The Quality of Life in Confucian Asia: From Physical Welfare to Subjective Well-Being (Social Indicators Research Series, 40) 904813482X, 9789048134823

Citation preview

The Quality of Life in Confucian Asia

Social Indicators Research Series Volume 40

General Editor: ALEX C. MICHALOS University of Northern British Columbia, Prince George, Canada

Editors: ED DIENER University of Illinois, Champaign, USA

WOLFGANG GLATZER J.W. Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany

TORBJORN MOUM University of Oslo, Norway

MIRJAM A.G. SPRANGERS University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands

JOACHIM VOGEL Central Bureau of Statistics, Stockholm, Sweden

RUUT VEENHOVEN Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands This new series aims to provide a public forum for single treatises and collections of papers on social indicators research that are too long to be published in our journal Social Indicators Research. Like the journal, the book series deals with statistical assessments of the quality of life from a broad perspective, It welcomes the research on a wide variety of substantive areas, including health, crime, housing, education, family life, leisure activities, transportation, mobility, economics, work, religion and environmental issues. These areas of research will focus on the impact of key issues such as health on the overall quality of life and vice versa. An international review board, consisting of Ruut Veenhoven, Joachim Vogel, Ed Diener, Torbjorn Moum, Mirjam A.G. Sprangers and Wolfgang Glatzer, will ensure the high quality of the series as a whole.

For other titles published in this series, go to www.springer.com/series/6548

Doh Chull Shin · Takashi Inoguchi Editors

The Quality of Life in Confucian Asia From Physical Welfare to Subjective Well-Being

Previously published in Social Indicators Research, Volume 92, No. 2 (2009)

123

Doh Chull Shin Department of Political Science University of Missouri-Columbia Columbia MO 65211-6030 113 Professional Bldg. USA

Takashi Inoguchi University of Niigata Prefecture 471 Ebigase Niigata Higashi-ku 950-8680 Japan

Library of Congress Control Number: 2009936959 ISBN: 978-90-481-3482-3 Springer Dordrecht Heidelberg London New York Printed on acid-free paper © 2010 Springer Science+Business Media B.V. No part of this work may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording or otherwise, without the written permission from the Publisher, with the exception of any material supplied specifically for the purpose of being entered and executed on a computer system, for the exclusive use by the purchaser of the work.

Springer.com

Contents

The Quality of Life in Confucian Asia: From Physical Welfare to Subjective Well-being T. Inoguchi & D. C. Shin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1–8

The Quality of Life in China X. Shu & Y. Zhu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9–43

The Quality of Life in Japan T. Inoguchi & S. Fujii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

45–80

The Quality of Life in South Korea C.-M. Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

81–112

The Quality of Life in Hong Kong M. Sing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113–153 The Quality of Life in Singapore S. K. Tambyah, S. J. Tan & A. K. Kau . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155–194 The Quality of Life in Taiwan G. Yao, Y.-P. Cheng & C.-P. Cheng . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195–222 Avowed Happiness in Confucian Asia: Ascertaining its Distribution, Patterns, and Sources D. C. Shin & T. Inoguchi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223–245 Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247–254

v

Soc Indic Res (2009) 92:183–190 DOI 10.1007/s11205-008-9352-2

The Quality of Life in Confucian Asia: From Physical Welfare to Subjective Well-being Takashi Inoguchi Æ Doh Chull Shin

Accepted: 6 October 2008 / Published online: 31 October 2008 Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

The end of the state is not a mere life; rather a good quality of life. Aristotle Without Goodness, one cannot enjoy enduring happiness. Confucius Throughout the world, scholars and policymakers are increasingly concerned with understanding issues related to the quality of life. There is a growing awareness that expanding the gross national product per capita will not, by itself, lead to improved citizen well-being. Quality of life involves much more than income, and economic indicators are not capable of assessing the health of a nation (Diener and Seligman 2004; Lane 2000; Scitovsky 1992; Shin et al. 2003). Thus, with hopes of identifying the factors involved, many government agencies, research institutes, and individual scholars have begun appraising and comparing the quality of life across a number of different countries and regions (Alber et al. 2004; Glatzer 2004; Hagerty et al. 2001; Prescott-Allen 2001; Shek et al. 2005; Shin et al. 2003; United Nations Development Programme 2000; World Bank 2000). As part of this rising global research movement for human betterment, Chuo University and the University of Tokyo in Japan conducted the AsiaBarometer Surveys (ABS) nationally in six East Asian societies. These surveys offer tremendous insight into how increasing prosperity in Confucian Asia has affected subjective well-being among the area’s various citizenries (Inoguchi et al. 2007).

1 Confucian Asia’s Place in a Changing World Geographically, Confucian Asia is a small region of Asia, the world’s largest continent, stretching from the Middle East to the South Pacific islands. As a region in East Asia, it T. Inoguchi Chuo University, Tokyo, Japan e-mail: [email protected] D. C. Shin (&) University of Missouri at Columbia, Missouri, USA e-mail: [email protected] Reprinted from the journal

1

123

T. Inoguchi, D. C. Shin

covers the seven countries of China, Japan, North Korea, South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, and Vietnam, and one dependent territory, Hong Kong. Each of these societies is remarkable for various reasons. China is the world’s most populous nation and has the fastest growing economy on earth. The economies of Hong Kong and Taiwan are among the world’s most globalized economies. Japan is the second largest economy and the most rapidly aging nation in the world. South Korea is the most wired nation and the nation that builds the most ships in the world. Singapore is the world’s richest non-liberal democracy, and North Korea and Vietnam are two of the world’s five remaining communist countries. North Korea, quite unlike Vietnam, remains the poorest and most closed socialist economy in the world. These two underdeveloped socialist countries are not included in this volume. Culturally, Confucian Asia is, as one would expect, infused with the norms and values taught by Confucius and Mencius (Slingerland 2003). For more than two and a half millennia, Confucianism has directly influenced the way in which ordinary people in these countries live their private and public lives, and the way in which their political leaders run their respective governments. Unlike the values of the Western Enlightenment, Confucian values emphasize family and community over the individual, discipline and hierarchy over freedom and equality, and consensus and harmony over diversity and conflict (Tu 1999). Public opinion surveys conducted in these countries confirm that large majorities of their mass citizenries still remain attached to the Confucian social values of collectivism and hierarchism, and the political norms of illiberal governance featuring rule by the virtues and paternalism (Chu et al. 2008; Shin 2008). Politically, Confucian Asia constitutes one of the least democratized regions in the world, despite three decades of exposure to democratization forces. The current, third wave of global democratization began to spread to East Asia from Southern Europe in the mid1970s, yet a majority of East Asian countries have not transformed into democracies. Only two countries, South Korea and Taiwan, have joined the family of third-wave democracies. In Confucian Asia today, non-democracies outnumber democracies. Why has Confucian Asia failed to experience democratization to the same extent as other regions, such as East and Central Europe and Latin America? Many theorists have argued that the cultural values of collectivism, hierarchism, and conformism are undermining democratization forces because they encourage East Asians to hold onto the norms of authoritarian rule and reject those of democracy (Chang et al. 2005; Lindner and Bachtiger 2005; Park and Shin 2006). Economically, however, Confucian Asia is known as a region of wonders. For three decades beginning in the 1960s, Japan and four so-called little dragons or tigers, Hong Kong, South Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan, have expanded their economies at much faster rates than what has occurred in all other world regions. According to an influential World Bank study (1993), between 1965 and 1990, the average growth of GNP per capita in these five countries grew more than twice as fast as that of the OECD economies; three times as fast as that of Latin America; and nearly 10 times as fast as that of sub-Saharan Africa. Even more astounding, China, the core state of Confucian civilization, has in the last 25 years outperformed the four East Asian tigers to become the world’s fastest growing economy with an average of more than 9% growth per year. This phenomenal advance began with economic reforms in 1978. Overall, East Asia has, with limited resources, achieved greater socioeconomic modernization than the West ever has since its long history of industrialization and modernization began in the eighteenth century (Dalton and Shin 2006). As a result of such spectacular expansion of their economies, people in China, Japan, and the four East Asian tigers have been living longer and healthier lives, with more goods and services at their disposal. They have also become more educated and skilled, more

123

2

Reprinted from the journal

Confucian Values, East Asians, Lifestyle, Value Priority, Welfare, Well-being

white-collar, more urbanized, and more traveled. However, there has certainly been a downside to the rapid economic growth. East Asians are experiencing increasingly higher levels of alienation, dehumanization, pollution, violent crimes, and governmental control, not to mention they are witnessing the destruction of the misty green landscapes so celebrated in their paintings. Consequently, an increasing number of people in prospering Confucian Asian countries are questioning whether their countries have truly become better places to live. To date, however, no region-wide research effort has been made to appraise the quality of life which East Asians experience in their private and public lives in the wake of rapid economic growth and social modernization. Which resources and experiences do they most value in their own personal lives? How do their priorities differ across the East Asian societies? These questions and more are explored in the studies included in this groundbreaking special issue, which unlike existing comparative studies of economic development or social welfare in East Asia, encompasses the whole range of life experiences, including those not directly related to a materialistic or physical notion of welfare (Campbell 1981; Inglehart 1977; Offer 1997; Philips 2006; Rescher 1972; Tang 1998).

2 Confucianism Societies What makes a society ‘‘Confucian’’? We define Confucian societies as those deeply influenced by a set of philosophical and social doctrines propounded by an ancient Chinese philosopher-pundit known in the West as Confucius (Slingerland 2003). His doctrines emphasize an inevitable link between the need to nurture personal virtues and the need to cultivate the quality of governance, and they are summarized in his notion of Daxue (Great Learning): kewu zhizhi xiuyang jijia zhiguo pingtianxia (‘‘investigating reality, reaching truth, nurturing virtue, tidying the family, governing the state, pacifying the world under heaven’’). In Confucianism, learning starts from science (knowing reality) and ethics (inculcating virtues). On the basis of factual knowledge and ethical virtues, Confucianism then aims to build ordered families and morally governed states. Good family life and successful governance, in turn, bring the world under heaven to peace. Offering codes of personal and governmental morality, the Confucian learning model emphasizes a variety of virtues (Tu 1996). To what extent do the people of Confucian East Asia uphold these virtues? Do the virtues they uphold vary across the region’s countries? To address these questions, the 2006 ABS asked respondents to consider a list of 10 virtues that can be taught at home and to choose the two they consider most important. The list included the Confucian and non-Confucian virtues of (1) independence, (2) diligence, (3) honesty, (4) sincerity, (5) mindfulness, (6) humbleness, (7) religiosity, (8) patience, (9) competitiveness, (10) respect for senior persons, and (11) deference for teachers. For each country, Table 1 reports the three virtues most frequently mentioned. A careful comparison of these virtues across six East Asian societies reveals that they are alike in choosing three of five Confucian virtues as the two most important goals of educating children. Overwhelming majorities ranging from 94% in Hong Kong to 98% in Japan uphold one of five Confucian virtues, including (1) independence, (2) diligence, (3) honesty, (4) mindfulness, and (5) sincerity. At the same time, large majorities ranging from 87% in China to 96% in Japan refuse to endorse either of the two non-Confucian virtues of religiosity and competitiveness. In all six societies, more than 85% endorse only Confucian virtues as the two most important values for children’s upbringing. This finding makes it Reprinted from the journal

3

123

T. Inoguchi, D. C. Shin Table 1 The three most frequently mentioned Confucian virtues for children to learn Three Confucian virtues First

Second

Third

China

Independence (48%)

Diligence (43%)

Honesty (34%)

Japan

Mindfulness (66%)

Honesty (33%)

Sincerity (28%)

S. Korea

Sincerity (41%)

Honesty (38%)

Independence (37%)

Hong Kong

Honesty (41%)

Diligence (36%)

Independence (34%)

Singapore

Honesty (55%)

Independence (43%)

Diligence (26%)

Taiwan

Diligence (45%)

Honesty (38%)

Independence (36%)

clear that all six East Asian countries surveyed remain, by and large, attached to Confucianism. A careful scrutiny of the data reported in Table 1, however, shows that Japan stands out from the rest of the East Asian societies (Inoguchi 2006). Japan is the only nation that chooses mindfulness, a virtue governing interpersonal relationships, as one of the two most important educational values, and the virtue not only makes Japan’s list but tops it. Moreover, the proportion of Japanese people who choose mindfulness is considerably higher than the proportion choosing any of the other top choices. This focus on mindfulness makes Japan a clear outlier from the rest of Confucian Asia and may explain why the Japanese civilization is distinguished from the Chinese civilization in Samuel Huntington’s (1998) classification of eight civilizations. Nonetheless, it should be noted that the six countries covered in this special issue show far more cultural similarity than dissimilarity by accepting Confucian virtues while rejecting non-Confucian virtues.

3 The Notion of Quality of Life What constitutes quality of life? The quality of life concept has been defined in many different ways (Shek et al. 2005; Storrs 1975; Veenhoven 2000). Some scholars have equated it with access to material goods and services known as ‘‘the general requirements for happiness’’ (Prescott-Allen 2001; von Wright 1972). Others have equated it with positive life experiences (Andrews and Withey 1976; Campbell et al. 1976). While the former focus on the objective conditions in which people live, the latter deal exclusively with how people feel about those conditions and other life experiences. Thus, there are two contrasting approaches—objective and subjective—to the notion of life quality. Between the two approaches, the studies included in this special issue feature the subjective approach as they equate quality of life with subjective well-being. Underlying this subjective approach is the premise that the word ‘‘quality’’ is an evaluative term admitting degrees of desirability or value; the quality of life is, therefore, like beauty in that it resides in the eye of the beholder, and it can be evaluated only by those who experience it (Allard 1976; Campbell 1981; Nussbaum and Sen 1993; Storrs 1975). Among the various elements and conditions of life, therefore, only those to which people impute value count toward the parameter of life quality. The quality of life as subjective well-being is, in all of the studies included here, conceptualized as a multi-dimensional, multi-level phenomenon. In assessing their subjective quality of life, people can bear in mind all the things that they deem significant to

123

4

Reprinted from the journal

Confucian Values, East Asians, Lifestyle, Value Priority, Welfare, Well-being

them and thus judge the overall quality of their lives. They can also consider particular aspects or domains of their lives and judge each of those domains on a separate basis. Therefore, the ABS asked two sets of questions. The first set of three questions tapped the overall quality of life in terms of happiness, enjoyment, and accomplishment. The second set, a battery of questions, tapped satisfaction or dissatisfaction with sixteen life domains on a five-point verbal scale. These two sets of questions serve as our indicators of two levels of quality of life, global and domain.

4 A Theoretical Model What determines quality of life? The environment in which people live and the resources they command affect quality of life directly by offering things beneficial or harmful to human existence. Such objective conditions of life also affect its quality indirectly through the mediation of values. Not only do values influence which needs and aspirations people have but different values also cause people to evaluate the same resources in different manners (Campbell et al. 1976; Diener and Suh 1997; Lane 2000). The present study, therefore, emphasizes the consideration of individuals’ values to create a complete account of the quality of life people experience. By addressing both values and objective life conditions, our theoretical model provides a systemic account of the perceived quality of life among the mass publics of Confucian societies. Specifically, the model combines three sets of predictors: (1) objective conditions of life; (2) a way of life; and (3) value priorities. This model hypothesizes that the quality of life people experience primarily depends on their value preferences and priorities. These find expression in the objective conditions of their lives and influence people’s use of available resources. A number of theoretical perspectives are central to the proposed analyses of life quality. The first is the perspective that human values vary considerably in preference and priority across different segments of the same population (Baker 2006; Blondel and Inoguchi 2006). Because people from various segments are not only socialized into different lifestyles but also command varying kinds and differential amounts of resources, they do not always cherish the same things for themselves or for their country. Even when they value the same things, they oftentimes prioritize them differently. Moreover, the same person will prioritize values differently at different stages of life. As Ronald Inglehart (1977) points out, the high value placed on the acquisition of personal wealth and achievement has been slowly transferring to freedom, equality, and accommodation to nature. The second perspective is that quality of life and the objective conditions of life are, by and large, separate concepts (Frey and Stutzer 2002; Lane 2000). People evaluate their life experiences either positively or negatively according to their own conception of what is good and right in life. Their evaluations also depend upon how they compare themselves with other people. As a result, there is no definite relationship between people’s sense of well-being and the objective circumstances of their lives. Happiness may be just as prevalent among the poor as the rich, and dissatisfaction may be as common among the highly educated as the barely educated. Subjective feelings of well-being and ill-being, therefore, cannot be inferred accurately by objective indicators of life conditions. Such subjective feelings can be measured accurately only by asking people directly to what extent they find their life conditions pleasant or unpleasant, and/or fulfilling or disappointing. Finally, the present study is grounded in the perspective that the production of more material goods and services do not necessarily enhance the quality of citizens’ lives Reprinted from the journal

5

123

T. Inoguchi, D. C. Shin

(Easterlin 1973, 1995; Inglehart and Klingemann 2000; Max-Neef 1995). Although up to a certain point greater production of such material resources generally does have a favorable impact upon people’s lives, beyond that point more production can actually detract from the overall quality of life by causing congestion, pollution, and dehumanization. Thus, enhancing citizen well-being depends less on investment in economic growth and more on policies that promote good governance, liberty, democracy, trust, and public safety. This understanding of life quality is the reason why the European Union now monitors citizen well-being among its member nations with the Eurobarometer, and why private organizations such as the Pew Foundation assess happiness and life satisfaction in nations around the globe (European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions 2008; Pew Research Center 2007).

5 Organization The first six articles in this special issue examine the quality of life in each Confucian society from a variety of perspectives. In each article, the first section provides basic information about the featured society’s people and the objective conditions of life in which they live. This section also briefly discusses notable changes that have recently taken place concerning those conditions, e.g., democratic and market reform, and their effects on citizen well-being. The second section presents the demographic profile of respondents to the BS in terms of gender, age, educational attainment, income level, marital status, and religion. This section uses these six demographic variables to analyze how lifestyles, value priorities, and the perceptions of life vary across the different segments of the population. The third section focuses on lifestyles. Specifically, it highlights the various ways in which people live their lives in terms of spending time and money, and interacting with other people at home and abroad. It also examines the extent to which respondents access public utilities and digital devices. Additionally, it identifies and compares the most and least prevalent lifestyles across the different groups of the population. The fourth section analyzes how people prioritize their values. It identifies distinct value orientations by examining which resources and activities respondents value above all others and then classifying those values according to the spheres of life they touch. This section then examines how value orientations differ significantly from one population group to another. The fifth section focuses on the global or overall evaluations of well-being. It first compares the extent to which people experience feelings of happiness, enjoyment, and achievement, and identifies the specific components of global well-being that are most and least lacking. Then, considering all of these feelings together, it estimates the overall level of subjective well-being among the population as a whole. Finally, it identifies the population groups which are most and least likely to live a life of happiness, enjoyment, and achievement. The sixth section focuses on how people feel about specific life domains. It compares the extent to which they are satisfied or dissatisfied with 16 specific life domains and identifies the particular domains, and spheres of domains that they find most and least satisfying. By counting the number of satisfying and dissatisfying domains for each population group, it also identifies the most and least satisfied among the population. The life domains surveyed are housing, friendships, marriage, standard of living, household

123

6

Reprinted from the journal

Confucian Values, East Asians, Lifestyle, Value Priority, Welfare, Well-being

income, health, education, job, neighbors, public safety, the environment, the social welfare system, the democratic system, family life, leisure, and spiritual life. The seventh section estimates and compares the direct, independent effects of demographics, lifestyles, value priorities, and domain assessments on the overall quality of life and its three components—happiness, enjoyment, and achievement. What makes people live a life of happiness, enjoyment, and achievement? Is it money or family life? Is it the objective conditions of life or subjective assessments of those conditions? The last section of each of the first six articles highlights and reviews the key findings in light of what is noted in previous research concerning the featured society. Each article concludes with an exploration of how these findings could be applied toward the building of a nation of well-being. The seventh and final article in this ground breaking special issue compares and contrasts all six Confucian societies in terms of avowed happiness among their respective people. After explicating the philosophical notion of happiness that refers to the quality of a whole human life, it analyzes its dimensional contours in terms of how East Asians experience the feelings of enjoyment, achievement, and/or satisfaction. It then identifies the forces that shape happiness among the people in the six Confucian societies and compares those forces with what is known in the West. Acknowledgments The Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan provided funding for the conducting of the AsiaBarometer Surveys reported in this special issue. The Ministry awarded Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research to the project director Takashi Inoguchi at Chuo University (project number 17002002) for the 2005–2008 period. The Korea Foundation endowed chair professorship at the University of Missouri at Columbia also provided support for the preparation of the special issue.

References Alber, J., et al. (2004). Quality of life in an enlarged Europe. Ireland: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions. Allard, E. (1976). Dimensions of welfare in a comparative Scandinavia study. Acta Sociologica, 19, 227–239. Andrews, F. M., & Withey, S. B. (1976). Social indicators of well-being. New York: Plenum Press. Baker, W. (2006). America’s crisis of values: Reality and perception. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Blondel, J., & Inoguchi, T. (2006). Political cultures in Asia and Europe. London: Routledge. Campbell, A. (1981). The sense of well-being in America. New York: McGraw-Hill. Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., & Rodgers, W. L. (1976). The quality of American life. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Chang, Y. C., Chu, Y.-h., & Tsai, F. (2005). Confucianism and democratic values in three Chinese societies. Issues & Studies, 41(4), 1–33. Chu, Y., Diamond, L., Nathan, A., & Shin, D. (Eds.). (2008). How East Asians view democracy. New York: Columbia University Press. Dalton, R., & Shin, D. (Eds.). (2006). Citizens, democracy, and markets around the Pacific Rim. New York: Oxford University Press. Diener, E., & Seligman, M. (2004). Beyond money: Toward an economy of well-being. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 5, 1–31. Diener, E., & Suh, E. M. (1997). Measuring quality of life: Economic social, and subjective indicators. Social Indicators Research, 40, 189–216. European Foundation for the Improvement of Living, Working Conditions. (2008). Annual report 2007. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications for European Communities. Easterlin, R. (1973). Does money buy happiness. Public Interest, 30, 3–10. Easterlin, R. (1995). Will raising the income of all increase the happiness of all? Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 27, 35–48. Frey, B. S., & Stutzer, A. (2002). Happiness and economics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Reprinted from the journal

7

123

T. Inoguchi, D. C. Shin Glatzer, W. (2004). Challenges for the quality of life in the contemporary world. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer. Hagerty, M. R., et al. (2001). Quality of life indexes for national policy: Review and agenda for research. Social Indicators Research, 55(1), 1–96. Huntington, S. (1998). The clash of civilizations and the remaking of the world order. New York: Simon and Schuster. Inglehart, R. (1977). Silent revolution. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Inglehart, R., & Klingemann, H. (2000). Genes, culture, democracy, and happiness. In E. Diener & M. E. Suh (Eds.), Culture and subjective well-being. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Inoguchi, T. (2006). Social capital in East Asia. Prepared for presentation at NAPSIPAG conference in Sydney, December 4–5, 2006. Inoguchi, T., Tanaka, A., Sonoda, S., & Dadabaev, T. (Eds.). (2007). Human beliefs and values in striding Asia: East Asia in focus. Tokyo: Akashi Shoten. Lane, R. (2000). The loss of happiness in market democracies. New Haven: Yale University Press. Lindner, W., & Bachtiger, A. (2005). What drives democratization in Asia and Africa? European Journal of Political Research, 44, 861–880. Max-Neef, M. (1995). Economic growth and quality of life: A threshold hypothesis. Ecological Economics, 15, 115–118. Nussbaum, M., & Sen, A. (Eds.). (1993). The quality of life. New York: Oxford University Press. Offer, A. (Ed.). (1997). In pursuit of the quality of life. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Park, C. M., & Shin, D. C. (2006). Do Asian values deter popular support for democracy? Asian Survey, 46(3), 341–361. Pew Research Center. (2007). Happiness is increasing in many places—but why. http://pewglobal.org/ commentary/display.php?AnalysisID=1020. Philips, D. (2006). Quality of life: Concept, policy and practice. London: Rutledge. Prescott-Allen, R. (2001). The well-being of nations. Washington, DC: Island Press. Rescher, N. (1972). Welfare: The social issues in philosophical perspective. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press. Scitovsky, T. (1992). The joyless economy: The psychology of human satisfaction (rev. ed.). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Shek, D., Chan, Y. K., & Lee, P. (2005). Quality-of-life research in Chinese, western, and global contexts. New York: Springer. Shin, D. C. (2008). The third wave in East Asia. Presented at the State of Democratic Governance in Asia, 21–22 June, Taiwan National University. Shin, D. C., Rutkowski, C., & Park, C. M. (2003). The quality of life in Korea. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press. Slingerland, E. (2003). Confucius analects. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company. Storrs, M. (1975). Quality of life. Social Indicators Research, 2(2), 229–248. Tang, K. (1998). East Asian industrializing countries: Economic growth and quality of life. Social Indicators Research, 43, 69–96. Tu, W. (1996). Confucian traditions in East Asian morality: Moral education and economic culture in Japan and the four mini dragons. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Tu, W. (1999). The confucian world. http://www.coloradocollege.edu/academics/anniversary/Transcripts/ TuTXT.htm. United Nations Development Programme. (2000). Human development report: Human development and human rights. New York: Oxford University Press. Veenhoven, R. (2000). The four qualities of life: Ordering concepts and measure of the good life. Journal of Happiness Studies, 1, 1–39. von Wright, G. (1972). The varieties of goodness. London: Routledge and Regan Paul. World Bank. (1993). The East Asian miracle. Oxford: Oxford University Press. World Bank. (2000). World development indicators 2000. Washington, DC: The World Bank.

123

8

Reprinted from the journal

Soc Indic Res (2009) 92:191–225 DOI 10.1007/s11205-008-9350-4

The Quality of Life in China Xiaoling Shu Æ Yifei Zhu

Accepted: 6 October 2008 / Published online: 4 November 2008 Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Abstract The Asia Barometer Survey of 2,000 respondents reveals that substantial majorities of the Chinese people experience feelings of happiness, enjoyment, and accomplishment. In fact, the proportion experiencing these indicators of a high quality of life are larger in China than in some more prosperous countries. Favorable historical comparison, sustained high economic growth, satisfaction with interpersonal life, and a high percentage of married people are among the explanations for China’s prevalence of subjective well-being. The Chinese people’s high levels of satisfaction with their interpersonal, material, and nonmaterial life domains, their positive assessments of their relative living standards, and their high rate of marriage are three direct positive influences on subjective well-being. Value priorities and other demographic characteristics also have indirect bearings on subjective well-being in China. Keywords Subjective well-being
Happiness
Enjoyment
Accomplishment
Life domains
China

For millennia, China has been the Center of East Asian civilization. In China, the teachings of Confucius and Mencius have served as its ethical system and political ideology. These teachings, known as Confucianism, have for more than 2,000 years profoundly affected how the people of China and other East Asians live and what they value for themselves and their country. Confucianism delineates the rights and duties of individuals relative to the power and authority of fathers, husbands, and political leaders (Bell 2006; Bell et al 1995; Compton 2000; Pye 1992; Tu 1996). As the birthplace of Confucianism, China constitutes the core state of the Confucian Asian civilization zone, which stretches northeast to Korea and Japan and southwest to Singapore and Vietnam. X. Shu (&)
Y. Zhu (&) Department of Sociology, University of California Davis, Davis, CA 95616, USA e-mail: [email protected] Y. Zhu e-mail: [email protected] Reprinted from the journal

9

123

X. Shu, Y. Zhu

In recent years, Confucianism has been interpreted as the ideological and cultural engine powering economic growth. According to this thesis, Confucianism embodies a belief system that values and demands hard work, frugality, education, and the willing sacrifice of the individual for the benefit of collective good. The East Asian economic miracle is, therefore, seen as a direct result of the moral regeneration of Confucianism (Tu 1996). The recent growth of the Chinese economy has also been attributed to Confucian tradition, at least partially. Emphasizing authority, hierarchical order, and discipline, Confucianism is widely believed to have enabled the Chinese government to mobilize the society and facilitate the achievement of economic development (Peng 1996). Against this backdrop of a long Confucian tradition, the Chinese society has since the late 1970s experienced some of the most rapid advances in human history. From the start of the reform in the later 1970s to 2002, China’s GDP enjoyed an average annual growth rate of 9.3%, and the total GDP grew more than eightfold. Per capita GDP grew more than six times, and household consumption grew more than five times (China National Bureau of Statistics 2003). In the past 30 years, China has lifted more than 400 million Chinese people out of poverty (Ravallion and Chen 2004). The consumption structure of both urban and rural residents has experienced substantial change, with the relative expenses on food and clothing declining (China National Bureau of Statistics 2003). Life expectancy has also increased rapidly (China National Bureau of Statistics 2003). China’s Human Development Index Ranking increased 20% since 1990 (United Nations Development Program 2005). China actively partakes in globalization and is increasingly engaged in international trade and cultural exchanges. Its total imports and exports grew more than 30-fold, and foreign direct investment increased more than 12-fold (China National Bureau of Statistics 2003) from 1978 to 2002. China received more than 36 million international tourists in 2002, and more than 16 million of its 1.3 billion residents traveled to other countries that the same year (China National Bureau of Statistics 2003). However, much of China’s phenomenal economic advance has yet to be translated into social progress. The Communist state continues its one-party rule and controls all of the vital institutions (all levels of government, all levels of legislature, the military, the courts, and police) and major industries (utilities, telecommunications, and banking), despite market reforms. Economic reforms also led to massive layoffs from state-owned enterprises. From 70 to 80% of rural households no longer have medical insurance after China’s socialized health care system was dismantled (United Nations Development Program 2005). Income inequalities, both between individual citizens and between rural and urban regions, have been on the rise. The uneven economic development and globalization also resulted in regional inequality within China, with the coastal regions enjoying a much higher level of development than the hinterland (United Nations Development Program 2005). How have these drastic changes, particularly in Chinese economy and society during the past three decades, affected the way the Chinese people live and what they value for themselves and their country? How have those changes affected the quality of life the Chinese people experience in their private and public lives? Have these economic gains enabled them to live lives of subjective well-being, evidenced by feelings of happiness, enjoyment, and accomplishment? What factors directly and indirectly influence the Chinese people’s perceptions and evaluations of the quality of their lives? To answer these questions, we start this paper with a brief introduction of China as a place to live; we describe its geography, climate, population, economy, politics, culture, public health, and environment. We next introduce a hypothesized conceptual model that depicts the ways in

123

10

Reprinted from the journal

The Quality of Life in China

which lifestyles, value priorities and satisfaction with various life domains influence perceived quality of life, both directly and indirectly. We then analyze data from the 2006 AsiaBarometer Survey to examine subjective well-being, measured as perceived quality of life in terms of happiness, enjoyment, and achievement, among Chinese people. We first analyze the various lifestyles the Chinese lead and the effects demographic characteristics have on their lifestyles. Next we ascertain the types of resources and activities that they value most for their lives and how demographic characteristics affect their value priorities. Afterwards, we analyze assessments of life quality as a whole and of its specific components, i.e. happiness, enjoyment, and accomplishment. These analyses are followed by analyses of how demographics, value priorities, and satisfaction with various life domains affect the Chinese’s assessments of overall life quality. On the basis of all these analyses, we finally construct a model that specifies both direct and indirect influences on perceived quality of life in China.

1 Life in China 1.1 Geography and Climate The territory of China contains a large variety of landscapes. In the East, there are extensive and densely populated plains, while Southern China is dominated by hills and low mountain ranges. In the West are major mountain ranges, high plateaus, and deserts. The climate of China also varies greatly. Northern China has fairly hot summers and extremely cold winters. Central China has a temperate continental climate. Southern China has a subtropical climate and is very hot in the summer and mild in the winter. 1.2 Population On this diverse land resides a population of more than 1.3 billion, the largest national population in the world (China National Bureau of Statistics 2007). Sixty-five percent of the Chinese population is concentrated in Eastern and Middle China, which constitute only 20% of the country’s land area. Western provinces account for more than 70% of China’s land but less than 30% of its population. Overall, 56% of the Chinese are rural residents, while 44% are urban dwellers (China National Bureau of Statistics 2007). 1.3 Economy Since the late 1970s, China’s economy has been reforming from a socialist structure to a market-oriented economy. Notable reforms include private contracts of farmlands, allowances for private and other new forms of firms, relaxed prices, increased authority of managers, and policies and practices to promote foreign investment. As a result, China’s GDP increased six-fold since 1978, with an average annual GDP growth rate of 9.4% for the past 25 years (United Nations Development Program 2005). With the rapid economic development, there has been a significant rise in the Chinese people’s objective standard of living. The percentage of the population in poverty has been reduced to 10%. The percentage of literate citizens increased from 20% in 1950 to more than 90% in 2004 (United Nations Development Program 2005). Reprinted from the journal

11

123

X. Shu, Y. Zhu

1.4 Politics China is a one-party state ruled by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Compared to the strict control prior to the mid-1970s, the political climate has become more open. Openly contested elections are held at the village and town levels. Despite these changes, the CCP retains effective control and continues to impose heavy restrictions on the press, Internet use, freedom of assembly, freedom of reproductive rights, and freedom of religion. There is also widespread corruption among government leadership. 1.5 Education China operates a 9-year compulsory education in 90% of its populated areas. As of 2002, the literacy rate for the population aged 15 and older was 91%, with the rate for males at 95% and females 87%; the literacy rate among 15–24 year olds was 99% in 2000 (Ross 2004). For non-compulsory education, China adopts a shared-cost mechanism, charging tuition at a certain percentage of the cost. This policy has posed considerable difficulties for students from low-income families and regions. 1.6 Public Health The health of the Chinese population has improved rapidly as a result of better nutrition. Life expectancy increased from about 41 years in 1950 to 69 years in 1998 to 73 years in 2006. Infant mortality declined more than 40% from 37 per thousand in 1990 to about 20 per thousand in 2006 (World Health Statistics 2008). However, many of the free public health services provided to the rural population have disappeared in the last 20 years, and health care has become largely a private fee-for-service industry during China’s market transition. 1.7 Environment Despite fairly stringent regulations, the environment of China continues to deteriorate. While seeking economic development, local communities frequently disregarded environment regulations (Ma and Ortalano 2000). With rapid industrialization, air quality in large cities has rapidly deteriorated. As a result, 16 of the 20 most polluted cities in the world are Chinese (World Bank and China State Environmental Protection Administration 2007). Due to expansion of deserts and poor agricultural practices, Northern China has also suffered from dust storms each spring. In addition, China faces a severe water crisis as increased industrial production has created considerable water pollution in many of the country’s rivers. The drinking water of 300 million peasants is unsafe, and water quality in one fifth of the cities is not up to standard. In addition, 400 out of 600 cities suffer from a water shortage (Ma 2004).

2 The Conceptual Model How do individual Chinese citizens appraise their quality of life? What forces have the most influence on their experiences of well-being, evidenced by happiness, enjoyment, and achievement? To answer these questions, we consider demographic characteristics, lifestyle types, value priorities, and satisfaction levels with specific life domains. We take into

123

12

Reprinted from the journal

The Quality of Life in China

Demographic Characteristics: Gender Age Education Marital status Household income Employment Urban/rural resident

Value Priorities: Being healthy Having a comfortable home Having enough to eat Having access to medical care Raising children

Life Domain Satisfaction: Personal life Interpersonal life Material life Nonmaterial life Public life

Subjective wellbeing: Happiness Enjoyment Accomplishment

Lifestyles: Household related Access to resources Religiosity Participation in elections Trusting others Self-rated living standard Globalism and localism

Fig. 1 A conceptual model of influences on happiness, enjoyment, accomplishment and overall subjective well-being

account the dynamics that exist between these forces, noting that satisfaction levels depend on value priorities and lifestyles, which are, in turn, influenced by demographic characteristics. We also examine how a Chinese person’s membership in a particular population group affects his or her chances of experiencing a sense of wellbeing. Figure 1 shows the interrelationships among demographic characteristics, lifestyles, value priorities, satisfaction with life domains, and subjective well-being. It also presents the types and measures of demographic characteristics, lifestyles, value priorities, life domain satisfaction, and subjective well-being. We organize our analysis based on this conceptual model describing a series of direct and indirect influences on subjective well-being. We analyze the four sets of variables reported in Fig. 1 as influences on subjective wellbeing, which we measure in terms of happiness, enjoyment, and accomplishment. These four variable sets influencing well-being are: (1) the demographic characteristics of gender, age, educational attainment, marital status, household income, employment, and urban/ rural residency; (2) value priorities, which refer to the resources and activities the Chinese consider to be the most important to their private and public lives; (3) lifestyles, which refer to the various ways people spend their time and money and their interactions with other people; and (4) satisfaction with 16 specific life domains encompassing personal life, interpersonal life, material life, nonmaterial life, and public life.

3 Sampling and Respondents We use data from the 2006 Asia Barometer Survey (ABS hereafter), a national sample of 2,000 males and females aged 20–69. The survey was carried out by the Chinese Academy of Social Science Research Center in the summer of 2006. It used a three-stage stratified sampling methodology. In the first stage, China was stratified into five population sizes and three regions. In the second stage, 100 primary sampling units were chosen randomly from Reprinted from the journal

13

123

X. Shu, Y. Zhu

the city lists in the China Population Statistics Yearbook 2005, and two sampling units (neighborhoods or villages) were selected from each of these units. In the last stage, ten individuals were systematically chosen at equal intervals from the resident registration ledger at each neighborhood or village. Then face-to-face interviews were conducted to gather information. Appendix Table A1 describes the variables and their measurements used in our analysis. We compared data from the 2006 ABS with data from two recent national surveys and the 2000 Census, and present demographic characteristics of the respondents in Appendix Table A2. The table shows that the ABS respondents have similar demographic characteristics with the two other national surveys. The respondents from all three national surveys are slightly better educated than the census population and have a higher percentage residing in urban areas, however. Regarding gender, 49% of the respondents are female and 51%, male. Respondents’ average age is 41. The largest age group, those 30–39, covers 29% of the respondents, while the smallest age cohort, respondents aged 60–69, accounts for 10% of the sample. Thirteen percent of respondents have a bachelor’s degree or higher, 13%, an associate degree, 24%, a senior high education, and the rest, 50%, a junior high education or lower. Seventy-nine percent of respondents are married, while 17% are single. The rest are either divorced/separated (2%) or widowed (also 2%). When respondents are divided into three income groups, 50% fall in the low income group (an annual household income of 20,000 RMB yuan or less), 30% are in the medium income range (an annual household income of 20,000–40,000 yuan), and 20%, are in the high income category (an annual household income of more than 40,000 yuan per year). Ten percent of the respondents are unemployed, and the respondents are evenly divided between urban and rural residents (Table 1).

4 Statistical Methods To estimate the magnitude and significance of the hypothesized causal connections described in Fig. 1 between various variable sets, we analyze either a series of OLS regression or Logistic regression models, depending on whether the dependent variable is continuous or dichotomous. Because multiple independent variables linking to the dependent variables by arrows are simultaneously included in the statistical analyses in these models, the estimated coefficients are considered ‘‘net’’ influences of these variables after controlling for the effects of other variables in these models. Figure 1 helps plan the analysis and represents the causal connections that are predicted by our hypothesis. Following our completion of a series of OLS and Logistic regressions will be another diagram that depicts the relationships actually found. This second diagram will summarize complex scientific ideas in terms of statistical relationships. To report the OLS and Logistic regression results, we present partial regression coefficients for OLS regression and odds-ratios for Logistic regression. For a continuous dependent variable, a partial regression coefficient indicates the predicted change in the dependent variable per each unit increase in the independent variable after controlling for the effects of all the other variables in the model. For a dichotomous dependent variable, an odds-ratio for a given independent variable represents the factor by which the odds change for a one-unit change in the independent variable. An odds ratio[1 means the independent variable increases the probability of event. If an odds ratio = 1, the independent variable has no effect. If an odds ratio is smaller than 1, then the independent variable decreases the

123

14

Reprinted from the journal

The Quality of Life in China Table 1 Descriptive statistics for demographic variables Percentage

N

Female respondents

49.3

2000

Male respondents

50.7

2000

Cohort 20–29

20.8

2000

Cohort 30–39

29.2

2000

Cohort 40–49

22.8

2000

Cohort 50–59

17.5

2000

Cohort 60–69

9.7

2000

Gender

Age

Educational attainment Primary school or below

18.2

2000

Junior high

31.6

2000

Senior high/vocational school

24.4

2000

Associate’s degree

13.3

2000

Bachelor’s degree and Graduate degree

12.5

2000

Single

16.7

1988

Married

79.3

1988

4.0

1988

Low income households: less than 20,000 yuan

49.2

1990

Median income households: 20,000–40,000 yuan

28.9

1990

High income households: 40,000 yuan and above

21.9

1990

Marital status

Divorced and Widowed Household Income

Employment Employed Unemployed

93.0

2000

7.0

2000

odds. For instance, if odds ratio = 3, then we may say that when the independent variable increases one unit, the odds that the dependent = 1 increase by a factor of 3, when other variables are controlled. We report these ‘‘net’’ effects of independent variables in our analytical tables for three reasons: (1) to rule out other relationships and find true associations, (2) to connect our findings with the existing literature in which the predictors of subjective well-being are always ‘‘net’’ effects with other variables controlled for, and (3) to summarize our findings in a conceptual model as described by Fig. 1.

5 Lifestyles 5.1 Family Life Confucianism emphasizes family as the most important institution of human life. To examine the nature of Chinese family life, the ABS asked four questions concerning household composition, home ownership, and the frequency of eating breakfast and dinner at home. As Table 2 indicates, the average Chinese person lives in a two-generation Reprinted from the journal

15

123

X. Shu, Y. Zhu Table 2 Descriptive statistics for lifestyle variables Means/percentages

N

Family related Household Size

3.74

2000

Home ownership

77.5%

1992

Eating breakfast at home

81.0%

2000

Eating dinner at home

92.1%

2000

4.91

2000

59.0%

1968

11.7%

1968

Several times a month

5.6%

1968

Several times a week

8.7%

1968

14.9%

1968

Access to resources Access to no. of utilities (public water supply; electricity; LPG or piped gas; fixed-line phone; mobile phone; facsimile; cable tv) Access to communication technologies Frequency viewing Internet webpages by computers Never Seldom

Almost everyday Frequency reading or writing emails by computers

1.63

Never

70.5%

1959

Seldom

12.2%

1959

Several times a month

6.1%

1959

Several times a week

6.5%

1959

Almost everyday

4.7%

1959

Frequency using mobile phone to send and receive messages

2.77

1981

Never

39.7%

1981

Seldom

14.1%

1981

Several times a month

4.9%

1981

Several times a week

11.9%

1981

Almost everyday

29.4%

1981

19.9%

1993

Religious behavior Being religious Christian

4.1%

1993

Muslim

0.7%

1993

Buddhist

13.4%

1993

1.56

1996

Vote in national elections

28.5%

1991

Vote in local elections

43.3%

1989

Frequency pray Political involvement

Globalism and localism Being able to speak English

6.3%

1997

Overseas connections

44.1%

2000

Identify oneself as Chinese

84.4%

1990

Being proud to be Chinese

88.6%

1991

Being able to memorize the national anthem

89.9%

2000

Indentify oneself as Asian

43.5%

1998

123

16

Reprinted from the journal

The Quality of Life in China

Table 2 continued Means/percentages

N

63.9%

1994

High

10.7%

1998

Medium

68.1%

1998

Low

21.2%

1998

Other Trusting others Self-rated standard of living

household with 3.7 members. More than three out of four Chinese people (78%) own the place in which they live. Four out of five (81%) eat breakfast at home, and nine out of ten (92%) eat dinner at home. How does each demographic characteristic affect the way the Chinese live their lives? To address this question, we estimated the independent effects of seven demographic variables on each of the aforementioned four indicators of family-related lifestyles by the techniques of ordinary least square and logit regression. Table 3 reports results of these multivariate analyses. We use B to represent regression coefficients for OLS regressions and Exp(B) to represent odds-ratios for logit regressions. The coefficients reported in this table show that marital status significantly affects all four indicators of family-related lifestyles. Compared with single people, the married live in larger households (?.32); are more likely to be homeowners (the odds-ratio increases by a factor of 2.0); and have breakfast and dinner at home more often (the odds-ratios change by factors of 1.83 and 2.32 respectively). Education also significantly influences family-related lifestyles. Specifically, greater education is negatively associated with household size. Compared with a primary school education; a junior high school education decreases household size by .61; a senior-high education, by .96; and a college education, by more than 1.0. In terms of having meals at home, those with a senior high school education and more are significantly less likely to have breakfast at home (odds-ratios decrease by a factor of .40 or more), perhaps partly due to their busy work schedule. Somewhat surprising is the finding that those with a college education are no more likely than those with a primary education to be homeowners. This may be due to the fact that when the housing market first opened, state enterprises and institutions heavily subsidized housing purchases of their employees. In particular, these work units considered the seniority of their employees and granted those with longer seniority favorable prices in purchasing apartments previously owned by these work units. In addition, foreign companies, joint ventures, and private companies usually do not provide housing subsidies. Thus, it was work sector and job seniority, not educational level or technical expertise, that determined both a person’s access to and the price of housing in the early housing market that was heavily subsidized by work units. Only in more recent years has the housing market become fully commercialized, allowing income and knowledge to play an important role in homeownership (Logan 2002). As expected, income is positively associated with homeownership. High-income people are more likely to own their home than low-income people. Age is also an important predictor on three of the four measures of family-related lifestyles: household size, homeownership, and having breakfast at home. Compared with those in their 20s, those 40 and older have fewer household members, are more likely to be homeowners, and are more likely to eat breakfast at home. In particular, the difference between those in their 60s and Reprinted from the journal

17

123

123

-0.33**

-0.42***

-0.7***

50–59

60–69

18

-1.05***

-1.56***

Associate’s degree

Bachelor’s and graduate degree

R2

0.11

-0.34***

0.12

Unemployed

Urban resident

0.49***

0.47***

High: 40,000 and Yuan and above

-0.30

Medium: 20,000–40,000 Yuan

Household income

Divorced/separated/widowed

Married

0.32**

-0.96***

Senior high/vocational school

Marital status

-0.61***

Junior high

Educational attainment

-0.27*

40–49

-0.15*

4.55***

30–39

Age cohort

Female

Gender

Male, ages 20–29, primary school education, single, low family income, not unemployed, rural resident

0.07

0.47***

1.35

2.64***

1.51***

1.07

2.00***

1.14

1.91**

1.8***

1.51*

2.96***

1.77**

1.79**

1.04

1.08

1.06

0.08

0.70**

0.97

1.01

0.96

1.30

1.83***

0.51*

0.4***

0.51***

0.89

2.73***

2.61***

1.82***

1.15

1.10

3.49***

0.03

0.78

1.13

1.40

1.20

5.14*

2.32***

0.56

0.97

0.81

0.66

2.07

1.84

1.55

1.62

1.20

5.13***

Dinner at home (Exp(B))

0.29

0.67***

-0.13

0.73***

0.40***

-0.01

0.06

0.86***

0.85***

0.9***

0.55***

-0.01

0.00

0.03

0.08

0.08

3.60***

0.52

0.32***

0.26**

0.71***

0.28***

-0.4**

-0.46***

1.78***

1.36***

0.58***

-0.03

-0.98***

-0.81***

-0.64***

-0.27***

-0.14***

2.03***

Internet (B)

No. of utilities (B)

Breakfast at home (Exp(B))

Household size (B)

Home owner (Exp(B))

Access to resources

Family related

Table 3 OLS Regression coefficients and odds-ratios of logistic regression of lifestyle variables by population groups

0.45

0.13***

0.06

0.51***

0.13**

-0.18

-0.21***

1.42***

0.9***

0.18**

-0.09

-0.57***

-0.55***

-0.35***

-0.18**

-0.08*

1.59***

Email (B)

0.47

0.29***

-0.09

0.55***

0.38***

-0.42*

-0.49***

1.76***

1.6***

1.09***

0.42***

-1.55***

-1.32***

-0.80***

-0.27**

-0.07

2.65***

Cellulous phone (B)

0.05

0.95

1.18

1.43*

1.35*

1.86

0.97

0.23***

0.21***

0.21***

0.35***

0.53*

0.59*

0.81

0.90

1.32*

0.63*

Religious (Exp(B))

Religiosity

0.06

-0.11*

0.08

0.17**

0.12*

0.24

-0.02

-0.46***

-0.61***

-0.59***

-0.52***

-0.11

-0.01

0.04

0.00

0.17***

1.90***

Pray (B)

0.06

1.07

0.96

1.42**

1.51***

1.52

1.53*

3.06***

2.35***

1.79***

1.51**

2.74***

3.03***

2.64***

1.65**

0.79*

0.07***

Vote national (Exp(B))

0.09

0.46***

0.61**

1.43**

1.27*

2.04*

1.91***

0.92

0.93

1.24

1.37*

2.16***

1.63**

1.75***

1.27

0.76***

0.40

Vote local (Exp(B))

Political involvement

X. Shu, Y. Zhu

Reprinted from the journal

Reprinted from the journal

0.40*

0.11***

0.09*

50–59

60–69

19

77.22***

Bachelor’s and graduate degree

2.22

1.41

2.99***

0.70

Medium: 20,000–40,000 Yuan

High: 40,000 and Yuan and above

Unemployed

Household income

0.72

Married

Divorced/separated/widowed

Marital status

16.59***

3.61

Senior high/vocational school

Associate’s degree

–

Junior high

Educational attainment

0.33***

40–49

1.35

0.00

Speak Englisha (Exp(B))

-0.11

0.39***

0.09*

-0.08

-0.17***

0.36***

0.19***

0.09

0.05

-0.06

-0.07

0.04

0.05

0.00

0.34***

Oversea (B)

Globalism and localism

30–39

Age cohort

Female

Gender

Male, ages 20–29, primary school education, single, low family income, not unemployed, rural resident

Table 3 continued

0.68

1.77***

1.27

0.68

0.93

1.79

1.75*

1.48

1.21

3.33***

1.50

1.88**

1.89***

0.83

2.31***

Identify as Chinese (Exp(B))

0.65

0.97

0.78

0.79

1.22

0.70

0.84

0.58*

0.64

1.33

1.13

1.43

0.78

1.33*

10.39***

Proud to be Chinese (Exp(B))

0.50**

1.00

1.20

0.38

0.52

51.52***

15.86***

10.67***

4.13***

0.55

0.86

0.48*

0.73

0.81

6.00***

Memorize anthem (Exp(B))

0.84

0.79

0.96

1.24

1.27

2.67***

2.43***

2.09***

1.43**

1.24

1.23

1.18

0.84

0.89

0.39***

Identify as Asian (Exp(B))

2.04***

0.08***

0.33***

1.99*

0.74

0.54*

0.38***

0.42***

0.54***

0.93

1.58

1.28

1.41

0.81

0.67

Low (Exp(B))

0.56***

1.05

1.64***

0.46**

0.97

1.53*

1.79**

1.76***

1.73***

0.93

0.64*

0.87

0.84

1.20

1.59*

Medium (Exp(B))

0.64

18.29***

4.76***

1.59

2.02*

1.34

1.25

1.09

0.76

1.43

1.42

0.96

0.87

0.92

0.02***

High (Exp(B))

Self-rated standard of living

0.91

0.97

1.09

0.91

0.82

2.32***

1.83***

0.92

0.87

1.73**

1.73***

1.96***

1.43*

0.87

1.41

Trusting others (Exp(B))

Other

The Quality of Life in China

123

123

0.17

R2

0.13

0.04

Oversea (B)

0.03

1.32

Identify as Chinese (Exp(B))

0.02

0.79

Proud to be Chinese (Exp(B))

0.14

2.01***

Memorize anthem (Exp(B))

0.03

1.08

Identify as Asian (Exp(B))

0.13

1.78***

Low (Exp(B))

0.04

0.85

Medium (Exp(B))

Self-rated standard of living

0.11

0.49***

High (Exp(B))

0.03

0.88

Trusting others (Exp(B))

Other

* P \ .05, ** P \ .01, *** P \ .001

Notes: In the logistic model for ‘‘SPEAK ENGLISH’’, ‘‘Junior high’’ is used as the omitted category for Educational attainment. The log-odds of the logistic regression coefficient for ‘‘Primary’’ is .00 and not significant. It is not shown in the table

1.13

Speak Englisha (Exp(B))

Globalism and localism

Urban resident

Table 3 continued

X. Shu, Y. Zhu

20

Reprinted from the journal

The Quality of Life in China

those in their 20s is the largest. Compared with those in their 20s, the 60-year-olds live in households that are smaller by almost one person (.7), and the odds-ratios of being a homeowner and having breakfast at home are nearly three-fold greater (2.96 and 2.73 respectively). Lastly, the family life of urban residents differs from that of rural residents in size, homeownership, and eating habits. Urban residents live in smaller households and are less likely to be homeowners with the odds-ratio being only 47% of those of rural residents. Moreover, the odds-ratio for urbanites to have breakfast at home is only 70% of rural residents. 5.2 Access to Modern Utilities and Digital Technologies To what extent do the Chinese people live a modern life? To address this question, the ABS first asked respondents whether their households were provided with seven utility services, including water supply, electricity, LPG or piped gas, fixed-line phone, mobile phone, facsimile, and cable TV. Of these seven utilities surveyed, the Chinese people as a whole averaged fewer than five (4.9). Nearly three out of five (57%) households have access to electricity, a public water system, LPG gas, and a fixed phone line. Almost every household has access to at least one of these four modern utility services (see Table 2). When asked about access to the Internet, e-mail, and cellular phone service, majorities reported not having access to these digital telecommunication technologies. More than half of the Chinese population ‘‘seldom’’ or ‘‘never’’: (1) viewed Internet web pages by computers (71%); (2) read or wrote emails by computers (83%); or (3) read or wrote messages by mobile phones (54%). Among the three telecommunication technologies, cell messaging is the most widely used with 30% of respondents reporting messaging via mobile phone almost every day, as compared to 15% for the Internet and 5% for email (see Table 2). Table 3 shows the effects of demographic characteristics on access to modern utilities and digital technologies. Education is positively associated with access to modern utility services. The college educated use the Internet, e-mail, and cellular phones more than do those with an associate degree, while the latter use these telecommunication technologies more often than do high school graduates. Higher income and urban residency are associated with greater access both in terms of utilities and the modern telecommunication technologies. Age is, however, negatively associated with the use of Internet, e-mail, and cellular phone but has no effect on the number of modern utilities accessed. Married people are less likely than single people to use the Internet, e-mail, and cellular phone, and women use the Internet and e-mail less than do men. 5.3 Religious and Spiritual Life The ABS asked respondents about their religious affiliations and their level of spiritual activity as measured by praying and meditating. Only 20% of the Chinese respondents reported a religious affiliation with 13% being Buddhists, 4% Christians, and 1% Muslims. A much smaller minority of about 10% reported praying daily (7%) or weekly (3%). Nine out of ten Chinese prayed ‘‘never’’ (68%) or only ‘‘on special occasions’’ (22%). Among those who are more religious are females, the least educated, rural residents, and those with a high household income. While higher education and urban living tends to detract from religious life, more income tends to contribute to it.

Reprinted from the journal

21

123

X. Shu, Y. Zhu

5.4 Political Involvement In China, popular elections take place only at the village level and local areas in cities. Only these elected local representatives can then participate in the elections at the next level. Members of the national legislature, the People’s Congress, are thus elected through a series of indirect elections. As a result, more than one-third of respondents reported no experience with either national or local elections. Men, the married, older people, and those with higher household incomes are more involved in national elections than are their counterparts. Education is positively associated with voting on the national level. Compared with an elementary school education, a college education increases the odds-ratio of voting nationally by more than three folds (Exp(B) = 3.06). The unemployed and urban residents are less likely to vote locally than their counterparts; their odds-ratios to voting are reduced to 61% and 46% respectively. 5.5 National Identify and Global Life Chinese identity remains very strong with 84% of respondents identifying themselves as Chinese, 89% reporting pride in their Chinese identity, and 90% reporting being able to recite the Chinese national anthem from memory. More than two out of five (44%) also identify themselves as Asian. In terms of connections to the outside world, 44% of respondents reported having some form of interaction with overseas people or institutions, and 4% reported being able to speak English. Older people are less likely to be able to speak English and are more likely to identify themselves as Chinese. More education and income are associated with more overseas connections and greater ability to speak English. More education also results in a higher likelihood of being able to recite the Chinese national anthem and a greater identification with Asia. Gender, marital status, employment status, and community size are not significantly associated with either global or local identity. 5.6 Standard of Living When asked to rate their own standard of living, more than two-thirds (68%) of respondents rated it as ‘‘average.’’ About one in ten (11%) rated it as ‘‘high’’ or ‘‘very high’’ while twice as many (21%) rated it ‘‘low’’ and ‘‘very low.’’ As expected, education and income are associated positively with high ratings of standard of living. The unemployed are more likely to report a low standard of living. Oddly, urban residents were more likely than rural residents to report both a high and a low standard of living. Why would more urban residents than rural residents place themselves in the low category? We see two possible explanations for this surprising finding. The first reason is that the poor and rich segments of the Chinese population actually are concentrated in urban areas, an objective fact. The second reason is that the poor in rural areas compare themselves only with their peers who are equally poor, while the poor in urban areas have rich neighbors to whom they compare themselves, creating a subjective difference. 5.7 Trusting Others To what extent do the Chinese people trust each other? Nearly two-thirds (64%) expressed trust in other people. Of the six demographic variables, Table 3 shows that only two, age and education, have significant relationships with trust. Those 40 and older trust people

123

22

Reprinted from the journal

The Quality of Life in China

more than those in their 30s, while those in their 30s trust others more than those in their 20s. Those with some college education trust others more than people without college education; college education increases the odds-ratio of trusting others to close to two-fold.

6 Value Priorities What do the Chinese value most for themselves and their country? To explore this question, the ABS asked respondents to choose their five most important life concerns from a list of 25. Table 4 lists, in descending order, the percentages of the Chinese who chose each of the 25 life concerns as one of their five most important. Health tops the list, being chosen by 84% of respondents. It is followed by having a comfortable home (54%) and having enough to eat (46%). Having access to good medical care (36%), raising children (33%), and spending time with family (30%) are among what about one-third of the Chinese considered important. Among the concerns that the Chinese people value least are freedom of expression and association (3%), being famous (3%), appreciating art and culture (2%), being devout (2%), and dressing up (2%). The fact that all of the top three value—being healthy, having a comfortable home, and having enough to eat—concern the Table 4 Value priorities by prevalence Rank

Value priorities

Percentage

1

Being healthy

84

2

Having a comfortable home

54

3

Having enough to eat

46

4

Having access to good medical care

36

5

Raising children

33

6

Spending time with your family

30

7

Earning a high income

26

8

Being able to live without fear of crime

24

9

Being on good terms with others

23

10

Having a job

22

11

Being successful at work

20

12

Living in a country with a good government

14

13

Safe and clean environment

13

14

Enjoying a pastime

11

15

Expressing your personality or using your talents

11

16

Pleasant community to live

9

17

Having access to higher education

7

18

Winning over others

6

19

Contributing to your local community or to society

5

20

Owning lots of nice things

4

21

Freedom of expression and association

3

22

Being famous

3

23

Appreciating art and culture

2

24

Being devout

2

25

Dressing up

2

Reprinted from the journal

23

123

X. Shu, Y. Zhu

physical and financial aspects of life indicates that the Chinese people remain, by and large, firmly attached to the values of materialism rather than post-materialism. 6.1 Value Priorities by Demographic Characteristics What influences people’s value priorities? Table 5 shows that some demographic characteristics affect the choice of the top ten value priorities. Gender matters, as more women than men think that raising children and spending time with family are of high priority, while more men regard being able to live without the fear of crime as important. Age also makes a difference. People younger than 50 emphasize earning a high income more than do older cohorts, while older cohorts emphasize having enough to eat, having access to good medical care, and being able to live without fear of crime. Those in the oldest age group (60–69) also emphasize having a comfortable home more than those in the youngest group (20–29). Those in their 20s, on the other hand, value raising children and having a job much more than other age groups, probably because those in their 20s are just entering the adult roles of workers and parents. The top ten value priorities also vary somewhat by education. Education is negatively associated with a focus on having enough to eat. Compared with the least educated, the college-educated are less likely to stress having a comfortable home and raising children and are more likely to care about being on good terms with others. Marital status also influences value priorities. Compared with single people, the married and those with marriage experiences are more likely to stress the importance of raising children (by factors of more than 7 and 4 respectively), while married people also emphasize being able to live without fear of crime more. Compared with singles, married people are less likely to emphasize being on good terms with others and having a good job. Household income also influences value priorities. Compared with the lowest income group, those in the two higher income groups are less likely to value having enough to eat and having a job and are more likely to value living without fear of crime. The most wealthy are also the least likely to highlight the importance of having a comfortable home. The well-off people in China are less concerned about material issues, which they have under control, and are more concerned about safety, which is largely beyond their control.

7 Global Assessments of Life How do the Chinese feel about their overall life experiences? To what degree do they experience happiness, enjoyment, and achievement, the three components of global life quality? To explore this question, the ABS asked respondents to rate separately their experiences of happiness, enjoyment, and achievement. Majorities reported the experience of these three qualities. Specifically, 74% said that they enjoy life very often or sometimes, 62% are very happy or quite happy, and 58% have achieved a great deal or some of what they want out of life. However, those who report the most positive ratings constitute minorities with 23% enjoying life often, 19% feeling very happy, and 9% achieving a great deal of what they want out of life (Fig. 2). In terms of these three qualities of life, the Chinese appraise their life quality more positively than do South Koreans and residents of Hong Kong but slightly less positively than the Japanese (see this issue). This finding is consistent with data from the 1995 World Value Survey that showed the Chinese have a greater sense of well-being than do residents of countries with similar or higher levels of GNP per capita such as Peru, India, Pakistan,

123

24

Reprinted from the journal

Reprinted from the journal

1.53

1.41

1.68

50–59

60–69

25

1.40

1.43

0.98

Senior high/vocational school

Associate’s degree

Bachelor’s and graduate degree

0.91

Divorced/separated/widowed

0.91

1.37*

0.01

High: 40,000 and Yuan and above

Unemployed

Urban resident

R2

* P \ .05, ** P \ .01, *** P \ .001

0.83

0.87

Medium: 20,000–40,000 Yuan

Household income

1.15

Married

Marital status

1.25

Junior high

Educational attainment

1.44

40–49

1.02

0.04

0.96

0.93

0.66***

0.87

0.75

0.89

0.44***

0.73

0.72*

0.91

1.69*

1.27

1.05

1.15

0.98

0.14

1.07

1.22

0.44***

0.55***

0.82

0.73

0.17***

0.32***

0.44***

0.73*

2.56***

2.67***

2.00***

1.42*

1.03

0.07

1.49***

1.52*

0.98

0.84

1.05

1.42

0.73

0.89

1.22

1.09

4.80***

2.28***

1.70**

1.58**

1.12

0.18***

0.10

1.02

0.94

1.27

1.13

4.65***

7.54***

0.35***

0.68

0.85

1.06

0.56*

0.97

1.06

1.13

1.33**

0.08***

0.02

1.16

0.66*

1.06

0.85

1.10

1.12

1.15

1.32

1.01

1.28

1.37

0.94

0.77

0.98

1.35***

0.31***

1.67**

1.74***

2.74***

30–39

Age cohort

Female

Gender

Male, ages 20–29, primary school education, single, low family income, not unemployed, rural resident

Spending time Raising Having Having access enough to good medical children with your (Exp(B)) family care (Exp(B)) to eat (Exp(B)) (Exp(B))

Having a Being healthy comfortable (Exp(B)) home (Exp(B))

Table 5 Odds-ratio of logistic regression of top ten value priorities by demographic characteristics

0.05

0.88

0.83

1.02

0.92

1.38

0.96

1.40

1.60*

1.34

0.93

0.12***

0.55***

0.74

0.89

1.01

0.46***

Earning a high income (Exp(B))

0.03

0.86

1.29

1.54***

1.36*

1.60

1.66*

0.94

1.27

1.21

1.09

2.05***

1.98***

1.67**

1.28

0.73***

0.13***

0.03

1.02

0.73

1.09

1.12

0.63

0.66*

1.83*

1.48

1.45

1.41

0.66

0.63*

0.98

0.80

0.96

0.34***

0.03

0.77*

1.45

0.59***

0.77*

0.71

0.64*

1.29

0.97

1.29

1.04

0.53*

0.73

1.03

1.21

1.00

0.51***

Being able to live Being on good Having a job terms with without fear of (Exp(B)) others crime (Exp(B)) (Exp(B))

The Quality of Life in China

123

X. Shu, Y. Zhu

Fig. 2 Experience of happiness, enjoyment and accomplishment

123

26

Reprinted from the journal

The Quality of Life in China

Slovakia, and Hungary (Inglehart and Klingemann 2000). One explanation is that the Chinese still have fresh memories of the economic difficulties they experienced in childhood and youth, and that their past experiences with poverty, famine, and economic hardship make them more appreciative of their present circumstances. The finding that relatively large majorities of the Chinese are experiencing happiness, enjoyment, and achievement may therefore confirm the hypothesis that rapid growth in income is associated with a higher level of subjective well-being (Parducci 1995).

Fig. 3 Percentages of respondents reporting number of positive and negative experiences of happiness, enjoyment and accomplishment Reprinted from the journal

27

123

X. Shu, Y. Zhu Table 6 OLS regression coefficients and odds-ratios of logistic regression of positive experience of happiness, enjoyment, accomplishment, and overall quality life by population groups Positive experience

Male, ages 20–29, primary school education, single, low family income, not unemployed, rural resident

Overall quality of life No. of positive experiences (B)

7-point summary index (B)

Happiness (Exp(B))

Enjoyment (Exp(B))

Accomplishment (Exp(B))

0.55***

1.41

0.56***

1.34***

1.51***

1.23*

1.06

1.08

0.08

0.13

Gender Female Age cohort 30–39

0.73*

1.13

1.19

-0.01

-0.04

40–49

0.75

1.07

1.09

-0.03

-0.02

50–59

0.74

1.19

1.25

0.01

0.12

60–69

1.24

1.39

1.66*

0.22*

0.56***

Junior high

1.21

1.18

0.98

0.07

0.20

Senior high/vocational school

1.43*

1.54*

1.10

0.18*

0.36***

Associate’s degree

1.52*

1.30

1.10

0.17

0.37**

Bachelor’s and graduate degree

1.54*

1.31

1.91***

0.28**

0.56***

Married

1.96***

1.11

2.01***

Divorced/separated/widowed

0.91

0.49*

1.18

Educational attainment

Marital status 0.33*** -0.15

0.43*** -0.04

Household income Medium: 20,000–40,000 Yuan

1.46***

1.63***

1.69***

0.30***

0.37***

High: 40,000 and Yuan and above 1.96***

2.68***

2.91***

0.54***

0.74***

Unemployed

0.65*

0.84

0.58***

-0.27***

-0.30*

Urban resident

1.01

1.02

0.87

-0.02

-0.11

R2

0.05

0.04

0.08

0.09

0.07

* P \ .05, ** P \ .01, ***P \ .001

Combined measures of the three qualities of happiness, enjoyment, and accomplishment convey the same messages that the majority of Chinese people are happy, find life enjoyable, and are achieving what they want out of life. Figure 3 shows that two out of five (41%) experience all of these three qualities and live a highly desirable life of happiness, enjoyment, and achievement. One-quarter (26%) experience two, and nearly nine out of ten Chinese (87%) experience at least one. 7.1 Subjective Well-being by Demographic Characteristics As in the case of value priorities, demographic characteristics matter considerably in how the Chinese experience happiness, enjoyment, and accomplishment. When all other demographic variables are controlled for, Table 6 shows that household income is consistently positively associated with the experience of enjoyment, happiness, and accomplishment.

123

28

Reprinted from the journal

The Quality of Life in China

Compared with those with a low income, those from median- and high-income households are from one-half to nearly two times more likely to experience the three components of wellbeing. Education is also positively correlated with two measures of well-being: those with a senior high and more education are more likely to experience happiness than are those with an elementary school education; and those with a bachelor’s degree are more likely to experience a sense of accomplishment than are those with an elementary school education. Marital status also has a bearing on those experiences. Compared with single people, married people have greater odds for experiencing happiness and accomplishment by a factor of 1.96 and 2.01. Divorced/separated/widowed people are half as likely to enjoy life as are single people. Unemployment also dampens people’s chances of experiencing happiness and accomplishment; the unemployed are 40% less likely to experience happiness and accomplishment than are the employed. Gender, age, and community size have little impact on the experience of happiness, enjoyment, and accomplishment. A similar pattern persists when we use the total number of positive experiences and a 7-point summary index of life qualities as the dependent variable (see Table 6). The Chinese who are in their 60s, who are married, who are employed, who have a college or a graduate degree, and who command a large income are more likely than their counterparts to experience a higher overall quality of life as measured by totaling their positive responses concerning happiness, enjoyment, and achievement. Among age groups, the oldest group of those in their 60s scores highest on the summary index of life quality.

8 Life Domain Satisfaction To what extent are the Chinese satisfied or dissatisfied with a variety of their life domains? The ABS asked Chinese respondents to rate 16 life domains on a 5-point numeric scale ranging from very dissatisfied to very satisfied. We grouped these domains into the five life spheres of (1) personal life, (2) interpersonal life, (3) material life, (4) non-material life, and (5) public life. For the domains in each life sphere, Table 7 reports the mean on the 5-point scale, percentages expressing satisfaction and dissatisfaction, and the percentage differential index measuring the balance of these two percentages. In Table 7, we assigned values of -2, -1, 0, 1, 2 to the five categories of being most dissatisfied, somewhat dissatisfied, neither dissatisfied nor satisfied, somewhat satisfied, and most satisfied and calculated the mean scores for each of the 16 life domains. According to the means reported in this table, the top five most satisfying domains are marriage, friendship, health, family life, and neighbors. The bottom five domains are the social welfare system, the democratic system, public safety, household income, and job. Most of the domains in the top five groups belong to the interpersonal life sphere, while most of those in the bottom five belong to the public life sphere. Table 7 shows that Chinese people are most satisfied in the sphere of interpersonal life and least satisfied in that of public life. In the interpersonal life sphere, for example, the smallest proportion of satisfied respondents is nearly one-half (49%), while the largest is nearly three-fourths (73%). Moreover, less than 10% reports dissatisfaction with any of the interpersonal life domains, which include marriage, friendship, family life, and neighbors. In the public life sphere, on the other hand, minorities ranging from 14 to 31% are satisfied with the four domains of the environment, public safety, the democratic system, and the social welfare system. Moreover, those expressing dissatisfaction outnumber those expressing satisfaction in all of these domains, excepting the environment. Concerning the social welfare system, the dissatisfied are nearly four times as numerous as the satisfied. Reprinted from the journal

29

123

X. Shu, Y. Zhu Table 7 Assessment of life domains Domains

Scale points (%) -2

-1

0

Mean Percentages 1

2

Satisfied Dissatisfied

PDI

Personal life sphere Health

2.46 6.93

0.67 56.50

9.39

47.11

Education

4.09 17.02 46.41 24.85

34.10 33.85 22.65 7.63

0.15 32.47

21.11

11.36

Job

7.48 18.98 42.81 22.12

8.61

0.05 30.74

26.46

4.28

Interpersonal life sphere Marriage

0.77 2.62

23.47 33.89 39.26

1.08 73.15

3.39

69.76

Friendship

0.65 1.81

37.08 37.88 22.57

0.80 60.45

2.47

57.98

Family life

1.96 5.94

40.39 33.05 18.66

0.61 51.71

7.90

43.81

Neighbors

1.26 4.72

45.33 32.08 16.62

0.58 48.69

5.97

42.72

Material life sphere Housing

4.76 11.48 34.95 35.06 13.74

0.42 48.8

16.25

32.55

Standard of living

2.06 10.55 55.33 23.77

8.29

0.26 32.06

12.61

19.45

Household income

5.37 16.17 52.64 20.39

5.42

0.04 25.82

21.55

4.27

Spiritual life

3.88 11.05 45.71 27.04 12.31

0.33 39.35

14.93

24.42

Leisure

5.35 15.09 49.27 23.07

7.22

0.12 30.29

20.44

9.84

4.84 16.73 47.13 24.19

7.11

0.12 31.3

21.57

9.73

Nonmaterial life sphere

Public life sphere The condition of the environment

7.25 22.21 45.27 19.64

5.64 -0.06 25.28

29.46

-4.18

The democratic system

Public safety

10.23 19.29 52.42 13.94

4.12 -0.18 18.07

29.52

-11.45

Social welfare system

18.07 30.71 37.61

3.86 -0.49 13.6

48.78

-35.18

9.75

Notes: -2—very dissatisfied, -1—somewhat dissatisfied, 0—neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, 1—somewhat satisfied, 2—very satisfied

In the other three life spheres, personal life, material life, and nonmaterial life, the former outnumber the latter by a large margin. Same as in other Confucian countries, ordinary citizens in China are least satisfied with the public sphere of their lives. In Table 8, we considered together the ratings of all the domains for each life sphere and calculated the percentages of its domains which the Chinese people rated satisfied and dissatisfied. As expected, the interpersonal life sphere registers the highest level of satisfaction and the lowest level of dissatisfaction (57% vs. 7%). The public life sphere registers the lowest level of satisfaction and the highest level of dissatisfaction (22% vs. 32%). Regarding all of the other four spheres, the satisfied are more common than the dissatisfied. Satisfaction is greatest concerning the interpersonal life sphere, where the satisfied outnumber the dissatisfied by a large margin of 52%. The personal life sphere is the next most satisfying, followed by the material life sphere and the nonmaterial life sphere. In China today, the quality of public life is in the greatest need of improvement. 8.1 Life-domain Satisfaction by Demographic Characteristics We now examine how seven demographic characteristics and respondents’ top five value priorities affect their evaluations of the five life spheres. Table 9 reports OLS regression

123

30

Reprinted from the journal

The Quality of Life in China Table 8 Percentage of life domains rated as satisfied and dissatisfied by domain spheres Domains satisfied

Domains dissatisfied

Personal life spherea

40.2

18.8

21.4

1996

Interpersonal life sphereb

57.4

5.2

52.2

1999

Material life spherec

35.6

16.8

18.9

2000

Non-material life sphered

34.8

17.8

17.0

1986

Public life spheree

22.1

32.3

-10.2

1995

a

Balance

N

Personal life sphere includes health; education; and job

b

Interpersonal life sphere encompasses friendship; marriage; family; and neighbor

c

Material life sphere encompasses housing; standards of living; and income

d

Non-material life sphere encompasses leisure; and spiritual life

e

Public life sphere encompasses public safety; environment; welfare; and democratic politics

coefficients estimating the direct effects of these variables on summary ratings of five domain sphere indices. Women are significantly more satisfied with material and public life domains than men. Compared with married and singles, the divorced/separated/widowed are significantly less satisfied with three of the five life spheres: personal, material, and nonmaterial. Age is positively associated with satisfaction with material and public life domains, and those in their 60s are the age group most satisfied with all five life domains. Household income is positively associated with satisfaction in all five life domain spheres. Compared with those with a low income, those with a middle and high income are significantly more satisfied with all five life spheres. Education is positively correlated with satisfaction in all of the domains except public life. The unemployed are significantly less content than the employed are with their personal, nonmaterial, and public lives. Compared with rural residents, urban residents are significantly less content with their material life but are more content with their nonmaterial life. Prior research has shown that materialism is negatively correlated with subjective wellbeing (Kasser 2000; Sirgy 1998). People who view material goods and services as more important than other resources such as interpersonal relationships and personal growth are known to be less happy than people with the opposite view (Ryan and Dziurawiec 2001). This is consistent with our findings. Among the top five value priorities reported in Table 9, the two indicative of materialism—having a comfortable home and having enough to eat—are negatively associated with satisfaction levels for all five life spheres. Too much concern with physical health also appears to detract from satisfaction in all these spheres.

