Methodological approaches to measuring quality of life

GULIYEVA, AYGUN

doi:10.1590/0101-31572022-3256

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Brazilian Journal of Political Economy

Español English

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Articles • Brazil. J. Polit. Econ. 42 (2) • Apr-Jun 2022 • https://doi.org/10.1590/0101-31572022-3256 copy

Methodological approaches to measuring quality of life

Abordagens metodológicas para medir a qualidade de vida

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

ABSTRACT

The ultimate goal of the present work lay in creating a vector methodology for measuring QoL. Application of an integrated approach to the results of the classification analysis and SWOT analysis enabled elaborating a vector methodology of a recommendatory type aimed at improving QoL measurement approaches. It was established that this methodology should include four major updates taking into account the challenges of tomorrow. The study results may be of interest to public authorities responsible for taking measures directed at raising the country’s international ranking as well as be used for reducing contradictions on the part of QoL measuring procedures.

KEYWORDS:
Human development; quality of life measurement; sustainability; well-being

Measurement performer	Measurement name	Central measurement parameters	Country coverage	Measurement result
International organizations
United Nations (UN)	Human Development Index (Conceição, 2019Conceição, Pedro (2019) Human Development Report 2019. Beyond income, beyond averages, beyond today: Inequalities in human development in the 21st century. USA: UNDP.)	Income, life expectancy, education. Total: 3 parameters	189	Integral indicator
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)	Better Life Initiative (OECD, 2020OECD (2020) How’s Life? 2020: Measuring Well-being - Highlights. OECD, Better Life Initiative. https://www.oecd.org/sdd/How-is-Life-2020-Highlights.pdf https://www.oecd.org/sdd/How-is-Life-202... )	Income, jobs, housing, health, work-life balance, education, social connections, civic engagement and governance, environment, personal security and subjective well-being. Total: 11 parameters	40	Integral indicator
Eurostat	Quality of Life (Eurostat, 2020Eurostat (2020) Quality of life indicators - measuring quality of life. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index. php/Quality_of_life_indicators_-_measuring_quality_of_life #Framework_for_measuring_quality_of_life https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics... )	Material living conditions (income, consumption and material conditions), productive or main activity, health, education, leisure and social interactions, economic security and physical safety, governance and basic rights, natural and living environment, overall experience of life. Total: 11 parameters	33	Accounting for objective and subjective indicators
International non-governmental organization
Harvard Business School and Massachusetts Institute of Technology	Social Progress Index (Stern et al., 2020Stern, Scott; Krylova, Petra; Harmacek, Jaromir (2020) Social Progress Imperative. Methodology Summary. Social Progress Imperative. Washington, DC. https://www.socialprogress.org/static/1aa2d19690906eb93c6cdb281e5ee68b/2020-social-progress-index-methodology.pdf https://www.socialprogress.org/static/1a... )	Basic human needs (nutrition and basic medical care, access to water and sanitation, shelter, personal safety); foundations of well-being (access to basic knowledge, access to information and communications, health and wellness, environmental quality), opportunities (personal rights, personal freedom and choice, inclusiveness, access to advanced education). Total: 50 parameters	149	Integral indicator
Government institution
Institute of Economics (ANAS)	Quality of Life in Azerbaijan (Muzaffarli, 2019Muzaffarli, Nazima (2019) Quality of life in Azerbaijan 2018. Azerbaijan National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Economics.)	Material well-being, health, education, safety, family well-being, environment, free time. Total: 3 parameters.	1	Integral indicator

Strengths	Weaknesses
Human Development Index
Wide country coverage (189 states)	Captures only part of what human development and QoL entail
Measures QoL within the framework of society’s values	Measures the results of socio-economic activity, describing the picture of the past and not the current situation
Based upon official statistics, making QoL assessment accessible	Lacks public participation in QoL assessment
Better Life Initiative
Extensive sample coverage: individual/household/community	Narrow country coverage (40 states)
Allows comparing countries’ performance according to their own preferences in terms of what makes for a better life	Focuses on nationwide/population group average
Predicts the resources underlying future well-being based on four types of capital: economic, natural (ecosystem), social, human	Measures the results of economic activity and social progress
Quality of Life
Extensive sample coverage: individual/household/community	Narrow country coverage (33 states)
Wide parameter base: considers material conditions, subjective assessment, and public opinion	Is in the process of being finalized in terms of sustainability
Measures social progress, well-being, sustainable development	Its representative picture is directed solely at the EU member states or EU candidates
Social Progress Index
Traces changes in society over time (measures progress towards the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals)	Research cumbersomeness and complexity
Allows systematical analysis of the relationship between economic development (determined by means of GDP per capita) and social development	Focuses on measuring social progress
Identifies strengths and weaknesses of a society	Individual rights and freedoms are assessed based on experts’ views, which is not applicable to developing countries and entails one-sided subjective judgments
Wide country coverage (163 states)
Quality of Life in Azerbaijan
Aimed at a wide-scale QoL assessment: region/city/country	Not applicable for comparison with other countries
Takes advantage of a multidimensional approach	Fails to consider indicators related to the political environment and personal rights and freedoms of residents
Includes an expert survey of 13 independent participants	Measures economic performance

Centro de Economia Política Rua Araripina, 106, CEP 05603-030 São Paulo - SP, Tel. (55 11) 3816-6053 - São Paulo - SP - Brazil
E-mail: cecilia.heise@bjpe.org.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[TFN1] Source: based on data retrieved from the works of Muzaffarli (2019Muzaffarli, Nazima (2019) Quality of life in Azerbaijan 2018. Azerbaijan National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Economics.), OECD (2020OECD (2020) How’s Life? 2020: Measuring Well-being - Highlights. OECD, Better Life Initiative. https://www.oecd.org/sdd/How-is-Life-2020-Highlights.pdf
https://www.oecd.org/sdd/How-is-Life-202... ), and Stern et al. (2020Stern, Scott; Krylova, Petra; Harmacek, Jaromir (2020) Social Progress Imperative. Methodology Summary. Social Progress Imperative. Washington, DC. https://www.socialprogress.org/static/1aa2d19690906eb93c6cdb281e5ee68b/2020-social-progress-index-methodology.pdf
https://www.socialprogress.org/static/1a... ).