IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/ariqol/v15y2020i5d10.1007_s11482-019-09733-0.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Does Well-Being Vary with an Individual-Specific Weighting Scheme?

Author

Listed:
  • Haya Al-Ajlani

    (Universiteit Gent
    Ghent University)

  • Luc Ootegem

    (Universiteit Gent
    Ghent University
    KU Leuven)

  • Elsy Verhofstadt

    (Universiteit Gent
    Ghent University)

Abstract

In terms of a composite well-being indicator, literature remains inconclusive regarding the appropriate weighting scheme to apply. Although condemned as arbitrary, equal weights remain popular and are applied in several global indicators. This paper examines whether the well-being level is sensitive to the underlying weighting scheme by comparing equal weights to non-paternalistic weights. Using a representative sample of 1431 Dutch speaking Belgians, we present a well-being index based on five dimensions: health, income, education, family life, and social life. The non-paternalistic weighting scheme is derived by asking respondents to think about the importance of the five dimensions to their well-being, and based on this importance allocate 100 points over the dimensions. We find that the underlying weighting scheme affects the well-being level of individuals who report low outcomes on some dimensions and high on others. We also find that the two schemes deem different groups of individuals to be in the bottom decile, affecting the beneficiaries of a policy targeting the worst-off. Since the well-being of respondents performing poorly on all five dimensions will be low regardless of the applied weights, we recommend the use of non-paternalistic weights to evaluate the well-being of respondents with a varying outcome across dimensions. This recommendation is based on the notion that well-being is intrinsically personal, and therefore is best evaluated by the individuals themselves.