9 Influences on Subjective Well-being We use four sets of predictors to estimate the sources of subjective well-being as measured by happiness, enjoyment, accomplishment, and their combined index. The four sets of predictors include: (1) demographic characteristics (gender, age, educational attainment, marital status, household income, employment status, urban/rural residency), (2) lifestyles, (3) value priorities, and (4) satisfaction with life domains. Table 10 shows the coefficients estimating the direct and independent effect of each predictor on happiness, enjoyment, accomplishment, and overall sense of well-being as measured by the index. For happiness, enjoyment, and accomplishment, we used logistic regression and report odds ratios. Reprinted from the journal

31

123

X. Shu, Y. Zhu Table 9 OLS regression coefficients for five domain sphere indices by demographic characteristics Personal Male, ages 20–29, primary school education, single, low family income, not unemployed, rural resident

0.15

Interpersonal Material 0.94***

Nonmaterial Public

-0.46**

0.06

-0.68***

0.18**

0.05

0.15*

Gender Female

-0.05

0.04

30–39

0.11

-0.09

40–49

0.35**

Age cohort 0 -0.07

0.16

-0.18

0.13

0.44*** -0.07

0.38***

50–59

0.11

0.39*** -0.18

0.26*

60–69

0.42**

0.24*

0.95***

0.42*

0.74***

Junior high

0.37***

0.21**

0.08

0.03

0.1

Senior high/vocational school

0.53***

0.44***

0.30**

0.36**

0.02

Associate’s degree

0.68***

0.36***

0.29*

0.41**

0.02

Bachelor’s and graduate degree

0.94***

0.42***

0.38*

0.42*

0.26

Educational attainment

Marital status Married

-0.04

Divorced/separated/widowed

-0.62*** -0.25

0.16

0.26*

-0.06

-0.53**

-0.66***

0.04 -0.15

Household income Medium: 20,000–40,000 Yuan

0.21**

0.18***

0.71***

0.25**

High: 40,000 and Yuan and above

0.58***

0.37***

1.23***

0.58***

Unemployed Urban resident

-0.27*

-0.14

-0.21

-0.34*

0.04

-0.11

-0.33***

0.25***

0.27*** 0.35*** -0.25* -0.11

Value priorities (top five categories) Being healthy

-0.03

Having a comfortable home

-0.03

-0.04

0.17** -0.08

Having enough to eat

-0.14

Having access to good medical care if required

-0.26*** -0.11*

Raising children

-0.11 0.11

R2

0.09

0.14

0.11

-0.06

-0.03

-0.01

-0.07

-0.15

-0.14*

-0.16*

-0.16*

-0.25***

0.02

0.03

0.12

-0.07

0.06

0.15

0.08

0.05

* P \ .05, ** P \ .01, *** P \ .001

In these estimates, an odds ratio larger than one indicates a positive effect. For the index measuring overall sense of well-being, we used OLS regression and report regression coefficients. How satisfied the Chinese people are with various life domains is an important predictor of happiness, enjoyment, accomplishment, and overall subjective well-being. Especially important is satisfaction with the four domains of interpersonal life. For those who are satisfied with their interpersonal life, their odds to report happiness are 68% higher, and that to report both enjoyment and accomplishment are 18% higher. Satisfaction with interpersonal life sphere is also positively associated with the overall index of subjective well-being; those satisfied with their interpersonal life score a quarter- point higher on overall subjective well-being than those who are not.

123

32

Reprinted from the journal

The Quality of Life in China Table 10 OLS regression coefficients and odds-ratios of logistic regression for Happiness, Enjoyment, accomplishment, Overall measure of quality of life by all explanatory variables Happiness Exp(B) Male, ages 20–29, primary school education, single, low family income, not unemployed, rural resident

Enjoyment Exp(B)

Accomplishment Overall Exp(B) B

0.03***

0.79

0.14***

0.51

1.19

1.01

0.96

0.05

Demographic characteristics Gender (female = 1) Age cohort 30–39

0.72

1.17

1.16

-0.04

40–49

0.64*

0.98

0.86

-0.16

50–59

0.71

1.24

1.1

0.06

60–69

0.98

0.94

1.08

0.2

Junior high

1.14

0.92

0.96

0.08

Senior high/vocational school

1.11

0.96

0.98

0.08

Associate’s degree

1.16

0.8

1.02

0.08

Bachelor’s and graduate degree

1.1

0.75

2.13**

0.18

Married

1.9***

0.91

1.82***

0.25*

Divorced/separated/widowed

1.34

0.64

1.77

0.25 -0.02

Educational attainment

Marital status

Household income Medium: 20,000–40,000 Yuan

0.98

1.17

1.04

High: 40,000 and Yuan and above

0.92

1.36

1.33

Unemployed

0.79

1.07

0.61*

Urban resident

1.17

1.2

1.12

0.03 -0.08 0.04

Life domain satisfaction Personal life sphere

1.03

1.08

0.96

0.04

Interpersonal life sphere

1.68***

1.18**

1.18***

0.26***

Material life sphere

1.39***

1.34***

1.80***

0.28***

Nonmaterial life sphere

1.09*

1.19***

0.98

0.09***

Public life sphere

0.96

1.05

1.01

0.05*

Value priorities Being healthy

1.06

0.99

0.76

-0.02

Having a comfortable home

0.98

0.99

0.91

-0.07

Having enough to eat

1.13

0.79

0.96

-0.02

Having access to good medical care if required

0.92

0.89

1.17

-0.07

Raising children

1.03

0.99

1.25

0.06

Household size

1.04

1.00

1.09*

Home ownership

0.79

1.11

0.85

-0.10

Having meals at home

1.30*

1.13

0.99

0.08

Lifestyles Household related lifestyles

Reprinted from the journal

33

0.04

123

X. Shu, Y. Zhu

Table 10 continued Happiness Exp(B)

Enjoyment Exp(B)

Accomplishment Overall Exp(B) B

Utility

0.98

1.00

1.00

0.02

Modern telecommunication

1.01

0.99

1.00

-0.01

Religiosity

1.05

0.95

1.16***

Participation in local/national elections

0.97

1.19*

1.16*

0.08

Trusting others

1.20

1.03

1.12

0.03

Self-rated living stand high

1.30**

1.20

1.21*

0.15***

Global connection

1.08

1.07

0.98

0.06

Nationalism

1.32***

1.10

1.23*

0.09

Identify oneself as Asian

1.05

1.14

0.79*

0.05

0.24

0.16

0.24

0.34

Access to resources

0.03

Globalism and localism

R2 N

1936

1937

1937

1936

* P \ .05, ** P \ .01, *** P \ .001

Satisfaction with the material life sphere is also positively associated with all four measures of subjective well-being. For those who are satisfied with their material lives, as compared to those who are unsatisfied, their odds to be happy are 39% more, the odds to report enjoyment are 34% higher, and the odds to report a sense of accomplishment are 80% higher; those who are satisfied also report a quarter point higher on the index measuring the overall level of subjective well-being. Satisfaction with the non-material life sphere is also positively associated with all four measures of well-being, though at a smaller magnitude than what was observed with the interpersonal and material life spheres. Those satisfied with their nonmaterial life increase their odds to be happy by 9%, their odds to have enjoyment by 19%, and score close to a one-tenth point higher on overall subjective well-being. Respondents’ subjective ranking of their standard of living is also an important predictor of subjective well-being. Compared with those who rate their standard of life as low and average, those who rate their living standard as high increase their odds to have enjoyment by 30% and their odds to experience a sense of accomplishment by 21%, and score .15 points higher on overall subjective well-being. This is consistent with the findings from other similar studies on life satisfaction and happiness that show the subjective evaluation of income from a relative perspective has a strong effect on happiness and life satisfaction (see Headey et al. 1984; Fuentes and Rojas 2001; Haller and Hadler 2004). On the other hand, the amount of actual household income has no significant effect on any measure of subjective well-being after controlling for the effects of subjective income. This finding is again consistent with a number of other studies (Frey and Stutzer 2002) and findings from a series of multilevel regression analyses using data from 41 countries from the 1995 World Value Survey (Haller and Hadler 2004). Being married is positively associated with two components of well-being and overall well-being. Compared with singles, the odds for married people to be happy are 90% more and those for married people to have a sense of accomplishment are 80% higher. Married people also score one-quarter point higher on overall subjective well-being than single people.

123

34

Reprinted from the journal

The Quality of Life in China

Neither gender, age, educational attainment, employment status, urban residency, satisfaction with the personal life and public life spheres, value priorities, household-related lifestyles, access to resources, religiosity, participation in elections, trusting others, globalization, nor nationalism have consistent and systematic effects on either happiness, enjoyment, accomplishment, or overall subjective well-being.

10 Conclusion and Discussion We examined lifestyles, value priorities, satisfaction with life domains, and subjective well-being in China using a national sample of 2,000 men and women aged 20–69. We conceptualized subjective well-being as a multidimensional and multilevel phenomenon and measured it in terms of happiness, enjoyment, and accomplishment. We also hypothesized it to be shaped by a multitude of forces including demographic characteristics, lifestyles, value priorities, and satisfaction with various life domains. A summary of our key findings follows. 10.1 High Levels of Subjective Well-Being in China The Chinese feel more positive than negative about their lives. Substantial majorities experience feelings of happiness, enjoyment, and accomplishment. Their sense of wellbeing is, moreover, higher than that of South Koreans and residents of Hong Kong who live in greater prosperity. This finding is consistent with earlier research that also showed the Chinese tend to hold a greater sense of well-being than people from countries with similar or higher levels of GNP per capita (Inglehart and Klingemann 2000). We offer four plausible explanations for relatively high levels of subjective well-being in China. First, the Chinese evaluate their lives by historical comparison. They compare their current life, made possible by economic gains achieved in the last few decades, with what they experienced during childhood and arrive at a favorable assessment of their present (Parducci 1995). Second, sustained high economic growth gives people a sense of freedom and optimism. The future economic prospects of a country make people optimistic about their own situation. Economic growth gives people the feeling that opportunities are there, and it is within their power to improve their lives. Third, satisfaction with interpersonal life is high in China. Close to 60–70% are happy with their marriages, friendships, family life, and neighbors. Satisfaction with the interpersonal life sphere is the most powerful predictor of subjective well-being in China and as a result, it has a strong favorable impact on overall life quality. This strong relationship between the interpersonal life sphere and life quality reflects the significance and centrality of social relationships in Confucian culture. A good life in China is a social one as individuals are embedded in circles of relationships. Lastly, a high percentage of married people also contributes to a high degree of subjective well-being in the Chinese population. Extensive evidence shows that married people tend to evaluate life more positively than do the unmarried. In China, more than 80% of adults are married, and this is bound to have a positive impact on the people’s experience of well-being. 10.2 Direct and Indirect Influences on Subjective Well-being What factors directly and indirectly influence Chinese people’s sense of well-being? Figure 4 presents statistically significant direct and indirect influences on happiness, Reprinted from the journal

35

123

X. Shu, Y. Zhu

+

Value Priorities: Enough to eat Medical Care

Age 60 +

-

+ +

Education

+ + Household Income

Life Domain Satisfaction: Interpersonal Life Material Life Nonmaterial Life

+

Relative Living Standard

+ +

Married

Divorced/ Separated/Widowed Unemployed

Subjective Wellbeing: Happiness Enjoyment Accomplishment

-

Urban Resident

Fig. 4 Statistically significant influences on happiness, enjoyment, accomplishment and overall subjective well-being

enjoyment, accomplishment, and overall subjective well-being. Satisfaction with the interpersonal life, material life, and nonmaterial life spheres, relative assessments of one’s living standard, and marital status are three factors with direct influence on subjective wellbeing. Value priorities and other demographic characteristics, including education, household income, being divorced/separated/widowed, employment status, and community size do not have a direct influence on evaluation of life quality, but they do affect how satisfied individuals are with various life domains, as well as how they evaluate their standard of living compared to others, and domain satisfaction and standard of living evaluation have direct bearings on subjective well-being. 10.2.1 Life Domain Satisfaction Our results show that of the five spheres of life in China, satisfaction in the interpersonal, material, and non-material spheres of life contributes directly to the experience of happiness, enjoyment, and accomplishment. Of these three spheres, the interpersonal life sphere shapes the experience of subjective well-being most powerfully. In China, interpersonal relationships have the greatest direct bearing on the way in which the Chinese people appraise their quality of life. 10.2.2 Relative Living Standard How Chinese people evaluate their own standard of living compared to the standard of living they perceive others experiencing is another important predictor of subjective wellbeing. The more positively the Chinese evaluate their standard of living relative to others’, the greater the quality of life they experience. It is Chinese people’s subjective ranking of living standards, not the actual level of income at their disposal, that directly affects their

123

36

Reprinted from the journal

The Quality of Life in China

perceptions of life quality. This finding also confirms the importance of social life as a criterion for the appraisal of life quality. 10.2.3 Marriage Compared with the unmarried, married people perceive their life more positively and experience more happiness, enjoyment, and accomplishment. This finding is consistent with a large number of prior studies from different countries and periods (e.g. Diener et al. 2000). Age, education, household income, being divorced or widowed, and value priorities are indirect influences on subjective well-being, mostly through satisfaction with life domains. The oldest age group, those aged 60–69, are the most satisfied with their interpersonal, material, and nonmaterial life spheres. The better educated and those from households with higher incomes also have higher levels of life satisfaction for these three spheres. The divorced/separated/widowed are less satisfied with these three life spheres. In addition, those who emphasize ‘‘having enough to eat’’ and ‘‘having access to medical care’’ tend to evaluate their interpersonal, material, and nonmaterial life spheres as less satisfying. Age is positively associated with value priorities on these aforementioned two value orientations; older people are more likely to emphasize ‘‘having enough to eat’’ and ‘‘having access to medical care’’. Household income, being divorced/separated/widowed, unemployment, and urban residence also have an indirect influence on subjective well-being by affecting how Chinese people rate their relative standard of living. Those with a high household income are more likely to rate themselves as having a relatively higher living standard than those with a low household income. People who are divorced/separated/widowed are more likely to see themselves as having a relatively lower living standard, even after controlling for their real household income. The unemployed and urban residents also tend to rate themselves lower on relative living standard after controlling for the real income than do their counterparts. These negative effects of divorce/separation/widowhood, unemployment, and urban residency demonstrate the power of social comparison. Regardless of their actual income, these individuals who compare themselves negatively with their peers see their standard of living as low. 10.3 Predicting Future Change in Subjective Well-being in China What changes will the future bring to the sense of well-being in China? Will the changes be mostly for the better or mostly for the worse? Though no one can say for sure, we can venture an informed guess by identifying the positive and negative forces now affecting Chinese quality of life and examining their strength and potential future effects. We begin with five negative forces that are likely to work against rising levels of subjective well-being. First, increasing inequalities are likely to lead more people to perceive themselves as having a low income. The relativistic judgment model suggests that people assess the adequacy of their income in relation to others (Easterlin 1974), and thus increases in income inequality are likely to bring about decreases in the experience of well-being (Veenhoven 1993). Second, people’s desires will likely increase as market competition and advertising cause people to crave more commodities and services. Even further economic growth will not fulfill these heightened levels of desires, and as a result, people will grow more dissatisfied. Third, the prevalence of marriage is likely to decline in China as its population is becoming more accepting of divorce, cohabitation, Reprinted from the journal

37

123

X. Shu, Y. Zhu

and remaining single. Married people are happier and have higher levels of satisfaction than single and divorced/separated/widowed people, while divorced/separated/widowed are more likely to report a low subjective standard of living. Thus a decline in the marriage rate is likely to push subjective well-being in the negative direction. Fourth, the sustained rural–urban migration will likely reduce the level of subjective well-being. Because urban residents are exposed to extreme wealth and commercial advertising more than are rural residents, they tend to be more negative in their evaluations of their relative income, which, in turn, leads them to be more negative in their evaluations of life quality. Last, increased international and domestic competition will likely lead to more people experiencing unemployment. Unemployed people tend to be more negative about their standard of living, and this negative evaluation leads to lower levels of subjective well-being. On the positive side, three trends are likely to work to increase subjective well-being. First, if economic growth leads to continued increases in household income, it will likely also increase the happiness of the Chinese people, as a higher household income is associated with higher satisfaction levels in the material life sphere. Second, economic expansion also grants more people education opportunities. Higher education can increase satisfaction with various life domains and thus increase subjective well-being. Last, compared with older cohorts, young people in China are less oriented toward materialistic goals. Because people who focus on material concerns tend to be less satisfied, and therefore, tend to experience lower subjective well-being, a shift away from materialism is likely to lead to a higher quality of life.

Appendices Table A1 Variables used in estimation of subjective well-being Variable

Coding

Demographic variables Female

A dummy variable with 1 = female respondents, 0 = male respondents.

Age cohorts Cohort 20–29 A dummy variable with 1 indicating that the respondent belongs to this age cohort, and 0 for otherwise. Cohort 30–39

A dummy variable with 1 indicating that the respondent belongs to this age cohort, and 0 for otherwise.

Cohort 40–49

A dummy variable with 1 indicating that the respondent belongs to this age cohort, and 0 for otherwise.

Cohort 50–59

A dummy variable with 1 indicating that the respondent belongs to this age cohort, and 0 for otherwise.

Cohort 60–69

A dummy variable with 1 indicating that the respondent belongs to this age cohort, and 0 for otherwise.

Educational attainment Primary school A dummy variable for respondent’s educational attainment (1 = primary school or below or below; 0 = else). Junior high

123

A dummy variable for respondent’s educational attainment (1 = junior high; 0 = else).

38

Reprinted from the journal

The Quality of Life in China Table A1 continued Variable

Coding

Senior high/ vocational school

A dummy variable for respondent’s educational attainment (1 = senior high or vocational school; 0 = else).

Associate’s degree

A dummy variable for respondent’s educational attainment (1 = associate degree; 0 = else).

Bachelor’s and graduate degree

A dummy variable for respondent’s educational attainment (1 = bachelor’s degree or graduate degree; 0 = else).

Marital status Married

A dummy variable for respondent’s marital status (1 = married; 0 = otherwise).

Single

A dummy variable for respondent’s marital status (1 = single; 0 = otherwise).

Divorce/separated/ widowed

A dummy variable for respondent’s marital status (1 = divorced/separated/ widowed; 0 = otherwise).

Household Income Low income

A dummy variable for respondent’s household income (1 = low: less than 30 k; 0 = otherwise).

Medium income

A dummy variable for respondent’s household income (1 = median: 30–50 k; 0 = otherwise).

High income

A dummy variable for respondent’s household income (1 = high: 50 k and above; 0 = otherwise).

Unemployment

A dummy variable with 1 indicating that the respondent is currently unemployed, and 0 otherwise.

Urban resident

A dummy variable with 1 indicating that the respondent is an urban resident, and 0 otherwise.

Livestyle variables Family related Household size

Household Size (number of people living in the same household with the respondent).

Home owner

A dummy variable for respondent’s home ownership, with 1 = owner, 0 = otherwise.

Breakfast at home

A dummy variable for eating home-made breakfast at home, with 1 = yes, 0 = no.

Dinner at home

A dummy variable for eating home-made dinner at home, with 1 = yes, 0 = no.

Access to resources No. of Utilities

Number of utilities the respondent has access to, including public water supply; electricity; LPG or piped gas; fixed-line phone; mobile phone; facsimile; cable tv.

Internet

How often do you view Internet web pages by computers? (5 = almost every day; 4 = several times a week; 3 = several times a month; 2 = seldom; 1 = never).

Email

How often do you read or write emails by computers? (5 = almost every day; 4 = several times a week; 3 = several times a month; 2 = seldom; 1 = never).

Cellular phone

How often do you read or write messages by mobile phones? (5 = almost every day; 4 = several times a week; 3 = several times a month; 2 = seldom; 1 = never).

Modern A summary scale that measures the respondent’s access to modern telecommunication telecommunications. (sum of INTERNET, EMAIL CELLULAR PHONE)

Reprinted from the journal

39

123

X. Shu, Y. Zhu

Table A1 continued Variable

Coding

Religious behavior Religious

A dummy variable for respondent’s religious belief (1 = being religious; 0 = otherwise).

Pray

How often the respondent prays or meditates (5 = daily; 4 = weekly; 3 = monthly; 2 = on special occasions; 1 = never).

Religiosity

A summary scale that measures the respondent’s degree of religiosity (sum of Religious pray).

Political involvement Vote national

A dummy variable with 1 indicating the respondent votes in national elections, and 0 otherwise.

Vote local

A dummy variable with 1 indicating the respondent votes in local elections, and 0 otherwise.

Participation in local/national elections

A summary scale that measures the respondent’s degree of participation in local and national elections (sum of VOTE NATIONAL, VOTE LOCAL).

Globalism and localism English

A dummy variable with 1 indicating that the respondent is able to speak English, and 0 otherwise.

Oversea

Number of interactions the respondent has with people or institutions overseas, including has a member of family or a relative lives in another country; has traveled abroad at least three times in the past 3 years on holidays or for business purpose; has friends from other country who are in China; often watches foreign-produced programs on TV; often communicates with people in other countries view the internet or email; own job involves contact with organizations or people in other countries).

Global connection

A summary scale that measures the degree of the respondent’s global connections (sum of ENGLISH, OVERSEA).

Identify as Chinese

A dummy variable with 1 indicating that the respondent thinks of him/herself as being Chinese, and 0 otherwise.

Proud to be Chinese

A dummy variable with 1 indicating that the respondent is proud of being Chinese, and 0 otherwise.

Memorize anthem

Is the respondent able to memorize the national anthem of China? (1 = yes, 0 = no). A dummy.

Identify as Asia

Does the respondent identify him/herself as being Asian? (1 = yes, 0 = no). A dummy.

Self-rated standard of living Low

A dummy variable with 1 indicating that the respondent rated own standard of living as low, and 0 otherwise.

Medium

A dummy variable with 1 indicating that the respondent rated own standard of living as medium, and 0 otherwise.

High

A dummy variable with 1 indicating that the respondent rated own standard of living as high, and 0 otherwise.

Trusting others

A dummy variable with 1 indicating that the respondent thinks people can be trusted, and 0 otherwise.

123

40

Reprinted from the journal

The Quality of Life in China

Table A1 continued Variable

Coding

Top ten value priorities Being healthy

A dummy variable with 1 indicating that the respondent values this aspect, and 0 otherwise.

Having a comfortable home

A dummy variable with 1 indicating that the respondent values this aspect, and 0 otherwise.

Having enough to eat

A dummy variable with 1 indicating that the respondent values this aspect, and 0 otherwise.

Having access to good medical care

A dummy variable with 1 indicating that the respondent values this aspect, and 0 otherwise.

Rasing children

A dummy variable with 1 indicating that the respondent values this aspect, and 0 otherwise.

Spending time with your family

A dummy variable with 1 indicating that the respondent values this aspect, and 0 otherwise.

Earning a high income

A dummy variable with 1 indicating that the respondent values this aspect, and 0 otherwise.

Being able to liveout fear of crime

A dummy variable with 1 indicating that the respondent values this aspect, and 0 otherwise.

Being on good terms with A dummy variable with 1 indicating that the respondent values this aspect, and others 0 otherwise. Having a job

A dummy variable with 1 indicating that the respondent values this aspect, and 0 otherwise.

Subjective well-being Happiness

A dummy for positive experience of happiness (1 = very happy and quite happy; 0 = otherwise).

Enjoyment

A dummy for positive experience of enjoyment (1 = enjoy life often and sometimes; 0 = otherwise)

Accomplishment

A dummy for positive experience of accomplishment (1 = feel accomplishing some and a great deal of what one wants in life; 0 = otherwise).

Number of positive experiences

Number of positive experiences the respondent reports he/she has experienced among happiness, enjoyment, and accomplishment.

7-Point summary index

I first construct non-negative indexes for happiness, enjoyment and accomplishment, 0 = not experiencing happiness, enjoyment or accomplishment, 1 = experiencing some happiness, enjoyment and accomplishment, 2 = experiencing a lot happiness, enjoyment and accomplishment. The overall index is the summation of non-negative values on these three elements. It ranges from 0–6. It is based on instructions provided in Shin’s email on May 15, 2007 (data analysis procedures). Recode Q4 (1 = 2)(2 = 1)(3,4,5 = 0) (Else = 9) into happy. Recode Q5 (1 = 2)(2 = 1)(3,4 = 0) (Else = 9) into enjoy. Recode Q6 (1 = 2)(2 = 1)(3,4 = 0)(Else = 9) into accomplish. Missing values happy enjoy accomplish (9). Compute overall 7 = happy ? enjoy ? accomplish.

Reprinted from the journal

41

123

X. Shu, Y. Zhu Table A2 Comparison of basic statistics across ABS2006, Women’s 2000, and Chinese Health and Family Life Survey ABS2006

WOMEN2000

CHFLS

Mean/ percentage

Mean/ percentage

Mean/ percentage

CENSUS 2000 Mean/ percentage

Female respondents

49

54

50

48

Male respondents

51

46

50

52

Respondent’s age

40.77

39.24

38.77

Cohort 20–29

21

20

23

Cohort 30–39

29

34

32

Cohort 40–49

23

26

27

Cohort 50–59

18

14

14

Cohort 60–69

10

6

5

Gender

Age

Educational attainment Primary school or below

18

33

20

28

Junior high

32

37

37

27

Senior high/vocational school

24

22

29

9

Associate’s degree

13

6

10

3

Bachelor’s degree and Graduate degree

13

2

5

Single

17

10

11

Married

79

86

86

4

4

3

Marital status

Divorced and widowed Household income Low income households: less than 20,000 yuan

49

N/A

N/A

Medium income households: 20,000– 40,000 yuan

28

N/A

N/A

High income households: 40,000 yuan and above

22

N/A

N/A

Employed, retired, student and homemaker

93

94

89

Unemployed

7

6

11

Employment

Urban residence Urban resident

50

51

80

36

Rural resident

50

49

20

64

123

42

Reprinted from the journal

The Quality of Life in China

References Bell, D. A. (2006). Beyond liberal democracy: Political thinking for an East Asian context. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Bell, D. A., Brown, D., Jayasuriya, K., & Jones, D. M. (1995). Toward illiberal democracy in Pacific Asia. New York: St. Martin’s Press. China National Bureau of Statistics. (2003). China statistical yearbook. Beijing: China Statistical Press. China National Bureau of Statistics. (2007). China statistical yearbook for regional economy, 2007. Beijing: China Statistical Press. Compton, R. W. (2000). East Asian democratization: Impact of globalization, culture, and economy. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers. Diener, E., Gohm, C. L., Suh, E. M., & Oishi, S. (2000). Similarity of the relations between marital status and subjective well-being across cultures. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 31(4), 419–436. Easterlin, R. A. (1974). Does economic growth improve the human lot? Some empirical evidence. In P. A. David & W. R. Melvin (Eds.), Nations and households in economic growth (pp. 98–125). Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press. Frey, B. S., & Stutzer, A. (2002). Happiness and economics. How the economy and institutions affect wellbeing. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Fuentes, N., & Rojas, M. (2001). Economic theory and subjective well-being: Mexico. Social Indicators Research, 53, 289–314. Haller, M., & Hadler, M. (2004). Happiness as an expression of freedom and self-determination: A comparative multilevel analysis. In W. Glatzer, S. von Below & M. Stoffregen (Eds.), Challenges for quality of life in contemporary world (pp. 207–231). Dordrecht: Kluwer. Headey, B., Holmstrom, E., & Wearing, A. (1984). Well-being and Ill-being: Different dimensions. Social Indicators Research, 14, 115–139. Inglehart, R., & Klingemann, H.-D. (2000). Genes, culture, democracy, and happiness. In E. Diener & E. M. Suh (Eds.), Culture and subjective wellbeing (pp. 165–16184). Cambridge: MIT Press. Kasser, T. (2000). Two versions of the American DREAM: Which goals and values make for a higher quality of life. In E. Diener & D. R. Rahtz (Eds.), Advances in quality of life theory and research (pp. 3–12). Dordrecht: Kluwer. Logan, J. R. (Ed.). (2002). The new Chinese city: Globalization and market reform. London: Blackwell. Ma, J. (2004). China’s water crisis. East Bridge. Ma, X., & Ortalano, L. (2000). Environmental regulation in China: Institution, enforcement, and compliance. Rowman and Littlefield. Parducci, A. (1995). Happiness, pleasure, and judgment: The contextual theory and its applications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Peng, D. (1996). Does confucianism matter? The role of the oriental tradition in economic development in East Asia. In A. Ikeo (Ed.), Economic development in twentieth century East Asia: The international context. Routledge. Pye, L. W. (1992). The spirit of Chinese politics. Chicago: Harvard University Press. Ravallion, M., & Chen, S. (2004). China’s (Uneven) Progress against Poverty. World Book Policy Research Working Paper 3408. Ross, H. (2004). China country study in education for all: EFA global monitoring report. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Ryan, L., & Dziurawiec, S. (2001). Materialism and its relationship to life satisfaction. Social Indicators Research, 55, 185–197. Sirgy, M. (1998). Materialism and quality of life. Social Indicators Research, 43, 227–260. Tu, W.-M. (Ed.). (1996). Confucian traditions in East Asian modernity: Moral education and economic culture in Japan and the four mini-dragons. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. United Nations Development Program. (2005). Human Development Report 2005: International cooperation at a crossroads. New York: United Nations Development Program. World Bank and China State Environmental Protection Administration. (2007). Cost of pollution in China: Economic estimates of physical damages. Washington, DC. World Health Organization. (2008). World Health Statistics.

Reprinted from the journal

43

123

Soc Indic Res (2009) 92:227–262 DOI 10.1007/s11205-008-9351-3

The Quality of Life in Japan Takashi Inoguchi Æ Seiji Fujii

Accepted: 6 October 2008 / Published online: 3 December 2008 Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Abstract This study is part of a collaborative project examining the quality of life in Confucian societies in Asia. Our major findings suggest that, when our sixteen specific life domains are grouped into three life spheres, namely, material, post-material, and public, the Japanese people tend to be most satisfied with the post-material sphere of life and least satisfied with the public sphere of life such as the condition of environment and welfare system. In searching the direct, independent effects of demographics, lifestyles, value priorities, and domain assessments on the quality of life, none of the public life domain assessments shows a significant impact on the quality of life, while friendships and spiritual life in the post-material sphere of life are an important determinant. Equally notable is the finding that neither educational attainment nor household income contributes significantly to the experience of subjective well-being. Leading a global lifestyle also affects positively the quality of life. Finally, being married and satisfaction with marital life appear to be powerful and prevalent influence on the quality of life in Japan. Keywords Quality of life
Lifestyles
Value priorities
Life domains
Post-material sphere of life

For decades, Japan has been the leading economic powerhouse in East Asia. It is the world’s second largest economy, behind only the United States, despite having recently experienced a decade of economic downturn due to overinvestment in stock and real estate markets. Prolonged deflation in general prices and a declining household income now threaten to bring another economic slowdown. Japan also faces the problems of a rapidly aging population and a widening economic gap between rural and urban areas. Given these circumstances, the quality of life has become a subject of increasing and widespread concern in policy circles and the scholarly community. This study offers a comprehensive account of the quality of life experienced by the Japanese people. This analysis is based on the 2006 AsiaBarometer Survey (ABS). The T. Inoguchi (&)
S. Fujii Chuo University, Tokyo, Japan e-mail: [email protected] Reprinted from the journal

45

123

T. Inoguchi, S. Fujii

study begins with a brief discussion of recent changes in the objective conditions of life, and then the second section highlights the demographic profiles of the respondents to the ABS. The third section on lifestyles examines the various ways in which ordinary Japanese live their lives on a daily basis. The fourth section on value priorities looks at the types of resources and activities people value most in their lives. The fifth section on the general quality of life compares the extent to which people in different groups experience feelings of happiness, enjoyment, achievement, and overall quality of life. The sixth section on the assessments of life domains compares the extent to which people feel satisfied or dissatisfied with sixteen specific life domains, and identifies the particular domains with which they find most and least satisfying. The seventh section on sources of life quality estimates and compares the direct, independent effects of demographics, lifestyles, value priorities, and domain assessments on living a life of happiness, enjoyment, and achievement. The last section highlights major findings and discusses their implications from the perspective of policymaking.

1 Japan as a Place to Live Japan is an island chain located east of the Korean Peninsula and between the North Pacific Ocean and the Sea of Japan. It consists of more than 6,000 islands, the largest of which are Hokkaido, Honshu, Shikoku, and Kyushu. Together these four islands account for about 97% of total land area, which is slightly smaller than the size of the state of California in the United States. The weather consists of four seasons, and the rainy season continues from June to early July. The population of Japan is estimated at 127 million for 2007 with a growth rate of -0.09%. Japanese account for 99% of its total population with very small minority groups, including Koreans, Chinese, and Ainu. People under the age of 14 account for 14% of the population, people between the ages of 15 and 64 for 66%, and people over 65 years old for 20%. The life expectancy estimate for those born in 2007 is 82.0 years old, with males averaging 78.7 years old and females averaging 85.6 years old. The literacy rate is 99%. More than 99% of children are enrolled in elementary school, and 94% of all lower-school graduates are enrolled in high school. Concerning religion, 84% of the Japanese people observe both Shinto and Buddhist practices, and 16% observe other religions, including Christianity (0.7%). According to 2005 statistics, 17.7 million Japanese travel abroad, while 6.7 million foreigners visit Japan annually.1 Japanese society is rapidly aging with fewer children, and this problem is much more serious in rural areas. According to an opinion poll conducted by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport of Japan (MLIT) (2007), people in rural areas worry most about the future of their communities in the wake of the rapidly aging and declining population in 2006. More than 30% of respondents in local municipalities worry about a population decrease, while approximately 10% of the survey respondents in larger cities worry about the same problem. Japan is the largest and most advanced economy in Asia. From the 1950s to the 1980s, Japan achieved rapid and sustained economic growth under the leadership of the Liberal Democratic Party and as a result, became a first-rank economic power. After a severe and protracted slowdown in economic growth during the 1990s, the Japanese economy has been gradually reviving since 2003. The real GDP per capita is estimated at $38,500 in 1

The currency exchange rate at a 104 yen to the dollar as of the end of 2004 was used.

123

46

Reprinted from the journal

The Quality of Life in Japan

2006, with the growth rate at 2%. According to the survey done by the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare, however, the average household income in 2005 was the lowest it had been since 1989, at around $51,254 (Kyodo News, May 30, 2007).2 The percentage of the surveyed households who said ‘‘struggling with making a living’’ was 56%, which is the highest figure since 1989 (Kyodo News, May 30, 2007). Labor force participation for men was 69% while that for women was 46% in January 2008 (Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, Labor Force Survey 2008). The seasonally adjusted unemployment rate was 3.8% in February 2008 (Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, Labor Force Survey 2008). The number of average working hours per week in 2007 was 41.2 h, which is lower than the 42.5 h reported in 1997 (Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, Labor Force Survey 2007). Average daily sleeping hours were 7.7 h in 2006 (Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, Basic Survey on Social Life 2006). Legally, Japan is a society of equal opportunity and fair justice. Women in Japan are supposed to be treated equally, but they face widespread discrimination in employment. According to The Times (October 15, 2005), ‘‘Only one in eight lawyers is a woman, as is one in ten company managers, one in thirty ambassadors and one in seventy senior civil servants.’’ The parliamentary elections in September 2005 proved to be a major step forward for women in Japanese politics; 43 women were elected to the 480-member lower house, the highest number ever. According to the 2008 Index of Economic Freedom published by the Heritage Foundation (2008), the economy of Japan is assessed 73% free, which is ranked seventeenth among 157 nations and fifth out of 30 countries in the Asia-Pacific region. Although Japan ranks very high in eight areas, business freedom, trade freedom, fiscal freedom, monetary freedom, investment freedom, property rights, freedom from corruption, and labor freedom, it is relatively low in the two other areas of government size and financial freedom. In this regard, the Heritage Foundation points out that public spending amounts to more than one-third of the GDP and the financial sector is subject to strict government control. The balance of Japanese government debt in 2008 is estimated to be 182% of GDP (Ministry of Finance Japan 2007). Politically, Japan represents the oldest liberal democracy in Asia. In the Freedom in the World 2007 sss survey conducted by Freedom House (2007), Japan received the best score of 1 with respect to political rights and the second best score of 2 with respect to civil liberties. It was, therefore, rated as a ‘‘free’’ country. On a scale of 1 to 7, Freedom House measures the extent to which individuals in the country experience political freedom in terms of the electoral process, political pluralism and participation, and functioning of government. Similarly, it measures civil liberties in terms of freedom of expression and belief, associational and organizational rights, rule of law, and personal autonomy and individual rights. According to the Global Peace Index 2008 developed by Vision of Humanity (2008), Japan is one of the most peaceful countries in the world. On this index, which ranked 121 nations according to their relative peacefulness, Japan ranked fifth. On the quality of governance, Japan is rated relatively well. The World Bank‘s Governance Indicators (WGI) project reports a set of aggregate indicators that measure the quality of governance for 212 countries and territories between 1996 and 2007 (Kaufmann et al. 2008). For each society, the project measures six dimensions of governance: voice and accountability, political stability and absence of violence, government effectiveness, regulatory quality, rule of law, and control of corruption. Taking into account inherent error in measuring governance, the most recent Japanese percentile ranks are estimated to 2

We use the exchange rate at 110 yen to the dollar.

Reprinted from the journal

47

123

T. Inoguchi, S. Fujii

be 75–90% on the five dimensions: voice and accountability, political stability and absence of violence, government effectiveness, regulatory quality, and control of corruption. For the rule of law and control of corruption, the percentile is estimated to be between 90 and 100% (The World Bank 2008). According to the Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index (2007), which ranked 180 countries in terms of how corrupt public officials and politicians are perceived to be, Japan ranked seventeenth least corrupt. This rating partly reflects the former Prime Minister Koizumi’s reform effort to break down the corruption between the government and big business. Japan is one of the most digitalized societies in the world. The International Telecommunication Union follows the same methodology as the Human Development Index (HDI) and develops the Digital Opportunity Index (DOI) to measure the opportunity ordinary citizens have to access a variety of digital information affordably and equitably. On this index, Japan ranks second among 181 countries, behind only South Korea (International Telecommunication Union 2006). On the International Communication and Technology (OCT) index, which measures each country’s ICT networks, skills, and use, Japan ranks nineteenth among 139 countries (International Telecommunication Union 2006). Broadband subscribers in Japan pay 0.07 US$ per 100 kilobytes per second per month in 2006, the cheapest price in 166 countries where broadband is commercially available (the average is 0.42 US$) (International Telecommunication Union 2006). Japan ranks fourteenth on the national broadband penetration rate at 22.1 per 100 population in 2007 (International Telecommunication Union 2007). 86% of households have mobile phones in 2006 and 71% of households own personal computers in 2007, and the penetration rate of the Internet for households increased from 34% in 2000 to 79% in 2006 (Cabinet office, The White Paper on the Japanese People’s lifestyle in 2007). The number of Internet users totals 87 million, which is about 70% of the population (Cabinet office, The White Paper on the Japanese People’s lifestyle in 2007). Japan is widely known as a country where people experience a good quality of life. According to UNDPs (2008) Human Development Report 2007/2008, Japan ranks ninth among 177 countries with a score of 0.953 on its human development index. The opinion polls conducted recently by the Cabinet Office of the Japanese Government (Cabinet office, The White Paper on the Japanese People’s lifestyle in 2007), however, shows that the percentage of the Japanese people who are satisfied with the overall aspects of their life has decreased, while the percentage of those who are dissatisfied has increased over the past three decades. In 2005, the percentage of those who are satisfied, 36%, registered the lowest since 1978. The percentage of the dissatisfied nearly doubled from 16% in 1978 to 28% in 2005. Moreover, those who are searching for spiritual richness now outnumber those seeking material wealth by a large margin of more than 2 to 1 (63% vs. 30%). The same survey also revealed significant decreases in the interpersonal contact between parents and children. As one-person activities, such as Internet use, have become more prevalent, families have had less time to spend together. Obviously, Japan is a society undergoing a variety of profound changes, and these changes are affecting how they live and what they experience and value in the private and public spheres of their lives.

2 Demographic Profile of Survey Respondents Nippon Research Center in Tokyo conducted the ABS in Japan, using the methods of multi-stage stratified sampling and face-to-face interviews from July 21 to August 13,

123

48

Reprinted from the journal

The Quality of Life in Japan

2006.3 The sample size is 1,003 and includes those between 20 and 69 years old, with 502 male and 501 female respondents. The age breakdown of these respondents is 19% between 20 and 29 years, 22% between 30 and 39 years, 18% between 40 and 49 years old, 22% between 50 and 59 years, and 19% between 60 and 69 years. Regionally, 12% came from Hokkaido and Tohoku, 33% from Kanto, 18% from Chubu (Hokuriku, Tosan, and Tokai), 17% from Kinki, 9% from Chugoku and Shikoku, and 11% Kyushu. In terms of community type, 24% came from large metropolitan areas known as the government designated cities, 38% from cities with populations over 100,000, 18% from cities with populations less than 100,000, and 20% from towns and rural areas.4 In terms of educational attainment, more than two-fifths of the respondents (44%) had their high school diploma, less than one tenth (8%) had a primary or junior high school education, 14% had a technical school education, 12% had a college education, and more than one-fifth (22%) had a postgraduate degree. Regarding the income level of the respondents, 6% of the respondents had a family income of less than 2 million yen, 60% of the respondents had a household income between 2 million and 10 million yen, and 9% had a family income of more than 10 million yen. This distribution is skewed to the right with 2% of the respondents having household incomes of 20 million yen or more. Concerning marital status, a majority (73%) was married, less than one-fifth (19%) was single, and 8% were bereaved of their marital partner, separated or have divorced themselves. In terms of the aforementioned demographic characteristics, the ABS sample does not deviate much from what was reported in the national population census in 2000 and 2005 (Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, Population Census 2000 and 2005). Appendix A compares the national census data with the ABS sample. According to the census, for example, 49.9% were male and 50.1% were female. Regarding age, 18% were aged 20 to 29, 22% were aged 30 to 39, 19% were aged 40 to 49, 22% were aged 50 to 59, and 19% were aged 60 to 69. These percentages of gender and age match those of the ABS sample. In terms of household income, region, and community type, the ABS sample also resembles the population censuses. According to the 2005 census, 50% of households have a family income of less than 5 million yen, 33% of them have a family income between 5 million yen and 8 million yen, and 17% have a family income of more than 8 million yen. Regarding household income, we look at a survey about nationwide consumption in 2004 (Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, Nationwide Consumption Survey 2004). Twelve percent live in Hokkaido or Tohoku, 34% live in Kanto, 18% live in Chubu, 3

The sampling was carried out in four stages. First, all municipalities in Japan were classified into 10 regions, namely, Hokkaido, Tohoku, Kanto, Hokuriku, Tosan, Tokai, Kinki, Chugoku, Shikoku, and Kyushu. Then, in each region, the municipalities were stratified into 4 categories corresponding to their population sizes as follows: (1) Government designated cities, (2) Cities with over 100,000 people, (3) Cities with less than 100,000 people, and (4) Towns and rural areas. 100 primary sampling units were allocated to each block (region by population size) through the proportionate allocation based on the population size of age 20–69 in the national census. Second, within each block, 100 primary sampling units (census tracts) were randomly chosen through the probability proportionate to size (PPS) sampling. Third, within each primary sampling unit, 50 households were systematically chosen from the database, by every third household. Interviewers first visited the 50 designated households. If they could not complete their quota after visiting the designated households more than twice, they contacted households next to the first ones. Finally, to choose the respondents to interview, quota age group (by 10 years old) and gender was set in proportionate to the population. In addition, for women aged 30–59, quota by employment was set to avoid over-sampling homemakers.

4

Government-designated cities must have the population over 700,000 as the current requirement. All the cities have the population over 800,000 except one city.

Reprinted from the journal

49

123

T. Inoguchi, S. Fujii

17% live in Kinki, 9% live in Chugoku, and 11% live in Kyushu. As to the types of residential community, 25% of census respondents live in government-designated cities, 43% in cities with populations exceeding 100,000, 20% in cities with populations less than 100,000, and 13% in towns and rural areas. On educational attainment, Appendix A shows that the ABS sample differs significantly from the census data. The significantly lower percentage of respondents with a primary education and the significantly higher percentage of respondents with a college education in the ABS are due to the fact that people aged 70 and older were excluded from the survey. As to marital status, the ABS sample slightly differs from the census data. 27% of the census respondents have never married, 64% have never married, and 8% were bereaved of their marital partner or have divorced themselves. In the following sections, the six demographic characteristics, namely, gender, age, marital status, education level, household income level, and community type, will be used to break apart the sample in an effort to find any differences that may exist in lifestyles, value priorities, and the quality of life across the various population groups.

3 Lifestyles Our analysis of lifestyles begins with the family structure of the respondents and the type of dwelling in which they reside. In the wake of steady migration from rural areas to urban areas in the 1950s and 1960s, the family size became smaller while the number of nuclear families increased. In urban areas, various forms of residential units were built. There has also been a growing tendency to marry later in life or even stay unmarried, and so the number of single-person households has increased. At the same time, the number of young people living together with their parents has also gone up, likely because of the increasingly tighter job market young people face. Results of the ABS are consistent with these trends. One-half of the respondents (51%) live in a two-generation household with an unmarried child or children. The next most popular arrangement is a one-generation household with a married couple only (16%), followed by a three-generation household with grandparent(s) (14%), a single-person household (11%), and a two-generation household with a married child or children (5%). In terms of the number of people in households, the average is 4.3 with a large majority of households (78%) having fewer than four members. Four-person households account for the highest proportion of 26%. They are followed by those with three persons (22%), two persons (20%), five persons (12%), six persons (6%), and seven persons (4%). In terms of homeownership, about two-thirds (64%) reside in owner-occupied detached or semi-detached (duplex) houses, and 23% live in rented terraced house or in an apartment. While 7% own the owner-occupied terraced house or unit in an apartment, 6% dwell in the rented detached or semi-detached (duplex) house. Lastly, 1% of the Japanese respondents live in other types of residences such as a relative’s home. Fifty-one percent of low-income people live in the owner-occupied detached or semi-detached (duplex) house, and 34% live in the rented terraced house or unit in an apartment.5 The corresponding figures are 65% and 22% for the middle-income group and 84% and 6% for the

5

Less than 5 million yen is categorized as low. Between 5 million and 8 million yen is categorized as middle. Over 8 million yen is categorized as high.

123

50

Reprinted from the journal

The Quality of Life in Japan

high-income group. The higher the household income respondents have, the more likely they are to live in their own house and the less likely they are to live in an apartment. Rapid economic growth and migration from rural areas have affected not only what type of housing Japanese people have, but also their patterns of eating. The Japanese people have come to eat more simple and quick foods such as convenience foods, retorted foods, and frozen foods. The 2006 ABS asked respondents about their preference for several types of foods and their dining habits. The most popular food is sushi (87%), which is followed by curry (63%), sandwiches (47%), pizza (39%), hamburgers (31%), kimchi (29%), instant noodles (26%) and dim sum (20%). The least favorite food is pho (5%), tom-yum-goong (5%), and Beijing duck (8%). The survey also asked respondents about how they prepare and eat their meals. An overwhelming majority (96%) at least sometimes ate meals cooked at home, while 30% at least sometimes ate out in restaurants.6 Fifteen percent buy ready meals, and 5% eat instant food at home. Only 2% eat out in food stalls. Younger respondents are more likely to eat out than to eat cooked meals at home. The opposite is true for older respondents. To examine the extent to which the Japanese people lead a modern life, the ABS asked about their access to the following utilities: public water supply, electricity, liquefied petroleum gas, landline phone service, mobile phone service, facsimile, and cable TV. The rates of access to these utilities are 98% for running water, 100% for electricity, 96% for gas, 94% for landline phone, 92% for mobile phone, 62% for fax, and 29% for cable TV. The penetration rates for such durable goods as TV sets, laundry machines, refrigerators, air conditioners, and cars have increased because people once coveted them as symbolic goods of affluent status, especially in the 1950s and 60s. A high penetration rate of TV, in turn, has affected consumption patterns through advertisement. We construct three levels of modern life by combining the number of available utilities: low with less than 3, middle with 3 and 4, and high with five or more of the seven utilities. According to Table 1, a vast majority (90%) lives a highly modern life. Table 1 shows that the higher the level of educational attainment and household income respondents have, the more likely they are to live a modern life.7 Community type also has a positive affect on the level of modern life. Many Japanese people practice a traditional spiritual activity, such as visiting a shrine or praying. Japan has several religious groups, including Buddhism or Shinto. The ABS asked the respondents about their religious affiliation and spiritual activity as measured by praying and meditating. Sixty percent of the Japanese respondents do not belong to any particular religion. Of those who reported a religious affiliation, Buddhists (32%) constitute the largest group. In terms of praying or mediating, about two-thirds (68%) never do either or do so only on special occasions, while 23% pray or mediate everyday. To estimate the extent to which ordinary Japanese people lead a religious life, we constructed a 3-point index by counting affirmative responses to the two questions. The higher the value, the more the respondents are involved in religious activities. As shown in Table 1, about half of the respondents (52%) live low levels of religious life, while the percentages of respondents who live medium levels and high levels of religious life are 26 and 22%, respectively. Table 1 shows the relationship between the levels of religious life and the six demographic characteristics. Females are more religious than males. Old people as compared to 6

These percentages add up more than 100% because the respondents choose two multiple answers.

7

Primary school and Junior high school are categorized as low. High school is categorized as middle. Technical school, college, university and graduate school are categorized as high.

Reprinted from the journal

51

123

123

0.4

0.5

0.0

0.0

0.5

30–39

40–49

50–59

60–69

52

Married

0.5

0.2

Mid

High

0.0

0.0

Mid

High

0.8

0.3

Over 700,000

Over 100,000

Community type

0.5

Low

Household income

0.0

Low

Education

1.1

0.0

Not married

Marital status

0.5

20–29

Age

0.2

Female

0.3

Male

Gender

Total

7.9

9.2

4.4

4.5

18.1

6.6

12.2

20.7

7.8

16.9

17.6

8.4

5.4

5.9

14.9

10.6

10.0

10.3

91.8

90.0

95.6

95.5

81.4

93.2

87.3

79.3

92.2

82.0

81.8

91.6

94.6

93.6

84.6

89.0

89.8

89.4

54.2

58.5

50.6

50.7

51.0

57.3

50.0

31.6

50.3

56.8

29.7

44.6

50.8

63.6

72.1

50.8

53.3

52.1

23.6

23.3

28.8

28.3

22.3

25.9

24.3

30.4

25.8

24.6

30.8

24.3

28.2

23.4

21.2

23.4

27.6

25.5

Mid

Low

High

Low

Mid

Religious life

Modern life

Table 1 Lifestyles by demographic variables

22.3

18.2

20.6

21.0

26.7

16.8

25.7

38.0

23.8

18.6

39.5

31.1

21.0

13.1

6.7

25.8

19.1

22.4

High

26.3

24.1

22.6

19.5

38.6

16.9

36.8

60.8

29.3

28.6

65.2

41.4

22.1

10.1

8.0

31.8

26.4

29.1

Low

29.5

32.9

25.8

26.4

32.1

26.8

32.4

25.3

30.1

26.4

16.8

26.1

30.4

35.8

35.6

32.4

25.8

29.1

Mid

Digital life

44.1

43.0

51.6

54.1

29.3

56.2

30.8

13.9

40.6

45.0

17.9

32.4

47.5

54.1

56.4

35.8

47.8

41.8

High

63.9

61.3

54.1

63.1

72.4

55.1

73.1

80.2

63.6

68.8

66.3

65.0

62.0

66.2

65.4

65.1

65.0

65.0

Low

28.5

27.5

30.8

25.7

24.1

31.6

23.3

17.3

27.7

24.6

26.2

28.3

27.7

26.9

25.0

27.5

26.2

26.9

Mid

Global life

7.7

11.3

15.1

11.3

3.5

13.3

3.6

2.5

8.6

6.6

7.5

6.7

10.3

6.8

9.6

7.4

8.8

8.1

High

12.0

14.9

4.4

8.2

15.0

10.6

11.7

9.8

7.3

21.1

1.1

4.9

8.7

12.8

29.1

10.6

11.3

11.0

Low

7.5

14.0

3.8

5.9

12.8

8.9

8.7

12.2

7.6

13.0

2.7

5.8

9.3

12.8

14.9

8.7

9.3

9.0

Mid

Political life

80.5

71.1

91.8

85.9

72.2

80.5

79.6

78.0

85.1

65.9

96.2

89.3

82.0

74.3

56.0

80.7

79.4

80.0

High

39.5

39.8

30.3

40.6

45.7

36.3

43.2

59.7

40.2

44.0

36.0

36.4

42.8

46.5

44.9

39.9

42.6

41.2

Low

31.5

33.5

37.9

32.9

30.3

34.9

30.5

31.2

32.2

32.8

34.3

36.9

31.9

29.5

28.7

31.1

33.7

32.4

Mid

Social life

29.1

26.7

31.7

26.6

24.0

28.7

26.3

9.1

27.6

23.2

29.7

26.7

25.3

24.0

26.3

29.1

23.7

26.4

High

T. Inoguchi, S. Fujii

Reprinted from the journal

0.0

0.0

Towns and rurals

11.9

14.8

85.2

88.1

44.8

47.2 30.2

27.2

Mid

Low

High

Low

Mid

Religious life

Modern life

Less than 100,000

Table 1 continued

25.0

25.6

High

37.0

32.8

Low

27.0

25.6

Mid

Digital life

36.0

41.7

High

71.0

65.9

Low

23.5

26.4

Mid

Global life

5.5

7.7

High

7.6

7.3

Low

7.1

7.8

Mid

Political life

85.4

84.9

High

47.1

40.1

Low

32.8

32.3

Mid

Social life

20.1

27.5

High

The Quality of Life in Japan

Reprinted from the journal

53

123

T. Inoguchi, S. Fujii

young people are also more likely to be religious; Less than one-tenth of those aged 20 to 29 (7%) are highly religious, while 40% of those between the ages of 60 and 69 are. Marital status also seems to affect the Japanese people’s level of religious life. The married as compared to the unmarried are more religious (24% vs. 19%). Residents of smaller cities or rural areas also tend to lead more religious lives than those of large cities. Those with less education also tend to be more religious than those with more education. In short, it is clear that exposure to socioeconomic modernization discourages Japanese people from engaging in religious life. To examine the extent to which the Japanese use digital technology, the ABS asked respondents how often they view Internet Web pages by computers, read or write emails by computers, and read or write messages by mobile phones. Most respondents reported using mobile phones more frequently than computers. While about one-third (33%) of them uses computers for email almost everyday or several times a week, twice as many (65%) read or write messages by mobile phones that often. We constructed a 3-point index by counting the number of ‘‘almost everyday’’ or ‘‘several times a week’’ responses to the three digital use questions to estimate the extent to which the Japanese respondents live a digital life. Table 1 shows that about two-fifths (42%) lead lives with a high level of digitalization, while 29% lead lives with either a low or medium level of digitalization. Table 1 also shows that males lead more digitalized lives than do females, and younger people lead more digitalized lives than do older people. More than half of those aged 20 to 29 (56%) and those aged 30 to 39 (54%) lead highly digitalized lives, while about two-thirds of those aged 60 to 69 (65%) lead lives with a low level of digitalization. Educational attainment levels and digital life levels are also positively correlated. More than half of the respondents (56%) with the highest level of educational attainment lead a high level of digital life, while about two-thirds (61%) of those who have the lowest educational attainment lead a low level of digital life.8 Lastly, there seems to be little relationship between the population size of the cities in which respondents live and their levels of digital life. To examine the extent to which the Japanese people live a global life, the ABS asked about fluency in English, the frequency of foreign travel, and viewing foreign TV programs. According to the ABS, more than half (55%) of respondents speak English very little, 33% can’t speak English at all, 12% can speak it well enough to get by in daily life, and 1% can speak it fluently. When the two positive responses are combined, it appears that only one out of eight Japanese (13%) is capable of speaking English. About one-fourth (23%) often watch foreign-produced programs on TV, and less than one-tenth have traveled abroad at least three times in the past 3 years. To construct a 3-point index of global life, we first counted positive responses to the three questions and then collapsed the two top values of 2 and 3 into a high level. Nearly two-thirds (65%) engage in a low level of global life, and less than one-tenth (8%) lives a high level of global life. Table 1 shows that higher educational attainment leads to a high level of global life. It also shows that residents of large metropolitan areas are far more likely to live such a highly global life than those of other communities. For example, over one-tenth (11%) of those who live in the government-designated cities with populations greater than 700,000 lead a high level of global life, while 6% of those who live in towns and rural areas lead the same level of global life.

8

Primary school and Junior high school are categorized as low. High school is categorized as middle. Technical school, college, university and graduate school are categorized as high.

123

54

Reprinted from the journal

The Quality of Life in Japan

Political participation is another factor to characterize the lifestyles of the Japanese people. The ABS asked respondents how often they vote at national and local elections. More than 58% of respondents vote both at national elections and local elections, and more than 88% of respondents vote at least more often than sometimes at both elections. We use this variable to estimate the extent to which the Japanese people live a political life. According to Table 1, age, marital status, household income, and the size of residential community significantly affect respondents’ levels of political life. Specifically, growing age, being married, more education, and greater income are associated with significantly higher political activism. Living in large urban centers, on the other hand, is associated with significantly lower political activism. The ABS also examined how well the Japanese are connected with other people. Social connectedness refers behaviorally to participation in civic associations and psychologically to interpersonal trust. To measure social connectedness psychologically, the ABS asked three questions that measure respondents’ levels of interpersonal trust. The first question asked respondents if they can trust most people or if they can’t be too careful in dealing with them. The second question asked if they think that people generally try to be helpful or that people mostly look out for themselves. The third question asked if they would stop to help if they saw somebody on the street looking lost. In response to these three questions, less than one-half (46%) replied that most people can be trusted, about one-third (35%) replied that people generally try to be helpful, and a bare majority (53%) said that they would always stop to help if they saw somebody on the street looking lost. To estimate the extent to which the Japanese people live a socially connected life, we constructed a 3-point index by combining and collapsing positive responses to the three questions into three levels. We combined the bottom two categories together into a low level, and a plurality (41%) belong to this low level. Those who score 2 on this index and live a highly religious life constitute only one-quarter (26%). Table 1 shows that gender, marital status, education level, and household income level are correlated with respondents’ levels of social connectedness. Females are more socially connected than males. Likewise, those married are more connected than their unmarried counterparts. Higher levels of education and family income are accompanied by higher levels of social connectedness. For example, 9% with low educational attainment, 26% with medium educational attainment, and 29% with high educational attainment lead a high level of socially connected life. In terms of household income, 32% of high-income people are highly connected with other people, as compared to 24% of low-income people. The last aspect of lifestyles to be examined is how the Japanese people feel about their standard of living. Over two-thirds of the ABS respondents (70%) rated their standard of living as average, 13% and 11% rated it as relatively low and relatively high, respectively. Only 4% and 2% rated it as low and high, respectively. Assessments of living standards have a great deal to do with the amounts of education and family income at the respondents’ disposal. The higher the levels of these resources respondents command, the more positively they rate their standard of living. Those married also rate their standard of living more positively than do singletons, likely because married people earn a higher family income.

4 Value Priorities There are many ways people prioritize values, and scholars have proposed a number of concepts for studying this prioritization. Inglehart (1981), for example, formulated materialism and postmaterialism to ascertain shifts in value priorities. Following the earlier Reprinted from the journal

55

123

T. Inoguchi, S. Fujii

works of Eric Allard and Angus Campbell, Park (2007) classified value priorities into three categories: the need for having, the need for relating, and the need for being. His analysis of the ABS Korea survey revealed that the Korean people value the need for having most and the need for being least. This article follows the same methodology that Park applied to the study of value priorities professed by the Korean population. The ABS asked respondents to choose from a list of 25 life concerns the five that were most important to them. The 25 life concerns are: (1) having enough to eat, (2) having a comfortable home, (3) being healthy, (4) having access to good medical care if required, (5) being able to live without fear of crime, (6) having a job, (7) having access to higher education, (8) owning lots of nice things, (9) earning a high income, (10) spending time with your family, (11) being on good terms with others, (12) being successful at work, (13) being famous, (14) enjoying a pastime, (15) appreciating art and culture, (16) dressing up, (17) winning over others, (18) expressing personality or using talent, (19) contributing to local community or to society, (20) being devout, (21) raising children, (22) freedom of expression and association, (23) living in a country with a good government, (24) pleasant community to live, and (25) safe and clean environment. Table 2 lists, in descending order, the percentages of the Japanese who chose each of the 25 life concerns as one of their five most important. Health is at the top of the list with a large majority of 80%. It is followed by having enough to eat (42%) and spending time with family members (42%). A good relationship with other people (37%), good housing (36%), and job (34%) are among what more than one-third of the respondents considered important. Among the least prioritized values of the Japanese are freedom of expression and association (3%), higher education (3%), being famous (1%), winning over others (1%), and owning lots of nice things (2%). In Table 3, we examine whether the types of the most important values vary across different demographic groups. In every group, health was chosen as the most important life concern, but the other highly prioritized life concerns and their rankings differ from one demographic group to another. First, males chose having enough to eat as the second most important concern, and having a job and spending time with family members as the third and the fourth most important concerns, respectively. Among female respondents, on the other hand, spending time with family members is the second most important concern, which is followed by being on good terms with others and having enough to eat. Both male and female respondents chose having a comfortable home as the fifth most important life concern. Second, those aged 20 to 49 chose having a job as one of the five most important life concerns, while those in other age groups do not include it. Similarly, having access to good medical care was chosen only by people aged 50 to 69. Spending time with family members is a top priority for those aged up to 59, but it is not valued as highly by those aged 60 to 69. On the other hand, enjoying a pastime is chosen by this oldest age cohort only. Having enough to eat was chosen by all of the age groups, and being on good terms with others was chosen only by those aged 20 to 29 and those aged 40 to 49. In short, the younger generation values having a job and spending time with family members more than other life concerns. In contrast, the older generation values good medical care and enjoying a pastime. Third, married respondents value their family life and housing as two of their top five most important concerns, while those unmarried chose having a job and enjoying a pastime instead.9 Having enough to eat and being on good terms with others, on the other hand, were chosen by both types of respondents. 9

‘‘Not married’’ respondents includes those who were single, divorced, separated and widowed.

123

56

Reprinted from the journal

The Quality of Life in Japan Table 2 Important lifestyle aspects or life circumstances

Percent

Rank

Being healthy

80.1

Having enough to eat

42.0

1 2

Spending time with your family

42.1

3

Being on good terms with others

36.8

4

Having a comfortable home

36.4

5

Having a job

33.5

6

Having access to good medical care

28.4

7

Enjoying a pastime

28.4

8

Living without fear of crime

28.0

9

Pleasant community to live

23.1

10

Raising children

18.6

11

Safe and clean environment

15.2

12

Express personality/use talents

8.0

13

Contributing to community/society

8.0

14

Earning a high income

7.9

15

Being successful at work

5.9

16

Appreciating art and culture

5.4

17

A good government

4.3

18

Being devout

3.9

19

Dressing up

3.8

20

Having access to higher education

3.0

21

Freedom of expression and association

2.7

22

Owning lots of nice things

1.6

23

Winning over others

0.8

24

Being famous

0.6

25

None of the above

0.1

26

Fourth, there is a minor difference in value priorities across three groups of educational attainment. All three groups are alike in choosing having enough to eat, having a comfortable home, and being on good terms with others. Only the group with low educational attainment chose having a job as one of their top five concerns. Fifth, low- and middleincome groups chose spending time with family members and having a job as two of their top five concerns, but the high-income group did not choose either of them. Instead, this group values being on good terms with others and having access to good medical care. Having a comfortable home and having enough to eat are one of the top concerns for all three groups. Lastly, all four community-size groups chose having enough to eat and spending time with their family members as top concerns. Those living in larger cities with populations exceeding 100,000 and in government-designated cities chose having a comfortable home as the fourth most important value, which reflects a high price level of housing in large metropolitan areas. Residents of the smaller communities value instead being on good terms with others. On the whole, being healthy and having enough to eat are priorities cherished by all 21 of the demographic groups listed in Table 3. Spending time with family members is a top Reprinted from the journal

57

123

123

Health (82)

Female

Health (83)

Health (85)

Health (77)

40–49

50–59

60–69

58

Health (81)

High

Health (82)

Health (89)

Mid

High

Health (84)

Health (79)

Over 700,000

Over 100,000

Community type

Health (78)

Low

Household income

Health (85)

Health (79)

Mid

Health (83)

Low

Education

Married

Not married

Health (70)

Health (79)

30–39

Marriage

Health (77)

20–29

Age

Health (78)

Male

Gender

1st

Enough food (41)

Enough food (47)

Enough food (43)

Family (45)

Family (43)

Family (42)

Family (43)

Enough food (49)

Family (48)

Enough food (43)

Enough food (45)

Family (37)

Enough food (44)

Family (54)

Enough food (44)

Family (45)

Enough food (44)

2nd

Family (41)

Family (42)

Interpersonal relations (39)

Job (40)

Enough food (42)

Enough food (41)

Enough food (42)

Family (40)

Enough food (41)

Interpersonal relations (40)

Housing (41)

Enough food (36)

Family (43)

Enough food (43)

Interpersonal relations (43)

Interpersonal relations (44)

Job (41)

3rd

Table 3 Top five important lifestyle aspects by demographic characteristics

Housing (39)

Housing (38)

Housing (36)

Enough food (39)

Housing (36)

Housing (39)

Interpersonal relations (36)

Job (35)

Housing (37)

Job (40)

Medical care (37)

Housing (36)

Job (39)

Housing (40)

Family (43)

Enough food (41)

Family (39)

4th

Interpersonal relations (38)

Job (34)

Medical care (36)

Housing (38)

Job (34)

Interpersonal relations (38)

Housing (35)

Housing/interpersonal relations (33)

Interpersonal relations (35)

Pastime (38)

Pastime (34)

Medical care (36)

Interpersonal relations (38)

Job (38)

Job (37)

Housing (36)

Housing (37)

5th

T. Inoguchi, S. Fujii

Reprinted from the journal

Reprinted from the journal

Family (46)

Enough food (41)

2nd

2nd and 3rd for the population less than 100,000 are tied

2nd and 3rd for the population over 100,000 are tied

4th and 5th for high income level are tied

Note. Percentages are in parentheses

Health (77)

Health (81)

Towns and rurals

1st

Less than 100,000

Table 3 continued

Enough food (40)

Family (41)

3rd

Interpersonal relations (38)

Interpersonal relations (39)

4th

Job (36)

Living safely (32)

5th

The Quality of Life in Japan

59

123

T. Inoguchi, S. Fujii

value for sixteen of the segments, having a comfortable home is a top value for fourteen, and being on good terms with others, for 12. Understandably, younger Japanese are concerned with finding a job, while older Japanese are concerned with good medical care. From Table 3, we can also see that the young and the middle-aged are concerned highly with their families, while those in the older group are concerned with a pastime. Married people value communications with their families and housing, while singletons prioritize having a job and pastime. High-income people value good relationships with others and good medical care, while low- and middle-income people value communications with their families and having a job. Residents of large cities value housing highly, but do not value good relations with others as much as those of other communities do. As mentioned earlier, Park (2007) constructs the indexes to estimate the extent to which the Korean people prioritize the three categories of needs by selecting five items from 25 life concerns and counting the number of the five. The first category, called ‘‘need for having,’’ consists of (1) having enough to eat, (2) having a comfortable home, (3) being healthy, (4) having a job, and (5) earning a high income. The second category, called ‘‘need for relating,’’ consists of (1) spending time with family, (2) raising children, (3) being on good terms with others, (4) contributing to local community or to society, and (5) pleasant community to live. The third category, called ‘‘need for being,’’ consists of (1) enjoying a pastime, (2) appreciating art and culture, (3) expressing personality or using talent, (4) freedom of expression and association, and (5) having a safe and clean environment. Table 4 shows how the Japanese people prioritize each of these three categories of life concerns. About one-third (30%) included three or more life concerns associated with the need for having in their list of top five concerns, and a majority (69%) chose more than two (69%), while only a very small minority (4%) chose none of them. On the ‘‘need for relating’’ category, less than one-tenth (8%) chose three or more life conditions associated with it, while about two-fifths chose none of them (19%). Lastly, more than half (53%) chose none of the life conditions associated with the need for being, while a very small minority (2%) chose three or more. As in Korea, ordinary people in Japan most value the resources they need to meet physical needs and least value those they need to fulfill their own personal growth. Table 4 also shows the relationships between demographic groups and the priorities the Japanese attach to each category of needs. First, between the two genders, a greater proportion of males uphold the need for having, while a greater proportion of females uphold the need for relating. For example, 74% of males chose more than two life concerns associated with the need for having as one of their top five, while only 63% of female respondents do the same. On the other hand, 45% of females chose more than two conditions associated with the need for relating, while only 33% of males did so. Second, age differences are most pronounced between the oldest and middle-age groups. Those in the oldest group, i.e., those aged 60 to 69, value the need for having the least. They also value the need for relating the least. Those between the ages of 30 and 49, in contrast, tend to uphold the needs for having and relating more than their younger and older peers. Third, married Japanese are more concerned with the need for relating than those who are single, separated, divorced, or widowed. Forty-three percent of the former chose more than two life concerns associated with the need for relating, while 30% of those unmarried did the same. In addition, the married are also less likely to uphold the need for being than the unmarried. While more than one in two (56%) married Japanese do not value any of the life concerns associated with the need for being, a little over two out of five (45%) singletons do.

123

60

Reprinted from the journal

The Quality of Life in Japan Table 4 Three types of needs by demographic characteristics Need for having

Need for relating

0

1

2

3?

0

1

2

4.0

27.5

38.4

30.1

19.3

41.4

31.0

Male

3.4

22.7

40.4

33.5

21.5

45.2

Female

4.6

32.3

36.3

26.7

17.2

37.5

20–29

3.2

29.3

36.7

30.9

17.6

41.0

30–39

3.2

24.2

37.0

35.6

14.2

37.0

40–49

2.2

27.2

41.3

29.3

16.8

50–59

4.4

26.2

42.7

26.7

60–69

7.0

31.6

33.7

27.8

Total

Need for being 3?

0

1

2

3?

