IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/diw/diwsop/diw_sp1044.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Leben in Schleswig-Holstein: subjektive Einschätzungen als Teil der Wohlfahrtsmessung

Author

Listed:
  • Benjamin Held

Abstract

In recent years, the debate about alternative measures of welfare (“beyond GDP”) has con-siderably gained momentum in Germany. This was the case not only on the national level: The demand for such measures has risen on the federal states level, too. For that reason, and in the context of a study whose main purpose was to calculate the Regional Welfare Index (RWI) for Schleswig-Holstein (SH), we also analyzed survey data from the Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP) for SH and – in order the compare and classify the results – for the rest of Germany. The observation period ranges from 1984 to 2014 (SOEP v31). The research topics include satisfaction (life in general/specific areas; current/anticipated), concerns, im-portance, interest for politics and feelings. The evaluation shows among other findings that… – overall life satisfaction in SH has increased significantly in recent years, – the people in SH are on average a little more satisfied than in the rest of Germany, – the trust in the future in SH reached in 2014 its highest level, – people in SH are less concerned about economic issues, but more concerned about "peacekeeping", "health" and "environmental protection", – social aspects are particularly important to people in SH, – the importance of social engagement in 2014 is as highly valued in SH as never be-fore, – people in SH were happier in 2014 than in the medium-term average. At the end of this contribution, the trends of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the Region-al Welfare Index (RWI) and the current general life satisfaction are compared. They differ significantly from each other Die Debatte um (andere) Indikatoren zur Messung gesellschaftlicher Wohlfahrt und eines „guten Lebens“ hat in den vergangenen Jahren deutlich an Fahrt aufgenommen. Und das nicht nur auf Bundesebene. Auch auf der Ebene der Bundesländer wächst die Nachfrage nach solchen Indikatoren. Im Rahmen einer Studie zur Berechnung des Regionalen Wohlfahrtsindex (RWI) wurden deswegen auch subjektive Befragungsdaten des Sozio-Ökonomischen Panels (SOEP) für das Bundesland Schleswig-Holstein (SH) ausgewertet.1 Neben SH-spezifischen Auswertungen wurden zur Einordnung der Ergebnisse auch bundesdeutsche Werte (exkl. SH) berechnet. Betrachtet werden für den Zeitraum 1984-2014 (SOEP v31) die Bereiche Zufriedenheit (allgemein/Bereiche), Sorgen, Wichtigkeit, Interesse für Politik und Gefühle.Die Auswertungen ergeben unter anderem, dass…– die allgemeine Lebenszufriedenheit in SH in den letzten Jahren deutlich gestiegen ist;– die Menschen in SH im Durchschnitt etwas zufriedener sind als im Rest Deutschlands;– die Zukunftszuversicht in SH im Jahr 2014 Höchstwerte erreichte;– die Menschen in SH sich weniger Sorgen um wirtschaftliche Themen, dafür mehr Sorgen um „Friedenserhaltung“, „Gesundheit“ und „Umweltschutz“ machen;– den Menschen in SH soziale Aspekte besonders wichtig sind;– die Wichtigkeit von gesellschaftlichem Engagement im Jahr 2014 in SH so hoch eingeschätzt wurde wie nie;– die Menschen in SH im Jahr 2014 häufiger glücklich waren als im mittelfristigen Durchschnitt.Schließlich werden die Entwicklungen des Bruttoinlandsprodukts (BIP), des Regionalen Wohlfahrtsindex (RWI) und der allgemeinen Lebenszufriedenheit in SH für den Zeitraum 1999-2014 miteinander verglichen. Bei diesem Vergleich zeigen sich deutliche Unterschiede.