Suggested Citation

  • Haya Al-Ajlani & Luc Ootegem & Elsy Verhofstadt, 2020. "Does Well-Being Vary with an Individual-Specific Weighting Scheme?," Applied Research in Quality of Life, Springer;International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies, vol. 15(5), pages 1285-1302, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:ariqol:v:15:y:2020:i:5:d:10.1007_s11482-019-09733-0
    DOI: 10.1007/s11482-019-09733-0
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11482-019-09733-0
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11482-019-09733-0?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Robert Sugden, 2004. "The Opportunity Criterion: Consumer Sovereignty Without the Assumption of Coherent Preferences," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 94(4), pages 1014-1033, September.
    2. Gintis, Herbert, 1974. "Welfare Criteria with Endogenous Preferences: The Economics of Education," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 15(2), pages 415-430, June.
    3. Van de Kerk, Geurt & Manuel, Arthur R., 2008. "A comprehensive index for a sustainable society: The SSI -- the Sustainable Society Index," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(2-3), pages 228-242, June.
    4. Paul Frijters & David W. Johnston & Michael A. Shields, 2011. "Life Satisfaction Dynamics with Quarterly Life Event Data," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 113(1), pages 190-211, March.
    5. Robert Cummins, 2003. "Normative Life Satisfaction: Measurement Issues and a Homeostatic Model," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 64(2), pages 225-256, November.
    6. Koen Decancq & Luc Van Ootegem & Elsy Verhofstadt, 2013. "What If We Voted on the Weights of a Multidimensional Well‐Being Index? An Illustration with Flemish Data," Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, vol. 34, pages 315-332, September.
    7. Joseph Deutsch & Jacques Silber, 2005. "Measuring Multidimensional Poverty: An Empirical Comparison Of Various Approaches," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 51(1), pages 145-174, March.
    8. repec:hal:pseose:halshs-00754595 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Koen Decancq & María Ana Lugo, 2013. "Weights in Multidimensional Indices of Wellbeing: An Overview," Econometric Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(1), pages 7-34, January.
    10. Guven, Cahit & Senik, Claudia & Stichnoth, Holger, 2012. "You can’t be happier than your wife. Happiness gaps and divorce," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 82(1), pages 110-130.
    11. Bottomley, Paul A. & Doyle, John R., 2013. "Comparing the validity of numerical judgements elicited by direct rating and point allocation: Insights from objectively verifiable perceptual tasks," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 228(1), pages 148-157.
    12. John Haisken‐DeNew & Mathias Sinning, 2010. "Social Deprivation Of Immigrants In Germany," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 56(4), pages 715-733, December.
    13. Shyamal Chowdhury & Lyn Squire, 2006. "Setting weights for aggregate indices: An application to the commitment to development index and human development index," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(5), pages 761-771.
    14. Lee Stapleton & Guy Garrod, 2007. "Keeping things simple: why the Human Development Index should not diverge from its equal weights assumption," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 84(2), pages 179-188, November.
    15. Georges Nguefack-Tsague & Stephan Klasen & Walter Zucchini, 2011. "On Weighting the Components of the Human Development Index: A Statistical Justification," Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(2), pages 183-202.
    16. Doyle, John R. & Green, Rodney H. & Bottomley, Paul A., 1997. "Judging Relative Importance: Direct Rating and Point Allocation Are Not Equivalent," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 70(1), pages 65-72, April.
    17. James E. Foster & Mark McGillivray & Suman Seth, 2013. "Composite Indices: Rank Robustness, Statistical Association, and Redundancy," Econometric Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(1), pages 35-56, January.
    18. Luna Bellani & Graham Hunter & Paul Anand, 2013. "Multidimensional Welfare: Do Groups Vary in Their Priorities and Behaviours?," Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, vol. 34, pages 333-354, September.
    19. Helliwell, John & Layard, Richard & Sachs, Jeffrey, 2012. "World happiness report," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 47487, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    20. Hongkoo Lee & Kyong-Dong Kim & Doh Shin, 1982. "Perceptions of quality of life in an industrializing country: The case of the Republic of Korea," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 10(3), pages 297-317, April.
    21. Luna Bellani, 2013. "Multidimensional indices of deprivation: the introduction of reference groups weights," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 11(4), pages 495-515, December.
    22. Erik Schokkaert, 2007. "Capabilities and Satisfaction with Life," Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(3), pages 415-430.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mark McGillivray & Simon Feeny & Paul Hansen & Stephen Knowles & Franz Ombler, 2023. "What are Valid Weights for the Human Development Index? A Discrete Choice Experiment for the United Kingdom," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 165(2), pages 679-694, January.
    2. Koen Decancq & Luc Van Ootegem & Elsy Verhofstadt, 2013. "What If We Voted on the Weights of a Multidimensional Well‐Being Index? An Illustration with Flemish Data," Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, vol. 34, pages 315-332, September.
    3. Philipp Poppitz, 2019. "Can Subjective Data Improve the Measurement of Inequality? A Multidimensional Index of Economic Inequality," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 146(3), pages 511-531, December.
    4. Rolf Aaberge & Andrea Brandolini, 2014. "Multidimensional poverty and inequality," Temi di discussione (Economic working papers) 976, Bank of Italy, Economic Research and International Relations Area.
    5. Paolo Liberati & Giuliano Resce & Francesca Tosi, 2023. "The probability of multidimensional poverty: A new approach and an empirical application to EU‐SILC data," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 69(3), pages 668-700, September.
    6. Philipp Poppitz, 2017. "Can subjective data improve inequality measurement? A multidimensional index of economic inequality," Working Papers 446, ECINEQ, Society for the Study of Economic Inequality.
    7. Verity Watson & Chris Dibben & Matt Cox & Iain Atherton & Matt Sutton & Mandy Ryan, 2019. "Testing the Expert Based Weights Used in the UK’s Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) Against Three Preference-Based Methods," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 144(3), pages 1055-1074, August.
    8. Gaurav Datt, 2019. "Multidimensional poverty in the Philippines, 2004–2013: How much do choices for weighting, identification and aggregation matter?," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 57(4), pages 1103-1128, October.
    9. Datt,Gaurav, 2017. "Multidimensional poverty in the Philippines, 2004-13 : do choices for weighting, identification and aggregation matter ?," Policy Research Working Paper Series 8099, The World Bank.
    10. Suman Seth & Antonio Villar, 2014. "Human Development, Inequality and Poverty: empirical findings," Working Papers 14.11, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Department of Economics.
    11. Greco, Salvatore & Ishizaka, Alessio & Tasiou, Menelaos & Torrisi, Gianpiero, 2019. "Sigma-Mu efficiency analysis: A methodology for evaluating units through composite indicators," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 278(3), pages 942-960.
    12. Deniz Sevinc, 2020. "How Poor is Poor? A novel look at multidimensional poverty in the UK," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 149(3), pages 833-859, June.
    13. Chris Tofallis, 2013. "An automatic-democratic approach to weight setting for the new human development index," Journal of Population Economics, Springer;European Society for Population Economics, vol. 26(4), pages 1325-1345, October.
    14. Greco, Salvatore & Ishizaka, Alessio & Tasiou, Menelaos & Torrisi, Gianpiero, 2018. "σ-µ efficiency analysis: A new methodology for evaluating units through composite indices," MPRA Paper 83569, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Sabina Alkire & James Foster, 2011. "Understandings and misunderstandings of multidimensional poverty measurement," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 9(2), pages 289-314, June.
    16. Tineke DeJonge & Wim Kalmijn & Ruut Veenhoven & Lidia Arends, 2015. "Stability of Boundaries Between Response Options of Response Scales: Does ‘Very Happy’ Remain Equally Happy over the Years?," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 123(1), pages 241-266, August.
    17. Mehmet Pinar, 2019. "Multidimensional Well-Being and Inequality Across the European Regions with Alternative Interactions Between the Well-Being Dimensions," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 144(1), pages 31-72, July.
    18. Ludovico Carrino, 2016. "Data Versus Survey-based Normalisation in a Multidimensional Analysis of Social Inclusion," Italian Economic Journal: A Continuation of Rivista Italiana degli Economisti and Giornale degli Economisti, Springer;Società Italiana degli Economisti (Italian Economic Association), vol. 2(3), pages 305-345, November.
    19. Suman Seth and Antonio Villar, 2017. "Measuring Human Development and Human Deprivations," OPHI Working Papers ophiwp110.pdf, Queen Elizabeth House, University of Oxford.
    20. Giuliano Resce & Fritz Schiltz, 2021. "Sustainable Development in Europe: A Multicriteria Decision Analysis," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 67(2), pages 509-529, June.

    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:spr:ariqol:v:15:y:2020:i:5:d:10.1007_s11482-019-09733-0. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.