8.3

53.0

36.3

8.8

1.9

26.7

6.6

51.8

36.3

9.6

2.4

35.3

10.0

54.3

36.3

8.0

1.4

34.0

7.4

48.9

36.2

12.2

2.7

35.6

13.2

60.7

34.7

3.7

0.9

38.0

35.3

9.8

58.7

31.5

7.1

2.7

23.1

44.4

28.0

4.4

47.1

43.1

8.4

1.3

25.1

46.5

21.9

6.4

49.7

34.8

13.4

2.1

Gender

Age

Marital status Not married

7.4

23.0

39.3

30.4

25.6

44.8

25.9

3.7

44.8

38.1

13.7

3.3

Married

2.7

29.3

38.2

29.8

17.1

39.9

33.0

10.0

56.1

35.6

7.0

1.4

Low

2.4

23.2

36.6

37.8

25.6

43.9

25.6

4.9

62.2

32.9

4.9

0.0

Mid

4.1

29.0

38.2

28.7

17.9

44.1

31.7

6.3

52.0

37.1

9.5

1.4

High

4.2

27.1

38.5

30.2

19.5

38.7

31.3

10.6

52.4

35.9

8.9

2.7

Low

4.9

26.2

38.1

30.8

20.3

42.7

29.5

7.6

51.6

37.0

9.5

1.9

Mid

2.7

24.8

42.3

30.2

16.7

40.1

36.0

7.2

55.9

34.2

7.7

2.3

High

2.5

24.4

41.3

31.9

16.3

49.4

27.5

6.9

54.4

35.0

8.8

1.9

Over 700,000

2.5

21.3

42.1

34.2

24.6

41.7

26.3

7.5

55.0

32.1

11.3

1.7

Over 100,000

4.2

29.2

36.3

30.3

17.6

40.5

33.2

8.7

51.8

38.4

7.9

1.8

Less than 100,000

6.0

30.8

36.3

26.9

17.0

44.5

31.9

6.6

50.5

37.9

8.2

3.3

Towns and rurals

3.5

28.9

39.8

27.9

18.4

39.8

31.8

10.0

55.2

35.8

8.0

1.0

Education

Household income

Community size

Fourth, educational attainment matters significantly in prioritizing the types of human needs. Those highly educated tend to value the needs for relating and being more highly than their less educated counterparts. However, across the three income groups there is little difference in the priority of the three types of needs. Lastly, there is also an interesting difference in the extent to which residents from differently sized communities value the three types of needs. Those who live in large urban areas tend to value the need for having more highly than those who live in smaller urban communities and rural areas. In summary, between the two genders, males are more oriented toward the need for having, while females are more oriented toward the need for relating. The oldest are more concerned with the need for having than the other age cohorts. The middle-age cohorts, on the other hand, uphold the need for relating more than all of the other four age groups. Those married are more oriented toward the need for relating, while those who are single, separated, divorced, or widowed are more oriented toward the need for being. Those highly educated uphold the need for relating and the need for being more than the other groups. Reprinted from the journal

61

123

T. Inoguchi, S. Fujii

Lastly, those who live in large cities are more oriented toward the need for having than the other groups.

5 Global Assessment of Life Quality We now attempt to assess the quality of life that the Japanese people experience in their daily lives. We will first examine the percentages expressing feelings of happiness, enjoyment, and achievement, and identify the demographic groups the most and least likely to experience these feelings. We will then analyze these three feelings jointly by combining the positive numeric ratings of happiness, enjoyment, and achievement into a 7-point summary index of overall life quality.10 The Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient of this index is 0.69. Figure 1 shows that a majority of three-fifths (60%) of the Japanese survey respondents feel that they are ‘‘very happy’’ or ‘‘quite happy.’’ Only a tiny minority (6%) are ‘‘not too happy’’ or ‘‘very unhappy.’’ A larger majority of four-fifths (79%) enjoys their lives ‘‘often’’ or ‘‘sometimes,’’ while one-fifth (20%) ‘‘rarely’’ or ‘‘never’’ enjoys their lives. A substantial majority of two-thirds (66%) also feels that they have accomplished ‘‘a great deal’’ or ‘‘some’’ of what they want out of their lives, while one-third (33%) feels they are accomplishing ‘‘very little’’ or ‘‘none.’’ Figure 2 shows the distribution of the ABS respondents across values of the 7-point index measuring overall quality of life. The score of 6 indicates the highest level of overall quality of life and the score of 0 the lowest. On this index, the Japanese averaged 3.3, a score higher than its midpoint. Nearly half (49%) of the respondents scored 4 or higher, while the other half (51%) scored 3 or lower on this index. This indicates that Japan is far from being a nation of wellbeing. Table 5 examines the bivariate relationships between these three global measures of life quality and the six demographic characteristics. First, females feel happier about their lives than males (64% vs. 55%). Those married are happier than the unmarried (61% vs. 41%). Second, members of the oldest group are most likely to feel happy, while those aged 50 to 59 are the least likely to feel happy. 65% of those aged 60 to 69 describe their life as ‘‘very happy’’ or ‘‘quite happy,’’ and 3% of them as ‘‘not too happy’’ or ‘‘very unhappy.’’ On the other hand, 44% of those aged 50 to 59 are ‘‘very happy’’ or ‘‘quite happy,’’ and 9% of them are ‘‘not too happy’’ or ‘‘very unhappy.’’ Thirdly, the higher the educational attainment respondents have, the higher their likelihood to feel happy. Sixty-five percent of those who have a high educational attainment feel ‘‘very happy’’ or ‘‘quite happy’’ and 4% of them feel ‘‘not too happy’’ or ‘‘very unhappy.’’ Fifty-seven percent of those who have a medium level of educational attainment described themselves as ‘‘very happy’’ or ‘‘quite happy,’’ and 8% of them as ‘‘not too happy’’ or ‘‘very unhappy.’’ Only 44% of those who have low educational attainment feel ‘‘very happy’’ or ‘‘quite happy,’’ and 7% of them are ‘‘not too happy’’ or ‘‘very unhappy.’’ In other words, people with a high school education or more are nearly one and a half times more likely to live a happy life than those with less than a junior high school education. Like educational attainment, household income level influences positively the feelings of 10 We coded ‘‘very happy’’ and ‘‘quite happy’’ as 2, ‘‘neither happy nor unhappy’’ as 1 and ‘‘not too happy’’ and ‘‘very unhappy’’ as 0 for Q4. We coded ‘‘often’’ as 2, ‘‘sometimes’’ as 1 and ‘‘rarely’’ and ‘‘never’’ as 0 for Q5. We coded ‘‘a great deal’’ as 2, ‘‘some’’ as 1 and ‘‘very little’’ and ‘‘none’’ as 0 for Q6. These numeric values are summed into the index proxy for the overall life quality.

123

62

Reprinted from the journal

The Quality of Life in Japan 50

44.3

Percent

40

34.6

30 20

15.4

10

4.8 0.9 Very unhappy

Not too happy

Neither happy nor unhappy

Quite happy

Very happy

0

Happiness 59.5

60

Percent

50 40 30 20

19.6

19.2

10 1.2 Never

Rarely

Sometimes

Often

0

Enjoyment 59.3

60

Percent

50 40 29.3

30 20 10

6.3

3.2 None

Very little

Some

A great deal

0

Achievement

Fig. 1 Global assessment of life quality

happiness. Sixty-eight percent of high-income people described their life as ‘‘very happy’’ or ‘‘quite happy’’ and 1% of them are ‘‘not too happy’’ or ‘‘very unhappy.’’ Sixty percent of those who have a medium level of household income are ‘‘very happy’’ or ‘‘quite happy,’’ and 5% of them are ‘‘not too happy’’ or ‘‘very unhappy.’’ Fifty-four percent of those who have a low household income feel ‘‘very happy’’ or ‘‘quite happy,’’ and 9% of them feel ‘‘not too happy’’ or ‘‘very unhappy.’’ Reprinted from the journal

63

123

T. Inoguchi, S. Fujii 35 29.8

30

Percent

25

23.3

20 15.6

14.4

15 10.9 10

5

3.4

2.7 0

0

1

2

Low

3

Index

4

5

6

High

Fig. 2 Global assessment of overall life quality

Once again, females and married people enjoy their lives more than their male and unmarried counterparts. Eighty-three percent of females as compared to 75% of males and 83% of the married as compared to 70% of the unmarried ‘‘often’’ or ‘‘sometimes’’ enjoy their life. Interestingly, of the five age groups, the oldest age group, those between the ages of 60 and 69, reported the highest level of enjoyment with 86% of them reporting experiencing enjoyment ‘‘often’’ or ‘‘sometimes,’’ while the second oldest group, those between the ages of 50 and 50, had the lowest level of enjoyment with 73% experiencing enjoyment ‘‘often’’ or ‘‘sometimes.’’ Educational attainment and household income have positive impacts on feelings of enjoyment. With a higher level of education and/or income, there is a corresponding increase in the percentage of those who ‘‘often’’ or ‘‘sometimes’’ enjoy their lives. Concerning feelings of accomplishment, five of the six demographic characteristics matter significantly. Between the two genders, 12% more females than males reported they have accomplished what they want to have accomplished during their lives (72% vs. 60%). Similarly, those married outnumber the unmarried in achieving their life goals by 23 percentage points (72% vs. 49%). In addition, it is notable that age, educational attainment, and household income are correlated positively with feelings of accomplishment. The older the Japanese, the greater chance they have of feeling they have accomplished ‘‘a great deal’’ or ‘‘some’’ and the smaller chance they have of feeling they have accomplished ‘‘very little’’ and ‘‘none.’’ Table 5 shows similar patterns of positive relationship in terms of educational attainment level and household income level. In short, the experience of happiness, enjoyment, and achievement among the Japanese people has a lot to do with the socioeconomic resources they command. The more resources they have, the more likely they experience those three qualities of life. Like the socioeconomically better-off, females, those married, and older people also describe their life as happy, enjoyable, and fulfilling more often than their male, unmarried, and younger counterparts. This demographic similarity in the patterns of experiencing happiness,

123

64

Reprinted from the journal

Reprinted from the journal

16

15.8

10.2

40–49

50–59

65

Married

14.5

16.1

Mid

High

13.5

18.1

Mid

High

Over 700,000

12.9

Community size

14.3

Low

Household income

13.4

Low

Education

9.3

17.6

Not married

Marital status

16.6

18.3

30–39

60–69

16.5

20–29

Age

14.7

Female

15.4

Male

Gender

Total

Not too happy

Very unhappy

Don’t know

44.6

50.0

46.8

39.7

48.4

42.5

30.5

49.0

31.5

48.1

43.6

43.5

43.4

43.1

48.1

40.4

44.3

36.3

30.6

34.7

36.5

31.7

35.3

48.8

29.5

48.5

32.6

37.3

34.2

34.2

34

31.5

37.6

34.6

6.3

1.3

4.1

7.8

3.2

6.1

7.3

3.1

9.3

2.1

7.6

4.3

3.7

5.9

3.8

5.8

4.8

0

0.0

0.5

1.6

0.6

1.4

0

0.7

1.0

0.5

1.3

2.2

0.5

0

0.6

1.2

0.9

0

0.0

0.5

0.0

0

0.2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0.5

0

0.2

0.1

19.2

25.6

17.6

19.5

20.3

18.6

20.7

22.3

12.6

23.5

16.4

21.7

18.3

19.1

23

16.3

19.6

58.3

62.5

60.4

54.9

62.4

59.5

42.7

60.5

57.0

62.6

56.9

56.0

59.8

62.8

60.3

58.8

59.5

21.3

11.9

21.2

22.7

15.9

20.1

35.4

16.6

26.3

12.8

24.4

20.7

21.5

15.4

15.4

23.1

19.2

0.8

0

0.5

2.4

1.3

1.1

1.2

0.4

3.3

1.1

1.8

1.6

0

1.6

1.2

1.2

1.2

0.4

0

0.5

0.5

0.2

0.7

0

0.3

0.7

0

0.4

0

0.5

1.1

0.2

0.6

0.4

Often Sometimes Rarely Never Don’t know

Neither happy/ unhappy

Very happy

Quite happy

Enjoyment (Q5)

Happiness (Q4)

Table 5 Global assessment of life quality

6.7

10.6

7.2

2.4

6.8

6.1

4.9

7.4

3.3

10.7

8.9

4.3

4.6

2.7

7.0

5.6

6.3

A great deal

55.4

64.4

63.1

56.8

61.5

58.1

51.2

64.3

45.9

62.6

61.8

64.1

58.0

50.0

64.7

54.0

59.3

30.8

23.1

26.1

33.5

28.5

29.4

34.1

24.8

41.5

20.9

26.2

27.2

33.3

38.8

24.0

34.7

29.3

Some Very little

Accomplishment (Q6)

5.0

0.6

2.3

4.9

2.1

4.1

4.9

1.9

6.7

1.6

1.8

3.3

2.7

6.9

2.8

3.6

3.2

2.1

1.3

1.4

2.4

1.1

2.3

4.9

1.6

2.6

4.3

1.3

1.1

1.4

1.6

1.6

2.2

1.9

None Don’t Know

The Quality of Life in Japan

123

Not too happy

Very unhappy

Don’t know

123

13.7

15.4

21.4

Over 100,000

Less than 100,000

Towns and rurals

38.3

37.9

50.3

36.3

37.4

31.3

4

5.5

3.9

0

3.8

0.5

0

0

0

21.4

17.6

20.0

57.7

60.4

60.8

20.4

19.2

17.4

0.5

2.7

1.1

0

0

0.8

Often Sometimes Rarely Never Don’t know

Neither happy/ unhappy

Very happy

Quite happy

Enjoyment (Q5)

Happiness (Q4)

Table 5 continued

6.0

2.7

7.9

A great deal

55.7

61.5

62.6

32.8

29.1

26.6

Some Very little

Accomplishment (Q6)

3.5

3.8

1.6

2.0

2.7

1.3

None Don’t Know

T. Inoguchi, S. Fujii

66

Reprinted from the journal

The Quality of Life in Japan

enjoyment, and achievement appears to reflect the fact that those three components of life quality are correlated with each other. The correlation between happiness and enjoyment is r = 0.59. The correlation between happiness and achievement is r = 0.33. The correlation between enjoyment and achievement is r = 0.35. Table 6 shows the relationships between the 7-point index of overall life quality and demographic characteristics. For easy interpretation and comparison, we combined percentages placed in the top three scores (4, 5, and 6) of this index and in the bottom three scores (0, 1, and 2) and calculated the proportion experiencing high and low levels of overall life quality, which features happiness, enjoyment, and accomplishment. Fifty-three percent of the female respondents belong to the high level, and 23% of them belong to the low level, while 45% of male respondents belong to the former, and 33% of them belong to the latter. As to age, the percentage of those aged 60 to 69 who placed in the high level is 57%, which is the highest among the five age groups, while the percentage of those aged 60 to 69 who placed in the low level is 18%, which is the lowest percentage among the five age groups. Fifty-five percent of married respondents experience a high level of overall life

Table 6 Global assessment of overall life quality Summative index 0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Mean

SD

2.7

10.9

14.4

23.3

29.8

15.6

3.4

3.27

1.41

Male

4.1

12.9

16.0

22.3

30.1

11.9

2.9

3.08

1.44

Female

1.2

8.9

12.8

24.4

29.5

19.3

3.9

3.45

1.34

20–29

2.7

10.9

16.8

23.9

31.0

14.1

0.5

3.13

1.33

30–39

2.8

11.2

15.3

21.9

31.6

15.3

1.9

3.22

1.38

40–49

4.9

9.9

11.5

23.6

31.9

14.3

3.8

3.26

1.46

50–59

2.3

13.6

17.6

23.1

23.1

16.3

4.1

3.16

1.47

60–69

0.6

8.4

9.5

24.6

32.4

17.9

6.7

3.60

1.33

Not married

6.1

18.8

19.9

23.8

20.7

9.2

1.5

2.67

1.46

Married

1.3

8.1

12.4

23.3

33.0

18.0

4.0

3.49

1.32

Low

2.6

23.1

21.8

16.7

15.4

16.7

3.8

2.85

1.60

Mid

3.7

11.4

14.5

23.3

29.1

14.9

3.0

3.20

1.44

High

1.7

8.5

13.0

24.8

32.5

15.8

3.6

3.40

1.33

Low

4.2

15.6

16.4

19.2

28.1

15.6

0.8

3.02

1.47

Mid

3.2

9.1

12.8

25.1

31.5

14.2

4.1

3.32

1.39

High

0.6

3.8

13.9

24.1

31.0

20.9

5.7

3.66

1.25

Over 700,000

3.4

12.0

14.1

27.4

24.4

15.4

3.4

3.17

1.44

Over 100,000

1.6

9.1

13.9

22.5

31.6

17.4

4.0

3.41

1.36

Less than 100,000

4.0

13.0

15.8

21.5

31.6

11.3

2.8

3.09

1.44

Towns and rurals

2.6

11.2

14.3

21.9

31.1

16.3

2.6

3.26

1.40

Total Gender

Age

Marital status

Education

Household income

Community size

Reprinted from the journal

67

123

T. Inoguchi, S. Fujii 4

3.71

Overall QOL

3.23

3

3.45

2.97 2.66

2 1 0

2

3

4

5

6

Social Economic Status Index

Fig. 3 Means of overall quality of life scores by social economic resources. Note. This figure shows the relationship between the aforementioned summative index of overall quality of life and the social economic status index, which was constructed by summing two variables, level of educational attainment and level of household income. Somers’ d between overall quality of life and social economic resources is 0.14 with Z score of 4.71

quality, and 22% experience a low level, compared with 31% and 45% of those unmarried who experience these levels, respectively. Similarly, the higher the level of education and the larger the household income, the more likely Japanese people are to belong to the high level and the less likely they are to belong to the low level of overall life quality. Of the six demographic characteristics, five are significantly associated with the percentages experiencing a high overall quality of life. In Japan, those who are most likely to experience all three of the desired qualities of life are females, the married, the oldest, and those with high income and/or education. Of these five demographic characteristics, income and education appear to shape the experience of those qualities most consistently and powerfully. Figure 3 shows that higher levels of education and income are always accompanied by greater overall quality of life.

6 Specific Assessments of Life Quality The quality of life needs to be evaluated from the perspective of its specific components or domains. What domains of life in Japan are the most satisfying? What domains are in need of improvement? What domains affect the overall quality of life most powerfully? To address these questions, we analyze assessments of sixteen life domains: (1) housing, (2) friendships, (3) marriage, (4) standard of living, (5) household income, (6) health, (7) education, (8) job, (9) neighbors, (10) public safety, (11) the condition of the environment, (12) social welfare system, (13) the democratic system, (14) family life, (15) leisure, and (16) spiritual life. The ABS asked respondents to express the extent of their satisfaction or dissatisfaction with each of these domains on a 5-point verbal and numeric scale that ranges from being ‘‘very dissatisfied’’ to ‘‘very satisfied.’’ We attempted to find common characteristics under these sixteen specific life domains by the method of factor analysis. Table 7 shows that these sixteen life domains are classified into three groups. The first group consists of housing, standard of living, household income, education, and job. We call this factor the ‘‘material life sphere’’ because these domains deal with socioeconomic resources. The second group consists of health, friendships, marriage, family life, leisure, and spiritual life. This factor is called the ‘‘post-material life sphere’’ because these domains deal mostly with social and spiritual concerns. The third group consists of neighbors, public safety, environment, the welfare

123

68

Reprinted from the journal

The Quality of Life in Japan Table 7 Distinguishing life spheres of domain assessments

Factors Material

Postmaterial

Public

Housing

0.42

Standard of living

0.77

0.32

Household income

0.80

0.31

Education

0.40

Work

0.49

Health

(0.33)

0.74

(0.32)

0.67 0.63

0.33

0.72

Friendships

0.47

0.70

Marriage

0.60

0.57

Family life

0.67

0.50

Leisure

0.53

0.63

Spiritual life

0.66

Neighbors Note. The reported loadings were from a principal factors solution with orthogonal varimax rotation. Loadings of greater than 0.30 were reported

Uniqueness

(0.32)

0.45 0.38

0.71

Public safety

0.63

0.56

Condition of environment

0.64

0.53

Welfare system

0.66

0.51

Democratic system

0.71

0.45

system, and the democratic system. This factor is called the ‘‘public life sphere’’ because these domains are related to the community in which people live and its conditions. The original index scores of 1 to 5 are converted into a -2 to ?2 scale on which negative and positive values indicate, respectively, the experience of dissatisfaction and satisfaction. For each domain, Table 8 reports the mean on the rescaled 5-point index and the percentage differential index (PDI), the difference between the percentages of the satisfied and dissatisfied. In all sixteen domains, Japanese people report more satisfaction than dissatisfaction. The extent of their satisfaction, however, varies a great deal across the domains. According to the PDI scores, marriage (79%) is the domain the Japanese find most satisfying. It is followed closely by friendship (78%) and family life (73%). The lowest level of satisfaction is with the social welfare system (0.1%). The democratic system (13%) and household income (20%) also register a low level of satisfaction. The rest of the domains register scores of 30–60% on the PDI. Of the three life spheres identified above, Table 8 indicates that the Japanese are most satisfied in the post-material life sphere and least satisfied in the public life sphere. Life domain PDI scores range from 50% to 79% in the post-material sphere; from 20 to 54% in the material sphere; and from 0.1 to 55% in the public sphere. Besides calculating the percentages satisfied and dissatisfied with each domain and its mean on the new 5-point scale, we also count the numbers of domains which respondents rated as satisfying and dissatisfying, and compare them across demographic groups. The results are shown in Table 9. On average, the Japanese as a whole are satisfied with ten life domains and dissatisfied with about 1.8 domains. Between the two genders, females find satisfaction in a slightly larger number of life domains (10.2 vs. 9.8) and dissatisfaction in a smaller number of domains (1.6 vs. 2.0).Those with higher educational attainment and higher family income are also satisfied with more life domains and dissatisfied with fewer Reprinted from the journal

69

123

T. Inoguchi, S. Fujii Table 8 Life domain satisfaction Scale points

Mean

-2

-1

0

1

2

Don’t know

Housing

2.4

12.6 15.6 49.9 19.5 0.1

Standard of living

2.3

11.9 27.6 48.7

9.3 0.3

Household income

4.7

20.5 28.7 38.8

Education

1.0

Job

1.8

Satisfied Dissatisfied PDI (A)

(B)

(A - B)

0.72 69.4

15.0

54.4

0.51 58.0

14.2

43.8

6.2 1.1

0.21 45.0

25.2

19.8

7.5 35.9 43.4

9.8 2.5

0.55 53.2

8.5

44.7

10.9 29.4 42.2

8.7 7.1

0.48 50.9

12.7

38.2 59.6

Material domains

Post-material domains Health

1.8

9.9 16.9 49.4 21.9 0.1

0.80 71.3

11.7

Friendships

0.5

2.4 15.6 54.3 27.0 0.2

1.05 81.3

2.9

78.4

Marriage

0.5

2.2 14.6 55.3 26.5 0.8

1.06 81.8

2.7

79.1

Family life

0.5

2.9 18.9 56.8 19.6 1.2

0.93 76.4

3.4

73.0

Leisure

2.2

12.0 21.3 51.5 12.7 0.3

0.61 64.2

14.2

50.0

Spiritual life

0.7

1.9 1.3

0.63 60.3

9.1

51.2 49.9

8.4 29.4 48.4

Public domains Neighbors

0.7

5.2 36.4 45.1 10.7 2.0

0.61 55.8

5.9

Public safety

2.2

14.2 29.0 41.9 12.3 0.5

0.48 54.2

16.4

37.8

Condition of environment

0.6

10.4 22.8 50.7 15.0 0.5

0.69 65.7

11.0

54.7

Social welfare system

5.9

21.0 43.0 23.7

3.3 3.1

-0.03 27.0

26.9

0.1

Democratic system

3.7

14.2 46.9 26.7

4.5 4.1

0.15 31.2

17.9

13.3

Average

2.0

10.4 27.0 45.4 13.7

life domains than their counterparts. The mean number of satisfying domains increases steadily from 9.3 for low educational attainment through 9.6 for middle educational attainment to 10.5 for high educational attainment. Similarly, the mean number of satisfying domains increases from 9.2 for the low-income group to 10.1 for the middle-income group to 11.3 for the high-income group. Table 9 shows demographic differences in the domains rated as the most and least satisfying. Although the Japanese people as a whole are most satisfied with marriage and least satisfied with the social welfare system, the most and least positively rated domains vary notably across groups defined by gender, education, and the residents’ community size. Males are most satisfied with marriage and most dissatisfied with household income, while females are most satisfied with friendships and least satisfied with the social welfare system. People with a low level of education chose friendships as the most satisfying life domain and household income as the least satisfying domain. Those with a middle level of education are most satisfied with marriage and least satisfied with household income. The highly educated are most satisfied with friendships and least satisfied with the social welfare system. All three income groups are alike in rating marriage as the most satisfying. Yet low-income people rate income as the least satisfying while middle- and high-income people gave the social welfare system this distinction. Like low-income people, residents of small towns and rural areas rate household income most negatively, while residents of other communities rate the social welfare system most negatively.

123

70

Reprinted from the journal

The Quality of Life in Japan Table 9 Patterns of satisfaction with life domains by demographic characteristics Number of domainsa

Specific domains

Total

Most satisfied

Most dissatisfied

Mean satisfied

Mean dissatisfied

Marriage

Social welfare system

10.0

1.8

Gender Male

Marriage

Household income

9.8

2.0

Female

Friendships

Social welfare system

10.2

1.6

20–29

Marriage

Social welfare system

10.0

1.8

30–39

Marriage

Household income

9.7

1.9

40–49

Marriage

Social welfare system

9.8

2.0

50–59

Marriage

Social welfare system

10.1

1.7

60–69

Friendships

Social welfare system

10.4

1.8

Not married

–

–

Married

Family life

Social welfare system

Low

Friendships

Mid

Marriage

High

Friendships

Social welfare system

Low

Marriage

Household income

Mid

Marriage

Social welfare system

High

Marriage

Social welfare system

11.3

1.4

Age

Marriage –

–

10.0

1.8

Household income

9.3

1.9

Household income

9.6

2.0

10.5

1.7

9.2

2.2

10.1

1.9

Education

Household income

Community type Over 700,000

Marriage

Social welfare system

9.9

1.9

Over 100,000

Friendships

Social welfare system

9.9

1.7

Less than 100,000

Marriage

Social welfare system

10.1

1.9

Towns and rurals

Friendships

Household income

10.3

1.9

Note. * The number of domains are counted using only married respondents

7 Determinants of Global Quality of Life This section attempts to determine the forces influencing the perceptions of life quality by examining demographic characteristics, lifestyles, value priorities, and assessments of life domains. Of these four sets of variables, which one contributes most to the perceptions of happiness, enjoyment, and achievement? Which particular variable in these sets contributes most to those perceptions? To answer these questions, we chose ordered logit regression technique and regressed happiness, enjoyment, achievement, and the index of overall quality of life on demographic characteristics, lifestyles, value priorities, and specific life domains. The dependent variables, happiness, enjoyment, achievement, and overall quality of life were coded from low to high, from 0 to 4, from 0 to 3, from 0 to 3, and from 0 to 6, respectively. The descriptive statistics for the variables used in this regression analysis are displayed in Appendix B. Reprinted from the journal

71

123

T. Inoguchi, S. Fujii

Table 10 shows the results using the entire sample of the respondents, while Table 11 shows the results using the married respondents only as they alone could assess the marriage domain. According to the estimated coefficients reported in Table 10, being married is the only demographic characteristic that has a significant impact on all four measures of life quality, and its impact on all four is positive; respondents who are married are more likely than those who are not to experience feelings of happiness, enjoyment, accomplishment, and a high level of overall life quality. Age is another demographic characteristic with a significant impact on perceived life quality. However, unlike marriage, it affects respondents’ sense of achievement only. The older the respondents, the more likely they are to experience feelings of achievement. Although educational attainment and household income displayed a positive effect on overall life quality and its three components in the test of their bivariate relationships, these variables do not show any significantly independent effects in the multivariate analysis. Of the six sets of variables referring to different lifestyles, only the two tapping a global life and social life contribute to happiness and better overall life quality. Of the three categories of value priorities, none shows any significant effect on any of the four dependent variables. Lastly and most interestingly, none of the public life domain assessments shows a significant impact on any of the four dependent variables. In contrast, some domains in the material and post-material spheres of life show significant impact on one, two, or three dependent variables. In the material life sphere, for example, positive assessments of living standard, education, and work contribute significantly to either the experience of happiness or achievement. In the post-material life sphere, positive assessments of friendships, family life, and spiritual life contribute significantly to that of happiness and/or enjoyment. Friendships, family life, and spiritual life also contribute significantly to the overall life quality. Table 11 shows the variables that contribute significantly to the perceptions of life quality only among the married. The patterns of significant relationships reported in this table are very similar to those reported in Table 10. This suggests that, regardless of Japanese people’s marital status, similar factors shape their quality of life. The notable differences from those reported in Table 10 concern gender, age, and assessments of family life. Among the entire sample, gender and age have no significant effect on any measure of life quality. Among the married, however, these two variables affect feelings of achievement. Older married people or female married people experience a greater sense of achievement than their counterparts. Among the married Japanese, it is the positive assessments of marital life, not family life in general, that enable them to live a life of happiness, enjoyment, and achievement, and thus have a higher overall quality of life. On the basis of the findings reported in Tables 10 and 11, we can conclude that getting married and living a satisfying marital life appear to be the two most powerful forces shaping the quality of life among the Japanese.

8 Summary and Conclusion Japan is a society facing a number of serious problems. Its economy is, once again, at the risk of downturn. Its population is rapidly aging with a steady decline in the average birthrate. There is also a widening gap between the household incomes of urban centers and rural regions. How are these and other problems affecting the way in which Japanese citizens live their lives and the extent to which they experience a sense of wellbeing? To

123

72

Reprinted from the journal

The Quality of Life in Japan Table 10 Ordered logit regression analysis (entire sample) Dependent variable

Happiness (0–4)

Enjoyment (0–3)

Achievement (0–3)

Overall quality of life (0–6)

Independent variables

Coefficient Z score

Coefficient Z score

Coefficient Z score

Coefficient Z score

-0.25

Demographic Male Age Marriage

0.06

0.32

-0.26

-1.37

-0.32

-0.01

-0.92

-0.01

-1.52

0.03

(3.45)**

0.01

0.94

(3.85)**

1.38

1.39

(5.73)**

1.10

(4.32)**

-1.66

-1.52 1.03 (6.27)**

Educational attainment

-0.01

-0.14

-0.09

-1.12

0.05

0.67

-0.03

-0.39

Household income

-0.04

-1.5

-0.05

-1.55

0.02

0.5

-0.03

-1.08

-0.12

-1.39

-0.02

-0.32 1.17

Community type

0.01

0.07

0.03

0.3

Modern life

-0.07

-0.25

0.14

0.49

0.34

1.18

0.30

Religious life

-0.08

-0.73

0.13

1.07

0.05

0.37

0.11

1.04

0.3

0.15

1.12

0.14

1.18

Lifestyles

Digital life

0.07

0.6

0.04

Global life

0.18

1.35

0.55

Political life

0.05

0.37

0.20

1.28

Social life

0.15

1.37

0.29

(2.40)*

Need for having

0.04

0.29

0.05

0.4

0.03

0.25

0.09

0.78

Need for relating

0.02

0.15

-0.15

-1.18

0.00

0

0.05

0.43

-0.01

-0.09

0.24

1.59

0.14

0.99

0.19

1.47

Housing

0.01

0.11

Standard of living

0.53

3.5

(3.65)**

0.16

1.09

0.44

-0.05

-0.36

0.03

(3.42)** 0.19

0.07

0.55

0.25

(2.41)*

Value priorities

Need for being Life domains Material domains

Household income

-0.10

Education

0.36

Work

0.22

-0.74 (2.78)**

0.04

0.35

0.18

1.69

0.05

-0.01

-0.07

0.35

(2.31)*

0.42

0.25

1.76

0.08

0.57

0.10

1.13

0.22

1.84

0.26

(2.33)*

0.02

0.14

0.15

1.8

0.19

1.47

0.36

(2.82)**

0.52 (3.03)** 0.81

Post material domains Health

0.00

-0.04

0.23

Friendships

0.24

1.81

0.61

Family life Leisure Spiritual life

0.51 -0.09 0.79

(3.52)** -0.79 (5.49)**

0.32 -0.06 0.89

1.95 (4.30)** (2.06)* -0.45 (5.69)**

0.03

0.27

0.14

0.02

0.14

0.34

-0.02

-0.12

0.38

-0.03

-0.29

-0.09

0.27

1.88

0.82

1.35 (2.83)** (2.87)** -0.85 (6.13)**

Public domains Neighbors

-0.25

-1.75

0.12

0.83

-0.08

Public safety

-0.05

0.04

-0.4

-0.06

-0.48

0.20

1.61

0.08

0.78

Condition of environment

-0.01

-0.1

0.10

0.71

-0.05

-0.35

-0.01

-0.06

Welfare system

-0.07

-0.58

0.08

0.61

0.11

0.81

0.02

0.19

Reprinted from the journal

0.29

73

-0.69

123

T. Inoguchi, S. Fujii

Table 10 continued Dependent variable

Happiness (0–4)

Enjoyment (0–3)

Achievement (0–3)

Overall quality of life (0–6)

Independent variables

Coefficient Z score

Coefficient Z score

Coefficient Z score

Coefficient Z score

-0.12

-0.07

-0.14

-0.09

Democratic system

-0.9

-0.49

-0.97

Cut 1

2.95

3.55

5.00

Cut 2

5.32

7.65

8.19

9.63

Cut 3

8.68

11.67

12.49

11.03

Cut 4

11.49

14.58

Cut 6 R squared

7.43

12.49

Cut 5 N

-0.73

17.10 592

592

586

586

0.202

0.238

0.173

0.197

Note. * 5% significance level ** 1% significance level

explore these questions systematically, we analyzed the 2006 ABS from a variety of perspectives. We first examined the extent to which the Japanese people are exposed to various lifestyles and how they prioritize numerous life concerns, evaluate life domains, and experience happiness, enjoyment, and satisfaction. We also examined how lifestyles, value priorities, domain assessments, and such feelings of wellbeing vary across the various segments of the Japanese population. Finally, we examined the sources of subjective wellbeing in terms of demographic characteristics, lifestyles, value priorities, and domain assessments. To analyze lifestyles, we examined the extent to which the lives of the ordinary Japanese are modernized, secularized, digitalized, globalized, politically active, and socially connected. The results of these analyses revealed that the Japanese tend to live highly modernized, secularized, digitalized, and politically active lives, but they are not strongly connected to other members of their communities. The results also showed that demographic characteristics affect significantly the extent to which Japanese people are exposed to each of the aforementioned lifestyles. Of the six characteristics, age, education, and income affect all or most of the lifestyles significantly. To determine how Japanese people prioritize their values, the ABS asked about the importance of 25 life concerns. Among these concerns, health was the only one rated by a large majority (80%) as one of the five most important concerns. In all demographic groups, moreover, health is rated as the most important life concern. Besides health, however, there is considerable disagreement on what are the most important life concerns. For example, younger Japanese are highly concerned with their jobs, while older Japanese are with good medical care. Those married highly value family life and housing, while those unmarried give more weight to their jobs and pastimes. While the rich value good relationships with others and good medical care, the poor value having enough to eat. Classifying all of the valued life concerns into three types of needs reveals that the Japanese tend to value the need for having to the greatest extent, the need for relating less,

123

74

Reprinted from the journal

The Quality of Life in Japan Table 11 Ordered logit regression analysis (only married respondents) Dependent variable

Happiness (0–4)

Enjoyment (0–3)

Achievement (0–3)

Overall quality of life (0–6)

Independent variables

Coefficient Z score

Coefficient Z score

Coefficient Z score

Coefficient Z score

Male

-0.17

-0.80

-0.44

-1.90

-0.48

-0.43

Age

-0.01

-1.18

-0.002

-0.17

0.04

0.00

0.02

-0.06

-0.63

0.14

-0.05

-1.69

-0.05

-1.35

0.12

1.30

0.04

0.40

Demographic

Educational attainment Household income Community type

(-2.08)* (3.29)**

0.01

(-2.26)* 1.12

1.48

-0.0002

0

0.03

0.88

-0.03

-0.83

-0.19

-1.76

0.03

0.38

0.72

(1.97)*

0.004

0.04

Lifestyles Modern life

0.45

1.11

0.87

(2.07)*

0.24

0.59

Religious life

-0.21

-1.70

0.13

0.93

-0.08

-0.55

Digital life

-0.01

-0.06

-0.03

-0.20

0.14

0.88

0.08

Global life

0.32

(2.03)*

0.63

0.16

0.94

0.54

Political life

0.15

0.80

0.29

1.39

-0.06

-0.31

0.12

0.72

Social life

0.05

0.42

0.21

1.46

0.08

0.55

0.20

1.64

(3.62)**

0.62 (3.66)**

Value priorities Need for having Need for relating Need for being

0.11

0.73

0.19

1.17

0.10

0.63

0.15

1.08

-0.17

-1.31

-0.13

-0.92

-0.02

-0.16

-0.03

-0.23

0.10

0.60

0.22

1.22

0.23

1.27

0.27

1.75

-0.02

-0.16

Life domains Material domains Housing Standard of living

0.47

Household income -0.05

(2.48)* -0.30

0.03

0.22

0.20

1.57

0.10

0.93

-0.27

-1.37

0.42

(2.14)*

0.30

1.79

0.24

1.34

0.02

0.14

0.04

0.3

0.09

0.57

0.17

1.06

0.27

1.95

Education

0.41

Work

0.23

1.60

0.22

1.40

0.35

(2.27)*

0.26

1.93

Health

0.13

0.98

0.33

(2.22)*

0.08

0.54

0.28

(2.23)*

Friendships

0.02

0.12

0.80

(4.53)**

0.07

0.41

0.32

(2.19)*

Marriage

0.88

0.66

(3.44)**

0.38

(2.02)*

0.76

(4.65)**

Family life

0.33

1.69

0.12

0.58

-0.38

-1.80

0.13

0.72

-0.16

-1.19

-0.13

-0.88

-0.11

-0.74

-0.16

-1.28

0.24

1.33

0.71

(2.69)**

Post-material domains

Leisure Spiritual life

0.62

(4.95)**

(3.53)**

0.94

(4.93)**

(4.41)**

Public domains Neighbors

0.03

0.21

-0.23

-1.38

0.08

0.50

-0.07

-0.52

Public safety

-0.02

-0.15

-0.09

-0.62

0.19

1.28

0.04

0.33

Condition of environment

-0.02

-0.12

0.09

0.54

-0.03

-0.16

0.02

0.16

0.03

0.11

0.73

0.17

1.06

0.17

1.27

-1.47

-0.12

-0.70

-0.10

-0.60

-0.19

-1.32

Welfare system Democratic system

0.004 -0.24

Cut 1

4.57

6.14

4.62

8.78

Cut 2

6.54

11.68

7.75

11.45

Reprinted from the journal

75

123

T. Inoguchi, S. Fujii

Table 11 continued Dependent variable

Happiness (0–4)

Enjoyment (0–3)

Achievement (0–3)

Overall quality of life (0–6)

Independent variables

Coefficient Z score

Coefficient Z score

Coefficient Z score

Coefficient Z score

Cut 3

10.15

15.83

12.17

Cut 4

13.22

Cut 5

16.65

Cut 6 N R squared

12.90 14.46

19.21 454

454

449

449

0.203

0.255

0.159

0.193

Note. * 5% significance level ** 1% significance level

and the need for being the least. Males are more oriented toward the need for having, while females toward the need for relating. Married people uphold the need for relating, while singletons appreciate the need for being. Those highly educated are more likely to uphold the need for relating and the need for being than those less educated. The priorities the Japanese place on their values vary considerably according to the circumstances in which they live and the particular stage of their lifecycle. Our comparative analysis of life domain assessments revealed that the Japanese people as a whole are most satisfied with marriage and least satisfied with the social welfare system. But the numbers and patterns of their domain satisfactions differ significantly across most of the demographic categories. Being female, having a higher education, and having a higher household income are correlated positively with the number of satisfying domains and correlated negatively with the number of dissatisfying domains. Males are most satisfied with their marriages and most dissatisfied with their household incomes, while females are most satisfied with friendships and least satisfied with the social welfare system. Highly educated people are most satisfied with friendships and least satisfied with the social welfare system, while the other groups report differently. Finally, when the sixteen specific life domains are grouped into three life spheres, namely, material, post-material, and public, it reveals that the Japanese people tend to be most satisfied with the post-material sphere, which includes such concerns as health or friendships, and least satisfied with the public sphere, which includes the social welfare system. We appraised the quality of life as a whole in terms of the extent to which the Japanese people experience the feelings of happiness, enjoyment, and achievement, and the combined index of the three components. A majority evaluated their life experiences as a whole more positively than negatively, but some groups evaluated their overall life experience more positively than others. Being female, being married, having a higher education, and having a larger household income are associated with higher levels of quality of life. The older respondents tend to experience the feelings of achievement in the largest proportion. Multivariate analyses of happiness, enjoyment, and achievement revealed that a variety of demographic characteristics, lifestyles, and domain assessments significantly affect the perceptions of life quality. Surprisingly, however, neither educational attainment nor

123

76

Reprinted from the journal

The Quality of Life in Japan

household income is included in this list of powerful factors. Of the factors, being married and satisfied with marital life stand out as the most powerful and prevalent influence on the quality of life the Japanese experience. Equally notable is the finding that neither educational attainment nor household income contributes significantly to the experience of happiness, enjoyment, and achievement. Among the aforementioned findings from this study, three hold implications for policymaking. First, a large majority of Japanese people considers health as the most important life concern, and most of them remain dissatisfied with the social welfare system. This clearly indicates that the Japanese people desire significant improvements in the management of the corruption-ridden Social Insurance Agency and other government agencies that handle a variety of public welfare programs, including social security and medical assistance for the population as a whole. The low level of satisfaction toward the social welfare system also reflects feelings of uncertainty and worry among the rapidly aging population and indicates the need to formulate a program that can alleviate these feelings. Concern is highest in rural areas where demographic change has occurred more rapidly than in the rest of the country. Income inequality between urban and rural areas is widening at a faster rate than ever before. Historically, fiscal inequality was mitigated by the income redistribution from rich cities to poor cities. Fiscal reform to alleviate these problems has been virtually stalled until the former Prime Minister Koizumi initiated the reform in 2001. Current and future leaders must overcome political stalemate and set into motion policies that can quickly reverse negative population growth and the growing fiscal deficits, which have already reached about 160% of GDP in 2004. The second point is related to the first point in that it may offer a way out of the problems mentioned above. We found that being married and satisfied with marital life are the two forces most able to produce a high quality of life in Japan. Therefore, public policy to encourage marriage and increase birthrate through financial assistance for bearing and raising children and maternity leave will have double-positive effects on the quality of life. This will directly motivate people to get married, which will contribute to building a nation of greater wellbeing. Through increasing the birthrate, it will also enhance the financial stability of social security and healthcare insurance systems, which, in turn, will provide better services for the improvement of health among the people as a whole. Increases in the population will also secure the future of the social security system, which will safeguard the standard of living especially among the aging population. These changes are indirectly but positively correlated with a high quality of life because in Japan, being satisfied with one’s standard of living and health have positive impacts on quality of life. Finally, we found that those who live global and socially connected lives tend to experience greater quality of life. As noted, Japan is a highly digitalized society as evidenced by high rates of broadband and computer penetration, but the society is becoming weaker in terms of interpersonal relations, according to opinion surveys recently conducted by the Japanese government. These surveys have shown that both interpersonal relations in families and in work places have weakened. Thus more comprehensive policies aimed at improving family life, such as those establishing childcare centers and reducing working hours, are necessary to improve the quality of life in Japan.

Reprinted from the journal

77

123

T. Inoguchi, S. Fujii Acknowledgements The authors thank Professor Doh Chull Shin for his thorough guidance and encouragement to write this article. We are also grateful to participants at the AsiaBarometer 2007 Workshop and the 2007 ISQOL Conference for their helpful comments and suggestions. Especially, deep appreciation goes to Professor Park, Professor Hyun and Professor Harada. All remaining errors are our own.

Appendix A Comparison between Census and ABS Sample (See Table 12)

Table 12 Comparison between census and ABS sample Gender Age

Education

Marital status

Household income

Region

Note. For education, we use the census data in 2000 for those aged over 15. The percentage of those attending schools is 8.2% of the census. For household income, we use a survey data in 2004. Otherwise, we use the census data for the population aged between 20 and 69 in 2005

Census

ABS

Male

49.9

50.0

Female

50.1

50.0

20–29

18.4

18.7

30–39

21.8

21.8

40–49

18.6

18.3

50–59

22.4

22.4

60–69

18.8

18.6

Primary

22.0

8.2

Secondary

41.6

44.1

High

24.6

47.2

Never married

26.8

19.1

Married

64.0

72.9

Widowed

2.9

3.5

Divorced

4.9

4.3

50.3

49.2

Less than 5 million yen 5–8 million yen

33.2

29.5

More than 8 million yen

16.5

21.3

Hokkaido/Tohoku

11.6

12.0

Kanto

33.9

32.9

Chubu

18.2

18.1

Kinki

16.5

16.9

Chugoku/Shikoku Kyushu Community type

8.8

9.0

19.8

18.1

Government-designated cities

24.9

23.9

Population 100,000 or more

42.4

37.9

Population less than 100,000

19.8

18.1

Towns and rurals

13.0

20.0

Appendix B Descriptive statistics for regression analysis (See Table 13)

123

78

Reprinted from the journal

The Quality of Life in Japan Table 13 Descriptive statistics for regression analysis

N

Mean

SD

Min

Max

Dependent variables Happiness

1,002

2.68

0.82

0

4

Enjoyment

999

1.98

0.66

0

3

Achievement

984

1.70

0.64

0

3

Overall quality of life

982

3.27

1.41

0

6

Independent variables Demographic Male

1,003

0.50

0.50

0

1

Age

1,003

44.71

14.17

20

69

Married

1

1,003

0.73

0.44

0

Educational attainment

997

2.95

1.33

1

5

Household income

752

5.35

3.62

1

20

1,003

2.66

1.05

1

4

Community type Life styles Modern life

1,003

1.89

0.32

0

2

981

0.70

0.81

0

2

Digital life

993

1.13

0.83

0

2

Global life

1,001

0.43

0.64

0

2

Political life

986

1.69

0.66

0

2

Social life

914

0.85

0.81

0

2

Need of having

1,003

1.95

0.86

0

3

Need of relating

1,003

1.28

0.87

0

3

Need of begin

1,003

0.60

0.73

0

3

Housing

1,002

3.72

1.00

1

5

Standard of living

1,000

3.51

0.90

1

5

Household income

992

3.21

1.00

1

5

Education

978

3.55

0.81

1

5

Job

932

3.48

0.89

1

5

Health

1,002

3.80

0.95

1

5

Friendships

1,001

4.05

0.75

1

5

725

4.06

0.74

1

5

Religious life

Value priorities

Life domains

Marriage Family life Leisure

Reprinted from the journal

991

3.93

0.74

1

5

1,000

3.61

0.93

1

5

Spiritual life

990

3.63

0.83

1

5

Neighbors

983

3.61

0.78

1

5

Public safety

998

3.48

0.96

1

5

Condition of environment

998

3.69

0.87

1

5

Welfare system

972

2.97

0.92

1

5

Democratic system

962

3.15

0.86

1

5

79

123

T. Inoguchi, S. Fujii

References Cabinet Office, Government of Japan, Kokuminn Seikatsu Hakusho 2007 (The White Paper on the Japanese People’s lifestyle in 2007). Freedom House, Freedom in the World Country Report 2007 edition. Available at www.freedomhouse. org/template.cfm?page=22&country=7202&year=2007. Accessed on 20 Oct 2008. Inglehart, R. (1981). Post-materialism in an environment of insecurity. The American Political Science Review, 75, 880–900. International Communication Union, ICT Statistics, 2007. Available at www.itu.int/net/home/index.aspx. Accessed on 11 Nov 2008. International Telecommunication Union, World Information Society Report 2006. Available at www.itu.int/ osg/spu/publications/worldinformationsociety/2006/wisr-web.pdf. Accessed on 11 Nov 2008. Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., & Mastruzzi, M. (2008). Governance matters VII: Governance Indicators for 1996–2007. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 4654, June 2008. Kyodo News, May 30, 2007. Available at www.47news.jp/CN/200705/CN2007053001000478.html. Accessed on 11 Nov 2008. Ministry of Finance Japan, available at www.mof.go.jp/jouhou/syuzei/siryou/007.htm Accessed on 20 Oct 2008. Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, Statistics Bureau, Rodoryoku Chosa (Labor Force Survey), 2007, 2008. Available at www.stat.go.jp/data/roudou/index.htm. Accessed on 11 Nov 2008. Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, Statistics Bureau, Shakai Seikatsu Kihon Chosa (Basic Survey on Social Life) 2006. Available at http://www.stat.go.jp/data/shakai/2006/index.htm. Accessed on 11 Nov 2008. Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, Statistics Bureau, Kokusei Chosa (Population Census), 2000, 2005. http://www.stat.go.jp. Accessed on 20 Oct 2008. Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, Statistics Bureau, Zenkoku Shohi Jittai Chosa (Nationwide Consumption Survey) 2004. Available at www.stat.go.jp/data/zensho/2004/index.htm. Accessed on 20 Oct 2008. Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport of Japan, Kokudo Kotsu Hakusho 2007 (The White Paper on the Land, Infrastructure and Transport in 2007). Available at www.mlit.go.jp/hakusyo/mlit/h18/index.html. Accessed on 20 Oct 2008. Park, C.-M. (2007). The quality of life in Korea. Prepared for the 2007 Conference of the International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies to be held in San Diego, California, USA on December 6–9, 2007. Parry, R. L. (2005). Rising daughters face uphill task: New women MPs will struggle to beat Japan’s male prejudice. The Times, October 15. Available at www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article578765. ece. Accessed on 11 Nov 2008. The Heritage Foundation 2008 Index of Economic Freedom. Available at www.heritage.org/research/ features/index/index.cfm. Accessed on 28 Nov 2008. The World Bank, Governance Matters 2008 Worldwide Governance Indicators, 1996–2007. Transparency International, Corruption Perception Index 2007. Available at http://www.transparency.org/ policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2007. United Nations Development Programme, Human Development Report 2007/2008. Available at hdr. undp.org/en/. Accessed on 11 Nov 2008. Vision of Humanity, The Global Peace Index 2008. Available at www.visionofhumanity.com/index.php. Accessed on 11 Nov 2008.

123

80

Reprinted from the journal

Soc Indic Res (2009) 92:263–294 DOI 10.1007/s11205-008-9348-y

The Quality of Life in South Korea Chong-Min Park

Accepted: 6 October 2008 / Published online: 4 November 2008 Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Abstract The AsiaBarometer survey of 1,023 respondents shows Life in Korea is highly modernized and digitalized without being much globalized. Despite the modernization and digitalization of their lifestyles, ordinary citizens still prioritize materialistic values more than post-materialistic values, and they remain least satisfied in the material life sphere. A multivariate analysis of the Korean survey reveals that their positive assessments of their standard of living and marriage are the most powerful influences on the quality of life they experience. Remarkable improvements in the objective conditions of life for the past three decades have failed to transform Korea into a nation of well-being. Keywords Digitalization
Happiness
Lifestyles
Life satisfaction
Overall quality of life
Value priority

The Korean peninsula has been divided into the two ideologically competing halves of North and South Korea since 1945 when it was liberated from Japanese colonial rule. For the past five decades, North Korea has remained an impoverished communist state and closed to the outside world. During the same period, South Korea, in striking contrast, has successfully been transformed into an affluent liberal democracy standing at the forefront of the global movement to develop democracy and capitalism in parallel. This article is intended to examine how socioeconomic modernization, democratization, and globalization have affected South Korea (Korea hereafter) as a place to live and how those changes have affected the quality of life South Korean desire and experience.

1 Introduction: Characteristics of Korean Life Demographically, Korea is a densely populated country with 48 million people living in the land area of 38,000 square miles. It is also a highly urbanized society with 80% of the C.-M. Park (&) Department of Public Administration, Korea University, Seoul, Korea e-mail: [email protected] Reprinted from the journal

81

123

C.-M. Park

population living in urban areas. The annual rate of population growth dropped from 0.8% in 2000 to 0.3% in 2006. Births per woman declined from 1.5 in 2000 to 1.1 in 2006 (World Bank 2007). In 2005, people aged 14 and below accounted for 19% of the population; people aged 15 to 64, for 72%; and people aged 65 and more, for 9% (Korea National Statistical Office 2005). Due to such declines in fertility and mortality rates, Korea is becoming an aging society. Recently, the numbers of migrant workers and mixed marriages have slowly increased. Nonetheless, Korea still remains ethnically and linguistically homogeneous. Korea is a religiously diverse society. Buddhism, Protestantism, and Catholicism are three major religions in Korea (Korea National Statistical Office 2005). In 2005, 23% of the Korean people were Buddhists; 18%; Protestants; and 11%, Catholics. Meanwhile, 46% of the Korean people profess no religion. Despite its profound impact on every aspect of Korean life, few profess Confucianism. Economically, it has transformed from one of the world’s poorest countries into an economic powerhouse; half the geographic size of Great Britain, Korea is now the thirteenth largest economy in the world. In 1996 it became the twenty-ninth member country of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the exclusive club of developed countries. Recovering from the economic crisis in 1997, Korea has been on track to resume steady economic growth. Its economy grew at a rate of 8.5% in 2000 and 5.0% in 2006 (World Bank 2007). Recently, however, income equality has deteriorated. According to the Korea National Statistical Office (2007), the Gini coefficient, a measure of inequality of income distribution with values between 0 (perfect equality) and 1 (perfect inequality), steadily rose from 0.304 in 2003 to 0.313 in 2005 to 0.329 in 2007. Yet the unemployment rate remains stable: it was 3.6% in 2003, 3.7% in 2005, and 3.2% in 2007. The average hours worked per year per employed person in Korea were 2,520 in 2000 and 2,357 in 2006. Among the OECD countries, Korea has the most average hours worked (OECD 2008). With rising economic affluence, the human condition in Korea has improved significantly. According to the latest Human Development Report (UNDP 2007/8), in 2005 the life expectancy at birth was 77.9 years; the combined primary, secondary, and tertiary gross enrollment ratio was 96%; and GDP per capita measured by purchasing power parity was US$22,029. As a result, Korea received a score of 0.921 on the human development index, ranking twenty-sixth worldwide. The Korean people as a whole live longer and healthier lives and have higher levels of education and a more decent standard of living than the average world citizen. Politically, Korea transformed its regime into a representative democracy after decades of authoritarian rule, which had often been justified as necessary for national security and economic growth. Its current political regime is characterized by free and fair elections, universal suffrage, multiparty competition, civil and political rights, and a free press. In 2007, Freedom House awarded Korea a combined score of 1.5 on its seven-point political rights and civil liberties scale, which runs from 1 (most free) to 7 (least free) (Freedom House 2007). This combined score places Korea in line with the old liberal democracies in the West. On the 2007 World Bank Governance Indicators, a scale with scores ranging from -2.5 to ?2.5, Korea received positive ratings in 2006 for all six dimensions of governance: voice and accountability (?0.71), political stability (?0.42), government effectiveness (?1.05), regulatory quality (?0.70), rule of law (?0.72), and control of corruption (?0.31) (Kaufman et al. 2007). Although these scores show room for improvement, Korea has clearly come far in terms of democratic strength, effectiveness, and constitutionalism. Legally, Korea aspires to be a land of equal opportunity. Yet it is still far short of this ideal. According to the Gender Gap Index 2006, which had scores ranging from 0

123

82

Reprinted from the journal

The Quality of Life in South Korea

(inequality) to 1 (equality), Korea ranked ninety-second out of 115 countries, with a score of 0.616 (World Economic Forum 2006). There is notable gender inequality in professional and technical workers, as well as in enrollment in tertiary education. Wider gender inequality exists in terms of political empowerment; for example, those in parliament and ministerial positions are far less likely to be female. In short, Korea remains a maledominated society. Technologically, Korea is emerging as a global leader in information and communication technology, and it is one of the most digitalized countries in the world. The number of Internet users per 100 persons increased by nearly twice in just six years, from 40.5 in 2000 to 70.5 in 2006 (World Bank 2007). In 2006, Korea led the OECD in broadband penetration rate, with 29 subscribers per 100 habitants, just behind Denmark (31.9), the Netherlands (31.8), and Iceland (29.7) (OECD 2006). According to the International Telecommunication Union’s Digital Opportunity Index, Korea ranks 1st out of 181 countries, indicating that the Koreans have better access to a variety of digital information than do any other peoples in the world. These economic, political, and social transformations have altered objective circumstances in which the Korean people live. Objective life circumstances, however, cannot be equated with subjective life experiences (Campbell 1972). Being aware of this, we focus on the quality of life directly experienced by the Korean people. After briefly exploring their lifestyles and value priorities, we focus on their perceptions of quality of life from a number of different perspectives. First, we examine the overall feelings of happiness, enjoyment, and achievement that the Korean people experience. Second, we investigate their feelings of satisfaction and dissatisfaction in a variety of specific life domains. Third, we ascertain the relationships of these specific assessments with global quality of life. Finally, we highlight key findings and explore their theoretical implications.

2 Profile of Respondents The data used in this paper was pulled from the AsiaBarometer Survey (ABS hereafter) in Korea collected during the months of July and August in 2006. It is a national sample survey of 1,023 adults (aged 20 to 69), who were personally interviewed. Before presenting key findings, we describe the sample in terms of gender, age, marital status, educational attainment, household income, and residential community. First, half (50%) of our respondents are male and the other half (50%) are female. Second, one-fifth (20%) of the respondents are in their 20s; a quarter (26%), in their 30s; another quarter (24%), in their 40s; less than one-fifth (17%), in their 50s; and about onetenth (12%), in their 60s.1 Notable is that nearly half (46%) are under 40. Third, threequarters (75%) of the respondents are married; one-fifth (21%), single; and one-twentieth (5%), either divorced, separated, or widowed. Fourth, one-fifth (19%) of the respondents have no high school education; more than two-fifths (43%), a high school education; and two-fifths (38%), a college education. Fourth, half (49%) of the respondents have a household annual income of less than KW 30,000,000; one-third (32%), between KW 30,000,000 and KW 50,000,000; and one-fifth (18%), more than KW 50,000,000 1

The sample does not include those aged 70 and over, which accounted for 9% of the total population of Korea in 2005. The exclusion of this age group is likely to distort findings on value priorities, feelings of happiness, enjoyment, and achievement, and levels of satisfaction with specific life domains, especially health, income, and the social welfare system.

Reprinted from the journal

83

123

C.-M. Park

(The average annual exchange rate in 2006 was US$1 equals 1,000 Korean won). Lastly, half (48%) of the respondents live in large cities with a population of at least one million; two-fifths (41%), in small or medium-sized cities; and only one-tenth (11%), in rural areas. Our sample of respondents appears to match the general population with respect to major characteristics. According to the Population and Housing Census (Korea National Statistical Office 2005), the total population aged 20 to 69 in 2005 stands at 32,269,632. Of this population, 50% are men and 50% are women. Those aged 20 to 29 constitute 23%; those aged 30 to 39, 25%; those aged 40 to 49, 25%; those aged 50 to 59, 16%; and those aged 60 to 69, 11%. Of the population aged 20 to 69, 66% are married; 26% are single; and 8% are either divorced or widowed. Those having a household average monthly income of less than KW 2,500,000 make up 48%; those between KW 2,500,000 and KW 4,000,000, 30%; and those more than KW 4,000,000, 22%. While our sample slightly underrepresented people aged 20 to 29, the unmarried, and high-income people, it largely matched the sub-samples of the total population in terms of gender, age, marital status, and income. In the ensuing sections these six demographic variables will be used to disaggregate the population in order to discover any differences that might exist among them in terms of lifestyles, value priorities, and quality of life.

3 Lifestyles For the last four decades or so, Korea has experienced rapid progress in industrialization and urbanization, two key features of modernization. These socioeconomic changes have undoubtedly reshaped the Korean people’s worldviews and ways of life. More recent changes such as democratization, globalization, and digitalization have further challenged traditional values and lifestyles. In this section, we examine how the Korean people live their lives in wake of industrialization, secularization, digitalization, and globalization. After briefly exploring various aspects of domestic life, we identify four lifestyles— modern, religious, digital, and global—and examine whether the prevalence of these lifestyles varies across the different population segments. 3.1 Family Life As Korea has moved from a rural society to one that is largely urban, its family system has gradually transformed from the extended family to the nuclear family, which typically consists of parents and their children (Yang 2003). It is increasingly less common for urban Koreans to live in households with three generations or for married children to live with their parents. The 2006 ABS asked respondents to describe their family structure. More than twothirds (69%) live in a two-generation household with an unmarried child or children. Very few of the respondents, only 4%, live in a two-generation household with a married child or children. One-tenth (11%) live in a household with a married couple only. Another onetenth (9%) live in a three-generation household. Those living in a single-person household make up 6%. These findings show that the nuclear family is the dominant form of family structure in Korea today. The 2006 ABS measured family size by asking respondents for the number of persons living in their household. The Korean family has an average of 3.6 persons, largely consisting of the parents and one or two children. Of those living in a two-generation household with an unmarried child or children, 60% have four persons in their households,

123

84

Reprinted from the journal

The Quality of Life in South Korea

27% three persons, and 10% five persons. Families with two children are most common and families with one child are almost three times as common as families with three children. Apartments, which tend to provide convenient heating, a modern kitchen, easy maintenance, and security, are an increasingly popular type of housing in Korea (Son et al. 2003). Young and old people alike tend to prefer apartments rather than detached houses. According to the Population and Housing Census (Korea National Statistical Office 2005), in 1985 the number of apartments accounted for only 14% of all housing units, but by 2005, it had risen to 53%. Reflecting this trend, the 2006 ABS shows that a majority (59%) of the Korean people live either in terraced houses, units in apartments, or condominium complexes. In contrast, a minority (41%) live in detached or semidetached houses, which used to be the dominant form of housing. The proportion of families residing in their own homes appears to be high despite housing shortages in urban areas. A large majority (79%) live in their own housing units. Only a small minority (21%) lives in rented housing units, and most of these units are rentals with long-term leases rather than monthly payments. The 2006 ABS asked respondents to select up to two of seven dining styles of eating breakfast and dinner, respectively. For the morning meal, an absolute majority (89%) have home-cooked food. Only a small minority (12%) have instant foods. It is uncommon for ordinary Koreans to buy prepared meals for breakfast (7%). It is also rare for ordinary Koreans to have breakfast in restaurants (5%) or at food stalls (2%). A small minority (8%) tend to skip breakfast. For the evening meal, nearly everyone (94%) has home-cooked food. A considerable minority (39%) tend to have dinner in restaurants. It is uncommon for ordinary Koreans to buy prepared meals (7%), to eat instant foods (6%) or to eat out at food stalls (2%) for dinner. One of the expected findings is that ordinary Koreans go out for dinner more often than they do for breakfast. Another is that instant foods tend to be served for breakfast rather than for dinner. It seems that young and unmarried people are less likely to eat home-cooked foods than are old and married people. Furthermore, the former are more likely to skip breakfast than are the latter. The 2006 ABS asked respondents about their favorite food. Not surprisingly, the Korean people’s most favorite food is kimchi (67%). It is followed by sushi (43%), Beijing duck (23%), pizza (21%), sandwiches (15%), dim sum (13%), instant noodles (13%), and hamburgers (12%), in that order. This finding shows that Japanese and Chinese cuisines tend to suit Korean palates more than do Western ones. Despite their popularity among young people, fast foods such as pizza and hamburgers, which are often branded as unhealthy, are generally less popular than Chinese foods, such as Beijing duck and dim sum. Thai, Indian, and Vietnam foods such as tom-yum goong (11%), curry (10%) and pho (9%) are the least popular. Overall, Korean palates still remain partial to East Asian culinary cultures. 3.2 Modern Life One of the key features of modern industrial societies is their provision of modern conveniences such as electricity, running water, heating and cooling, flush toilet, television, phones, dishwashers, and so forth. Most of these utilities and appliances constitute necessities, not luxuries, without which people cannot live a modern life. To what extent are these modern staples available to ordinary Koreans? The 2006 ABS asked respondents whether their households have access to the following public utilities: a public water supply, electricity, liquefied petroleum gas or LPG piped Reprinted from the journal

85

123

C.-M. Park

81.6 57.9 54.2 40.0 31.5 28.5

35.2 24.7 17.4

15.5

10.7

Modern life

Religious life

Digital life

High

Medium

Low

High

Medium

Low

High

Medium

Low

High

Medium

2.8 Low

90 80 70 60 50 % 40 30 20 10 0

Global life

Fig. 1 Lifestyles

gas, fixed-line phone, facsimile, and cable TV. More than nine in ten households have all of these modern conveniences except facsimile. More specifically, nearly every household has access to electricity (100%), gas for cooking (99%), and fixed-line phones (97%). An absolute majority have access to the public water supply (94%), mobile phones (95%), and cable TV (93%). In contrast, only a small minority (10%) has facsimile, which is not considered a household staple in Korea. This finding shows that nearly every household in Korea has the basic necessities for a modern life. To estimate the level of modern life respondents have attained, we counted the number of public utilities each respondent could access at home and constructed a three-point index. The low level indicates having four utilities or fewer;2 the medium level, five utilities; and the high level, six utilities or more. As seen in Fig. 1, only a few (3%) have the use of four utilities or fewer, and a small minority (16%) has five utilities. In contrast, an absolute majority (82%) have the use of six utilities or more. Those living high levels of modern life outnumber those living low levels by a huge margin of 79 percentage points. This finding shows that Korea is unquestionably a developed nation of modern life. Table 1 shows levels of modern life in major segments of the population. There is no notable difference between men and women or between married and unmarried people. Yet other demographic variables appear to make some difference in levels of modern life. Older people, people with no high school education, and low-income people are the least likely to live a modern life. Expectedly, the larger the community in which people live, the more likely they are to live a modern life. Barely over half (56%) of rural residents live high levels of a modern life, while nine-tenths (90%) of large-city dwellers do. Overall, those who are old, less educated, and/or rural residents are least likely to lead a modern life, while those who are young, better educated, and/or urban residents are most likely to do so. 3.3 Religious Life Another key feature of modern industrial societies is cultural secularization. This process leads to the erosion of religious practices and the loss of identification with religious 2

There is no one who has the use of two utilities or fewer.

123

86

Reprinted from the journal

The Quality of Life in South Korea Table 1 Lifestyles by demographic variables Modern life L

Religious life

Digital life

Global life

M

H

L

M

H

L

M

H

L

M

H

Gender Male

2.5

14.6

82.8

49.2

32.2

18.6

23.8

16.0

60.2

51.0

36.5

12.5

Female

3.1

16.4

80.4

30.7

30.7

38.6

25.6

18.8

55.6

57.3

33.9

8.8

20–39

1.3

11.0

87.7

45.1

29.0

25.8

4.0

12.7

83.3

46.2

39.2

14.6

40–59

2.6

15.7

81.7

36.1

29.5

34.4

31.6

24.1

44.3

56.9

34.7

8.4

60?

9.7

32.3

58.1

33.9

47.6

18.5

79.8

12.1

8.1

75.0

21.8

3.2

Unmarried

3.1

16.6

80.3

45.6

30.5

23.9

13.5

8.1

78.4

47.5

37.5

15.1

Married

2.7

15.2

82.1

38.1

31.8

30.1

28.5

20.5

50.9

56.4

34.4

9.2

\High school

9.2

30.3

60.5

35.4

39.0

25.6

78.5

13.3

8.2

70.3

28.2

1.5

High school

1.4

13.2

85.5

41.0

30.8

28.1

19.5

27.0

53.5

64.6

31.3

4.1

College

1.3

10.6

88.1

40.9

28.5

30.6

3.6

8.3

88.1

33.9

43.3

22.8

Low

4.5

20.7

74.7

37.4

33.5

29.2

38.0

18.9

43.1

61.2

32.2

8.6

Middle

1.2

10.6

88.2

43.3

29.0

27.7

14.0

16.8

69.2

49.2

39.6

11.2

High

1.1

9.3

89.6

42.6

29.5

27.9

10.4

15.3

74.3

43.2

36.6

20.2

Age

Marriage

Education

Income

Community Rural

12.1

31.8

56.1

40.2

36.4

23.4

55.1

18.7

26.2

57.9

38.3

3.7

Small/mid city

2.2

17.9

78.8

40.8

30.9

28.3

20.8

16.3

63.0

52.1

35.8

12.0

Large city

0.4

10.0

89.6

39.2

30.9

29.9

21.5

18.1

60.4

55.1

33.9

11.0

institutions. To what extent are ordinary Koreans detached from religious practices and affiliation? The 2006 ABS asked respondents whether they belong to any particular religion. More than half (56%) identify with some religion, either Catholicism (8%), Protestantism (25%), or Buddhisism (22%). People who have no religious affiliation constitute a plurality of two-fifths (43%). Those who have a religious affiliation outnumber those who do not by a small margin of 13 percentage points. The 2006 ABS also asked respondents how often they pray or meditate. One-third (32%) said that they pray or meditate ‘‘daily’’ or ‘‘weekly.’’ In contrast, nearly two-thirds (63%) said that they pray or meditate ‘‘on special occasions’’ or ‘‘never.’’ Those who rarely practice one of these religious rites outnumbered those who regularly practice at least one by a large margin of 31 percentage points. Insofar as religious affiliation is concerned, religious people are more numerous than secular people. In contrast, when two popular religious practices are the measures of religiosity, secular people are more numerous than religious people. To estimate the extent to which the Korean people live a religious life, we counted the number of pro-religious answers each respondent gave and constructed a three-point index. The low level indicates no pro-religious responses; the medium level, one; and the high level, two. As reported in Fig. 1, three-tenths (29%) of respondents lead highly religious lives; and one-third (32%) live somewhat religious lives. People whose lives include little Reprinted from the journal

87

123

C.-M. Park

or no religion constitute a plurality of two-fifths (40%). Those who are for the most part nonreligious outnumber the highly religious by a margin of 11 percentage points. This finding shows that Korea is a nation of neither the religious nor the nonreligious. Table 1 shows the levels of religious life in major segments of the population. First, women are more likely to be highly religious than are men (39% vs. 19%). People who are mostly or totally nonreligious constitute the largest plurality of men. In contrast, the highly religious form the largest group of women. Second, age makes a difference. The age group with the highest proportion of highly religious members is the 40-to-59 age group, while the age group with the highest proportion of non- or barely religious members is the 20-to39 group. Among young people, the most common level of religious life is low (45.1%); among middle-aged people, the high and low levels are roughly equal (34.4% and 36.1%, respectively); and among the oldest group, the most common level is somewhat religious. Third, married people are slightly more likely to be highly religious than unmarried people. Yet, the non- or barely religious constitute the largest plurality of both married and unmarried people. Fourth, there is little difference among the different education groups in terms of their members’ religiosity; however, each advancement in education level does bring a slight increase in the percentage of highly religious people and a slight decrease in the percentage of somewhat religious people. Fifth, there is little difference between income groups or between rural and urban residents. Overall, those who are middle-aged and/or female are the most likely to be highly religious, while those who are unmarried, young, and/or male are the least likely to be so. 3.4 Digital Life Korea, like many other developed countries, is experiencing a revolution in information and communication technology (ICT). This advancement could have huge effects on all kinds of social interactions in every realm of human life. To what extent is exposure to digitalization impacting ordinary Koreans’ lives? The 2006 ABS asked respondents how often they use Internet browsing, computer email, and mobile phone messaging. The Korean people as a whole use these digital media to a great extent. First, half (49%) say they use Internet browsing ‘‘almost everyday;’’ and one-seventh (14%), ‘‘several times a week.’’ Considering these responses together reveals that nearly two-thirds are regular users of Internet browsing. Second, three-tenths (29%) say they use computer emails ‘‘almost everyday;’’ and one-seventh (14%), ‘‘several times a week.’’ Considering these responses together reveals that more than two-fifths are regular users of computer emails. Third, more than half (52%) say they read or write messages by mobile phones ‘‘almost everyday;’’ and one-seventh (15%), ‘‘several times a week.’’ Considering these responses together reveals that two-thirds are regular users of mobile phone messaging. Daily life without digital media seems farfetched in Korea today. To estimate the extent to which the Korean people live a digital life, we totaled the number of ‘‘almost everyday’’ or ‘‘several times a week’’ responses each respondent gave and constructed a three-point index. The low level indicates regular use of no digital media, and the high level indicates regular use of two or three. As shown in Fig. 1, nearly three-fifths (58%) regularly use two or three digital media; one-sixth (17%), only one; and one-quarter (25%), none. Table 1 shows the levels of digital life in major segments of the population. First, there is no notable difference between men and women. Those living highly digitalized lives constitute the largest proportion of both gender groups. Second, there are huge age differences. More than four-fifths (83%) of young people live highly digitalized lives,

123

88

Reprinted from the journal

The Quality of Life in South Korea

compared to less than one-tenth (8%) of older people. Those living highly digitalized lives form a large majority (83%) of the youngest group, while those experiencing low levels of digital life form a large majority (80%) of the oldest. Middle-aged people, on the other hand, are more evenly split, with 44% experiencing a high level of digital life; 24%, a middle level; and 32%, a low level. Third, unmarried people are more likely to live highly digitalized lives than are married people, perhaps because the former tend to be younger than the latter. Even so, those living high levels of digital life constitute majorities of both unmarried and married people. Fourth, there are huge differences between the two extreme educational groups. Nearly nine-tenths (88%) of those with a college education live highly digitalized lives, compared to less than one-tenth (8%) of those with no high school education. Those experiencing high levels of digital life constitute a large majority of the most educated, while those experiencing low levels of digital life constitute a large majority of the least educated. Fifth, the most affluent are more likely to live a digital life than are the least affluent. Three-quarters (74%) of high-income people live highly digitalized lives, compared to two-fifths (43%) of low-income people. Low-income people are divided fairly evenly into the two extreme categories of digital life: high, 43%, and low, 38%. In contrast, those experiencing high levels of digital life constitute majorities of both high-income and middle-income people. Lastly, urban residents are more likely to live a digital life than are rural residents. Only one-quarter (26%) of rural residents live highly digitalized lives as compared to a large majority (60% for large-city dwellers and 63% for other city dwellers) of urban residents. Overall, those who are young, better educated, more affluent, and/or urban residents are more likely to use digital media for information and communication than are those who are old, poorly educated, less affluent, and/or rural residents. 3.5 Global Life Globalization involves movements of ideas, images, and people across national boundaries; hence a global life reflects high levels of exposure to or experience of global cultural flow (Berger 2002). To what extent are Koreans exposed to forces of globalization? To measure the levels of global life, we selected three questions from the 2006 ABS. The first asked respondents to rate their ability to speak English, the most important asset for non-English speaking people to live a global life. The second asked respondents how often they travel internationally, and the third asked how often they watch foreign TV programs. First, only less than one-fifth (17%) said they can speak English ‘‘fluently’’ or ‘‘well enough to get by in daily life.’’ More than four-fifths (83%) said that they speak it ‘‘very little’’ or ‘‘not at all.’’ An overwhelming majority of the Korean people apparently lack the key skill needed for living a global life. Second, only a few (6%) said that they traveled abroad at least three times in the past three years. An absolute majority of the Korean people have not traveled or rarely traveled internationally in the last three years. Third, about one-third (35%) said that they often watch foreign-produced TV programs. Hence, a large majority has had no or little exposure to foreign cultures or lifestyles through mass media. To estimate the extent to which the Korean people live a global life, we totaled the number of positive responses each respondent gave and constructed a three-point index. The low level indicates no positive response, and the high level indicates two or three positive responses. As shown in Fig. 1, only one-tenth (11%) live highly globalized lives; one-third (35%) live somewhat globalized lives, and more than half (54%), live non- or Reprinted from the journal

89

123

C.-M. Park

barely globalized lives. Those who fall in the low category outnumber those who fall in the high by a large margin of 47 percentage points. This finding shows that the extent of globalization among the Korean people is extremely limited. Table 1 shows the levels of global life in major segments of the population. First, there is no notable difference between men and women; those who experience low levels of globalization constitute majorities of both gender groups. Second, there is some age difference. About one-seventh (15%) of young people have high levels of global life, compared to only a few (3%) older people. Third, unmarried people are more likely to experience high levels of globalization than are married people, although the difference is not large. Fourth, there is a striking difference between the two extreme educational groups. Nearly one-quarter (23%) of those with a college education experience high levels of global life, compared to only a few (2%) of those with no high school education. Fifth, there is a notable difference between the rich and poor. About one-fifth (20%) of highincome people experience high levels of global life, compared to just under one-tenth (9%) of low-income people. Lastly, urban residents are more likely to be highly globalized than are rural residents, although the difference is not large. These findings show that those who are young, better educated, and/or more affluent are more likely to speak English, travel abroad regularly, and frequently watch foreign TV programs than are those who are old, poorly educated, and/or less affluent. It is worth noting that the difference between the two extreme educational groups is greater than the difference between the two extreme income groups (21% vs. 12%). This finding suggests that education is more strongly linked to globalization. On the whole, nearly every Korean lives a modern life by utilizing basic modern conveniences. A majority of the Korean people live a digital life through a variety of information and communication technology. Yet an overwhelming majority has yet to experience globalization, and despite cultural modernization, religion continues to play a key role in the lives of a substantial minority of Koreans.

