IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cor/louvrp/2374.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Preferences and subjective satisfaction measuring well-being on the job for policy evaluation

Author

Listed:
  • SCHOKKAERT, Erik
  • VAN OOTEGEM, Luc
  • VERHOFSTADT, Elsy

Abstract

Behavioural welfare economics has raised doubts about the use of revealed preferences as an indicator of 'true' individual well-being. Subjective satisfaction ('happiness') measures have become increasingly popular, as they seem to avoid paternalism while at the same time not being dependent on observed choice behaviour. We argue that there is a clash between using subjective satisfaction and respecting preferences, because the former also depends on aspirations. We propose the equivalent income indicator as an alternative cardinalization of the utility function. It does respect preferences but does not depend on aspirations. We apply our general ideas to one specific policy domain: monitoring job quality as individual well-being on the job. Our empirical results about the quality of jobs for school-leavers in Flanders show that the choice of a specific indicator of well-being is highly relevant from a policy point of view. The most popular measures that are in use now (the paternalist equal weights-indicator and subjective job satisfaction) may be misleading if they are not complemented by information about the other indicators. (JEL codes: J28, D63, D71) Copyright The Author 2011. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Ifo Institute for Economic Research, Munich. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com, Oxford University Press.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • SCHOKKAERT, Erik & VAN OOTEGEM, Luc & VERHOFSTADT, Elsy, 2011. "Preferences and subjective satisfaction measuring well-being on the job for policy evaluation," LIDAM Reprints CORE 2374, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    • Handle: RePEc:cor:louvrp:2374
    DOI: 10.1093/cesifo/ifr018
    Note: In : CESifo Economic Studies, 57(4), 683-714, 2011
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/cesifo/ifr018
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1093/cesifo/ifr018?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Olivier Bargain, 2017. "Welfare analysis and redistributive policies," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 15(4), pages 393-419, December.
    2. Bart Defloor & Elsy Verhofstadt & Luc Van Ootegem, 2017. "The Influence of Preference Information on Equivalent Income," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 131(2), pages 489-507, March.
    3. Marko Ledic & Ivica Rubil, 2020. "Does going beyond income make a difference? Income vs. equivalent income in the EU over 2007-2011," Public Sector Economics, Institute of Public Finance, vol. 44(4), pages 423-462.
    4. Dat Vu Hoang & Laure Pasquier-Doumer, 2016. "Weighting deprivations using subjective well-being: An application to the Multidimensional Child Poverty Index in Vietnam," Working Papers DT/2016/01, DIAL (Développement, Institutions et Mondialisation).
    5. Koen Decancq & Dirk Neumann, 2014. "Does the Choice of Well-Being Measure Matter Empirically?: An Illustration with German Data," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 717, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).
    6. Poppitz, Philipp, 2017. "Can subjective data improve inequality measurement? A multidimensional index of economic inequality," VfS Annual Conference 2017 (Vienna): Alternative Structures for Money and Banking 168252, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    7. O'Donnell, Gus & Oswald, Andrew J., 2015. "National well-being policy and a weighted approach to human feelings," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 59-70.
    8. Morawski Leszek & Domitrz Adrian, 2017. "Subjective Approach to Assessing Poverty in Poland – Implications for Social Policy," Statistics in Transition New Series, Polish Statistical Association, vol. 18(3), pages 501-520, September.
    9. Xavier Jara Tamayo, Holguer & Schokkaert, Erik, 2016. "Putting subjective well-being to use for ex-ante policy evaluation," EUROMOD Working Papers EM9/16, EUROMOD at the Institute for Social and Economic Research.
    10. DECANCQ, Koen & FLEURBAEY, Marc & SCHOKKAERT, Erik, 2014. "Inequality, income, and well-being," LIDAM Discussion Papers CORE 2014018, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    11. Elena Stefana & Filippo Marciano & Diana Rossi & Paola Cocca & Giuseppe Tomasoni, 2021. "Composite Indicators to Measure Quality of Working Life in Europe: A Systematic Review," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 157(3), pages 1047-1078, October.
    12. Marko Ledić & Ivica Rubil, 2021. "Beyond Wage Gap, Towards Job Quality Gap: The Role of Inter-Group Differences in Wages, Non-Wage Job Dimensions, and Preferences," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 155(2), pages 523-561, June.
    13. Koen Decancq & Luc Van Ootegem & Elsy Verhofstadt, 2013. "What If We Voted on the Weights of a Multidimensional Well‐Being Index? An Illustration with Flemish Data," Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, vol. 34, pages 315-332, September.
    14. Werner Bönte & Stefan Krabel, 2014. "You can't always get what you want: gender differences in job satisfaction of university graduates," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 46(21), pages 2477-2487, July.
    15. Leszek Morawski & Adrian Domitrz, 2017. "Subjective Approach To Assessing Poverty In Poland – Implications For Social Policy," Statistics in Transition New Series, Polish Statistical Association, vol. 18(3), pages 501-520, September.
    16. Andres Felipe Hoyos Martin, 2015. "Measuring and Comparing Well-Being in South American Countries Using Equivalent Incomes," Icesi Economics Working Papers 14570, Universidad Icesi.
    17. H. Xavier Jara & Erik Schokkaert, 2017. "Putting measures of individual well-being to use for ex-ante policy evaluation," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 15(4), pages 421-440, December.
    18. Alpaslan Akay & Olivier Bargain & H. Xavier Jara, 2020. "‘Fair’ welfare comparisons with heterogeneous tastes: subjective versus revealed preferences," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 55(1), pages 51-84, June.
    19. Koen Decancq & Erik Schokkaert, 2016. "Beyond GDP: Using Equivalent Incomes to Measure Well-Being in Europe," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 126(1), pages 21-55, March.
    20. García-Pérez, Carmelo & Prieto-Alaiz, Mercedes & Simón, Hipólito, 2020. "Multidimensional measurement of precarious employment using hedonic weights: Evidence from Spain," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 348-359.
    21. Philipp Poppitz, 2019. "Can Subjective Data Improve the Measurement of Inequality? A Multidimensional Index of Economic Inequality," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 146(3), pages 511-531, December.
    22. Vincenzo Marinello & Guglielmo L.M. Dinicol� & Chiara Di Puma, 2021. "Social indicators to measure the well-being of the population. Benchmarking countries," RIEDS - Rivista Italiana di Economia, Demografia e Statistica - The Italian Journal of Economic, Demographic and Statistical Studies, SIEDS Societa' Italiana di Economia Demografia e Statistica, vol. 75(1), pages 53-64, January-M.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • J28 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demand and Supply of Labor - - - Safety; Job Satisfaction; Related Public Policy
    • D63 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement
    • D71 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Social Choice; Clubs; Committees; Associations

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cor:louvrp:2374. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Alain GILLIS (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/coreebe.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.