Assessing the Subjective Wellbeing of Nations

  • Filomena MagginoEmail author
Part of the International Handbooks of Quality-of-Life book series (IHQL)


The issue presented in this chapter produced and produces wide debates, starting from the definition of the main concept involved, seen often in different dualisms, subjective vs. objective, subjective wellbeing vs. objective wellbeing, and subjective indicators vs. objective indicators.

By lingering on the last dualism, objective indicators refer to data not stemmed from individual perceptions, evaluations and preferences, while subjective indicators measure characteristics which are related to people’s perceptions, preferences, evaluations, opinions, and values. Data to be considered according to the two perspectives should be objectively produced in both cases, which means through a methodology yielding reliable and reproducible data.

The validity of those data is directly connected to the concepts to measure. In this respect, the conceptual definitions are complicated and difficult to manage and agree upon, due to cultural, historical, and linguistic differences.

The complexity includes also the notion of “wellbeing of nation”. In this respect, many questions arise. Does the sum of individuals’ subjective wellbeing represent nation’s wellbeing? Or nation’s wellbeing is something different? This implies also a, only apparently, technical question: does averaging individual subjective wellbeing represents the synthetic country’s wellbeing?

Subjective wellbeing of nations should play an important role in the policy making process, even though limited since it provides only one type of information, only one perspective of the reality, which remains complex and multifaceted.


