Abstract

Based on their objective economic situation and comparing with their peers, individuals form perceptions of their economic position in a society. Data from the three waves of the Life in Transition surveys of European countries show that these perceptions systematically deviate from the rankings obtained using consumption levels. People position themselves in the ranks in larger numbers than those who are in the ranks according to their consumption levels. Correspondingly, many people who objectively are classified in the top, richest, or bottom, poorest, ranks subjectively feel that they are in the class. This puzzling bunching in the middle is the focus of this paper. Explanations are tested and discarded that consider subjective perceptions as misperceptions or the result of other mistakes due to data limitations (such as tail bias). The paper concludes that rather than reflecting a subjective assessment of the distribution of welfare, subjective rankings reveal subjective economic well-being. The paper show that monetary consumption is a strong predictor of subjective economic well-being, but that the latter is influenced by many other factors, including economic security, proxied by employment status or other measures of human capital, such as health and education. These findings have policy relevance, since redistribution measures aiming at simply protecting consumption levels may not be sufficient to restore the economic well-being provided by having full-time secure types of employment.

Highlights

  • This paper focuses on the interpretation of the subjective assessment of relative welfare using the Life in Transition Surveys (LiTS)

  • Across contributors to this literature the consensus is that while monetary income is a strong predictor of subjective well-being, the latter is influenced by many other factors including economic security, access to economic opportunities, health status, education, marriage status, relative income vis-à-vis a reference group, among others

  • We consider two main possible explanations: (i) data issues, and (ii) misinterpretations of the question or individual misperceptions. As none of these explanations is satisfactory, we show that the subjective assessment of one’s position in the distribution cannot be interpreted as a subjective assessment of the implicit inequality of the distribution, but rather as a subjective assessment of economic standing, in other words as a subjective economic well-being variable

Read more

Summary

Introduction

This paper focuses on the interpretation of the subjective assessment of relative welfare using the Life in Transition Surveys (LiTS). By the mid 2010s, the number of papers concerned with happiness economics – some published in top journals – had increased from less than a few to more than 60 per year (MacKerron, 2012) Across contributors to this literature the consensus is that while monetary income is a strong predictor of subjective well-being, the latter is influenced by many other factors including economic security, access to economic opportunities, health status, education, marriage status, relative income vis-à-vis a reference group, among others. We consider two main possible explanations: (i) data issues, and (ii) misinterpretations of the question or individual misperceptions As none of these explanations is satisfactory, we show that the subjective assessment of one’s position in the distribution cannot be interpreted as a subjective assessment of the implicit inequality of the distribution, but rather as a subjective assessment of economic standing, in other words as a subjective economic well-being variable.

Measuring welfare subjectively
A bunching in the middle
Two analytical frameworks for understanding individuals’ subjective ranking
Subjective ranking as a measure of well-being
Findings
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.