Preference heterogeneity over the aspects of individual well-being: towards the construction of an applied well-being index

IF 0.5 4区 经济学 Q4 ECONOMICS Social Choice and Welfare Pub Date : 2024-07-19 DOI:10.1007/s00355-024-01537-y
Adi Arad, Steven Laufer, Zohar Or Sharvit, Yaniv Reingewertz, Michael Hartal
{"title":"Preference heterogeneity over the aspects of individual well-being: towards the construction of an applied well-being index","authors":"Adi Arad, Steven Laufer, Zohar Or Sharvit, Yaniv Reingewertz, Michael Hartal","doi":"10.1007/s00355-024-01537-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Measuring 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.</p>","PeriodicalId":47663,"journal":{"name":"Social Choice and Welfare","volume":"71 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Choice and Welfare","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00355-024-01537-y","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Measuring 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.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
个人福祉各方面的偏好异质性:构建应用福祉指数
衡量个人的幸福感对于社会科学家、决策者和社会计划的提供者来说是一项重大挑战,因为幸福感由许多方面组成,无论是单独还是整体都很难衡量。此外,各方面对整体幸福感的相对贡献也不得而知。我们尝试使用本杰明等人(《美国经济评论》104(9):2698-2735,2014 年)的方法,并利用一项调查来衡量个人福祉 27 个方面的偏好,从而回答这一挑战。我们为以色列人口的代表性样本提供了这些偏好的估计值。我们还记录了当前福祉水平不同的受访者和不同人口群体的偏好异质性。对于福祉的某些方面,我们提供了边际效用递减的证据。在其他方面,我们发现了边际效用似乎递增的证据,但我们认为这很可能反映了福祉水平的内生决定因素。我们讨论了我们的研究结果对政策的影响,以及如何将我们的研究结果汇总为一个福祉指数,用于评估和比较不同政策干预措施的效果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
11.10%
发文量
56
期刊介绍: Social Choice and Welfare explores all aspects, both normative and positive, of welfare economics, collective choice, and strategic interaction. Topics include but are not limited to: preference aggregation, welfare criteria, fairness, justice and equity, rights, inequality and poverty measurement, voting and elections, political games, coalition formation, public goods, mechanism design, networks, matching, optimal taxation, cost-benefit analysis, computational social choice, judgement aggregation, market design, behavioral welfare economics, subjective well-being studies and experimental investigations related to social choice and voting. As such, the journal is inter-disciplinary and cuts across the boundaries of economics, political science, philosophy, and mathematics. Articles on choice and order theory that include results that can be applied to the above topics are also included in the journal. While it emphasizes theory, the journal also publishes empirical work in the subject area reflecting cross-fertilizing between theoretical and empirical research. Readers will find original research articles, surveys, and book reviews.Officially cited as: Soc Choice Welf
期刊最新文献
Allocation without transfers: a welfare-maximizing mechanism under incomplete information Flexible representative democracy An axiomatic characterization of Split Cycle The character of non-manipulable collective choices between two alternatives Natural interviewing equilibria in matching settings
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1