IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/jecgeo/v17y2017i4p857-891..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The regional heterogeneity of wellbeing ‘expenditure’ preferences: evidence from a simulated allocation choice on the BES indicators§

Author

Listed:
  • Leonardo Becchetti
  • Luisa Corrado
  • Maurizio Fiaschetti

Abstract

With an online survey on major Italian newspapers we ask respondents to simulate the typical policymaker decision, that is, the dilemma of allocating scarce financial resources among alternative competing goals using the domains of the newly defined Italian BES (sustainable and equitable wellbeing) indicators. Our main finding is that homogeneity of choices is rejected since preferred allocations are strongly affected by socio-demographic factors and mainly by political orientation, age, education and gender. An important related result is that education and political orientation significantly affect preferences toward sustainable development. We as well find that respondents’ expenditure preferences on a given BES domain are mainly affected by the relative scarcity/abundance of wellbeing on that given domain at the regional level.

Suggested Citation

  • Leonardo Becchetti & Luisa Corrado & Maurizio Fiaschetti, 2017. "The regional heterogeneity of wellbeing ‘expenditure’ preferences: evidence from a simulated allocation choice on the BES indicators§," Journal of Economic Geography, Oxford University Press, vol. 17(4), pages 857-891.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:jecgeo:v:17:y:2017:i:4:p:857-891.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/jeg/lbw042
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Leonardo Becchetti & Massimo Cermelli, 2018. "Civil economy: definition and strategies for sustainable well-living," International Review of Economics, Springer;Happiness Economics and Interpersonal Relations (HEIRS), vol. 65(3), pages 329-357, September.
    2. Leonardo Becchetti & Maristella Cacciapaglia & Piergiuseppe Morone & Luca Raffaele & Lorenzo Semplici, 2021. "Multi-Stakeholder Impact Environmental Indexes: The Case of NeXt," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-20, November.
    3. Luisa Corrado & Giuseppe De Michele, 2019. "Are governments matching citizens’ demand for better lives? A new approach comparing subjective and objective welfare measures," Working Papers 39, European Stability Mechanism.
    4. Rui Xue & Adrian Gepp & Terry J. O'Neill & Steven Stern & Bruce J. Vanstone, 2020. "Financial well‐being amongst elderly Australians: the role of consumption patterns and financial literacy," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 60(4), pages 4361-4386, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Regional wellbeing indicators; political preferences; wellbeing preferences;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • H5 - Public Economics - - National Government Expenditures and Related Policies
    • I0 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - General
    • R10 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General Regional Economics - - - General

    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:oup:jecgeo:v:17:y:2017:i:4:p:857-891.. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/joeg .

    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.