How Reliable and Consistent are Subjective Measures of Welfare in Europe and Central Asia? Evidence from the Second Life in Transition Survey
This paper analyzes the reliability and consistency of subjective well-being measures. Using the Life in Transition Survey, which was administered in 34 countries of Europe and Central Asia in 2006 and 2010, the paper evaluates subjective well-bein...
Main Authors: | , |
---|---|
Format: | Policy Research Working Paper |
Language: | English |
Published: |
2013
|
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2013/02/17287547/reliable-consistent-subjective-measures-welfare-europe-central-asia-evidence-second-life-transition-survey http://hdl.handle.net/10986/13150 |
Summary: | This paper analyzes the reliability and
consistency of subjective well-being measures. Using the
Life in Transition Survey, which was administered in 34
countries of Europe and Central Asia in 2006 and 2010, the
paper evaluates subjective well-being measures (satisfaction
with life and subjective relative income position) against
objective measures of welfare based on consumption and
assets. It uses the different formulations of life
satisfaction in the survey to test robustness to alternative
framing and scaling. It also explores within-household
differences in subjective well-being assessments. The
analysis finds that subjective relative income is weakly
correlated with household relative welfare position as
measured by consumption or assets. Life satisfaction, by
contrast, is highly correlated with objective and subjective
measures of household welfare. It generally reflects
cross-country differences in average consumption, assets, or
per capita gross domestic product, although Central Asian
countries report much higher life satisfaction levels than
their incomes would suggest. Two alternative measures of
life satisfaction are highly correlated and the
correspondence between verbal and numeric scales is strong
within a country or groupings of similar countries. Within
households, subjective assessments of relative income are
roughly consistent but measurement error is correlated with
individual characteristics (gender and age of respondents),
which could cause systematic biases in the analysis. |
---|