; 4) increased attention on how income, consumption and wealth are distributed; 5) extension on non-market activities; 6) identification of indicators able to assess the quality of life through objective capabilities available to individuals, 7) focusing on measuring inequalities, 8) design of observation methods which ensure the relevance for the quality of life of each people and, secondly, satisfy the need for methodological comparability; 9) these data should also permit aggregation into relevant synthetic indicators; 10) observation data must take into account the personal perceptions of individuals who tend to assess their priorities and experiences in a hedonistic manner; 11) the sustainability indicators set should be extended to other social issues than the purely economic; 12) the need to assess the environmental sustainability should generate thorough researches (SSF Commission Report, 2009, pp. 14-15).
Even though material well-being may be considered as a particular quality of life dimension recent studies tend to emphasize the limits of traditional methods of measurement of well-being based on GDP which should be considered as an excessive aggregate indicator. In this respect, traditional statistical methods and current macroeconomic indicators do not reflect the real distribution of significant data such as wealth (CAE / SVR-Report, 2011: p. 14).
4. Conclusions
Assessing quality of life is, first of all, an empirical task and, from this perspective, the most important aspects of any such research consist in applying the proper methodological rules specific to data observation and interpretation. First of all, we can notice that direct observation, which should be the simplest method for data gathering, can be misleading in the particular field of quality of life. The clear inconsistency between real statistical data and individual perception is a serious reason which casts doubts on direct observations. As Franco-German Report argues even though the rapid growth of a number of objective indicators can be interpreted as a significant improvement in the level of countries, many individuals do not aware of or do not perceive that the quality of life has improved in recent decades (CAE/SVRReport, 2011: p.3). These are only just a few arguments that show why indirect observation method should be chosen over the direct method. Nevertheless the indirect method is not flawless but prone to subjective interpretations inconsistent with reality. For this reason, statistical indicators which synthetize indirect observation data should follow three simple criteria: relevance, consistency and measurability. The necessity of complying with the above rules derives from the fact that individual perceptions and preferences differ and therefore, there are certain limitations in applying the concept of happiness and especially to make interpersonal comparisons of well-being.
In the second row, the indirect observation requires a bottom-to-up research methodology. Even though, finding a single aggregate, complete and consistent indicator for quality of life is a tempting task we do not yet possess the necessary means in achieving this objective. In this context, the three step methodology released by the SSF Commission is, for now, the most appropriate way to analyze the quality of life phenomena. Nevertheless, there are some epistemological risks in applying this methodology. First, choosing the relevant dimensions for quality of life could be considered subjective by other researchers; second there is always the problem of induction consisting in choosing the relevant number of observations for a general conclusion and, third, indirect observation does not allow a proper comparison of data.
Finally, is worth to mention that in spite of its epistemological difficulties, this methodology can be applied and was applied with very promising results. From this perspective, the next research step should consist in applying this methodology in order to find the appropriate solutions to its shortcomings.
Acknowledgements
This work was cofinanced from the European Social Fund through Sectoral Operational Programme Human Resources Development 2007-2013, project number POSDRU/89/1.5/S/59184 "Performance and excellence in postdoctoral research in Romanian economics science domain.
References
Alkire, S. (2008), The Capability Approach to the Quality of Life, Working paper prepared for the Working Group "Quality of Life", Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress
Backhouse, R. E. (1994), New Directions in Economic Methodology, London: Routledge
Caldwell, B. (1994), Beyond Positivism. Economic Methodology in the Twentieth Century, Revised edition, London: Routledge
Nussbaum, M., Sen, A.K. (eds.) (1993), The Quality of Life (Wider Studies in Development Economics), New York:, Oxford University Press,
Serban-Oprescu, G-L. (2011), An epistemological perspective on the quality of life concept, Theoretical and Applied Economics, No.2, 2011, pp. 171-180
Sen, A. K. (1985), Commodities and Capabilities, Amsterdam: North-Holland
*** (2009), Report by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress
*** (2011), Monitoring Economic Performance, Quality of Life and Sustainability, Joint Report as requested by the Franco-German Ministerial Council, German Council of Economic and Conseil d'Analyse Économique
George-Laurentiu SERBANOPRESCU
Academy of Economic Studies, Bucharest
Piata Romana no. 6, Bucharest, Romania
e-mail: [email protected]
Management & Marketing
Challenges for the Knowledge Society
(2011) Vol. 6, Special Issue, pp. 5-12
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Copyright Academy of Economic Studies, Bucharest Summer 2011
Abstract
The complexity and diversity of current social phenolmena are pressing against traditional economic theories which, by themselves, are unable to give a proper explanation to the continuous changes our society is facing. In this context, the need for multi- and inter-disciplinary appears to be particularly intense when one tries to explain and asses the quality of today human life. Thus, economics cannot afford to be an isolate or an "autistic" science solely preoccupied by the efficient allocation of scarce resources. Nevertheless, the new social science, in spite its multi- and inter- disciplinary character should also pay serious attention to its conceptual hypothesis and methodological foundations. Following this line of thought, the present paper aims to analyze the recent studies in quality of life in order to find out and synthetize the most important conceptual and methodological foundations of this new field of research. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer