IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ifs/fistud/v34y2013ip315-332.html

What If We Voted on the Weights of a Multidimensional Well‐Being Index? An Illustration with Flemish Data

Author

Listed:
  • Koen Decancq
  • Luc Van Ootegem
  • Elsy Verhofstadt

Abstract

There is a widespread consensus that well-being is a multidimensional notion. To quantify multidimensional well-being, information on the relative weights of the different dimensions is essential. There is, however, considerable disagreement in the literature on the most appropriate weighting scheme to be used. Making use of a recent data set for Flanders, we compare various methods to select a weighting scheme. The results are indeed different such that, for instance, a policymaker would identify different groups of individuals as being worst-off depending on the scheme that is chosen. In order to compare and evaluate the weighting schemes, we simulate the support each scheme would get in a hypothetical voting procedure. Weighting schemes that obtain a higher support reflect better the priorities of the respondents themselves and suffer less from the problem of paternalism. Quite remarkably, the popular equal weighting scheme is found to be the least supported in our data set.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:ifs:fistud:v:34:y:2013:i::p:315-332
    DOI: j.1475-5890.2013.12008.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/j.1475-5890.2013.12008.x
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/j.1475-5890.2013.12008.x?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or

    for a different version of it.

    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. Rolf Aaberge & Andrea Brandolini, 2014. "Multidimensional poverty and inequality," Discussion Papers 792, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    2. Greco, Salvatore & Ishizaka, Alessio & Tasiou, Menelaos & Torrisi, Gianpiero, 2019. "Sigma-Mu efficiency analysis: A methodology for evaluating units through composite indicators," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 278(3), pages 942-960.
    3. Lucio Esposito & Enrica Chiappero‐Martinetti, 2019. "Eliciting, Applying And Exploring Multidimensional Welfare Weights: Evidence From The Field," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 65(S1), pages 204-227, November.
    4. Daniel J. Benjamin & Ori Heffetz & Miles S. Kimball & Nichole Szembrot, 2014. "Beyond Happiness and Satisfaction: Toward Well-Being Indices Based on Stated Preference," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 104(9), pages 2698-2735, September.
    5. Philipp Poppitz, 2017. "Can subjective data improve inequality measurement? A multidimensional index of economic inequality," Working Papers 446, ECINEQ, Society for the Study of Economic Inequality.
    6. Kateryna Tkach & Chiara Gigliarano, 2022. "Multidimensional Poverty Index with Dependence-Based Weights," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 161(2), pages 843-872, June.
    7. Datt,Gaurav, 2017. "Multidimensional poverty in the Philippines, 2004-13 : do choices for weighting, identification and aggregation matter ?," Policy Research Working Paper Series 8099, The World Bank.
    8. Giuseppe Coco & Raffaele Lagravinese & Giuliano Resce, 2020. "Beyond the weights: a multicriteria approach to evaluate inequality in education," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 18(4), pages 469-489, December.
    9. Greco, Salvatore & Ishizaka, Alessio & Tasiou, Menelaos & Torrisi, Gianpiero, 2018. "σ-µ efficiency analysis: A new methodology for evaluating units through composite indices," MPRA Paper 83569, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. 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.
    11. Gaurav Datt, 2019. "Multidimensional poverty in the Philippines, 2004–2013: How much do choices for weighting, identification and aggregation matter?," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 57(4), pages 1103-1128, October.
    12. Andreas Peichl & Nico Pestel, 2013. "Multidimensional Well‐Being at the Top: Evidence for Germany," Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, vol. 34, pages 355-371, September.
    13. Philipp Poppitz, 2016. "Does self-perceptions and income inequality match?," IMK Working Paper 173-2016, IMK at the Hans Boeckler Foundation, Macroeconomic Policy Institute.
    14. Haya Al-Ajlani & Luc Ootegem & Elsy Verhofstadt, 2020. "Does Well-Being Vary with an Individual-Specific Weighting Scheme?," Applied Research in Quality of Life, Springer;International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies, vol. 15(5), pages 1285-1302, November.
    15. 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.
    16. Koen Decancq, 2017. "Measuring Multidimensional Inequality in the OECD Member Countries with a Distribution-Sensitive Better Life Index," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 131(3), pages 1057-1086, April.
    17. 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.
    18. Aleksandar Stanojević & Jože Benčina, 2019. "The Construction of an Integrated and Transparent Index of Wellbeing," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 143(3), pages 995-1015, 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. Arnaud Joskin, 2017. "Working Paper 04-17 - Qu’est-ce qui compte pour les Belges ? Analyse des déterminants du bien-être individuel en Belgique [Working Paper 04-17 - Wat telt voor de Belgen? Analyse van de determinante," Working Papers 1704, Federal Planning Bureau, Belgium.
    21. Dongare, Ashish, 2023. "Multidimensional tool for assessment of social protection framework - a life cycle approach: conceptualisation, construction and comparison," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 120019, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    22. Salvatore Greco & Alessio Ishizaka & Menelaos Tasiou & Gianpiero Torrisi, 2019. "On the Methodological Framework of Composite Indices: A Review of the Issues of Weighting, Aggregation, and Robustness," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 141(1), pages 61-94, January.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • I31 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty - - - General Welfare, Well-Being
    • C43 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods: Special Topics - - - Index Numbers and Aggregation
    • O1 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development

    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:ifs:fistud:v:34:y:2013:i::p:315-332. 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: Emma Hyman (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ifsssuk.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.