没有钱就没有问题?2010-2020年欧洲经济自由与主观幸福感

IF 3.1 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Pål E. Martinussen, Geir H. Hilland
{"title":"没有钱就没有问题?2010-2020年欧洲经济自由与主观幸福感","authors":"Pål E. Martinussen, Geir H. Hilland","doi":"10.1007/s10902-025-00877-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>It is widely held that economic freedom is fundamental for a society’s prosperity and growth, and neoliberalism has now become the dominant ideology in shaping our world. While a large literature on economic freedom has documented mainly favourable impacts on economic outcomes, only a handful of studies have examined the link between economic freedom and life quality. Building on the most recent data available on European countries, we combined the Index of Economic Freedom from the Frasier Institute with data from the World Bank, Varieties of Democracy and the European Social Survey in the period 2010–2020, allowing for a multilevel analysis of a total of nearly 199,000 respondents from 28 countries. At the individual level, the analysis controlled for the respondents’ demographic background, socio-economic status and social trust. At the country level we controlled for levels of democracy through a composite index. The results for the aggregate models indicate that there is a reversed U-shaped curvilinear association between economic freedom and happiness. However, the results of the disaggregate models, where we tested the associations between each of the individual components of economic freedom and happiness, indicate a reversed U-shape for only one of the five components, sound money. The one-sided focus on minimal government in the research and discourse on economic freedom seems mis-specified. By treating economic freedom as a general composite measure, we run the risk of dramatically over-simplifying the processes at play. Recent developments in multilevel methods and improved access to data should inspire further studies of how economic freedom can serve and benefit citizens’ well-being and thus contribute to well-functioning societies.</p>","PeriodicalId":15837,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Happiness Studies","volume":"99 37 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Mo Money Mo Problems? Economic Freedom and Subjective Happiness in Europe, 2010–2020\",\"authors\":\"Pål E. Martinussen, Geir H. Hilland\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10902-025-00877-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>It is widely held that economic freedom is fundamental for a society’s prosperity and growth, and neoliberalism has now become the dominant ideology in shaping our world. While a large literature on economic freedom has documented mainly favourable impacts on economic outcomes, only a handful of studies have examined the link between economic freedom and life quality. Building on the most recent data available on European countries, we combined the Index of Economic Freedom from the Frasier Institute with data from the World Bank, Varieties of Democracy and the European Social Survey in the period 2010–2020, allowing for a multilevel analysis of a total of nearly 199,000 respondents from 28 countries. At the individual level, the analysis controlled for the respondents’ demographic background, socio-economic status and social trust. At the country level we controlled for levels of democracy through a composite index. The results for the aggregate models indicate that there is a reversed U-shaped curvilinear association between economic freedom and happiness. However, the results of the disaggregate models, where we tested the associations between each of the individual components of economic freedom and happiness, indicate a reversed U-shape for only one of the five components, sound money. The one-sided focus on minimal government in the research and discourse on economic freedom seems mis-specified. By treating economic freedom as a general composite measure, we run the risk of dramatically over-simplifying the processes at play. Recent developments in multilevel methods and improved access to data should inspire further studies of how economic freedom can serve and benefit citizens’ well-being and thus contribute to well-functioning societies.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15837,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Happiness Studies\",\"volume\":\"99 37 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Happiness Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-025-00877-5\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Happiness Studies","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-025-00877-5","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

人们普遍认为,经济自由是社会繁荣和增长的基础,新自由主义现在已经成为塑造我们世界的主导意识形态。虽然大量关于经济自由的文献主要记录了对经济结果的有利影响,但只有少数研究调查了经济自由与生活质量之间的联系。在欧洲国家最新数据的基础上,我们将弗雷泽研究所的经济自由指数与世界银行、民主多样性和欧洲社会调查2010-2020年期间的数据结合起来,对来自28个国家的近19.9万名受访者进行了多层次分析。在个人层面,分析控制了受访者的人口背景、社会经济地位和社会信任。在国家层面上,我们通过一个综合指数来控制民主水平。综合模型的结果表明,经济自由与幸福感呈倒u型曲线关系。然而,在分解模型中,我们测试了经济自由和幸福的每个单独组成部分之间的联系,结果表明,在五个组成部分中,只有一个组成部分是反向u型的,即健全的货币。在经济自由的研究和论述中,片面地关注最小政府似乎是错误的。如果把经济自由当作一种综合衡量标准,我们就有可能过度简化其中的过程。多层次方法的最新发展和数据获取途径的改善,应激发人们进一步研究经济自由如何能够为公民的福祉服务和造福,从而促进社会运转良好。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Mo Money Mo Problems? Economic Freedom and Subjective Happiness in Europe, 2010–2020

