İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyoloji Dergisi

GÖNDERBİLGİ
EnglishTürkçe

Araştırma Makalesi


DOI :10.26650/SJ.2019.39.1.0022   IUP :10.26650/SJ.2019.39.1.0022    Tam Metin (PDF)

Avrupa Refah Rejimleri ve Türkiye’de Öznel İyi Oluş

Ümmügülsüm Aysan

Bu çalışmanın temel amacı Avrupa Yaşam Kalitesi araştırması (2012) verilerine dayanarak, Avrupa ve Türkiye’deki öznel iyi oluş seviyelerinin, refah rejimi tartışmaları bağlamında mukayeseli analizini ortaya koymaktır. Öznel iyi oluş yaşam memnuniyeti ve mutluluk gibi bilişsel ve duygusal bileşenlerden oluşan çok boyutlu bir kavramdır. Kişilik yapısı, cinsiyet, yaş, gelir, medeni durum gibi bireysel özellikler yanında ülkenin ekonomik durumu, toplumsal yapı ve politik yapı gibi makro faktörlerden de etkilenir. Dolayısıyla bireylerin ve toplumların yaşam kalitesine etki eden refah devletinin ve sosyal politikaların nitelikleri de öznel iyi oluş seviyelerine tesir etmektedir. Analiz sonuçları sosyal politika uygulamalarının kurumsallaştığı gelişmiş refah rejimlerinde öznel iyi oluş seviyelerinin az gelişmiş refah rejimlerine göre daha yüksek olduğunu göstermektedir. Mutluluk ve yaşam memnuniyeti Sosyal Demokrat ülkelerde en yüksek iken, Güney Avrupa ve Post sosyalist refah rejimlerinde en düşük seviyelerdedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Öznel iyi oluş, Mutluluk, Yaşam memnuniyeti, Refah devleti, Eşitsizlik
DOI :10.26650/SJ.2019.39.1.0022   IUP :10.26650/SJ.2019.39.1.0022    Tam Metin (PDF)

Subjective Well-Being in European Welfare Regimes and Turkey

Ümmügülsüm Aysan

The aim of this study is to analyze the subjective well-being levels of Europeans and Turkish citizens within the context of welfare-regime typology using the European Quality of Life Survey’s (EQLS) 2012 data. Subjective well-being, which consists of cognitive factors such as life satisfaction and affective factors such as happiness, is affected by individual factors such as personality, gender, age, income, and marital status, as well as macro factors such as macroeconomic indicators, political institutions, and quality of society. Welfare-state types and the quality of social policies are also related to subjective well-being. This study demonstrates that the subjective well-being levels in institutionalized welfare regimes are higher through high levels of social expenditures and developed social services. Furthermore, differences between the lowest and highest income quartiles for subjective well-being are lowest in social-democratic welfare regimes.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Subjective well-being, Happiness, Life satisfaction, Welfare state, Inequality

GENİŞLETİLMİŞ ÖZET


People have questioned the qualities of a good life since ancient times. Researchers of subjective well-being are interested in how humans feel about and judge the quality of their lives, notwithstanding others’ opinions. Numerous causes are found, including health, marital status, job status, and income, for the variations of subjective wellbeing at the individual level. Furthermore, the populations of different countries have revealed marked differences in subjective well-being. A country’s prevalent economic situation is the first plausible reason. Individuals in affluent societies are expected to be happier than people in economically poor countries. However, subjective wellbeing differences also are present among rich Western societies. Researchers have claimed that social democratic welfare states are able to produce more happiness for their citizens (Radcliff, 2001; Rothstein, 2010). Furthermore, differences in subjective well-being among various social groups such as the lowest and highest income groups are lower in these countries. This study will compare the subjective well-being levels of the welfare regimes in Europe and Turkey using 2012 data from the European Quality of Life Survey.