Subjective wellbeing Subjective indicators Subjective aspects of wellbeing 


  1. Abbey, A., & Andrews, F. M. (1985). Modeling the psychological determinants of life quality. Social Indicators Research, 16, 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allison, D. B., Alfonso, V. C., & Dunn, G. M. (1991). The extended satisfaction with life scale. The Behavioral Therapist, Vol. 5, 15–16Google Scholar
  3. Andrews, F. M., & Robinson, J. P. (1991). Measures of subjective wellbeing. In J. Robinson, P. Shaver, & L. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (p. 1). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  4. Andrews, F. M., & Withey, S. B. (1976). Social indicators of wellbeing: Americans’ perceptions of life quality. New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Argyle, M. (1987). The psychology of happiness. London: Methuen (trad. it. Psicologia della felicità, Cortina Editore, Milano).Google Scholar
  6. Bradburn, N. M. (1969). The structure of psychological wellbeing. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
  7. Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., & Rodgers, W. L. (1976). The quality of American life. New York: Russell Sage.Google Scholar
  8. Cantril, H. (1965). The pattern of human concerns. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1980). Still stable after all these years: Personality as a key to some issues in adulthood and old age. In P. B. Baltes & O. G. Brim (Eds.), Life span development and behavior. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  10. Costanza, R., Fisher, B., Ali, S., Beer, C., Bond, L., Boumans, R., Danigelis, N. L., Dickinson, J., Elliott, C., Farley, J., Elliott Gayer, D., MacDonald Glenn, L., Hudspeth, T., Mahoney, D., McCahill, L., McIntosh, B., Reed, B., Turab Rizvi, S. A., Rizzo, D. M., Simpatico, T., & Snapp, R. (2007). Quality of life: An approach integrating opportunities, human needs, and subjective wellbeing. Ecological Economics, 61(2–3), 267–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Diener, E. (1984). Subjective wellbeing. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 542–575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Diener, E. (1994). Assessing subjective wellbeing: Progress and opportunities. Social Indicators Research, 31, 103–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Diener, E., & Emmons, R. A. (1984). The independence of positive and negative affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47(5), 1105–1117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Diener, E., & Larsen, R. J. (1993). The experience of emotional wellbeing. In M. Lewis & J. M. Haviland (Eds.), Handbook of emotions. New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  15. Diener, E., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Beyond money: Toward an economy of wellbeing. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 5, 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Diener, E., Lucas, R. E., Schimmack, U., & Helliwell, J. (2008). Wellbeing for public policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Easterlin, R. A. (1974). Does economics growth improve the human lot? Some empirical evidence. In P. A. David & M. W. Reder (Eds.), Nations and households in economic growth: Essays in honor of Moses Abramowitz. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  18. Eurofound – European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions. (2005). First European quality of life survey: Life satisfaction, happiness and sense of belonging. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.Google Scholar
  19. Fattore, M., Maggino, F., & Greselin, F. (2011). Socio-economic evaluation with ordinal variables: Integrating counting and poset approaches. Statistica & Applicazioni, Special Issue, 31-42.Google Scholar
  20. Fattore, M., Maggino, F., & Colombo, E. (2012). From composite indicators to partial orders: Evaluating socio-economic phenomena through ordinal data. In F. Maggino & G. Nuvolati (Eds.), Quality of life in Italy: Research and reflections (Social indicators research series, Nr. 48). Dordrecht/Heidelberg/New York/London: Springer.Google Scholar
  21. Felce, D., & Perry, J. (1995). Quality of life: Its definition and measurement. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 16(1), 51–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fischer, J. A. V. (2009). Subjective wellbeing as welfare measure: Concepts and methodology (MPRA Paper 16619), University Library of Munich, Germany.Google Scholar
  23. Gilbert, D. (2005). Stumbling on happiness. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  24. Giovannini, E., Morrone, A., Rondinella, T., & Sabbadini, L. L. (2012). L’iniziativa CNEL-ISTAT per la misurazione del Benessere Equo e Sostenibile in Italia. In Autonomie locali e servizi sociali (n. 1). Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
  25. Headey, B., Veenhoven, R., & Wearing, A. (1991). Top-down versus bottom-up theories of subjective wellbeing. Social Indicators Research, 24, 81–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Huppert, F. A., So, T. T. C. (2009, July 23/24). What percentage of people in Europe are flourishing and what characterises them? Paper presented at the OECD/ISQOLS/ISTAT meeting on Measuring subjective wellbeing: An opportunity for NSOs? Florence.
  27. Johansson, S. (2002). Conceptualizing and measuring quality of life for national policy. Social Indicators Research, 58, 13–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kahneman, D., & Krueger, A. B. (2006). Developments in the measurement of subjective wellbeing. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20(1), 3–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kahneman, D., Krueger, A., Schkade, D., Schwarz, N., & Stone, A. (2004). A survey method for characterizing daily life experience: The day reconstruction method. Science, 306(5702), 1776–17780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Keyes, C. L. M. (2002). The mental health continuum: From languishing to flourishing in life. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 43, 207–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kozma, A., Stones, S., Stones, M. J., Hannah, T. E., & McNeil, K. (1990). Long and short term affective states in happiness. Social Indicators Research, 22, 119–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lance, C. E., Mallard, A. G., & Michalos, A. C. (1995). Tests of the causal directions of global-life facet satisfaction relationships. Social Indicators Research, 34, 69–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lyubomirsky, S., King, L. A., & Diener, E. (2005). The benefits of frequent positive affect: Does happiness lead to success? Psychological Bulletin, 131, 803–855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Maggino, F. (2009). The state of the art in indicators construction in the perspective of a comprehensive approach in measuring wellbeing of societies. Firenze: Firenze University Press, Archivio E-Prints. Published (21/01/2010) also on the Global Progress Research Network (GPRNet) Wikiprogress page (
  35. Mallard, A. G. C., Lance, C. E., & Michalos, A. (1997). Culture as a moderator of overall life satisfaction relationships. Social Indicators Research, 40, 259–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Michalos, A. (1985). Multiple discrepancies theory (MDT). Social Indicators Research, 16, 347–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nardo, M., Saisana, M., Saltelli, A., Tarantola, S. (EC/JRC), Hoffman, A., & Giovannini, E. (OECD). (2005). Handbook on constructing composite indicators: Methodology and userguide (OECD, Statistics Working Paper). Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  38. Noll, H.-H. (2004, November 10–13). Social indicators and indicators systems: Tools for social monitoring and reporting. Paper presented at OECD, World Forum “Statistics, knowledge and policy”, Palermo.Google Scholar
  39. Noll, H.-H. (2013). Subjective social indicators: Benefits and limitations for policy making. Introduction to the special issue “Subjective social indicators – Benefits and limitations for policy making” (ed. H.-H. Noll), Social Indicators Research, 114, 1.Google Scholar
  40. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York/London: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  41. Nuvolati, G. (1997). Uno specifico settore di applicazione degli indicatori sociali: La qualità della vita. In F. Zajczyk (Ed.), Il mondo degli indicatori sociali, una guida alla ricerca sulla qualità della vita (pp. 69–94). Roma: La Nuova Italia Scientifica.Google Scholar
  42. Nuvolati, G. (2002). Qualità della vita e indicatori sociali. Seminar held at the Ph.D. degree programme “Scienza tecnologia e società”, aprile, Dipartimento di Sociologia e di Scienza Politica, Università della Calabria. Available on
  43. Riccardini F. (2014) “La sostenibilità del benessere: le sfide per il futuro dell'uomo”, Roma in print.Google Scholar
  44. Sirgy, M. J. (2011). Theoretical perspectives guiding QoL indicators project. Social Indicators Research, 103, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sirgy, M. J., Michalos, A. C., Ferriss, A. L., Easterlin, R. A., Patrick, D., & Pavot, W. (2006). The quality-of-life (QOL) research movement: Past, present, and future. Social Indicators Research, 76(3), 343–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Śleszyński, J. (2012, September 20–21). Prospects for synthetic sustainable development indicators. Paper presented at the conference “Quality of life and sustainable development”, Wroclaw (Poland).Google Scholar
  47. Stiglitz, J. E., Sen, A., & Fitoussi, J.-P. (Eds). (2009). Report by the Commission on the measurement of economic performance and social progress. Paris.
  48. Stones, M. J., Hadjistavvropoulos, T., Tuuko, H., & Kozma, A. (1995). Happiness has Traitlike and Statelike properties: A reply to Veenhoven. Social Indicators Research, 36, 129–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Veenhoven, R. (1984). Conditions of happiness. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Veenhoven, R. (1994). Is happiness a trait? Tests of the theory that a better society does not make people any happier. Social Indicators Research, 32(2), 101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Veenhoven, R. (2002). Why social policy needs subjective indicators. Social Indicators Research, 58, 33–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Waterman, A. S. (2005). When effort is enjoyed: Two studies of intrinsic motivation for personally salient activities. Motivation and Emotion, 29, 165–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zapf, W. (1975). Le système d’indicateurs sociaux: approches et problèmes. Revue Internationale des Sciences Sociales, XXVII(3), 19.Google Scholar
  54. Zapf, W. (1984). Individuelle Wohlfahrt: Lebensbedingungen und Wahrgenommene Lebensqualität. In W. Glatzer & W. Zapf (Eds.), Lebensqualität in der Bundesrepublik. Frankfurt am Main/New York: Campus.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Statistics, Informatics, Applications “G. Parenti” (DiSIA)Università degli Studi di FirenzeFlorenceItaly

Personalised recommendations