Measuring social wellbeing

R. Carr-Hill
{"title":"Measuring social wellbeing","authors":"R. Carr-Hill","doi":"10.1332/POLICYPRESS/9781447348214.003.0021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This chapter reviews and critiques the various approaches to measuring social well-being. Economists have tried to argue for a single consistent criterion (based on money) but have mostly been ignored. Instead, there have been three main approaches: first, the postulate that there is a minimum set of basic needs, which should be satisfied for everyone; second the investigation into people's quality of life, whether ‘objectively’ measured or self-reported; and third the eclectic compilation of administrative and survey data according to a list of 'concerns'. There are theoretical and practical problems with the first two approaches. For the third approach, the measurement of social well-being should reflect the variety of ways in which people order their lives. Of course, there are some overbearing constraints, such as the threat of poverty or war; but, within those constraints, there are a multitude of modes of living so that the definition and specification of the elements of well-being should accordingly vary. We introduce two distinctive characteristics: first, beyond certain minima, it is not always clear how 'more' consumption adds to welfare; second, we emphasise the monitoring collective well-being both in terms of inequality and human rights and in terms of reducing ecological damage.","PeriodicalId":103233,"journal":{"name":"Data in Society","volume":"26 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Data in Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1332/POLICYPRESS/9781447348214.003.0021","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This chapter reviews and critiques the various approaches to measuring social well-being. Economists have tried to argue for a single consistent criterion (based on money) but have mostly been ignored. Instead, there have been three main approaches: first, the postulate that there is a minimum set of basic needs, which should be satisfied for everyone; second the investigation into people's quality of life, whether ‘objectively’ measured or self-reported; and third the eclectic compilation of administrative and survey data according to a list of 'concerns'. There are theoretical and practical problems with the first two approaches. For the third approach, the measurement of social well-being should reflect the variety of ways in which people order their lives. Of course, there are some overbearing constraints, such as the threat of poverty or war; but, within those constraints, there are a multitude of modes of living so that the definition and specification of the elements of well-being should accordingly vary. We introduce two distinctive characteristics: first, beyond certain minima, it is not always clear how 'more' consumption adds to welfare; second, we emphasise the monitoring collective well-being both in terms of inequality and human rights and in terms of reducing ecological damage.
衡量社会幸福感
本章回顾并批判了衡量社会福利的各种方法。经济学家们曾试图主张一个统一的标准(以货币为基础),但大多被忽视了。相反,有三种主要方法:第一,假设存在一套最低基本需求,每个人都应该得到满足;其次是对人们生活质量的调查,无论是“客观”测量还是自我报告;第三,根据“关注事项”清单,对行政和调查数据进行折衷的汇编。前两种方法存在理论和实践问题。对于第三种方法,社会福利的衡量应该反映人们安排生活的各种方式。当然,也有一些压倒一切的制约因素,比如贫困或战争的威胁;但是,在这些限制条件下,有许多生活方式,因此,幸福要素的定义和规格应该相应变化。我们引入了两个独特的特征:首先,超过一定的最小值,“更多”的消费如何增加福利并不总是清楚的;第二,我们强调在不平等和人权以及减少生态破坏方面监测集体福祉。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信