Subjective Well-Being Subjective well-being is a field that studies the perceived quality of life. In other words, it is the psychology of quality of life, it refers to individuals’ evaluations of their lives, and encompasses both cognitive judgments of satisfaction and affective appraisals of mood and emotion (Diener et al., 1999). The field of subjective well-being has three characteristics. First, it is subjective and about individual experiences. Secondly, it requires both the absence of negative factors and presence of positive factors such as happiness. Last but not least, emphasis is usually placed on the global assessment of all aspects of an individual’s life, not on specific domains like income satisfaction (Diener, 1984). Two main approaches exist for measuring subjective well-being. While the hedonic approach defines well-being in terms of pleasure attainment and pain avoidance with a focus on happiness, the eudaimonic approach targets meaning and self-realization, defining well-being with respect to the degree to which an individual fully functions (Ryan & Deci, 2001). Adopting a broader perspective in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Guidelines on Measuring Subjective Wellbeing (2013), subjective well-being is maintained to encompass three elements: life evaluation, affect, and eudaimonia. Life evaluation is deliberate appraisal of a person’s life, usually measured by life satisfaction. Affect is about both positive (happiness and joy) and negative (anger and fear) feelings and emotions while eudaimonia is related to meaningfulness and purpose in life (OECD, 2013).

Numerous causes exist for the variations in subjective well-being at the individual level. Empirical research has indicated that being married, having children, feeling free and healthy, and participating in religious activities increase individuals’ subjective well-being. Mental and physical health problems, personal sorrows, longterm unemployment, and bereavements make people unhappy. Aside from individual factors, many macro factors are found to affect the level of subjective well-being. Economists are interested in the relationships among macroeconomic indicators such as gross national product inflation, unemployment, inequality, and happiness. Various studies have demonstrated people living in rich countries to be happier than those living in poor countries (Frey & Stutzer, 2010). Culture may be a good reason as to why people in the culturally similar countries of Latin America have high subjective well-being, whereas the subjective well-being of those in post-socialist countries is lower than their earnings would forecast. Welfare regimes differ in how they create and distribute well-being. Tremendous literature exists on the classification of welfare regimes. In his seminal book The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism (1990), Esping-Andersen classified 18 OECD countries up to the 1980s according to their social stratifications and levels of decommodification. Decommodification is “the degree to which individuals, or families, can uphold a socially acceptable standard of living independently of market participation” (Esping-Andersen, 1990, p. 37). Three distinct welfare regimes are found in his classification: the Liberal (Anglo-Saxon or English Speaking), the Conservative (Continental European or Corporatist), and the Social Democratic (Scandinavian) regimes. In liberal welfare regimes, market plays a crucial role while social expenditures are very limited compared to other welfare regimes. Rights and benefits are distributed through means-testing, and welfare recipients are generally stigmatized. In conservative welfare regimes, rights and benefits are distributed according to occupational status, and benefits increase as contributions increase. Conservative welfare regimes maintain and reinforce the existing social classes. The social democratic welfare regime is also defined as the universalistic welfare regime and has a broad range of social services and benefits covering the entire population. Benefits are delivered on the basis of uniform rules of eligibility (Rothstein, 2010). Later, Southern European welfare states and post-socialist welfare states were added to this classification (Aidukaite, 2009; Özdemir, 2007). Although numerous studies exist on welfare regimes, most scholars are interested in the indicators of objective quality of life. Only a handful of studies are found to focus on how people genuinely assess their lives through indicators of subjective well-being. Radcliff (2001) found a strong positive relationship between welfare state and life satisfaction. He claimed life satisfaction increase to the extent that states decrease market reliance and adopt social democratic welfare regimes. On the other hand, contrary to his expectations Veenhoven (2000) found no connection between welfare state and happiness.

 Data and Method This paper uses the European Foundation’s (Eurofound) European Quality of Life Survey (EQLS; 2012) and its data. The questionnaire contains many questions about both the objective and subjective aspects of quality of life. The EQLS records many aspects of the quality of life in Europe and involves social, financial, and environmental determinants, alongside European societies’ well-being and life quality. This survey is the third wave of quality-of-life surveys started in 2003. Eurofound has created a consolidated methodological approach and quality-assurance system through these cross-national studies, not only for the European Union but also for other nations in the region. This survey covers over 40,000 people from 28 EU member countries and six candidate countries (Iceland, Kosovo, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, and Turkey), a total of 34 countries.

