IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ira/wpaper/200713.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The institutional vs. the academic definition of the quality of work life. What is the focus of the European Commission?

Author

Listed:
  • Vicente Royuela

    () (Faculty of Economics, University of Barcelona.)

  • Jordi Lopez-Tamayo

    () (Faculty of Economics, University of Barcelona.)

  • Jordi Suriñach

    () (Faculty of Economics, University of Barcelona and European University Institute.)

Abstract

In recent years, we have seen how the quality of work life has been focused and defined by the European Commission (EC). In our study we compare the EC definition with the academic one and try to see how close they are. We also analyse the possibility of applying the institutional definition to the Spanish case through the development of specific indicators. Our main conclusions are that QWL is increasingly important for policy makers. In addition, it is essential to have objective indicators and to conduct surveys in order to reliably measure QWL.

Suggested Citation

  • Vicente Royuela & Jordi Lopez-Tamayo & Jordi Suriñach, 2007. "The institutional vs. the academic definition of the quality of work life. What is the focus of the European Commission?," IREA Working Papers 200713, University of Barcelona, Research Institute of Applied Economics, revised Jul 2007.
  • Handle: RePEc:ira:wpaper:200713
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.ub.edu/irea/working_papers/2007/200713.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jean-Pierre Martel & Gilles Dupuis, 2006. "Quality of Work Life: Theoretical and Methodological Problems, and Presentation of a New Model and Measuring Instrument," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 77(2), pages 333-368, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    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:ira:wpaper:200713. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Alicia García). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/feubaes.html .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.