IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/oec/stdaaa/2016-9-en.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A Review of General Social Surveys

Author

Listed:
  • Lara Fleischer

    (OECD)

  • Conal Smith

    (OECD)

  • Carine Viac

    (OECD)

Abstract

Societal progress is about improvements in the well-being of people and households. Assessing such progress requires looking at the diverse and multidimensional experiences and living conditions of people. Measuring well-being and progress is a key priority that the OECD is pursuing through its Better Life Initiative and the How’s Life report series that has been published bi-annually since 2011. In addition, the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) have created a strong need for better data on multi-dimensional outcomes. However, no statistical framework exists linking conceptual frameworks of well-being with specific measurement instruments and outputs, and a lack of harmonised data suitable for international comparisons remains a key limitation to monitoring progress across countries. This review makes a first step towards developing a system of well-being statistics. A data source that has been underutilised in assessing the multidimensionality of human well-being and the joint distribution of outcomes are General Social Surveys, which are run by the majority of national statistical agencies as part of their regular survey programme. Using the OECD well-being framework, this review systematically considers the outcome domains of How’s Life?, taking stock of how each domain is being measured through General Social Surveys conducted in OECD countries and could be drawn upon in comparative analyses of well-being such as How’s Life?. The paper highlights inconsistencies between General Social Surveys across countries, and makes recommendations towards harmonization. Le progrès des sociétés passe par une amélioration du bien-être des individus et des ménages. Pour évaluer ces progrès, il convient d’examiner le vécu et les conditions de vie des personnes, dans toute leur diversité et leur multi-dimensionnalité. Mesurer le bien-être et le progrès des sociétés est l’un des principaux objectifs visé par l’OCDE dans le cadre de l’Initiative du vivre mieux et de la série de rapports « Comment va la vie ? », publiés tous les deux ans depuis 2011. En outre, les objectifs de développement durable des Nations Unies créent un fort besoin d’indicateurs plus précis sur des problématiques pluridimensionnelles. Cependant, à l’heure actuelle, il n’existe pas de cadre statistique faisant le lien entre les cadres conceptuels relatifs au bien-être, les instruments de mesure spécifiques et les résultats. En outre, le manque de données harmonisées comparables au niveau international est un frein majeur au suivi des progrès d’un pays à l’autre. Cette étude ouvre la voie à un système de statistiques du bien-être. Les enquêtes sociales générales, conduites par la majorité des offices statistiques nationaux dans le cadre de leurs programmes d’enquêtes périodiques, constituent une source de données utiles à l’évaluation du caractère multidimensionnel du bien-être et de la distribution conjointe des résultats observés dans ce domaine, source qui a été sous-utilisée jusqu’à présent. En s’appuyant sur le cadre d’évaluation du bien-être de l’OCDE, cette étude examine de manière systématique les différents domaines couverts par le rapport « Comment va la vie ? », en faisant le point sur les méthodes d’évaluation appliquées pour chacun de ces domaines dans les enquêtes sociales générales menées dans les pays de l’OCDE et sur la façon dont elles pourraient être mises à profit dans des analyses comparables du bien-être, comme celle de « Comment va la vie ? ». Ce rapport met en évidence les incohérences entre les enquêtes sociales générales menées dans les différents pays, et formule des recommandations en vue d’une meilleure harmonisation.

Suggested Citation

  • Lara Fleischer & Conal Smith & Carine Viac, 2016. "A Review of General Social Surveys," OECD Statistics Working Papers 2016/9, OECD Publishing.
  • Handle: RePEc:oec:stdaaa:2016/9-en
    DOI: 10.1787/bb54d16f-en
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1787/bb54d16f-en
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1787/bb54d16f-en?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
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Guy Stecklov & Alexander Weinreb & Calogero Carletto, 2018. "Can incentives improve survey data quality in developing countries?: results from a field experiment in India," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 181(4), pages 1033-1056, October.
    2. Castillo, Jose Gabriel & Hernandez, Manuel A., 2023. "The unintended consequences of confinement: Evidence from the rural area in Guatemala," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    methodology for collecting and organising microeconomic data; quality of life; well-being;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • I30 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty - - - General
    • I31 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty - - - General Welfare, Well-Being
    • C81 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs - - - Methodology for Collecting, Estimating, and Organizing Microeconomic Data; Data Access

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:oec:stdaaa:2016/9-en. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/stoecfr.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.