Suggested Citation

  • Benjamin Held, 2019. "Leben in Schleswig-Holstein: subjektive Einschätzungen als Teil der Wohlfahrtsmessung," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 1044, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).
  • Handle: RePEc:diw:diwsop:diw_sp1044
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.diw.de/documents/publikationen/73/diw_01.c.678978.de/diw_sp1044.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Goebel Jan & Grabka Markus M. & Liebig Stefan & Kroh Martin & Richter David & Schröder Carsten & Schupp Jürgen, 2019. "The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP)," Journal of Economics and Statistics (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik), De Gruyter, vol. 239(2), pages 345-360, April.
    2. Wim Kalmijn & Ruut Veenhoven, 2005. "Measuring Inequality of Happiness in Nations: In Search for Proper Statistics," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 6(4), pages 357-396, December.
    3. Maximilian Priem & Jürgen Schupp, 2014. "Alle zufrieden: Lebensverhältnisse in Deutschland," DIW Wochenbericht, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, vol. 81(40), pages 1001-1008.
    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. Benjamin Held & Hans Diefenbacher & Dorothee Rodenhäuser, 2016. "Leben in Nordrhein-Westfalen: subjektive Einschätzungen als Teil der Wohlfahrtsmessung," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 847, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).
    2. Aksoy, Cevat Giray & Poutvaara, Panu & Schikora, Felicitas, 2020. "First Time around: Local Conditions and Multi-Dimensional Integration of Refugees," IZA Discussion Papers 13914, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    3. Nils Lerch, 2018. "The Causal Analysis of the Development of the Unemployment Effect on Life Satisfaction," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 991, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).
    4. Goerke, Laszlo & Pannenberg, Markus, 2021. "Wage Determination in the Shadow of the Law: The Case of Works Councilors in Germany," GLO Discussion Paper Series 789, Global Labor Organization (GLO).
    5. Pan Zhang & Zhiguo Wang, 2019. "PM 2.5 Concentrations and Subjective Well-Being: Longitudinal Evidence from Aggregated Panel Data from Chinese Provinces," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(7), pages 1-13, March.
    6. Geis-Thöne, Wido, 2020. "Häusliches Umfeld in der Krise: Ein Teil der Kinder braucht mehr Unterstützung. Ergebnisse einer Auswertung des Sozio-oekonomischen Panels (SOEP)," IW-Reports 15/2020, Institut der deutschen Wirtschaft (IW) / German Economic Institute.
    7. Panarello, Demetrio, 2021. "Economic insecurity, conservatism, and the crisis of environmentalism: 30 years of evidence," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 73(C).
    8. Chun-Hung A. Lin & Suchandra Lahiri & Ching-Po Hsu, 2017. "Happiness and Globalization: A Spatial Econometric Approach," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 18(6), pages 1841-1857, December.
    9. Mathias Huebener & Sevrin Waights & C. Katharina Spiess & Nico A. Siegel & Gert G. Wagner, 2021. "Parental well-being in times of Covid-19 in Germany," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 19(1), pages 91-122, March.
    10. Max Deter, 2020. "Prosociality and Risk Preferences in the Financial Sector," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 1075, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).
    11. Ingebjørg Kristoffersen, 2010. "The Metrics of Subjective Wellbeing: Cardinality, Neutrality and Additivity," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 86(272), pages 98-123, March.
    12. Everding, Jakob & Marcus, Jan, 2020. "The effect of unemployment on the smoking behavior of couples," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 29(2), pages 154-170.
    13. Shan Huang & Martin Salm, 2020. "The effect of a ban on gender‐based pricing on risk selection in the German health insurance market," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(1), pages 3-17, January.
    14. Ghazala Azmat & Katja Maria Kaufmann, 2021. "Formation of College Plans: Expected Returns, Preferences and Adjustment Process," SciencePo Working papers Main hal-03812823, HAL.
    15. Caliendo, Marco & Cobb-Clark, Deborah A. & Obst, Cosima & Uhlendorff, Arne, 2023. "Risk preferences and training investments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 205(C), pages 668-686.
    16. Schneck, Stefan, 2018. "The effect of self-employment on income inequality," Working Papers 05/18, Institut für Mittelstandsforschung (IfM) Bonn.
    17. Jessen, Jonas & Jessen, Robin & Kluve, Jochen, 2019. "Punishing potential mothers? Evidence for statistical employer discrimination from a natural experiment," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 59, pages 164-172.
    18. Alan Manning & Graham Mazeine, 2020. "Subjective job insecurity and the rise of the precariat: evidence from the UK, Germany and the United States," CEP Discussion Papers dp1712, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    19. Alexander M. Danzer & Carsten Feuerbaum & Marc Piopiunik & Ludger Woessmann, 2022. "Growing up in ethnic enclaves: language proficiency and educational attainment of immigrant children," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 35(3), pages 1297-1344, July.
    20. Christian Dustmann & Bernd Fitzenberger & Markus Zimmermann, 2022. "Housing Expenditure and Income Inequality," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 132(645), pages 1709-1736.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Wohlfahrtsmessung; subjektive Indikatoren; Zufriedenheit; SOEP;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D63 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Equity, Justice, Inequality, and Other Normative Criteria and Measurement
    • D69 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Other
    • I31 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty - - - General Welfare, Well-Being
    • I39 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty - - - Other

    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:diw:diwsop:diw_sp1044. 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: Bibliothek (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/sodiwde.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.