IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ese/emodwp/em9-16.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Putting subjective well-being to use for ex-ante policy evaluation

Author

Listed:
  • Xavier Jara Tamayo, Holguer
  • Schokkaert, Erik

Abstract

Most studies using microsimulation techniques have considered the effect of potential reforms, but only regarding income distribution. However, it has become increasingly recognised, both at the academic and political level, that focusing purely on income provides a limited picture of social progress. We illustrate how ex-ante policy evaluation can be performed in terms of richer concepts of individual well-being, such as subjective life satisfaction and equivalent incomes. Our analysis makes use of EUROMOD, the EU-wide tax-benefit microsimulation model, along with 2013 EUSILC data for Sweden, which for the first time provides information on subjective wellbeing. Our results show that the effect of potential reforms varies widely depending on the well-being concept used in the evaluation. We discuss the normative questions that are raised by this finding.

Suggested Citation

  • Xavier Jara Tamayo, Holguer & Schokkaert, Erik, 2016. "Putting subjective well-being to use for ex-ante policy evaluation," EUROMOD Working Papers EM9/16, EUROMOD at the Institute for Social and Economic Research.
    • Handle: RePEc:ese:emodwp:em9-16
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.iser.essex.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/files/working-papers/euromod/em9-16.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fleurbaey,Marc & Maniquet,François, 2011. "A Theory of Fairness and Social Welfare," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521715348, September.
    2. DECANCQ, Koen & SCHOKKAERT, Eric & ZULUAGA, Bianca, 2016. "Implementing the Capability Approach with Respect for Individual Valuations : An Illustration with Colombian Data," LIDAM Discussion Papers CORE 2016036, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    3. Erik Schokkaert & Luc Van Ootegem & Elsy Verhofstadt, 2011. "Preferences and Subjective Satisfaction: Measuring Well-being on the Job for Policy Evaluation," CESifo Economic Studies, CESifo Group, vol. 57(4), pages 683-714, December.
    4. Loewenstein, George & Ubel, Peter A., 2008. "Hedonic adaptation and the role of decision and experience utility in public policy," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(8-9), pages 1795-1810, August.
    5. André Decoster & Peter Haan, 2015. "Empirical welfare analysis with preference heterogeneity," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 22(2), pages 224-251, April.
    6. repec:dau:papers:123456789/12512 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Olivier Bargain & André Decoster & Mathias Dolls & Dirk Neumann & Andreas Peichl & Sebastian Siegloch, 2013. "Welfare, labor supply and heterogeneous preferences: evidence for Europe and the US," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 41(4), pages 789-817, October.
    8. Fleurbaey, Marc & Blanchet, Didier, 2013. "Beyond GDP: Measuring Welfare and Assessing Sustainability," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199767199.
    9. Holly Sutherland & Francesco Figari, 2013. "EUROMOD: the European Union tax-benefit microsimulation model," International Journal of Microsimulation, International Microsimulation Association, vol. 1(6), pages 4-26.
    10. Koen Decancq & Marc Fleurbaey & Erik Schokkaert, 2015. "Happiness, Equivalent Incomes and Respect for Individual Preferences," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 82, pages 1082-1106, December.
    11. O'Donnell, Gus & Oswald, Andrew J., 2015. "National well-being policy and a weighted approach to human feelings," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 59-70.
    12. Ada Ferrer-i-Carbonell & Paul Frijters, 2004. "How Important is Methodology for the estimates of the determinants of Happiness?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 114(497), pages 641-659, July.
    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. Olivier Bargain, 2017. "Welfare analysis and redistributive policies," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 15(4), pages 393-419, December.
    2. Marko Ledic & Ivica Rubil, 2020. "Does going beyond income make a difference? Income vs. equivalent income in the EU over 2007-2011," Public Sector Economics, Institute of Public Finance, vol. 44(4), pages 423-462.