4 Value Priorities Value priorities refer to the resources and experiences that people consider important to living a good life. Thus, an examination of Koreans’ value priorities—which life circumstances they consider most important, how satisfied or dissatisfied they are with those life circumstances, and how value priorities and satisfaction levels vary across population segments—will reveal much about the quality of life in Korea. 4.1 Important Life Circumstances The 2006 ABS asked respondents to choose five out of 25 life circumstances that are important to them. Those life circumstances were (1) having enough to eat, (2) having a comfortable home, (3) being healthy, (4) having access to good medical care, (5) being able to live without fear of crime, (6) having a job, (7) having access to higher education, (8) owning lots of nice things, (9) earning a high income, (10) spending time with family, (11) being on good terms with others, (12) being successful at work, (13) being famous, (14) enjoying a pastime, (15) appreciating art and culture, (16) dressing up, (17) winning over others, (18) expressing one’s personality or using one’s talents, (19) contributing to the local community or to society, (20) being devout, (21) raising children, (22) freedom of

123

90

Reprinted from the journal

The Quality of Life in South Korea

expression and association, (23) living in a country with a good government, (24) having a pleasant community in which to live, and (25) having a safe and clean environment. These life circumstances are associated with a variety of human needs, including basic survival, achievement, and self-actualization. Table 2 shows which life circumstances the Korean people tend to value. An overwhelming majority (89%) chose good health as one of their top five priorities. Health remains the No.1 concern for the Korean people, despite lengthening lifespans. About half (47%) chose housing as one of their five. Although far behind health, housing is the second most common concern among Koreans, even though there have been great improvements in housing as of late. Perhaps Koreans are focused on housing because of a recent jump in housing prices, especially in urban areas. Economic affluence and spending time with family are the third and fourth most common concerns, respectively. About two-fifths (42%) chose each of these. The fifth and sixth concerns, raising children and having a job, were also a near tie, with both garnering mentions from three-tenths (31%) of respondents. It is notable that leisure is considered less important than employment. Only one-fifth (22%) chose enjoying a pastime as one of their top five priorities. The least prioritized values include freedom of expression and association, dressing up, winning over others,

Table 2 Percentages choosing each life circumstance as important Percent

Rank

Being healthy

89.3

1

Having a comfortable home

47.2

2

Earning a high income

42.1

3

Spending time with your family

41.8

4

Raising children

31.3

5

Having a job

30.7

6

Being on good terms with others

23.6

7

Having enough to eat

22.0

8

Enjoying a pastime

21.8

9

Safe and clean environment

20.0

10

Being successful at work

18.9

11

Having access to good medical care

17.4

12

Expressing your personality or using your talents

12.8

13

Pleasant community to live

12.8

13

Living without fear of crime

11.9

15

Being devout

11.1

16

Living in a country with a good government

9.7

17

Appreciating art and culture

5.2

18

Having access to higher education

4.2

19

Being famous

3.9

20

Contributing to your local community or society

3.1

21

Owning lots of nice things

2.3

22

Winning over others

2.2

23

Dressing up

1.4

24

Freedom of expression and association

0.8

25

Reprinted from the journal

91

123

C.-M. Park

owning lots of nice things, and contributing to the local community or society. Only a few (3% or less) chose each of these as one of their top five priorities. These findings indicate that the Korean people tend to prioritize values that are connected to physiological needs, safety needs, or the need for belonging, and they tend to downplay values tied either to the need for self-esteem or the need for self-actualization. Hence, materialism appears to be the dominant force of Korean culture; it is hardly a nation of post-materialists. Table 3 shows how various population segments are alike and how they differ in the prioritization of their values. In every segment, good health is the most prioritized value, and in ten of the 16 segments, it is followed by housing. Gender clearly plays a role in the prioritization of values. Men, who are typically their families’ breadwinners, prioritize values associated with the need for having, while women, who are typically the homemakers, value those associated with the need for relating. Age seems to make less difference, as all of the age groups place health, housing, income, and family in their top four slots, though in different orders. Having a job rounds out the top five list of people aged 20 to 39, while people aged 40 to 59, the group likely to live with unmarried children, instead value raising children. Older people, who are likely to experience an ‘‘empty nest,’’ care more about having enough food, access to medical care, and employment, which create a three-way tie for their fifth slot. The oldest group is also the population segment most interested in health, with 97% of them including it in their top five priorities. Table 3 Top five concerns of life by demographic variables 1st

2nd

3rd

4th

5th

Gender Male

Health (87.9) Income (47.3)

Female

Health (90.8) Housing (48.7) Family (46.4)

Housing (45.7) Family (37.3)

Children (39.7) Income (37.0)

Job (34.6)

20–30

Health (85.0) Housing (50.6) Income (45.8)

Family (38.3)

Job (30.9)

40–50

Health (91.8) Housing (46.8) Family (43.6)

Income (38.9)

Children (35.8)

60?

Health (97.6) Family (49.2)

Income (39.5)

Housing (35.5)

Diet, medical care, job (29.8)

Unmarried

Health (84.2) Income (50.2)

Housing (45.9) Job (33.6)

Married

Health (91.1) Housing (47.6) Family (45.8)

Income (39.4)

Children (39.0)

\High school

Health (95.9) Family (45.1)

Housing (39.0)

Job (33.3)

High school

Health (89.6) Housing (49.7) Income (44.4)

Family (44.0)

Children (36.1)

College?

Health (85.8) Housing (48.7) Income (39.6)

Family (37.8)

Job (30.3)

Age

Marriage Family (30.1)

Education Income (42.1)

Income Low

Health (90.6) Income (45.0)

Middle

Health (88.8) Housing (50.2) Income (42.7)

Housing (43.6) Family (41.9) Family (40.8)

Children (32.2) Children (35.5)

High

Health (88.0) Housing (53.6) Family (42.1)

Income (33.3)

Job (30.1)

Health (96.3) Family (49.5)

Community Rural

Job (36.4)

Children (35.5)

Small/mid city Health (86.8) Housing (46.0) Family (45.5)

Income (44.9)

Income (39.9)

Children (35.8)

Large city

Family (37.0)

Job (29.7)

Health (90.0) Housing (51.8) Income (43.5)

Parentheses are the percent selecting the respective life circumstances

123

92

Reprinted from the journal

The Quality of Life in South Korea

Married people care more about housing and family than do unmarried people, who place greater emphasis on income and employment. People with little education are far less likely to prioritize housing and more likely to care about health than are those with a high school or college education, but otherwise, the education groups are quite similar. As one might expect, low- and middle-income people are much more likely to prioritize income than are high-income people. All of the income groups emphasize family; however, the low- and middle-groups also emphasize child-raising, while the high-income group instead emphasizes having a job. Lastly, there is a striking finding associated with community. While housing is the second most common concern among all city residents, it does not appear in the top five lists of rural residents at all. Rural residents are the only population segment not to include housing as a top five priority. Also noteworthy is that rural residents were much more likely to be concerned about health and having a job than were their city counterparts, while residents of large cities were far less likely to be concerned about family life than were residents of medium- and small-sized communities. These findings show that what Koreans value depends a great deal on the circumstance in which they live. 4.2 Needs for Having, Relating and Being Allardt (1976) classified human needs or values into three types under the headings of having, loving or relating, and being (Campbell 1981). The need for having is associated with ‘‘those material conditions which are necessary for survival and for avoidance of misery.’’ The material conditions include economic resources, housing conditions, employment, health, and so forth. Second, the need for loving or relating is ‘‘the need to relate to other people and to form social identities.’’ Life circumstances associated with this need type include attachment to family and local community, friendships, interactions with associational members, and so forth. Lastly, the need for being is ‘‘the need for integration into society and to live in harmony with nature.’’ Life circumstances related to this need type include taking part in leisure activities, a meaningful work life, opportunities to enjoy nature, self-empowerment, and political participation. To estimate the extent to which the Korean people are oriented either toward the need for having, the need for relating, or the need for being, we constructed three indexes. To measure the need for having, we totaled the number of value priorities each respondent selected from the following: (1) having enough to eat, (2) having a comfortable home, (3) being healthy, (4) having a job, and (5) earning a high income. To measure the need for relating, we totaled the number of value priorities each respondent selected from the following: (1) spending time with family, (2) raising children, (3) being on good terms with others, (4) contributing to the local community or to society, and (5) having a pleasant community in which to live. To measure the need for being, we totaled the number of value priorities each respondent selected from the following: (1) enjoying a pastime, (2) appreciating art and culture, (3) expressing one’s personality or using one’s talent, (4) freedom of expression and association, and (5) having a safe and clean environment. Because few respondents chose either four or five priorities from any one category, after making these totals, we converted each six-point index into a four-point index by collapsing the top three scores into one category. To what extent do the Korean people prioritize the need for having, the need for relating, and the need for being? As shown in Fig. 2, two-fifths (42%) chose three or more value priorities associated with the need for having, while only a few (2%) chose none of them. Combining the top two categories shows that an overwhelmingly majority (82%) are Reprinted from the journal

93

123

C.-M. Park

60 49.7 50

40.4 41.5

40.6

39.7

40

16.2

20 10

27.7

26.9

% 30

9.3

5.8

1.9

0.5

0 0

1

2

3+

Need for having

0

1

2

3+

Need for relating

0

1

2

3+

Need for being

Fig. 2 Three types of needs

oriented toward the need for having. In contrast, a very small percentage (6%) chose three or more value priorities associated with the need for relating, while a quarter (27%) chose none of them. Combining the top two categories reveals that only a minority (34%) are oriented toward the need for relating. Lastly, nearly no one (1%) chose three or more value priorities associated with the need for being, while half (50%) chose none of them. Combining the top two categories shows that only a tiny minority (10%) are oriented toward the need for being. These findings demonstrate that the need for having dominates Korean people’s values, while the need for being is hardly prioritized at all. Table 4 shows how various population segments are alike and different in the types of values they prioritize. There are no notable demographic differences in the need for having; in all of the population subsets, those highly oriented toward the need for having constitute pluralities. In contrast, some differences concerning the need for relating do exist among various population segments. For instance, women, middle-aged people, and the married are more oriented toward the need for relating than are their counterparts. Nonetheless, those minimally oriented toward the need for relating constitute a plurality of every segment of the population. Lastly, some differences concerning the need for being exist among some segments of the population. For instance, young people, the unmarried, and those with a college education are more oriented toward the need of being than are their counterparts. Nonetheless, those with no need for being constitute either a majority or a plurality of every segment of the population. On the whole, despite the fact that average Koreans are better fed, better housed, have a longer life expectancy, and are more affluent than ever before, their most cherished values are still tied up with meeting such basic needs as having enough to eat and having a comfortable home. Few strive for such non-material goals as achieving a sense of belonging and self-actualization. For the Korean people, survival and security remain of the utmost concern, while personal growth and harmony with nature are hardly concerns at all. It is notable that companionship and solidarity are valued less than are survival and security but more than are personal growth and harmony with nature. The majority of the Korean people are still pursuing materialist and acquisitive goals rather than post-materialist and self-expressive goals, and this prioritization of values is different from what is found in some Western post-industrial countries (Inglehart and Welzel 2005; Mitchell 1983). Evidently, Korea’s penchant for materialism goes deeper than the country’s economy.

123

94

Reprinted from the journal

The Quality of Life in South Korea Table 4 Three types of needs by demographic variables Need for having

Need for relating

Need for being

0

1

2

3?

0

1

2

3?

0

1

2

3?

Male

2.1

13.9

39.6

44.3

30.1

40.2

25.0

4.7

46.3

43.9

9.6

0.2

Female

1.6

18.6

41.1

38.7

23.7

39.1

30.3

6.8

53.0

37.2

9.0

0.8

20–39

2.5

14.6

40.5

42.4

32.6

39.0

24.2

4.2

44.7

43.4

10.8

1.1

40–59

1.4

17.8

40.5

40.3

22.7

38.9

30.9

7.5

52.7

38.4

8.9

0.0

60?

0.8

16.9

39.5

42.7

19.4

45.2

29.8

5.6

58.1

37.1

4.8

0.0

Unmarried

1.9

13.1

39.8

45.2

39.4

42.1

16.6

1.9

45.6

39.8

13.1

1.5

Married

1.8

17.3

40.6

40.3

22.6

38.9

31.4

7.1

51.0

40.8

8.0

0.1

\High school

1.5

13.3

39.0

46.2

25.6

40.5

28.2

5.6

64.1

30.8

5.1

0.0

High school

1.6

15.9

39.5

43.1

24.7

39.0

30.6

5.7

47.4

44.0

8.4

0.2

College

2.3

18.1

42.0

37.6

30.1

39.9

24.1

6.0

45.1

41.7

12.2

1.0

Low

2.1

15.0

40.7

42.3

25.9

38.8

28.5

6.8

52.0

39.4

8.4

0.2

Middle

1.9

16.5

38.9

42.7

25.5

40.8

29.3

4.4

48.9

41.4

9.3

0.3

High

0.5

18.6

40.4

40.4

33.3

37.2

24.6

4.9

44.8

43.2

11.5

0.5

Gender

Age

Marriage

Education

Income

Community Rural

1.9

12.1

55.1

30.8

22.4

38.3

29.9

9.3

54.2

38.3

7.5

0.0

Small/mid city

2.6

19.1

38.0

40.3

21.9

41.5

30.9

5.7

50.5

37.3

11.8

0.5

Large city

1.2

14.6

39.2

44.9

32.1

38.4

24.4

5.1

48.0

42.9

7.5

0.6

5 Global Assessment of Life Quality In this section, we examine the feelings Korean people have about the quality of their lives. We consider quality of life as a multidimensional phenomenon and focus on two dimensions, namely affective and cognitive. We accept the conventional understanding that feelings of happiness and enjoyment constitute the affective or hedonic dimension of life quality, while feelings of achievement and satisfaction, its cognitive dimension (Campbell 1981; Andrews 1986; Diener et al. 1999; Shin and Rutkowski 2003). Because the 2006 ABS has no question asking respondents about their overall satisfaction with life, we measure global quality of life as the extent to which feelings of happiness, enjoyment, and achievement are experienced. 5.1 Happiness Feelings of happiness contribute to the affective dimension of life quality. Unlike feelings of satisfaction or achievement, however, feelings of happiness are distinguished by ‘‘the spontaneous feelings of pleasure’’ (Campbell 1981). They are likely to fluctuate even over a short period of time. In order to estimate the general levels of happiness among the Korean people, the 2006 ABS asked respondents a simple and straightforward question Reprinted from the journal

95

123

C.-M. Park 60

52.0

50

46.6

44.3

40

29.9

28.8

% 30 20

45.3

17.0

12.7

12.0

10

1.1

3.0

3.6

Never

A great

4.4

0 Very

Qutie

happy

happy

Neither

Not too

happy nor happy

Very

Often Sometimes Rarely

unhappy

Some

Very little

None

deal

unhappy

Happiness

Enjoyment

Achievement

Fig. 3 Global assessment of life quality

with five verbal response categories: ‘‘All things considered, would you say you are: (1) very happy, (2) quite happy, (3) neither happy nor unhappy, (4) not too happy, or (5) very unhappy?’’ The Korean people tended to describe their lives as happy rather than unhappy. Of the five response categories, ‘‘quite happy’’ was the most frequent choice, selected by more than two-fifths (44%) of respondents. It was followed by ‘‘neither happy nor unhappy’’ (30%), ‘‘not too happy’’ (13%), ‘‘very happy’’ (12%) and ‘‘very unhappy’’ (1%). Combining the two positive responses reveals that more than half (56%) describe themselves as more or less happy (see Fig. 3). Those who live an unhappy life, on the other hand, constitute a small minority of only one-seventh (14%), which means happy respondents are four times as numerous as unhappy ones. While this undoubtedly speaks well of life quality in Korea, it is notable that people who are ‘‘neither happy nor unhappy’’ constitute a considerable minority. Even so, we must conclude feelings of happiness prevail over feelings of unhappiness in Korea today. Which segments of the population are the most and least happy with their lives? Table 5 reports the percentages expressing happiness in major segments of the population. The percentages experiencing happiness vary significantly depending on life circumstances. First, women are more likely to report happiness than men, who belong to one of the few groups where a majority is not experiencing happiness. Second, increasing age is accompanied by steady declines in the proportion of those reporting happiness. Two-thirds of those in their 20s and 30s report happiness, as compared to one-third of those in their 60s. It is worth noting that two-thirds of older people are failing to experience happiness. Third, married people are not any happier than unmarried people; both are more likely than not to be happy. Fourth, of all the population groups, the one with the smallest proportion of happy people is the less-than-high-school-education group, while the group with the second-largest proportion of happy people was the college-educated group. Only one-third of the least educated people experience happiness, while two-thirds of the most educated people do. Fifth, higher income is related to greater happiness. The more money people make, the happier they are with their lives. The most affluent segment of the population is the happiest group of all, and the poorest segment is among the least happy groups. Lastly, the community in which people live has practically no influence on their level of happiness. According to these findings, the experience of happiness among the Korean people is related to their command of socioeconomic resources.

123

96

Reprinted from the journal

The Quality of Life in South Korea Table 5 Global assessment of life quality by demographic variables Types of assessments

Index values

Happiness

Enjoyment

Achievement

0

1

2

3

56.3

69.0

50.2

23.1

15.4

25.1

36.4

Male

49.6

64.9

49.5

26.6

16.2

24.6

32.6

Female

62.9

73.1

51.0

19.6

14.7

25.6

40.1

20–39

65.4

77.8

53.8

15.5

15.0

27.1

42.4

40–59

51.9

64.0

50.2

27.4

14.1

24.4

34.2

60?

36.6

52.9

36.8

37.1

21.8

20.2

21.0

Unmarried

52.3

68.6

46.3

23.2

19.3

25.5

32.0

Married

57.6

69.1

51.6

23.0

14.1

25.0

37.8

\High school

35.9

47.9

32.3

43.6

16.9

20.0

19.5

High school

57.5

70.7

51.7

21.1

16.1

25.2

37.6

College

65.2

77.6

57.4

15.0

14.0

27.7

43.3

Low

48.2

60.8

42.2

30.8

17.2

22.6

29.4

Middle

60.3

75.9

54.2

18.7

13.1

28.3

39.9

High

69.4

76.5

64.0

12.6

13.1

26.2

48.1

Rural

55.1

59.8

42.1

29.0

14.0

28.0

29.0

Small/mid city

57.1

68.7

52.2

23.6

14.9

23.1

38.4

Large city

55.8

71.3

50.5

21.3

16.3

26.2

36.2

Entire sample Gender

Age

Marriage

Education

Income

Community

On the whole, old people, those with no high school education, and those with a low income are the least happy people in Korea, while young people, those with a college education, and those with a high-income are the most happy. Hence, in Korea today, a young, well-educated, and well-paid person would seem to have the greatest chance of happiness. 5.2 Enjoyment Feelings of enjoyment constitute another affective dimension of life quality. They reflect positive experiences, which are related to general happiness with life. In order to estimate the general levels of enjoyment among the Korean people, the 2006 ABS asked: ‘‘How often do you feel you are really enjoying life these days: often, sometimes, rarely, or never?’’ The Korean people tended to describe their lives as enjoyable rather than unenjoyable. Of the four response categories, ‘‘sometimes’’ was the most frequent choice, selected by more than half (52%) of respondents. This response was followed by ‘‘rarely’’ (28%), ‘‘often’’ (17%), and ‘‘never’’ (3%), in that order. Combining the two positive responses reveals that more than two-thirds (69%) of respondents reported experiencing some degree Reprinted from the journal

97

123

C.-M. Park

of enjoyment in their lives (See Fig. 3), which is even greater than the proportion that reported feelings of happiness. Those living an enjoyable life outnumbered those living an unenjoyable life by a sizable margin of 38 percentage points. This finding indicates that feelings of enjoyment are prevalent among the Korean people. Which segments of the population experience the most and least enjoyment in their lives? Table 5 also presents the percentages expressing positive ratings of enjoyment in major segments of the population. The percentages experiencing enjoyment vary significantly depending on people’s life circumstances. First, women and men are both more likely than not to experience enjoyment, but women are even more likely to than are men. Second, increases in age are tied to decreases in enjoyment. Apparently, as people grow older, their life circumstances change to reduce their levels of enjoyment. Third, marital status makes no notable difference in enjoyment; those living an enjoyable life constitute majorities of both married and unmarried people. Fourth, education has a tremendous impact on enjoyment. Of all the population groups, the least educated had the smallest proportion of members experiencing enjoyment (48%), while the most educated all but tied with the 20 to 39 age group for the greatest proportion of members experiencing enjoyment (78%). Fifth, a higher income contributes to greater enjoyment. Of the income groups, the most and least affluent constitute, respectively, the groups most and least likely to experience enjoyment. Lastly, city dwellers are more likely to experience enjoyment than are rural residents. In brief, the experience of enjoyment among the Korean people is related to their gender, their possession of socioeconomic resources, their life-cycle stage, and where they live. These findings show that old people, those with no high school education, those with a low-income, and those who live in rural areas are least likely to experience enjoyment. On the other hand, young people, those with a college education, those with a high-income, and those who live in urban areas are most likely to experience enjoyment. As in the case of happiness, it would seem that a young, well-educated, and well-paid person would have the greatest chance for an enjoyable life in Korea today. 5.3 Achievement Feelings of achievement contribute to the cognitive dimension of life quality. Like feelings of satisfaction, feelings of achievement imply an act of judgment, a comparison of where people find themselves to where they want to find themselves. Hence, feelings of achievement tend to be more stable than feelings of happiness or enjoyment, which tend to fluctuate in response to fleeting moods (Campbell 1981). In order to estimate the general levels of achievement among the Korean people, the 2006 ABS asked: ‘‘To what extent do you feel you are achieving what you want out of your life: a great deal, some, very little, or none?’’ The Korean people appear to be divided in their assessment of achievement in life. Only a few (4%) reported a great deal of achievement, and less than half (47%) some achievement. Similarly, less than half (45%) reported very little achievement, and a few (4%) no achievement (See Fig. 3). Those giving negative responses are as common as those giving positive responses. This finding shows that feelings of achievement are not dominant among the Korean people. Which segments of the population feel the most and least accomplished? Table 5 presents the percentages reporting positive ratings of achievement in major segments of the population. The proportions experiencing achievement vary significantly depending on people’s life circumstances. First, there is practically no difference between men and

123

98

Reprinted from the journal

The Quality of Life in South Korea

women; both are about as likely as not to report feeling accomplished. Second, while young and middle-aged people are both about as likely as not to report feeling accomplished (54% and 50%, respectively), older people are considerably less likely to feel positive about their achievements (37%). Third, there is no notable difference between married and unmarried people. Fourth, education again makes a big difference. Of all the population groups, the one with the smallest proportion of members experiencing achievement is the least educated group (32%), while the most educated group had the second-largest proportion of such members (57%). Fifth, higher income is related to greater feelings of achievement. Of all the population segments, the most affluent group has the greatest proportion of members experiencing achievement (64%), while the accomplished proportion for the least affluent group is among the smallest. Lastly, urban residents are slightly more likely to report the experience of achievement than are rural residents. In brief, as in the case of happiness and enjoyment, the experience of achievement among the Korean people is related to their possession of socioeconomic resources as well as their life-cycle stage. The findings show that old people, those with no high school education, and those with a low-income are the least likely to feel accomplished. In contrast, young people, those with a college education, and those with a high-income have the most fulfilling life. As in the case of happiness and enjoyment, a young, well-educated, and well-paid person would seem to have the greatest chance of feeling accomplished in Korea today. The experiences of happiness, achievement, and enjoyment are connected in Korea; Koreans who describe their lives as happy also tend to report experiencing achievement and enjoyment. The correlation between happiness and enjoyment is very strong (r = 0.68), which one might expect considering both are measures of affective life quality. Not as strong but still significant are the correlations between achievement and happiness and between achievement and enjoyment, which are roughly equal (r = 0.47). These correlations show that the affective quality of life is closely related to its cognitive quality. Contrasting the three dimensions reveals that achievement is the weakest dimension of life quality in Korea, while enjoyment is the most robust. In Korea today, the cognitive quality of well-being falls short of its affective quality.

5.4 Overall Quality of Life What proportion of the population is simultaneously experiencing feelings of happiness, enjoyment, and achievement? What proportion fails to experience any of them? Which segments of the population fully experience these feelings to a greater and lesser extent? By counting the number of positive feelings individual respondents gave, we constructed a four-point index to examine the patterns of overall life quality. The lowest score of 0 represents no positive ratings, and thus indicates the least desirable pattern of life, while the highest score of 3 represents all positive ratings, and thus indicates the most desirable pattern of life. As shown in the last four columns of Table 5, about one-third (36%) appears to live the most desirable pattern of life by reporting the full experience of happiness, enjoyment, and achievement. In contrast, about one-quarter (23%) appears to live the least desirable pattern of life by reporting no experience of happiness, enjoyment, and achievement. Another one-quarter (25%) reported experiencing two of them, and one-seventh (15%), only one of them. These findings show that a majority of the Korean people are not Reprinted from the journal

99

123

C.-M. Park

thoroughly positive in their evaluations of their life quality. In the eyes of ordinary people, life in Korea has yet to achieve all-around desirability. Which segments of the population tend to experience the most desirable and least desirable patterns of life? As shown in the same columns of Table 5, the proportions experiencing feelings of happiness, enjoyment, and achievement vary significantly depending on people’s life circumstances. First, there is little difference between men and women; for both groups, the proportion experiencing a fully desirable life is greater than any other proportion. Second, the older people are, the less likely they are to be thoroughly positive in their quality of life assessments. The proportion of such positive respondents steadily declines from 42% of those aged 20 to 39 through 34% of those aged 40 to 59 to 21% of those aged 60 to 69. It is worth noting that those experiencing none of the feelings constitute the largest group of older people. Third, there is little difference between married and unmarried people; the thoroughly positive constitute the largest groups of both married and unmarried people. Fourth, the more educated people are, the more likely they are to be thoroughly positive. One-fifth (20%) of people with no high school education is so, as compared to more than two-fifths (43%) of college graduates. Those experiencing a fully desirable life constitute the largest group of the most educated. In contrast, those experiencing a fully undesirable life constitute the largest group of the least educated. Fifth, higher income is positively linked to greater life quality. The proportion of thoroughly positive respondents rises from 29% of low-income people through 40% of middle-income people to 48% of high-income people. Low-income people are about as likely to be thoroughly negative as thoroughly positive about their quality of life. Three-tenths (31%) report a fully undesirable life, and another three-tenths (29%) report a thoroughly desirable one. In contrast, the thoroughly positive by far form the largest group of high-income people. Lastly, there is not much difference between rural and urban residents. Yet those experiencing a fully desirable life constitute the largest group only of urban residents. Among rural residents, those experiencing none of the feelings are as numerous as those experiencing all the feelings. On the whole, the most desirable pattern of life is most common among those who are young, highly educated and/or earn a high income. Those who are old, uneducated and/or earn low-incomes tend to live the least desirable pattern of life. These findings show that life circumstances associated with age, education, and income have the greatest influence on whether individuals will experience the most or least desirable patterns of life in Korea. All of the findings indicate that those who are young, well-educated, and well-paid have a good chance of living the most desirable pattern of life in Korea today.

6 Specific Assessments of Life Quality In this section, we examine how the Korean people feel about a variety of specific life domains. Which aspects of life do Koreans find most and least satisfying? By comparing the levels of satisfaction and dissatisfaction across specific life domains, we try to identify the best and worst aspects of Korean life. 6.1 Life Domains The 2006 ABS asked respondents how satisfied or dissatisfied they were with each of the following aspects of life: (1) housing, (2) friendships, (3) marriage, (4) standard of living, (5) household income, (6) health, (7) education, (8) job, (9) neighbors, (10) public safety,

123

100

Reprinted from the journal

The Quality of Life in South Korea Table 6 Assessments of specific life domains Scale points

Mean 2

Satisfied

Dissatisfied

PDI

(A)

(B)

(A-B)

-2

-1

0

1

Housing

2.5

12.0

33.0

44.1

8.3

0.44

52.4

14.5

?37.9

Friendships

0.5

4.7

25.8

55.7

13.3

0.77

69.0

5.2

?63.8

Marriage

1.0

5.2

31.1

48.6

14.0

0.69

62.6

6.2

?56.4

Standard of living

3.3

15.5

48.8

29.8

2.5

0.13

32.3

18.8

?13.5

Household income

4.9

20.5

46.4

24.9

3.3

0.01

28.2

25.4

?2.8

Health

2.4

12.4

27.9

45.2

12.0

0.52

57.2

14.8

?42.4

Education

2.3

14.9

47.0

30.8

5.1

0.22

35.9

17.2

?18.7

Job

5.2

17.4

41.5

30.4

5.5

0.14

35.9

22.6

?13.3

Neighbors

1.0

4.3

38.3

48.6

7.9

0.58

56.5

5.3

?51.2

Public safety

4.0

12.5

46.0

32.3

5.2

0.22

37.5

16.5

?21.0

Environment

3.0

12.1

42.4

37.4

5.0

0.29

42.4

15.1

?27.3

Welfare system

9.1

26.5

46.6

16.6

1.2

-0.26

17.8

35.6

-17.8

Democratic system

6.2

18.1

47.0

27.1

1.6

-0.00

28.7

24.3

?4.4

Family life

1.9

5.3

30.1

53.5

9.3

0.63

62.8

7.2

?55.6

Leisure

4.8

19.7

42.6

28.0

4.9

0.08

32.9

24.5

?8.4

Spiritual life

2.4

10.7

53.2

26.4

7.3

0.25

33.7

13.1

?20.6

Very dissatisfied = -2 Somewhat dissatisfied = -1 Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied = 0 Somewhat satisfied = ?1 Very satisfied = ?2

(11) the environmental condition, (12) the social welfare system, (13) the democratic system, (14) family life, (15) leisure, and (16) spiritual life. These life aspects by no means encompass all of the concerns of the Korean people, but they do provide a broad sample. Moreover, they include the ones that the Korean people consider important to their lives (see Table 2). They encompass both materialistic and non-materialistic aspects of life, as well as private and public spheres of life. To ascertain how satisfied the Korean people are with their life quality, the 2006 ABS used a five-point verbal scale, which runs from -2 (very dissatisfied) through 0 (neither satisfied nor dissatisfied) to 2 (very satisfied). For each domain, Table 6 provides the complete distribution of respondents across the scale’s five points. It also provides a number of summary statistics including the mean ratings, and the PDI values, which measure the direction and magnitude of the difference between those who are satisfied and dissatisfied in each life domain. A comparison of the mean ratings reveals that the social welfare system is the only domain falling below the midpoint (0) on the five-point scale. The mean ratings of the democratic system and household income are right at the midpoint. Those of the remaining life domains are above it. The domains with mean ratings that are considerably higher than the midpoint include friendship (0.8), marriage (0.7), and family life (0.6). Nonetheless, their mean ratings are still far lower than the highest score of 2. This finding indicates that at the level of specific life domains, the quality of life in Korea has much room for improvement. As the PDI values indicate, in every life domain except one, the satisfied are more common than the dissatisfied. The only exception is the social welfare system. Reprinted from the journal

101

123

C.-M. Park

The preponderance of satisfaction over dissatisfaction varies a great deal across life domains. Friendship (?64) has the highest PDI value in favor of satisfaction. It is followed by marriage (?56), family life (?56), and neighbors (?51). In contrast, the social welfare system (-18) has the lowest value. It is followed by household income (?3), the democratic system (?4), and leisure (?8). The Korean people as a whole tend to be more satisfied with interpersonal domains than with any other aspect of life. Moreover, they tend to be least satisfied with public conditions of life. Table 7 shows which life domains different segments of the population find most and least satisfying. First, men are most satisfied with marriage, while women are with friendship. Men and women alike are most dissatisfied with the social welfare system. Second, young and middle-aged people are most satisfied with friendship and most dissatisfied with the social welfare system. In contrast, older people are most satisfied with neighbors and most dissatisfied with income. Third, married and unmarried people alike are most satisfied with friendship and most dissatisfied with the social welfare system. Fourth, people with no high school education are most satisfied with neighbors and most dissatisfied with education. In contrast, people with a high school education are most satisfied with friendship, while people with a college education, marriage. Yet both of them are most dissatisfied with the social welfare system. Fifth, low- and middle-income people are most satisfied with friendship, while high-income people, marriage. Yet, among all income groups the social welfare system is the most dissatisfying domain. Lastly, rural residents are most satisfied with neighbors and most dissatisfied with income. In contrast, city dwellers are most satisfied with friendship and most dissatisfied with the social welfare system. It is worth noting that the social welfare system is the most dissatisfying domain in thirteen of the eighteen population segments considered. On the other hand, friendship is the most satisfying domain in ten of the eighteen population segments. In the eyes of the Korean people, the country’s meager social welfare system constitutes the area of life most in need of improvement. How many life domains do the Korean people find satisfying and dissatisfying? To address these questions, we counted the number of domains each respondent rated positively and negatively. As presented in the fourth and fifth columns of Table 7, the Korean people are, on average, satisfied with 6.6 of 16 domains and dissatisfied with 2.6 domains. The number of domains satisfied and dissatisfied varies considerably across the various population segments. First, men and women do not differ in how many domains they find either satisfying or dissatisfying. Second, young people and old people do not differ in how many domains they find satisfying, but the former tend to experience dissatisfaction in fewer domains than the latter (2.4 vs. 3.4). Third, married people and unmarried people do not differ in the number of domains they find either satisfying or dissatisfying. Fourth, the most educated tend to experience satisfaction in more domains (7.4 vs. 5.8) and dissatisfaction in fewer domains (2.0 vs. 3.8) than do the least-educated. Fifth, high-income people tend to experience satisfaction in far more domains (8.6 vs. 5.6) and dissatisfaction in far fewer domains (1.5 vs. 3.4) than do low-income people. Lastly, rural residents and urban residents do not differ in the number of domains they find either satisfying or dissatisfying. These findings demonstrate that socioeconomic resources matter for the quality of life Koreans experience at the level of specific life domains. The last two columns of Table 7 display the percentages of those who have more satisfying than dissatisfying domains and of those who have more dissatisfying than satisfying domains. A large majority (72%) of the Korean people have more satisfying than dissatisfying domains. In contrast, only one-quarter (25%) have more dissatisfying than satisfying domains.

123

102

Reprinted from the journal

The Quality of Life in South Korea Table 7 Patterns of domain satisfaction and dissatisfaction by demographic variables

Entire sample

Specific domains

Number of domains

Percentage of respondents

Most satisfied

Most dissatisfied

Satisfied

Dissatisfied

More satisfied

More dissatisfied

Friendship

Welfare system

6.6

2.6

71.7

24.5

Gender Male

Marriage

Welfare system

6.6

2.6

72.5

24.2

Female

Friendship

Welfare system

6.7

2.7

70.8

24.9

20–39

Friendship

Welfare system

6.7

2.4

73.1

22.0

40–59

Friendship

Welfare system

6.7

2.6

72.4

25.1

60?

Neighbors

Income

6.3

3.4

63.7

32.3

Unmarried

Friendship

Welfare system

6.1

2.7

69.1

27.0

Married

Friendship

Welfare system

6.8

2.6

72.5

23.7

\High school

Neighbors

Education

5.8

3.8

61.0

36.9

High school

Friendship

Welfare system

6.4

2.6

69.8

25.9

College

Marriage

Welfare system

7.4

2.0

79.0

16.8

Low

Friendship

Welfare system

5.6

3.4

62.2

33.7

Middle

Friendship

Welfare system

7.0

2.2

76.6

19.0

High

Marriage

Welfare system

8.6

1.5

86.3

12.0

Rural

Neighbors

Income

7.2

3.0

70.1

27.1

Small/mid city

Friendship

Welfare system

6.8

2.7

70.5

24.3

Large city

Friendship

Welfare system

6.4

2.5

73.0

24.2

Age

Marriage

Education

Income

Community

The percentages of those having more satisfying than dissatisfying domains vary across the different population segments. There is little difference either between men and women, married and unmarried, or rural residents and urban residents. In contrast, while four-fifths (79%) of people with a college education have more satisfying than dissatisfying domains, just three-fifths (61%) of people with no high school education do. Similarly, nearly nine-tenths (86%) of high-income people have more satisfying than dissatisfying domains, while just six-tenths (62%) of low-income people do. Likewise, the percentages of those having more dissatisfying than satisfying domains vary across the different population segments. There is not much difference between men and women, married and unmarried people, or rural and urban residents. In contrast, while one-third (37%) of people with no high school education has more dissatisfying than satisfying domains, only a sixth (17%) of people with a college education does. Similarly, one-third (34%) of low-income people has more dissatisfying than satisfying domains, while only one-eighth (12%) of high-income people does. This finding again illustrates the importance of socioeconomic resources for the quality of Korean life at the level of specific life domains.

Reprinted from the journal

103

123

C.-M. Park

6.2 Life Spheres The domains of life do not exist independently of each other. Some domains are more closely related to each other than are others. To explore how the Korean people distinguish life spheres, we performed factor analysis on the entire set of 16 life domains and estimated the proximity of their relations. Table 8 shows that the 16 domains are grouped into three clusters. A large cluster of eight domains including income, standard of living, education, job, health, leisure, housing, and spiritual life displays primary loading on the first factor, meaning they are most related to the personal sphere of life. Domains in this sphere are associated with what an individual person holds and does, and they include both material and non-material aspects of life. A smaller cluster of four domains, including the social welfare system, the democratic system, public safety, and the environment, displays primary loading on the second factor, meaning they are most related to the public sphere of life. Domains in this sphere are primarily associated with conditions of community or national life. The final cluster of four domains including neighbors, friendships, marriage, and family life displays primary loading on the third factor, meaning they are most associated with the interpersonal life sphere. Domains in this sphere involve a variety of intimate human contacts. It is notable that spiritual life has substantial loading on the third factor, while marriage and family life have substantial loading on the first factor. These findings suggest that marriage and family life are also associated with the personal sphere, while spiritual life, the interpersonal sphere. In brief, the Korean people tend to distinguish their various life aspects into three broad spheres: personal, interpersonal, and public.

Table 8 Distinguishing life spheres of domain assessments h2

Factors Personal

Public

Interpersonal

Household income

.78

.65

Standard of living

.71

.66

Education

.71

.51

Job

.70

.53

Health

.61

.39

Leisure

.52

.44

Housing

.51

Spiritual life

.46

.44 (.42)

.44

Welfare system

.75

.68

Democratic system

.73

.58

Public safety

.73

.61

Environment

.72

Neighbors

.64 .70

Friendships

.57

.67

.52

Marriage

(.48)

.61

.60

Family life

(.50)

.56

.57

Note: The reported loadings were from a principal components solution with varimax rotation using a listwise deletion. Loadings of greater than 0.40 were reported

123

104

Reprinted from the journal

The Quality of Life in South Korea

In which life spheres do the Korean people fare better? All the domains associated with the interpersonal sphere are rated positively, and their PDI values are all above ?50% (see Table 6). In contrast, there is no notable pattern of satisfaction or dissatisfaction in the personal and the public spheres. All of the domains associated with the personal sphere are rated positively, but their PDI values vary greatly from a low of ?3 to a high of ?42. In the personal sphere, material life domains tend to be less satisfying than nonmaterial life domains. In the public sphere, two domains are rated positively, while one, negatively. Their PDI values vary greatly from a low of -18 to ?21. Overall, of the three life spheres, the Korean people find themselves most satisfied in the interpersonal sphere and least satisfied in the public sphere.

7 Determinants of Global Quality of Life 7.1 Bivariate Analysis Satisfaction or dissatisfaction with specific life domains is likely to influence global quality of life. Because some life domains are more central than others, however, assessments of specific life domains are expected to have varying levels of influence on global quality of life. In this section, we compare the extent to which each of the 16 domains surveyed is linked to global assessment of life quality. Which life domains are most and least related to feelings of happiness, enjoyment, and achievement, as well as their composite index of overall quality of life?3 Table 9 presents simple correlation coefficients. Comparing the magnitude of coefficients across the domains, we identify those life domains which contribute most to global quality of life. In the case of happiness, standard of living has the strongest relationship. It is followed by marriage, household income, family life, and spiritual life, in that order. This pattern of relationships is also found in the case of enjoyment. The pattern is somewhat different in the case of achievement. Standard of living again has the strongest relationship, but it is followed by household income, marriage, job, housing, and family life, in that order. One of the notable findings is that standard of living is consistently the domain most strongly related to both the affective and cognitive quality of life. It is also notable that spiritual life is more strongly related to the affective quality, while job and housing are more strongly related to the cognitive quality. When the three feelings of life quality are considered together, standard of living stands out as the most powerful influence on the overall quality of life. Other notable influences include marriage, household income, family life, and spiritual life. These findings show that the overall quality of life in Korea depends far more on the gratification of the need for having and the need for relating than on the need for being. It also shows that the personal and interpersonal spheres of life contribute most to the overall quality of Korean life, while 3

To construct a seven-point index of overall quality of life, we first converted the five-point happiness scale into a three-point scale (very happy = 2, quite happy = 1, and neither happy nor unhappy, not too happy, and very unhappy = 0), and the four-point enjoyment and achievement scales into their respective threepoint scales (often = 2, sometimes = 1, and rarely and never = 0 for the enjoyment scale; a great deal = 2, some = 1, and very little and none = 0 for the achievement scale). We then summed up the recoded scores of happiness, enjoyment, and achievement. Scores on the resulting index range from 0 to 6, which represent, respectively, the worst and best overall quality of life. However, it should be noted that because of the nature of its component scales, this index of overall life quality is biased toward the affective quality of life at the expense of its cognitive quality. Reprinted from the journal

105

123

C.-M. Park Table 9 Simple correlations between domain satisfactions and global life quality Happiness

Enjoyment

Achievement

Overall quality

Housing

.36

.32

.36

.40

Friendships

.28

..26

.23

.30

Marriage

.42

.42

.40

.50

Standard of living

.45

.44

.45

.53

Household income

.42

.39

.41

.48

Health

.29

.31

.21

.32

Education

.29

.32

.30

.36

Job

.34

.35

.38

.41

Neighbors

.20

.16

.16

.21

Public safety

.18

.16

.13

.20

Environment

.18

.16

.18

.21

Welfare system

.17

.19

.15

.20

Democratic system

.16

.17

.12

.18

Family life

.40

.39

.36

.45

Leisure

.35

.36

.32

.41

Spiritual life

.39

.39

.31

.44

the public sphere contributes the least. The closer and more immediate the life domains are to a person’s daily life, the larger their contributions are to his or her experience of life quality. The farther and more remote the life domains are to a person’s daily life, the smaller their contributions are to his or her experience of life quality (Park and Shin 2005). 7.2 Multivariate Analysis In this section we use three clusters of control variables—demographics, lifestyles, and value priorities—to examine the effects satisfaction levels with life domains have on global quality of life. We perform OLS on these variables and estimate the independent effects of individual life domains and their clusters on the three measures of global life quality— happiness, enjoyment, and achievement—as well as their composite index. Table 10 presents the results of analysis for an entire sample, and Table 11 for a subsample of the married.4 Both tables report two statistics—beta and R2—resulting from the multiple regression analyses. Comparing the magnitude of beta or standardized regression coefficients across the four clusters of independent variables, we identify those clusters or variables that independently contribute to global life quality. We begin with the entire sample. First, we look at satisfaction with life domains. In the case of happiness, satisfaction levels with some life domains have significant effects. Housing has the most powerful positive influence. Next to this domain are spiritual life, standard of living, public safety, family life, and health, in that order. It seems odd that environment has strong, but negative effects, after other variables are controlled. Second, we look at demographic variables. Being female instead of male or married instead of unmarried contributes to happiness. As people get older, they are less likely to be happy. 4

In order to perform an analysis of an entire sample, satisfaction with marriage was excluded from the first set of regression equations. In contrast, since the second set of regression equations included satisfaction with marriage and excluded marital status, it applies to married people only.

123

106

Reprinted from the journal

The Quality of Life in South Korea Table 10 Effects of domain satisfactions on global life quality after controlling demographic variables, lifestyles and value priorities (Entire sample) Happiness (0–4)

Enjoyment (0–3)

Achievement (0–3)

Overall quality (0–6)

Demographic Gender (2 = female) Age Education Income Marital status(2 = married)

.10**

.07*

.01

-.11**

-.10*

-.05

.05 -.13**

.00

-.00

-.00

-.01

-.02

-.05

-.01

-.04

.05

.06

-.01

.03

.02

Modern

.02

-.00

Religious

.05

Digital

.09*

.10*

.05

.09*

Global

.04

.03

.04

.05

-.01

-.01

-.04

-.03

.05

.05

.01

.03

-.01

.05

-.01

.00

Community

.08*

.09** -.01

Lifestyles .08*

.04

.01

.03

.07*

Value priorities Having Relating Being Personal domains Housing

.14**

Standard of living

.12**

Household income

.04

Health

.07*

Education

.06 .19** -.01 .08*

.15**

.11**

.19**

.19**

.06

.05

-.02

.05

-.04

.02

.05

.02

Job

.05

.06

.10**

.07

Leisure

.05

.07

.03

.08*

Spiritual life

.13**

.12**

.06

.15**

Interpersonal domains Friendships

.06

.02

-.00

.03

Neighbors

.04

.02

.02

.03

Family life

.08*

.07

.06

.07*

Public domains Public safety

.11**

Environment

-.12**

-.14**

Welfare system

.00

.05

.02

Democratic system

.01

.04

-.04

.01

.35

.34

.30

.43

(887)

(886)

(885)

(883)

R2 (N)

.09*

.05 -.08

.09* -.15** .03

* Statistically significant at the 0.05 level ** Statistically significant at the 0.01 level Entries are standardized regression coefficients, beta

Reprinted from the journal

107

123

C.-M. Park Table 11 Effects of domain satisfactions on global life quality after controlling demographic variables, lifestyles and value priorities (Only married people) Happiness (0–4)

Enjoyment (0–3)

Achievement (0–3)

Overall quality (0–6)

Demographic Gender (2 = female) Age Education

.11** -.11**

.15** -.07

.03

.10**

-.05

-.12**

.02

.02

.03

.01

Income

-.04

-.04

.01

-.03

Community

-.02

.03

.02

-.01

Modern

.04

.03

.05

.04

Religious

.07

.06

.05

.08*

Digital

.12**

.11*

.04

.10**

Global

.02

.04

.01

.04

-.01

-.02

-.07

-.03

.04

.04

.00

.02

-.01

.06

-.01

.01

Lifestyles

Value priorities Having Relating Being Personal domains Housing

.12**

.03

.12**

.07

Standard of living

.13*

.17**

.20**

.19**

Household income

.05

.03

.07

.07

Health

.03

.05

-.09*

.00

Education

-.10**

-.05

.00

-.06

Job

.03

.04

.11*

Leisure

.05

.07

.02

.05 .07

Spiritual life

.09*

.07

.01

.10**

-.07

-.05

Interpersonal domains Friendships

-.01

-.05

Marriage

.15**

.18**

.17**

.21**

Neighbors

.02

.01

.00

.03

Family life

.11*

.09

.06

.08*

Public domains Public safety

.12**

Environment

-.13**

.08* -.13**

Welfare system

.03

.11**

Democratic system

.02

.03

R2 (N)

.03 -.05

.09* -.13**

.04

.06

-.01

.01

.37

.39

.33

.48

(676)

(676)

(676)

(675)

* Statistically significant at the 0.05 level ** Statistically significant at the 0.01 level Entries are standardized regression coefficients, beta

123

108

Reprinted from the journal

The Quality of Life in South Korea

Socioeconomic resources such as education and income have no effects after other variables are controlled. The type of residential community has no effects. Third, we look at lifestyles. Living a digital life contributes to happiness. Yet other lifestyle factors, such as being modern, religious or globalized, make no contribution to happiness. Lastly, we look at value priorities. None of the value priorities has significant effects. This entire set of four clusters of variables accounts for one-third (35%) of the variance in happiness. For enjoyment, we again begin with satisfaction with life domains and again find some significant effects. Standard of living has the most powerful influence. It is followed by spiritual life, public safety, and health, in that order. Again, environment has significant but negative effects after other variables are held constant. Second, we look at demographic variables and find being female instead of male contributes to enjoyment. As people get older, they are less likely to have an enjoyable life. Socioeconomic resources such as education and income have no independent effects after other variables are controlled. Where people live makes no contribution to enjoyment. Third we look at lifestyles. Only two lifestyle types, digital and religious, contribute to enjoyment. Lastly, we look at value priorities and find no significant effects. This entire set of four clusters of variables accounts for one-third (34%) of the variance in enjoyment. For achievement, we once again begin with satisfaction levels for life domains and find a few significant effects. Standard of living has the most powerful influence. It is followed by housing and having a job. None of the remaining domains has significant effects. This finding suggests that only the material life domains contribute to achievement. Noteworthy is that none of the five demographic variables, four lifestyles, or three value priorities makes any contribution to enjoyment. This entire set of four clusters of variables accounts for three-tenths (30%) of the variance in achievement. The last column of Table 10 shows the effects of the independent variables on the composite index of overall life quality. First, of the 16 life domains considered, standard of living has the most powerful effect. It is followed by spiritual life, housing, public safety, leisure, and family life, in that order. Again, environment has significant but negative effects. Second, only two demographic variables have significant effects. Being married instead of unmarried contributes to a better overall life quality. Age has negative effects, indicating that young people are more likely to experience greater well-being than are older people. Yet socioeconomic resources have no significant effects when other variables are held constant. Third, two lifestyles, being religious and digitally connected, contribute to the overall life quality. None of the value priorities have significant effects. This entire set of four clusters of variables accounts for more than two-fifths (43%) of the variance in the overall quality of life. As the analysis displays, among the Korean people as a whole, standard of living is consistently a powerful predictor of global quality of life. One of the notable findings is that the importance of life domains varies across the different dimensions of life quality. For instance, spiritual life, health, and public safety matter for the affective quality of life but not the cognitive quality. In contrast, having a job matters for the cognitive quality of life and not the affective quality. Yet standard of living and housing matter for the affective as well as the cognitive quality. Another notable finding is that environment has negative effects on the affective quality but not the cognitive quality. Also striking is that the level of education or income Koreans have has no independent influence on any dimension of their life quality. Gender, age, and marital status have an influence on the affective quality but not the cognitive quality. Two lifestyle types, being digitally connected and being religious, contribute to the affective quality.

Reprinted from the journal

109

123

C.-M. Park

Now we turn to the results of our analysis for the married sub-sample, as presented in Table 11. First, we look at satisfaction with life domains. In the case of happiness, satisfaction levels for some life domains have significant effects. Marriage has the most powerful influence. Next to this domain are standard of living, housing, public safety, family life, and spiritual life, in that order. It is intriguing that environment and education have significant but negative effects after other variables are controlled. Second, we look at demographic variables and find being female rather than male contributes to happiness. As people grow older, they are less likely to experience happiness. Socioeconomic resources such as education and income have no significant effects after other variables are controlled. Where people live makes no contribution to happiness. Third, we look at lifestyles. A digital life contributes to happiness while other lifestyle characteristics—being modern, religious, or globalized—do not. Lastly, we look at value priorities and find no significant effects. This entire set of four clusters of variables accounts for one-third (37%) of the variance in happiness. For enjoyment, we again begin with satisfaction levels for life domains and again find some significant effects. Marriage has the most powerful influence. It is closely followed by standard of living. Next to these domains are the social welfare system and public safety. Again, the environment has significant but negative effects. Second, we look at demographic variables and find being female instead of male contributes to enjoyment. In contrast, neither educational attainment nor income levels have significant effects. Neither do age nor residential community Third, we look at lifestyle types. Only digitalization makes a contribution to enjoyment. Lastly, we examine value priorities and again find no significant effects. This entire set of four clusters of variables accounts for two-fifths (39%) of the variance in enjoyment. For achievement, we again begin with satisfaction levels for life domains and find only a few have significant effects. Standard of living has the most powerful influence. It is followed by marriage, housing, and job, in that order. It seems odd that health has significant but negative effects on achievement. This finding suggests that satisfaction in material life domains contributes to achievement. It is noteworthy that none of the demographic variables, lifestyles, and value priorities has significant effects. This entire set of four clusters of variables accounts for one-third (33%) of the variance in achievement. The last column of Table 11 shows the effects of the independent variables on the composite index of overall life quality. First, of the 16 life domains considered, only five contribute to Koreans’ overall quality of life. Among married people, satisfaction with marriage has the most powerful influence. It is closely followed by standard of living. Much less powerful than these two domains are spiritual life, public safety, and family life. The environment again has significant but negative effects. Second, of the various demographic variables, being female rather than male contributes to a better overall life quality, and as people grow older, they are less likely to experience well-being. Yet neither socioeconomic resources nor residential community has significant effects. Third, of the lifestyles, two, being digitally connected and being religious, contribute to a better overall life quality. Lastly, none of the value priorities has significant effects. This entire set of four clusters of variables accounts for half (48%) of the variance in the overall quality of life. As the analysis shows, among married Korean people, standard of living and marriage are consistently the powerful predictors of global quality of life. Spiritual life, family life, public safety, and the social welfare system contribute to the affective quality of life but not the cognitive quality. In contrast, having a job contributes to the cognitive quality but not the affective quality. Yet standard of living, marriage, and housing contribute to both

123

110

Reprinted from the journal

The Quality of Life in South Korea

the affective and the cognitive quality. Especially notable is that among married people, public domains such as public safety and the social welfare system contribute to the affective quality of life. It is also notable that possession of socioeconomic resources makes little contribution to any dimension of life quality and that gender and age influence the affective quality but not the cognitive quality. It is interesting that being digitally connected contributes to the affective quality. For married and unmarried Koreans alike, standard of living stands out as a strong determinant of the overall quality of life. For married Koreans, satisfaction with marriage is another strong determinant. Material and marital aspects of life have a great deal of influence on Koreans’ general sense of well-being. In view of a slowly growing economy and a rising divorce rate in Korea today, these findings suggest that the Korean people as a whole are likely to experience a deterioration of subjective well-being.

8 Conclusion Especially for the last two decades, Korea has experienced tremendous political, economic, and social transformations. Since its transition from authoritarian rule in 1987, Korea has maintained an electoral democracy and expanded the limits of political rights and civil liberties. Recovering from the 1997 economic crisis after three decades of state-led phenomenal economic growth, Korea has steadily progressed toward a competitive market economy. By increasing government social expenditure and reforming welfare institutions, Korea has slowly moved toward a welfare state. As a leader of information and communication technological innovation, Korea has rapidly digitalized everyday life. All of these accomplishments make one wonder how forces of industrialization, democratization, globalization, and digitalization have affected the quality of life that the Korean people themselves experience on a daily basis. The analysis of the 2006 ABS shows that industrialization, globalization, and digitalization have varying effects on the lifestyles of the Korean people. Most Koreans are living thoroughly modernized, digitally connected lives, but the forces of globalization have yet to make much impact. Moreover, forces of cultural modernization have not deterred the Korean people from living religious lives. The analysis also shows that despite economic and technological advancements, the Korean people still strive for materialistic and acquisitive goals rather than goals associated with post-materialism and self-expression. The prioritization of their values reveals that they care much more about the need for having than about the need for being. This finding suggests that the Korean people have not yet fully acquired a sense of existential security. The analysis reveals that socioeconomic progress has failed to make every Korean experience a good quality of life. At present, only a minority of the Korean people live the highest quality of life, as evidenced by their reporting the full experience of happiness, enjoyment, and achievement. The global quality of life experienced by the Korean people does not match objective circumstances in which they live. The analysis shows that the quality of life experiences varies from one life domain to another, although Koreans make positive assessments of the quality of many domains. The Korean people tend to be most satisfied in the interpersonal life sphere and least satisfied in the public sphere. The analysis of determinants of global life quality indicates that satisfaction levels for standard of living and marriage have the most powerful influence on overall life quality. The Korean people tend to consider a satisfying marriage and a satisfying standard of living as necessary conditions for a happy, enjoyable, and accomplished life. Their feelings Reprinted from the journal

111

123

C.-M. Park

of well-being are more dependent on material and interpersonal aspects of life. This finding becomes even more meaningful in view of another finding that Koreans are not all that satisfied with their standard of living, but they are with marriage. Overall, despite the fact that Korea today is an economic powerhouse and a maturing democracy, the Korean people as a whole tend to be least satisfied with their material life as consumers and their public life as citizens. Despite the economic, political, and social transformations Korea has made over the last two decades, Korean citizens still see great room for improvement in the quality of their lives.

References Allardt, E. (1976). Dimensions of welfare in a comparative Scandinavian study. Acta Sociologica, 19, 227– 239. Andrews, F. (Ed.). (1986). Research on the quality of life. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan. Berger, P. (2002). Introduction: The cultural dynamics of globalization. In P. Berger & S. Huntington (Eds.), Many globalizations: Cultural diversity in the contemporary world. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Campbell, A. (1972). Aspiration, satisfaction, and fulfillment. In A. Campbell & P. Converse (Eds.), The human meaning of social change. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Campbell, A. (1981). The sense of well-being in America: Recent patterns and trends. New York: McGrawHill. Diener, E., Suh, E., Lucas, R., & Smith, H. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 276–302. Freedom House. (2007). Freedom in the World. http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=22 &year=2007&country=7208 (March 10, 2008). Hausmann, R., Tyson, L., & Zahidi, S. (2006). The Global Gender Gap Report 2006. Cologny/Geneva: World Economic Forum. Inglehart, R., & Welzel, C. (2005). Modernization, cultural change, and democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kaufman, D., Kraay, A., & Mastruzzi, M. (2007). Governance Matters VI: Governance Indicators for 1996– 2006. http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi2007/sc_chart_print.asp (May 10, 2008). Korea National Statistical Office. (2005/2007). Population and housing census. http://www.kosis.kr/ domestic/theme/do01_index.jsp. Mitchell, A. (1983). The nine American lifestyles. New York: Macmillan. OECD. (2006). OECD Broadband statistics to December 2006. http://www.oecd.org/document/7/ 0,2340,fr_2649_34223_38446855_1_1_1_1,00.html (July 4, 2008). OECD. (2008). OECD Factbook 2008. http://www.oecd.org/site/0,3407,en_21571361_34374092_1_ 1_1_1_1,00.html (July 8, 2008). Park, C., & Shin, D. (2005). Perceptions of life quality among the Korean Mass Public: Unraveling their dynamics and standards. Social Indicators Research, 70, 257–286. Shin, D., & Rutkowski, C. (2003). Subjective quality of Korean life in 1981 and 2001. In D. Shin, C. Rutkowski & C. Park (Eds.), The quality of life in Korea: Comparative and dynamic perspectives. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Son, J., Won, Y., & Moon, C. (2003). Changing conditions and quality of housing. In D. Shin, C. Rutkowski & C. Park (Eds.), The quality of life in Korea: Comparative and dynamic perspectives. Dordrecht: Kluwer. United Nations. (2008). World urbanization prospects: The 2007 revision population database. http://esa.un.org/unup/p2k0data.asp (July 4, 2008). UNDP. (2007/2008). Human development reports 2007/8. http://hdrstats.undp.org/countries/data_ sheets/cty_ds_KOR.html (February 28, 2008). World Bank. (2007). World development indicators database, April 2007. http://devdata.worldbank.org/ external/CPProfile.asp?PTYPE=CP&CCODE=KOR (May 6, 2008). Yang, O. (2003). Family structure and relations. In D. Shin, C. Rutkowski & C. Park (Eds.), The quality of life in Korea: Comparative and dynamic perspectives. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

123

112

Reprinted from the journal

Soc Indic Res (2009) 92:295–335 DOI 10.1007/s11205-008-9349-x

The Quality of Life in Hong Kong Ming Sing

Accepted: 6 October 2008 / Published online: 4 November 2008  Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Abstract The AsiaBarometer of 1,000 respondents shows that Hong Kong people have a great desire for materialistic attainment, and such an emphasis on materialism bodes ill for their quality of life. Negative assessments of the public life sphere, which encompasses the natural environment, the social welfare system, and the democratic system, also detract from the experiences of happiness, enjoyment, and accomplishment in Hong Kong. Surprisingly, access to digital communication devices helps Hong Kong people to experience a greater quality of life. Keywords Happiness

Hong Kong
Quality of life
Democracy
Asia
AsiaBarometer


1 The Quality of Life in Hong Kong Hong Kong is a Special Administrative Region of China. It consists of Hong Kong Island, the Kowloon Peninsula and the New Territories. Located to the east of the Pearl River estuary on the south coast of China, the region is bordered by the Kwangtung province of China on the north and the South China Sea on the east, south, and west.1 Historically, Britain colonized Hong Kong in the nineteenth century and returned it to China in 1997. Given its past colonial background and the dominance of Chinese residents (95%), Hong Kong currently uses both Chinese and English as its official languages. According to the World Bank, the 2006 population in Hong Kong was estimated to be seven million and growing at 1% annually. The life expectancy of Hong Kong people was estimated to be 82 years, with males averaging 79 years and females, 84 years. The percentage gross

1

Encyclopedia Britannica Online, http://search.eb.com.ezproxy.ust.hk/eb/article-9106286, accessed on February 19, 2008.

M. Sing (&) Hong Kong University of Science & Technology, Kowloon, Hong Kong e-mail: [email protected] Reprinted from the journal

113

123

M. Sing Various objective indices of human development

Table 1 a

Indicator

Hong Kong

Ranking from the top

Human Development Index (HDI) Value 2005b

0.927

21

Life Expectancy at Birth (Year) 2004b

81.80

2

Adult Literacy Rate (% Ages 15 and Older) 2004c

93.50

67

GDP per Capita (PPP US$) 2004a

30822

12

Overall Globalization Index 2005d

NA

a

b

2 c

Sources: Estes (2007), United Nations Development Programme (2006), Adult Literacy Rate is unavailable in the case of Hong Kong. Listed is the literacy rate 2004 from the United Nations Development Programme (2006), d http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/ 10-22-2007/0004686818&EDATE

school enrollment ratio for tertiary, secondary, and primary education was 31, 87, and 105% respectively, while the adult literacy rate stood at 94%.2 Economically, Hong Kong, together with South Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan, represents one of the most successful regions for achieving industrialization and socioeconomic modernization in a single generation. Between 1947 and 1952, massive influxes of labor, capital, and entrepreneurs into Hong Kong from mainland China allowed the Hong Kong government and business to successfully implement labor-intensive industrialization and export-led growth strategy (Sung in Corbo et al. 1985, pp. 117–121). Between 1960 and 1982, Hong Kong’s annual economic growth rate was 7%, the fifth highest rate in the world. Its GDP grew by 6.7% annually during the 1980–1992 period. Further evidence of Hong Kong’s economic vibrancy is its 6.7% annual average growth rate in GDP between 1980 and 1992 (World Bank 1984, p. 163). After 1970, Hong Kong diversified its economic base from consumer manufacturing to financial services and developed into the third largest financial center in the world. According to International Monetary Fund statistics, in 2007 Hong Kong ranked sixth in the world in terms of per capita GDP, with US$41,613 per capita in parity purchasing power. Hong Kong’s unemployment and inflation rates in 2006 were as low as 4.8 and 2.0%, respectively (Table 1).3 Decades of sustained economic development in Hong Kong have freed its people from the miseries of poverty and illiteracy and enabled them to live longer and better. According to the 2007–2008 United Nations’ Human Development Index, which measures life expectancy, adult literacy, and GDP per capita, Hong Kong ranks first of all Asian societies.4 According to the 2008 Index of Economic Freedom published by the Heritage Foundation, Hong Kong is the freest economy in the world.5 It is also a society with a high degree of global connections. According to the 2005 Globalization Index, which surveyed 2

See World Bank, World Development Indicator online www.worldbank.org/data/.

3

See International Monetary Fund, International Financial Statistics online www.imfstatistics.org/.

4

See United Nations, Human development index 2007/2008 online http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/.

5

The index has been based on 10 specific freedoms that are vital to national and personal prosperity and development. Those 10 freedoms include business freedom, trade freedom, fiscal freedom, government size, monetary freedom, investment freedom, financial freedom, property rights, freedom from corruption, and labor freedom, and they are equally weighted in order to generate an overall score. See the Heritage Foundation online http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/countries.cfm.

123

114

Reprinted from the journal

The Quality of Life in Hong Kong Table 2 Corruption perception index (CPI) 2007 Country

Score

Ranking of 180 societies

Hong Kong

8.3

14

South Korea

5.1

43

Taiwan

5.7

34

Singapore

9.3

4

Japan

7.5

17

China

3.5

72

Note: 10 = ‘‘highly clean’’, 0 = ‘‘highly corrupt’’ Source: Transparency International (TI) 2007 corruption perceptions index (CPI) http://www.icgg.org/ corruption.cpi_2007.html

72 countries, Hong Kong was the second most globalized country in the world.6 In the economic and personal contact dimensions of the Globalization Index, Hong Kong was at the very top. Its extensive connections with China could explain the large and increasing volume of tourism, direct investment, and trade.7 Hong Kong’s enviable track record in socioeconomic development and globalization has been paralleled by good governance and a low level of corruption (Sing 2006). According to Transparencies International, which monitors and compares perceived levels of corruption across the globe, only thirteen of 180 societies are less corrupt than Hong Kong, and it is the least corrupt society in Asia (see Table 2). Furthermore, Hong Kong has ranked high on five of the World Bank’s six indicators of good governance,8 scoring a perfect 100 out of 100 on regulatory quality, a 94 on government effectiveness, a 93 on control of corruption, an 89 on political stability and absence of violence, and a 65 on voice and accountability. This last is significantly lower than the same score for South Korea and Taiwan but higher than Singapore’s score in this category. This score indicates that Hong Kong’s political system remains a partial democracy although its government performs admirably. Hong Kong’s low level of democracy merits more discussion as it can adversely affect the quality of life. Between 1984 and 1997, the British Government gradually and proactively launched various democratic reforms and established an institutional foundation for electoral democracy. One key way it did this was through the incremental election of legislature members.9 As soon as China became Hong Kong’s new master, it began a reversal to 6

See WASHINGTON, Oct. 22/PRNewswire/. Source: http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl? ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/10-22-2007/0004686818&EDATE= accessed on November 12, 2007. The index is published in the November/December issue of Foreign Policy, 2007. The top twenty societies are: 1 Singapore, 6 Denmark, 11 Sweden, 16, New Zealand, 2 Hong Kong, 7 United States, 12 United Kingdom, 17 Norway, 3 Netherlands, 8 Canada, 13 Australia, 18 Finland, 4 Switzerland, 9 Jordan, 14 Austria, 19 Czech Republic, 5 Ireland, 10 Estonia, 15 Belgium, 20 Slovenia.

7

See WASHINGTON, Oct. 22/PRNewswire/. Source: http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl? ACCT=109&STORY=/www/story/10-22-2007/0004686818&EDATE= accessed on November 12, 2007. The index is published in the November/December issue of Foreign Policy, 2007.

8

See World Bank, governance data online http://www.worldbank.org/wbi/governance/govdata/.

9

At least in principle, the Chinese government promulgated in an international document that it would give Hong Kong government a degree of autonomy over all domestic affairs except national defense and foreign affairs Sing (2004), Overholt (2004), Ma (2007) and Scott and Leung (2004).

Reprinted from the journal

115

123

M. Sing

Rating of Hong Kong's Democracy Status from 19922007 (Indicated by Total Sum of Scores of Civil Liberties & Political Rights) 10 9

Competitive, partically illiberal

Total Score

8 7 6 5

Semicompetitive, partialy pluralist

4 3 2 1 0

1991- 1992- 1993- 1994- 1995- 1996- 1997- 1998- 1999- 2000- 2001- 2002- 2003- 2004- 2005- 20061992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Year Fig. 1 Ratings of Hong Kong’s democracy from 1991 to 2007

authoritarian rule by reducing popular participation in the electoral process and amending the electoral system in a direction that deters the participation of pro-democratic forces in the electoral process. Specifically, the Chinese government reduced the size of the functional constituencies from over two million to around 200,000 for the elections of the nine new legislative seats reserved for various professionals. It also installed the proportional representation system for selecting the twenty directly elected seats and made it difficult for pro-democratic forces to be represented in the legislature. Those measures have depressed Hong Kong’s level of democracy, as evidenced by the decreased levels of civil liberties and political rights as measured by the Freedom House (see Fig. 1). This brief account of Hong Kong’s political history and past development is offered as a background for an analysis of how Hong Kong people perceive the quality of life they experience on a daily basis and what factors shape their perceptions of life quality. We will first introduce the AsiaBarometer survey conducted during the months of July and August 2006 and analyze the demographic characteristics of the survey respondents and their lifestyles. Then we will analyze their value orientations and assessments of life quality from the perspectives of life as a whole and its specific domains. On the basis of these analyses, we will explore the factors powerfully shaping their assessments of overall life quality, as well as its components of happiness, enjoyment, and achievement. Finally, we will highlight key findings of our study and explore their policy implications.

