IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/etrans/v23y2015i1p75-103.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How reliable and consistent are subjective measures of welfare in Europe and Central Asia?

Author

Listed:
  • Alexandru Cojocaru
  • Mame Fatou Diagne

Abstract

type="main" xml:id="ecot12056-abs-0001"> This paper analyses the reliability and consistency of subjective well-being measures, using the Life in Transition Survey. Drawing on two life satisfaction questions with alternative scales, our results do not reveal substantial biases in accounts of life satisfaction due to framing. Subjective individual assessments of household relative income position, on the other hand, do not appear to be reliable predictors of objective poverty or wealth. We find that subjective relative income position is only weakly correlated with objective welfare measures. There are differences in evaluations of the household's relative standing across different household members, and these differences are correlated with respondent characteristics.

Suggested Citation

  • Alexandru Cojocaru & Mame Fatou Diagne, 2015. "How reliable and consistent are subjective measures of welfare in Europe and Central Asia?," The Economics of Transition, The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, vol. 23(1), pages 75-103, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:etrans:v:23:y:2015:i:1:p:75-103
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/ecot.2015.23.issue-1
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Michal Brzezinski, 2019. "Diagnosing Unhappiness Dynamics: Evidence from Poland and Russia," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 20(7), pages 2291-2327, October.
    2. Temirlan T. Moldogaziev & Rachel M. Krause & Gwen Arnold & Le Ahn Nguyen Long & Tatyana Ruseva & Chris Silvia & Christopher Witko, 2023. "Support for the environment post‐transition? Material concerns and policy tradeoffs," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 40(2), pages 186-206, March.
    3. Vladimir Gimpelson & Daniel Treisman, 2018. "Misperceiving inequality," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(1), pages 27-54, March.
    4. Bussolo,Maurizio & Lebrand,Mathilde Sylvie Maria & Torre,Ivan, 2020. "Feeling Poor, Feeling Rich, or Feeling Middle-Class : An Empirical Investigation," Policy Research Working Paper Series 9456, The World Bank.
    5. Cancho,Cesar A. & Davalos,Maria Eugenia & Sanchez,Carolina, 2015. "Why so gloomy ? perceptions of economic mobility in Europe and Central Asia," Policy Research Working Paper Series 7519, The World Bank.
    6. Nikolova, Elena & Sanfey, Peter, 2016. "How much should we trust life satisfaction data? Evidence from the Life in Transition Survey," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(3), pages 720-731.
    7. Micael Dahlen & Helge Thorbjørnsen, 2022. "Individuals’ Assessments of Their Own Wellbeing, Subjective Welfare, and Good Life: Four Exploratory Studies," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(19), pages 1-10, September.
    8. Bauer,Jan Michael & Levin,Victoria & Munoz Boudet,Ana Maria & Nie,Peng & Sousa-Poza,Alfonso, 2015. "Subjective well-being across the lifespan in Europe and Central Asia," Policy Research Working Paper Series 7378, The World Bank.
    9. Alexandru Cojocaru & Mame Fatou Diagne, 2021. "Redistributive preferences in Europe and Central Asia, 2006–2016," Economics of Transition and Institutional Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(1), pages 151-172, January.
    10. Nazim Habibov & Alena Auchynnikava & Rong Luo, 2019. "Does Community Level Trust Improve Self-Rated Welfare?," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 146(3), pages 669-697, December.

    More about this item

    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:bla:etrans:v:23:y:2015:i:1:p:75-103. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ebrdduk.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.