Abstract
This chapter examines various dimensions of quality of life in Europe, using results from the European Quality of Life Survey. The third wave of this survey was carried out in all 28 European Union Member States as well as in 6 other countries from autumn 2011 to early 2012. In total, over 43,000 people aged 18 and over residing in these countries were interviewed.
Presenting findings from the latest EQLS survey, the chapter looks at subjective wellbeing in detail, while more briefly reporting on living standards and deprivation, work, private life, and work-life balance, home, housing and local environment, public services, healthcare and health and quality of society. Specific attention is given to developments since the previous EQLS survey, fielded in 2007, to assess the impact of the crisis on the quality of life of Europeans. With rising social inequalities in Europe, the chapter provides an impression of the real impact of the crisis on people’s lives and shows who has been hit hardest.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
Table脉29.4 in the technical annex lists the 26 items.
- 2.
This is a Pearson correlation coefficient, which is used throughout the chapter. Only statistically significant correlations are shown. Correlation coefficients can have values between −1 and 1, where a value of 0 indicates no correlation, a value of −1 indicates a perfect inverse relationship, and a value of 1 indicates a perfect direct relationship. Values between 0.1 and 0.3 are considered weak correlation, 0.3 and 0.5 indicate medium, and 0.5 to 1.0 indicate strong correlation. Correlation does not prove causality.
- 3.
In computational terms, this measure is similar to the GINI coefficient, and one can be converted to the other relatively simply (Abdallah 2012). See the technical annex for methodological details.
- 4.
The regression model explains 32 % of the total variance in life satisfaction. Further details about the regression analyses can be found in Eurofound’s Subjective wellbeing report, Annex 3, Table A6 (Eurofound 2013d).
- 5.
Material deprivation concerns the inability to afford items that are considered essential. On the EQLS, it is measured by asking respondents if their household is able to afford six basic items. This measure captures financial strain better than income as it looks at what people currently cannot afford, no matter what they own and how much they earn. Figure脉29.20 lists the exact wording of the items.
- 6.
These are differences between respondents scoring 10 out of 10, and those scoring 1–4 out of 10 on the life satisfaction scale, which were chosen in order to have similarly sized proportions. Around 12 % of respondents rated their life satisfaction as 10 out of 10. Chi-square tests were used to test for significance.
- 7.
Q41. Taking all things together, on a scale of 1 to 10, how happy would you say you are? Here 1 means you are very unhappy and 10 means you are very happy.
- 8.
The hedonic wellbeing index is constructed of 4 EQLS questions (Q45a–b; Q46a, c); the WHO-5 mental wellbeing index is constructed of 5 EQLS questions (Q45a–e). Q45a and b are thus included on both indicators. Furthermore, the WHO-5 index measures a mix of hedonic and eudaimonic wellbeing. Q45a and b are hedonic; the two vitality items (Q45c–d) fall into both categories; Q45e is eudaimonic.
- 9.
More details about the composition of the synthetic indicators can be found in the Technical Annex.
- 10.
The Pearson correlation is 0.38 for hedonic wellbeing, versus 0.66 for life satisfaction.
- 11.
The EQLS includes several other measures of eudaimonic, including the stress and busyness index (Q29c and d, Q45b, Q46a) and three questions on optimism, feeling worthwhile and autonomy that loaded together into a single factor (Q29a–c; together these items represent the ‘Elements of eudaimonic wellbeing index’. Abdallah et al. analysed these measures in Eurofound’s 2013 Subjective wellbeing report (Eurofound 2013d).
- 12.
More details about the composition of the synthetic indicators can be found in the Technical Annex.
- 13.
Scores are reported on a scale of 0–5, where 0 means ‘feeling lonely all of the time’, and 5 means ‘feeling lonely at no time’.
- 14.
All Eurofound publications are available at www.eurofound.europa.eu
References
All Eurofound publications are available at www.eurofound.europa.eu
Abdallah, S. (2012), Inequalities and disparities (Produced as part of the contract ‘Analysis, implementation and dissemination of wellbeing indicators’). Luxembourg: Eurostat.
Blanchflower, D. G., & Oswald, A. J. (2011). International happiness: A new view on the measure of performance. Academy of Management Perspectives, 25(1), 6–22.
Chapple, S. (2010), Subjective wellbeing and social policy (Report prepared for the use of the European Commission, DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion).
Dolan, P., & Metcalfe, R. (2012). Measuring subjective wellbeing: Recommendations on measures for use by national governments. Journal of Social Policy, 41(2), 409–427.
Dolan, P., Peasgood, T., & White, M. (2006). Review of research on the influences on personal wellbeing and application to policy making. London: Defra.
Dolan, P., Peasgood, T., & White, M. (2008). Do we really know what makes us happy? A review of the economic literature on the factors associated with subjective wellbeing. Journal of Economic Psychology, 29(1), 94–122.