2 Demographic Profile of Respondents The database of this study is the AsiaBarometer survey (ABS) conducted in Hong Kong from July 11 to August 3, 2006. For this survey, a total of 1,000 Hong Kong residents between the ages of 20 and 69 were randomly selected for interviews with professionally trained interviewers. Table 3 reports the gender, age, and six other characteristics of the respondents. The sample is nearly evenly distributed between the two genders with 48% male and 52% female. A plurality of 40% lives in the New Territories; 31% live on the

123

116

Reprinted from the journal

The Quality of Life in Hong Kong Table 3 Demographic features of the respondents Demographic profile

Gender Age group

Educational attainment

Household annual income

ABS 2006

Religion

%

Frequency number (’000)

%

48

Male

484

48

3270

516

52

3587

52

20–29

215

22

975

14

30–39

258

26

1128

17

40–49

268

27

1329

19

50–59

156

16

954

14

60–69

103

10

486

7

Low education

420

42

2532

46

Mid education

419

42

1641

30

High education

159

16

1313

24

Low income

380

41

960

43

Mid income

466

50

667

30 27

91

10

600

Single

302

30

1921

32

Married

631

63

3424

58

Other

67

7

580

10

Catholic

28

3

–

–

105

11

–

–

1

0

–

–

131

13

–

–

Sikh

1

0

–

–

Taoism

3

0

–

–

Shintoism

1

0

–

–

None

728

73

–

–

HK Island

203

20

1268

19

Kowloon Peninsula

311

31

2020

29

New Territories

486

49

3574

52

Other Christian Muslim (Sunnah) Buddhist (Mahayana)

Region

Frequency

Female

High income Martial status

HK census 2006

Note: For both ABS and Hong Kong statistics, ‘‘Other’’ refers to divorced/separated/widowed/other, ‘‘Low education’’ no formal education, primary school, and lower secondary school, ‘‘Mid education’’ senior secondary school and matriculation, ‘‘High education’’ college/university or above, ‘‘Yes’’ refers to those belong to a particular religion including Catholic\ Other Christian\ Muslim\ Buddhist\ Sikh\ Taoism\ Shintoism

Kowloon Peninsula, and the remaining 20% on Hong Kong Island. The average age of the respondents is 41. The 20–49 age group accounts for 74% of the total respondents, and the 50–69 age group accounts for 26%. As regards to education, 42% of respondents possess a low level of education, 42% have reached the senior secondary school or matriculation level, and 16% have achieved the college or university level. Regarding income, the lowincome group, or those with an annual household income of less than HK$150,000, makes up 41% of the sample. The middle-income group, which earns between HK$150,000 and HK$350,000 annually, makes up another 40%, and the high-income group, which has an annual household earning of more than HK$350,000, makes up 10% of the sample. Most Reprinted from the journal

117

123

M. Sing

respondents, i.e., 63%, are married, while 30% are single and 7% are widowed or divorced. The majority of respondents, i.e. 73%, reports having no religion. Among those who profess to have religious beliefs, Buddhists are the most popular, totaling 13%, followed by non-Catholic Christians, totaling 11% and Catholics, totaling 3.0%. To determine the representativeness of the sample, we compared its demographic characteristics with those from the 2006 Hong Kong census.10 The proportion of males and females in the survey matches that of the census, which shows males accounting for 48% and females, 52% of the total population of 6,827,000. The census data also fits the ABS surveys in regards to age, except the categories of education and income. Concerning education, the ABS sample has 12% more respondents who fall in the middle category than does the census, while the less-educated and the more-educated are underrepresented in the ABS sample by 4 and 8% respectively. Married citizens are overrepresented by 5% in the ABS sample. The middle-income group also seems to be overrepresented in the ABS survey, while it seems to under-represent those in the high-income group. However, it should be noted that the ABS and Hong Kong census defined income levels differently, with the ABS using lower maximum amounts for each level (e.g. In Hong Kong’s census data, ‘‘low income’’ refers to annual household incomes less than HK$179,988, while the ABS defined ‘‘low income’’ as an annual household income of less than HK$150,000.).

3 Lifestyles: Leading a Global, Digital, Secular and Diversified Life What kind of lives do people in Hong Kong lead? What are their families like? What sort of homes do they have? Are they religious? Are they politically active? Materialistically minded? How do they feel about their careers? Are they concerned with world affairs or only their communities? To discover the answers to these and similar lifestyle questions, this section examines Hong Kong people’s perceived identities; their place of residence, household composition, and eating habits; their access to public utilities and digital communication technology; their interactions with the outside world; their religiosity or secularism; their involvement in politics; and their perceived standard of living. It also examines whether lifestyles vary significantly across the different socio-demographic groups of Hong Kong people. The analysis presented below reveals that sustained economic development and increasing trade and services in recent decades have allowed Hong Kong people to lead highly globalized, secularized, and digitalized lives, regardless of their national identification as a Chinese or resident of Hong Kong, i.e. a Hong Konger. 3.1 Subjective Identifications To determine how Hong Kong people identify themselves, the ABS Hong Kong surveys asked whether they perceived themselves as a Chinese or a resident of Hong Kong. Respondents were highly divided over their own national identity, an understandable finding considering the country’s colonial history. A bare majority of 53% perceived themselves as Chinese, while 45% identified themselves as Hong Kongers. How respondents answered was tied to their placements in different demographic groups. For example, respondents between the ages of 20 and 29 were more likely to perceive themselves as 10

See HKSAR government, Statistics and Census Department online http://www.censtatd.gov.hk/.

123

118

Reprinted from the journal

The Quality of Life in Hong Kong

Hong Kongers than as Chinese (54% vs. 43%), while those in the oldest age group of 60– 69 were much more likely to perceive themselves as Chinese (69%) than as Hong Kongers (29%). Married people were more than likely than unmarried people to perceive themselves as Chinese, which makes sense considering married people tend to be older than unmarried. Those with low and high levels of educational attainment were also more likely to perceive themselves as Chinese than as Hong Kongers (Table 4). The survey also asked respondents whether they identified with any transnational groups. Forty-two percent of respondents identified themselves as Asian, 27% as having no particular group, 24% as a language group, 4% as an ethnic group that has a common genealogy or ancestry, 2% as a religious group, and 1% as any other transnational identity. Within gender, more males than females, identified themselves as Asian (46% vs. 38%). In terms of age group, those falling within the 20–29 group are more likely to identify themselves as Asian than are those between the ages of 40 and 49 (47% vs. 38%). Also interestingly, between 24 and 30% of those between the ages of 20 and 49 identify themselves with a language group. As for education and household income, the higher the education and household income, the more likely the respondents will identify themselves as Asian. In terms of national pride, a majority of respondents (75%) are very or somewhat proud of Hong Kong. The group with the largest proportion of very or somewhat proud respondents was the high-household income group with 81%, while the group with the lowest proportion of proud respondents was males (71%). When respondents were asked if they can recite the national anthem by heart, half said yes and half said no. Interestingly, more males (52%) than females (48%) said yes, they could. In terms of education, those with a high level of education (60%) were significantly more likely to say they could recite the anthem than those with a middle (48%) or low level of education (47%), and those without any religious belief were more likely to say they could recite it (54%) than were those who belonged to a particular religion (48%). Marital status and household income level made is no substantial difference. 3.2 Patterns of Living and Eating Hong Kong has been notorious for its high population density and pricey residential accommodations. This has strongly affected how and where residents live. As shown in Table 5, nearly one-half (47%) of Hong Kong people has four to five persons in their household, reflecting the fact that expensive housing has forced many to live with family members or relatives. About two-fifths (41%) of households have two to three persons, and only 5% are single-person households. For each demographic variable, those most likely to live alone are those between the ages of 30 and 39 (7%), those with a high educational level (8%), those with a low household income (8%), those who are single (12%), and those who belong to a particular religion (5%). Those who are most likely to live in a sixto-nine-person household are those between the ages of 20 and 29 (7%), those with a low educational level (8%), those with a high household income (10%), those who are married (8%), and those who are non-religious. Concerning housing type, there is a near even split between those who live in public residential units and those who live in private residential units (52% vs. 48%). This indicates that the Hong Kong government has played a major role in providing public housing. As expected, a greater proportion of low-income (57%) and low-education (57%) people live in public housing than those with a high income (43%) and a high level of education (54%). Reprinted from the journal

119

123

123

120

Religion

Martial status

Household annual income

Educational attainment

54

53

None

Yes

58

52

High

Other

49

Mid

56

57

Low

Married

49

High

44

50

Mid

Single

58

Low

69

60–69

53

40–49

55

55

30–39

50–59

43

53

20–29

Female

Gender

Age group

53

53

Male

Entire sample

Chinese

Sub-category

45

44

40

42

52

45

49

41

49

48

40

29

44

45

44

54

45

44

45

Hong-Konger

Self identification (ID)

Identification

1

0

0

0

1

1

1

0

1

1

0

0

1

0

0

1

0

1

1

Other

Table 4 Distribution of identification by demographics, %

2

2

2

2

2

2

1

1

1

2

2

2

1

3

1

2

1

2

2

No Self-ID

43

38

45

40

45

47

41

39

48

45

36

41

46

38

39

47

38

46

42

Asian

3

7

5

5

3

9

3

5

4

4

4

5

5

4

5

3

5

4

4

Ethnic group

25

22

22

23

28

28

31

18

26

27

21

14

18

26

30

24

25

23

24

Language group

0

6

0

2

2

2

1

2

5

1

1

0

3

1

2

3

2

2

2

Religious group

Identification with transitional group

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

2

1

Other

27

27

27

30

21

13

23

35

16

23

36

39

28

30

24

21

30

24

27

Not with particular group

76

72

81

75

74

81

76

74

78

74

75

79

76

72

75

779

79

71

75

Very\ somewhat proud

24

28

19

25

26

19

24

26

22

26

25

22

24

28

25

23

21

29

25

Not really\ not proud

National proud

48

54

40

50

51

51

49

50

60

48

47

54

53

45

46

56

48

52

50

Yes

52

46

60

50

50

50

51

50

40

52

53

46

47

55

54

44

52

48

50

No

Recite national anthem by heart

M. Sing

Reprinted from the journal

Reprinted from the journal

121

Religion

Martial status

Household annual income

Educational attainment

4

50–59

5

Yes

15

Other

4

1

Married

None

12

2

High

Single

4

Mid

8

High

8

5

Mid

Low

4

Low

6

4

40–49

60–69

7

30–39

3

4

20–29

Female

Gender

Age group

5

7

Male

Entire sample

41

43

37

52

40

40

30

40

46

40

47

36

49

37

40

45

38

40

42

46

52

30

51

42

58

49

41

45

43

53

39

53

50

42

51

49

46

47

4–5 Persons

7

7

3

8

6

10

8

5

6

6

8

7

7

7

6

7

9

5

7

6–9 Persons

1 Person

Sub-category

2–3 Persons

Numbers of family members living in household

Household

Table 5 Distribution on housing characteristics by demographics, %

30

29

36

30

29

14

25

39

20

26

37

39

33

27

30

27

32

27

30

Public rental

2

4

2

2

3

0

2

4

4

1

3

3

2

3

2

4

3

2

3

Public owned

4

3

5

3

5

7

3

3

9

4

1

1

3

3

3

6

4

3

4

Subsidized sales flat (rent)

Housing ownership

16

14

3

18

15

22

17

11

13

18

15

10

15

19

17

14

14

17

16

Subsidized sales flat (owned)

10

10

15

9

12

7

12

9

11

13

7

2

8

8

14

14

9

11

10

Private rental

38

40

40

39

36

51

41

34

43

38

36

46

39

40

34

36

37

39

38

Privately owned

The Quality of Life in Hong Kong

123

M. Sing

3.3 Eating Habits Table 6 shows that how Hong Konger eat depends upon their placement in various sociodemographic groups. For example, 31–37% of people between the ages of 20 and 49 would buy ready meals for breakfast, while only 16–20% of older people would. Married people (24%), those with a low level of education (24%), and those with a low income (20%) are also less likely to buy ready meals for breakfast than others in their individual categories. In terms of eating habits, 58 and 56% of respondents usually eat breakfast at home and at restaurants respectively. In contrast to breakfast, an overwhelming majority of respondents (92%) usually eat dinner at home, while 63% usually eat dinner at restaurants. For both breakfast and dinner, more females (breakfast, 63% and dinner, 94%) usually eat at home than males (breakfast, 52% and dinner, 89%). Those between the ages of 20 and 29 (41%), those with a high education (49%), those who are single (41%), and those with a high household income (47%), are less likely to eat breakfasts at home than others in their individual categories, and they are more likely to eat dinner at restaurants. Those between the ages of 30 and 59 (59–62%), those with a middle level of education (61%), those with a middle household income (59%), those who are married (59%), and those who are religious (58%) are more likely to eat breakfast at restaurants than others in their individual categories. 3.4 Eating Ethnic Foods Hong Kong cuisine is famous for its variety and high quality. According to statistics provided by the Hong Kong Tourist Board, there are more than 9,000 restaurants in Hong Kong, and they serve all kinds of food: Chinese, Asian, Western, Halal, Hong Kong delicacies, and fast food.11 Examining the eating habits of Hong Kong people reveals more than their culinary preferences; it offers insights into their views of family and tradition. The survey found more Hong Kong people are fond of dim sum (69%) than any other ethnic food. Following dim sum in popularity are sushi (46%), pizza (32%), Beijing duck (26%), hamburgers (24%), sandwiches (23%), curry (23%), instant noodles (21%), Pho (17%), Kimchi (14%), and Tom-Yum-Goong (11%). Females (51%) love sushi far more than males (40%). While people belonging to the 20–29 age group are fond of sushi (74%), they also like pizza (58%) and dim sum (57%). Of those between the ages of 60 and 69, a large percentage (88%) likes dim sum, while few (3%) are fond of hamburgers. People with higher education are less likely to like dim sum than are those with lower educations (60% vs. 79%), and they are more likely to favor sushi (61%), pizza (45%), hamburgers (30%), and sandwiches (29%) than are those with lower educations. Singletons are more likely to like sushi (67%) than dim sum (52%), while a large proportion of married people like dim sum (76%). It seems fitting that older and married people like dim sum as they are more family-oriented, and dim sum is a staple among Chinese families at public gatherings. Meanwhile, a greater proportion of the younger generation and of those with middle or high levels of education like sushi, pizza, and hamburgers because members of these groups have a high acceptance of Western culture and have more reason to value efficiency (Table 7).

11

See, Hong Kong Tourist Board, Discovery Hong Kong online http://www.discoverhongkong.com.

123

122

Reprinted from the journal

Reprinted from the journal

123

Religion

Martial status

Household annual income

Educational attainment

61

57

Yes

57

None

Other

47

High

66

52

Mid

Married

67

Low

41

50

High

Single

68

79

60–69

50

69

50–59

Mid

60

40–49

Low

54

30–39

63

Female

41

52

Gender

20–29

58

Male

Entire sample

Age group

Eat meals at home

31

24

30

24

39

35

36

20

37

31

24

16

20

31

31

37

27

31

29

Buy prepared meals

10

14

16

10

12

6

11

12

13

9

12

16

10

10

8

14

14

8

11

Eat instant food at home

Usual eating patterns for breakfast

Sub-category

Dinning habit

Table 6 Distribution of dinning habits by demographics, %

58

49

43

59

51

54

59

51

46

61

54

50

59

62

60

43

49

63

56

Eat out at restaurant

8

7

8

8

7

8

7

9

7

9

7

4

10

9

7

7

6

9

8

Eat out at food stalls

3

4

6

3

3

7

3

4

3

2

5

7

3

1

3

5

4

3

3

Other

10

10

8

8

17

18

10

8

15

13

6

4

5

6

12

21

11

9

10

Don’t eat

92

92

91

96

83

91

90

94

87

89

97

98

96

95

89

85

94

89

92

Eat meals at home

17

15

21

12

24

11

19

15

18

18

14

15

12

13

21

19

13

19

16

Buy ready meals

8

7

8

10

4

7

5

10

3

5

13

14

7

12

5

4

9

7

8

Eat instant food at home

Usual eating patterns for dinner

64

61

51

60

72

75

71

51

76

72

50

44

56

60

68

74

61

65

63

Eat out at restaurant

1

3

2

1

2

2

2

1

2

1

2

1

1

0

2

2

2

1

2

Eat out at food stalls

2

2

0

2

2

1

1

3

1

2

2

2

1

2

2

2

1

2

2

Other

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

Don’t eat

The Quality of Life in Hong Kong

123

123

124

25

28

28

Low

Mid

High

24

27

Yes

30

Other

None

29

Married

21

28

High

Single

27

18

60–69

26

38

50–59

Mid

27

40–49

Low

24

16

11

12

13

18

19

17

11

15

20

8

4

12

12

17

21

17

12

14

47

42

34

37

67

44

51

39

61

55

30

10

21

42

54

74

51

40

46

Sushi

25

22

16

21

32

26

26

22

30

27

18

3

20

23

25

36

23

25

24

Hamburgers

24

21

24

24

22

24

25

21

25

27

20

13

25

28

22

23

23

23

23

Curry

32

33

27

25

49

37

36

28

45

40

20

7

17

29

34

58

34

31

32

Pizza

11

10

15

10

13

14

12

11

13

14

7

2

10

12

11

16

14

8

11

Tom Yum Goong

69

70

78

76

52

60

69

72

60

62

79

88

78

72

63

57

69

69

69

Dim sum

15

21

16

17

16

22

18

14

18

17

16

12

17

18

17

15

18

15

17

Pho

21

29

33

23

23

28

24

23

29

23

22

19

16

26

26

24

24

23

23

Sandwiches

20

22

10

21

23

18

21

21

23

22

18

9

14

23

24

24

17

24

21

Instant noodles

7

5

6

5

8

8

5

7

8

5

6

5

5

9

7

3

5

7

6

None of the above

Note: Beijing duck, kimchi, sushi, curry, Tom-Yum Goong, dim sum, pho, and instant noodles are considered Asian food, meanwhile hamburgers and sandwiches are considered Western food

Religion

Martial status

Household annual income

Educational attainment

24

25

Female

30–39

28

Gender

20–29

26

Male

Entire sample

Age group

Beijing duck

Sub-category

Kimchi

Liking for ethnic foods

Ethnic foods:

Table 7 Distribution on liking for ethnic foods by demographics, %

M. Sing

Reprinted from the journal

The Quality of Life in Hong Kong

3.5 Extensive Use of Utilities in Hong Kong Thanks to rapid and sustained economic development in Hong Kong, the government has been able to provide citizens with all the necessary utilities including a public water supply, electricity, liquid petroleum gas or piped gas, fixed-line phone service, mobile phone service, facsimile service, and cable television. In terms of public access to utilities, Hong Kong has demonstrated a high degree common to modern metropolises. The average number of utilities used by the public is 5.4 out of 7. Excluding facsimile and cable television, access to the remaining five types of utilities is available to at least 95% of Hong Kong’s families, regardless of demographic groups. Also, about one-third of Hong Kong households (31%) have subscriptions to cable television. The percentage is higher among those with a high household income (43%) and among those between the ages of 20 and 49 (32–33%). These two groups have great consumption power and a fondness for the highquality, tailor-made, fee-based television programs. Owing to the rapid development of such communication tools as email, facsimile use is less common (16%) in Hong Kong (Table 8). 3.6 A Moderate to High Degree of Digitalization: Leading a Deepening Digital Life As a vibrant modern metropolis and financial center of the Asia-Pacific region, Hong Kong has established a strong communication infrastructure that enhances a high level of public Table 8 Distribution on utilities usage by demographics, % Utilities usage

Access to public utilities

Sub-category

Public water supply

Entire sample Gender Age group

Educational attainment

Electricity

LPG\piped gas

Fixed-line phone

Mobile phone

Facsimile

Cable television

100

100

99

95

99

16

31

Male

100

100

100

94

99

17

32

Female

100

100

99

96

99

16

31

20–29

100

100

100

92

100

16

33

30–39

100

100

100

95

100

16

32

40–49

100

100

99

96

99

15

32

50–59

100

100

99

95

99

23

30

60–69

100

100

99

99

96

11

25

Low

100

100

99

95

98

13

25

Mid

100

100

100

94

100

19

36 35

High

100

100

99

96

100

21

Household annual income

Low

100

100

99

94

98

12

24

Mid

100

100

100

96

100

18

34

High

100

100

99

97

100

23

43

Martial status

Single

100

100

100

94

100

15

33

Married

100

100

99

96

99

18

32

Other

100

100

100

91

97

10

21

None

100

100

100

97

99

17

28

Yes

100

100

99

94

99

16

32

Religion

Reprinted from the journal

125

123

M. Sing

access to electronic communication technologies. For instance, 52% of the public use computers to access the Internet and 42% to write emails at least several times a week, while 33% read or write text messages by mobile phones. Interestingly, those who never view the Internet (31%), who never use email (40%), and who never read/write text messages by mobile phones (33%) are quite common in Hong Kong. Males (56%), those between 20 and 29 (85%), people with a high education (94%), people with a high household income (69%), singletons (82%), and those having a religious belief (53%) are more likely to view Internet web pages by computers and to use email than others in their categories. These findings point to the different needs and/or capacity across demographic groups with respect to digital access. The fact that the younger and more educated people are more likely than their counterparts to have used digital devices suggests Hong Kong will experience a deepening digital life in the future (Table 9). 3.7 Global Life To explore how globally connected Hong Kong people are, the survey asked respondents how frequently they travel internationally, whether they have relatives and family members living abroad, how much they communicate online with people overseas, how many international job contacts they have, and how much they watch foreign programs on television. One would expect Hong Kong to be at least fairly globalized as this former British colony prides itself on maintaining a cosmopolitan character in an Asian setting, and Hong Kong meets this expectation. One key reason is because many people who emigrated from Hong Kong before the handover to China and then returned afterward have maintained overseas ties since resettling in Hong Kong. The survey finds that 17% of Hong Kong citizens indicate they have traveled abroad three times in 3 years. The overseas traveling is significantly higher for those with a high education (30%) and those with a high household income (32%) than for those with a low education level (10%) and those with a low household income (12%). In terms of foreign contacts, 36% of Hong Kong residents say they have family and relatives living abroad, while 13% indicate they have friends living abroad. The demographic variables that are most strongly correlated with having family or relatives abroad are a high level of education (51%), a high household income (45%), being single (31%), and being between the ages of 20 and 29 (38%). Regarding online communication with overseas people, 11 % of the entire sample reported having this communication, while 7% reported having foreign job contacts. Across various demographic groups, higher frequencies for both are found among those with a high education (33% for communication, 23% for contacts), those between the ages of 20 and 29 (21 and 11%), those with a high income (19 and 14%), and singletons (19 and 12%). Concerning the habit of watching foreign television programs, 29% of respondents have done so. Again, as expected, lower frequencies of this experience are found among people between the ages of 60 and 69 (9%) and those with a low level of education (18%). Such findings reflect that members of these groups are less likely to be able to speak and/or make sense of foreign languages. On Hong Kong people’s ability to speak fluent English, the better educated (87%), those between the ages of 20 and 29 (52%), singletons (51%), and those with high household income (51%) outperform the average of the entire sample (27%). Given Hong Kong’s improvements in education and increased globalization throughout the world, future generations in Hong Kong will likely experience more and stronger connections to the outside world (Table 10).

123

126

Reprinted from the journal

Reprinted from the journal

127

Religion

Martial status

Household annual income

Educational attainment

36

41

Yes

28

None

Other

60

High

28

51

Mid

68

22

Low

Married

81

Single

49

2

60–69

High

17

50–59

Mid

34

40–49

15

47

30–39

Low

73

37

20–29

Female

Gender

Age group

40

43

Male

Entire sample

12

11

13

2

12

15

9

15

10

13

18

6

1

7

12

19

12

11

13

6

6

5

6

7

4

3

5

8

1

9

4

4

5

7

6

5

6

6

11

12

10

14

6

4

8

16

1

9

17

11

10

18

11

5

13

10

11

Seldom

Several times a month

Almost every day

Sub-category

Several time a week

View internet web pages by computer

Digital access

Table 9 Distribution on digital access by demographics, %

30

33

54

40

8

23

22

44

4

15

58

83

61

28

18

5

34

28

31

Never

31

30

15

20

56

57

40

13

71

38

7

1

12

21

37

61

26

35

30

Almost every day

13

9

6

10

16

9

15

9

18

16

5

2

4

12

18

14

11

12

12

Several time a week

6

7

0

6

8

10

7

8

4

10

3

2

6

6

7

7

6

7

6

Several times a month

13

10

12

12

10

24

10

13

3

15

11

3

10

15

13

12

12

12

12

Seldom

Read\write emails by computer

38

45

67

52

9

100

29

57

4

20

74

92

69

46

25

6

45

35

40

Never

19

18

8

10

39

30

24

8

40

24

5

1

4

10

24

43

16

22

19

Almost every day

15

14

6

11

25

18

17

11

22

19

7

2

10

12

15

27

15

14

15

Several Time a week

12

10

12

11

13

8

14

11

12

17

6

5

6

16

14

10

11

12

12

Several times a MONTH

25

17

21

26

16

23

21

25

18

23

24

8

26

27

26

17

22

23

23

Seldom

29

41

54

43

7

22

24

45

8

16

58

85

53

35

21

3

36

29

33

Never

Read\write text messages by mobile phones

The Quality of Life in Hong Kong

123

123

128

Religion

Martial status

Household annual income

Educational attainment

18

13

50–59

60–69

15

18

None

Yes

13

Other

High

17

32

Mid

20

19

Low

Married

12

High

Single

20

30

Mid

10

18

40–49

Low

19

30–39

17

Female

17

18

Gender

20–29

17

Male

Entire sample

Age group

Traveled abroad 3 times in 3 years

36

34

33

34

40

45

38

31

51

42

24

30

33

37

36

38

35

36

36

Family or relative lives abroad

Which statement applies to you?

Sub-category:

Global life

Table 10 Distribution on global life by demographics, %

13

16

8

11

20

23

14

10

31

13

7

4

10

11

15

21

13

13

13

Friends from other countries

11

10

8

7

19

19

15

4

33

12

1

2

5

7

12

21

10

12

11

Online communication with abroad

7

7

3

5

12

14

8

3

23

6

1

1

4

5

9

11

6

7

7

Contacts with abroad in job

30

28

21

25

40

32

33

23

44

34

18

9

19

29

32

42

27

32

29

Watching foreign programs on television

41

40

54

45

28

0

37

47

15

32

58

63

49

42

36

27

43

38

41

None of the above

27

30

46

36

7

14

19

43

0

6

60

69

47

31

15

7

31

25

28

Not at all

47

40

37

47

43

35

47

46

13

65

37

25

41

48

55

42

46

45

45

Very little

23

25

12

14

44

39

30

10

67

27

2

6

10

16

27

46

21

26

23

Speak well enough

4

5

5

3

6

12

5

1

20

1

0

1

3

5

3

6

3

5

4

Speak fluently

How well do you speak English?

M. Sing

Reprinted from the journal

The Quality of Life in Hong Kong Table 11 Distribution on secularization by demographics, % Secularization

Belong to a particular religion

Frequency of praying\meditation

Sub-category:

Yes

None

Daily

Entire sample Gender Age group

Educational attainment

Household annual income Martial status

Religion

Weekly

Monthly

On special occasions

Never

27

73

7

3

2

10

78

Male

24

76

6

3

2

9

80

Female

30

71

8

3

2

12

76

20–29

25

75

7

2

2

14

75

30–39

28

73

6

3

2

9

81

40–49

23

77

9

3

1

9

78

50–59

30

70

6

3

2

12

78

60–69

36

64

7

4

1

7

82 82

Low

30

70

6

2

1

9

Mid

23

77

6

3

2

10

79

High

32

69

11

6

2

14

67

Low

25

75

6

3

2

12

77

Mid

27

73

6

3

2

9

81

High

31

69

13

3

0

7

77

Single

23

78

6

3

2

11

78

Married

29

71

7

3

2

11

78

Other

31

69

13

2

0

6

79

None

–

–

22

10

4

19

46

Yes

–

–

1

0

1

7

90

3.8 Secular Life When asked about their religious affiliation, nearly three-quarters (73%) of Hong Kong people declare no affiliation with any particular religion. This pattern of secular life is found across various demographic groups. The groups whose members are most likely to have religious beliefs are the 60–69 age group (36%), the highly educated (32%), and the high-household-income group (31%). Greater than three-quarters (78%) of the entire sample claim that they do not pray or meditate. Interestingly, those who do not formally belong to any religion are more likely to pray or meditate (54%) at least sometimes than those who belong to a religion (10%). This finding reveals that despite a low level of formal affiliation with a religion among Hong Kong residents, many do appeal to supernatural forces for peace and well-being (Table 11). 3.9 Political Life Due to a lack of opportunities to participate in the political process, Hong Kong people have long held a sense of political powerlessness. The limited power of elected politicians in the legislature and local councils continues to pose formidable barriers to any significant elevation of public involvement. This context helps explain why less than half of Hong Kong people have voted in territory-wide elections (40%) or local elections (46%). After excluding those who do not have the right to vote, the proportion of respondents in the Reprinted from the journal

129

123

M. Sing

survey who have voted in legislative council and district council elections jumps to 54% and 60% respectively, numbers that exceed the actual turnout rates of the latest 2004 legislative council elections (56%) and the 2007 district council elections (39%).12 All others group show a greater than 50% vote in legislative council elections. Interestingly, most demographic groups show a voting rate greater than 50% in legislative council elections, except females (48%), those between the ages of 20 and 39 (47%), those with a low level of education (49%), those with a low household income (46%), and singletons (50%). In contrast, only those between the ages of 20 and 29 (48%) show a less than 50% voting rate in local elections (Table 12). 3.10 Perceived Standard of Living While the rapid and continuous economic development of Hong Kong over the last four decades has, as the first section of this paper reported, dramatically raised the objective standard of living and life quality among Hong Kong people, rapidly escalating social inequality, life stresses, and a pervasive sense of cronyism especially during the posthandover period have caused a less impressive perceived standard of living for many Hong Kong people. Therefore, three-quarters (75%) of respondents to the ABS survey describe themselves as having an only average standard of living, and only 12% believe they have a relatively high standard of living. Those between the ages of 20 and 39 (17%) are more likely to be content with their standard of living than are people between the ages of 60 and 69 (11%). As one would expect, those with a high education level (28%) and those with a high household income (24%) are more likely to consider their living standard as high or relatively high (Table 13). On the whole, rapid and sustained economic development in Hong Kong over the last four decades has improved public access to utilities and turned Hong Kong into an increasingly digital and globalized as well as secular society. However, because of the Chinese government’s repeated objections to Hong Kong’s democratization, Hong Kong has not achieved any major democratic breakthrough.

4 Value Priorities This section examines how Hong Kong people value and prioritize various life attributes that affect quality of life. The ABS survey asked respondents to choose five life attributes that they considered most important out of a list of 25. Chosen items are then classified into four types, materialism, post-materialism, familism, and other, for a more refined analysis (Table 14). The top five priorities across various demographic groups are shown below in Table 15. By far the most prized life attribute is personal health. An astounding 82% of respondents considered ‘‘being healthy’’ important. The next most popular choice, ‘‘having a comfortable home,’’ garnered votes from 59% of respondents, while 44% of respondents chose ‘‘having a job.’’ ‘‘Being healthy’’ is a post-materialistic value; a comfortable home, a familial one; and having a job, a materialistic one. The fourth and fifth most important life attributes pertain to familism and are ‘‘spending time with my family’’ (36%) and ‘‘having enough to eat’’ (34%). These top five values all address 12

See the Hong Kong, Registration and Electoral Office online http://www.elections.gov.hk.

123

130

Reprinted from the journal

Reprinted from the journal

131

Religion

Martial status

Household annual income

Educational attainment

25

21

Yes

27

Other

None

23

29

High

Married

23

Mid

18

19

Low

Single

28

High

30

60–69

20

30

50–59

22

25

40–49

Mid

17

30–39

Low

14

18

Female

20–29

26

Age group

22

Male

Gender

6

8

3

8

6

10

7

6

8

6

7

5

9

8

5

8

7

7

7

11

11

6

11

12

12

12

9

18

9

10

7

13

11

11

11

10

12

11

7

7

5

7

8

7

8

7

8

7

7

5

8

7

7

7

6

7

7

Rarely

Entire sample

Sometimes

Every time

Sub-category

Most of the time

Frequency of vote in legislative council elections

Politicization:

Table 12 Distribution on politicization by demographics, %

28

28

30

27

29

18

26

30

22

27

31

22

24

28

29

32

32

24

28

Never voted

27

22

30

24

28

25

24

29

16

29

26

31

17

22

31

28

27

24

26

No right to vote

24

28

27

27

20

29

26

22

28

22

24

35

31

29

20

16

23

27

25

Every time

9

7

9

9

7

10

9

9

8

6

9

6

13

10

8

7

8

10

9

Most of the time

12

14

10

13

12

14

14

11

18

9

12

10

12

14

12

12

12

13

12

Sometimes

7

7

5

7

8

8

9

7

8

7

6

5

10

7

8

7

6

9

7

Rarely

Frequency of vote in district council elections

23

24

24

22

26

17

21

25

22

27

25

18

18

22

24

31

26

20

23

Never voted

25

19

25

22

27

23

22

27

16

29

24

27

16

19

28

27

25

22

24

No right to vote

The Quality of Life in Hong Kong

123

M. Sing Table 13 Distribution on living standard by demographics, % Wellness

How would you describe your standard of living

Sub-category

High\relative high

Average

Low\relative low

Entire sample Gender Age group

Educational attainment

Household annual income

Martial status

Religion

13

75

11

Male

13

76

11

Female

13

75

12

20–29

17

75

8

30–39

16

75

9

40–49

9

78

13

50–59

13

73

14

60–69

11

74

16

Low

9

73

18

Mid

12

81

7

High

28

66

6

Low

8

73

20

Mid

16

78

6

High

24

71

4

Single

18

76

7

Married

11

76

13

Other

12

67

21

None

12

78

11

Yes

14

75

12

basic needs of life. The next five value priorities also address basic concerns. In decreasing order of importance, these five values are ‘‘earning a high income’’ (29%), ‘‘living without fear of crime’’ (29%), ‘‘raising children’’ (27%), ‘‘having access to good medical care’’ (27%), and ‘‘being on good terms with others’’ (26%). These rankings reflect the pursuit of a better standard of living, physical safety, family welfare, and strong interpersonal relationships. The next five important needs ranked from eleventh to fifteenth are a mixture of post-materialistic and materialistic values: ‘‘being successful at work’’ (15%), ‘‘safe and clean environment’’ (13%), ‘‘pleasant community in which to live’’ (12%), ‘‘owning lots of nice things’’ (12%), and ‘‘enjoying a pastime’’ (12%). Less than 10% of respondents embrace the following, mostly post-materialistic, values: ‘‘having a good government’’ (9%), ‘‘express personality/use talents’’ (8%), ‘‘having access to higher education’’ (7%), ‘‘freedom of expression/association’’ (5%), ‘‘being devout’’ (4%), ‘‘appreciating art and culture’’ (3%), ‘‘contributing to community/society’’ (3%), ‘‘being famous’’ (3%), and ‘‘dressing up’’ (1%). Even when the sample is broken into various socio-demographic subgroups, ‘‘being healthy’’ and ‘‘having a comfortable home’’ consistently rank as the top two values. However, different groups choose different values for the third, fourth and fifth slots. More males (49%) stress ‘‘having a job’’ than females (38%), which reflects traditional gender roles and subsequent gender-based differences. Likewise, ‘‘spending time with family’’ is more important to females (38%) than males (34%). On the whole, this analysis shows that despite rapid and sustained economic development in Hong Kong over the last 40 years, materialistic and familial values still trump post-materialistic ones. This prioritization differentiates Hong Kong from most Western

123

132

Reprinted from the journal

The Quality of Life in Hong Kong Table 14 Distribution of life circumstance considered important, % Life circumstance

Classification

Percent

Rank

Being healthy

Post-materialism

82

1

Having a comfortable home

Familism

59

2

Having a job

Materialism

44

3

Spending time with your family

Familism

36

4

Having enough to eat

Materialism

34

5

Earning a high income

Materialism

29

6

Living without fear of crime

Post-materialism

29

7

Raising children

Familism

27

8

Having access to good medical care

Materialism

27

9

Being on good terms with others

other values

26

10

Being successful at work

Materialism

15

11

Safe and clean environment

Post-materialism

13

12

Pleasant community to live

Post-materialism

12

13

Owning lots of nice things

Materialism

12

14

Enjoying a pastime

Post-materialism

12

15

A good government

Post-materialism

9

16

Express personality/use talents

Post-materialism

8

17

Having access to higher education

Materialism

7

18

Freedom of expression/association

Post-materialism

5

19

Being devout

don’t belong to any category

4

20

Appreciating art and culture

Materialism

3

21

Winning over others

Post-materialism

3

22

Contributing to community/society

Post-materialism

3

23

Being famous

Materialism

3

24

Dressing up

Materialism

1

25

societies, where sustained economic development has contributed to the prevalence of post-materialistic and self-expression values (Inglehart and Welzel 2005). The greater emphasis placed on materialistic and familial values among Hong Kong people may explain the absence of large-scale democratic, environmental, and spiritual movements in Hong Kong, especially when the economy is in good shape.

5 Overall Quality of Life This section deals with overall quality of life, which is comprised of happiness, enjoyment, and accomplishment. The analysis will ascertain levels of these feelings and reveal both the socio-demographic group that is the most likely and the group that is least likely to experience these components of a high-quality life. While only 3% of respondents claim to be unhappy, as many as 46% of Hong Kong people say they are neither happy nor unhappy. Moreover, 38% of people claim that they rarely or never experience enjoyment, and 44% say they have very little or no accomplishment. Noticeably, 51, 62, and 56% of Hong Kong people experience some measure of happiness, enjoyment and accomplishment, respectively. Reprinted from the journal

133

123

M. Sing Table 15 Top five concerns of life circumstances by demographics, % Top five concerns 1st Entire sample Gender Age group

2nd

3rd

4th

5th

Health (82) Home (59) Job (44)

Family (36)

Eat (34)

Male

Health (82) Home (59) Job (49)

Family (34)

Eat (34)

Female

Health (83) Home (59) Job (38)

Family (38)

Eat (33)

20–29

Health (79) Home (55) Job (43)

Income (40)

Good terms with others (36)

30–39

Health (83) Home (61) Job (52)

Income (34)

Eat (31)

40–49

Health (81) Home (58) Job (45)

Family (38)

Children (37)

50–59

Health (83) Home (59) Job (45)

Family (42)

Eat (39)

60–69

Health (86) Home (63) Family (51) Eat (51)

Educational Low attainment Mid

Live w/o fear of crime (37)

Health (84) Home (62) Family (41) Job (40)

Eat (37)

Health (84) Home (60) Job (48)

Income (33)

Eat (31)

High

Health (69) Home (46) Job (43)

Good terms Family (36) with others (43)

Household annual income

Low

Health (84) Home (61) Job (45)

Eat (39)

Family (36)

Mid

Health (83) Home (60) Job (43)

Family (34)

Income (32)

High

Health (71) Home (56) Job (52)

Income (36)

Family (35.0) and eat (35)

Martial status

Single

Health (77) Home (56) Job (49)

Income (38)

Good terms with others (36)

Married Health (84) Home (61) Job (42)

Family (40)

Children (37)

Other Religion

Health (73) Home (51) Family (37) Children (36)

Job (34.0) and eat (34)

None

Health (77) Home (55) Family (39) Eat (39)

Job (36)

Yes

Health (83) Home (66) Job (46)

Eat (32)

Family (35)

The groups whose members are least likely to experience happiness are the 60–69 age group (38%), the low-education group (38%), the low-household income group (41%), and singletons (59%). Those three groups are also more likely to have a relatively low income and therefore a lower living standard, poorer life chances, and self-esteem. Concerning life enjoyment, the people who are least likely to enjoy life are those between the ages of 30 and 39 (58%), those with a low level of education (56%), and those with a low household income (57%). Higher job tensions may have undermined the enjoyment of those between the ages of 30 and 39. Those who are least likely to feel accomplishment include those between the ages of 20 and 29 (55%), those with a low level of education (49%), those with a low household income (49%), and singletons (52%). Interestingly, out of all the age groups, those between the ages of 20 and 29 are the most likely to enjoy life (71%) and feel happiness (63%) even though they are the least likely to feel accomplished (55%). This may be due to not having so many family pressures and lack of accomplishment at their jobs owing to their short time in the workforce. On happiness, singletons (59%), those with a high level of education (70%), and those with a high household income (69%) are more likely to feel happiness than the married (48%), those with a low level of education (39%), and those with a low level of income (41%). To measure respondents’ overall quality of life composed of happiness, enjoyment, and accomplishment, we constructed a summative 7-point scale ranging from a low of 0 to a

123

134

Reprinted from the journal

The Quality of Life in Hong Kong 25.00%

24%

21% 20.00%

20% 19%

15.00%

11% 10.00%

5%

5.00%

2% 0.00% Score 0 (Lowest)

Score 1

Score 2

Score 3

Score 4

Score 5

Score 6 (Highest)

Fig. 2 Distribution on the 7-point overall life quality index, %

high of 6. Figure 2 shows that on this scale, the overall average score for quality of life is 2, which is just below the midpoint of 3. This overall average score implies that the majority of Hong Kong people do not have a high overall quality of life. In fact, 64.5% of them scored a 2 or less. Those who are most likely to report a low quality of life include those with a low level of education (71%), those with a low household income (68%), those between the ages of 30 and 39 (67%) and 60 and 69 (67%), and singletons (66%). In contrast, those who are most likely to report a high overall quality of life, i.e. those scoring 4 and above on the 7point scale, are those with a high level of education (26%), those with a high household income (25%), those between the ages of 60 and 69 (19%), females (20%), and nonreligious people (19%). All of these percentages are greater than the percentage of respondents reporting a high overall quality of life for the entire sample (17%). Comparing the overall average scores for various groups shows no significant difference between different genders, ages, marital statuses, and religious beliefs. However, education level has a definite impact on quality of life, as those with a low education level score 1.7, those with a middle education level score 2.1, and those with a high level of education score 2.5. Similarly, those with a low income score significantly less than those with a middle income or high income (1.8, 2.1, 2.5, respectively). These findings that people with a low income and low education are more likely to have an overall lower quality of life aligns well with the earlier finding that Hong Kong people place a high value on materialistic pursuits (Table 16).

6 Satisfaction with Life Domains This section compares the extent to which people feel satisfied with sixteen specific life domains, which are classified into the five spheres of ‘‘personal life,’’ ‘‘interpersonal life,’’ Reprinted from the journal

135

123

123

136

44

50–59

50

51

Yes

37

Other

None

59

48

Single

69

High

Married

56

Mid

70

High

41

55

Mid

Low

39

Low

62

64

56

62

65

76

65

57

69

67

56

60

63

61

58

71

63

62

62

Enjoyment (often and sometimes)

56

56

48

59

52

62

60

49

68

58

49

56

56

56

55

55

57

54

56

Accomplishment (some and a great deal)

20

19

27

21

16

9

16

28

9

16

28

26

24

21

19

13

20

20

20

0 = Lowest

20

22

23

20

23

21

20

21

18

22

21

19

19

18

26

22

21

21

21

1

24

24

18

22

28

22

28

19

28

24

21

21

20

26

22

27

22

25

24

2

20

15

12

19

18

22

21

17

21

21

16

14

20

18

17

22

18

19

19

3

10

12

9

11

10

15

10

10

12

12

8

11

10

10

10

12

11

10

10

4

7-Point index values on overall life quality

Note: ‘‘#’’ implied that the means comparison for the 7-point overall life quality is statistically significant

Religion

Martial status

Household annual income

Educational attainment

48

40–49

38

53

30–39

60–69

63

12

20–29

Female

Gender

Age group

51

11

Male

Entire sample

Happiness (quite and very happy)

Types of assessment (%)

Table 16 Patterns on the overall life quality by demographics

5

6

9

5

5

8

5

5

10

4

4

7

5

5

4

5

5

5

5

5

2

2

2

2

1

3

2

1

3

2

1

2

2

2

2

1

3

0

2

6 = Highest

2.0

2.0

1.9

2.0

2.0

2.5#

2.1#

1.8#

2.5#

2.1#

1.7#

1.9

2.0

2.0

1.9

2.2

2.1

2.0

2.0

Overall average

M. Sing

Reprinted from the journal

The Quality of Life in Hong Kong Table 17 Assessment of life domains, % -2 to ?2 Scale points (%) 2

Mean

Very/somewhat satisfied (A%)

Very/somewhat dissatisfied (B%)

PDI

-2

-1

0

1

(A - B)

Education

1

12

51

35

2

0.58

37

12

25

Job

1

8

50

39

3

0.71

42

9

33

Health

1

6

34

55

5

1.07

60

7

53

Personal life sphere

Interpersonal life sphere Family life

0

2

40

53

5

1.08

58

3

55

Friendships

0

2

25

62

10

1.32

73

2

70

Marriage

0

2

26

60

13

1.30

72

2

71

Neighbors

1

7

57

34

1

0.61

35

8

28

Material life sphere Standard of living

1

8

54

36

2

0.65

38

9

29

Household income

2

13

52

32

1

0.48

33

15

18

Housing

1

10

35

50

5

0.93

55

11

44

Non-material life sphere Leisure

1

6

45

42

7

0.84

49

7

42

Spiritual Life

0

6

51

39

4

0.76

43

6

37

Public safety

0

7

40

49

4

0.95

53

7

46

Environment

0

7

51

40

2

0.74

42

7

34

Welfare system

1

12

57

29

2

0.45

30

13

17

Democratic system

2

9

52

35

2

0.59

37

11

26

Public life sphere

Note: -2—very dissatisfied, -1—somewhat dissatisfied, 0—neither satisfied nor dissatisfied, ?1—somewhat satisfied, ?2—very satisfied

‘‘material life,’’ ‘‘non-material life,’’ and ‘‘public life.’’ The sixteen life domains are (1) housing, (2) friendships, (3) marriage, (4) standard of living, (5) household income, (6) health, (7) education, (8) job, (9) neighbors, (10) public safety, (11) the environment, (12) social welfare system, (13) democratic system, (14) family life, (15) leisure, and (16) spiritual life. The sixteen life domains incorporate a wide spectrum of potential needs among Hong Kong people, including those envisaged as important to their lives (Table 17). By estimating the number of satisfied and dissatisfied domains for various socio-demographic groups, this section will identify which life domains the Hong Kong people find the most and least satisfying. In addition, this section will explore which life domains and spheres are most pertinent to experiencing a life of happiness, enjoyment, and accomplishment. To start, satisfaction with life domains is measured on a 5-point scale, running from very dissatisfied (-2) through neither dissatisfied nor satisfied (0) to very satisfied (?2). Among the sixteen life domains, most Hong Kong people are satisfied with their friendships (73%) and marriages (72%), two domains that belong to the interpersonal life sphere. The third most satisfying life domain is health (60%), which belongs to the personal life sphere. In contrast, the most unsatisfying life domains are household income (15%), the Reprinted from the journal

137

123

M. Sing

welfare system (13%), and education (12%), which are associated with the material, public, and personal life spheres, respectively. The Percentage Difference Index (PDI) measures the percentage difference between those who are very/somewhat satisfied and very/somewhat dissatisfied within each life domain. A big difference implies that the domain is far more satisfying than unsatisfying. For example, the PDI score for marriage is 71, which means the percentage of respondents who find marriage satisfying is 71% points higher than the percentage of respondents who find marriage unsatisfying. Marriage has the highest PDI score, followed by friendships (70), and family life (55). The lowest PDI scores are for the welfare system (17), household income (18), and education (24). Grouping the domains into the aforementioned five life spheres shows that the interpersonal life sphere is the one with which people are most likely to feel satisfied (60%), while the sphere of material life is the one most likely to arouse feelings of dissatisfaction (11%). On the whole, the level of satisfaction is different among various domains, and people are more satisfied than dissatisfied along each life domain. Table 18 presented the top one and two most satisfying and dissatisfying domains for various socio-demographic groups. In addition, it reports the PDI scores for the most satisfying and most dissatisfying items. Overall, friendships and marriage are by far the most satisfying domains, as they fill both top slots for fourteen of the eighteen sociodemographic groups. Also appearing in the top two slots are health and education, leisure, and housing. These domains also have the highest PDI scores. Concerning the most and second most dissatisfying domains, the survey analysis shows household income, welfare system, democratic system, education, health, family life, and job to be the most dissatisfying. The differences between satisfaction and dissatisfaction levels for various life domains reveals that interpersonal life spheres have on the whole yielded the greatest satisfaction, while the spheres of public life, material life, and personal life spheres have much room for improvement. Considering the differences among various socio-demographic groups reveals that although men and women both choose friendships and marriage as their most satisfying domains, they differ in which domains they find dissatisfying. Males are most likely to be dissatisfied with household income (14%) and the welfare system (12%), while females are most likely to be dissatisfied with education (16%) and household income (15%). Even more than gender, age impacts which domains Hong Kong people find the most and least satisfying. For those between the ages of 20 and 59, marriage (ranging from 71 to 86%) and friendships (ranging from 64 to 86%) are either the most or second most satisfying domains, but for people between the ages of 60 and 69, the two most satisfying domains are marriage (67%) and family life (61%). The five age groups also differ in the domains they label the most dissatisfying, which include the welfare system, democratic system, household income, education, and health. Such diverse findings indicate that different age groups have different values and pursuits. Regardless of their levels of education and household income, respondents chose friendships and marriage as either the most or second most satisfying life domains. The two most dissatisfying life domains for those with a low education and a low household income are household income (22 and 25%, respectively) and education (17 and 15%, respectively). However, for those with a middle or high level of education, and those with a middle or high household income, the most and second most dissatisfying domains are either the democratic system (13, 15, 12 and 9%, respectively) or the welfare system (12, 17, 12, 8%, respectively). Such findings go far to confirm the theory of post-materialism and self-expression values, which conjectures that the more

123

138

Reprinted from the journal

Reprinted from the journal

Age group

139

Marriage (71.3)

Marriage (71)

40–49

50–59

Marriage (67)

Friendships (76)

30–39

60–69

Friendships (86)

20–29

Female Marriage (73)

Friendships (73)

Gender

Male

Friendships (73)

Entire sample:

Family life (61)

Friendships (64)

Friendships (69)

Marriage (76)

Marriage (85)

Friendships (73)

Marriage (72)

Marriage (72)

Household income (22)

Education (18)

Household income (16)

Household income (14)

Welfare system (12)

Education (16)

Household income (14)

Household income (15)

Friendships (70) Friendships (84) Marriage (74)

Marriage (66)

Friendships (60)

Marriage (71) Marriage (85) Friendships (74) Friendships (69) Marriage (70)

Household income (15) Household income (11) Democratic system (13) Welfare system (13)

Health (16)

Friendships (57)

Friendships (71)

Marriage (71)

Welfare system (12)

Marriage (65)

Friendships (70)

Marriage (71)

Welfare system (13)

Welfare system (16)

2nd

1st

PDI most (very/somewhat) satisfied (%)

2nd

1st

1st

2nd

Most (very/somewhat) dissatisfied (%)

Most (very/somewhat) satisfied (%)

Types of domain

Table 18 Most satisfied and dissatisfied life domains by demographics, %

Household income (1)

Education (16)

Welfare system (10)

Neighbors (20)

Neighbors (18)

Welfare system (14)

Welfare system (21)

Welfare system (17)

1st

Education (12)

Welfare system (17)

Household income (13)

Welfare system (22)

Welfare system (20)

Household income (15)

Household income (22)

Household income (18)

2nd

PDI most (very/somewhat) dissatisfied (%)

1.49#

7.32#

1.30#

1.22#

6.91#

6.75#

1.30

7.53

1.36#

6.94#

1.04#

1.14#

7.59#

7.54#

1.25

7.25

Very/ Very/ somewhat somewhat satisfied dissatisfied

Average number of domains

The Quality of Life in Hong Kong

123

123

Household annual income

Friendships (78)

Marriage (92)

Marriage (68)

Friendships (81)

Marriage (84)

High

Low

Mid

High

Marriage (66)

140

Friendships (78)

Marriage (75)

Friendships (61)

Friendships (89)

Marriage (78)

Friendships (61)

Friendships (87) Friendships (58) Marriage (74)

Marriage (92) Marriage (64) Friendships (80)

Democratic system (15) Education (15) Welfare system (12)

Friendships (74)

Friendships (77)

Marriage (78)

Welfare system (12)

Marriage (84)

Friendships (57)

Marriage (63))

Education (17)

Democratic Welfare system (9) system (8)

Democratic system (12)

Household income (25)

Welfare system (17)

Democratic system (13)

Household income (22)

2nd

1st

PDI most (very/somewhat) satisfied (%)

2nd

1st

1st

2nd

Most (very/somewhat) dissatisfied (%)

Most (very/somewhat) satisfied (%)

Types of domain

Mid

Educational Low attainment

Table 18 continued

1.13#

0.94#

1.53#

1.08#

0.62#

7.42#

8.61#

6.32#

7.74#

8.65#

Neighbors (21)

Neighbors (21)

1.49#

Welfare system (25)

Welfare system (18)

Very/ Very/ somewhat somewhat satisfied dissatisfied

Education (8) 6.57#

2nd

Democratic system (28)

Neighbors (24)

Household Education income (-2) (13)

Welfare system (18)

Welfare system (18)

Household income (2)

1st

PDI most (very/somewhat) dissatisfied (%)

Average number of domains

M. Sing

Reprinted from the journal

Reprinted from the journal

141

Friendships (73)

Marriage (73)

None

Yes

Friendships (73)

Marriage (70)

Housing (52)

Other

Friendships (60)

Leisure (62)

Married Friendships (69)

Household income (15)

Household income (13)

Household income (29)

Household income (15)

Marriage (68)

Friendships (71)

Friendships (67) Friendships (57) Friendships (70) Marriage (72)

Job (14)

Job (24)

Education (14) Welfare system (13)

Leisure (42)

Leisure (60)

Health and education (53)

Friendships (82)

Democratic System (14)

Family life (14)

Health and education (60)

Friendships (82)

Single

2nd

PDI most (very/somewhat) satisfied (%) 1st

2nd

1st

1st

2nd

Most (very/somewhat) dissatisfied (%)

Most (very/somewhat) satisfied (%)

Types of domain

Note: ‘‘#’’ implied the means comparison is statistically significant where 1%, 5%, and 10% respectively

Religion

Martial status

Table 18 continued

Welfare system (18)

Welfare system (15)

Household income (18)

Household income (18)

Household Job (-2) income (-8)

Democratic system (18)

Democratic system (17)

Public safety (16) Household income (17)

2nd

1st

PDI most (very/somewhat) dissatisfied (%)

1.93

1.33

1.23

7.20

7.27

1.24

7.53#

5.75

1.13

7.02#

Very/ Very/ somewhat somewhat satisfied dissatisfied

Average number of domains

The Quality of Life in Hong Kong

123

M. Sing

wealthy and educated people become, the more concerned they become with such postmaterialistic concerns as democracy and social equality (Inglehart and Welzel 2005).

7 Determinants of Life Quality This sections assesses and compares the direct and independent effects of lifestyle, value priorities, domain assessments, and demographic factors on the overall quality of life and its three components—happiness, enjoyment, and accomplishment. It seeks to answer the question, what makes people feel happy, satisfied, and accomplished? By comparing the answers we find to this question to what is known in the West, we may further explore the distinguishing characteristics of quality of life in Hong Kong. The implications of these findings include methods for improving the people’s wellbeing. This section uses multivariate regression analysis in which the dependent variables consist of the overall life quality index, happiness, enjoyment, and accomplishment. The independent variables total thirty-seven and belong to four categories: (1) socio-demographic factors, (2) lifestyle, (3) value priorities, and (4) life satisfaction variables.13 Tables 19, 20 present the statistical findings on beta and standardized regression coefficients from OLS regression estimates for the entire sample and the one for married people respectively with the STATA statistical software. Nine variables that were found consistently insignificant across all four dependent measures have been deleted. Those variables are self-identification as a Hong Konger, number of family members living in a household, number of ethnic foods liked, access to public utilities, religious background, satisfaction with household income, welfare system, democratic system, and spiritual life. This revision had little affect on the r-squares but the F-statistics showed significant increases, ranging from the smallest 11.19–24.93.

8 Interpretation of Regressions of Determinants on Subjective Well-being After adding demographic factors, lifestyle variables, value priorities, and domain assessments in the regression analysis, the total variance explained for the overall quality of life is 40%. Further results are elaborated as follows: First, Table 19 shows that with an estimated beta of 0.13, the subjectively perceived standard of living has the greatest influence on happiness, followed by satisfaction with family life (0.12), satisfaction with friendship (0.10), satisfaction with leisure (0.09), satisfaction with standard of living (0.08), fluency of spoken English (0.08), satisfaction with housing (0.07), number of international contacts (0.06), and average political involvement (0.05). Considering the above results, these rankings reflect that one’s subjectively perceived standard of living, interpersonal relationships, and leisure are of primary importance in shaping happiness in Hong Kong. For enjoyment, digital access is the most powerful predictor (0.19), meaning that the use of digital technology can prominently shape life enjoyment. The percentage of materialistic (-0.16) and post-materialistic (-0.10) items mentioned as important value

13

For data coding and description, see Appendix I.

123

142

Reprinted from the journal

Reprinted from the journal

143 0.08

Value priority

Life domain

% of Families

Wellness

Housing, scale 1–5

% of Post materialism

% of Materialism

Average political involvement, scale 1–5

Living standard, scale 1–5

Politicization

Praying\meditation frequency, scale 1–5

Fluency of English speaking, scale 1–4

Secularization

0.06

No. of international contacts, scale 0–6

Global life

0.07

**

0.07

-0.10

-0.16

0.08

-0.01

0.11

0.03

0.00

–0.07

0.10

0.19

0.03

0.02

0.07

0.06

-0.04

-0.03

0.14

-0.03

Beta

-0.06

***

*

*

**

*

*

Sig

1–4

Enjoyment

0.02

0.13

0.05

0.01

0.05

Average access, scale 1–5

Digital access

0.04

0.01

0.04

Tenure type, 1 = private, 0 = public\subsidized

Recite national anthem, 1 = yes, 0 = no

National proud, scale 1–4

-0.05

-0.05 -0.01

Education, scale 1–6

Income, scale 1–20

Transitional group, 1 = no, 0 = yes

-0.05 -0.03

Beta

OLS estimates

Sex dummy, 1 = male, 0 = female

1–5

Scale

Age, scale 20–69

Happiness

Dependent variable

Household

Identification:

Lifestyle:

Demographic

Entire sample

Sample

Table 19 Determinants of quality of life for all respondents

*

*

***

***

***

***

**

*

***

Sig

0.10

-0.03

-0.13

-0.06

0.16

0.11

-0.07

0.08

0.04

0.10

0.10

0.00

0.03

-0.01

-0.04

-0.01

0.15

-0.08

Beta

1–4

***

**

***

***

**

*

**

***

***

***

Sig

Accomplishment

0.12

-0.04

-0.14

-0.05

0.17

0.09

-0.02

0.02

0.10

0.14

0.09

0.01

0.04

0.02

-0.05

-0.03

0.09

-0.06

Beta

0–6

Overall quality

***

***

***

***

***

***

***

**

**

Sig

The Quality of Life in Hong Kong

123

123

144

Beta

OLS estimates

0.12 0.09

Family life, scale 1–5

Leisure, scale 1–5 16.18*** 0.32

F statistic

R2

906

0.03

N observation:

-0.01

Public safety, scale 1–5

0.01

Neighbors, scale 1–5

Environment, scale 1–5

0.05

Job, scale 1–5

-0.02

0.05

Health, scale 1–5

Education, scale 1–5

0.08

Standard of living, scale 1–5

Marriage, scale 1–5

0.10

1–5

Scale

Friendships, scale 1–5

Happiness

Dependent variable

**

***

**

**

Sig

0.28

15.02***

906

0.14

-0.01

0.04

-0.05

-0.01

0.08

-0.03

-0.03

0.16

0.10

Beta

1–4

Enjoyment

***

**

***

***

Sig

0.28

12.64***

907

0.06

0.09

-0.01

-0.05

0.05

0.08

0.02

-0.09

0.09

0.03

Beta

1–4

**

**

**

**

Sig

Accomplishment

Note: OLS standardized beta is reported where two-tailed test, *** indicates statistical significance at 1%, ** 5%, and * 1% respectively

Satisfaction

Entire sample

Sample

Table 19 continued

0.40

24.88***

905

0.11

0.09

0.03

-0.06

0.03

0.09

-0.01

-0.05

0.13

0.09

Beta

0–6

Overall quality

***

**

*

***

*

***

***

Sig

M. Sing

Reprinted from the journal

Reprinted from the journal

145 0.05 0.11

No. of international contacts, scale 0–6

Fluency of English speaking, scale 1–4

Global life

Life domain

% of Families

% of Materialism

Value priority

Housing, scale 1–5

% of Post-materialism

-0.02 -0.05

Living standard, scale 1–5

Wellness

0.05

0.03

0.09

0.04

Average political involvement, scale 1–5

Politicization

0.02

Praying\meditation frequency, scale 1–5

Secularization

0.03

Average access, scale 1–5

Digital access

0.09

-0.01

0.05

Tenure type, 1 = private, 0 = public\subsidized

Recite national anthem, 1 = yes, 0 = no

National proud, scale 1–4

-0.06

-0.03 -0.04

Education, scale 1–6

Income, scale 1–20

Transitional group, 1 = no, 0 = yes

-0.08 -0.03

Beta

OLS estimate

Sex dummy, 1 = male, 0 = female

1–5

Scale

Age, scale 20–69

Happiness

Dependent variable

Household

Identification

Lifestyle

Demographic

Married sample

Sample

Table 20 Determinants of quality of life for married respondents

*

**

**

**

Sig

0.06

-0.08

-0.17

-0.06

0.09

0.05

0.00

–0.05

0.05

0.17

0.05

0.09

0.04

0.05

-0.01

-0.02

0.10

-0.05

Beta

1–4

Enjoyment

**

*

***

**

**

Sig

0.07

-0.06

-0.18

-0.13

0.16

0.09

-0.06

0.14

0.03

0.09

0.11

0.00

0.01

-0.04

0.01

-0.04

0.06

-0.06

Beta

1–4

*

**

*

***

**

***

*

***

Sig

Accomplishment

0.08

-0.05

-0.19

-0.09

0.16

0.07

-0.02

0.08

0.06

0.12

0.11

0.02

0.02

0.00

-0.02

-0.03

0.06

-0.06

Beta

0–6

Overall quality

*

**

***

**

***

***

*

Sig

The Quality of Life in Hong Kong

123

123

146 0.13 0.13

Family life, scale 1–5

Leisure, scale 1–5 11.93*** 0.36

F statistics:

R2

561

0.10

Environment, scale 1–5

N observations:

-0.05

0.04

Neighbors, scale 1–5

Public safety, scale 1–5

0.04

Job, scale 1–5

***

**

**

-0.06

-0.04

0.01

Education, scale 1–5

Health, scale 1–5

0.16

0.05

0.07

0.31

11.06***

562

0.15

-0.04

0.03

-0.06

0.00

0.09

-0.09

0.16

Standard of living, scale 1–5

***

Beta

0.04

Sig

0.14

Beta

OLS estimate

1–4

Friendships, scale 1–5

1–5

Scale

Enjoyment

Marriage, scale 1–5

Happiness

Dependent variable

***

*

**

***

***

Sig

0.31

11.41***

562

0.11

0.09

0.02

0.00

0.09

0.06

-0.02

-0.09

0.00

0.12

-0.02

Beta

1–4

**

*

**

**

**

Sig

Accomplishment

Note: OLS standardized beta is reported where two-tailed test. *** indicates statistical significance at 1%, ** 5%, and * 1% respectively

Satisfaction

Married sample

Sample

Table 20 continued

0.46

21.77***

561

0.12

0.08

0.07

-0.06

0.06

0.06

-0.06

-0.08

0.07

0.21

0.04

Beta

0–6

Overall quality

***

*

*

*

**

*

***

Sig

M. Sing

Reprinted from the journal

The Quality of Life in Hong Kong

priorities are ranked second and eighth in terms of explanatory power for enjoyment. The negative estimates imply that the pursuit of these values decreases the life enjoyment of Hong Kong people. The other most powerful predictors arranged in descending order of importance are satisfaction with standard of living (0.16), with leisure (0.14), age (0.14), satisfaction with friendship (0.10), international contacts (0.10), satisfaction with job (0.08), with housing (0.07), and national pride (0.07). The aforementioned rankings indicate that greater access to digital life, less emphasis on materialistic values, and more satisfaction with one’s standard of living and with leisure are the most crucial determinants for enjoyment. Concerning accomplishment, the perceived living standard is the most powerful predictor (0.16), followed by age (0.15) and percentage of materialistic items mentioned as an important value (-0.13). Again, the negative estimate for the last item implies a higher emphasis on materialistic values will decrease feelings of accomplishment. The remaining relatively powerful predictors, arranged in descending power of explanation, are political involvement (0.11), digital access (0.1), satisfaction with housing (0.1), with standard of living (0.09), with family life (0.09), with health (-0.09), with job (0.08), male gender (-0.08), fluency of spoken English (0.08) and praying (-.07). These rankings reveal that a stronger perceived living standard, older age, less emphasis on materialistic terms and higher political involvement count most in shaping accomplishment. For overall life quality, the most powerful explanatory variables are perceived living standard (0.17), followed by percentage of materialistic items mentioned as an important value (-0.14) and access to digital life (0.14). The other significant items are satisfaction with standard of living (0.12), with housing (0.12), with leisure (0.11), frequencies of international contacts (0.10), satisfaction with friendships (0.09), with one’s job (0.09), with family life (0.09), political involvement (0.09), private tenure household (0.09), older age (0.09), and satisfaction with health (-0.05). Overall, a better perceived living standard, less emphasis on materialistic items, and a higher access to digital life will raise the life quality. What is also remarkable is that level of secularization, national identification, satisfaction with education, with neighbors, and with the environment has no explanatory power at all to elucidate quality of life in Hong Kong. Table 20 reports the estimates for the sample of married respondents, and it shows some divergence from the entire sample. After adding demographic factors, lifestyle variables, value priorities, and domain assessments to the regression analysis, the total variance explained for the overall quality of life is 46%, and other results are elaborated further below: Some special features of this sample are worthy of our attention. First, the percentage of materialistic items mentioned as an important value priority is ranked the most powerful predictor for enjoyment (-0.17) and accomplishment (-0.18), and ranked the second most important predictor for overall quality of life (-0.19). These findings suggest that greater emphasis on materialistic values does not bode well for a subjective sense of enjoyment, accomplishment, and life quality among the married. Second, satisfaction with marriage is one of the most powerful explanatory variables explaining happiness, enjoyment, accomplishment, and life quality. It is the variable with the greatest effect on overall life quality (.21) and happiness (0.14), the third greatest on enjoyment (0.16) and the fifth greatest on accomplishment (0.12). Third, besides satisfaction with marriage, satisfaction with leisure is the only independent variable out of twenty-eight that can improve overall quality of life and its three components, happiness,

Reprinted from the journal

147

123

M. Sing

enjoyment, and accomplishment. Fourth, digital access among married people is tied to greater enjoyment (0.17). accomplishment (0.09), and overall life quality (0.12), as it is among the general sample. Finally, for married respondents, the most powerful predictors for quality of life when arranged in descending order of importance are satisfaction with marriage (0.21), percentage of materialistic items perceived as an important value (-0.19), perceived living standard (0.16), digital access (0.12), and satisfaction with leisure (0.12). 8.1 Overall Discussion on Determinants of Subjective Wellbeing Based on the aforementioned data, several interesting observations can be made on determinants of subjective wellbeing. First, when explaining happiness, enjoyment, accomplishment, and overall quality of life for the entire sample, the socio-demographic factors of education and household income are unexpectedly irrelevant. Given that enormous emphasis has been laid by Hong Kong people on education and household income, under the assumption that the subjective wellbeing will be enhanced as a result, this has debunked some myths about Hong Kong people. Second, the strongest explanatory variables for both the entire sample and the sample of married people are ‘‘perceived standard of living’’ and ‘‘satisfaction with marriage.’’ Since ‘‘perceived standard of living’’ means different things to different people and can cover materialistic, post-materialistic and familial values, it is of little use in drawing any practical conclusions. However, for both the entire sample and the sample of married respondents, the second most important item in terms of explanatory power is the ‘‘percentage of materialistic items mentioned as an important value,’’ which shows a negative beta value. In short, the greater the emphasis that Hong Kong people lay on materialistic concerns, the worse their quality of life. When other relatively powerful explanatory variables are included, such as satisfaction with leisure and friendship, these variables further corroborate the finding that the more the respondents feel satisfied with non-materialistic items, the higher the overall quality of life they will feel. Third, public satisfaction with the condition of the environment, social welfare system, and democratic system are found to be statistically insignificant in shaping the overall quality of life or its components of happiness, enjoyment, and accomplishment. This should partially explain why Hong Kong lacks sustained and large-scale rallies for further democratization, for greater social welfare, or for a better environment.

9 Conclusion The rapid and continuous economic development of the former British colony of Hong Kong has transformed the area from a sordid fishing village and industrial center to a postindustrial, modern financial hub of the Asian-Pacific region. To sustain economic growth, the government and private enterprise has encouraged further globalization and digitalization of Hong Kong. As unfolded above, digital access has become a most important ingredient shaping enjoyment, accomplishment, and overall life quality in Hong Kong. Thus how to maintain and advance further digitalization is a question of importance not only for Hong Kong’s economy but also the quality of life of its people.

123

148

Reprinted from the journal

The Quality of Life in Hong Kong

Furthermore, the Westernization and decolonization of Hong Kong has induced many Hong Kong people to study, migrate, or do business abroad. Their return to Hong Kong after its handover to China has contributed to a high level of global life, which is positive for peoples’ happiness, enjoyment, and overall life quality. Last, but not least, Beijing’s constant top-down dampening of the Hong Kong people’s campaigns for greater democracy have stalled its tortuous democratization. Continuous opposition from Beijing to this process has led to a pervasive sense of political powerlessness among Hong Kong people in shaping public policies (Sing 2004). Its citizens have thus been driven to pursue materialistic, familial, or post-materialistic priorities for bettering their life quality. Hong Kong’s incomplete democratization has in part explained the lack of relationship between participation in democracy movements and the people’s life quality. Generally speaking, despite rapid and nearly continuous socioeconomic development since the 1960s, the majority of Hong Kong people do not feel content with their quality of life. Only a minority of them feel satisfied with their happiness, enjoyment, achievement, and overall life quality. The overall quality of life that Hong Kong people experience does not match the high level of objective indicators of development under which they live as elaborated in Section I. Finally, people have been most satisfied with their interpersonal life sphere but less satisfied with the public life sphere, material life sphere, and personal life sphere. The following practical and theoretical implications can be drawn from this study. 9.1 Practical Implications of this Research for Hong Kong Several implications can be derived from this research for promoting subjective wellbeing in Hong Kong: This research has shown that Hong Kong people have a great desire for materialistic attainment, but an emphasis on those concerns bodes ill for enjoyment, accomplishment, and overall quality of life. Therefore, if the primary goal of individuals is to raise their subjective wellbeing, they should place greater emphasis on non-materialistic concerns such as leisure, a satisfying marital relationship, and friendship. Among the non-materialistic items, those pertaining to public life, i.e. environment, social welfare system, and democratic system, are irrelevant to overall quality of life, happiness, enjoyment, and accomplishment. Leaders who strive to promote the environment, democracy, and social welfare are thus confronted with the challenge of showing Hong Kong people how these public concerns can improve their subjective wellbeing. Also, interestingly, ‘‘access to electronic communication technologies’’ or digital access has the surprising distinction of being the most important factor in shaping enjoyment, and the second most important factor influencing overall quality of life. Increasingly, Hong Kong people tend to live a digital life by using many kinds of information and communication technologies. In this digital world that is increasingly connected by all kinds of seamless electronic communication technologies, it is striking to see the relative explanatory power of this item on three major subjective senses of wellbeing. It is also important to note the correlation between digital access and age, education, and income are -0.62, 0.63 and 0.33, respectively, indicating that younger, more educated, and richer people tend to have greater access to electronic communication technologies. Hence, in the highly developed metropolis of Hong Kong where the Internet and other communication technologies can be easily utilized, the greater access some groups have to those technologies has contributed to divergent levels of enjoyment. Reprinted from the journal

149

123

M. Sing

To promote the subjective wellbeing of the entire population, steps need to be taken to narrow the digital divide between the rich and poor, young and old, and less- and welleducated. Finally, the variable of perceived ‘‘standard of living’’ has stood out as the single most important explanatory factor for happiness, accomplishment, and quality of life. As the term can denote both materialistic and non-materialistic elements in the Hong Kong context, more research is called for to clarify just what ‘‘standard of living’’ means in the public’s mind. This clarification may effectively help to improve the subjective wellbeing in Hong Kong and elsewhere. 9.2 Theoretical Implications If greater stress on materialistic concerns lowers enjoyment, accomplishment, and quality of life, why do Hong Kong people tend to stress materialistic rather than post-materialistic concerns? One possible way to explain such a seeming paradox is ‘‘aspiration theory’’ (Cheung et al 2002). The theory states that a heavy emphasis on materialistic values raises aspirations to such a high level that they become hard to attain and therefore a heavy materialistic emphasis results in more dissatisfaction. A similar finding has been made in research on East-Asian happiness (Ng 2002), which shows that those who stress extrinsic goals, such as wealth, more than intrinsic goals, such as personal development and community, are less likely to feel happiness. The aspiration theory has received indirect support from this research and more effort should be made to put this theory to test. In addition, this study corroborates cross-national research that has found family satisfaction is positively related to life satisfaction, especially in wealthier nations (Oishi et al 1999). There is, however, a paucity of research relating families to the study of quality of life (Shek et al. 2005)14 in the general literature. This paper has found that satisfaction in family life ranked second, fifth, and eighth in terms of explanatory power for explaining happiness, accomplishment, and quality of life, respectively. More vigorous scrutiny is needed to understand precisely which dimensions of family life really matter for public satisfaction with families, and in turn happiness, accomplishment, and their quality of life. Also, cross-national research needs to be conducted to show whether familism exists to different degrees in Asian and non-Asian societies, and if so, the implications on the quality of people’s subjective wellbeing. Moreover, the finding of both this research and other international studies that married couples have greater quality of life than singles (Frey and Stutzer 2002; Bjornskov et al. 2006; Diener et al. 2003; Ng 2002) is further evidence that the relationship between families and subjective wellbeing is worth exploring. More studies should therefore be made to decipher the effects various dimensions of families have on subjective wellbeing. Finally, some literature has portrayed religious belief as playing an important role in people’s quality of life (Ng 2002; Shek et al. 2005), yet there is a lack of detailed crosscultural studies about the effects either religion or spirituality has on quality of life. In this research, Asian religions have yielded no causal impact on quality of life. More studies need to be conducted to look deeper into the role of religions in Asia and elsewhere on quality of life.