Results Welch-ANOVA tests have been conducted to check whether statistically significant variations of subjective well-being exist among the means of different welfare regimes. Analysis has shown significant mean differences to exist among the welfare regimes for both life satisfaction (F = 249.526, p < .000) and happiness (F = 154.422, p < .000). The Games-Howell post-hoc tests have been conducted to confirm where the differences occur among the groups. Life satisfaction has no statistically significant differences between the liberal (M = 7.30) and the corporatist (M = 7.25) regimes, which respectively rank second and third after the social democratic regime (M = 7.94). No statistically significant difference exists between the post socialist regime (M = 6.62) and Turkey (M = 6.61), both of which come after Southern European welfare regimes (M = 7.02). Social democratic welfare regimes also have the best scores (M = 7.89) for happiness. The Games-Howell post-hoc tests show the differences among all groups to be statistically significant. The mean values are as follows: MLiberal = 7.89, MConservative = 7.43, MSouthern European = 7.28, MPost-Socialist = 7.05, and MTurkey = 6.87.

Furthermore, the distribution of happiness is mostly even in these countries. The difference in life satisfaction between the first and fourth income quartiles (i.e., the difference between the 25% with the highest income and the 25% with the lowest income) is lowest in social democratic welfare regimes (0.71). This difference is highest in post-socialist countries (1.48) and liberal countries (1.37).

Conclusion This study has analyzed the variations in subjective well-being across welfare regimes, with particular focus on life satisfaction and happiness, using the individual data obtained from the third wave of the EQLS. The results provide evidence that the citizens of social democratic welfare regimes have reported the highest happiness and life satisfaction scores. These regimes also compensate best for income differences in subjective well-being compared to other welfare-state regimes. In light of the aforementioned variations across welfare regimes, social policies can be concluded to affect subjective well-being.


