Claves en los estudios sobre teoría de la mente: el engaño y la mentira

The previous section set out the conceptual understanding of well-being to be employed in this report and some of the key influences on well-being. The next step is to present indicators to measure the main elements of well-being. Before doing so, some work undertaken by the OECD is briefly reviewed which assesses a number of methodological approaches to measuring well-being for the regular social indicator publication Society at a Glance.

In its work the OECD has analysed and summarised work undertaken by many other organisations and researchers who have sought to capture well-being through the use of a broad range of social indicators, (OECD, 2007a; Matthews, 2006; Boarini et al., 2006b). As noted by the OECD (and based on the review of well-being literature undertaken in this report) ‘social indicators aim to provide information on well-being beyond that conveyed by conventional economic measures’ (GDP) (OECD, 2007a: 20). The OECD reviews four approaches to measuring well-being: social indicators, money income, money income adjusted for different non-market factors, and subjective measurements.

Based on its analysis of well-being the OECD uses social indicators to measure self sufficiency (employment rate, joblessness, years of schooling and school performance), equity (income inequality, poverty rates and gender wage gap), health status (life expectancy at birth, healthy life expectancy at birth, infant mortality rates and potential years lost as a result of accidents or preventable disease) and social cohesion (volunteering, crime, victimisation, suicide). These indicators measure both positive and negative manifestations of well-being and are the indicators presented in the cross-country analysis Society at a Glance. There is clearly quite a lot of commonality between the social indicators employed by the OECD and the key elements of well-being proposed in this report (see previous section).

The OECD considers alternative approaches including income measures other than GDP per capita. These comprise gross national income, net national income and the economic resources of households. The OECD concludes that ‘money doesn’t buy happiness’ and that when societies move beyond the point where the basics of food, shelter and clothing are provided other non-market factors become more important (OECD, 2007a: 27-28). This conclusion leads OECD researchers to consider non-market activities such as leisure time, the effect of household size, the equality of the distribution of income and environmental degradation to which they attach monetary values, based on replacement or opportunity costs. They conclude that it is difficult to ascribe a satisfactory monetary value to these activities even though they are important to well-being. Other activities are also important, such as production in the home, which have not been assigned a value.

OECD researchers also review subjective measures of well-being. They conclude that while cross-country comparisons of subjective well-being measures remain controversial, evidence at the level of individuals is much stronger, and that ‘people’s happiness depends to a large extent on the circumstances of the broader community they are part of and their relationship to it’ (OECD, 2007a: 34).

At country level a specific example of the use of a well-being framework is the presentation of social trends by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (2001 and 2007). The Australian Bureau notes that measuring well-being involves ‘mapping the whole of life, and considering each life event or social context that has the potential to affect the quality of individual lives, or the cohesion of society’ (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2001: 6). Within this broad approach they argue that the process of measuring well-being involves making ‘value judgements’ about what aspects of life are important to well-being and what social issues are ‘most pressing’. This involves making ‘pragmatic decisions’ as there is ‘no single measure that satisfies all parties’. They conclude that well-being has individual and social dimensions and is influenced via transactions (between an individual and societal institutions); by life events (transitions); and other factors that can be grouped as areas of concern (income, work, relationships, community, etc.) (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2001: 22, italics added).

At European level, Fahey and Smyth have explored the link between subjective well-being and objective conditions in European societies (Fahey and Smyth, 2004). Two of their conclusions are relevant here:

s Subjective indicators of well-being may be more robust in revealing social inequalities than previously thought and may uncover issues not identified through ‘objective’ indicators; and

s Relativities between countries do matter for social inequality as subjectively perceived and experienced by individuals (Fahey and Smyth, 2004: 79).

Relatively recently, (February 2008), the French government established an international Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress. The aim of the Commission is to identify the limits to GDP as an indicator of economic performance and social progress and to suggest feasible alternative measures. The Commission is chaired by Professor Stiglitz and the chair adviser is Professor Sen21_{. The Commission produced a draft summary}

report in June 2009 covering three main areas: classical GDP issues, quality of life indicators, and sustainable development and environmental issues. The work of the Commission has recently been reported (September 2009, see http://www.stiglitz-sen-fitoussi.fr.)