IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

What is Important for Well-Being?


  • Haya Al-Ajlani

    (Department of Economics, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University)

  • Luc Van Ootegem

    (Department of Economics, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University
    Research Institute for Work and Society (HIVA), KULeuven)

  • Elsy Verhofstadt

    (Department of Economics, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University)


This paper examines the importance of five dimensions (health, income, education, family life, and social life) to the well-being of the Flemish society. The importance of these dimensions is determined by the opinions of the sampled individuals. Using point allocation and direct rating to derive these opinions, we aim to determine which dimensions are considered most important to well-being and the individual heterogeneities that drive this importance. We also aim to study the relationship between the outcome on a dimension (i.e. the self-reported existing situation) and its importance. Summary statistics show that, on average, health and family life are the two most crucial aspects of well-being. Results of linear regressions reveal that older individuals regard health, education, and social life to be crucial. Individuals who have a high trust in people and/or are highly educated regard income as a less crucial dimension. Our results also show that contrary to social life, family life matters more to respondents who have kids and/or a partner. Education, social and family life outcomes demonstrate a weak, positive correlation with their respective importance. Our findings imply that enhancing health, supporting family life, and promoting a vibrant social life for the elderly help increase well-being in Flanders.

Suggested Citation

  • Haya Al-Ajlani & Luc Van Ootegem & Elsy Verhofstadt, 2019. "What is Important for Well-Being?," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 143(3), pages 955-972, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:soinre:v:143:y:2019:i:3:d:10.1007_s11205-018-2003-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s11205-018-2003-3

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL:
    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 search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Arthur Lewbel, 2012. "Using Heteroscedasticity to Identify and Estimate Mismeasured and Endogenous Regressor Models," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(1), pages 67-80.
    2. 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.
    3. Clark, Andrew E & Oswald, Andrew J, 1994. "Unhappiness and Unemployment," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 104(424), pages 648-659, May.
    4. Jan-Emmanuel De Neve & Ed Diener & Louis Tay & Cody Xuereb, 2013. "The Objective Benefits of Subjective Well-Being," CEP Discussion Papers dp1236, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    5. Martin Ravallion, 2011. "On multidimensional indices of poverty," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 9(2), pages 235-248, June.
    6. Jeffrey D. Sachs & Richard Layard & John F. Helliwell, 2018. "World Happiness Report 2018," Working Papers id:12761, eSocialSciences.
    7. Jason T. Newsom & Karen S. Rook & Masami Nishishiba & Dara H. Sorkin & Tyrae L. Mahan, 2005. "Understanding the Relative Importance of Positive and Negative Social Exchanges: Examining Specific Domains and Appraisals," The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, The Gerontological Society of America, vol. 60(6), pages 304-312.
    8. Bottomley, Paul A. & Doyle, John R., 2013. "Comparing the validity of numerical judgements elicited by direct rating and point allocation: Insights from objectively verifiable perceptual tasks," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 228(1), pages 148-157.
    9. Daniel Kahneman & Alan B. Krueger, 2006. "Developments in the Measurement of Subjective Well-Being," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 20(1), pages 3-24, Winter.
    10. Doyle, John R. & Green, Rodney H. & Bottomley, Paul A., 1997. "Judging Relative Importance: Direct Rating and Point Allocation Are Not Equivalent," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 70(1), pages 65-72, April.
    11. Dupont, William D. & Plummer Jr., W. Dale, 2003. "Density Distribution Sunflower Plots," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 8(i03).
    12. Helliwell, John & Layard, Richard & Sachs, Jeffrey, 2012. "World happiness report," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 47487, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    13. Ferrer-i-Carbonell, Ada, 2005. "Income and well-being: an empirical analysis of the comparison income effect," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(5-6), pages 997-1019, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. 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.
    2. Andrew E. Clark, 2018. "Four Decades of the Economics of Happiness: Where Next?," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 64(2), pages 245-269, June.
    3. Bhuiyan, Muhammad Faress & Ivlevs, Artjoms, 2019. "Micro-entrepreneurship and subjective well-being: Evidence from rural Bangladesh," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 625-645.
    4. Bonsang, Eric & Klein, Tobias J., 2012. "Retirement and subjective well-being," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 83(3), pages 311-329.
    5. António Caleiro, 2011. "Desemprego e Felicidade em Portugal," Economics Working Papers 5_2011, University of Évora, Department of Economics (Portugal).
    6. Rubén Arrondo & Ana Cárcaba & Eduardo González, 2021. "Drivers of Subjective Well-being in Spain: Are There Gender Differences?," Applied Research in Quality of Life, Springer;International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies, vol. 16(5), pages 2131-2154, October.
    7. Chen, Le-Yu & Oparina, Ekaterina & Powdthavee, Nattavudh & Srisuma, Sorawoot, 2022. "Robust Ranking of Happiness Outcomes: A Median Regression Perspective," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 200(C), pages 672-686.
    8. Bookwalter, Jeffrey & Fitch-Fleischmann, Benjamin & Dalenberg, Douglas, 2011. "Understanding life-satisfaction changes in post-apartheid South Africa," MPRA Paper 34579, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Grimani, Katerina, 2014. "Labor earnings and Psychological well-being: An Empirical Analysis," MPRA Paper 57098, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Nicolai Suppa, 2021. "Walls of glass. Measuring deprivation in social participation," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 19(2), pages 385-411, June.
    11. Becchetti, Leonardo & Degli Antoni, Giacomo, 2010. "The sources of happiness: Evidence from the investment game," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 498-509, August.
    12. Sarracino, Francesco, 2013. "Determinants of subjective well-being in high and low income countries: Do happiness equations differ across countries?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 51-66.
    13. Lucía Gómez-Balcácer & Noelia Somarriba Arechavala & Patricia Gómez-Costilla, 2023. "The Importance of Different Forms of Social Capital for Happiness in Europe: A Multilevel Structural Equation Model (GSEM)," Applied Research in Quality of Life, Springer;International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies, vol. 18(1), pages 601-624, February.
    14. AMENDOLA, Adalgiso & DELL'ANNO, Roberto & PARISI, Lavinia, 2015. "Happiness, Inequality and Relative Concerns in European Countries," CELPE Discussion Papers 136, CELPE - CEnter for Labor and Political Economics, University of Salerno, Italy.
    15. Bahadır Dursun & Resul Cesur, 2016. "Transforming lives: the impact of compulsory schooling on hope and happiness," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 29(3), pages 911-956, July.
    16. Michela Ponzo, 2011. "Occupational Status and Individual Subjective Well-Being in Italy," QA - Rivista dell'Associazione Rossi-Doria, Associazione Rossi Doria, issue 3, September.
    17. O'Connor, Kelsey J. & Graham, Carol, 2019. "Longer, more optimistic, lives: Historic optimism and life expectancy in the United States," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 168(C), pages 374-392.
    18. Silvia Emili & Federica Galli, 2022. "Self-perceptions and perceptions of peers: their role in understanding expenditure behaviours," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 56(6), pages 4573-4597, December.
    19. Decancq, Koen & Neumann, Dirk, 2014. "Does the Choice of Well-Being Measure Matter Empirically? An Illustration with German Data," IZA Discussion Papers 8589, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    20. 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.


    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:spr:soinre:v:143:y:2019:i:3:d:10.1007_s11205-018-2003-3. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.