It is widely held that economic freedom is fundamental for a society’s prosperity and growth, and neoliberalism has now become the dominant ideology in shaping our world. While a large literature on economic freedom has documented mainly favourable impacts on economic outcomes, only a handful of studies have examined the link between economic freedom and life quality. Building on the most recent data available on European countries, we combined the Index of Economic Freedom from the Frasier Institute with data from the World Bank, Varieties of Democracy and the European Social Survey in the period 2010–2020, allowing for a multilevel analysis of a total of nearly 199,000 respondents from 28 countries. At the individual level, the analysis controlled for the respondents’ demographic background, socio-economic status and social trust. At the country level we controlled for levels of democracy through a composite index. The results for the aggregate models indicate that there is a reversed U-shaped curvilinear association between economic freedom and happiness. However, the results of the disaggregate models, where we tested the associations between each of the individual components of economic freedom and happiness, indicate a reversed U-shape for only one of the five components, sound money. The one-sided focus on minimal government in the research and discourse on economic freedom seems mis-specified. By treating economic freedom as a general composite measure, we run the risk of dramatically over-simplifying the processes at play. Recent developments in multilevel methods and improved access to data should inspire further studies of how economic freedom can serve and benefit citizens’ well-being and thus contribute to well-functioning societies.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.60
自引率
6.50%
发文量
110
期刊介绍: The international peer-reviewed Journal of Happiness Studies is devoted to theoretical and applied advancements in all areas of well-being research. It covers topics referring to both the hedonic and eudaimonic perspectives characterizing well-being studies. The former includes the investigation of cognitive dimensions such as satisfaction with life, and positive affect and emotions. The latter includes the study of constructs and processes related to optimal psychological functioning, such as meaning and purpose in life, character strengths, personal growth, resilience, optimism, hope, and self-determination. In addition to contributions on appraisal of life-as-a-whole, the journal accepts papers investigating these topics in relation to specific domains, such as family, education, physical and mental health, and work. The journal welcomes high-quality theoretical and empirical submissions in the fields of economics, psychology and sociology, as well as contributions from researchers in the domains of education, medicine, philosophy and other related fields. The Journal of Happiness Studies provides a forum for three main areas in happiness research: 1) theoretical conceptualizations of well-being, happiness and the good life; 2) empirical investigation of well-being and happiness in different populations, contexts and cultures; 3) methodological advancements and development of new assessment instruments. The journal addresses the conceptualization, operationalization and measurement of happiness and well-being dimensions, as well as the individual, socio-economic and cultural factors that may interact with them as determinants or outcomes. Central Questions include, but are not limited to: Conceptualization: What meanings are denoted by terms like happiness and well-being? How do these fit in with broader conceptions of the good life? Operationalization and Measurement: Which methods can be used to assess how people feel about life? How to operationalize a new construct or an understudied dimension in the well-being domain? What are the best measures for investigating specific well-being related constructs and dimensions? Prevalence and causality Do individuals belonging to different populations and cultures vary in their well-being ratings? How does individual well-being relate to social and economic phenomena (characteristics, circumstances, behavior, events, and policies)? What are the personal, social and economic determinants and causes of individual well-being dimensions? Evaluation: What are the consequences of well-being for individual development and socio-economic progress? Are individual happiness and well-being worthwhile goals for governments and policy makers? Does well-being represent a useful parameter to orient planning in physical and mental healthcare, and in public health? Interdisciplinary studies: How has the study of happiness developed within and across disciplines? Can we link philosophical thought and empirical research? What are the biological correlates of well-being dimensions?
×
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