14 The following recent literature on Hong Kong’s quality of life has not studied in details impact of family life on quality of life. See Estes (2005), Siu and Shek (2005), Chan et al. (2005), Wan and Law (2005), Wong (2005).

123

150

Reprinted from the journal

The Quality of Life in Hong Kong

Appendix I Regression variables coding Demographic

Lifestyle Identification

Sex dummy, 1 = male, 0 = female Age, range 20–69 Education, scale 1–6 Income, scale 1–20

Recoding from ABS F1 Drawing from ABS F2 … from ABS F3_HK … from ABS F8_HK

Ethnic liking

Self, 1 = HongKonger, 0 = otherwise Transitional group, 1 = no, 0 = yes National proud, scale 1–4 Recite national Anthem, 1 = yes, 0 = no No. of family members, range 1–9 Tenure type, 1 = private, 0 = public\subsidized How many like, range 0–8

Utilities usage

How many use, range 3–7

Digital access

Average access, scale 1–5

Global life

No. of international contacts, range 0–6

Household

Politicization

Fluency of English speaking, scale 1–4 Have religion, 1 = yes, 0 = none Praying\meditation frequency, scale 1–5 Average political involvement, scale 1–5

Wellness Value priority

Living standard, scale 1–5 % Familism

Secularization

% Materialism

% Post materialism

Reprinted from the journal

151

Recoding from ABS Q17 … from ABS Q19 Reversed coding from ABS Q18 Recoding from ABS Q20 Drawing from ABS Q43 Recoding from ABS Q42 Generated from summing the no. of Asian food (ABS Q41_1 to Q41_11) being liked. Generated from summing the no. of public utilities access (ABS Q1_1 to Q1_7) being mentioned. Reversed coding from ABS Q2_1 to Q2_3, which is the average frequency of digital access. Generated from summing the no. of international contacts (ABS Q3_1 to ABS_7) being mentioned. Drawing from ABS F4 Recoding from ABS F9 Reversed coding from ABS Q23 Reversed coding from ABS Q33_1 and Q33_2, and generated from averaging the frequency of local and national elections involvement (no right to vote is considered as never vote). Reversed coding from ABS Q8 Generated from ABS Q9, reflecting the % of familism items (see Table 14) chosen as important. … reflecting the % of materialism items (see Table 14) chosen as important. … reflecting the % of post-materialism items (see Table 14) chosen as important.

123

M. Sing

Appendix continued Demographic

Life satisfaction

Sex dummy, 1 = male, 0 = female Age, range 20–69 Education, scale 1–6 Income, scale 1–20

Recoding from ABS F1 Drawing from ABS F2 … from ABS F3_HK … from ABS F8_HK

Housing, scale 1–5 Friendships, scale 1–5 Marriage, scale 1–5 Standard of living, scale 1–5 Household income, scale 1–5 Health, scale 1–5 Education, scale 1–5 Job, scale 1–5 Neighbors, scale 1–5 Public safety, scale 1–5 Environment, scale 1–5 Welfare system, scale 1–5 Democratic system, scale 1–5 Family life, scale 1–5 Leisure, scale 1–5 Spiritual life, scale 1–5

Reversed coding from ABS Q7a … from ABS Q7b … from ABS Q7c … from ABS Q7d … from ABS Q7e … from ABS Q7f … from ABS Q7g … from ABS Q7h … from ABS Q7i … from ABS Q7j … from ABS Q7k … from ABS Q7l … from ABS Q7m … from ABS Q7n … from ABS Q7o … from ABS Q7p

Note: All variables are coded in a positive manner that means a higher score suggested a larger satisfaction\involvement\fluency\numbers\value\percentage

References Bjornskov, C. et al. (2006). Cross-country determinants of life satisfaction: Exploring different determinants across groups in society. Political Economy and Public Policy Series PEPP/21, STICERD, LSE. Chan, Y. K., Kwan, C. C., & Shek, T. L. D. (2005). Quality of life in Hong Kong: The CUHK Hong Kong quality of life index. Social Indicators Research, 71, 259–289. Cheung, C. K., et al. (2002). Postmodern and modern value orientations and life satisfaction among Hong Kong Chinese. Social Behavior and Personality, 30(7), 697–708. Diener, E., et al. (2003). Are Scandinavians happier than Asian? Issues in comparing nations on subjective well-being. In F. Columbus (Ed.), Politics and economics of Asia. New York: Nov Science Publishers. Estes, R. J. (Ed.). (2005). Social development in Hong Kong: The unfinished agenda. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press. Estes, R. J. (2007). Asia and the new century: Challenges and opportunities. Social Indicator Research, 82, 375–410. Frey, B., & Stutzer, A. (2002). Happiness and economics: How the economy and institutions affect wellbeing. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Ma, N. (2007). Political parties and elections. In W. M. Lam, P. L. T. Lui, W. Wong & I. Holliday (Eds.), Contemporary Hong Kong Politics: Governance in the Post-1997 Era. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Ng, Y. K. (2002). The East-Asian happiness gap: Speculating on causes and implication. Pacific Economic Review, 7(1), 51–63. Oishi, S., et al. (1999). Cross-cultural variations in predictors of life satisfaction: Perspectives from needs and values. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 980–990.

123

152

Reprinted from the journal

The Quality of Life in Hong Kong Overholt, W. (2004). The Hong Kong legislative election of September 12, 2004—Assessment and Implications. Testimony presented to the Congressional-Executive Commission of China. http://www.rand.org/pubs/testimonies/2004/RAND_CT232-1.pdf. Scott, I., & Leung, J. (2004). Dysfunctional elections and political system in Hong Kong. Asian Journal of Political Science, 12(2), 1–30. Shek, D. T. L., et al. (2005). Quality of life in the global context: A Chinese response. Social Indicators Research, 71, 1–10. Sing, M. (2004). Hong Kong’s tortuous democratization: A comparative analysis. London: Routledge Curzon. Sing, M. (2006). The legitimacy problem & democratic reform in Hong Kong. Journal of Contemporary China, 15(48), 517–532. Siu, A., & Shek, D. (2005). Relations between social problem solving and indicators of interpersonal and family well-being among Chinese adolescents in Hong Kong. Social Indicators Research, 71, 517– 539. Sung, Y. W. (1985). Economic growth and structural change in the small open economy of Hong Kong. In V. Corbo, A. O. Krueger & F. Ossa (Eds.), Export-oriented development strategies (pp. 111–154). Colorado: Westview. United Nations, United Nations Development Programme. (2006). Human development report. Reported dated 2006. Wan, P.-S., & Law, K. W. K. (2005). Subjective well-being. In S. Lau et al., (Eds.), Indicators of social development: Hong Kong 2004 (pp. 201–228). Hong Kong: Chinese University of Hong Kong Press. Wong, H. (2005). The quality of life of Hong Kong’s poor households in the 1990s: Levels of expenditure, income security and poverty. Social Indicators Research, 71, 411–440. World Bank. (1984). World development report. Reported dated 1984.

Reprinted from the journal

153

123

Soc Indic Res (2009) 92:337–376 DOI 10.1007/s11205-008-9347-z

The Quality of Life in Singapore Siok Kuan Tambyah Æ Soo Jiuan Tan Æ Ah Keng Kau

Accepted: 6 October 2008 / Published online: 18 November 2008 Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Abstract The Asia Barometer Survey of 1,038 respondents shows that most Singaporeans are happy and enjoy life, although they do not feel a correspondingly high level of accomplishment. Good health, a comfortable home, a job, time with family and having enough to eat emerged as key priorities in life. While Singaporeans are most satisfied with their marriages, family life, friendship, housing, and public safety, their perceptions of their overall quality of life are mostly influenced by their relationships with significant others and their satisfaction with their homes. Detailed demographic analyses are provided and policy implications are discussed in light of these findings. Keywords Lifestyles

Singapore
Quality of life
Happiness
Satisfaction
Values


1 Introduction: Singapore as a Place to Live 1.1 General Singapore is an island city-state located at the southern tip of the Malay Peninsula. She enjoys a tropical rainforest climate, with temperatures ranging from 22 to 34 Celsius throughout the year. Although Singapore consists of 63 islands, it has a total land area of only about 700 square kilometers. Singapore was a fishing village before it was colonized S. K. Tambyah (&)
S. J. Tan Department of Marketing, School of Business, National University of Singapore, BIZ1 02-19, Singapore 117592, Singapore e-mail: [email protected] S. J. Tan e-mail: [email protected] A. K. Kau Department of Business Policy, School of Business, National University of Singapore, BIZ1 02-19, Singapore 117592, Singapore e-mail: [email protected] Reprinted from the journal

155

123

S. K. Tambyah et al.

by the British East India Company in 1819 and then used as a trading outpost. The island was occupied by the Japanese Empire during the Second World War but was reverted to British rule in 1945. She joined the Malaysian Federation in 1963 but became independent in 1965. Singapore is a republic with a democratic system of unicameral parliamentary government. Most of Singapore’s laws are inherited from British and British-Indian laws. Singapore is considered one of the best places to live in Asia, if not the world. Various surveys of the quality of life have placed Singapore favorably when compared to many cities in the world. The 2007 Worldwide Quality of Living Survey conducted by Mercer Human Resource Consultancy assessed Singapore to be the 34th best city in the world, with an index of 102.5, up from 101 in 2005 (both indices were slightly better than New York’s 100). In the 2007 survey, Zurich was ranked first, with an index of 108.1. This survey also placed Singapore one rank ahead of Tokyo’s 35th position. Both cities were considered to have the highest quality of life in Asia (excluding Australian cities). In the sections to follow, we first provide some background information relating to Singapore’s demographic, economic, and political development, as well as her global connections, before elaborating on the findings from the 2006 Asia Barometer Survey. In Sect. 2, we outline the profile of respondents in the sample and compare this profile with the national averages obtained from the 2005 Household Expenditure Survey and the 2000 Population Census. In Sect. 3, we describe the lifestyles of Singaporeans, focusing on issues such as language and national identification, household composition and home ownership, dining habits, access to utilities, usage of electronic communication technologies, openness and interaction with others, the degree of secularization or spirituality, political involvement, and standard of living. In Sect. 4, we highlight the priorities in life that are important to Singaporeans and provide additional analyses by demographics. In Sect. 5, we examine how Singaporeans felt about their overall quality of life comprising the three aspects of happiness, enjoyment and achievement. A more detailed evaluation by demographics is also provided. In Sect. 6, we evaluate how satisfied or dissatisfied Singaporeans are with the various life domains. In Sect. 7, we report the results of more analyses of how Singaporeans’ levels of happiness, enjoyment, achievement and overall quality of life are influenced by their satisfaction with their lifestyles, priorities in life and specific life domains, and how demographics play a role in affecting satisfaction levels. Finally in Sect. 8, we provide a summary of the key findings and furnish some suggestions for policy-makers. 1.2 Demographics and Human Development Singapore is a multi-ethnic, multi-religious and multi-lingual society although Chinese are the dominant ethnic group (75%), followed by Malays (15%) and Indians, Eurasians and others (10%). There is considerable freedom and plurality in the practice of religions such as Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc. The national language is Malay but the other official languages of English, Mandarin and Tamil are widely spoken by the population. In 2006, the population in Singapore was estimated to be 4.48 million, of which 3.6 million were residents. The life expectancy at birth was recorded to be 80 years old, with males averaging 78 years and females 82 years. The literacy rate among residents aged 15 years and above was around 95 percent, with slightly over 60 percent possessing at least a secondary school education. Home ownership was high among residents and recorded to be close to 91 percent. Singapore is a relatively safe place with a crime rate of about 745 per 100,000 (http://www.singstat.gov.sg/pubn/ssn/archive/ssnmar2007.pdf). The United Nations produces an annual Human Development Report which includes the Human Development Index (HDI). This composite index is a simple average of three

123

156

Reprinted from the journal

The Quality of Life in Singapore

indices reflecting a country’s achievements in health and longevity (measured by life expectancy at birth), education (measured by adult literacy and combined primary, secondary and tertiary enrolments) and living standard (measured by GDP per capita in purchasing power parity terms). The HDI for Singapore is 0.916, which gives Singapore a rank of 25th out of 177 countries with data (http://hdr.undp.org). 1.3 Economic Development, Governance and Stability Since independence, the current ruling party, the People’s Action Party, has been in power. This political stability coupled with an effective government and administration has contributed to the economic development of the country from primarily a trading port to a global city hub. Singapore’s development was based on a market-driven economic system, with an emphasis on industrialization and export orientation. In the International Monetary Fund April 2007 report (http://www.imf.org), Singapore was ranked 17th in the world with a GDP (Purchasing Power Parity) per capita of US$32,867 in 2005. According to Statistics Singapore and figures released in 2006 (www.singstat.gov.sg), the economy grew at 7.9 percent and the per capita GDP was reported to be S$46,832, equivalent to about US$31,000 (at the exchange rate of US$1 to S$1.50 approximately). The average monthly household income in 2005 was S$5,400, up from S$4,940 in 2000. The average annual change in the consumer price index between 2000 and 2005 was only 0.6 percent. Generally, the residents have not experienced any dramatic inflationary pressures, although prices for properties and cars were very high. The labor force participation rate in 2006 for men was 76 percent while that for women was 54 percent. The unemployment rate in 2006 was low at 3.6 percent, down from 4.2 percent in 2005. The Singapore General Household Survey 2005 (www.singstat.gov.sg) also noted a slight increase in the number of working hours per week from 47.9 h in 2000 to 48.4 h in 2005. In the latest Index of Economic Freedom published by the Heritage Foundation which ranks 157 nations in terms of their levels of economic freedom, Singapore was assessed as 85.7 percent free, making her the world’s second freest economy. The assessment of economic freedom was based on ten markers, namely business freedom, trade freedom, monetary freedom, freedom from the government, fiscal freedom, property rights, investment freedom, financial freedom, freedom from corruption and labor corruption. According to surveys examined by Transparency International and the Corruption Perception Index that they computed, Singapore was perceived to have the least corrupt public sector among Asian nations in 2006 and was also ranked favorably (5th place) on a global scale. The March 2006 report by Political and Economic Risk Consultancy (PERC) Ltd rated Singapore’s government as having the highest level of integrity in Asia. Her level of corruption had a score of 1.3, followed by Japan (3.01), Hong Kong (3.13) and Macao (4.78). According to the World Bank Annual Report in 2006, Singapore was considered one of the most politically stable countries with good governance. Six dimensions of governance were measured, comprising voice and accountability, political stability, government effectiveness, regulatory law, rule of law and control of corruption. In the report, Singapore scored full marks for government effectiveness and regulatory quality, while its rule of law and control of corruption got 96 and 99 out of 100 respectively. Singapore also rated well on political stability but fell short in the voice and accountability category, which measures among other things, the level of civil society and participation. A global index compiled by the Economist Intelligence Unit 2007 aimed to provide ‘‘a quantitative measure of peace—internally and externally’’. The index utilized 24 indicators that were grouped into three broad categories: ongoing domestic and international Reprinted from the journal

157

123

S. K. Tambyah et al.

conflicts, the level of safety and security in a society, and the level of militarization and access to weapons. Out of 121 countries, Singapore was ranked 29th in the world and 6th in the Asia-Pacific. Topping the list in Asia-Pacific was New Zealand (ranked 2nd in the world), followed by Japan (5th globally), Bhutan (19th), Hong Kong (23rd), Australia (25th) and Singapore (29th). 1.4 Political Rights and Civil Liberties Although Singapore is ranked highly in terms of economic freedom, political freedom is less favorably assessed. As mentioned earlier, one dimension of governance that Singapore did not perform well in was voice and accountability. In a report published by international NGO, Freedom House, Singapore was described as ‘‘partly free’’, having a score of 4 and 5 respectively on civil liberties and political rights. A rating of 1 suggests the highest degree of freedom and 7 the least amount of freedom. In East Asia, the only three ‘‘free’’ nations are Taiwan, Japan and South Korea. 1.5 Global Connections Singapore was ranked as the most globalized nation in the world according to the Globalization Index 2006. Among the 2.8 million residents aged 15 years and over in Singapore, 50 percent made at least one trip overseas. The majority traveled overseas for holidays. As such, the residents are well connected with the outside world. Another indication of the connectedness of Singaporeans is the rate of Internet penetration. The percentage of households with access to Internet at home rose from 50 percent in 2000 to 66 percent in 2005 according to a newsletter published by the Department of Statistics, Singapore dated March 2006. Singapore is also a hospitable place for non-residents and visitors, welcoming almost 900,000 non-residents and more than 9.7 million visitors from overseas in 2006. In terms of attractiveness to expatriates, Singapore was noted as the best place to live for Asian expatriates (ECA International 2006). 1.6 Concluding Remarks Overall, Singapore is indisputably one of the best cities to live in Asia. She enjoys political and social stability, and her economy has been growing steadily since the 1997 financial crisis. With a good public administration system, an efficient transportation network, a great infrastructure and comprehensive social services, she will continue to enjoy the status as a most livable city in Asia, if not the world.

2 Profile of Respondents Table 1 presents the profile of respondents that were surveyed in Singapore as part of the 2006 Asia Barometer study. The profile is organized along the lines of the six demographic variables that will be used in further analyses and comparisons of the findings. These demographic variables are gender, marital status, age, education, income and religion. The sample is a little over-represented in terms of female respondents (54.2%) compared to male respondents (45.8%). Most respondents (69.7%) are married and approximately a quarter (25.7%) are single. Widowed (1.6%) and divorced/separated (2.9%) respondents

123

158

Reprinted from the journal

The Quality of Life in Singapore

Table 1 Profile of respondents Asia Barometer Survey 2006

Percent

N

Singapore General Household Survey 2005a

1. Gender

Percent

N

1. Gender

Male

45.8

475

Male

49.0

Female

54.2

563

Female

51.0

Total

100

1038

2. Marital status

Total

100

1,357,377 1,412,913 2,770,290

2. Marital status

Single

25.7

267

Single

31.0

858,133

Married

69.7

724

Married

61.4

1,700,462

Divorced/separated

2.9

30

Divorced/separated

2.8

76,346

Widowed

1.6

17

Widowed

4.9

135,349

Total

100

1038

3. Age

Total

100

2,770,290

3. Age (excluding 15–19)

20–29

19.7

204

20–29

19.0

347,724

30–39

27.7

288

30–39

24.4

446,679

40–49

28.3

294

40–49

26.0

476,447

50–59

17.2

179

50–59

20.4

372,917

60–69

7.0

73

60–69

10.2

Total

100

1038

Total

100

186,508 1,830,275

4. Educationb

4. Education No formal education

2.0

21

No formal education

17.2

335,527

Primary school

16.5

171

Primary school

10.5

205,224

Secondary/ITE

44.3

460

Secondary school

30.9

600,717

GCE A/Diploma

19.0

197

GCE A/Diploma

23.7

460,396

University

18.2

189

University

17.7

343,791

Total

100

1038

5. Household Income

Total

100

5. Household Income

1,945,655 (‘000)

No Income

3.0

30

No Income

$1000 or below

6.4

54

Below $1000

4.8

50.6

$1001–$2000

18.4

185

$1000- $1999

12.5

130.8

$2001–$3000

22.3

224

$2000–$2,999

12.7

133.5

$3001–$4000

15.7

158

$3000–$3,999

11.5

120.2

$4001–$5000

10.0

101

$4000–$4,999

9.3

97.9

$5001–$6000

6.9

69

$5000–$5,999

7.9

82.5

$6001–$7000

5.0

50

$6000–$6,999

6.3

65.7

$7001–$8000

4.1

41

$7000–$7,999

5.0

52.1

$8001–$9000

2.7

27

$8000–$8,999

3.9

41.1

$9001–$10000

1.7

17

$9000–$9,999

2.8

29.7

More than $10,000

3.9

39

$10,000 and over

13.2

138.3

Total

Asia Barometer Survey 2006

100

Percent

1038

N

Religion

Total

Singapore Population Census 2000c

10.1

106.4

100

Percent

1049.0

N

Religion

Buddhism

30.1

312

Buddhism

42.5

1,060,662

Islam

21.4

222

Islam

14.9

371,660

Reprinted from the journal

159

123

S. K. Tambyah et al.

Table 1 continued Asia Barometer Survey 2006

Percent

Christianity

N

Singapore Population Census 2000c

16.7

173

9.0

93

Hinduism

4.0

99,904

Taoism

8.5

88

Taoism

8.5

212,344

No Religion Total

1.7

17

12.8

133

100

Other Religions No Religion

1038

Total

14.6

N

Hinduism Other religion

Christianity

Percent

364,087

0.6

15,879

14.8

370,094

100

2,494,630

Source: General Household Survey (2005), Department of Statistics, Singapore http://www.singstat. gov.sg/pubn/popn/ghsr1.html a

Resident population aged 15 years and over

b

Resident non-students aged 15 years and over

c

Based on Singapore Population Census 2000 for residents aged 15 and over

comprised a small proportion of the sample. In terms of age, the two larger groups of respondents are those aged 40–49 years (28.3%) and those aged 30–39 years (27.7%). For income, the majority are medium-income earners of $2000–$5000 (48%). Those earning less than $2000 (27.8%) or more than $5000 (24.3%) are almost equal in proportion. 18.2 percent have a university or postgraduate qualification, while most would have completed at least secondary school (44.3%). Buddhists (30.1%) comprised the largest religious group in the survey, followed by Muslims (21.4%) and those who do not have any religion (12.8%). As some demographic segments of the sample are very small in absolute numbers, care should be taken in interpreting statistical results in terms of representativeness and generalizability. The profile of respondents is matched against the national averages derived from the 2005 Household Expenditure Survey for gender, marital status, age, education and income. For religion, national averages from the 2000 Population Census were used as the 2005 Household Expenditure Survey did not have comparable figures. Singapore’s population stands at 4,351,400 as at end June 2005, an increase of 1.6 percent per annum since 2000. 18.3 percent of this population (797,000) is non-resident. Based on the national population of individuals aged 15 years and above, the gender ratio is 49 percent male and 51 percent female. Thus males seemed to be a little under-represented in the sample. For marital status, singles (31%) and widowed individuals (4.9%) are under-represented, while married individuals (61.4%) are over-represented. In terms of age groups, people in their fifties and sixties are under-represented while those in their thirties and forties are over-represented. For education, those with lower education (primary school and below) and GCE A level/ Diploma education are under-represented while those with secondary level education are over-represented. In terms of income, the low income group (those with no income and/or earning less than $2,000) comprised 27.8 percent of the sample. This percentage is close to the 27.4 percent in the population. The medium income group (those earning $2,000– $4,999) is over-represented in the sample (48%) compared to the population (33.5%). In contrast, the high income group comprising those earning $5,000 and more is underrepresented (24.3% of the sample) compared to 39.1 percent of the population. For religious groups, Buddhists and those with no religion are slightly under-represented in the survey and Muslims and Hindus were over-represented. Taoists and Catholics/other Christians would be considered adequately represented.

123

160

Reprinted from the journal

The Quality of Life in Singapore

In the following sections, our discussion on the findings will take into account similarities and differences among various demographic groups. For marital status, we will only compare the responses of single and married people as the numbers for those who are divorced, widowed or separated are too small. For education, we have three levels namely, low (those with no formal education or primary school education), medium (those with secondary/GCE O Level, post secondary/ITE or GCE A Level/Diploma qualifications), and high (those with university or postgraduate degrees). Similarly, we have three levels of income. They are low (those earning $2000 or less), medium (those earning $2001–$5000), and high (those earning $5001 and more). To facilitate comparisons among the religious groups, we have reclassified the groups as follows: (1) Christians (which includes Catholics and Protestant Christians), (2) Muslims, (3) Buddhists (which includes Taoists), (4) Hindus and (5) None (those with no religion).

3 Lifestyles In this ‘‘lifestyles’’ section, we highlight some of the ways Singaporeans live, how they spend their time and money and how they interact with other people. The findings and discussion are based on the responses of Singaporeans to questions in the 2006 Asia Barometer Survey on various aspects of their living environment in Singapore. 3.1 Language and National Identification Most Singaporeans are comfortable with speaking English. More than a quarter (28.4%) said ‘‘they speak it well enough to get by in daily life’’ and more than half (54%) claimed ‘‘they speak English fluently’’. Although Malay is the national language, English is the language of instruction in educational institutions and the language of use for most commercial transactions. The majority of respondents surveyed (84.6%) identified themselves as ‘‘Singaporean’’ although close to 15 percent chose to classify themselves as Chinese, Malay, Indian or Others (CMIO). The CMIO classification has been used for various governmental purposes such as census-taking and the allocation of subsidized housing. 53 percent and 39.5 percent felt ‘‘very proud’’ and ‘‘somewhat proud’’ to be Singaporean respectively, with about four in five respondents (82.7%) stating that they can recite the national anthem by heart. Most Singaporeans would identify themselves primarily as Asians (63%) although 12.7% felt that they do not identify particularly with any group whether it is based on ethnicity, language or religion. 3.2 Household Composition and Home Ownership Singaporeans generally have mid-sized households that are reflective of nuclear families comprising the parents and one to two children, and occasionally a grandparent or two. With regard to household composition and size, households with two or fewer members (16.5%) and those with six or more members (13.7%) are in the minority. A four-member household is most common (28%) while most households have three to five members (69.8%). Most respondents currently reside in an owner-occupied terraced house or unit in an apartment (93.4%). It should be noted that the bulk of the respondents are likely to be staying in apartments. Close to 85 percent of Singaporean citizens and permanent residents live in apartments built by the Housing and Development Board (HDB), a government Reprinted from the journal

161

123

S. K. Tambyah et al.

agency that was set up in 1960 to provide affordable, high-quality homes in integrated townships. The HDB provides a range of apartments for varying family sizes, ranging from three-room, four-room or five-room apartments to executive condominiums with facilities such as swimming pools and gyms. 3.3 Dining Habits With regarding to eating habits, Singaporeans preferred to eat breakfast cooked at home (77.4%) and are opposed to instant breakfast (6.4%). However, they are amenable to having breakfast, as long as it is freshly cooked, bought from a shop or in a restaurant or outdoor stall (45.5%). It is common for Singaporeans to eat breakfast at food stalls (49.3%) but not at a restaurant (3.3%). Similarly for dinner, Singaporeans generally preferred to eat at home (88.0%), although some are willing to dine out at food stalls (46.2%) and to a much lesser extent, at a restaurant (8.7%). Comparing the percentages between the morning and evening meals, it seems that Singaporeans are more willing to go out for dinner rather than breakfast. Intuitively it is more convenient to go out for dinner after the end of a work-day to unwind and have a leisurely meal. This is especially so for singles who may wish to catch up with their friends, or for busy professionals who do not have time to cook a meal after their work-day. Out of the list of 11 foods mentioned, Singaporeans’ culinary favorites include Curry (63.6%), Pizza (51.3%), Sandwich (50.7%), Dim-Sum (48.8%) Hamburger (44.0%), Sushi (39.4%), Instant Noodles (35.6%) Tom-Yum Goong (31.5%) and Beijing duck (31.1%). However, Singaporean palates do not seem to take very much to Kimchi (11.9%) and Pho (6.7%). It is not surprising that curry emerged the hot favorite as the major ethnic groups in Singapore (the Chinese, Malay, Indians, Eurasians and Peranakans) have multiple variants of curries in their cuisines. Fast foods offered by global brands such as McDonald’s, Burger King and Pizza Hut have been a part of the local scene for decades, thus the popularity of items such as pizza, sandwiches and hamburgers. It is somewhat ironic that instant noodles are fairly well-liked as previous figures showed that Singaporeans are partial to freshly cooked food. 3.4 Access to Utilities Singapore is a city with many modern conveniences. Close to 100 percent of respondents have easy access to essential utilities such as public water supply (99.4%), electricity (99.7%) and LPG or piped gas (93.6%). Most individuals and households have fixed-line phones (92%) and mobile phones (91.2%). At least half of Singaporean households (50.3%) have also subscribed to cable TV. However, facsimile usage is not popular among Singaporeans (11.9%). As shown in Table 2, those who have access to five or more utilities tended to be female, married, younger in age and earning medium and high incomes. While those with low education have access to fewer utilities, interestingly, those with high education do not necessarily have access to more utilities compared to those with medium education. Muslims (17.6%) and those with no religious affiliation (15%) were the two groups with access to fewer utilities. 3.5 Usage of Electronic Communication Technologies (Digital Life Index) The usage of electronic communication technologies such as computers and mobile phones is a pervasive part of everyday life in modern societies like Singapore. We assessed how

123

162

Reprinted from the journal

The Quality of Life in Singapore Table 2 Access to utilities by demographic groups

Demographics

Percentages who have access to \5 utilities

5 and more utilities

Male

14.1

85.9

Female

12.6

87.4

Single

14.6

85.4

Married

11.3

88.7

20–29

9.3

90.7

30–39

11.4

88.6

40–49

13.2

86.8

50–59

17.4

82.6

60–69

21.9

78.1

Gender

Marital status

Age

Education Low Medium High

16.1

83.9

8.7

91.3

10.7

89.3

Household income Low

26.1

73.9

Medium

10.7

89.3

5.2

94.8

Christian

13.3

86.7

Muslim

17.6

82.4

Hindu

10.8

89.2

Buddhist

10.9

89.1

None

15.0

85.0

High Religion

frequently Singaporeans used these devices and also computed a digital life index to facilitate comparisons across demographic groups. When asked ‘‘how often do you view Internet web pages by computers’’, almost equal percentages of respondents reported viewing web pages ‘‘almost everyday’’ (36.2%) and ‘‘never’’ (37.0%). This same dichotomy was noted for the frequency of reading and writing emails by computers with 35.8 percent stating that they do so almost daily while 38.6 percent had never done so. These figures point to a cyber-gap between certain segments of the population. The gap is considerably smaller for mobile users as mobile phone technology has been more widely adopted in the Singaporean population. About 3 in 5 Singaporeans (58.2%) read and write messages by mobile phones on a daily basis, compared to 22 percent who have never engaged in this activity. As far as viewing Internet web pages is concerned, frequent viewers are more likely to be male, married, aged 30–39, highly educated with high household income and are Christians or those with no religion. Those who never viewed Internet web pages are more likely to be female, married, aged 40–49 years with low education and low household income, and are Buddhists or Muslims. Reprinted from the journal

163

123

S. K. Tambyah et al.

Those who frequently read/write emails by computers are also more likely to be male, married, aged 30–39, with medium education but high household income and are Christians or those with no religion. Those who never read/write emails from computers are more likely to be female, married, aged 40–49 with low education and low household income, and are Buddhists or Muslims. Frequent and non-readers/writers of messages by phones are more likely to be female, married, and Christians or those with no religion. However, they are dissimilar in terms of age, education, and household income. Frequent readers/writers tend to be younger (30– 39 years) and could have low to high education although most have medium to high income. Non-readers/writers tend to be older (40–49 years) with mostly low education and low household income, and are Buddhists. A digital life index was devised to evaluate how prevalent the usage of electronic communication technologies was. The index was computed by counting the responses to the three questions asking how often respondents view webpages, read emails and send messages on their mobile phones. A higher score shows that a person uses these technologies more frequently. Generally, across different forms of communication technologies, males, single people and those who are younger tend to be more frequent in their usage (see Table 3). Those with lower levels of education and income were not as engaged in the digital life. Christians (56.1%) and those with no religion (59.4%) scored higher on the Digital Life Index compared to the other religious groups with the Muslims (29.7%) being the least frequent in their usage. 3.6 Openness and Interaction with Others (Global Life Index) From her early history as a colonial trading port for the British empire, Singapore has been very open to interacting with people and institutions from various countries across the globe. From an economic point of view, the government has been constantly encouraging Singaporeans to venture beyond her shores to seek business opportunities. Public and private organizations alike also provide scholarships for promising young Singaporeans to pursue their education or training abroad. On a personal level, the impetus to travel is fueled by rising affluence and an increasing appreciation of and appetite for cosmopolitan experiences. More than half of the respondents surveyed (55.1%) have a family or relative living in another country, and 50.5 percent claimed to have traveled at least three times in the past three years either for business or holiday purposes. Generally, Singaporeans are relatively quite well-traveled. Singaporeans are also very open to making friends from other countries (45.9%) and are extensively exposed to foreign-produced programs on TV (73.1%). It should be noted that most of the local TV programming are imported from the United States such as Hollywood movies, reality TV shows, situation comedies, etc. Singaporeans communicate fairly often with people in other countries via the internet or email (29.0%). This international contact seems to be more of a personal nature or centered around family and friends rather than with colleagues or work-related personnel, as most of their jobs do not involve contact with organizations or people in other countries (17.5%). The responses to these six questions on openness and interaction with others were counted to form the Global Life Index. A higher score on this index shows that the respondent is embracing more of the globalized aspects of living in his/her society (see Table 3). Males and females were similar in their global outlook. Younger people in their twenties (56.4%) and thirties (63.9%), and those who are married (53.6%) seemed to be more globally aware and connected. Education and income had a big impact on one’s

123

164

Reprinted from the journal

The Quality of Life in Singapore Table 3 Extent of lifestyles by demographic groups Digital life

Global life

0

1

29.4

20.5

6.6

43.5

Male

26.9

17.3

7.6

Female

31.4

23.3

5.7

Entire sample

2

3

0

Spirituality

1

2

3?

9.3

17.3

22.2

51.2

48.2

10.5

16.6

21.1

39.6

8.3

17.9

23.1

0

1

2

3

8.0

21.4

31.6

39.0

51.8

7.2

22.3

32.2

38.3

50.6

8.7

20.6

31.1

39.6

Gender

Marital status Single

15.0

16.9

6.4

61.8

9.4

18.7

25.1

46.8

9.6

26.6

31.8

32.2

Married

33.0

22.0

6.8

38.3

9.3

15.7

21.4

53.6

7.6

18.9

31.5

42.0

Age 20–29

5.9

16.2

6.4

71.6

7.8

14.7

21.1

56.4

8.3

24.5

31.4

35.8

30–39

14.2

24.7

9.0

52.1

3.8

15.3

17.0

63.9

10.4

20.8

34.4

34.4

40–49

35.0

24.1

6.8

34.0

12.6

16.0

27.2

44.2

7.8

17.3

33.3

41.5

50–59

52.5

16.8

3.9

26.8

14.5

21.8

22.9

40.8

5.6

24.6

25.7

44.1

60–69

75.3

11.0

2.7

11.0

9.6

27.4

23.3

39.7

4.1

23.3

28.8

43.8 39.9

Education Low

46.7

26.5

4.5

22.3

12.2

22.9

24.3

40.5

6.2

20.8

33.2

Medium

8.7

17.1

7.9

66.3

6.7

12.7

22.6

57.9

9.5

23.0

32.1

35.3

High

2.1

6.3

11.1

80.4

3.7

5.8

14.8

75.7

11.6

21.2

25.9

41.3

Low

53.0

26.2

3.6

17.2

14.3

27.6

24.7

33.3

3.2

24.0

30.5

42.3

Middle

28.5

25.7

5.5

40.3

10.5

18.3

21.7

49.5

7.9

18.8

31.2

42.1

High

29.0

20.7

6.5

43.9

3.2

8.1

20.6

68.0

11.6

23.0

32.3

33.1

Christian

20.8

17.3

5.8

56.1

7.5

11.6

17.3

63.6

0.0

13.9

26.0

60.1

Muslim

30.6

34.2

5.4

29.7

11.3

21.2

19.8

47.7

0.0

7.2

28.8

64.0

Buddhist

38.0

17.1

6.2

38.7

11.7

19.1

26.8

42.4

0.0

28.0

46.2

25.8

Hindu

22.6

21.5

8.6

47.3

2.2

10.8

17.2

69.9

0.0

20.4

25.8

53.8

None

19.5

12.0

9.0

59.4

6.8

18.0

21.8

53.4

62.4

34.6

3.0

0.0

Income

Religion

global orientation, providing opportunities for those with higher education (75.7%) and income (68%). Hindus (69.9%) and Christians were the most globalised (63.6%) among the various religious groups. 3.7 Degree of Secularization (Spirituality Index) Singapore is fairly diverse in terms of religion compared to predominantly Muslim countries (such as Malaysia and Indonesia) and Buddhist countries (such as Thailand) in South East Asia. Singapore prides herself on being a multi-religious society and has many public holidays and celebrations with religious roots and significance. Religion tends to be more formally structured and may entail involvement in a religious community. Although many Singaporeans may belong to formal religious organizations such as churches, mosques and temples, there are also many who are not inclined to do so but who remain interested in matters relating to spirituality. Spirituality can be construed as a more Reprinted from the journal

165

123

S. K. Tambyah et al.

personal form of religious expression which does not require a person to be part of institutionalized religion. The Spirituality Index was constructed by counting the responses to the three following questions. Firstly, respondents were asked if they belonged to any particular religion. An overwhelming 87.2 percent indicated a religious affiliation. Secondly, they were asked, ‘‘How often do you pray or meditate?’’ Those who said that they engaged in these practices ‘‘daily’’ and ‘‘weekly’’ were categorized as more concerned about their spirituality. About half of the respondents (47.7%) prayed or mediated daily, although there were two out of ten (21.6%) who never did. Thirdly, they were asked to indicate the extent to which they believe in an unseen spiritual world that can influence events in the world around them. Responses to the categories ‘‘definitely I believe’’ and ‘‘somewhat I believe’ were categorized as an affirmation of this practice of spirituality. The majority of Singaporeans (57.6%) believed in unseen spiritual powers. Someone who had a score of three on the Spirituality Index would be someone who professed a religious faith, who prayed and mediated daily or weekly and who believed in the powers of an unseen spiritual world. A higher score on this index shows that a person is more engaged in practices relating to spirituality. According to Table 3, Singaporeans placed considerable emphasis on maintaining their spirituality. Close to four in ten respondents (39%) had a score of three on the Spirituality Index, and 70.6 percent had at least a score of two. Both males and females were spiritually-inclined, although more married people were involved in practices of spiritually. The younger age groups (20– 29 years and 30–39 years) and the high income earners were not so interested in spiritual matters. Those with high education were more spiritual than those in the other educational levels. For religious groups, those who do not profess a faith were understandably lower scoring on the Spirituality Index (62.4% had a score of zero). In contrast, Muslims (64%) and Christians (60.1%) were devout in their practice of spirituality (scores of three). 3.8 Political Involvement In response to the question ‘‘how often do you vote in each of the following elections (national elections)?’’, the majority of Singaporeans (34.7%) said they voted ‘‘every time’’ and 18.3 percent said they voted ‘‘most of the time’’. There were others who indicated that they voted ‘‘sometimes’’ (14.0%), ‘‘rarely’’ (12.5%) and ‘‘never voted’’ (10.7%). The percentages for political involvement could be misleading because voting is compulsory in Singapore. Also, many Singaporeans may not get a chance to vote because the dominance of the ruling political party results in walkovers and non-contestation in many local elections. 3.9 Standard of Living The majority of Singaporeans would describe their standard of living as ‘‘average’’ (72.2%) while a combined 22.6 percent felt they had a ‘‘high’’ (6.8%) or ‘‘relatively high’’ (15.8%) standard of living. When we evaluated these responses by examining the respondents’ demographic characteristics (see Table 4), we found that males (23.5%) were more likely to view themselves as enjoying a high standard of living compared to the females (20.2%). Singles (22.5%) and married people (23.5%) were almost equally contented. Among the various age cohorts, the 20–29 year olds (25.0%) perceived their standards of living to be high or relatively high, followed by declining rates to a low of 19.0 percent for those aged 50–59 years and 17.8 percent for those aged 60–69 years.

123

166

Reprinted from the journal

The Quality of Life in Singapore Table 4 Perceptions of standard of living by demographic groups

Demographics Percentages who rated their standard of living as High and relatively high

Average Relatively low & low

Male

23.5

69.7

4.8

Female

20.2

74.2

5.5

Single

22.5

71.5

5.9

Married

23.5

72.9

3.6

20–29

25.0

69.6

5.5

30–39

23.6

71.9

4.5

40–49

23.4

70.7

5.8

50–59

19.0

76.0

5.0

60–69

17.8

76.7

5.5

Low

16.9

76.4

6.7

Medium

20.7

74.2

5.2

High

43.3

56.1

0.5

Gender

Marital status

Age

Education

Household income Low

12.2

73.5

14.3

Medium

21.2

76.4

2.3

High

33.4

65.4

1.2

Christian

30.1

63.6

6.3

Muslim

14.0

82.4

3.6

Buddhist

21.1

73.7

5.2

Hindu

32.3

58.1

9.6

None

23.3

73.7

3.0

Religion

Those with higher educational levels and households incomes perceived their standards of living to be higher. Among the various religious groups, Hindus (32.3%) and Christians (30.1%) gave high ratings to their perceived standard of living compared to the Muslims (82.4%) who mostly rated their standard of living as ‘‘average’’. Hindus perceived their standards of living to be either high and relatively high (32.3%) or low and relatively low (9.6%), registering the highest percentages at the extreme ends of the spectrum. Christians had a similar dichotomy with second-place percentages behind the Hindus. The Buddhists and those with no religion shared similar percentages in all three categories of responses, with slightly more than seven in ten rating their standard of living as ‘‘average’’.

4 Priorities in Life Priorities in life refer to the resources and activities which people consider important in helping them to live a satisfying life. The frequencies presented in Table 5 show how often a particular priority was chosen and regarded by the respondents as important. In selecting Reprinted from the journal

167

123

S. K. Tambyah et al. Table 5 Priorities in life (entire sample)

Values in bold indicate top five resources or activities which were considered important

Resource/activity

Percent Rank

1. Being healthy

83.8

1

2. Having a comfortable home

62.6

2

3. Having a job

58.5

3

4. Spending time with family

52.2

4

5. Having enough to eat

43.4

5

6. Having access to good medical care

27.6

6

7. Raising children

25.7

7

8. Earning a high income

24.6

8

9. Safe and clean environment

19.2

9

10. Being able to live without fear of crime

18.6

10

11. Living in a country with good government

16.8

11

12. Being successful at work

15.6

12

13. Being on good terms with others

11.1

13

14. Enjoying a pastime

10.0

14

15. Pleasant community to live

7.2

15

16. Having access to higher education

4.2

16

17. Being devout

4.0

17

18. Freedom of expression and association

3.3

18

19. Expressing your personality or using your talents

2.8

19

20. Contributing to your local community or to society

2.7

20

21. Owning lots of nice things

1.8

21

22. Appreciating art and culture

1.3

22

23. Dressing up

0.8

23

24. Winning over others

0.5

24

25. Being famous

0.1

25

the top five resources and activities, Singaporeans valued ‘‘being healthy’’ (83.8%), ‘‘having a comfortable home’’ (62.6%), ‘‘having a job’’ (58.5%), ‘‘spending time with family’’ (52.2%) and ‘‘having enough to eat’’ (43.4%). These priorities reflect the importance Singaporeans place on their personal well-being (in terms of physical health and gainful employment) and by extension, the well-being of their families (in terms of the quality of family life). It should be noted that ‘‘being healthy’’ is closely related to the sixth priority of ‘‘having access to good medical care’’ (27.6%) which represents the means to achieving the top priority of health. The importance placed on ‘‘raising children’’ (25.7%), the seventh-ranked priority, can also be viewed as a natural outcome of spending quality time with one’s family. These priorities appear to be the fundamental bread-and-butter issues that rational and family-oriented Singaporeans are concerned about. Interestingly, Singaporeans shunned priorities that seemed to promote a temporal sense of personal well-being that is based on outward appearances or the approval of others such as ‘‘being famous’’, ‘‘winning over others’’, ‘‘dressing up’’ and ‘‘owning lots of nice things’’. They also seemed to have little or no interest in ‘‘appreciating art and culture’’. These priorities collectively represent the bottom five resources and activities that Singaporeans considered important. Priorities that espouse more individualistic freedoms such as ‘‘freedom of expression and association’’ and ‘‘expressing your personality or using your talents’’ were not considered crucial by most Singaporean respondents. Another priority

123

168

Reprinted from the journal

The Quality of Life in Singapore Table 6 Priorities in life by demographic groups Priorities in life (Top five concerns) 1

2

3

4

5

Male

Health (81)

Job (66)

Housing (62)

Family (50)

Diet (44)

Female

Health (87)

Housing (63)

Family (54)

Job (52)

Diet (43)

Single

Health (79)

Job (67)

Housing (61)

Diet (41)

Family (39)

Married

Health (86)

Housing (63)

Family (57)

Job (55)

Diet (43)

20–29

Health (76)

Job (63)

Housing (62)

Family (44)

Diet (39)

30–39

Health (83)

Housing (62)

Job (58)

Family (56)

Children (37)

40–49

Health (87)

Job (62)

Housing (60)

Family (55)

Diet (48)

50–59

Health (85)

Housing (63)

Job (62)

Family (48)

Diet (44)

60?

Health (97)

Housing (75)

Diet (66)

Family (63)

Medical care (38)

Low

Health (85)

Housing (67)

Job (59)

Family (53)

Diet (50)

Medium

Health (79)

Housing (62)

Job (61)

Family (45)

Diet (41)

High

Health (86)

Family (58)

Job (54)

Housing (50)

Diet (27)

Low

Health (82)

Housing (68)

Job (62)

Diet (54)

Family (46)

Middle

Health (83)

Housing (62)

Job (62)

Family (53)

Diet (47)

High

Health (86)

Housing (60)

Family (57)

Job (54)

Diet (30)

Christian

Health (84)

Family (57)

Housing (53)

Diet (38)

Medical Care (27)

Muslim

Health (80)

Housing (75)

Job, Family (62)

Diet (50)

Children (25)

Buddhist

Health (85)

Housing (61)

Job (59)

Family (46)

Diet (45)

Hindu

Health (79)

Housing (69)

Job (68)

Family (55)

Medical Care (34)

None

Health (90)

Housing (55)

Job (54)

Family (44)

Diet (32)

Gender

Marital status

Age

Education

Income

Religion

Parentheses are the rounded percentages of respondents who selected the respective priorities in life. The priorities are as follows: Health—being healthy Housing—having a comfortable home Job—having a job Family—spending time with family Diet—having enough to eat Medical care—having access to medical care Children—raising children

that was not important was the more societally-oriented one related to ‘‘contributing to your local community or to society’’. For a more in-depth analysis, we evaluated how various demographic segments of Singaporeans viewed their priorities in life. The statistics are presented in Table 6. The five top priorities in life, namely being healthy, having a comfortable home, having a job, spending time with family and having enough to eat, were similarly chosen by both the male and female respondents. However, the rankings differed marginally. The first choice Reprinted from the journal

169

123

S. K. Tambyah et al.

(being healthy) and the fifth choice (having enough to eat) were the same for both groups: 87 percent of the female respondents selected ‘‘being healthy’’ compared to 81 percent for the males, while 43 percent of the females vs 44 percent of the males selected ‘‘having enough to eat.’’ The rankings for the other top three concerns differed slightly. While males (66%) chose ‘‘having a job’’ as their second concern, females (63%) chose ‘‘having a comfortable home’’. For the third concern, males (62%) chose ‘‘having a comfortable home’’ whereas females (54%) are concerned about ‘‘spending time with family.’’ Finally, males (50%) considered ‘‘spending time with family’’ as their fourth concern while females (52%) chose ‘‘having a job’’. The discussion for this section is focused on those who were singles and married as the other two groups (divorced and widowed) had smaller sample sizes. The top five priorities in life were chosen similarly by the two groups of respondents, although their rankings differed. However, there were some significant differences in terms of percentages. For instance, almost 86 percent of the married viewed ‘‘being healthy’’ as their top priority while only 79 percent of their single counterparts felt the same way. On the other hand, while singles (67%) chose ‘‘having a job’’ as their second priority, married subjects (55%) considered this their fourth priority. To the married subjects (63%), ‘‘having a comfortable home’’ was their second priority as opposed to it being third in priority for the singles (61%). ‘‘Spending time with family’’ was also of lesser importance (fifth choice) to the singles (39%) as compared to the married (57%) who ranked it as third most important. Comparing their priorities in life as chosen by respondents in different age groups, it was noted that they exhibited similar choices, with the exception of those aged 30–39 years, who selected ‘‘raising children’’ as their fifth choice. This was in contrast to those in other age groups who mostly chose ‘‘having enough to eat’’ as the fifth priority. For those aged 60–69 years, their third choice was ‘‘having enough to eat’’ as opposed to ‘‘having a job’’ or ‘‘having a comfortable home’’ as expressed by their younger counterparts. For these oldest respondents, their fifth choice was understandably ‘‘having access to good medical care’’ (38%). There were also significant variations among the five age groups in terms of percentages. For instance, although ‘‘being healthy’’ was the top choice for all the groups, the percentages varied from 76 percent for those aged 20–29 years to a high of 97 percent for those aged 60–69 years. More among those aged 60–69 years (63%) viewed ‘‘spending time with family’’ as of greater importance than the rest, especially those belonging to the age groups of 20–29 years (44%) and 50–59 years (48%). Similarly, more of the oldest respondents worried about ‘‘having enough to eat’’ (66%) compared to those who were younger (range of 39–48%). The top five priorities in life were similarly chosen by the three educational groups (low, medium and high education). Although ‘‘being healthy’’ was ranked first by the three groups, a slightly smaller percentage of those with medium educational level viewed this as their top priority in life (79%) compared to about 85–86 percent of those in the other groups. While most of the low (67%) and medium (62%) income earners considered ‘‘having a comfortable home’’ as their second most important concern, those with high education (50%) viewed this as their fourth priority. To this group of high education subjects, ‘‘spending time with family’’ was of second priority (58%). It was also not surprising to find only 27 percent of those with high education were concerned with ‘‘having enough to eat’’ as their fifth most important concern compared to their counterparts with lower education (41–50%). The top five choices of priorities in life were the same for the three household income groups (low, medium and high income) although there were some slight variations in terms

123

170

Reprinted from the journal

The Quality of Life in Singapore

of ranking of each priority. The top two concerns shared by all three income groups were ‘‘being healthy’’ and ‘‘having a comfortable home’’. The highest income group had marginally more concerned with their health (86% vs 82% and 83%) but less so with ‘‘having a comfortable home’’ (60% vs 62% and 68%). This group was also less worried about ‘‘having a job’’, ranking it as their fourth concern, as compared to their counterparts with lower income who ranked ‘‘having a job’’ as their third concern (62% for low and medium income groups). Also, only close to 30 percent of the high income group viewed ‘‘having enough to eat’’ as the fifth most important concern, compared to 47 percent for those with medium income. When comparisons were made across groups who professed different religions, the top five priorities in life chosen were almost identical, with the exception of Muslims whose fifth choice was ‘‘raising children’’. Christians and Hindus chose medical care for their fifth choice. It was also noted that although ‘‘being healthy’’ was the top choice by all the groups, the percentages making this choice varied significantly from a low of 79 percent for Hindus to a high of 90 percent for those who have no religion. Similar variations were also detected for the other top four choices. For those choosing ‘‘having a comfortable home’’, the variations were from a low of 53 percent (Christians) to a high of 75 percent (Muslims). In the case of ‘‘having a job’’, the range was from 54 percent (no religion) to 68 percent (Hindus). For ‘‘spending time with family’’, the Muslims were most concerned (62%) while the lowest priority was indicated by those with no religion (44%). When ‘‘having enough to eat’’ was compared, only 32 percent of those with no religion picked this item as their top fifth concern while as high as 50 percent of the Muslims considered this as their top fourth priority in life. 4.1 Needs for Having, Being and Relating To further analyse the priorities in life that are important to Singaporeans, we categorized the twenty five priorities according to the needs that were fulfilled by choosing such priorities. Human needs can be classified into three types: need for having, relating or loving, and being (Allardt 1976; Campbell 1981). The three types of human needs are measured by the priorities as stated below: Needs for Having 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Having enough to eat Having a comfortable home Being healthy Having access to good medical care if required Having a job Earning a high income Being successful at work

Needs for Relating 1 Spending time with family 2 Being on good terms with others 3 Raising children Needs for Being 1 Enjoying a past time 2 Appreciating art and culture

Reprinted from the journal

171

123

S. K. Tambyah et al. Table 7 Needs for having, relating and being Need for having 0 Entire sample

1

Need for relating

Need for being

2

3?

0

1

2

3

0

1

2

3?

0.2

6.0

20.2

73.6

32.9

45.9

20.4

0.8

68.3

27.3

4.0

0.4

Male

0.0

4.2

18.7

77.1

37.3

47.4

14.9

0.4

69.1

28.2

2.5

0.2

Female

0.4

7.5

21.5

70.7

29.3

44.6

25.0

1.1

70.9

25.8

3.2

0.2

Gender

Marital status Single

0.7

6.4

19.1

73.8

49.1

43.4

7.5

0.0

61.4

33.3

4.5

0.7

Married

0.0

5.7

20.74

73.9

27.2

46.3

25.4

1.1

73.5

24.4

2.1

0.0

20–29

1.0

5.9

21.1

72.1

45.6

42.6

11.8

0.0

64.7

29.4

4.9

1.0

30–39

0.0

6.6

19.1

74.3

28.5

45.1

25.7

0.7

74.0

24.7

1.4

0.0

40–49

0.0

4.4

19.4

76.2

27.2

46.6

25.5

0.7

75.2

22.8

2.0

0.0

50–59

0.0

7.3

23.5

69.3

35.8

46.9

16.8

0.6

63.7

31.8

4.5

0.0

60?

0.0

6.8

17.8

75.3

31.5

52.1

12.3

4.1

64.4

32.9

2.7

0.0

Low

0.0

4.7

18.9

76.4

31.5

45.1

22.4

1.0

72.4

25.3

2.3

0.0

Medium

0.4

4.8

17.9

77.0

40.9

43.3

15.9

0.0

69.0

27.0

3.6

0.4

High

0.5

11.6

27.5

60.3

27.0

51.9

20.1

1.1

64.0

31.7

3.7

0.5

Low

0.0

5.7

16.5

77.8

39.4

41.9

17.6

1.1

71.7

24.7

3.6

0.0

Medium

0.5

5.2

19.4

74.9

32.2

45.3

21.5

1.0

73.6

22.8

3.7

0.0

High

0.0

7.0

23.3

69.8

29.7

48.3

21.8

0.3

64.2

33.7

1.7

0.3

Christian

0.6

9.8

27.7

61.8

28.3

46.8

23.7

1.2

63.0

33.5

2.9

0.6

Muslim

0.0

4.1

16.7

79.3

27.0

52.3

20.7

0.0

73.0

24.8

2.3

0.0

Buddhist

0.2

5.7

17.6

76.4

36.5

43.4

18.9

1.2

72.7

25.3

1.7

0.2

Hindu

0.0

2.2

19.4

78.5

34.4

43.4

21.5

1.1

81.7

17.2

1.1

0.0

None

0.0

7.5

25.6

66.9

39.1

43.6

17.3

0.0

56.4

34.2

9.0

0.0

Age

Education

Income

Religion

3 Expressing your personality or using your talents 4 Safe and clean environment Table 7 shows the importance accorded to these priorities by the entire sample and by different demographic groups. The percentages show the importance accorded to zero, one, two, three or more of these priorities. For instance, 73.6 percent of the respondents surveyed felt that three or more of the priorities in the need for having were important to them while a very small 0.2 percent chose none of them. In contrast, almost one-third (or 32.9%) felt that none of the three priorities measuring the need for relating were important to them. In the case of the need for being, a high percentage (68.3%) felt that none of the priorities were important to them at all. The emphasis by the Singapore respondents clearly demonstrated the importance placed on the need of having, less so for the need of relating and an even lesser desire for the need for being. When the need for having was compared across different demographic groups, it was evident that men (77.1%) expressed a slightly greater need for having compared to women

123

172

Reprinted from the journal

The Quality of Life in Singapore

(70.7%). While there were few differences among people from different age groups and with different martial status, it was observed that people with lower or medium education and income expressed a greater need for having compared to those with high education and income. In terms of religion, the Muslims and Hindus expressed a greater need for having, when compared to the Christians. When the need for relating was analyzed across different demographic backgrounds, a very small percentage of them indicated importance for all the three priorities. 45.9 percent and 20.4 percent chose one and two priorities out of the three respectively. Males had a lower need for relating compared to females. About 37 percent of the males chose none of the priorities as compared to 29 percent for females. The need for relating was also more crucial to those who were married. About one in four (or 25.4%) of them chose two priorities as important compared to 7.5 percent for the singles. Close to 46 percent of those aged 20–29 years expressed no such need for relating as compared to 35.8 percent for those aged 50–59 years and 31.5 percent for those aged 60 years and above. About two out of three respondents (40.9%) with medium education indicated no priorities as important for their need of relating but 27 percent of those with high income thought so. On the other hand, those with low income had a lower need for relating. About 39 percent of them chose none of the priorities, compared to 29.7 percent of those with high income. It was also noted that those with no religious belief (39.1%) and Buddhists (36.5%) did not pick any priority. In contrast, only 28.3 percent of Christians and 27 percent of Muslims revealed such a sentiment. Respondents in Singapore appeared to have a very low need for being. On average, 68.3 percent of them did not choose any of the priorities. There was almost no difference between men and women in their need for being. Among people from different age groups, those aged 30–49 years expressed a lower need for being compared to those in other age groups. About 74 to 75 percent of those in this age group accorded no importance to any priority. On the other hand, the single respondents, those with high education and those with high income expressed a greater need for being. When the need for being was compared across people with different religious faiths, it was found that 81.7 percent of the Hindus did not choose any priority as important. On the contrary, 56 percent of the free thinkers and 63 percent of the Christians shared the same sentiment. In general, the survey results show that Singaporeans are more concerned about their material comforts and yearned more for the need of having. They were less concerned about the need for relating and even less bothered with the need for having. Men, those with lower education and income, and Muslims and Hindus were more concerned with the need for having. In contrast, females expressed a greater need for relating, along with respondents who are married, older and with higher incomes. Christians and Muslims were more concerned about the need for relating than Buddhists and Hindus. Single people and those with more resources (in terms of education and income) expressed a greater need for being.

5 Overall Quality of life: Happiness, Enjoyment and Achievement As shown in the ‘‘Entire sample’’ row of Table 8, in terms of happiness, more than a quarter of Singaporeans (27.5%) reported being ‘‘very happy’’ and more than half (51.1%) reported being ‘‘quite happy’’. These two percentages add up to an overwhelming 78.6 percent of Singaporeans expressing contentment with their lot in life (mean of 2.01). Correspondingly, as shown in the ‘‘Entire sample’’ row of Table 9, Singaporeans seemed Reprinted from the journal

173

123

S. K. Tambyah et al. Table 8 Levels of happiness by demographic groups Very Quite Neither happy Not too Very Balanced Mean happy (a) happy (b) nor unhappy happy (c) unhappy (d) (a ? b) - (c ? d) Entire sample 27.5

51.1

15.4

5.2

0.9

?72.5

2.01

Gender Male

24.6

52.6

16.8

5.1

0.8

?71.3

2.05

Female

29.8

49.7

14.2

5.3

0.9

?73.3

1.98

Single

20.6

55.1

18.4

4.5

1.5

?69.7

2.11

Married

30.5

50.6

13.7

4.7

0.6

?75.8

1.94

20–29

26.0

53.9

14.7

3.9

1.5

?74.5

2.01

30–39

28.1

53.1

13.5

4.9

0.3

?76.0

1.96

40–49

29.3

44.9

19.4

5.8

0.7

?67.7

2.04

50–59

25.7

53.1

14.5

5.6

1.1

?72.1

2.03

60?

26.0

54.8

11.0

6.8

1.4

?72.6

2.03

Low

28.0

49.2

16.4

5.5

0.8

?70.9

2.02

Medium

26.6

52.4

14.3

5.6

1.2

?72.2

2.02

High

27.0

55.0

13.8

3.7

0.5

?77.8

1.96

Low

21.5

50.2

20.1

6.1

2.2

?63.4

2.17

Middle

31.9

51.0

11.3

5.5

0.3

?77.1

1.91

High

27.6

51.5

16.6

3.8

0.6

?74.7

1.98

Christian

26.0

54.3

13.9

4.0

1.7

?75.6

2.01

Muslim

39.6

45.9

9.9

4.5

0

?81.0

1.79

Buddhist

23.3

53.1

17.1

5.7

0.7

?70.0

2.07

Hindu

29.0

50.5

12.9

5.4

2.2

?71.9

2.01

None

21.1

49.6

22.6

6.0

0.8

?63.9

2.16

Marital status

Age

Education

Income

Religion

to be enjoying life with an aggregate of 88.5 percent saying they are enjoying life ‘‘often’’ (34.3%) and ‘‘sometimes’’ (54.2%). In contrast to the glowing statistics on happiness and enjoyment, only 16.9% reported feeling they have accomplished ‘‘a great deal’’ in their lives (see ‘‘Entire sample’’ row in Table 10). Combined with the 59.1 percent who reported ‘‘some’’ accomplishment, the top two response categories for this scale item garnered 76 percent. At least one in five (20.7%) felt they were achieving ‘‘very little’’. This may seem slightly paradoxical that Singaporeans are happy and enjoy their lives although they feel they are not achieving very much. 5.1 Levels of Happiness by Demographic Groups Table 8 shows the different levels of happiness experienced by various demographic groups. Overall, about four out of five respondents (or 78.6%) felt quite happy or very happy about life. Females were happier than males although the differences were not statistically significant. Almost 80 percent (79.5%) of the females felt quite happy or very

123

174

Reprinted from the journal

The Quality of Life in Singapore Table 9 Levels of enjoyment by demographic groups Often (a)

Sometimes (b)

Rarely (c)

Never (d)

Balanced (a ? b) - (c ? d)

Mean

34.3

54.2

10.0

1.5

?77.0

1.79

Male

32.7

56.1

8.9

2.3

?77.6

1.81

Female

35.7

52.5

10.9

0.9

?76.4

1.77

Single

31.2

57.5

8.6

2.6

?77.5

1.83

Married

36.3

53.3

9.7

0.7

?79.2

1.75

20–29

36.3

54.9

8.3

0.5

?82.4

1.73

30–39

34.4

55.2

10.1

0.3

?79.2

1.76

40–49

31.4

54.9

11.6

2.0

?72.7

1.84

50–59

34.1

52.3

10.2

3.4

?72.8

1.83

60?

41.1

49.3

6.8

2.7

?80.9

1.71

Low

32.0

53.5

12.1

2.4

?61.0

1.85

Medium

34.9

56.0

8.3

0.8

?81.8

1.75

High

40.7

54.0

5.3

0.0

?89.4

1.65

Low

26.0

53.4

17.0

3.6

?58.8

1.98

Middle

39.5

52.9

6.6

1.1

?84.7

1.69

High

36.3

55.8

7.3

0.6

?84.2

1.72

Christian

41.3

50.6

5.8

2.3

?83.8

1.69

Muslim

39.6

49.5

9.9

0.9

?78.3

1.72

Buddhist

30.3

56.8

11.0

2.0

?74.1

1.85

Hindu

37.6

49.5

12.9

0

?73.2

1.75

None

27.8

60.9

9.8

1.5

?77.4

1.85

Entire sample Gender

Marital status

Age

Education

Income

Religion

happy, as compared to 77 percent of their male counterparts. The percentage of those who were quite happy or very happy over those who felt not too happy or very unhappy differed only marginally between males and females (71% vs 73%). Married people felt happier about life than their single counterparts. About four out of five (81.1%) of them felt quite or very happy, as compared to 75.7 percent for the singles. The difference between the level of happiness (very happy and quite happy) and unhappiness (not too happy or very unhappy) for the two groups (69.7% for singles vs 75.8% for married) clearly supported such an observation. When levels of happiness were compared over age groups, it was noted that those aged 40–49 years reported a lower level of happiness. About 74 percent of them felt very happy or quite happy, as compared to the next group (78.8% for those aged 50–59 years) and the group with the highest percentage (81.2% for those aged 30–39 years). This could be due to the observation that the middle aged group (40–49 years) faced more life pressures as a result of concerns about their job security, their children’s education, the rising costs of living and so on. Reprinted from the journal

175

123

S. K. Tambyah et al. Table 10 Levels of achievement by demographic groups

Entire sample

A great deal (a)

Some (b)

Very little (c)

None (d)

Balanced (a ? b) - (c ? d)

Mean

16.9

59.1

20.7

3.2

?52.1

2.10

Gender Male

15.7

59.4

22.5

2.3

?51.2

2.11

Female

18.0

58.9

19.2

3.9

?53.8

2.09

Single

16.2

61.5

20.0

2.3

?55.4

2.08

Married

17.2

59.4

20.4

3.1

?53.1

2.09

Marital status

Age 20–29

15.2

60.3

23.0

1.5

?51.0

2.11

30–39

15.7

62.2

19.6

2.4

?55.9

2.09

40–49

15.5

54.0

26.5

4.1

?38.9

2.19

50–59

18.8

64.8

11.9

4.5

?67.2

2.02

60?

28.2

50.7

16.9

4.2

?57.8

1.97

Education Low

15.3

57.5

22.2

5.1

?45.5

2.17

Medium

17.6

61.6

20.4

0.4

?58.4

2.04

High

21.3

61.2

16.5

1.1

?64.9

1.97 2.32

Income Low

10.9

54.9

25.8

8.4

?41.6

Middle

16.6

59.2

22.1

2.1

?51.6

2.10

High

21.7

62.8

15.0

0.6

?68.9

1.94 1.94

Religion Christian

25.0

58.1

15.1

1.7

?66.3

Muslim

14.0

58.6

24.8

2.7

?45.1

2.16

Buddhist

16.2

58.7

20.3

4.8

?49.8

2.14

Hindu

17.4

57.6

23.9

1.1

?50.0

2.09

None

13.3

62.4

21.1

3.0

?51.6

2.14

The better educated generally felt happier compared to those with lower educational achievement. For instance, about 82 percent of the people with high education felt happy as compared to those with medium education (79%) and those with low education (77.2%). The difference between happiness and unhappiness levels was more evident among those with low education (70.9% compared to 72.2% for those with medium education and 77.8% for those with high education). When the levels of happiness were compared over different income groups, it was interesting to find that those earning middle incomes were the happiest among the three groups analyzed. About 82.9 percent of them felt quite or very happy compared to 71.7 percent of those with low income and 79.1 percent of those with high income. The low income group also reported the biggest difference between happiness and unhappiness among the three groups (63.4% vs 77.1% for medium income and 74.7% for high income). In terms of religion, those without any religion experienced a lower level of happiness when compared to those who possessed a faith. Only 70.7 percent of them expressed happiness as compared to the next group (Buddhists with 76.4%) and the happiest group

123

176

Reprinted from the journal

The Quality of Life in Singapore

(Muslim with 85.5%). The Christians and Hindus had almost the same level of happiness (80.3% and 79.5% respectively). The same differences were also observed in the difference between the levels of happiness and unhappiness. It was noted that almost 40 percent of the Muslims (39.6%) felt very happy about life, a figure significantly higher than the other four religious groups (ranging from 21.1% to 29%). Generally, it was noted that across different demographic groups, the percentages of people who were happy were much higher than the people who were not too happy or very unhappy, as reflected by the numbers in the ‘‘Balanced’’ column of Table 8. The percentages ranged from 63.4 percent (for those with low income) to 81 percent (for those who were Muslims), thus indicating that Singaporeans were mostly very happy or quite happy about life. 5.2 Levels of Enjoyment by Demographic Groups Table 9 shows how people felt when they were asked if they were enjoying life these days. The answers varied from ‘‘often’’, ‘‘sometimes’’, ‘‘rarely’’ to ‘‘never’’. Overall, almost nine out of ten respondents (or 88.5%) replied that they enjoyed life sometimes or often. Males and females reported similar percentages of enjoyment with life, and the same was noted for those who are married or single. The youngest group (20–29 years) experienced the greatest level of enjoyment with 91.2 percent, followed closely by the oldest group (aged 60 years and over) with 90.4 percent. This oldest age group also reported the highest percentage of people enjoying life often. Over 41 percent of them enjoyed life often as compared to other age groups (ranged from 31.4% to 36.3%). The level of life enjoyment appeared to vary more among those with different levels of education. About 95 percent of those with high education agreed that they enjoyed life often or sometimes, compared to 90.9 percent of those with middle education and 85.5 percent of those with low education. The highly educated group also reported the highest percentage of people who enjoyed life often (40.7% as compared to 32% for low education and 34.9% for medium education). Similarly, people who reported earning middle or high income also enjoyed life more (92.4% and 92.1% respectively), as compared to those with low income (79.4%). In terms of religion, a higher percentage of the Christians appeared to enjoy life more compared to those who professed no faith or of other faiths. Almost 92 percent of the Christians felt they had enjoyed life sometimes or often, as compared to 89.1 percent of the Muslims, 88.7 percent of the free thinkers, and 87.1 percent respectively for the Buddhists and Hindus. The Christians (41.3%) and Muslims (39.6%) also reported higher percentages of them enjoying life often compared to Buddhists (30.3%) and those with no religion (27.8%). We note that irrespective of demographics, the percentages of people who enjoyed life often or sometimes were much higher than those who believed they rarely or never enjoyed life. The percentages varied from 58.8 percent (for low income earners) to 89.4 percent (for those with high education). 5.3 Levels of Achievement by Demographic Groups Table 10 reveals the levels of achievement as expressed by people from different demographic backgrounds. They were asked the question ‘‘how much do you feel you are accomplishing what you want out of your life?’’ The answers ranged from ‘‘a great deal’’, ‘‘some’’, ‘‘very little’’ to ‘‘none’’. Of the entire sample surveyed, about 17 percent felt they Reprinted from the journal

177

123

S. K. Tambyah et al.

had achieved a great deal, 59 percent felt some accomplishment, 21 percent felt ‘‘very little’’ and 3 percent felt no achievement at all. A marginally higher percentage of women felt they had achieved some or a great deal in life compared to men (76.9% vs 75.1%). The level of felt achievement differed very little between singles and married people (77.7% vs 76.6%). When such comparisons were made across different age groups, it was noted that those aged 50–59 years reported the highest percentage. About 84 percent of them felt they had achieved some or a great deal, as compared to the range from 69.5 percent (aged 40– 49 years) to 78.9 percent (aged 60 years and above). It was also interesting to note that the oldest group reported the highest percentage when they were asked if they had achieved a great deal. About 28 percent of them felt this way, compared to the range from 15.2 percent to 18.8 percent for the other age groups. The differential between achievement and nonachievement (38.9%) was greatest for those aged 40–49 years. When comparisons were made across respondents with different levels of education, the differences observed were much larger. About 73 percent of those with low education felt they had accomplished some or a great deal, compared to 79.2 percent for those with medium education and 82.5 percent for those with high education. Similarly, the highly educated group also showed a higher percentage of them feeling that they had accomplished a great deal. About 21 percent of them felt so as compared to 15 percent for those with low education and 18 percent for those with medium education. The differences in felt achievement also varied more among those with different levels of income. Only 66 percent of those with low income felt they had achieved some or a great deal in life. In contrast, almost 85 percent of those with high income and 76 percent of those with middle income shared similar feelings. In addition, almost 22 percent of those with high income felt they had achieved a great deal, compared to 11 percent of those with low income. When life accomplishment was compared across respondents with different faiths, it was revealed that Christians had the highest percentage of them feeling that they had achieved some or a great deal in life. About 83 percent of them felt this way as compared to the range from 72.6 percent for Muslims to 75.7 percent for those without a religion. Both the Buddhists and Hindus had the same percentage (about 75%) feeling they had achieved some or a great deal in life. The achievement gap was widest for Muslims and then for Buddhists. All in all, it is noted that across different demographic groups, the percentages of people who felt that they had achieved a great deal or had some level of achievement were generally higher than those who felt they had achieved little or had no achievement at all. The percentages ranged from a low of 38.9 percent (for those aged 40–49 years) to a high of 68.9 percent (for those with high income). Figure 1 presents the Index of Overall Life Quality, a summative 7-point index that collated the positive scores for happiness, enjoyment and achievement using the top two response categories for these scale items. Only 6.9 percent of the respondents did not report any positive score for this index, while the rest (93.1%) had at least one positive score in either one of the three areas of happiness, enjoyment and achievement. In fact, the majority of respondents (71.6%) had an index of three and above. Generally, Singaporeans appeared to be very satisfied with their overall quality of life. When we examined how Singaporeans felt about their overall quality of life in more demographic detail, some significant differences are noteworthy (see Table 11). Lower means in Table 11 indicate a higher degree of happiness, enjoyment or achievement. Males (mean of 2.05) are less happy than females (mean of 1.98), although they do not differ in

123

178

Reprinted from the journal

The Quality of Life in Singapore

Index of Overall Life Quality

Percentage 35

30.2%

30 25

18.9%

20

15.1%

14.8%

15

6.9%

6.5%

0

1

7.4%

10 5 0 2

3

4

5

6

Number of Quality of Life Domains Fig. 1 Index of overall life quality

terms of their views about enjoyment and achievement. The differences for gender were not statistically significant across happiness, enjoyment and achievement. Married people were happier, and enjoyed life more than their single counterparts, although there were no statistically significant differences on their enjoyment and achievement scores. In terms of achievement, those aged 60–69 years were most optimistic about what they were getting done in their lives followed by those aged 50–59 years and then 30–39 years. Generally, those with higher education and income felt happier with their overall quality of life in all three aspects as they seemed to have more resources and opportunities to succeed in life. The difference was statistically significant for the effect of education on enjoyment and achievement. Those with higher education enjoyed life more and achieved more than those with middle education. Those with middle income enjoyed life more than those with higher income, but those with higher income achieved more than those with lower income. In terms of religion, those who have no religion appeared to be least happy, enjoyed their lives the least and were not very proud of their accomplishments. The Buddhists and Hindus were in the average threshold with middle-range scores on happiness, enjoyment and achievement. Muslims were happiest (mean of 1.79) but ironically had the poorest score on achievement (mean of 2.16). They seemed to be deriving happiness from other sources apart from achievement. The Christians had the second highest score on happiness (mean of 2.01), and enjoyed life the most (mean of 1.69) while feeling the best about their achievements (mean of 1.94).

