Does Migration Make You Happy?:A Longitudinal Study of Internal Migration and Subjective Well-Being

The authors acknowledge financial support from the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) (RES-625-28-0001). This project is part of the ESRC Centre for Population Change (CPC). Financial support from the Marie Curie programme under the European Union's Seventh Framework Programme (FP/2007-2013) / Career Integration Grant n. PCIG10-GA-2011-303728 (CIG Grant NBHCHOICE, Neighbourhood choice, neighbourhood sorting, and neighbourhood effects).The majority of quantitative studies on the consequences of internal migration focus almost exclusively on the labour-market outcomes and the material well-being of migrants. We investigate whether individuals who migrate within the UK become happier after the move than they were before, and whether the effect is permanent or transient. Using life-satisfaction responses from twelve waves of the British Household Panel Survey and employing a fixed-effects model, we derive a temporal pattern of migrants’ subjective well-being around the time of the migration event. Our findings make an original contribution by revealing that, on average, migration is preceded by a period when individuals experience a significant decline in happiness for a variety of reasons, including changes in personal living arrangements. Migration itself causes a boost in happiness, and brings people back to their initial levels. The research contributes, therefore, to advancing an understanding of migration in relation to set-point theory. Perhaps surprisingly, long-distance migrants are at least as happy as short-distance migrants despite the higher social and psychological costs involved. The findings of this paper add to the pressure to retheorize migration within a conceptual framework that accounts for social well-being from a life-course perspective.PostprintPeer reviewe

Playing at the edges, navigating sexual boundaries, and narrating sexual distress; Practices and perspectives of sexuality and gender diverse people who use GHB

Background: Research addressing sexualised use of GHB to date has largely focussed on gay and bisexual men's GHB use in the context of chemsex, this research has highlighted risks and experiences associated with sexual violence. No studies have included people of diverse sexualities and genders and documented reported practices to ensure mutually gratifying and consensual sex in the context of sexualised drug use (SDU). Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 31 people from sexuality and gender diverse communities living in Australia who reported three or more occasions of GHB use in the previous 12 months. Participants were asked about their use of GHB for sex, their experiences of GHB sex and their approaches to negotiating sexual boundaries. Data were analysed thematically. Results: Most participants valued the sexual possibilities enabled by disinhibitory components of GHB and were cognisant of respecting other's sexual boundaries in the context of GHB sex. Participants reported strategies to ensure communication prior to and throughout GHB sex. However, several participants narrated experiences of GHB sex that they felt were distressing and, in some circumstances, sexually violent. In most instances participant's resisted terminology of sexual violence or non-consent as descriptors of their experience and none reported accessing sexual violence services. Conclusion: Positive strategies to facilitate sexual communication prior to and throughout GHB sex should be reflected in health promotion and service level responses to promote affirmative and continuous consent among people who use GHB for sex. Education initiatives to help people engaged in SDU to recognise and respond to sexual violence if it occurs ought to be prioritised

The New Deal: jeopardised by the geography of unemployment?

The New Deal is the Labour government's flagship programme to "end the tragic waste of youth and long-term unemployment" by getting people off welfare benefits and into work. This paper argues that the principal weakness of the New Deal is that it seeks to influence the character of labour supply (i.e. the motivation and skills of the unemployed) while neglecting the state of labour demand, which varies greatly between places. The uneven geography of unemployment in the UK is likely to have a crucial bearing on the programme's impact and effectiveness, but this has been largely ignored in its development. The paper outlines some of the practical consequences of this imbalance and suggests how it could be rectified for the programme to be more effective

The external benefits of higher education

The private market benefits of education are widely studied at the micro level, although the magnitude of their macroeconomic impact is disputed. However, there are additional benefits of education, which are less well understood. In this paper the macroeconomic effects of external benefits of higher education are estimated using the “micro-to-macro” simulation approach. Two types of externalities are explored: technology spillovers and productivity spillovers in the labour market. These links are illustrated and the results suggest they could be very large. However, this is qualified by the dearth of microeconomic evidence, for which we hope to encourage further work

Psychological distress in mid-life: evidence from the 1958 and 1970 British birth cohorts

