Abstract
AbstractMeasuring the well-being of individuals is a significant challenge for social scientists, policy makers, and suppliers of social programming, since well-being consists of many dimensions that are difficult to measure, both individually and collectively. Moreover, the relative contribution of each of the various aspects to overall well-being is unknown. We try to answer this challenge using the methodology of Benjamin et al. (Am Econ Rev 104(9):2698–2735, 2014) and using a survey that measures preferences over 27 aspects of individual well-being. We provide estimates of these preferences for a representative sample of the Israeli population. We also document heterogeneity in preferences for respondents with different current levels of well-being and for different demographic groups. For some aspects of well-being, we provide evidence of decreasing marginal utility. For other aspects, we find evidence for what appears to be an increasing marginal utility but we argue that it likely reflects an endogenous determination of the level of well-being. We discuss the policy implications of our findings and how our results could be aggregated to a well-being index that could be used to evaluate and compare the effects of different policy interventions.
Funder
Myers-JDC-Brookdale Institute
University of Haifa
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference34 articles.
1. Adler MD (2012) Well-being and fair distribution: beyond cost-benefit analysis. Oxford University Press, Oxford
2. Adler MD (2019) Measuring social welfare: an introduction. Oxford University Press, Oxford
3. Adler MD, Dolan P, Kavetsos G (2017) Would you choose to be happy? Tradeoffs between happiness and the other dimensions of life in a large population survey. J Econ Behav Organ 139:60–73
4. Alber J, Delhey J, Keck W, Nauenburg R, Fahey T, Maître B, Saraceno C (2005) Quality of life in Europe
5. Al-Janabi H, Flynn N, Coast J (2012) Development of a self-report measure of capability wellbeing for adults: the ICECAP-A. Qual Life Res 21:167–176