Esping-Andersen, G. (1990) The three worlds of welfare capitalism.脉Cambridge: Polity Press.
Eurofound. (2003). Monitoring quality of life in Europe. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
Eurofound. (2009). Second European quality of life survey: Quality of life in Europe 2003–2007. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
Eurofound. (2012a). Third European quality of life survey – Quality of life in Europe: Impacts of the crisis. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
Eurofound. (2012b). Household debt advisory services in the European Union. Dublin.
Eurofound. (2012c). Income from work after retirement in the EU. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
Eurofound. (2013a). Third European quality of life survey – Quality of life in Europe: Quality of society and public services. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
Eurofound. (2013b). Third European quality of life survey – Quality of life in Europe: Social inequalities. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
Eurofound. (2013c). Third European quality of life survey – Quality of life in Europe: Trends 2003–2012. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
Eurofound. (2013d). Third European quality of life survey – Subjective wellbeing. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
Eurofound. (2013e). Political trust and civic engagement during the crisis. In Foundation findings. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
Eurofound. (2013f). Household over-indebtedness in the EU: The role of informal debts. In Foundation findings. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
Eurofound. (2013g). Impacts of the crisis on access to healthcare services in the EU (Working paper). Available on http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/pubdocs/2013/85/en/1/EF1385EN.pdf
Eurofound. (2014a). Third European quality of life survey – Families in the economic crisis. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
Eurofound. (2014b). Work preferences after 50. In Foundation findings. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
European Commission. (2009). GDP and beyond: Measuring progress in a changing world. COM (2009) 433 final, Brussels.
European Commission. (2011). A resource-efficient Europe – Flagship initiative under the Europe 2020 strategy. COM (2011) 21, Brussels.
Eurostat. (2013). Quality of life indicators. http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/quality_life/introduction. Accessed 23 Sept 2013.
Helliwell, J., et al. (2010). International evidence on the social context of wellbeing. In E. Diener et al. (Eds.), International differences in wellbeing (pp. 291–325). Oxford: University Press.
Helliwell, J., et al. (2013a). World happiness report. http://unsdsn.org/files/2013/09/WorldHappinessReport2013_online.pdf. Accessed 12 Sept 2013.
Helliwell, J., et al. (2013b). Social capital and wellbeing in times of crisis. Journal of Happiness Studies. doi:10.0007/s10902-013-9441-z.
Michaelson, J., Mahony, S., & Schifferes, J. (2008). Measuring wellbeing: A guide for practitioners. London: New Economic Foundation.
Muñoz, J., Torcal, M., & Bonet, E. (2011). Institutional trust and multilevel government in the European Union: Congruence or compensation? European Union Politics, 12(4), 551–574.
OECD. (2013). OECD guidelines on measuring subjective wellbeing. Paris: OECD.
Pavot, W., Diener, E., Colvin, C. R., & Sandvik, E. (1991). Further validation of the Satisfaction With Life Scale: Evidence for the cross-method convergence of well-being measures. Journal of Personality Assessment, 57, 149–161.
Roth, F., Nowak-Lehmann, F., & Otter, T. (2011). Has the financial crisis shattered citizens’ trust in national and European governmental institutions? Evidence from the EU member states, 1999–2010 (CEPS Working Document No. 343). Brussels: Centre for European Policy Studies.
Sarracino, F. (2010). Social capital and subjective wellbeing trends: Evidence from 11 western European countries. Journal of Socio-Economics, 39(4), 482–517.
Sivesind, K. H., Pospíšilová, T., & Frič, P. (2013). Does volunteering cause trust? European Societies, 15(1), 131–152.
Stiglitz, J., Sen, A., & Fitoussi, J. P. (2009). The Report was written by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress. Paris:http:www.stiglitz-sen-fitoussi.fr/documents/rapport_anglais.pdf
Stokes, B. (2012), What Europeans think about the Eurocrisis. Doubts and waning faith in the European Project. In The EuroFuture Project paper series, January 2012. Washington D.C.: German Marshall Fund of the United States.
Stoll, L., Michaelson, J., & Seaford, C. (2012). Wellbeing evidence for policy: A review. London: New Economics Foundation.
Vaughan-Whitehead, D. (Ed.). (2012). Work inequalities in the crisis: Evidence from Europe. Geneva: International Labour Organisation.
Wallace, J., & Schmuecker, K. (2012). Shifting the dial: From wellbeing measures to policy practice. Dunfermline: Carnegie UK Trust.
Whelan, C. T., & Maître, B. (2010). Welfare regime and social class variation in poverty and economic vulnerability in Europe: An analysis of EU-SILC. Journal of European Social Policy, 20(4), 316–332.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Technical Annex
Technical Annex
Calculation of Means for Quintiles
For the life satisfaction scale, Abdallah and colleagues calculated the mean for quintiles (Eurofound 2013e). Since there are only 10 possible responses on the life satisfaction scale, it is rarely the case that response categories fit neatly into 20 % bands. For example, if 15 % of respondents respond 1–5, and 10 % respond 6, then the mean life satisfaction of the bottom quintile needs to be the average of those responding 1–5 and half of those responding 6.
