Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

Knowing what is good for you: empirical analysis of personal preferences and the 'objective good'

By Orsolya Lelkes

Abstract

This paper aims to test empirically if certain frequently used measures of well-being, which are regarded as valuable properties of human life, are actually desired by people. In other words, it investigates whether the “expert judgments” in social science overlap with social consensus on what the “good life” is. The starting hypothesis is that there is an overlap between these two in the case of basic needs. For the analysis, individuals’ self-reported life satisfaction is used as a proxy for “utility”, based on survey data, which includes about 30 000 individuals from 21 different European countries. The results indicate that the commonly used measures of well-being – labour market situation, health, housing conditions and social relations – significantly influence people’s satisfaction, ceteris paribus. Next, the stability of preferences is tested using Hungarian data from the 1990s. The results indicate that there was only very limited change in the relationship between life satisfaction and basic measures of well-being despite the landslide of societal and economic transformation

Topics: HC Economic History and Conditions, HV Social pathology. Social and public welfare. Criminology
Publisher: Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, London School of Economics and Political Science
Year: 2005
OAI identifier: oai:eprints.lse.ac.uk:6270
Provided by: LSE Research Online

Suggested articles

Citations

  1. (1998). A barátokról [On Friends]’,
  2. (1977). On the relationship between objective and subjective predicaments.
  3. (1999). Causes and correlates of happiness’,
  4. (2002). Social Indicators: the EU and Social Inclusion. Oxford: doi
  5. (1997). The attitudinal legacy of communist labor relations’, doi
  6. (2004). Well-being over time in Britain and the USA’, doi
  7. (2005). Are one man’s rags another man’s riches? Identifying adaptive expectations using panel data, CASEpaper 86. London, Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, London School of Economics. doi
  8. (2002). Degrees of exclusion: developing a dynamic, multidimensional measure’,
  9. (1965). The Pattern of Human Concerns. doi
  10. (2003). Unemployment as a social norm: psychological evidence from panel data’, doi
  11. (1994). Unhappiness and unemployment’, doi
  12. (1997). The paradox in the privatization of Hungary’s public housing: a national gift or a bad bargain?’ doi
  13. (2001). Preferences over inflation and unemployment: evidence from surveys of happiness’, doi
  14. (2000). Money and happiness: income and subjective well-being across nations’, doi
  15. (1999). Subjective wellbeing: three decades of progress’, doi
  16. (1974). Does economic growth improve the human lot? Some empirical evidence’, doi
  17. (1995). Will raising the incomes of all increase the happiness of all?’ doi
  18. (2000). Economic Survey of Europe. doi
  19. (1993). Descriptions of inequality: the Swedish approach to welfare research’, doi
  20. (2000). European Social Statistics: Income, Poverty and Social Exclusion. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
  21. (2005). Income and well-being: an empirical analysis of the comparison income effect’, doi
  22. (2000). Income distribution, economic systems and transition’, doi
  23. (1999). Luxury fever: why money fails to satisfy in an era of excess. doi
  24. (2002). Frustrated achievers: Winners, losers and subjective well-being in new market economies’, doi
  25. (1997). Utilities, preferences and substantive goods’, doi
  26. (2003). Subjective economic well-being in Eastern Europe’, doi
  27. (2003). and the Central Co-ordinating Team
  28. (1979). Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk’, doi
  29. (1991). Notes on the psychology of utility’, doi
  30. (1997). Back to Bentham? Explorations of experienced utility’, doi
  31. (1992). The Socialist System. The Political Economy of Communism. doi
  32. (1994). Transformational recession: the main causes’, doi
  33. Statisztikai Évkönyv 1999. [Statistical Yearbook]. Budapest: Hungarian Central Statistical Office,.
  34. (2005). Happiness: Lessons from a New Science. doi
  35. (2002). Well-being and inequality in transition. The case of Hungary.
  36. (2005). Tasting Freedom: Happiness, religion and economic transition’, doi
  37. (1985). Happiness in transition: the case of Kyrgyzstan’,
  38. (1993). Non-relative virtues: an Aristotelian approach’, doi
  39. (2001). Symposium on Amartya Sen’s philosophy: 5. Adaptive preferences and women’s options’, doi
  40. (1999). OECD Economic Outlook. doi
  41. (2001). Health at a Glance. doi
  42. (1998). Psychology and economics’, doi
  43. (2000). Who wants to redistribute? The tunnel effect in 1990s Russia’, doi
  44. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Cambridge [Mass.]: doi
  45. (1993). Subjective well-being – the convergence and stability of self-report and non-self-report measures’, doi
  46. (1999). Reports of subjective well-being: judgmental processes and their methodological implications’,
  47. (1985). Commodities and Capabilities. doi
  48. (1987). The standard of living’, doi
  49. (1992). Inequality Reexamined. doi
  50. (2004). When Information Dominates Comparison. A Panel Data Analysis Using Russian Subjective Data’, doi
  51. (2001). Report on Indicators in the Field of Poverty and Social Exclusion, http://europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/news/2002/jan/report_ind_ en.pdf.
  52. (2002). Jövedelemeloszlás a kilencvenes évek Magyarországán. Elméletek, módszertan és hipotézisek.
  53. (1979). Poverty in the United Kingdom: A Survey of Household Resources and Standards of Living. doi
  54. (1954). Report on international definition and measurement of standards and levels of living : report of a Committee of Experts convened by
  55. (1999). The measurement of welfare and well-being. The Leyden approach’,
  56. (1998). Why are the unemployed so unhappy? Evidence from panel data’, doi

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.