European Survey Data for Monitoring and Researching the Quality of Life

1. European Survey Data forMonitoringandResearchingthe Quality ofLife Heinz-Herbert Noll GESIS- Leibniz Institute fortheSocialSciences SocialIndicators Research Centre - ZSi Mannheim  ESAC Workshop „Measuring and Comparing the Quality of Life within Europe“, January 24-25, Brussels

2. Issue of Quality of Life Measurement not New! • At least 4 decades of research on conceptualization, measurement and analysis of Quality of Life in academic social research, particularly social indicators research • However, Quality of Life measurement rather new for Official Statistics at national • and supra-national levels • Need to de-mystify the task! •  Difficulties to find general agreement on QoL-Measurement may be due to the fact that QoL is a normative concept •  Despite variety of different approaches of how to conceptualize and operatio- nalize QoL, there is at least consensus about •  the multi-dimensionality of the QoL – Concept •  the need to include objective as well as subjective measures

4. Life Domains • Population, Household and Family • Mobility & Transportation • Leisure, Media & Culture • Participation & Integration • Income, Standard of Living & Consumption Patterns • Education and Vocational Training • Health • Housing • Labour Market & Working Conditions • Social Security • Public Safety & Crime • Environment • Total Life Situation

5. Usage of Objective and Subjective Indicators in QoL - Measurement Objective Indicators  Measures unfiltered by perceptions and independent from personal evaluations Subjective Indicators (not limited to SWB – indicators) Measures expressing subjective states, perceptions, assessments, preferences, value orientations etc. While there are different possibilities of objective measurement, subjective measurement is restricted to the survey method.  By generating subjective indicators, respondents are not only addressed as providers of information, but rather as subjects characterised by specific emotional states, opinions, value orientations, preferences etc.

6. Survey-Data for Comparative European Quality of Life Research • Research Driven Surveys • European Values Study (Consortium of Research Institutes) - 4 waves of data collection: 1981; 1990; 1999; 2008 (47 countries, incl. EU-27 + 4 CC ) - Sample size: usually ca. 1500 • . • European Social Survey (Consortium of Research Institutes) - since 2002/2003; round 5 (2010/11) = 28 countries (incl. 6 non-EU; EU-countries missing: I, LU, MA, LV, RO); • - Sample size: 1000 – 3000; usually 1500-2000 • Core Module + Rotating Modules, e.g.: • Family, Work and Well-being (Wave 2 & 5) •  Personal and Social Well-Being (Wave 3 & 6)

7. PolicyDriven Surveys • Eurobarometer - EU Commission - since 1973 Standard EB + Central and Eastern EB +CCEB; EU 27 + current CC; semi-annualsurveys • - Sample size: ca. 1000, small countries: 500 • European Quality of Life Survey - Eurofound - 2003; 2007, 2011 (EU 27 + current CC) • - Sample size: 1000, few countries 1500, 2000 • Commercial Survey • Gallup World Poll • - 2005/06; 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 (96 countries, incl. EU 27 + 5 CC) • - Sample size: 1000 in most countries; morecases in few large countries • Diverse well-beingindices •  e.g. usedfor OECD – Better Life Index

8. All Surveys except EQLS are covering QoL as one of several fields • Only EQLS specialized QoL – Survey • Large differences in coverage of QoL – issues (number and kind of relevant questions / variables) • Focus at subjective QoL – Indicators, however also some other relevant objective Indicators

9.  Pronounced differences in survey quality • Criteria, e.g. • Country Coverage • Periodicity / Frequency • Richness of Content • Validity / Reliability of Survey Instruments • Sample Quality •  Timeliness

10. Source: Kohler 2008 Source: Kohler 2008 Sample Quality of Survey Programmes Source: Kohler 2008

12.   

13.  Effective harmonization strategy generally of crucial importance, but in- dispensible when it comes to subjective perceptions and assessments! •  Several potential effects to take into account, e.g. • - question wording • - answering scales • - questionnaire context / question order • Output harmonization insufficient! •  Example EU-SILC „Making Ends Meet“ - Question • German Speaking Countries

16. EU – SILC Problems of Output Harmonization • Austria, Germany, Switzerland 2010: • 3 different questions • 3 different answeringscales • A:  different question order • Germany 2005, 2006, 2010 • 3 different questions • 3 different answeringscales • Austria 2006, 2010 • Slightly different questions • categories in answeringscalereversed • question order changed • Did not check for countries with different languages!

17. Number of Cases in Selected Subgroups – EU-SILC / EQLS / ESS Source: Own Calculations by GESIS - ZSi

18. Confidence Intervals ‚Life Satisfaction ESS 2010 – Total Scale 0-10 0,1 – 0,3 Source: Own Calculations by GESIS - ZSi

19. Confidence Interval ‚Life Satisfaction EQLS 2007 – Total Scale 1-10 0,1 – 0,4 Source: Own Calculations by GESIS - ZSi

20. Confidence Interval ‚Life Satisfaction‘ ESS 2010 – Unemployed Scale 0-10 0,4 – 1,4 Source: Own Calculations by GESIS - ZSi

21. Confidence Interval ‚Life Satisfaction‘ EQLS 2007 – Unemployed Scale 1-10 0,7 – 2,0 Source: Own Calculations by GESIS - ZSi

22. ESS - 2008: Household Income - % Missing Values (10 Income Classes) Source: Own Calculations by GESIS - ZSi

23. Summary  Long tradition of measuring Quality of Life in academic research  Variety of non-official data sources for monitoring and re- searching the Quality of Life in Europe  Pronounced differences in content and data quality across non-official surveys  Advantages and disadvantages of non-official compared to official surveys