    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. H. Xavier Jara & Erik Schokkaert, 2017. "Putting measures of individual well-being to use for ex-ante policy evaluation," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 15(4), pages 421-440, December.
    2. Koen Decancq & Erik Schokkaert, 2016. "Beyond GDP: Using Equivalent Incomes to Measure Well-Being in Europe," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 126(1), pages 21-55, March.
    3. Alpaslan Akay & Olivier Bargain & H. Xavier Jara, 2020. "‘Fair’ welfare comparisons with heterogeneous tastes: subjective versus revealed preferences," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 55(1), pages 51-84, June.
    4. Marko Ledić & Ivica Rubil, 2021. "Beyond Wage Gap, Towards Job Quality Gap: The Role of Inter-Group Differences in Wages, Non-Wage Job Dimensions, and Preferences," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 155(2), pages 523-561, June.
    5. DECANCQ, Koen & FLEURBAEY, Marc & SCHOKKAERT, Erik, 2014. "Inequality, income, and well-being," LIDAM Discussion Papers CORE 2014018, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    6. DECANCQ, Koen & NEUMANN, Dirk, 2014. "Does the choice of well-being measure matter empirically? An illustration with German data," LIDAM Discussion Papers CORE 2014050, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    7. Koen Decancq & Marc Fleurbaey & Erik Schokkaert, 2015. "Happiness, Equivalent Incomes and Respect for Individual Preferences," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 82, pages 1082-1106, December.
    8. Akay, Alpaslan & Bargain, Olivier & Jara, Xavier, 2017. "Back to Bentham, Should We? Large-Scale Comparison of Experienced versus Decision Utility," IZA Discussion Papers 10907, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    9. Yang, Lin, 2018. "Measuring well-being: a multidimensional index integrating subjective well-being and preferences," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 87789, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    10. Harun Onder & Pierre Pestieau & Gregory Ponthiere, 2019. "Equivalent income versus equivalent lifetime: does the metric matter?," Erudite Working Paper 2019-05, Erudite.
    11. Olivier Bargain, 2017. "Welfare analysis and redistributive policies," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 15(4), pages 393-419, December.
    12. Koen Decancq & Marc Fleurbaey & Erik Schokkaert, 2017. "Wellbeing Inequality and Preference Heterogeneity," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 84(334), pages 210-238, April.
    13. Lin Yang, 2017. "Measuring individual well-being: A multidimensional index integrating subjective well-being and preferences," CASE Papers /202, Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, LSE.
    14. Yang, Lin, 2017. "Measuring individual well-being: A multidimensional index integrating subjective well-being and preferences," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 103495, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    15. Matteo Picchio & Giacomo Valletta, 2018. "A welfare evaluation of the 1986 tax reform for married couples in the United States," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 25(3), pages 757-807, June.
    16. Andrew E. Clark, 2015. "SWB as a Measure of Individual Well-Being," Working Papers halshs-01134483, HAL.
    17. DECANCQ Koen & OLIVERA Javier & SCHOKKAERT Erik, 2018. "Program evaluation and ethnic differences: the Pension 65 program in Peru," LISER Working Paper Series 2018-21, Luxembourg Institute of Socio-Economic Research (LISER).
    18. Koen Decancq & Marc Fleurbaey & François Maniquet, 2019. "Multidimensional poverty measurement with individual preferences," The Journal of Economic Inequality, Springer;Society for the Study of Economic Inequality, vol. 17(1), pages 29-49, March.
    19. Edward E. Schlee & M. Ali Khan, 2022. "Money Metrics In Applied Welfare Analysis: A Saddlepoint Rehabilitation," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 63(1), pages 189-210, February.
    20. Kristen Cooper & Mark Fabian & Christian Krekel, 2023. "New approaches to measuring welfare," Fiscal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 44(2), pages 123-135, June.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ese:emodwp:em9-16. 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: Jonathan Nears (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rcessuk.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.