IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ura/ecregj/v1y2014i3p22-36.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Transformation of theoretical-methodological approaches and methodical tools of the individual and territory welfare diagnostics. Part 1. From spreading to the alternative diagnostics approaches (background)

Author

Listed:
  • Aleksandr Kuklin

    (Institute of Economics of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences)

  • Alexey Naydenov

    (Institute of Economics, Ural Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences. Centre for Economic Security)

  • Natalya Nikulina

    (Institute of Economics of the Ural Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences)

  • Tatiana Ponomaryova

    (Ural Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences Institute of Economics. The Centre for Economic Security)

Abstract

This article presents an evolution of theoretical and methodological approaches to the welfare study. Existing theories of wellbeing are grouped according to accounted method of goods and resources distribution among society members. As a welfare future as a category we highlight objective (measured) and subjective (estimated) components. Based on the analysis of scientific literature we determine the ratio of individual and social welfare. The main differences between the categories of “ welfare†and “wealth†are given. The main difference consists in multidirectional changes of welfare and wealth for an increase (decrease) in income of the individual (country). In this article we present an analysis of modern approaches to the definition of welfare: state, institutional and expendable approach. The welfare level estimation is complicated due to the need to consider the subjective component. The article provides an analysis of existing approaches to quantitative welfare evaluation ranging from the most common techniques (HDI, GDP) to alternative techniques (Happy Planet Index).Methodological devices are structured by levels of welfare assessment objects (world, country, region, people). Based on the analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of methods we can conclude that the most reliable method is a comprehensive approach, which includes economic, environmental, social, vital and infrastructure indicators. The author’s approach to the formation of a complex methodological tool for individual and territory welfare estimation is presented in this article.

Suggested Citation

  • Aleksandr Kuklin & Alexey Naydenov & Natalya Nikulina & Tatiana Ponomaryova, 2014. "Transformation of theoretical-methodological approaches and methodical tools of the individual and territory welfare diagnostics. Part 1. From spreading to the alternative diagnostics approaches (back," Economy of region, Centre for Economic Security, Institute of Economics of Ural Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, vol. 1(3), pages 22-36.
    • Handle: RePEc:ura:ecregj:v:1:y:2014:i:3:p:22-36
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://economyofregion.ru/Data/Issues/ER2014/September_2014/ERSeptember2014_22_36.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fritzell, Sara & Ringbäck Weitoft, Gunilla & Fritzell, Johan & Burström, Bo, 2007. "From macro to micro: The health of Swedish lone mothers during changing economic and social circumstances," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 65(12), pages 2474-2488, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Andreyeva, E. L. & Canen, A. G. & Ratner, A. V. & Zakharova, V. V., 2015. "Region Foreign Economic Relations as a Factor of Reindustiralization," R-Economy, Ural Federal University, Graduate School of Economics and Management, vol. 1(2), pages 357-367.
    2. Aleksandr Kuklin & Gennadiy Bystray & Sergey Okhotnikov & Elena Chistova, 2015. "Economic Tomography: Opportunity to Foresee and Respond to Socio-Economic Crises," Economy of region, Centre for Economic Security, Institute of Economics of Ural Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, vol. 1(4), pages 40-53.
    3. Kuzmin, Evgeny, 2014. "Individual Scaling and Overall Evaluation of System Uncertainty," MPRA Paper 60509, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Svetlana Naiden & Anna Belousova, 2018. "Methodological Tools to Assess the Population Welfare: Interregional Comparison," Economy of region, Centre for Economic Security, Institute of Economics of Ural Branch of Russian Academy of Sciences, vol. 1(1), pages 53-68.

    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. Stefanie Sperlich & Frauke-Marie Adler & Johannes Beller & Batoul Safieddine & Juliane Tetzlaff & Fabian Tetzlaff & Siegfried Geyer, 2022. "Getting Better or Getting Worse? A Population-Based Study on Trends in Self-Rated Health among Single Mothers in Germany between 1994 and 2018," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(5), pages 1-13, February.
    2. Burström, B. & Nylén, L. & Barr, B. & Clayton, S. & Holland, P. & Whitehead, M., 2012. "Delayed and differential effects of the economic crisis in Sweden in the 1990s on health-related exclusion from the labour market: A health equity assessment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(12), pages 2431-2436.
    3. Ana Belén Ortiz-Haro & Abel Lerma-Talamantes & Ángel Cabrera-Vanegas & Irazú Contreras-Yáñez & Virginia Pascual-Ramos, 2020. "Development and validation of a questionnaire assessing household work limitations (HOWL-Q) in women with rheumatoid arthritis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-19, July.
    4. Dong-Sik Kim & Gyeong-Suk Jeon & Soong-Nang Jang, 2010. "Socioeconomic status, social support and self-rated health among lone mothers in South Korea," International Journal of Public Health, Springer;Swiss School of Public Health (SSPH+), vol. 55(6), pages 551-559, December.

    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:ura:ecregj:v:1:y:2014:i:3:p:22-36. 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: Alexey Naydenov (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.economyofregion.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.