6 Satisfaction with Life Domains In addition to lifestyles and value priorities, respondents were asked to rate their satisfaction with their life domains using a scale as follows: 1 for ‘‘very satisfied’’, 2 for ‘‘somewhat satisfied’’, 3 for ‘‘neither satisfied nor dissatisfied’’, 4 for ‘‘somewhat dissatisfied’’ and 5 for ‘‘very dissatisfied’’. Lower means thus indicated a greater degree of satisfaction. The 16 life domains were housing, friendships, marriage (for those who are married), standard of living, household income, health, education, job, neighbors, public safety, the condition of the environment, the social welfare system, the democratic system, family life, leisure and spiritual life. Reprinted from the journal

179

123

S. K. Tambyah et al. Table 11 Means comparison for happiness, enjoyment and achievement by demographics

Demographics

Happiness

Enjoyment

Achievement

Male

2.05

1.81

2.11

Female

1.98

1.77

2.09

F-stats

1.843

0.822

0.275

P\

NS

NS

NS

Single

2.11

1.83

2.08

Married

1.94

1.75

2.09

F-stats

8.306

6.895

0.045

P\

0.004

NS

NS

20–29

2.01

1.73

2.11

30–39

1.96

1.76

2.09

40–49

2.04

1.84

2.19

50–59

2.03

1.83

2.02

60–69

2.03

1.71

1.97

F-stats

0.352

1.334

2.416

P\

NS

NS

0.047

Low

2.02

1.85

2.17

Medium

2.02

1.75

2.04

High

1.96

1.65

1.97

F-stats

0.437

6.984

7.180

P\

NS

0.001

0.001

Low

2.17

1.98

2.32

Medium

1.91

1.69

2.10

High

1.98

1.72

1.94

F-stats

8.03

17.297

22.173

P\

0.000

0.000

0.000

Christian

2.01

1.69

1.94

Muslim

1.79

1.72

2.16

Hindu

2.01

1.75

2.09

Buddhist

2.07

1.85

2.14

None

2.16

1.85

2.14

F-stats

5.439

2.522

3.132

P\

0.000

0.04

0.014

Gender

Marital status

Age

Education

Household income

Religion

Generally, the average number of life domains that Singaporeans were satisfied with was 12.3536 domains. They were dissatisfied with an average of less than one domain (0.8507). 26 percent of Singaporeans were satisfied with all of the 16 life domains, and 57.5 percent were satisfied with at least half of the life domains (total of 83.5%). The indices for Overall Domain Satisfaction (ODS) and Overall Domain Dissatisfaction (ODD) were also computed. The ODS was computed by counting the number of ‘‘very

123

180

Reprinted from the journal

The Quality of Life in Singapore

satisfied’’ and ‘‘somewhat satisfied’’ responses and dividing this by the total number of responses. Similarly, the ODD was computed by counting the number of ‘‘somewhat dissatisfied’’ and ‘‘very dissatisfied’’ responses and dividing this by the total number of responses. Nine out of ten Singaporeans (91.2%) reported being satisfied with at least eight domains, which is half of the 16 life domains. 63.3 percent did not pick any one domain that they were dissatisfied with. Table 12 presents Singaporeans’ more specific assessments of these sixteen life domains. The figures show the distribution of responses ranging from very dissatisfied (-2) to very satisfied (?2), the means and finally, the PDI values which reflect the gap between the respondents’ satisfaction and dissatisfaction levels with each domain. The PDI values are positive and greater than 50 percent for all the sixteen domains, ranging from a low of 50.5 percent to a high of 93.4 percent. Generally, it appears that Singaporeans are a contented lot. This mirrors the findings published by Kau et al. (2004) based on a nationwide Values and Lifestyles (VALS) Survey in 2001. Although the aspects of life surveyed were different from the Asia Barometer Survey, the reported life satisfaction among Singaporeans in this 2001 VALS survey was high. 76.9 percent of the people surveyed expressed their overall satisfaction with life in general. More than half (or 56.4 percent) of those surveyed also reported satisfaction with life in Singapore. They were most satisfied with the cleanliness of the country (64%), followed by the level of safety and security (62%), the quality of law enforcement (59%), the availability of public services (57%) and the way the government runs the country (57%). On the other hand, they were least satisfied with the cost of living (35%), the affordability of properties (33%) and the affordability of cars (28%). Table 12 Assessments of life domains Scale Points -2 -1

Satisfied (A) Dissatisfied (B) PDI (A - B)

0

1

2

Mean

Housing

0.7

2.9

9.2 33.8 53.4 1.17

87.2

3.6

?83.6

Friendships

0.1

1.5

8.7 35.5 54.2 1.23

89.7

1.6

?88.1

Marriagea

0.1

1.2

3.9 61.7 33.0 1.55

94.7

1.3

?93.4

Standard of living

1.1

6.1 16.9 20.3 55.7 0.88

76.0

7.2

?68.8

Household income

2.7 11.6 20.9 15.8 49.0 0.64

64.8

14.3

?50.5

Health

0.6

83.7

5.4

?78.3

4.8 11.5 30.7 53.0 1.09

Education

0.6

8.3 18.2 24.6 48.3 0.88

72.9

8.9

?64.0

Job

2.4

7.5 19.2 21.7 49.2 0.80

70.9

9.9

?61.0

Neighbors

0.7

3.3 15.1 25.3 55.7 1.02

81.0

4.0

?77.0

Public safety

0.5

2.6

87.0

3.1

?83.9

9.9 31.0 56.0 1.14

Environment

1.1

2.3 11.5 24.4 60.8 1.05

85.2

3.4

?81.8

Welfare system

2.9

7.5 28.1 13.9 47.6 0.62

61.5

10.4

?51.1

Democratic system 2.6

5.9 25.1 12.9 53.5 0.68

66.4

8.4

?58.0

Family life

1.1

92.5

1.4

?91.1

0.3

6.2 47.0 45.5 1.38

Leisure

0.3

3.2 12.5 25.9 58.2 1.06

84.1

3.5

?80.6

Spiritual life

0.3

1.6 14.4 29.3 54.4 1.11

83.7

1.9

?81.8

Notes: -2: very dissatisfied; -1: somewhat dissatisfied; 0: neither satisfied nor dissatisfied; ?1: somewhat satisfied; ?2: very satisfied a

Only among those who are married

Reprinted from the journal

181

123

S. K. Tambyah et al. Table 13 Distinguishing three life spheres from 16 life domains

Personal

Note: The reported loadings were from a principal components solution with varimax rotation using a listwise deletion. Loadings of greater than 0.40 were reported

h2

Factors Public

Interpersonal

Standard of living

.48

Household income

.76

.41 .64

Health

.63

.55

Education

.77

.64

Job

.71

.57

Public safety

.76

.63

Environment

.76

.64

Welfare system

.78

.67

Democratic system

.77

.64

Housing

.58

.39

Friendship

.70

.53

Marriage

.65

.58

Neighbors

.41

.34

Family life

.71

.62

Leisure

.69

.59

Spiritual life

.65

.52

According to the results of the 2006 Asia Barometer Survey, Singaporeans were most satisfied with their marriages (for those who are married) (93.4%), family life (91.1%), friendships (88.1%), public safety (83.9%) and housing (83.6%). They were least satisfied with their household incomes (50.5%), the social welfare system (51.1%), the democratic system (58%), their jobs (61%) and education (64%). We performed factor analysis on the sixteen life domains, and three factors or clusters of life domains emerged (see Table 13). The personal sphere comprises domains such as standard of living, household income, health, education and job. These are domains that impinge on a person’s sense of subjective well-being in terms of having sufficient financial resources and the physical wellness to enjoy them. The public sphere comprises domains such as public safety, environment, the welfare system and the democratic system. These are domains that ensure a conducive atmosphere for living in a particular society, and they affect a person’s sense of physical and psychological safety. The interpersonal sphere comprises the domains of housing, friendship, marriage, neighbors, family life, leisure and spiritual life. This interpersonal sphere is more multi-faceted and reflects the importance of significant others in a person’s life (such as one’s spouse, family, friends, neighbors and religious community). Table 14 provides an overview of the domains that Singaporeans are most satisfied and dissatisfied with. Almost all respondents consistently chose marriage and family as the two domains they are most satisfied with. The exceptions were single people (who chose family life and friendship) and Christians (who chose marriage and friendship). In terms of dissatisfaction, almost all respondents chose a combination of the three domains comprising the social welfare system, household income and the democratic system. The exceptions were those aged 60 years and above who were most dissatisfied with their jobs and education, and those with medium income who were concerned about their jobs (in addition to social welfare). Among the 20 categories of demographic variables analysed, the social welfare system appeared as the most common (mentioned 12 out of 20 times) as

123

182

Reprinted from the journal

The Quality of Life in Singapore Table 14 Satisfaction and dissatisfaction with life domains by demographic groups Types of domains most satisfied

Types of domains most dissatisfied

Number of domains Satisfied Dissatisfied

Entire sample

Marriage, family life

Social welfare, household income

12.4

0.9

Male

Marriage, family life

Social welfare, democratic system

12.4

0.9

Female

Marriage, family life

Household income, social welfare

12.3

0.9

Single

Family life, friendship

Social welfare, household income, democratic system

11.7

0.8

Married

Marriage, family life

Social welfare, household income

12.8

0.8

20–29

Marriage, family life

Household income, democratic system

12.1

0.8

30–39

Marriage, family life

Social welfare, household income, democratic system

12.5

0.8

40–49

Marriage, family life

Household income, social welfare

12.3

0.9

50–59

Marriage, family life

Social welfare, household income

12.5

0.9

60?

Marriage, family life

Job, education

12.3

0.9

Low

Marriage, family life

Household income, social welfare

12.4

0.9

Medium

Marriage, family life

Social welfare, democratic system

12.2

0.7

High

Marriage, family life

Social welfare, household income

12.5

0.7

Low

Marriage, family life

Social welfare, household income

11.9

1.2

Middle

Family life, marriage

Job, social welfare

12.6

0.8

High

Marriage, family life

Social welfare, household income

12.5

0.7

Christian Marriage, friendship

Social welfare, democratic system

12.7

0.7

Muslim

Household income, social welfare

12.9

0.7

Buddhist Marriage, family life

Household income, democratic system

12.0

0.8

Hindu

Marriage, family life

Social welfare, household income

12.8

1.1

None

Marriage, family life

Social welfare, household income

11.6

0.9

Gender

Marital status

Age

Education

Income

Religion Marriage, family life

the domain Singaporeans were most unhappy about. Discontentment with the democratic system was most prevalent among males, singles, those in their twenties and thirties, those with medium income and those who are Buddhists or Christians. For a more detailed analysis, we compared the means for the top and bottom five life domains using gender, marital status, age, education, household income and religion. Significant differences were found for various demographic groups’ levels of satisfaction and dissatisfaction with the life domains. It should be noted that previous quality-of-life studies in the context of Singapore have consistently reported positive correlations between education levels and household income. In the t-tests and means comparisons, we have used p \ 0.05 as the significance level. Our satisfaction and dissatisfaction analyses by demographic groups are reported in the following sections. Reprinted from the journal

183

123

S. K. Tambyah et al.

6.1 Satisfaction Analysis by Demographic Groups As shown in Table 15, males and females were equally likely to be satisfied with the top five life domains with the exception of ‘‘public safety’’. Males were more satisfied than females with this aspect of their lives. Generally, the married individuals were more satisfied over Table 15 Means comparison for five most satisfied life domains by demographics Demographics

Marriage

Family life

Friendship

Housing

Public safety

Male

1.42

1.59

1.75

1.84

1.81

Female

1.48

1.64

1.78

1.83

1.90

F-stats

1.672

1.397

0.657

0.088

3.460

P\

NS

NS

NS

NS

0.06

Gender

Marital status Single

NA

1.76

1.78

1.91

1.90

Married

1.45

1.54

1.75

1.79

1.83

F-stats

NA

23.91

0.192

5.514

2.03

P\

NA

0.000

NS

0.019

NS

20–29

1.33

1.66

1.71

1.91

1.94

30–39

1.43

1.53

1.83

1.89

1.77

40–49

1.42

1.59

1.71

1.78

1.87

50–59

1.52

1.74

1.83

1.75

1.82

60–69

1.57

1.73

1.74

1.82

1.99

F-stats

1.465

3.469

1.866

1.796

2.352

P\

NS

0.08

0.114

NS

0.052

Low

1.47

1.63

1.77

1.84

1.89

Medium

1.34

1.58

1.75

1.80

1.70

High

1.45

1.62

1.77

1.83

1.86

F-stats

4.527

1.036

0.107

0.316

10.245

P\

0.034

NS

NS

NS

0.001

Low

1.45

1.62

1.77

1.83

1.85

Medium

1.65

1.64

1.67

1.85

1.94

High

1.45

1.62

1.77

1.83

1.86

F-stats

1.959

0.015

0.734

0.015

0.439

P\

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

Christian

1.45

1.62

1.69

1.71

1.84

Muslim

1.29

1.44

1.60

1.75

1.76

Hindu

1.24

1.43

1.65

1.72

1.67

Buddhist

1.55

1.70

1.88

1.89

1.92

None

1.59

1.80

1.83

2.04

1.97

F-stats

7.41

10.10

7.82

5.27

4.04

P\

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

Age

Education

Household income

Religion

123

184

Reprinted from the journal

The Quality of Life in Singapore

the four domains of family life, friendship, housing and public safety. The domain of marriage is excluded as there are no comparative statistics for the single respondents. In particular, marital status accounted for significant differences in the two domains of ‘‘family life’’ and ‘‘housing’’. The singles were happy with their family life (mean of 1.76) but not too happy (mean of 1.91) with their housing situation. Those aged 30–39 years and 40–49 years were more satisfied with their family life. The youngest and oldest age groups were less satisfied with public safety compared with the other age groups. Education accounted for a significant difference in the satisfaction levels for ‘‘marriage’’ and ‘‘public safety’’. Those who have medium levels of education were most satisfied with these two life domains, followed by those with higher education and then those with lower education. There were no significant differences in satisfaction with the top five life domains across the various income groups. However, there were significant differences in satisfaction with the top five life domains across the major religion groupings. Within all five domains, Hindus and Muslims appeared to be happier. Hindus were the most satisfied about their marriages (their mean of 1.24 is the lowest score across all five domains and five religious groups). Those without any religion (None) were less satisfied with ‘‘housing’’ (mean of 2.04) and ‘‘public safety’’ (mean of 1.97), compared to the rest of the religious groups. Christians were exceptionally more satisfied with their housing. 6.2 Dissatisfaction Analysis by Demographic Groups Females were significantly more dissatisfied with their jobs and education (see Table 16). This could be attributed to the fact that males tend to have a higher propensity to achieve a university degree (Household Expenditure Survey 2005) and eventually have more access to financial capital and resources. There were no significant differences between married and single people. The older age groups were increasingly dissatisfied with education. This could be due to the fewer opportunities for educational advancement and retraining as one gets older. Those aged 40–49 years registered considerable dissatisfaction (mean of 2.44) with their household incomes, while those aged 60–69 years were unhappy with their jobs. Although these are the five ‘‘most dissatisfied’’ life domains, the more highly educated group seemed to be coping well with means averaging between the lower and medium income groups. Those with medium educational levels were dissatisfied with their household incomes, jobs and education, and even more so with the social welfare and democratic systems. Similarly, those with lower education were dissatisfied with the social welfare and democratic systems, and this unhappiness was augmented when they considered the economic aspects of their lives such as household incomes, jobs and education. There were no significant differences in dissatisfaction for the various income groups. However, there were significant differences in the five ‘‘most dissatisfied’’ life domains across the major religion groupings. Buddhists and those without any religion (None) were most dissatisfied with the social welfare system, the democratic system and education compared to the rest of the religious groups. Muslims were consistently the least dissatisfied group over ‘‘social welfare system’’ and ‘‘democratic system,’’ while Christians were the least dissatisfied group about education.

7 Determinants of the Overall Quality of Life In order to examine whether and how Singaporeans’ degree of happiness, enjoyment, and achievement are affected by their lifestyles, priorities in life, and the degree of their Reprinted from the journal

185

123

S. K. Tambyah et al. Table 16 Means comparison for five most dissatisfied life domains by demographics Demographics

Social welfare system

Household income

Democratic system

Job

Education

Male

2.38

2.34

2.36

2.12

2.04

Female

2.38

2.39

2.28

2.27

2.18

F-stats

0.002

0.749

2.295

5.976

6.285

P\

NS

NS

NS

0.015

0.012

Single

2.37

2.37

2.37

2.19

2.03

Married

2.37

2.31

2.30

2.16

2.13

F-stats

0.006

0.841

1.199

0.105

2.373

P\

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

20–29

2.30

2.38

2.32

2.17

1.99

30–39

2.43

2.34

2.34

2.12

2.02

40–49

2.40

2.44

2.35

2.19

2.19

50–59

2.38

2.31

2.30

2.28

2.22

60–69

2.31

2.25

2.16

2.44

2.38

F-stats

0.686

0.962

0.713

1.660

4.716

P\

NS

NS

NS

NS

0.001

Low

2.34

2.42

2.27

2.23

2.23

Medium

2.55

2.10

2.55

2.06

1.64

High

2.38

2.36

2.32

2.20

2.12

F-stats

8.028

18.100

17.033

4.868

70.999

P\

0.005

0.000

0.000

0.028

0.000

Low

2.38

2.37

2.32

2.19

2.12

Medium

2.32

2.31

2.32

2.48

2.24

High

2.38

2.36

2.32

2.20

2.12

F-stats

0.108

0.095

0.000

2.351

0.642

P\

NS

NS

NS

NS

NS

Christian

2.39

2.30

2.31

2.03

1.97

Muslim

2.23

2.36

2.08

2.20

2.03

Hindu

2.43

2.24

2.29

2.11

2.00

Buddhist

2.39

2.43

2.40

2.24

2.26

None

2.55

2.36

2.50

2.32

2.11

F-stats

2.65

0.98

6.51

2.16

4.73

P\

0.03

NS

0.00

NS

0.00

Gender

Marital status

Age

Education

Household income

Religion

satisfaction with specific life domains, we conducted regression analyses in which degree of happiness, enjoyment, and achievement were used as dependent variables, and the satisfaction scores for the above-mentioned dimensions and five demographics variables

123

186

Reprinted from the journal

The Quality of Life in Singapore

were used as independent variables. Religion was not used in the regression analysis because the Spirituality Index already accounted for religious affiliation. The results are shown in Table 17 for the entire sample and Table 18 for married respondents only. For the entire sample, what were some of the determinants of happiness, enjoyment, achievement and the overall quality of life? And to what extent would these determinants differ, if any, for those who are married? The R-squares for the multiple regressions ranged from 0.18 to 0.32 for the whole sample (Table 17) and from 0.20 to 0.31 for the married subjects sample (Table 18). The standardised betas are reported. In terms of happiness, the important predictors are Standard of Living (0.21), Spiritual Life (0.15), Family Life (0.14), Health (0.10), and Democratic System (0.09) for the entire sample. Two of these predictors are similar for the married sample, namely Standard of Living (0.26) and Family Life (0.12). However, for married respondents, the third important predictor is Job (0.10). Demographic variables, lifestyles and value priorities had no significant effect on happiness for the entire sample or for married people. The contributing factors for the entire sample’s sense of enjoyment are Friendship (0.10) and Leisure (0.9). Interestingly, Standard of Living had a significant but negative impact on enjoyment (-0.21). Again, demographic variables, lifestyles and value priorities had no significant effect on enjoyment. For those who are married, Standard of Living (0.21), Marriage (0.11), and Friendship (0.10) contributed positively and significantly towards their sense of enjoyment. However, having a Spiritual Lifestyle detracted from their enjoyment of life (-0.10). Demographic variables and value priorities had no bearing on one’s enjoyment. There were considerably more varied predictors for achievement. Those who put a premium on Being feel they have achieved something in their lives (0.12). This is the only significant effect of Value Priorities for the entire sample. Income (-0.11) and age (-0.08) had a negative effect on how respondents felt about their achievement. Those living a Digital Lifestyle (-0.09) also feel they have achieved less. Older people might feel less positive about their achievement because on hindsight, looking back on what they have done, they might feel they could have achieved more in life. The negative impact of income may seem counter-intuitive. However, this might be an indication that increasing levels of material wealth might not necessarily lead to higher degrees of life satisfaction. According to a prosperity index developed by the London-based Legatum Institute for Global Development (Straits Times, 3 July 2007, p. 22), in terms of material wealth, Singapore was ranked first in the world. However, its life satisfaction index was ranked much lower, securing only the 24th position globally. This phenomenon has also been observed in the case of South Korea and Japan. For married respondents, nine predictors of achievement were identified. Women (-0.11) and those with more income (-0.13) felt more poorly about their achievement, while those who were younger (-0.13) felt more positively. Similar to the entire sample, those living a Digital Lifestyle (-0.11) feel they have achieved less. Value priorities played a bigger role with Relating (0.14) and Being (0.09) contributing significantly to one’s sense of achievement in life. Interestingly, the value priorities related to Having did not have a significant effect. This could indicate that a sense of achievement need not be based on economic wealth and well-being but could be based on emotional wealth and well-being derived from interpersonal relationships and an appreciation of other things in life. The effect of life domains was also slightly different with Education (0.17) and Marriage (0.12) having an enhancing influence while neighbors (-0.10) provided the counter-balance. Finally, for overall quality of life, the most important indicators were Standard of Living (0.19), Spiritual Life (0.13) and Family Life (0.12) for the entire sample. Demographic variables, lifestyles, value priorities and the public sphere of life domains did not Reprinted from the journal

187

123

S. K. Tambyah et al. Table 17 Effects of domain satisfactions on global life quality after controlling demographic variables, lifestyles and value priorities (for whole sample) Happiness (0–4)

Enjoyment (0–3)

Achievement (0–3)

Overall quality (0–6)

Demographic Gender (2 = female)

-.04

-.03

-.05

.06

Age

-.01

-.02

-.08*

.05

Education Income

.01

-.03

-.03

.02

-.02

-.03

-.11**

.06 .07

Lifestyles Digital life

-.03

-.08

-.09*

Global life

.03

-.02

-.02

.02

Spirituality

.00

-.03

.01

.03

Having

.05

.04

.04

-.06

Relating

.04

.04

.07

-.07

-.01

-.01

.12**

-.03

-.21**

.09*

.19**

.02

.07

.02

.08

.00

.05

-.02

-.01

.06

.04

.04

-.00

.03

.03

Housing

.01

.02

.05

.05

Friendships

.03

.10**

.01

.05

Neighbors

.01

.01

.00

Value priorities

Being Personal domains Standard of living Household income Health Education Job

.21** -.02 .10**

Interpersonal domains

-.02

Family life

.14**

.08

.09

.12**

Leisure

.05

.09**

.03

.07

Spiritual life

.15**

.07

.07

.13**

Public domains Public safety

-.02

.01

.04

-.02

Environment

-.01

-.04

-.08

-.05

Welfare system

.05

-.02

.03

.04

Democratic system

.09*

.05

.03

.08

.31

.23

.18

.32

(815)

(812)

(809)

(808)

R2 (N)

* Statistically significant at the 0.05 level ** Statistically significant at the 0.01 level

have a significant role. The overall quality of life for married respondents was better for women (0.08) and those who are older (0.09). The standard of living (0.20), the democratic system (0.13) and education (0.10) had positive effects. On the other hand, Relating (-0.09) had a negative relationship with the overall quality of life. This was somewhat surprising as Relating had a positive influence in the Achievement aspect of life for married respondents.

123

188

Reprinted from the journal

The Quality of Life in Singapore Table 18 Effects of domain satisfactions on global life quality after controlling demographic variables, lifestyles and value priorities (for married subjects sample) Happiness (0–4)

Enjoyment (0–3)

Achievement (0–3)

Overall quality (0–6)

Demographic -.03

-.03

-.11**

Age

Gender (2 = female)

.01

-.06

-.13**

Education

.04

.00

-.02

-.04

-.13**

Income

-.01

.08* .09* -.01 .06

Lifestyles Digital life

-.02

-.06

-.11*

.07

Global life

.04

-.06

.00

.03

Spirituality

-.05

-.03

.08

-.10*

Value priorities Having

.08

.00

.04

-.05

Relating

.08

.06

.14**

-.09*

Being

.02

-.03

.09*

-.04

Personal domains Standard of living

.26**

Household income

.00

-.02

.05

.04

Health

.02

.04

-.06

-.01

Education

.02

Job

.10*

.21**

.06

.08

.20**

.17**

.10*

.03

.04

.05

.03

-.05

.04

-.01

Interpersonal domains Housing

-.03

-.01

Friendships

.05

.10*

Marriage

.05

.11*

Neighbors

-.01

-.03

.12*

.07

-.10*

-.04

Family life

.12*

-.01

.03

.08

Leisure

.05

.05

.07

.07

Spiritual life

.06

.02

.03

.07 -.09

Public domains Public safety

-.06

-.07

-.05

Environment

.02

.02

.02

.01

Welfare system

.06

-.03

.01

.02

Democratic system

.10

.11

.09

.13*

.31

.20

.20

.30

(569)

(567)

(564)

(563)

R2 (N)

* Statistically significant at the 0.05 level ** Statistically significant at the 0.01 level

8 Conclusion: Key Findings and their Policy Implications In this section, we focus on the key findings relating to the standard of living, lifestyles, priorities in life, overall quality of life (happiness, enjoyment and achievement) and satisfaction/dissatisfaction with life domains. These findings are compared across Reprinted from the journal

189

123

S. K. Tambyah et al.

demographic groups whenever there are important significant patterns. We also discuss the policy implications emanating from these findings. 8.1 Key Findings Most Singaporeans appeared to be satisfied with their standard of living. Those who perceived that they were enjoying a higher standard of living tended to be male, younger (20–29 years of age), with higher educational levels and incomes, and who professed to be Christians or Hindus. Generally, as Singaporeans get older, they tend to have less optimistic assessments of their standard of living. Similarly, those with lower educational levels and incomes rated their standard of living unfavorably. There were no significant differences between single and married people. Our analysis of the priorities in life of Singaporeans indicates a general level of consistency in the choice and ordering of these priorities for the general population and across demographic groups. The top five priorities are being healthy, having a comfortable home, having a job, spending time with family and having enough to eat. The sixth priority of having access to good medical care is closely related to the top priority of health. Singles and younger people (20–29 years) place more importance on having a job and being economically independent, while older people value their health and familial relationships. Those in their forties and fifties are also concerned about their jobs, and this could be a reflection of mid-life career decisions and/or worries about their long-term economic potential. People in their thirties and forties are more family-oriented, with those in their thirties more attentive to the responsibilities involved in raising their children. Those with lower to medium levels of education and income are also more concerned about their jobs and livelihood. Basically, health, home, economic well-being (having a job and having enough to eat), and family are the pillars of Singaporean life and society. With regard to the happiness, enjoyment, achievement and the overall quality of life, we find that the majority of Singaporeans are happy (78.6%) and enjoying life (88.5%), although only 16.9 percent felt they have accomplished ‘‘a great deal’’ in their lives. Happy individuals could be male or female, and of any educational level. Although one could be happy at any age, those aged 40–49 years did not seem very happy. Married people are happier than single people. Higher income does not guarantee happiness; those with medium income are happier. Muslims are happiest and those with no religious faith are the least happy. Males and females both enjoy life, as well as single and married people. The youngest and oldest age groups enjoy life the most. Those with more education and income are enjoying life more. This is also true for Christians and Muslims. A high achiever is slightly more likely to be female (although there is no significant difference between male and female). S/he can also be either single or married. Those who feel they have achieved something are likely to be older (50–59 years, 60 years and above) and those with more education and income. Christians are also high scorers on achievement. In terms of satisfaction with specific life domains, Singaporeans are most satisfied with their marriages (for those who are married), family life, friendship, housing, and public safety. They are least satisfied with the social welfare system, their household incomes, the democratic system, their jobs and education. Singaporeans’ perceptions of their overall quality of life are mostly influenced by their relationships with significant others and their satisfaction with their homes. Housing had a major influence on happiness, enjoyment and achievement. Having strong and supportive interpersonal relationships also contributed to the happiness of Singaporeans.

123

190

Reprinted from the journal

The Quality of Life in Singapore

The regression results showed that, generally for the entire sample and also the married sample, the standard of living had the most wide-ranging positive impact on happiness, enjoyment, achievement and overall quality of life. For the entire sample, friendships and leisure contributed to people’s enjoyment in life, and working on their needs for Being helped to enhance their sense of achievement. Their overall quality of life was also influenced by their family life and spiritual life. For married people, their jobs and family life brought them happiness, while marriages and friendships contributed to their enjoyment in life. Married people also seemed to draw from a larger pool of resources such as needs for Having and Being, Education, and Marriage, for their sense of achievement. 8.2 Policy Implications From the summary of findings presented, we discuss the important policy implications and challenges Singaporeans face in attaining and maintaining their desired quality of life. The policy implications outlined are closely aligned with the value priorities that are important to Singaporeans namely, ‘‘being healthy’’ (83.8%), ‘‘having a comfortable home’’ (62.6%), ‘‘having a job’’ (58.5%), ‘‘spending time with family’’ (52.2%) and ‘‘having enough to eat’’ (43.4%). 8.3 Healthcare Accessibility and Costs Given Singaporeans’ concern about health and access to good medical care, policy-makers have a challenging task to contain healthcare costs while maintaining excellent standards of care. The concern for health was especially prevalent among the older respondents. This is a looming challenge for Singapore as she faces an ageing population with more demand for medical goods and services. The need to increase government spending in healthcare has been recently acknowledged by policy-makers. Various initiatives have been put in place to attempt to provide more comprehensive medical insurance coverage for the general population and subsidized healthcare for the needy. Government-linked agencies (e.g., the Health Promotion Board) have been tasked to promote a healthy lifestyle for all Singaporeans regardless of age. Programs targeted at school-going children emphasize healthy eating in school cafeterias and keeping fit through sports. Community-based programs also play a role in advocating healthy diets and exercise for women, busy professionals, the elderly and those at risk (e.g., diabetics and those with high blood pressure). 8.4 Home Ownership Having a comfortable home is a treasured priority in life in Singapore where many Singaporeans already own their own homes. The high degree of home ownership is the result of an enduring long-term government initiative to provide affordable and good quality public housing. However, due to the scarcity of land resources, property and housing prices in Singapore can be volatile and subject to inflationary pressures. Also as Singaporeans become more affluent, more aspire to own private housing. Policy-makers would have to manage the expectations of younger Singaporeans amidst the rising costs of properties to ensure that housing remains affordable to this important cohort. More could be done for some demographic groups in terms of housing. As noted earlier, the singles were unhappy with their housing situation. This could be because they do not

Reprinted from the journal

191

123

S. K. Tambyah et al.

benefit from government subsidies on housing, which are primarily given to married people and singles over 35 years of age. Younger singles who want to have their own homes would have to purchase more expensive private homes. More innovative schemes for home ownership would have to be implemented to ensure that single people do not feel left out of the social fabric of Singapore. 8.5 Jobs and Economic Well-Being Although Singapore has been a relatively well-off nation in Asia and has successfully weathered the financial crises of 1997 and 2001, many Singaporeans are still concerned about their rice bowls. Our analysis consistently showed that people are concerned about their jobs, incomes, education and standard of living. To ensure that the Singapore economy remains vibrant and robust, policy-makers have identified several growth opportunities. These are in areas such as biotechnologies (including stem-cell research), higher education, financial services, urban renewal and tourism (including meetings, incentive trips, conventions, exhibitions and casinos). The Singapore government has also launched numerous tax and workforce initiatives to increase Singapore’s competitiveness and attractiveness to investors from around the globe. For older Singaporeans who are concerned about long-term viable employment, there is an emphasis on lifelong learning and the upgrading of skills for all workers, and the re-training and re-employment of older workers. One important aspect of training could be to ensure that more Singaporeans are technologically-savvy and competent in the use of computers and the Internet. Singapore prides herself on being at the forefront of technological adoption and Internet connectivity among Asian countries. Singaporeans are strongly encouraged to be computer-literate and internet-savvy from a young age as more schools are using laptops and related technology in their pedagogy. According to a 2001 nation-wide survey on values and lifestyles of Singaporeans (Kau et al. 2004), Singaporeans used the Internet primarily for entertainment (71.7%) and educational purposes (45.2%). From the 2006 Asia Barometer Survey, we find that married men who are 30–39 years old with medium to high incomes are more technologically savvy with regard to Internet and email usage. Conversely, older (40–49 years old) married females with low incomes are lagging behind in the cyber-revolution. The disparities are not as obvious in the use of mobile phone technology. Policy-makers could consider strategies to reach the less e-connected segments through grass–root associations in the housing estates where the majority of Singaporeans reside. Easy access to classes and public computer facilities could be provided to introduce more users to the Internet. 8.6 Family Focus and Other Relationships The finding about family relationships being closely related to Singaporeans’ priorities in life and satisfaction levels is not surprising. Since 1994, the Singapore Government has been using the Family Values campaign to promote family values such as love, care, concern, mutual respect, filial responsibilities, and commitment, which would enhance the well-being of families and undergird the progress of Singapore. In view of the ageing population and the fact that singles and younger people place more importance about having a job and being economically independent, while those in their thirties and forties are more family-oriented, perhaps the focus of the next stage of the Family Values campaign would be to address the issue of how to convince the younger Singaporeans (especially those who are more highly educated) to be pro-family without sacrificing their material well-being.

123

192

Reprinted from the journal

The Quality of Life in Singapore

From our analysis, Singaporeans generally treasure their relationships with people around them. As mentioned earlier, married people seemed to be able to draw on a larger pool of resources for a better quality of life. However, as observed in many modern societies in Asia, women and men are delaying getting married due to the pressures of advancing their career and other goals. While cohabitation is slowly becoming more popular, Singapore is still relatively conservative in this aspect. Thus the general policymaking agenda is to encourage women and men to find suitable marriage partners with the help of government and private dating and matchmaking services. In addition to marriages, campaigns focusing on other relationships such as neighbors and friends could also be organized to help Singaporeans continue to nurture these relationships. This will also help to build more socially-oriented communities and provide the support networks that are critical for maintaining a good quality of life. 8.7 Costs of Living Although there were no statistically significant differences among the various income groups regarding their dissatisfaction levels, it is still helpful to evaluate some of these findings in light of rising costs of living and the income divide observed in many affluent societies in Asia and other parts of the world. In particular, the social welfare system and the democratic system were identified as contributing to the dissatisfaction levels of Singaporeans. In recent years, the middle-class in Singapore has experienced difficulties in making ends meet. They feel they are not able to enjoy the same standard of living as the previous generation because of rising costs. They are also not entitled to subsidies that are available to families with lower education and incomes. Those with lower education are also dissatisfied with the social welfare and democratic systems, especially when their household incomes, jobs and education are adversely affected. Policy-makers should be aware of the specific concerns of these segments which face economic and social constraints in attaining or maintaining their desired standard of living. Although the Singapore government is resistant towards socialist forms of welfare, they have recognized that some segments of the population do need financial help and other forms of support. 8.8 Sense of Belonging In recent years, the Singapore Government has recognized the need to connect Singaporeans to the nation and to fellow citizens. Younger and more educated and well-off Singaporeans are studying/working overseas and becoming more globalised. Thus it is a challenge to keep them engaged as Singaporeans. Singapore has also been opening her doors to economic migrants to boost the current population of four million to six-and-a half million for further economic growth. There is a need to integrate these migrants from diverse ethnic backgrounds into the social and cultural fabric of Singapore. This sense of belonging cannot be based only on the economic basis of home ownership but should encompass more symbolic and intangible shared values such as taking pride in one’s country and doing one’s best for the nation. As indicated in the survey findings, the majority of respondents (84.6%) readily identified themselves as ‘‘Singaporean’’, while 53 percent and 39.5 percent felt ‘‘very proud’’ and ‘‘somewhat proud’’ to be Singaporean respectively. This fervent patriotism could be attributed in part to the nation-building effort spearheaded by the Singapore government and its various agencies (such as the Ministry for Community, Youth and Sports). Messages focusing on social cohesion and harmony Reprinted from the journal

193

123

S. K. Tambyah et al.

among Singaporeans are also frequently disseminated through the largely state-owned media (such as the newspapers, TV and radio broadcasters). In addition, policy makers should consider initiatives to help globalised Singaporeans connect with their homeland. Recent changes to allow Singaporeans based overseas to participate in the voting process for local elections have been welcomed. Other changes that have been suggested include the flexibility of dual citizenship and avenues for more political representation and involvement. 8.9 Conclusion From the results of the 2006 Asia Barometer Survey, it appears that Singaporeans are still very much concerned about their economic well-being although Singapore has enjoyed many years of financial stability and growth. However, recent developments have shown that Singaporeans are looking beyond the basic bread-and-butter issues. The current generations of Singaporeans who have enjoyed a high standard of living on economic grounds are looking to enhance their lifestyles and enjoyment of life through other means. The Singapore government recognizes that beyond economic fundamentals, it is important to cultivate the heart and soul of a nation. The nurturing of a unique and sustainable cultural identity is becoming critical as Singapore welcomes more economic migrants to her shores. The increasing diversity of Singapore’s population presents challenges for policy-makers to maintain social cohesiveness and inter-ethnic harmony while providing an environment for all citizens to sustain their standard of living and realize their aspirations in life.

References ECA International. (2006). Location Ranking Survey 2006. http://www.eca-international.com. Freedom House. (2007). Freedom in the World – Singapore (2007). http://www.freedomhouse.org/template. cfm?page=22&country=7269&year=2007. International Monetary Fund. (2007). World Economic Outlook Report: Spillovers and cycles in the global economy. http://www.imf.org. Kane, T., Holmes, K. R., & O’Grady, M. A. (2007). Index of economic freedom. Washington, D.C.: The Heritage Foundation and Dow Jones & Company, Inc., at www.heritage.org/research/features/index. Kau, A. K., Jung, K., Tambyah, S. K., & Tan, S. J. (2004). Understanding Singaporeans: Values, lifestyles, aspirations, and consumption behaviors. New Jersey: World Scientific Publishing. Kearney, A. T. (2006). Globalization Index 2006. Foreign Policy, November/December, 74–81. Legatum Institute for Global Development. (2007). Global Prosperity Index. www.prosperity.org. Mercer Human Resource Consultancy. (2007). Worldwide Quality of Living Survey. http://www. mercerhr.com. Political and Economic Risk Consultancy (PERC) Ltd. (2006, March). 2005–2006 Corruption in Asia Report. www.asiarisk.com. Statistics Singapore. 2005 Household Expenditure Survey. http://www.singstat.gov.sg. Statistics Singapore. 2005 General Household Survey. http://www.singstat.gov.sg. The Economist Intelligence Unit. (2007). Global Peace Index. May 2007. The World Bank. The World Bank Annual Report 2006. http://go.worldbank.org/KQ3OFFED90. Transparency International, TI Corruption Perception Index, http://www.transparency.org. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). (2007). Human Development Report. http://hdr.undp.org .

123

194

Reprinted from the journal

Soc Indic Res (2009) 92:377–404 DOI 10.1007/s11205-008-9353-1

The Quality of Life in Taiwan Grace Yao Æ Yen-Pi Cheng Æ Chiao-Pi Cheng

Accepted: 6 October 2008 / Published online: 5 November 2008 Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Abstract The AsiaBarometer survey of 1,006 respondents shows that in Taiwan, people have access to modern utilities and digital media, signs of materialistic achievement, and yet are more concerned with physical security and financial safety than with personal growth. Regardless of their demographic backgrounds and value priorities, the Taiwanese, like other Confucian publics, are most satisfied with the interpersonal life sphere and least satisfied with the public life sphere. Their satisfaction levels concerning various life domains affect their sense of well-being more than does their prioritization of values. Assessments of material and nonmaterial life domains contribute to their sense of wellbeing more than those of interpersonal and public domains do. Access to modern utilities and a high income, however, detract from their sense of well-being. As is the case elsewhere, a better set of objective life circumstance does not necessarily make for a greater quality of life in Taiwan. The government, therefore, should seek to provide more than economic goods and services. Keywords

AsiaBarometer survey
Taiwan
Quality of life

1 Introduction 1.1 Geography and Population Taiwan is a small island that lies on the western edge of the Pacific Ocean, between Japan and the Philippines. It has an area of about 36,000 km2 (14,400 miles2) and, about G. Yao (&)
Y.-P. Cheng Department of Psychology, National Taiwan University, 1, Sect. 4, Roosevelt Rd., Taipei 10617, Taiwan, ROC e-mail: [email protected] Y.-P. Cheng e-mail: [email protected] C.-P. Cheng Department of Advertising, National Chengchi University, 64, Sec. 2, Chinan Road, Wenshan, Taipei 11605, Taiwan, ROC Reprinted from the journal

195

123

G. Yao et al.

two-thirds of which are covered with forested mountains. Consequently, the population is concentrated along the comparatively flat western plain. As of July 2007, Taiwan’s population was near 23 million, representing the ninth densest population in the world (Wikipedia—List of countries by population density). Taiwan’s population is composed of aborigines (\2%), Fukienese and Hakka (85%, the early immigrants from southern China), and later immigrants (\15%) from China after World War II, mostly in 1949 after the defeat of the Nationalists. 1.2 History and Democracy Since the seventeenth century, Taiwan has been occupied by a number of different foreign powers, including the Dutch (1624–1661), the Spanish (1626–1642), and most recently the Japanese (1895–1945). At the end of World War II, Taiwan came under the administrative control of the Chinese Nationalist Party (Kuomintang, KMT). In 1987, after forty-two years of autocracy, the suppression of political factions officially ended and newspaper licenses were deregulated. Taiwan continued to move gradually toward democracy, with the direct election of the president by a national vote in 1996, and a peaceful transfer of leadership to the opposition party in 2000. It is now ranked 32nd of 167 countries on the Economist Intelligence Unit democracy index (2007). 1.3 Economy Because Taiwan has limited natural resources, foreign trade plays an important role in its economy. From the 1950s to the 1970s, the rapid development of light industry helped to accumulate a large sum of foreign currency and established a solid foundation for the industrial environment. The development of a hi-tech industry since the 1980s has made Taiwan the largest original digital manufacturer in the world. These achievements have increased the national income to (GDP (PPP)) = US$29,600 per capita, making Tawan the 42th most wealthy county or region out of 229 worldwide (CIA World Fact Book 2007c). Moreover, in 2006, Taiwan became one of the top twenty leading exporters and importers in world merchandise trade (WTO International Trade Statistics 2007). Taiwan’s hi-tech labor output value made its foreign exchange reserves are the fourth largest in the world (out of 153 countries, CIA World Fact Book 2007d). However, not everyone in Taiwan is benefiting from the prosperity. Income inequality and polarization have been rising in recent years. The ratio of disposable income for those in the top 20% income bracket to those in the lowest 20% bracket grew from five to six over the past 10 years. The unemployment rate was approximately 2% in 1991, 5% in 2002, and grew to 4% in 2006 (Directorate General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics, Executive Yuan, R.O.C. 2006). Although the overall economic performance of Taiwan is not bad in comparison to other countries, it has slowed in recent years. The GDP growth rate in 2007 was 5.5, ranked 93rd of 219 (CIA World Fact Book 2007g). 1.4 Political Dilemmas Faced by Taiwanese Taiwanese people are puzzled by the question, ‘‘Who are we?’’ Although goods labeled ‘‘Made in Taiwan’’ can be found all over the globe, the country’s name remains unsettled; it is variously called ‘‘Taiwan,’’ ‘‘the Republic of China,’’ or ‘‘Chinese Taipei’’ in the

123

196

Reprinted from the journal

The Quality of Life in Taiwan

international arena due to the uncertainty surrounding Taiwan’s sovereignty. Even residents of Taiwan have different opinions about the island’s future. The people of Taiwan currently have de facto independence from China. A consensus has developed in Taiwan that whatever the ultimate outcome regarding reunification or independence, Taiwan’s people must have the deciding voice. The question of independence versus unification is a hot topic of political debate. Pro-sovereignty advocates have been pushing for joining the UN and gaining international recognition. Taiwan has done well with the transformation of its economy and political system, but given its historical context and the changing international context, prudent cultivation of domestic policy is the most important challenge for Taiwan at present. 1.5 Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study is to (1) understand how Taiwanese live their lives; (2) explore what value priorities Taiwanese have; and (3) investigate both the overall quality of life in Taiwan and the quality of specific life domains. Results from the AsiaBarometer survey (ABS), which was conducted in China, Hong Kong, Japan, Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan during the summer of 2006, were used in this study. The ABS has four parts in addition to demographic data questions: lifestyles, value priorities, overall quality of life (QOL) and quality of specific life domains. We report respondents’ attitudes toward these four major parts and also examine the relationships between each of the four parts and demographic variables. The determinants of overall quality of life are also investigated. In this study, each item in the questionnaire was treated as an interval variable if a rating scale was used and as a nominal variable if a categorical scale was used. Descriptive statistics (including mean, standard deviation, maximum, minimum, skew, and kurtosis), and the percentage for each category of a variable were first calculated. Inferential statistics were also calculated if applicable. The Pearson’s correlation coefficient was calculated between each pair of interval items. Chi-square tests were conducted to test the relationships between nominal variables. T-tests and ANOVAs were conducted to test the mean differences between and among groups. Because a large number of respondents were sampled in this study, the significance level for statistical analyses was set to a = .01. 1.6 The Respondents One-thousand and six respondents were sampled nationwide by an opinion research company from August 14 to 24, 2006 (the sample territory excepted the eastern mountainous regions of Hualien and Taitung, where only about 3% of the population resides). The respondents were sampled in three stages: (1) following the government classification, the primary sampling units (PSU) for each county and city were determined; (2) in each district (PSU), five to fifteen sampling units (secondary sampling units, SSU) were identified to represent the population by sampling with probabilities proportional to the population; (3) in each SSU, interviewers started walking from the address of the head of the neighborhood (li) (an elected official for which the address was available; neighborhoods are the second smallest units used by the government in Taiwan for household registration and normally consist of a population of around 5,000). Neighborhoods are the standard smallest unit for door-to-door sampling. Interviewers then conducted at most five interviews in each neighborhood through random household visits. To make the samples representative, the completed samples were set up in advance with gender and age quotas consistent with Taiwan’s population. Reprinted from the journal

197

123

G. Yao et al.

The demographic data for the respondents are listed in Table 1. The respondents were between the ages of 20 and 69 (40.6 ± 12.3), with only 3% over 65. The percentage of those over age 65 was lower than the 10% indicated by the data from the Directorate General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics, Executive Yuan R.O.C. (2006). The percentage of men and women were roughly equal (51% vs. 49%) and were the same as the 2006 social indicator for Taiwan (51% vs. 49%, Directorate General of Budget, 2006). Thirty-two percent had a junior high level education or below, 39% had a high school education, and 28% had at least a college education. This is similar to the government data (36%, 33%, and 32% respectively; Directorate General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics, Executive Yuan R.O.C. 2006). Younger respondents tended to have more education than older ones. Seventy-one percent of those aged 60–69 had only an elementary school education or were illiterate. In contrast, 60% of those aged 20–29 had at least a college education. Twenty-six percent were single and 71% were married, with more married women (75%) than married men (66%). According to the government data, 34% of the population

Table 1 Demographic data

Demographic variables

Frequency

%

20–29

250

25

30–39

240

24

40–49

243

24

50–59

181

18

60–69

92

9

365

34

3

Male

514

51

Female

492

49

Age

Gender

Education No formal education

18

2

Elementary school

143

14

Junior high school/Middle school

164

16

High school/Vocational school

395

39

College school

256

25

30

3

Single

258

26

Married

709

71

Divorced/Separated

20

2

Widowed

18

2

1

0

University/Graduate school Marital status

Other Monthly household income

123

2NT$49,999

212

21

NT$50,000–NT$99,999

609

61

3NT$100,000

163

16

198

Reprinted from the journal

The Quality of Life in Taiwan

over 15 is single (Directorate General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics, Executive Yuan R.O.C. 2006). Twenty-one percent had a monthly family income below NT$50,000 (US$1,500); 61% were between NT$50,000 and NT$100,000; and 16% were above NT$100,000. Respondents with more education tended to have a higher income; no relationship seemed to exist between age and family income. 1.7 Lifestyles Lifestyle refers to the way in which people live their lives in terms of spending time and money, and their interaction with other people at home and abroad. The five aspects of lifestyle explored were: lifestyle and standard of living, access to and use of utilities, religious beliefs, political and social involvement, and foreign experience and self-identity. 1.8 Lifestyle and Standard of Living We found that 53% of families have four or five members, and 82% have three to six. Eighty-nine percent of families live in their own house or apartment, and 9% rent. The household composition was slightly higher than the social indicators reported by the Directorate General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics, Executive Yuan R.O.C. (2006) (mean = 3.1), but the percentage of home ownership was similar. Respondents were asked to choose two usual eating patterns for breakfast and dinner respectively (see Fig. 1). For breakfast, respondents bought ready food outside and ate at home (63%), cooked and ate at home (52%), or ate out at food stalls (40%). For the evening meal, more respondents ate at home (85%) than bought food outside (45%) or ate out at food stalls (29%). Women, older people, people with little education, and married people were more likely to eat breakfast and dinner at home than out; while men, young people, educated people, and single respondents were more likely to eat meals out than in. Respondents were also asked to indicate what they liked to eat from a list of 11 foods, none of which were traditional Taiwanese fare. The results showed that the number of favorite foods differed by age, education level, income, and marital status. Specifically, those who were younger, more educated, could speak English better, and/or had a higher income chose more favorite foods. The foods most chosen were Beijing duck (52%), sushi (45%), dim sum (37%), sandwiches (31%), instant noodles (30%), kimchi (27%), curry Eating Patterns 100

breadfast dinner

80 60 40 20 0

eat at home eat instant buy ready eat at food food at food outside stalls home

eat at restaurants

other

don't eat this meal

Fig. 1 Lifestyle—eating patterns Reprinted from the journal

199

123

G. Yao et al.

(25%), hamburgers (23%), pizza (21%), tom-yum-goong (18%), and pho (16%). The results reflect a multicultural influence, especially from Chinese and Japanese cultures. The eleven foods were further classified into Eastern and Western foods, with sandwiches, hamburgers, and pizza in the Western category. Men liked more Western foods and women liked more Eastern foods. Respondents who were younger, had more education, higher income, no religion, and/or who were single liked both Eastern and Western foods more than did their counterparts. Older respondents tended to choose ‘‘none of the above’’ more than younger respondents. 1.9 Utilities Respondents were asked about the accessibility of public utilities, computers, and mobile phones. In Taiwan, 100% of families have access to electricity. More than 95% of families have access to all other kinds of utilities (such as the public water supply, gas, fixed-line phone, mobile phone, and cable TV). Only 28% of families have a fax machine. These numbers indicate that life in Taiwan is quite modern and convenient in terms of basic living facilities. However, the percentage of families with access to public utilities may be overestimated. For example, the mean water supply rate in 2006 was 90%, but it ranged from 45% in Pingtong to 100% in Tainan (Taiwan Water Corporation). Furthermore, no respondents were sampled from the eastern regions of Hualien and Taitung where many aboriginals live in the mountains and where access is likely limited. Less than half of the respondents said that they used the internet (43%) or sent e-mail (34%) daily or weekly. Nearly half had never used the internet (44%) or sent email (49%). Thirty-six percent of respondents used a mobile phone to read or write messages frequently (either daily or weekly), but 51% never or seldom did. Thus the population was largely divided into two extremes concerning computer and mobile phone use. Single respondents, those who were younger, those with a high education, those with better spoken English, and those with a high income were more likely than their counterparts to use a computer and mobile phone. There was no gender difference. 1.10 Religion Forty-one percent of respondents indicated belief in Taoism, which is the local traditional religion; 31% indicated Buddhist beliefs; and 3% indicated they were Christians (which includes Catholics and Protestant Christians). A quarter (24%) indicated that they do not have any specific religion. According to the Department of Statistics of the Ministry of the Interior (2005), 37% of the population believes in Taoism/Yi Guan Dao, 35% believe in Buddhism, and 4% are Christians. Married respondents, those who were older, those with less education, and those with less skill speaking English were more likely to have a specific religion than their counterparts. Single people, young people, and highly educated people were the most likely to indicate no religion. Although about three-quarters of the respondents believed in a specific religion, nearly half (49%) never prayed or mediated, or only did so on special occasions. Only 11% of respondents practiced these activities frequently (daily or weekly). For those who prayed daily, 41% were Christian, 5% were Taoist, and 12% were Buddhist. This finding may reflect that the main religious exercise of Taoism is not praying or meditation but rituals practiced according to the lunar calendar. Females, married respondents, older respondents, less-educated respondents, and higher-income respondents prayed or mediated more frequently.

123

200

Reprinted from the journal

The Quality of Life in Taiwan

1.11 Political and Social Involvement To tap political involvement and social attitudes, the ABS asked questions about respondents’ political involvement, interpersonal trust, and social involvement. In Taiwan, political involvement is quite high. Seventy-nine and 73% of respondents had voted frequently (every or most elections) in national and local elections, respectively. Only 9 and 11% of respondents never or rarely voted, respectively. According to statistics from the Central Election Commission, the participation rate was 80% in the 2004 and 76% in the 2008 presidential election, 59% in the 2008 legislative elections, and 66% in the 2006 local elections. No gender difference was found in voting behavior. Respondents who were older, less educated, and/or married were more likely than their counterparts to vote in national and local elections. Younger voters were not as enthusiastic about politics as older voters. Sixty percent of respondents thought that one should be careful in dealing with people, but 40% thought that most people could be trusted. An increase in education was tied to an increase in trust, while no gender, age, income, or marital status effects were found. Respondents were asked to indicate important social circles from a list of twelve: family, relatives, place of work, club/hobby group, school, where one grew up, people who speak the same language/dialect, neighborhood, agricultural/commercial cooperative or industry group, labor union, political party, or religion (see Fig. 2). The respondents indicated family (94%), relatives (59%), place of work (51%), neighborhood (45%), where you grew up (28%), and club/hobby group (24%) were the most important social circles or groups. However, when the respondents were asked to choose the most important social

Important social circle other school 4% 5% same language 5%

religion 2% family 26%

club/hobby 7% area where grew up 8%

relatives 16%

neighborhood 13%

place of work 14% Fig. 2 Lifestyle—important social circle Reprinted from the journal

201

123

G. Yao et al.

Most important social circle family 73%

religion same language other neighborhood 2% area where grew up 2% club/hobby 3%

school 3% relatives 5% place of work 11%

Fig. 3 Lifestyle—most important social circle

circle, most (74%) thought that ‘‘family’’ was the most important and 11% thought that ‘‘place of work’’ was the second most important. ‘‘Relatives’’ were often deemed somewhat important but hardly ever considered ‘‘most important’’ (59% vs. 5%) (see Fig. 3). Respondents who were female, married, older, less-educated, and/or who believed in a specific religion were more likely to choose ‘‘family’’ as most important than other respondents. 1.12 Foreign Experiences and Self-Identity Ninety-two percent of respondents indicated that their ability to speak English was very low or nonexistent. Only 8% of respondents said that their ability to speak English was good or fluent. In comparison to other Asian countries such as Singapore (82%), Hong Kong (27%), and Korea (17%), Taiwan has the fewest residents who are able to speak English well. Respondents who were young, single, who had more education and/or who had more income were more likely than their counterparts to speak English well. The most common foreign experiences were via TV programs (46%), overseas family members (17%), and foreign friends in Taiwan (12%). Forty percent of respondents had no foreign experience. This result implies that international interaction for Taiwanese is low. Eighty-six percent of respondents labeled themselves as Taiwanese and 13% said that they were Chinese. For those who identified themselves as Taiwanese, 73% were somewhat or very proud of being Taiwanese, but 27% had a negative feeling about being Taiwanese. Most respondents said that they were Taiwanese, but more than one-fourth of them did not like being Taiwanese. No gender, age, education, income, or marital status effects were found for self-identity.

123

202

Reprinted from the journal

The Quality of Life in Taiwan

Eighty-four percent of respondents could recite the national anthem by heart, especially those who were younger, more-educated, had a higher income, and/or were single. Sixtyone percent of respondents identified themselves as Asian, 17% identified with an ethnic group that has a common genealogy or ancestry, and 12% identified with people of the same language group.

2 Value Priorities Value priorities refer to the resources and activities that people consider important to living a good life. Respondents were asked to choose five lifestyle aspects that were important to them from a list of 25. The most often chosen were being healthy (72%), being able to live without fear of crime (42%), having a comfortable home (39%), earning a high income (34%), having a job (32%), spending time with family (32%), being successful at work (26%), and raising children (26%) (see Table 2). The rank order of the most important value priorities was physical (e.g., health), environmental (e.g., safety, comfortable home), work (e.g., high income, employment, success at work), and family (e.g., spending time with family, raising children). These correspond to the first three basic needs of Maslow’s needs hierarchy: physiological, safety, and loving/belonging needs (Maslow 1943). Dressing up (3%), being devout (3%), freedom of expression and association (3%), appreciating art and culture (4%), and being famous (4%) were the least important lifestyle aspects. These items relate to the next two basic needs on Maslow’s needs hierarchy: esteem and self-actualization (Maslow 1943). The fact that earning a high income and having a job were listed prior to being successful at work implies that being able to afford household expenditures is required for a feeling of achievement. These findings imply that global public values (e.g., freedom, altruism) and spirituality are relatively unimportant to Taiwanese. These results are consistent with the results of Wang et al. (2001). They are also compatible with Maslow’s theory of needs; other values (esteem and self-actualization) are inessential if the basic needs (physiological, safety, and loving/belonging) are not satisfied (Maslow 1943). Respondents’ answers were stratified according to gender, age, education, marital status, and income. Comparisons were conducted among the 25 value priorities for each of the demographics. We found that no matter the gender, age, education, marital status, or income of respondents, being healthy was always their most important value priority. Furthermore, both genders chose being able to live without fear of crime and having a comfortable home as the next two most important values. Men thought being successful at work and having a job were more important than women did, while women thought spending time with family, raising children, and having a safe and clean environment were more important than men did. This result indicates that men are work-oriented and women are family-oriented. Older respondents were more likely than younger respondents to say having enough to eat, being healthy, having access to good medical care, being able to live without fear of crime were important, while younger respondents were more likely than older respondents to say that earning a high income, having a job, being on good terms with others, being successful at work, and enjoying a pastime were important. Respondents aged 20 to 29 and 40 to 49 indicated that having a job was important. This may reflect the fear of after-school or middle-age unemployment. Respondents aged 20 to 29 were more likely to consider expressing one’s personality or using one’s talent as important than were the other age groups. Middle-aged respondents (30–50 years old) considered raising children to be more Reprinted from the journal

203

123

G. Yao et al. Table 2 Value priority ranking and the percentage of value chosen by different socioeconomic groups: Respondents chose 5 from a list of 25 lifestyle aspects or life circumstances that were most important for them in living a good life Dimensions

Value items

Total

SES Low

Mid

High

Personal

Being healthy**

72

78

70

66

Public

Being able to live without fear of crime

42

45

40

41

Material

Having a comfortable home

39

38

44

35

Material

Earning a high income

34

29

37

37

Personal

Having job

32

30

33

34

Interpersonal

Spending time with your family

32

34

30

33

Personal

Being successful at work*

26

21

29

30

Interpersonal

Raising children***

26

34

37

15

Material

Having enough to eat***

24

35

24

12

Interpersonal

Being on good terms with others***

23

17

24

31

Public

Safe and clean environment*

20

25

19

17

Personal

Having access to good medical care

20

21

17

21

Public

Pleasant community to live

15

15

17

13

Public

Living in a country with a good government

14

13

14

16

Nonmaterial

Enjoying a pastime*

11

7

13

13

Personal

Expressing your personality or using your talents***

9

3

8

16

Personal

Winning over others*

8

5

8

11

Material

Owning lots of nice things

7

4

7

9

Personal

Having access to higher education

6

4

7

9

Public

Contributing to your local community or to society

6

Personal

Being famous

4

3

4

4

Nonmaterial

Appreciating art and culture

4

2

3

5

Public

Freedom of expression and association

3

2

2

4

Nonmaterial

Being devout

3

3

3

3

Material

Dressing up

3

2

3

5

* p \ .05; ** p \ .01; *** p \ .001 (chi-square test)

important than did other respondents. This result indicates that older respondents are more practical, while younger respondents are more idealistic and focus more on selfactualization. The focus of the respondents also differed according to marital status. The results showed that married respondents were more likely than unmarried respondents to say that raising children, being able to live without fear of crime, spending time with family, and being healthy were important. Single respondents were more likely than married respondents to call expressing one’s personality or using one’s talents, being successful at work, having a job, being on good terms with others, and earning a high income important. Moreover, since education and income were both correlated to many items, we grouped both education and income into the three levels of low, middle, and high (coded as 1, 2, and 3 respectively). Then we summed the two items into a five-point socioeconomic resource index scored from two to six. Finally, we collapsed values of the socioeconomic index into high (scored 5 to 6, 288 respondents), middle (scored 4, 356 respondents), and

123

204

Reprinted from the journal

The Quality of Life in Taiwan

low (scored 2 to 3, 340 respondents) socioeconomic groups. Respondents from a higher socioeconomic group were most likely to value success at work, being on good terms with others, expressing personality and talent, winning over others, and enjoying a pastime (see Table 2). Respondents from the low socioeconomic group were most likely to value health, raising children, having enough to eat, and having a safe and clean environment. Those with lower socioeconomic resources were more practical about their everyday living. On the other hand, those with better resources were more concerned about others and about self-competence. This finding accords with Maslow’s needs theory that only those who do not worry about basic needs can afford to pursue higher-level needs such as self-actualization (Maslow 1943). 2.1 The Five Value Dimensions Since the number of value priorities was large (25), they were further classified into five dimensions: Dimension 1 (personal):

Dimension Dimension Dimension Dimension

2 3 4 5

(interpersonal): (material): (nonmaterial): (public-life):

health, medical care, job, education, successful at work, being famous, winning over others, expressing personality/ talents; family, good with others, raising children; eat, comfortable home, nice things, income, dressing up; enjoying pastimes, appreciating art/culture, being devout; living without fear of crime, contributing to community/ society, freedom, government, community, environment.

We first simply summed the scores (either 1 or 0) for all of the items within each of the value-priority dimensions. We then computed the average percentage chosen of each dimension and found that the interpersonal dimension (27) was the most important, followed by the personal (22), material (21), public-life (16), and nonmaterial (6) dimensions. The respondents rated the personal and material dimensions as the two most important dimensions of their lives. The relationships between the five dimensions and the demographic data were examined. The results showed no religion effects on any of the dimensions. Female respondents valued the interpersonal dimension more than their male counterparts. Age was negatively correlated with the personal dimension but positively correlated with the public-life dimension. Education was positively correlated with the personal dimension and the nonmaterial dimension, but negatively correlated with the material dimension. Single respondents thought the personal dimension was more important than married respondents while married respondents thought the interpersonal dimension and the public-life dimension were more important than single respondents. Respondents in higher socioeconomic groups valued the personal and nonmaterial dimensions more than those in lower socioeconomic groups. These results were not surprising. 2.2 Overall Quality of Life Items on happiness, enjoyment, and achievement were used to indicate overall quality of life. The happiness item had a 5-point rating scale ranging from very happy, to very unhappy. The enjoyment item had a 4-point rating scale ranging from often enjoying life to never enjoying life. Similarly, the achievement item had 4-point rating scale ranging from feeling a great deal of achievement to feeling no achievement. Higher scores on the three Reprinted from the journal

205

123

G. Yao et al.

items indicate a better quality of life after being recoded from 1 to 5 for happiness and from 1 to 4 for enjoyment and achievement. The three items were again recoded and summed to form a composite index of overall quality of life (QOL hereafter). The recoding system applied to the three items was as follows: the most positive responses (i.e. very happy, often enjoying life, and a great deal of achievement) were coded a 2, the other positive responses (i.e. quite happy, sometimes enjoying life, and some achievement) were coded a 1, and the rest (all either neutral or negative responses) were coded a 0. As a result, a 7-point overall QOL index (ranging from 0 to 6) was formed with higher scores indicating a better QOL. The results showed that 9% of the respondents were unhappy, 41% were neither happy nor unhappy, and 51% were happy (see Table 3). Thirty-eight percent of the respondents did not enjoy life, but 62% did (see Table 4). Forty-nine percent of the respondents did not feel a sense of accomplishment in their lives, but 51% of respondents did (see Table 5). The means of the three key QOL items were all positive: 3.6, 2.7, and 2.5 (see Table 6), respectively. These scores indicated that Taiwanese are somewhat happy, enjoy life, and have some sense of accomplishment. This result is compatible with the results of the Taiwan Social Trend Survey by Liao et al. (2005). Of the aforementioned qualities of life—happiness, enjoyment, and achievement, which ones do the Taiwanese experience relatively most and least? In order to address this question, we divided the mean of the three key QOL items by the number of scale points Table 3 Levels of happiness with demographic categories (%)

Very unhappy (4)

Balanced (1 ? 2) (3 ? 4)

7

2

?42

42

9

4

?33

39

6

1

?47

Very happy (1)

Quite happy (2)

Neither happy nor unhappy

17

34

41

16

30

Female 17

37

Entire sample

Not too happy (3)

Gender Male Age 20–29

16

42

36

5

1

?52

30–39

16

33

43

6

3

?40

40–49

15

30

42

11

2

?32

50–59

17

28

44

9

3

?33

60?

21

36

36

4

2

?51

Married 16

32

42

7

3

?38

Single

17

39

36

7

1

?48

Low

19

30

40

9

2

?38

Mid

14

33

43

8

3

?36

High

17

40

38

4

2

?51

Low

21

29

32

12

5

?33

Mid

15

33

45

6

2

?40

High

14

43

37

6

1

?50

Marriage

Education

Income

123

206

Reprinted from the journal

The Quality of Life in Taiwan Table 4 Levels of life enjoyment with demographic categories

Often (1)

Sometimes (2)

Rarely (3)

Never (4)

Balanced (1 ? 2) (3 ? 4)

13

49

34

4

?24

Male

15

47

35

4

?23

Female

11

51

34

4

?24

20–29

14

54

30

2

?36

30–39

13

48

36

3

?22

40–49

11

48

38

3

?18

50–59

13

46

35

6

?18

60?

16

44

33

8

?19

Married 12

47

37

5

?18

Single

16

53

28

2

?39

Low

15

41

39

6

?11

Mid

7

50

39

4

?14

High

18

57

24

1

?50

Low

14

42

38

6

?12

Mid

12

50

34

4

?24

High

15

49

34

3

?27

Entire sample Gender

Age

Marriage

Education

Income

(5 for happiness, 4 for enjoyment and achievement) and obtained 0.71, 0.68, and 0.63, respectively. We found that Taiwanese feel much happier, somewhat enjoy their life, and have less feeling of accomplishing what they want out of life. The differences among the three means were statistically significant according to dependent t-tests. The correlation coefficients among the three QOL items were all high. The correlation coefficient between happiness and enjoyment was 0.49, between enjoyment and achievement was 0.44, and between happiness and achievement was 0.26. People who feel more enjoyable about their life also feel happier and more accomplished. Moreover, the three QOL items were positively correlated with respondents’ perceived standard of living (0.11, 0.19, and 0.11 respectively). This result indicates that people who think they have a better standard of living are more likely to feel more happiness, enjoyment, and achievement. With the exceptions of religion (having or not having religion), all other demographic characteristics are related with some of the three key QOL items to varying degrees. For example, happiness had a significant relationship with gender and income: women and those who had more income were happier. Respondents with a high level of education were happier than those with a middle or low level of education, though those with a low level of education were slightly happier than those with a middle level of education. Enjoyment had a positive relationship with education, as the more highly educated a respondent was, the more likely he or she was to enjoy life. Single respondents enjoyed life much more than married respondents. Achievement had a significant positive relationship with age and Reprinted from the journal

207

123

G. Yao et al. Table 5 Levels of achievement with demographic categories

Great deal (1)

Some (2)

Little (3)

5

49

39

7

?8

Male

5

49

37

8

?9

Female

4

49

41

6

?6

20–29

1

38

51

10

-22

30–39

5

46

42

7

?2

40–49

3

57

33

8

?19

Entire sample

None (4)

Balanced (1 ? 2) - (3 ? 4)

Gender

Age

50–59

8

54

34

3

?25

10

56

26

9

?31

Married

6

53

35

7

?17

Single

1

37

52

9

-23

60? Marriage

Education Low

7

50

34

9

?14

Med

3

48

41

7

?3

High

3

49

42

6

?4

Income Low

5

45

37

13

0

Mid

4

50

40

6

?8

High

5

50

40

5

?10

Table 6 The correlations among Q4 (happiness), Q5 (enjoyment), Q6 (achievement), their composite index, and Q8 (standard of living) QOL variables (score range)

Mean/Avg. meana

Q4 (1–5)

3.6/0.7

Q5 (1–4)

2.7/0.7

.49

Q6 (1–4)

2.5/0.6

.26

.44

Composite index (0–6)

2.0/0.3

.75

.80

Q4

Q5

Q6

Composite index

.65

Q4 = Happiness; Q5 = Enjoyment; Q6 = Achievement; composite index is formed from Q4–Q6 a

The item mean after being divided by the number of scale points

marital status. More young respondents and single respondents reported not experiencing achievement than reported experiencing it, while old respondents and married respondents were more likely than not to experience achievement. The mean (standard deviation) of the overall QOL composite index was 2.0 (1.5) on a 0-to-6-point scale (see Table 7). Being far below the midpoint of the index, this mean score indicates a very low QOL for Taiwanese. The correlation coefficients between the overall QOL composite index and happiness, enjoyment, and achievement were 0.75, 0.80, and 0.65, respectively (see Table 6). Those who had high score on this QOL composite index indicated that they had high scores on the three individual QOL items. Surprisingly, for the

123

208

Reprinted from the journal

The Quality of Life in Taiwan Table 7 7-Point index with demographic categories Scale points

Mean points

Positivea (1)

Negativeb (2)

Balance (1) - (2)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

21

20

22

20

11

5

1

2.0

79

21

?58

Male

23

19

21

19

11

6

1

2.0

77

23

?54

Female

19

21

24

20

11

5

1

2.0

81

19

?62

20–29

19

21

23

23

9

5

0

2.0

81

19

?62

30–39

21

23

19

19

11

5

1

1.9

79

21

?58

40–49

24

17

22

21

10

6

0

1.9

76

24

?52

50–59

23

16

24

16

15

5

1

2.0

77

23

?54

60?

15

19

26

16

12

9

3

2.4

85

15

?70

Married

22

19

23

18

12

5

1

2.0

78

22

?56

Single

20

21

22.

22

9

6

0

2.0

80

20

?60

Low

24

17

20

17

14

6

2

2.0

76

24

?52

Med

23

22

24

18

10

3

0

1.8

77

23

?54

High

15

19

23

25

11

7

1

2.2

85

15

?70

Low

26

16

22

17

10

8

1

2.0

74

26

?48

Mid

20

22

23

19

11

5

1

2.0

80

20

?60

High

20

18

20

23

14

4

1

2.1

80

20

?60

Entire sample Gender

Age

Marriage

Education

Income

a

Denotes the percentage of participants with a scale score of 1–6

b

Denotes the percentage of participants with a scale score of 0

overall QOL composite index, the only demographic variable found to have an effect was education. Respondents who had received more education had a better QOL composite index. One in every five respondents (21%) scored the lowest score of zero on the QOL composite index, which implies that they did not respond positively to any of the three QOL items (see Table 7). Only nine respondents (1%) scored the highest score of 6, which indicates they experienced happiness, enjoyment, and achievement all to the highest degree possible. Fifty-three respondents (5%) scored 5, the second highest score on the index. To compare the demographic and other differences between the respondents reporting the high and low levels of overall QOL, we first tried to include the respondents with scores of 6 on the composite QOL index to form a ‘‘better QOL group’’ (n = 9). This group was compared to the ‘‘worse QOL group,’’ which had a score of zero on the composite index (n = 209). However, since the sample size of the ‘‘better QOL group’’ was to small compared to the ‘‘worse QOL group,’’ we then included respondents with scores of 5 (n = 53) in the ‘‘better QOL group’’. We conducted t-tests or chi-square tests to compare these two QOL groups. We found that self-reported standard of living, educational level, spoken English ability, and religion differed significantly between the two groups. In other words, respondents with a better Reprinted from the journal

209

123

G. Yao et al.

overall QOL were more likely to have a higher standard of living, more education, better spoken English ability, and to be Christian than the worse QOL group. When religion was coded as ‘‘belief’’ versus ‘‘no belief,’’ no effect of religion was found. Moreover, no significant difference was found for gender, age, marital status, occupation, or income. We also examined whether respondents in different socioeconomic groups have a different quality of life. Results indicated that high socioeconomic respondents were happier, had more enjoyment, and thus scored significantly higher on the composite index than the other two groups. However, people in the low socioeconomic group did not differ from the middle group in the four quality of life items, i.e. those tapping the three separate QOL indicators and the overall QOL index.