PDF Görünüm

Referanslar

  • Aidukaite, J. (2009). Old welfare state theories and new welfare regimes in Eastern Europe: Challenges and implications. Communist and Post-communist Studies, 42(1), 23–39. Akarsu, B. (1998). Mutluluk ahlakı: Ahlak öğretileri-I. İstanbul: İnkılap Kitabevi. google scholar
  • Argyle, M. (1999). Causes and correlates of happiness. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Well-being: Foundations of hedonic psychology (pp. 353–373). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation. google scholar
  • Aysan, M. F. (2012). Pension regimes, gender and generational inequalities: The persistence of institutional differences in ageing post-industrial democracies. In P. Vanhuysse & A. Goerres (Eds.), Ageing populations in post-industrial democracies: Comparative studies of policies and politics (pp. 106–126). London: Routledge. google scholar
  • Aysan, M. F., & Aysan, U. (2017). The effect of employment status on life satisfaction in Europe. In M. H. Bilgin, H. Danis, E. Demir, & U. Can (Eds.), Empirical studies on economics of innovation, public economics and management [Proceedings of the 18th Eurasia Business and Economics Society Conference] (pp. 335–347). Springer. google scholar
  • Cacioppo, J. T., & Berntson, G. G. (1999). The affect system architecture and operating characteristics. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8(5), 133–137. google scholar
  • Cantril, H. (1965). The pattern of human concerns (Vol. 4). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. google scholar
  • Clark, A. E., & Oswald, A. (1994). Unhappiness and unemployment. The Economic Journal, 104(424), 648–659. google scholar
  • Cox, R. (2004). The path‐dependency of an idea: Why Scandinavian welfare states remain distinct. Social Policy & Administration, 38(2), 204–219. google scholar
  • Di Tella, R., MacCulloch, R. J., & Oswald, A. J. (2003). The macroeconomics of happiness. Review of Economics and Statistics, 85(4), 809–827. google scholar
  • Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 542–575. google scholar
  • Diener, E. D., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with Life Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71–75. google scholar
  • Diener, E., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2002). Will money increase subjective well-being? Social Indicators Research, 57(2), 119–169. google scholar
  • Diener, E., Lucas, R. E., Oishi, S., Snyder, C. R., & Lopez, S. J. (2002). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and life satisfaction. In C. R. Snyder & S. J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (pp. 63–74). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. google scholar
  • Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Lucas, R. E. (2003). Personality, culture, and subjective well-being: Emotional and cognitive evaluations of life. Annual Review of Psychology, 54(1), 403–425. google scholar
  • Easterlin, R. A. (1974). Does economic growth improve the human lot? Some empirical evidence. Nations and Households in Economic Growth, 89, 89–125. google scholar
  • Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. google scholar
  • Esping-Andersen, G. (1999). Social foundations of postindustrial economies. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. google scholar
  • Eurofound. (2012). European Quality of Life Survey 2012. Retrieved from https://www.eurofound. europa.eu/surveys/european-quality-of-life-surveys/european-quality-of-life-survey-2012 google scholar
  • Eurofound. (2014). Yaşam kalitesi eğilimleri Türkiye: 2003–2012. Retrieved from https://www. eurofound.europa.eu/tr/publications/report/2014/quality-of-life-social-policies/trends-inquality-of-life-turkey-2003-2012 google scholar
  • Ferrera, M. (1996). The ‘Southern model’ of welfare in social Europe. Journal of European Social Policy, 6(1), 17–37. google scholar
  • Frey, B. S., & Stutzer, A. (2000). Happiness, economy and institutions. The Economic Journal, 110(466), 918–938. google scholar
  • Frey, B. S., & Stutzer, A. (2010). Happiness and economics: How the economy and institutions affect human well-being. New Jersey, NJ: Princeton University Press. google scholar
  • Gallup, G. H. (1976). Human needs and satisfactions a global survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 40(4), 459–467. google scholar
  • Gana, K., Bailly, N., Saada, Y., Joulain, M., & Alaphilippe, D. (2013). Does life satisfaction change in old age: Results from an 8-year longitudinal study. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 68(4), 540–552. google scholar
  • Gençöz, T. (2000). Pozitif ve Negatif Duygu Ölçeği: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, 15(46), 19–26. google scholar
  • Joshanloo, M., & Weijers, D. (2014). Aversion to happiness across cultures: A review of where and why people are averse to happiness. Journal of Happiness Studies, 15(3), 717–735. google scholar
  • Lucas, R. E., Clark, A. E., Georgellis, Y., & Diener, E. (2003). Reexamining adaptation and the set point model of happiness: Reactions to changes in marital status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(3), 527–539. google scholar
  • Lykken, D., & Tellegen, A. (1996). Happiness is a stochastic phenomenon. Psychological Science, 7(3), 186–189. google scholar
  • Myers, D. G., & Diener, E. (1995). Who is happy? Psychological Science, 6(1), 10–19. google scholar
  • Ng, Y.-K. (2002). The East-Asian happiness gap: Speculating on causes and implications. Pacific Economic Review, 7(1), 51–63. google scholar
  • Oishi, S., & Gilbert, E. A. (2016). Current and future directions in culture and happiness research. Current Opinion in Psychology, 8, 54–58. Ono, H., & Lee, K. S. (2013). Welfare states and the redistribution of happiness. Social Forces, 92(2), 789–814. google scholar
  • Ono, H., & Lee, K. S. (2016). Redistributing happiness: How social policies shape life satisfaction. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger. google scholar
  • Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2013). OECD guidelines on measuring subjective well-being. Washington, DC: Author. google scholar
  • Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2016). OECD Statistics. Retrieved from http://stats.oecd.org/ google scholar
  • Özdemir, S. (2007). Küreselleşme sürecinde refah devleti. İstanbul: İstanbul Ticaret Odası. google scholar
  • Pacek, A., & Radcliff, B. (2008). Assessing the welfare state: The politics of happiness. Perspectives on Politics, 6(02), 267–277. google scholar
  • Radcliff, B. (2001). Politics, markets, and life satisfaction: The political economy of human happiness. American Political Science Review, 95(4), 939–952. google scholar
  • Rothstein, B. (2010). Happiness and the welfare state. Social Research: An International Quarterly, 77(2), 441–468. google scholar
  • Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and Eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 141–166. google scholar
  • Ryff, C. D., & Keyes, C. L. M. (1995). The structure of psychological well-being revisited. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(4), 719–727. google scholar
  • Saris, W. E., Veenhoven, R., Scherpenzeel, A. C., & Bunting, B. (1996). A comparative study of satisfaction with life in Europe. Budapest: Eotvos University Press. google scholar
  • Schilling, O. (2006). Development of life satisfaction in old age: another view on the “paradox’’. Social Indicators Research, 75(2), 241–271. google scholar
  • Spicker, P. (2008). Social policy: Themes and approaches. Bristol: Policy Press. google scholar
  • Tuzgöl-Erdost, M. (2005). Öznel İyi Oluş Ölçeği’nin Geliştirilmesi: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Türk Psikolojik Danışma ve Rehberlik Dergisi, 3(23), 103–111. google scholar
  • Veenhoven, R. (1996). Developments in satisfaction-research. Social Indicators Research, 37(1), 1–46. google scholar
  • Veenhoven, R. (2000). Freedom and happiness: A comparative study in forty-four nations in the early 1990s. In E. Diener & E. M. Suh (Eds.), Culture and subjective well-being (pp. 257–288). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. google scholar
  • Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063–1070. google scholar
  • Wilson, W. R. (1967). Correlates of avowed happiness. Psychological Bulletin, 67(4), 294–306. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0024431 google scholar