BACKGROUND: This paper addresses the levels of psychological distress experienced at age 42 years by men and women born in 1958 and 1970. Comparing these cohorts born 12 years apart, we ask whether psychological distress has increased, and, if so, whether this increase can be explained by differences in their childhood conditions. METHOD: Data were utilized from two well-known population-based birth cohorts, the National Child Development Study and the 1970 British Cohort Study. Latent variable models and causal mediation methods were employed. RESULTS: After establishing the measurement equivalence of psychological distress in the two cohorts we found that men and women born in 1970 reported higher levels of psychological distress compared with those born in 1958. These differences were more pronounced in men (b = 0.314, 95% confidence interval 0.252-0.375), with the magnitude of the effect being twice as strong compared with women (b = 0.147, 95% confidence interval 0.076-0.218). The effect of all hypothesized early-life mediators in explaining these differences was modest. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings have implications for public health policy, indicating a higher average level of psychological distress among a cohort born in 1970 compared with a generation born 12 years earlier. Due to increases in life expectancy, more recently born cohorts are expected to live longer, which implies - if such differences persist - that they are likely to spend more years with mental health-related morbidity compared with earlier-born cohorts

In defence of global egalitarianism

This essay argues that David Miller's criticisms of global egalitarianism do not undermine the view where it is stated in one of its stronger, luck egalitarian forms. The claim that global egalitarianism cannot specify a metric of justice which is broad enough to exclude spurious claims for redistribution, but precise enough to appropriately value different kinds of advantage, implicitly assumes that cultural understandings are the only legitimate way of identifying what counts as advantage. But that is an assumption always or almost always rejected by global egalitarianism. The claim that global egalitarianism demands either too little redistribution, leaving the unborn and dissenters burdened with their societies' imprudent choices, or too much redistribution, creating perverse incentives by punishing prudent decisions, only presents a problem for global luck egalitarianism on the assumption that nations can legitimately inherit assets from earlier generations – again, an assumption very much at odds with global egalitarian assumptions

General practitioners' opinions on how to improve treatment of mental disorders in primary health care. Interviews with one hundred Norwegian general practitioners

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Improvements in treatment of mental disorders are repeatedly called for. General practitioners (GPs) are responsible for the majority of treatment of mental disorders. Consequently, we interviewed GPs about their opinions on how treatment of mental disorders in primary health care contexts could be improved.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Among GPs affiliated within the Norwegian reimbursement system, we approached 353, and made contact with 246 GP's. One-hundred of these agreed to participate in our study, and 95 of them expressed opinions on how to improve treatment of mental disorders. The telephone interviews were based on open-ended questions, responses were transcribed continuously, and content analysis was applied. Results are presented both as frequency tables of common responses, and as qualitative descriptions and quotations of opinions.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Nearly all (95%) of the GPs had suggestions on how to improve treatment of mental disorders in primary health care. Increased capacity in secondary health care was suggested by 59% of GPs. Suggestions of improved collaboration with secondary health care were also common (57%), as were improvements of GPs' skills and knowledge relevant for diagnosing and treating mental disorders (40%) and more time for patients with mental disorders in GP contexts (40%).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The GPs' suggestions are in line with international research and debate. It is thought-provoking that the majority of GPs call for increased capacity in secondary care, and also better collaboration with secondary care. Some GPs made comparisons to the health care system for physical disorders, which is described as better-functioning. Our study identified no simple short-term cost-effective interventions likely to improve treatment for mental disorders within primary health care. Under-treatment of mental disorders is, however, also associated with significant financial burdens.</p

Access, accountability, and the proliferation of psychological therapy:On the introduction of the IAPT initiative and the transformation of mental healthcare

Psychological therapy today plays a key role in UK public mental health. In large part, this has been through the development of the (specifically English) Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) programme. Through IAPT, millions of citizens have encountered interventions such as cognitive behaviour therapy, largely for the treatment of depression and anxiety. This article interrogates how this national response to problems of mental ill-health – and the problematization itself – was developed, accounted for, and sustained. By imbricating economic expertise with accounts of mental ill-health and mechanisms of treatment, IAPT has revivified psychological framings of pathology and therapy. However, it has done so in ways that are more familiar within biomedical contexts (e.g. through recourse to randomized controlled trial studies). Today, the initiative is a principal player in relation to which other services are increasingly developed. Indeed, in many respects IAPT has transformed from content to context within UK public mental health (in a process of what I term ‘contextification’). By documenting these developments, this paper contributes to re-centring questions about the place and role of psychology in contemporary healthcare. Doing so helps to complicate assumptions about the dominance of linear forms of (de)biomedicalization in health-systems