Therefore, to calculate the mean, all respondents in each country were ordered by life satisfaction. Respondents with the same life satisfaction scores were ranked randomly. The rank function was used in SPSS to assign respondents into equally sized quintiles for each country. This was done with within-country weightings. In this way, all the quintiles for each country had the same N + −1. Mean life satisfaction scores were then calculated for each quintile for each country.
Mean Pair Distance
The mean pair distance is a measure of inequality within a population. For any given variable (for example life satisfaction), it is the average difference between two randomly selected people within the population. It can be calculated with a basic frequency table, simply working out all the differences between each pair of respondents, summing them all up, and dividing that by the number of possible combinations of respondents.
As is mentioned in section “Life Satisfaction Inequalities”, it is related to the Gini coefficient, which is widely used with income distributions. To calculate the mean pair distance from the Gini coefficient, one must simply multiply the Gini by twice the mean of the population. So if the Gini coefficient of income for a country is 0.3, and the mean income is €15,000, then the mean pair distance is €9,000. That means that if any two people in the population are selected, the average difference in income between them would be €9,000.
As discussed in Abdallah (2012), the mean pair distance is more appropriate for a measure such as life satisfaction because it is not a ratio measure. It is meaningful to say that €400 is twice as much as €200, but it is not meaningful to say that a life satisfaction score of 4 is twice as much as 2.
Calculation of Independent Effect Sizes of Domain Satisfaction on Life Satisfaction
At Fig.脉29.10, the mean domain satisfaction was entered into a regression, together with the difference variables (e.g. difference between family life satisfaction and mean domain satisfaction).
The effect size is the change in life satisfaction associated with a one-point difference in the independent variable in question, based on a linear regression model. So, an increase in satisfaction with social life of one point is associated with an increase in life satisfaction of 0.6 points.
Multilevel Model for Determinants of Trust in Institutions
At Fig.脉29.27, using multilevel analysis with grand mean centering, the model takes into account the individual and country-related factors that determine trust in institutions (which is the average of responses to items Q28 a., b., d., e. and f.). The dependent variable is the level of trust in institutions. Using grand mean centering techniques for the explanatory variables, the estimated effect of an explanatory variable raises or lowers the level of trust in institutions. See Eurofound 2013a, p. 70 for more information.
Construction of Synthetic Indices Used in the Chapter
Hedonic Wellbeing Index
-
Q45a – I have felt cheerful and in good spirits
-
Q45b – I have felt calm and relaxed
-
Q46a – I have felt particularly tense
-
Q46c – I have felt downhearted and depressed
Each of the items has six-scale answering categories, ranging from ‘all of the time’ (0) to ‘at no time’ (5). The joint scores to these 4 questions can thus amount to a maximum of 20, which is then multiplied by 5 to get to a maximum of 100. The higher the score on the index, which goes from 0 to 100, the better is a person’s hedonic wellbeing.
WHO-5 Mental Wellbeing Index
-
Q45a – I have felt cheerful and in good spirits
-
Q45b – I have felt calm and relaxed
-
Q45c – I have felt active and vigorous
-
Q45d – I woke up feeling fresh and rested
-
Q45e – My daily life has been filled with things that interest me
Each of the items has six-scale answering categories, ranging from ‘all of the time’ (0) to ‘at no time’ (5). The joint scores to these five questions can thus amount to a maximum of twenty five, which is then multiplied by four to get to a maximum of hundred. The higher the score on the index, which goes from 0 to 100, the better is a person’s mental wellbeing.
Social Exclusion Index
-
Q29e – I feel left out of society
-
Q29f – Life has become so complicated today that I almost can’t find my way
-
Q29g – I feel that the value of what I do is not recognised by others
-
Q29h – Some people look down on me because of my job situation or income
Scores on the perceived social exclusion index are the average total scores of the four statements, where 1 = ‘strongly disagree’ and 5 = ‘strongly agree’.
Work-Life Balance Conflict Indicator
-
Q12a – I have come home from work too tired to do some of the household jobs which need to be done
-
Q12b – It has been difficult for me to fulfill my family responsibilities because of the amount of time I spend on the job
-
Q12c – I have found it difficult to concentrate at work because of my family responsibilities
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Ahrendt, D., Dubois, H., Mezger, E. (2015). An Overview of Quality of Life in Europe. In: Glatzer, W., Camfield, L., Møller, V., Rojas, M. (eds) Global Handbook of Quality of Life. International Handbooks of Quality-of-Life. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9178-6_29
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9178-6_29
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-017-9177-9
Online ISBN: 978-94-017-9178-6
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)