Atıflar

Biçimlendirilmiş bir atıfı kopyalayıp yapıştırın veya seçtiğiniz biçimde dışa aktarmak için seçeneklerden birini kullanın


DIŞA AKTAR



APA

Aysan, Ü. (0001). Avrupa Refah Rejimleri ve Türkiye’de Öznel İyi Oluş. İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyoloji Dergisi, 39(1), 191-214. https://doi.org/10.26650/SJ.2019.39.1.0022


AMA

Aysan Ü. Avrupa Refah Rejimleri ve Türkiye’de Öznel İyi Oluş. İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyoloji Dergisi. 0001;39(1):191-214. https://doi.org/10.26650/SJ.2019.39.1.0022


ABNT

Aysan, Ü. Avrupa Refah Rejimleri ve Türkiye’de Öznel İyi Oluş. İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyoloji Dergisi, [Publisher Location], v. 39, n. 1, p. 191-214, 0001.


Chicago: Author-Date Style

Aysan, Ümmügülsüm,. 0001. “Avrupa Refah Rejimleri ve Türkiye’de Öznel İyi Oluş.” İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyoloji Dergisi 39, no. 1: 191-214. https://doi.org/10.26650/SJ.2019.39.1.0022


Chicago: Humanities Style

Aysan, Ümmügülsüm,. “Avrupa Refah Rejimleri ve Türkiye’de Öznel İyi Oluş.” İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyoloji Dergisi 39, no. 1 (Nov. 2024): 191-214. https://doi.org/10.26650/SJ.2019.39.1.0022


Harvard: Australian Style

Aysan, Ü 0001, 'Avrupa Refah Rejimleri ve Türkiye’de Öznel İyi Oluş', İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyoloji Dergisi, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 191-214, viewed 22 Nov. 2024, https://doi.org/10.26650/SJ.2019.39.1.0022


Harvard: Author-Date Style

Aysan, Ü. (0001) ‘Avrupa Refah Rejimleri ve Türkiye’de Öznel İyi Oluş’, İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyoloji Dergisi, 39(1), pp. 191-214. https://doi.org/10.26650/SJ.2019.39.1.0022 (22 Nov. 2024).


MLA

Aysan, Ümmügülsüm,. “Avrupa Refah Rejimleri ve Türkiye’de Öznel İyi Oluş.” İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyoloji Dergisi, vol. 39, no. 1, 0001, pp. 191-214. [Database Container], https://doi.org/10.26650/SJ.2019.39.1.0022


Vancouver

Aysan Ü. Avrupa Refah Rejimleri ve Türkiye’de Öznel İyi Oluş. İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyoloji Dergisi [Internet]. 22 Nov. 2024 [cited 22 Nov. 2024];39(1):191-214. Available from: https://doi.org/10.26650/SJ.2019.39.1.0022 doi: 10.26650/SJ.2019.39.1.0022


ISNAD

Aysan, Ümmügülsüm. “Avrupa Refah Rejimleri ve Türkiye’de Öznel İyi Oluş”. İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyoloji Dergisi 39/1 (Nov. 2024): 191-214. https://doi.org/10.26650/SJ.2019.39.1.0022



ZAMAN ÇİZELGESİ


Gönderim16.05.2017
Son Revizyon21.02.2018
Kabul17.05.2018

LİSANS


Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC)

This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, and although their new works must also acknowledge you and be non-commercial, they don’t have to license their derivative works on the same terms.


PAYLAŞ




İstanbul Üniversitesi Yayınları, uluslararası yayıncılık standartları ve etiğine uygun olarak, yüksek kalitede bilimsel dergi ve kitapların yayınlanmasıyla giderek artan bilimsel bilginin yayılmasına katkıda bulunmayı amaçlamaktadır. İstanbul Üniversitesi Yayınları açık erişimli, ticari olmayan, bilimsel yayıncılığı takip etmektedir.