3 Life Domain Assessments and Their Relationships with Overall QOL In addition to assessing QOL from a global or holistic perspective, we also assessed it at the level of specific life domains. Sixteen life domains were explored including housing, friendships, marriage, standard of living, household income, health, education, job, neighbors, public safety, environmental conditions, social welfare, democratic system, family life, leisure, and spiritual life. Respondents were asked to indicate their satisfaction with each of the 16 life domains on a scale with points ranging from 1 to 5. Scores were then converted to a scale with points ranging from -2 (very dissatisfied) to ?2 (very satisfied). The results showed that the means of two of the 16 life domains, public safety and welfare, were negative, meaning, on average, respondents were dissatisfied with these domains (see Table 8). The respondents were most satisfied with friendships (0.9), marriage (0.9), family life (0.7), neighbors (0.7), housing (0.6), and health (0.6); while they were least satisfied with public safety (-0.5), welfare (-0.2), the democratic system (0.1), environmental conditions (0.2), household income (0.3), and education (0.3). In general, respondents were satisfied with interpersonal relationships and dissatisfied with domains related to the government. The percentage difference index (PDI) was defined as the difference between the percentages expressing satisfaction (coded as ?2 and ?1) and dissatisfaction (coded as -2 and -1) for each item. Higher scores indicated a larger discrepancy between satisfaction and dissatisfaction, with a positive score representing more satisfaction and a negative score representing more dissatisfaction. The domains registering the highest, most positive PDI scores were friendships (71), family life (63), neighbors (54), health (51), and housing (50), while the domains registering the lowest, most negative PDI scores were public safety (-34), social welfare (-15), the democratic system (13), job (18), and environmental conditions (19). The PDI results were consistent with the results from item means. The correlation between the 16 life domains and the four QOL scores (happiness, enjoyment, achievement, and their composite index) showed that almost all 16 domains had a high correlation with the four key QOL scores, except for democratic system, which had no relationship with the four key QOL scores (see Table 9). Public safety had a low correlation with happiness and the overall QOL composite index. Social welfare system had a low correlation with enjoyment. The highest correlation coefficients were found between happiness and spiritual life (.35), health (.27), household income (.27), job (.27), and leisure (.27), between enjoyment and leisure (.31), spiritual life (.30), and marriage (.28), between achievement and marriage (.27), household income (.27), and housing (.25), and between the overall QOL composite

123

210

Reprinted from the journal

The Quality of Life in Taiwan Table 8 Assessments of 16 domains of satisfaction Domains of life satisfaction

Scale points (%)a -2

Mean

-1

0

1

2

Percentagesb Satisfied (1)

PDI (1) - (2) Dissatisfied (2)

Personal Health

1

8

31

47

12

0.6

59

9

Education

1

11

46

37

5

0.3

42

12

50 30

Job

2

14

44

30

4

0.5

34

16

18

Interpersonal Friendship

0

2

26

54

19

0.9

73

2

71

Marriage

0

2

18

36

15

0.9

51

2

49

Family

0

3

30

55

11

0.7

66

3

63

Neighbor

0

4

37

47

12

0.7

59

4

55 50

Material Housing

1

7

34

45

13

0.6

58

8

Living

0

7

49

40

5

0.4

45

7

38

Income

2

12

49

35

3

0.3

38

14

24

Nonmaterial Leisure

0

8

41

46

6

0.5

52

8

44

Spiritual

0

7

40

46

7

0.5

53

7

46 -35

Public Public safety

13

39

31

15

2

-0.5

17

52

Environment

1

16

47

33

3

0.2

36

17

19

Welfare

8

28

44

19

1

-0.2

20

36

-16

Democracy

4

16

46

31

2

0.1

33

20

13

a

The scale points are indicated as follow: -2 = very dissatisfied; -1 = somewhat dissatisfied; 0 = neither satisfied nor dissatisfied; ?1 = somewhat satisfied; ?2 = very satisfied b

The percentage of satisfied responses equals to sum of scale points ?1 and ?2; the percentage of dissatisfied responses equals to sum of scale points -1 and -2

index and spiritual life (.36), marriage (.33), and leisure (0.30). Thus, in general, people who were satisfied about their spiritual life, standard of living, marriage, leisure, household income, and job tended to be happier, and feel more enjoyable and accomplished about their lives. However, satisfaction about government performance (such as democratic system, public safety, and social welfare system) did not as related to their QOL as other life spheres did. 3.1 Five Life-Domain Spheres To study the relationship between the demographic data and the large clusters of life domains, the 16 life domains were further classified into five spheres: Sphere Sphere Sphere Sphere Sphere

1 2 3 4 5

(personal sphere): (interpersonal sphere): (material life sphere): (nonmaterial sphere): (public-life sphere):

Reprinted from the journal

health, education, and job; friendships, marriage, family life, and neighbors; housing, standard of living, income; leisure, spiritual life; public safety, environmental condition, welfare, democratic system. 211

123

G. Yao et al. Table 9 The correlation between life satisfaction and quality of life measures Happiness

Enjoyment

Achievement

Composite index

Personal Health

.27**

.21**

.14**

Education

.20**

.18**

.14**

.26** .22**

Job

.27**

.22**

.22**

.28**

Interpersonal Friendship

.21**

.22**

.16**

.27**

Marriage

.25**

.28**

.27**

.33**

Family

.24**

.23**

.22**

.28**

Neighbor

.13**

.15**

.16**

.18**

Housing

.20**

.23**

.25**

.28**

Living

.24**

.25**

.23**

.29**

Income

.27**

.25**

.27**

.31**

Leisure

.27**

.31**

.21**

.30**

Spiritual

.35**

.30**

.25**

.36**

Public safety

.08*

.11**

.13**

.14**

Environment

.16**

.18**

.22**

.23**

Welfare

.12**

.06*

.12**

.11**

Democracy

.03

Material

Nonmaterial

Public

-.01

.01

-.02

* p \ .01; ** p \ .001

We first summed the domain satisfaction scores within each sphere. In order to determine in which sphere people were relatively most satisfied, we divided the means of the five spheres by the number of items within each sphere and obtained for the five domains listed above a mean score of 0.4, 0.8, 0.4, 0.5, and -0.1, respectively. This result suggested that respondents were more satisfied with the interpersonal sphere and less satisfied with the public-life sphere. Respondents had similar levels of satisfaction with the nonmaterial, material, and personal spheres. This result coincides with the results based on domain levels. Liao et al. (2005) also found a similar outcome. Evidently, Taiwanese are quite satisfied with their personal lives and less satisfied with their social/public lives. The five spheres correlated with the four key QOL scores (see Table 10). Generally speaking, the composite index had the highest correlation with each of the spheres. The Public Sphere had the lowest correlations with the four key QOL scores (0.13, 0.12, 0.15, 0.15). The Nonmaterial Sphere had strong correlations with happiness, enjoyment, and the composite index (0.34, 0.33, 0.36), and the Material Sphere had strong correlations with achievement and the composite index. Moreover, the Personal Sphere had a higher correlation with happiness (0.31) and the composite index, while Interpersonal Sphere (married) correlated with enjoyment (0.32) and the composite index (0.37). The differences between demographic characteristics on the one hand and the mean ratings of the 16 life domains and five spheres on the other were examined (see Table 11). In general, men were more satisfied with marriage than were women. Married respondents

123

212

Reprinted from the journal

The Quality of Life in Taiwan Table 10 The correlation between the quality of life measure and the five life spheres of satisfaction Personal

Interpersonal

Interpersonal (married)

Material

Nonmaterial

Public

Happiness

.31

.27

.29

.28

.34

.13

Enjoyment

.26

.26

.32

.28

.33

.12

Achievement

.22

.24

.29

.31

.25

.15

Composite index

.32

.32

.37

.35

.36

.15

Notes: All correlations have p \ .001. Interpersonal: did not include the satisfaction with marriage item; Interpersonal (married): included satisfaction with marriage and so contained only married respondents

were more satisfied with their neighbors and family life than were singles; single respondents were more satisfied with public safety as well as the personal and nonmaterial spheres than were married respondents. Younger respondents, compared to older respondents, were more satisfied with the personal and nonmaterial spheres, but older respondents were more satisfied with their neighbors. The respondents with a specific religion were more satisfied with their neighbor and housing than were nonreligious respondents, while nonreligious respondents were more satisfied with their health and education. Because education and income level were significantly related to more than half of the domains, these two resources were combined into one index to see how respondents’ socioeconomic status affects each life domain (see Table 12). The results showed that respondents with a higher socioeconomic status indicated more satisfaction than did their counterparts in the personal, interpersonal, material, and nonmaterial spheres, except for marriage, housing, and neighbors. Respondents with low socioeconomic status had the highest satisfaction only with their neighbors. Respondents with the middle range of socioeconomic status were most satisfied solely with the democratic system.

4 Determinants of the Overall Quality of Life In this section, the determinants of overall quality of life were explored. The criterion variables were the three key QOL items and their composite index. The predictor variables were the demographics, lifestyles, the five dimensions of the value priorities, and the five spheres of life satisfaction. Regression analyses using all of the predictor variables were conducted to find the determinants of the overall quality of life. In order to obtain more concise results, some variables were recoded before conducting the regression analyses. Religion was classified into two categories: belief and non-belief in a specific religion. Likewise, marital status was classified into two categories, single and married, home ownership was classified into two categories, own and rent, eating habits were classified into eating at home or eating out, and self-identity and nationality were classified into Taiwanese and non-Taiwanese. The number of accessible public utilities was counted, as was the number of foods liked and the number of foreign experiences. We conducted two regressions predicting each of the four QOL variables (i.e., happiness, enjoyment, achievement, and the composite index). For the first model, only married respondents were analyzed because single participants did not answer any questions on satisfaction with marriage. Therefore, the demographic item on marriage in model 1 was excluded because all the respondents were married. The second model included all of the

Reprinted from the journal

213

123

123

Gender Male Female Marital status Single Married Age 20–29 30–39 40–49 50–59 60–69 Education Low Medium High Income Low Middle High Religion Yes No

0.4 0.3

0.6 0.3

0.4*** 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1

0.0*** 0.4 0.6

0.2*** 0.4 0.4

0.3** 0.5

0.7 0.6

0.8** 0.6

0.9*** 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.3

0.4*** 0.6 0.8

214

0.5** 0.6 0.8

0.6* 0.7

0.2 0.3

-1.9*** 0.3 0.5

0.0*** 0.2 0.4

0.2* 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0

0.2 0.2

0.3 0.2

0.9 0.8

0.8 0.9 0.9

0.9 0.9 0.8

1.0* 0.9 0.8 0.8 1.0

1.0* 0.9

0.8 0.9

Friendships

Job

Health

Education

Interpersonal, 0.8

Personal, 0.4

Table 11 Means and comparisons for life satisfaction by demographics

0.9 0.9

0.9 0.9 0.9

0.9 0.9 1.0

0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.0

1.0* 0.8

Marriage

0.7 0.8

0.6** 0.8 0.8

0.7 0.7 0.8

0.8 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.9

0.6** 0.8

0.7 0.8

Family life

0.7* 0.6

0.8 0.7 0.8

0.8*** 0.6 0.6

0.5*** 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.9

0.5*** 0.7

0.7 0.7

Neighbor

0.7* 0.5

0.6 0.7 0.7

0.7 0.6 0.6

0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8

0.6 0.6

0.6 0.7

Housing

Material, 0.4

0.4 0.4

0.2*** 0.5 0.6

0.3*** 0.4 0.6

0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4

0.5 0.4

0.4 0.5

Stand of living

0.3 0.3

0.0*** 0.3 0.5

0.1** 0.3 0.5

0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3

0.3 0.3

0.3 0.3

Income

G. Yao et al.

Reprinted from the journal

Reprinted from the journal

215

0.5 0.6

0.6* 0.5

0.7** 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6

0.5** 0.5 0.7

0.4*** 0.5 0.6

0.5 0.5

0.5 0.5

0.6*** 0.4

0.7*** 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4

0.4*** 0.4 0.7

0.3*** 0.5 0.7

0.5 0.5

0.2 0.2

0.1 0.2 0.2

0.2* 0.2 0.3

0.2 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3

0.3 0.2

0.2 0.2

Environment

-1.8 -1.7

-1.7* -1.8 -1.8

-1.8 -1.8 -1.8

-1.8 -1.8 -1.8 -1.8 -1.8

-1.8 -1.8

-1.8 -1.8

Welfare

0.1 0.1

0.1 0.1 0.2

0.1 0.1 0.1

-1.9 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1

0.1 0.1

0.1 0.1

Democratic system

Notes: Means were computed from the original 5-point scale (larger numbers denote more satisfaction). Satisfaction with marriage was measured only for married respondents, so no comparison can be made by marital status

-1.5 -1.4

-1.4 -1.6 -1.4

-1.5* -1.5 -1.7

–1.2 -1.6 -1.6 -1.5 -1.4

-1.7* -1.5

-1.6 -1.5

Public safety

Leisure

Spiritual life

Public, -1.9

Nonmaterial, 0.5

* p \ .05; ** p \ .01; *** p \ .001

Gender Male Female Marital status Single Married Age 20–29 30–39 40–49 50–59 60–69 Education Low Medium High Income Low Middle High Religion Yes No

Table 11 continued

The Quality of Life in Taiwan

123

G. Yao et al. Table 12 The differences in satisfaction by socioeconomic resources

Domain of satisfaction

Difference between SES groups

Personal Health***

3[2[1

Education***

3[2[1

Job***

3[2[1

Interpersonal Friendships*

3[2 = 1

Marriage Family life*

3[2 = 1

Neighbor*

1[2 = 3

Material Housing * p \ .05; ** p \ .01; *** p \ .001 (ANOVA) Notes: The star signs at the left side of the table denoted the significance level of the main effect of ANOVA on each satisfactory level. The numbers at the right side denoted the posthoc comparison among the three socioeconomic groups. 3: high socioeconomic; 2: middle socioeconomic; and 1: low socioeconomic

Standard of living***

3[2[1

Income***

3[2[1

Nonmaterial Leisure***

3[2 = 1

Spiritual life***

3[2 = 1

Public Public safety Environment Welfare Democratic system*

2[3 = 1

respondents, so the question on satisfaction with marriage was excluded. At the same time, the demographic item of marriage was included. Since the patterns of the two regression models were similar, we used the second model for the following discussion. The results are shown in Table 13. The standardized regression coefficients of the predictor variables are shown. In general, the predictability (R2 value) for the two regression analyses was acceptable (between .20 and .30). The regression predicting the composite index resulted in more statistically significant predictor variables and the highest R2 value than the other three key QOL variables. In general, the life-domain spheres (especially the nonmaterial and material) had the best predictability of the four key QOL variables. In contrast, only the nonmaterial domain of value priorities significantly predicted the dependent variables. For the demographic variables, female respondents were happier, older respondents felt more achievement, and more educated people indicated more enjoyment than their counterparts. Single respondents had more enjoyment, but married respondents felt more accomplished. Respondents with a high income had lower enjoyment and a lower composite index score. This result indicates that a higher income does not correspond to a better QOL. For the lifestyle variables, the smaller the number of utilities and electronics that could be accessed the more enjoyment and happiness. This result may imply that conveniences as indicated by access to public utilities are not keys to a better QOL. Moreover, those who

123

216

Reprinted from the journal

The Quality of Life in Taiwan Table 13 Standard regression coefficients (All sample without Q7(c) marriage) Happiness n = 850

Enjoyment n = 847

Achievement n = 850

Composite index n = 842

-.04

-.05

-.01

Demographic Gender (male = 1)

.08*

Age

-.04

.02

.17**

Education

-.05

.10*

.06

Income

-.03

-.11**

Religion (yes = 1) Marriage (single = 1)

.01 -.07

-.06

.01

.01

-.10*

.09*

.07 .04 -.12** .01 -.05

Lifestyles Household compositions

.02

.06

.06

.03

Home ownership

.01

.00

-.05

-.00

Eating at home

.05

.02

.01

.04

Eating outside

.05

.01

.01

-.05

-.02

-.02

Food liked

.03 -.08*

Utilities

-.11**

-.03

.00

-.06

Electronic techniques

-.06

-.10*

.00

-.06 .06

English speaking ability

.10*

.06

-.03

Interactions with people overseas

.01

.05

.06

.06

-.01

.05

.03

.03

National identity Proud of Taiwan

.06

.05

.11**

.11**

Standard of Living

-.01

.06

.01

.03

Pray and meditate

-.01

.07

.04

.02

.06

.05

.09*

.08*

Personal

.15***

.06

.05

.12**

Interpersonal

.06

.08

.02

.08

Material

.10*

.14**

.16***

.17***

.21***

.11*

Trust Domain of satisfaction

Nonmaterial Public

.21*** -.07

.20***

-.07

.02

-.06 -.01

Value priorities Personal

-.08

.01

-.02

Interpersonal

-.02

.04

.00

.02

Material

-.02

-.01

-.03

-.01

Nonmaterial

-.02

.07

Public

-.01

.04

-.00

.03

.20

.22

.21

.27

R2

.09*

.08*

* p \ .05; ** p \ .01; *** p \ .001

were proud of being Taiwanese had a higher achievement score and overall QOL index. In addition, those who could trust more people had a higher overall QOL, especially in predicting accomplishment and the composite index. This suggests that the more people identify with and trust their environments, the better QOL they will experience. Specifically, the best predictors for happiness were satisfaction with nonmaterial life domains followed by satisfaction with personal life domains, number of utilities (–), Reprinted from the journal

217

123

G. Yao et al.

English speaking ability, the material life domains, and being female. The best predictors for enjoyment were satisfaction with nonmaterial life domains followed by satisfaction with material life domains, income (–), being married, usage of electronics (–), and education. The best predictors for achievement were older age, satisfaction with material life domains, satisfaction with nonmaterial life domains, pride in Taiwan, an emphasis on nonmaterial value priorities, trust of others, and being married. The best predictors for the composite index were satisfaction with material and nonmaterial life domains followed by satisfaction with personal life domains, income (–), pride in Taiwan, number of food one likes (–), trust of others, and an emphasis on nonmaterial value priorities (–). In summary, assessments of life domains, especially those of material and nonmaterial life, are the most powerful forces shaping overall QOL among the Taiwanese. Objective conditions of life alone, such as a higher income and access to utilities, do not contribute significantly to the experience of a better QOL. This finding indicates that such an experience requires much more than meeting basic material needs. For the Taiwanese, a life of happiness, enjoyment, and achievement requires the satisfaction of both material and nonmaterial needs.

5 Conclusion 5.1 Key Findings This paper examined Taiwanese people’s lifestyles, value priorities, and quality of life at global and domain levels. The determinants of overall quality of life were also explored. 5.1.1 Daily Life In Taiwan, access to public utilities is quite high but two extremes were noted with computer and mobile phone usage. Participants either seldom or frequently used them. Single respondents who were younger and had more education and income were more likely to choose more multicultural foods as well as to indicate more use of computers and mobile phones. However, the propensity for electronics and food did not directly contribute to a higher quality of life, but rather undermined it. Having pride in Taiwan and trusting others is a good indicator of having a better sense of Achievement and a higher composite index. People who did not identify themselves as Taiwanese were not likely to be proud of Taiwan and did not display the increase of QOL related to self-identity. Interestingly, not only older people, but most respondents had limited foreign experience and poor spoken English ability. As a result, those with better international language ability may enjoy a benefit from this advantage. 5.1.2 Value Priorities The most important value priority for Taiwanese was health. The other top five values were to live without fear, to have a comfortable home, to earn a high income, and to have a job. The least important value priorities were related to public values and spiritual aspects. The order of importance in value priority corresponded to Maslow’s needs hierarchy. The value priority for respondents of different socioeconomic levels was different. Respondents from

123

218

Reprinted from the journal

The Quality of Life in Taiwan

a higher socioeconomic group tended to value were more about others and self-competence, such as success at work, being on good terms with others, expressing personality and talent, winning over others, and enjoying a past time. On the other hand, the value priority of respondents from a lower socioeconomic group was more concerned about daily-life, such as health, raising children, have enough to eat, and having a safe and clean environment. After clustering the 25 value priorities into five dimensions, we also found that the sequence of importance in value-priorities was interpersonal, personal, material, publiclife, and nonmaterial. However, only the nonmaterial dimension of value could predict Achievement and the composite index. It was interesting that the items in the nonmaterial dimension were the lease chosen values from the descriptive data, but predicted the QOL best. Namely, Taiwanese people tended to value basic needs when they could choose only five among others (the respondents could only choose five values from 25 items). However, rather than basic needs, nonmaterial dimension such as appreciating art and culture and being devout corresponded to a better quality of life. 5.1.3 Overall Quality of Life We found that respondents who had a better QOL also had a better perceived standard of living, but not a better objective income. They also tended to be older, have more education, better spoken English ability, and were more likely to be Christian or not have a specific religion. In contrast, young and undereducated participants had a lower quality of life. 5.1.4 Quality of Life at Domain Levels Respondents were more satisfied with interpersonal relationship items and more dissatisfied with public-life items related to government performance. As we expected, respondents with more socioeconomic resources were more satisfied in many life domains. The order of importance for value-priority dimensions was as follows: interpersonal, personal, material, public-life, and nonmaterial. The order for life-domain spheres was: interpersonal, nonmaterial, material, personal, and public-life spheres. This result indicated that people who thought interpersonal value was the most important also indicated the greatest satisfaction with this value. People who thought personal value was important were dissatisfied with it. People with lower expectations for nonmaterial values indicated more satisfaction with the value. Those who indicated less importance for public-life value also indicated lower satisfaction with it. To clarify the relationship between satisfaction and importance, future study is needed. High correlations with overall QOL items were noted not only at the item level, but also at sphere levels. The material, nonmaterial, interpersonal (satisfaction of marriage included), and personal spheres of life satisfaction had high correlations with overall QOL items. The public-life sphere had the lowest correlation with overall QOL items; it did not predict overall QOL as well as the other life-domain spheres. 5.1.5 The Determinants of QOL Life-domain spheres had greater predictability of overall QOL than the value-priority dimensions. The nonmaterial and material spheres had better predictability than the personal, interpersonal (satisfaction of marriage excluded), and public-life spheres. For the Reprinted from the journal

219

123

G. Yao et al.

five value-priority dimensions, the nonmaterial dimension had better predictability than the other four dimensions. Subjective variables such as the satisfaction items, the value-priority items, pride in Taiwan, and interpersonal trust were more important in predicting overall QOL than objective variables (such as demographics, number of utilities, and frequency of using the internet or a mobile phone). 5.2 Policy Implications Generally speaking, domains of satisfaction were better predictors of overall quality of life while some demographic variables correlated highly with satisfaction. In other words, different demographic conditions such as education and income may correspond to satisfaction or dissatisfaction in different domains, and thus result in different quality-of-life statuses. The direct effect of objective demographic items, such as income, even undermined the quality of life. In following section, we discuss these phenomenon and policy implications from two aspects: material and objective as well as nonmaterial and subjective. Since interpersonal trust and the national-identity of Taiwanese also played an important role in predicting quality of life, we also discuss democracy, trust, and identity. 5.2.1 Material and Objective Aspect According to our analysis of socioeconomic status, those who had more income and education tended to be more satisfied with domains of satisfaction. At the same time, domains of satisfaction indicated a better quality of life. For those of lower SES, however, were more dissatisfied with their material and nonmaterial domains of satisfaction and thus led to lower quality of life. Consequently, ensuring that Taiwan has good economic condition and standard of living may be crucial for governmental policy because when the income and education level rises, satisfaction and quality of life would also increase. Moreover, except valuing economic related items such as having a job and enough to eat, raising children and having a safe environment were also valued by people with lower SES. As the result, safe and clean environment, appropriate children rearing and education opportunities are also important. In addition, since being healthy was the most important value among all the participants, especially for those who could not afford expensive medical care, government policy should continuously improve and maintain the National Health Insurance (NHI) system. Since its beginning in 1995, the NHI not only helped more than 60,000 disadvantaged people, each with an average of NT$ 295,000 (US$ 90,000) every year, but also spent 24% of insurance premiums on catastrophic illness (Bureau of National Insurance). From 1995 to 2007, the actual insured rate went from 59% to 99%, and the satisfaction rate moved from 39% to 83%. Moreover, the high quality of the NHI has even brought Taiwan a second place ranking in the 2000 Economist’s world healthcare ranking. Although there is some deficit between insurance costs and revenue, the NHI is successful and worth further improvement. English ability is also worth improving. Since Taiwan depends highly on trading, language ability is an essential requirement for operation in the global marketplace. Although students in Taiwan begin to learn English in elementary school and continue through college, general English ability and confidence in speaking English is relatively low. Thus, Taiwan’s educational policy should try to improve the environment for learning English.

123

220

Reprinted from the journal

The Quality of Life in Taiwan

5.2.2 Nonmaterial and Subjective Aspects In this study, an interesting finding showed that higher objective income had a negative correlation with better quality of life. Since objective factors do not lead directly to a happy life, what does? In our study, satisfaction of nonmaterial domains was a powerful predictor of quality of life. Among all the value spheres, nonmaterial sphere were the best predictor. Therefore, to make people more satisfied and to create nonmaterial values would be a possible path to better QOL. In addition to economic efforts, to create an environment that makes people can enjoy a pastime, being devout, as well as appreciate art and culture would also be crucial. The government should consider policies not only on the hardware but also software of cultural, spiritual, and leisure development. 5.2.3 Attitude Toward Politics and Interpersonal Trust Because of rapid democratization, political involvement is quite high. Taiwanese hoped to oversee government policy and action through national and local elections, although they seemed disappointed with the result as demonstrated by the negative feelings towards public life and government performance. Most respondents identified themselves as Taiwanese, however, more than one-fourth of the respondents were not proud of being Taiwanese. Taiwanese people’s sense of dignity may be diminished because of the lack of acknowledgement of their country by the international community. Moreover, political instability and the slow-down economic growth may also be a cause of the low confidence of Taiwanese people. Because of problems described above, younger, single, and more educated respondents may be tired of political conflict and unwilling to vote. However, our research indicated that those who are more proud of Taiwan and trusted others have a better quality of life. As a result, governmental policy should be aimed at making people in Taiwan have something to be proud of from their education, cultural development, international involvement, as well as economic strength. Moreover, the government should also create an environment that allows people with different opinions and distinct backgrounds to communicate with and trust each other. In summary, people in Taiwan actually are enjoying the fruit of economic growth and political freedom. Most of them have convenient access to utilities and are free to vote and express their own opinion. However, higher income even corresponded to reduced quality of life; political freedom may provide the opportunity to see the insufficiency of the government. According to the findings in this research, being subjectively satisfied with income, education, and standard of living as well as with leisure and spiritual life were the crucial points of Happiness. In addition, valuing art and culture, being devout, trusting others, and being proud of Taiwan also led to better quality of life. As a result, the balance between remaining and even improving the standard of living as well as leisure and spiritual development is the challenge for Taiwanese government policy.

References Bureau of National Insurance. Retrieved April, 23, 2008, from http://www.nhi.gov.tw/english/ webdata.asp?menu=11&menu_id=290&webdata_id=1884.

Reprinted from the journal

221

123

G. Yao et al. Central Election Commission, R. O. C. Retrieved February 1, 2008, from http://210.69.23.140/cec/ cechead.asp. CIA World Fact Book. (2007a). Retrieved November 20, 2007, from http://www.cia.gov/library/ publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html. CIA World Fact Book. (2007b). Retrieved November 20, 2007, from http://www.cia.gov/library/ publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2103.html. CIA World Fact Book. (2007c). Retrieved June 9, 2008, from http://www.cia.gov/library/publications/theworld-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html. CIA World Fact Book. (2007d). Retrieved November 20, 2007, from http://www.cia.gov/library/ publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2188rank.html. CIA World Fact Book. (2007e). Retrieved November 20, 2007, from http://www.cia.gov/library/ publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2172.html. CIA World Fact Book. (2007f). Retrieved November 20, 2007, from https://www.cia.gov/library/ publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2129rank.html. CIA World Fact Book. (2007g). Retrieved November 20, 2007, from http://www.cia.gov/library/ publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2003rank.html. Department of Statistics, Ministry of Interior. (2006). Statistical Yearbook of Interior. Retrieved March 15, 2008, from http://www.moi.gov.tw/stat/. Directorate General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics, Executive Yuan, R.O.C. (2006). Social Indicator 2006. Retrieved November 20, 2007, from http://www.dgbas.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=13213 &CtNode=3504. Economist Intelligence Unit Democracy Index. (2007). Retrieved November 20, 2007, from http:// www.economist.com/media/pdf/DEMOCRACY_INDEX_2007_v3.pdf. Liao, P. S., Fu, Y. C., & Yi, C. C. (2005). Perceived quality of life in Taiwan and Hong Kong: An intraculture comparison. Journal of Happiness Studies, 6, 43–67. Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50, 370–396. Taiwan Water Corporation. Retrieved February 1, 2008, from http://www.water.gov.tw/02results/ res_c_list.asp. United Nations Statistics Division. (2004). Table 3: Population by sex, rate of population increase, surface area and density. Demographic Yearbook 2004. Retrieved November 20, 2007, from http:// unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/products/dyb/dybsets/2004%20DYB.pdf. Wang, C., Chou, C., & Hsiao, M. (2001). The concept of human basic needs in Hong Kong and Taiwan— Two Chinese societies. In S. Lau, P. Wan, M. Lee, & S. Wang (Eds.), Social transformation and cultural change: Comparisons of Chinese societies (pp. 185–204). Hong Kong: Hong Kong Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies. Wikipedia—List of countries by population density. Retrieved November 20, 2007, from http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_density#_note-cia. WTO International Trade Statistics. (2007). Retrieved January 10, 2007, from http://www.wto.org/english/ res_e/statis_e/its2007_e/its07_toc_e.htm.

123

222

Reprinted from the journal

Soc Indic Res (2009) 92:405–427 DOI 10.1007/s11205-008-9354-0

Avowed Happiness in Confucian Asia: Ascertaining its Distribution, Patterns, and Sources Doh Chull Shin Æ Takashi Inoguchi

Accepted: 6 October 2008 / Published online: 4 November 2008 Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Abstract This study reviewed three philosophical accounts of happiness, and then tested those accounts with the Asiabarometer surveys conducted in six Confucian societies during the summer of 2006. Statistical analyses of these surveys reveal that East Asians tend to experience happiness to a greater extent when they experience enjoyment together with achievement and/or satisfaction. The preponderance of such multi-dimensional conceptions in all those societies poses a direct challenge to a single dimensional account of happiness in the West. The analyses also reveal that positive assessments of interpersonal relationships matter more than the amount of knowledge or wealth in living a happy life in Confucian societies.

For millennia, philosophers have argued that humans exist in order to be happy and that the search for happiness is the most fundamental goal of human existence (Hudson 1996; Kingwell 2000; Lane 2000; Tefler 1980). For example, Aristotle (1998) identified happiness as the chief and final good in his first book, Ethics, and wrote more than nine books inquiring into the nature of human happiness (Nussbaum 2004; Vanier 2002). Utilitarian philosopher Bentham (1996) claimed that government’s primary purpose is to ensure the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson pronounced all men possess an ‘‘unalienable’’ right to the ‘‘the pursuit of happiness.’’ Among philosophers and many other thinkers, there is general agreement that happiness constitutes the greatest quality of human life. Happiness, however, is a peculiarly difficult subject to frame and analyze (Haybron 2000; see also Argyle 1987; Chiang 1996; Chu et al. 2005; Diener 2000; Lu 2001; Park 2005; Seligman 2002; Wu 1992). Although everyone is sure that happiness is desirable, D. C. Shin (&) University of Missouri at Columbia, Columbia, MO 65211, USA e-mail: [email protected] T. Inoguchi Chuo University, Tokyo, Japan e-mail: [email protected] Reprinted from the journal

223

123

D. C. Shin, T. Inoguchi

people disagree widely about what happiness is and how it is achieved. Is happiness the same as peace of mind or the sense of contentment or satisfaction? Is it enjoyment and pleasure or fulfillment? Does happiness emanate from riches, fame, or power? Do the ingredients of happiness and its sources vary across the places and the ages in which people live? These are longstanding philosophical and empirical questions that people still argue about today. The present study represents a systematic attempt to deal with some of these questions in the context of Confucian Asia.

1 Previous Research Over the past three decades, there has been a substantial increase in empirical inquiry into self-assessments of happiness, as evidenced by the compilation of the World Database of Happiness (http://www1.eur.nl/fsw/happiness/; Veenhoven 1984), the publication of The Journal of Happiness Studies in 2000, and international conferences on the concept of Gross National Happiness1 (http://www.bhutanstudies.org.bt/publications/gnh/gnh.htm). In the United States and other developed countries in the West, many scholars have examined the relationships between the various demographic, sociological, psychological, and behavioral characteristics of the mass citizenries and their reports on happiness (for a review of this literature, see Diener et al. 1999; Veenhoven 2000). Their studies have produced valuable information on the levels and correlates of avowed happiness among the mass publics mostly of the West. What these studies have not done is to develop a systematic line of research studying how the mass publics of the non-Western world specifically understand happiness and judge the status of their happiness. In East Asia, most empirical studies to date have focused on comparing the levels and distribution of avowed happiness across various demographic groups or its sources with what is noted in the West (Kitayama et al. 1995; Lu 2001; Lu and Shih 1997; Lu and Gilmour 2004; Ng 2002). Specifically, these studies have identified the groups most and least likely to experience happiness and the sources most and least likely to contribute to it. Yet they have failed to determine how differently or similarly East Asians understand happiness and strive to achieve it. This paper seeks to fill this void in the literature by comparing the conceptions and experiences of happiness among the citizenries of Confucian societies in the region. This paper is organized into nine sections. The section that follows immediately explicates the notion of happiness by reviewing the ways people often use the term to appraise the quality of their life experiences. The second section introduces the three fundamental accounts of happiness known in the philosophical literature and proposes a conceptual framework for our analysis of the conceptions and experiences of happiness among the mass publics of Confucian Asia. The third section discusses the key variables included in our analyses and describes how they are measured. The fourth section compares the levels of avowed happiness across six Confucian societies and the most and least happy of these societies. The fifth section compares the average levels of happiness across the population segments of each society and identifies those particular segments most and least likely to experience it. In the next two sections, we examine the divergent conceptions 1

The term ‘‘gross national happiness’’ was coined in 1972 by King Jigme Singye Wangchuck of Bhutan, the east Himalayan Buddhist monarchy of approximately 800,000 people. It has recently become a subject of increasing and widespread concern in the international scholarly community and policy circles (New York Times 2005).

123

224

Reprinted from the journal

Avowed Happiness in Confucian Asia: Ascertaining its Distribution, Patterns, and Sources

of happiness in terms of experiencing enjoyment, achievement, and satisfaction, and compare the essentiality of these components. We also identify the most and least popular conceptions in the entire region of Confucian Asia and individual societies in the region. The eighth section examines whether the possession of high income and other resources or a subjective relative assessment of those resources matters more in the experience of happiness among the people in Confucian Asia. The final section summarizes key findings and compares them with what is noted in other regions.

2 The Notion of Happiness From the Epicureans to contemporary social scientists, considerable confusion reigns regarding precisely what happiness means. Even in present English usage, ‘‘happiness’’ carries numerous meanings and thus frequently creates a semantic snare (Margolis 1975). To clarify the meaning of the concept and establish grounds for its proper use in scholarly research, it is necessary to make a conceptual investigation of the philosophical and empirical literature on happiness and distinguish the three main uses of the term ‘‘happy’’ (Thomas 1968). The first use of the term refers to a feeling, which is usually of short duration. When Homer and Herodotus equated happiness with physical pleasure and when Bradburn (1969) and Campbell (1981) thought of it as an affective state of mind, they were referring to short-term moods of gaiety and elation, which is fundamentally different from the core meaning of satisfaction. Such happy feelings are often termed euphoria: the presence of pleasure and the absence of pain. Viewed from this perspective, happiness is a hedonistic concept. A second use is one in which a person is ‘‘happy with’’ or ‘‘happy about’’ something, and these expressions mean ‘‘being satisfied with’’ or ‘‘contented with,’’ and do not at all imply that one has any particular feeling. Referring to happiness in this way refers to more than emotional pleasantry (Biswas-Dienter et al. 2004, p. 18); the word is used exclusively to describe the welfare aspect of a life experience, not the hedonistic aspect of human life. Thirdly, the term ‘‘happy’’ is often used to characterize the quality of a whole human life rather than making a statement about a particular aspect of life as in the case of the second use (Beneditt 1974; Cameron 1975; Lu 2001; Summers 1996). In this sense, when a person says that he is happy, he means that he has a happy life, a life in which all of his objectives come together to form as a harmonious and satisfying whole (Simpson 1975). When one makes such a global or holistic judgment in the context of the concept of happiness, he takes into account various aspects of his conditions and circumstances, as well as how he feels about all of them. For this reason, philosopher Austin (1968) concludes that a person’s sense of happiness represents the highest assessment of his whole life. Unlike the first two segmented views of happiness, which focus on either pleasure or fulfillment and welfare, this third conception of happiness includes the whole scope of human needs, desires, interests, tastes, and demands, and seeks to determine whether they constitute a harmonious whole. Fletcher (1975, p. 14) characterizes that whole as ‘‘a sensitive commixture of mind and feeling’’ (see also Goldstein 1973). Believing that a mind without emotions is impoverished and that emotion without mind is squalid, they integrate both as ‘‘happiness’’. Unlike pleasure, therefore, happiness is neither episodic nor subject to momentary moods. Feelings of pleasure and pain can occur both in the context of a happy life and in the context of an unhappy life. This distinction between feeling Reprinted from the journal

225

123

D. C. Shin, T. Inoguchi

happy and being happy should be considered in systematic accounts of happiness (McCall 1975). This important distinction and the value of happiness as a conceptual tool for assessing the whole life quality of people through their own appraisals have gained little appreciation in empirical research on the quality of life (Andrews and Withey 1976; Campbell et al. 1976). Despite substantial and consistent evidence contrary to their claims, many wellknown scholars have identified happiness merely with short-term moods of gaiety and elation. For example, Bradburn (1969, pp. 63–68) viewed happiness as a product of positive feelings and absence of negative feelings, although his data explain only small portions of variations in happiness. Andrews and Withey (1976) equated happiness with a preponderance of positive feelings over negative ones despite the fact that their Affect Balance Scale tapping positive and negative feelings explains only 26% of the variance in self-reports on happiness among the American population. These research findings clearly suggest that happiness should not be equated with an experience of feeling or affect alone. Instead, it should be viewed as an overall assessment of a person’s whole life according to his or her own criteria.

3 Accounts of Happiness If happiness refers to an overall quality of life, the essential question is, of what does happiness consist? Philosophers and social scientists have examined a variety of life experiences such as honor, virtue, material comfort, pleasure, and success in search for the constituents of happiness (Furnham and Cheng 2001; Veenhoven 2000). Each of these components has its advocates and critics in the quest for the constituents of true happiness. Von Wright (1963, pp. 92–94) adumbrates three well-known accounts of the happy life. The first of these he calls the ‘‘Epicurean Ideals.’’ It holds that happiness consists in having (as opposed to doing) certain things that give one passive pleasure. For example, one might get pleasure from the enjoyment of beautiful paintings and good company. For that individual, happiness consists in enjoying life by having enough of these pleasure-producing things. The well-known Lockean idea that property is the foundation and means of happiness belongs to this hedonistic conception of happiness (Schaar 1970). The second ideal leading to a happy life is, according to von Wright, found in the writings of the utilitarian philosophers, who derived happiness from the satisfaction of desires. In such a view, happiness is essentially contentedness—equilibrium between needs and wants on the one hand and satisfaction on the other; the prompt satisfaction of needs produces happiness, while the persistence of unfulfilled needs causes unhappiness (Wilson 1967). A person’s happy life would be one in which as many as possible of his or her needs and desires are met. A third account of the happy life, as revealed in the philosophical literature, sees happiness neither in passive pleasure as in the possession of property nor in the satisfaction of needs. This view, expressed in Aristotle’s concept of eudaimonia, equates happiness with creative activity (McKeon 1941, pp. 1093–1112). Happiness derives from the fulfillment of one’s capacities by doing what one enjoys. As Annas (2004) and Schaar (1970) point out, happiness is a sense of achievement brought by man’s inner productiveness, and it is the accompaniment of all productive human activity. Having considered all three of these philosophical accounts of happiness, we propose that the three positive life experiences of enjoyment, satisfaction, and achievement

123

226

Reprinted from the journal

Avowed Happiness in Confucian Asia: Ascertaining its Distribution, Patterns, and Sources

constitute the three main components of happiness. We also propose that these positive life experiences by themselves or in combination shape a person’s overall judgment of happiness. Next we will investigate which specific components are most and least essential to the experience of happiness in Confucian societies. In those societies, what particular combinations or mix of these life experiences accompany happiness most and least often? Do the answers to these questions vary across the societies? By addressing these questions, this study seeks to determine systematically whether there is a Confucian notion of happiness.2

4 Measurements To test the conceptual model of happiness outlined above in Confucian Asia, we selected three sets of items from the latest wave of the AsiaBarometer (ASB) surveys. During the months of July and August 2006, these ASB national surveys were conducted in six societies with cultures that have largely been shaped by the teachings of Confucius and his disciples. Included in these Confucian societies are China, Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea (hereafter Korea), Singapore, and Taiwan.3 The first set consists of one item on happiness and two others on its three constituents: enjoyment, achievement, and satisfaction. On the assumption that each individual is the best judge of his/her own state of happiness, the ASB surveys framed the item tapping happiness in such a way that respondents could make the distinction between feeling happy and being happy, and judge the state of their happiness in terms of their own conception of it. Like other surveys, the ASB surveys asked respondents the straightforward question, ‘‘All things considered, would you say you are: (1) very happy, (2) quite happy, (3) neither happy nor unhappy, (4) not too happy, or (5) very unhappy?’’ This particular wording of the question enabled respondents to distinguish between being happy and feeling happy and make an appraisal of the overall situation of their existence. On the basis of the previous research finding that answers to this question are valid and reliable estimates of happiness (Ng 1996), we took such self-reports as the basic dependent variable. To tap the extent of life enjoyment, the ASB surveys asked: ‘‘How often do you feel you are really enjoying life these days—often, sometimes, rarely or never?’’ To tap the extent of achievement in life, the same surveys asked: ‘‘How much do you feel you are achieving what you want out of your life—a great deal, some, very little or none?’’ In these questions, enjoyment and achievement represent different qualities of a whole life. To measure the extent to which basic human needs are satisfied, we selected a second set of four items each of which deals with, respectively, physical, financial, social, and spiritual needs. Specifically, these items asked respondents to rate on a 5-point scale the extent to which they were satisfied or dissatisfied with their own health, household income, family life, and spiritual life. By counting the number of these four needs that they rated as being satisfied, a four-point index of life satisfaction was constructed. The two extreme scores of 0 and 4 on this index refer, respectively, to the satisfaction of none and all of the

2

Lu (2001, p. 411) reviews the Confucian literature on happiness and concludes that ‘‘Confucians regard happiness as spiritual, not material; as moral, not circumstantial; as self-identified, not other-judged.’’

3

In all six societies, person-to-person interviews were conducted with the samples of males and females representative of their entire adult populations.

Reprinted from the journal

227

123

D. C. Shin, T. Inoguchi

four needs. A score of 1 identifies the satisfaction of one need. Scores of 2 and 3 indicates satisfaction of two or three needs. The third set of items consists of respondents’ gender, age, marital status, educational attainment, and family income. These five variables are used to define the 13 different segments of the population in each society. We used them as either independent or control variables in multivariate analysis of influences on happiness. Gender and marital status are measured in terms of dichotomous categories. Education and income were measured in terms of three different levels: low, middle, and high. Like education and income, ages were divided into the three categories. The young are in the 20s and 30s, the middle-aged are in their 40s and 50s, and the old are in their 60 and older. Besides these three sets of variables, we chose from the ASB surveys one more item to tap subjective assessments of one’s own standard of living (Veenhoven 1991). This item4 asked respondents to rate their standard of living in a relative perspective on a 5-point scale running from ‘‘high’’ through ‘‘average’’ to ‘‘low.’’ Only very small minorities were placed at the two extreme ends of the scale. We collapsed the categories to construct a 3-point scale, which is comparable to the ones measuring age, education, and income.

5 Levels of Happiness The ASB surveys asked respondents to judge their lot in terms of five verbal categories. Table 1 reports the distribution of survey responses across these five response categories ranging from ‘‘very happy’’ to ‘‘very unhappy.’’ The table also reports the percentages expressing happiness and unhappiness and their balance. Of the five response categories, Table 1 shows that ‘‘quite happy’’ was the most popular choice with a plurality of two-fifths (43%) of the entire Confucian Asian sample, including all six societies. This category was followed by ‘‘neither happy nor unhappy’’ (34%), ‘‘very happy’’ (16%), ‘‘not too happy’’ (6%), and ‘‘very unhappy’’ (1%). When the two positive replies are considered together, a substantive majority of three-fifths (59%) of the people in Confucian Asia are shown to be living happy lives. Those who have unhappy lives, on the other hand, constitute a small minority of one-fourteenth (8%). In the region, over eight times as many people live a happy life as live an unhappy life. In every Confucian society, ‘‘happy’’ people constitute a majority and ‘‘unhappy’’ people constitute a minority. In every society also, ‘‘very unhappy’’ people are the smallest minority. Table 1 also shows that the proportions of ‘‘happy’’ people vary considerably from a bare majority in Hong Kong and Taiwan to more than three-quarters in Singapore. Also the proportions of ‘‘unhappy’’ people vary considerably from less than 3% in Hong Kong to 14% in Korea. To portray a balanced picture of the level of happiness in each society, we first combined the two positive and negative ratings and constructed a percentage differential index (PDI) by subtracting the combined ratings of the latter from those of the former. Values of this index range from a low of -100 to a high of ?100. According to the PDI values reported in the last column of Table 1, Singapore emerges as the greatest nation of happiness with ?73 on this index. It is followed by Japan (?54), China (?52), Hong Kong (?48), Korea (?43), and Taiwan (?41). On the basis of these scores, Confucian Asia can be divided into two sub-regions. The sub-region with higher levels of happiness consists of 4

The exact wording of this item is: ‘‘How would you describe your standard of living: high, relatively high, average, relatively low, or low?’’

123

228

Reprinted from the journal

Avowed Happiness in Confucian Asia: Ascertaining its Distribution, Patterns, and Sources Table 1 Self-assessments of happiness Contents

5 points scale -2

-1

Percentages 0

1

2

Mean

Happy

Unhappy

Balance

China

1.7%

4.7%

35.7%

39.0%

18.9%

(.7)

57.9%

6.4%

?51.6

Hong Kong

1.0

2.2

46.1

44.0

6.6

(.5)

50.6

3.2

?47.5

Japan

.9

4.8

34.6

44.3

15.4

(.7)

59.6

5.6

?54.0

Korea

1.1

12.7

29.9

44.3

12.0

(.5)

56.1

13.8

?42.5

.9

5.2

15.4

51.1

27.5

(1.0)

78.5

6.1

?72.5

Taiwan

2.2

7.2

40.5

33.7

16.5

(.6)

50.2

9.4

?40.8

Region

1.1

5.5

33.5

40.6

19.3

(.7)

59.9

6.6

?53.3

Singapore

Source: 2006 AsiaBarometer surveys

Singapore, Japan, and China, all of whose scores exceed ?50 on the index. The sub-region with lower levels of happiness combines Hong Kong, Korea, and Taiwan, whose scores are lower than ?50 on the same index. Across the six societies in Confucian Asia are there notable differences in the experience of happiness. Nonetheless, these societies are alike in having majorities that live in happiness and small minorities living in unhappiness. They are also alike in lacking majorities that live a ‘‘very happy life,’’ but those who do live a ‘‘very happy life’’ outnumber those living an ‘‘unhappy life.’’ In fact, in every county but Korea, the percentage of people living a very happy life is greater than the percentage of those living an unhappy life and the percentage of those living a very unhappy life combined. To what extent are the citizens of Confucian societies happy or unhappy with their lives? To compare the levels of avowed happiness more precisely across the six societies, we rescaled the original five-category verbal scale into a five-point numeric scale ranging from a low of -2 (very unhappy) to a high of 2 (very happy). Table 1 reports the means on this scale for each society and the Confucian region as a whole. On this scale, the six Confucian societies as a whole average ?.7, a positive score that is higher than the scale midpoint, but significantly lower than the highest point of ?2. This mean confirms that Confucian Asia is a region in which people live in more happiness than in unhappiness. Yet it is not a region in which a majority lives a very happy life. In addition, Table 1 shows that every Confucian society scored a positive mean score. These mean scores vary considerably from ?.5 in Hong Kong and Korea to ?1.0 in Singapore. These scores confirm that people in the Singapore live in significantly greater happiness than those in Hong Kong and Korea. More broadly, in Confucian societies there is great inequality regarding the experience of happiness.

6 The Distribution of Happiness As in other regions, people in Confucian Asia live in various circumstances and face very different situations. They also value different things for their own lives. As a result, even those who live in the same society are not likely to judge their life experiences in the same light. Which segments of the people in this Asian region are the most and least happy with their lives? In this section, we explore this question in terms of five demographic variables including gender, age, marital status, educational attainment, and family income. Reprinted from the journal

229

123

D. C. Shin, T. Inoguchi

Table 2 shows the percentages expressing happiness in each of the 13 population groups defined by the two or three characteristics of each variable. Between the two genders in Confucian region as a whole, more females than males experience happiness (63 vs. 57%). Especially in Japan, Korea, and Taiwan, nearly 10% or more females report happiness than their male counterparts. Only in Hong Kong are males as happy as females. Of the six societies, the gender difference in happiness is most pronounced in Korea where 50% of males fail to report happiness. This difference is least pronounced in Hong Kong, the only place where half the females do not report happiness. Table 2 also shows that in Confucian Asia as a whole, happy people are most numerous in the youngest of the three age groups identified. Young people in their 20s and 30s report happiness in a larger proportion than do their older peers (63 vs. 57%). Of the three age groups, moreover, young people are the only group in which majorities, ranging from 53% in Taiwan to 81% in Singapore, report happiness in all six societies. In the case of the middle and old age groups, those experiencing happiness constitute majorities in five societies. In Hong Kong and Taiwan, majorities in the 40s and 50s group are not happy with their lives, while in Hong Kong and Korea, majorities in the 60s and older age group

Table 2 The experience of happiness among population groups Variables

Countries China

Hong kong

Japan

Korea

Singapore

Taiwan

Region

57%

Gender Male

56%

51%

55%

50%

77%

46%

60

50

64

63

80

55

63

(4)

(1)

(9)*

(13)*

(3)

(9)*

(6)*

20–39

57

57

61

65

81

53

63

40–59

57

46

56

52

76

45

57

60?

64

38

65

37

81

57

57

(Difference)

(7)

(19)*

(9)

(28)*

(5)

(12)*

(6)*

Single

48

55

41

52

73

55

55

Married

61

48

67

57

81

48

62

(13)*

(7)

(26)*

(5)

(8)*

(7)

(7)*

\High School

54

39

44

36

77

49

56

High School

60

55

57

57

79

47

59

College

64

70

65

65

82

57

66

(10)*

(31)*

(21)*

(29)*

(5)

(10)*

(10)*

Low

54

41

54

48

72

51

53

Middle

64

56

61

60

83

48

62

High

71

69

68

69

79

56

72

(17)*

(28)*

(14)*

(21)*

(11)*

(8)

(19)*

Female (Difference) Age

Marriage

(Difference) Education

(Difference) Income

(Difference)

Source: 2006 AsiaBarometer surveys * Significant at the .05 level

123

230

Reprinted from the journal

Avowed Happiness in Confucian Asia: Ascertaining its Distribution, Patterns, and Sources

are not happy with their lives, either. These findings suggest that young people live more happily than their older peers. Nonetheless, Table 2 shows that old people, when separated from middle-aged people, are happier than or nearly as happy as their younger peers in societies: China, Japan, Singapore, and Taiwan. Only in Hong Kong and Korea, where growing age is accompanied by steady declines in the proportion reporting happiness, are the former less happy than the latter. Evidently the direction of the relationship between happiness and age varies from the positive to the negative within the same cultural region of Confucian Asia. Table 2 also shows that the magnitude of the relationship varies considerably within the region as well. In Korea, for instance, young people lead old people in expressing happiness by 28% points. In Singapore, where happiness is generally high, the differences between these two age groups amount to only 5% points in favor of the young. When all these findings are taken into account, it is difficult to determine which group between the young and old is the happiest. In all six Confucian societies, however, it is, undoubtedly, the middle age group that least expresses happiness. Of these societies, age matters most in Korea and Hong Kong, and least in Singapore. Comparing the married and unmarried people in Confucian Asia as a whole, the married express greater happiness than the unmarried (62 vs. 55%). This pattern of difference, however, does not hold true in all Confucian societies. In Hong Kong and Taiwan, happy people are more numerous among the unmarried than the married (55 vs. 48%). Only in these two societies do a majority of the unmarried live happy lives while a majority of the married does not. In China and Japan, the pattern is reversed with a majority of the unmarried living without happiness and a majority of the married living in happiness. In Korea and Singapore, happy people constitute majorities of both groups. When all these differences are considered together, the difference regarding marriage is most pronounced in Japan with a 26-percentage point advantage among the married. The difference is least pronounced in Korea where age difference was found to be most pronounced. Like age, marriage affects happiness differently in both direction and magnitude across Confucian Asia. Table 2 shows a steady and positive relationship between levels of educational attainment and happiness when all six societies in the region are considered together. The higher is the level of education, the greater is the proportion of happy people. As a result, happy people are least numerous among those with a middle school education or less and most numerous among those with a college education. This pattern holds true in all Confucian societies with the exception of Taiwan, where happy people are least numerous in the middle educational group (high school education). In Taiwan, less than a majority with a high school education report happiness. Even in this country, as in all other societies, the college-educated are the happiest of the three educational groups. In most Confucian societies including Hong Kong, Japan, Korea, and Taiwan, a majority of people lacking a high school education fails to live a happy life. In two of these societies, Hong Kong and Korea, larger majorities of more than three-fifths of the least educated do not live such a life. In striking contrast, substantial majorities of the collegeeducated in all seven societies live a happy life. In Hong Kong and Singapore, larger majorities of more than two-thirds of the most educated live in happiness. When all these differences are taken into account, education matters most in Hong Kong and Korea where the college-educated are nearly twice as likely to live a happy life compared to those with no or little formal education. Education matters least in Singapore where majorities of every education group express happiness in their lives. As with education, increases in income are generally associated with higher levels of happiness. In Confucian Asia as a whole, the more money people have, the happier they Reprinted from the journal

231

123

D. C. Shin, T. Inoguchi

are with their lives. This pattern of a steadily positive relationship is observed in five societies: China, Hong Kong, Japan, and Korea. In these four societies, the most and least affluent segments of the population constitute, respectively, the most and least happy groups. In contrast, the middle-income group represents the happiest in Singapore but the least happy in Taiwan. Despite these differences, all Confucian societies are alike in that majorities of their high-income people experience happiness. Across the six societies, however, there is great variation in the extent to which income matters for the experience of happiness. In Hong Kong and Korea, happiness is more than 20% higher among high-income people than among low-income people. In Taiwan, the parallel difference is 8% points, only one-quarter of the difference observed in Hong Kong. Income accompanies greater happiness in all Confucian societies, and yet it means much more happiness in some of these societies. In Confucian Asia, which population groups are most and least likely to live a happy life? Do these groups differ from one Confucian society to another? To address these questions, we compare percentages expressing happiness among the 13 population groups reported in Table 2 and identify the two particular groups that register the highest and lowest percentages in each society. For each society, Table 3 describes the two groups that constitute the happiest of the 13 groups. It also describes the two groups that constitute the least happy of the groups. Table 3 shows that across the entire region of Confucian Asia, the least happy category contains as many as six different population groups, including the unmarried, old people, low-education people, low-income people, middle-age people, and males. Of these six groups, unmarried people and low-education people are most often listed in the least happy category, appearing in three societies. Next to these categories of people are old people and those with limited income. Most often included in the category of the happiest population groups are the college-educated. In five countries: China, Hong Kong, Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan, they are one of the two happiest groups. In four countries: China, Hong Kong, Japan, and Korea, high-income people are one of those groups. On the basis of these findings, it is fair to conclude that the most and least happy population groups vary considerably across the region of Confucian Asia. Despite these differences, the unmarried with little income or education and high-income people with a college education are, respectively, the least and most happy groups of the people in the region. So far we have examined how unevenly self-assessments of happiness are distributed across the categories of five demographic variables. Of these variables, education and Table 3 The least and most happy of population groups

Source: 2006 AsiaBarometer surveys

123

Countries

Least happy

Most happy

China

Unmarried Low income

High education High income

Hong Kong

Old age Low education

High education High income

Japan

Unmarried Low education

Married High income

Korea

Old age Low education

High education High income

Singapore

Unmarried Low income

High education Middle Income

Taiwan

Middle age Male

High education Old age

232

Reprinted from the journal

Avowed Happiness in Confucian Asia: Ascertaining its Distribution, Patterns, and Sources Table 4 Percentages expressing happiness by levels of socio-economic resources Countries

Socio-economic resources index

(Difference)

(eta)

(.13)*

1

2

3

4

5

52%

57%

61%

68%

71%

(19%)

Hong Kong

33

47

57

70

76

(43)

(.26)

*

Japan

40

52

57

69

66

(29)

(.16)

*

Korea

37

48

60

69

67

(32)

(.23)

*

Singapore

69

82

81

77

79

(13)

(.13)

*

Taiwan

54

48

43

55

68

(24)

(.13)

*

Region

50

57

60

69

71

(20)

(.14)

*

China

Source: 2006 AsiaBarometer surveys * Significant at the .05 level

income are the two variables registering the uneven distribution of such assessments to the degree of 10% points or higher in most Confucian societies. For this reason, we combine their values into a 5-point index of socio-economic resources and identify the societies where these resources matter most and least. A score of 1 on this index refers to lowincome people with less than a high school education and a score of 5 refers to highincome people with a college education. From the analyses presented above, we expect that higher levels of socio-economic resources are associated with corresponding levels of happiness. Contrary to this expectation, Table 4 shows that more resources do not always bring about greater happiness. In Taiwan, for instance, the least happy are those placed in the midpoint of the index, not at its bottom. In Japan, Korea, and Singapore, moreover, the happiest are not those placed at the top of the index. Only in two countries, China and Hong Kong, are the least and most happy placed at the two extreme ends of the resources index. This finding suggests that more education and wealth do not always bring about widespread happiness in most Confucian societies. The statistics reported in Table 4 also reveal a great deal of variation in the extent to which these resources affect the experience of happiness. In Hong Kong, for instance, high-income people with a college education are over two times more likely to live a happy life than those with little income and limited education (76 vs. 33%). Between these two groups there is a large gap of 43% points. In Singapore, on the other hand, the gap is only 10% points (79 vs. 69%), a figure of less than one-quarter of Hong Kong’s. According to this statistic measuring percentage differences, which is reported in the seventh row of the figure, Hong Kong and Korea are the two Confucian societies where socio-economic resources are associated with the highest degree of inequality in happiness. Singapore and China are the three societies where the same resources have produced the least inequality in happiness.

7 Conceptions of Happiness Reviewing the philosophical literature on happiness, we have identified its three key components: the enjoyment of life, the achievement of goals, and the satisfaction of basic needs. Of these three components, which ones form the most and least popular conceptions Reprinted from the journal

233

123

D. C. Shin, T. Inoguchi Table 5 Conceptions of happiness Number of dimensions

Countries China Hong Kong

Japan Korea Singapore Taiwan Region

One Enjoyment

7%

7%

2%

11%

1%

5%

5%

Achievement

3

3

1

1

0

2

1

Satisfaction

3

8

2

1

2

9

3

13

18

5

14

3

16

10

Enjoyment & achievement

19

11

5

15

1

10

11

Enjoyment & satisfaction

10

11

17

18

13

18

14

3

7

2

2

2

4

3

22

29

24

34

16

32

27

61

51

71

51

81

47

61

4

4

1

2

0

5

2

(Total) Two

Achievement & satisfaction (Total) Three Enjoyment, achievement, & satisfaction None of the above Source: 2006 AsiaBarometer surveys

of happiness among the masses of Confucian Asia? Do these masses equate happiness with the experience of only one or two components? Or do they equate it with the presence of all three components? In this section, we explore these questions by linking the experience of happiness to that of enjoyment, achievement, and satisfaction in isolation and in combination. Specifically, among those who judge their lives as happy, we calculate the percentages experiencing only one component, two components, and all three components of enjoyment, achievement, and satisfaction. Comparing these percentages falling into the seven different categories of these experiences,5 we attempt to ascertain the most and least popular conceptions of happiness in each Confucian society and Confucian Asia as a whole. According to the data reported in Table 5, only one in 50 people (2%) in Confucian Asia claims happiness without experiencing any of the three components. In Singapore, moreover, nobody claims a happy life without experiencing at least one of these three positive life experiences. In the four other societies, very small minorities, ranging from 1% in Japan to 5% in Taiwan, live happily without any of those experiences. To overwhelming majorities of the mass citizenries in Confucian societies, therefore, enjoyment, accomplishment, and satisfaction do seem to constitute the three essential components of happiness. Nonetheless, a careful review of the data reported in Table 5 indicates that not any one of these three components alone allows those majorities to live a happy life. In Confucian Asia as a whole, one out of ten (10%) people reports happiness while experiencing only one of the three components. In two countries, Japan and Singapore, the figures are even 5

These seven types are: (1) enjoyment, (2) achievement, (3) satisfaction, (4) enjoyment and achievement, (5) enjoyment and satisfaction, (6) achievement and satisfaction, and (7) enjoyment, achievement and satisfaction.

123

234

Reprinted from the journal

Avowed Happiness in Confucian Asia: Ascertaining its Distribution, Patterns, and Sources

smaller at 5 and 3%, respectively. In the rest of the Confucian societies, they range from 13% in China to 18% in Hong Kong. Thus, to large majorities, ranging from 78 to 97% of the Confucian Asian publics, happiness constitutes a phenomenon with more than one characteristic. In two countries, Japan and Singapore, large majorities of over two-thirds (71%) and four-fifths (81%) of those who report happiness experience all three components of enjoyment, achievement, and satisfaction. In the four other societies with the exception of Taiwan (47%), majorities ranging from 50 to 60% report happiness and experience all three components. When all six societies are considered together, those living a happy life with all three components are over two times as many as those living such a life with two components (61 vs. 27%). They are over six times as many as those living it with only one component (60 vs. 10%). In Confucian Asia, most people describe happiness in multidimensional terms. Multidimensional conceptions of happiness vary considerably with most of the demographic characteristics of those who experience it. Table 6 shows what percentage of the happy people in each group report experiencing all three components of happiness. Of the

Table 6 Multidimensional conceptions of happiness among population groups Variables

Countries China

Hong Kong

Japan

Korea

Singapore

Taiwan

Region

60%

Gender Male

51%

49%

69%

52%

82%

50%

53

51

73

49

81

44

60

(2)

(2)

(4)

(4)

(1)

(6)

(0)

20–39

51

49

63

49

82

41

57

40–59

52

50

76

53

80

55

62

60?

58

56

78

47

86

48

66*

(Difference)

(7)

(7)

(15)*

(6)

(6)

(14)*

(9) 55

Female (Difference) Age

Marriage Single

45

41

60

50

83

39

Married

53

57

73

50

80

51

62

(8)

(16)*

(13)*

(0)

(3)

(12)*

(7)*

\High school

43

47

72

43

77

49

58

High school

53

52

71

48

87

41

59

College

65

53

70

54

81

51

64

(22)*

(6)

(2)

(11)

(10)

(10)

(6)

Low

44

44

67

44

73

37

51

Middle

59

50

75

52

79

47

59

High

69

60

79

61

90

60

73

(25)*

(16)*

(12)*

(17)*

(17)*

(23)*

(22)*

(Difference) Education

(Difference) Income

(Difference)

Source: 2006 AsiaBarometer surveys * Significant at the .05 level Reprinted from the journal

235

123

D. C. Shin, T. Inoguchi

five characteristics listed in Table 6, only gender is of little consequence. When all six Confucian societies are considered together, there is no difference at all between the two genders in their conceptions of happiness as a three-dimensional phenomenon (60 vs. 60%). Only in three societies is one gender slightly more three-dimensional than the other. In Japan, for instance, females are more multidimensional than their male counterparts (73 vs. 69%), but in Korea and Taiwan, females are less multidimensional than males (49 vs. 52% and 44 vs. 50%). Age matters much more than gender in experiencing happiness in multidimensional terms. In five Confucian societies, age associates positively with a three-dimensional conception. In China, Hong Kong, Japan, and Singapore, age accompanies increasing multidimensionality in happiness. In these societies, multidimensional happiness is most commonplace among people in the 60s and older. In Korea and Taiwan, however, they are most numerous among people in the 40s and 50s age group. In Korea and Taiwan, however, multidimensional happiness is highest among the middle-aged, those in their 40s and 50s. Despite this modest variation, it is evident that people in this region are likely to become multidimensional in their happiness as they grow old. In the region as a whole, 66% of old people, as compared to 57% of young people, become happy when they experience all three categories of subjective well-being. Like age, marital status matters considerably in five societies. In China, Hong Kong, Japan, and Taiwan, married people are more multidimensional than unmarried people probably because the former are older than the latter. In three societies, Hong Kong, Japan, and Taiwan, 12–16% more of the married group express multidimensional happiness. In the Confucian region as a whole, the former lead the latter by 7% points in living a happy life of enjoyment, achievement, and satisfaction. Education also matters considerably in most societies. Only in two societies, Hong Kong and Japan, is there little difference between people with little or no education and the college-educated. In the other four societies, differences exceed 10% points, and the college-educated are multidimensional in the greatest proportion. In two societies, China and Korea, increases in the education level are accompanied by growing proportions of multidimensional conceivers. On the other hand, in Singapore and Taiwan, the most educated are not most multidimensional nor are the least educated the least multidimensional. Generally in Confucian societies, education motivates people to become multidimensional in happiness, but it is not clear why it plays a more contributing role in some societies than in others. Of all the five demographic variables considered, income appears to matter most in motivating the people of Confucian Asia to view happiness as a three-dimensional phenomenon. In the region as a whole, the proportions of multidimensional conceivers steadily rise from 51% of low-income people through 59% of middle-income people to 73% of high-income people. There is a large difference of 22% points between the two extreme income groups, which is three times larger than the difference denoted with education. Moreover, this monotonic pattern of positive relationship holds true in all seven societies. Clearly, higher income allows people in Confucian Asia to pursue a happy life in multidimensional terms. Given the findings above, it is useful to examine how education and income together affect the multidimensional conceptions of happiness. Table 7 reports the percentages of multidimensional conceivers among those placed at each of five socioeconomic resources levels. Throughout the entire region of Confucian Asia, multidimensional conceptions are always more common at the two top resource levels than at the two bottom levels. This suggests that socioeconomic resources promote such conceptions. Across six Confucian

123

236

Reprinted from the journal

Avowed Happiness in Confucian Asia: Ascertaining its Distribution, Patterns, and Sources Table 7 Multidimensional conceptions of happiness by levels of socio-economic resources Resources level

(eta)

Countries

Lowest

Low

Middle

High

Highest

China

40%

49%

58%

67%

72%

Hong Kong

45

45

52

52

68

(.11)

(.23)*

Japan

79

67

73

72

81

(.10)

Korea

42

41

53

55

61

(.14)*

Singapore

68

79

87

86

90

(.19)*

Taiwan

31

50

45

51

57

(.14)

Region

48

58

61

64

73

(.14)*

Source: 2006 AsiaBarometer surveys * Significant at the .05 level

societies, however, there are notable differences in the way in which multidimensional conceivers are distributed. In China, Hong Kong, Korea, and Taiwan, they form majorities only at the two or three top levels. In Japan and Singapore, they form substantial majorities at all five or four levels of resources. As Table 7 shows, the magnitudes of percentage differences between the top and bottom categories of resource levels also vary considerably. In all but Japan, where the difference is only 3% points, those placed at the top are significantly more multidimensional than those placed at the bottom. In Hong Kong, Korea, and Singapore, about onefifth more from the former are multidimensional conceivers. In China and Taiwan, the difference between the two groups is even higher and runs up to more than one-quarter. These findings indicate that wealth and education motivate Confucian Asian people to view happiness as a multidimensional phenomenon. Apparently, the way these resources affect people’s conceptions of happiness does vary somewhat in the different societies. Does the way people approach happiness as a single dimensional or multidimensional phenomenon affect the level of happiness they experience? Would someone experiencing all three dimensions of happiness be more likely to be happier than someone experiencing fewer dimensions? In Table 8, we explore this question by linking the experience of a ‘‘very happy’’ life to differing dimensional conceptions. In every society in Confucian Asia and the region as a whole, those living ‘‘very happy’’ lives are most numerous in the

Table 8 Percent being ‘‘very happy’’ by different experiences of well-being Countries

Single dimensional

Two-dimensional

Three-dimensional

(Difference)

(eta)

China

25%

26%

40%

(15)

(.18)*

5

11

17

(12)

(.14)*

Japan

15

24

28

(13)

(.07)

Korea

8

17

29

(21)

(.20)*

Singapore

5

35

36

(31)

(.11)*

Taiwan

22

28

41

(19)

(.19)*

Region

18

30

37

(18)

(.14)*

Hong Kong

Source: 2006 AsiaBarometer surveys * Significant at the .05 level Reprinted from the journal

237

123

D. C. Shin, T. Inoguchi

multidimensional category and least numerous in the unidimensional category. In every society, the difference between the two categories exceeds ten percentage points in favor of the former. In Singapore, multidimensional conceivers are seven times more likely to be very happy with their lives than unidimensional conceivers (36 vs. 5%). These findings indicate that multidimensional conceivers live very happy lives in a significantly higher proportion despite variations in the political and economic systems where they live. Moreover, in Confucian Asia, education and money enable people to live very happy lives marked by multidimensional perspectives. 8 The Essentiality of Components In all six Confucian societies, we have found that enjoyment of life, the achievement of goals, and the satisfaction of basic needs do constitute the three essential components of a happy life. Of these three components, which is most essential to living a happy life? Do six societies agree or disagree regarding the most essential component of happiness? We examine these questions by comparing the percentages failing to report happiness among those who do not experience each of the three components. Underlying this analysis is the stronger the relationship between the absence of the component and the absence of happiness, the more essential that particular component is. Table 9 reports a great deal of variation in the extent to which citizens in the six societies estimate the three components to be essential to a happy life. In Hong Kong, for instance, there is only a 4-percentage point difference among the ratings of the three components. This means that all three components are almost equally essential to a happy life in that society. In striking contrast, in Singapore, there is at least a 30-percentage point difference between the two extreme ratings. In Singapore, 30% more people consider the satisfaction of basic needs essential to happiness rather than the achievement of goals. Across the Confucian societies there is no consensus about which component citizens value as the most essential to happy lives. Careful scrutiny of the percentages reported in Table 9 does reveal three patterns of valuations. In most Confucian societies—Hong Kong, Japan, Korea, and Taiwan, enjoyment and achievement are rated, respectively, as the most and least essential components. In China too, enjoyment is rated as the most essential. To Chinese the least essential is satisfaction, not achievement. In Singapore, the most essential component is satisfaction, quite the opposite of findings in China. The least essential in Singapore is achievement. In the overall findings there is more agreement than disagreement over the most and least essential components of happiness in Confucian Asia. Of the three components, enjoyment is most essential while achievement is least essential to a happy life in the region. Table 9 The essentiality of happiness components

Source: 2006 AsiaBarometer surveys

123

Countries

Enjoyment

Achievement

Satisfaction

China

72%

64%

61%

Hong Kong

71

67

71

Japan

82

63

76

Korea

88

64

64

Singapore

71

49

79

Taiwan

75

61

68

Region

77

61

65

238

Reprinted from the journal

Avowed Happiness in Confucian Asia: Ascertaining its Distribution, Patterns, and Sources

Table 10 compares the ‘‘essentiality’’ ratings of the three components across 15 different population segments of each society to determine whether the same or different components rate as the most and least essential to their happy life. In four societies including Hong Kong, Japan, Korea, and Taiwan, all segments rate enjoyment and achievement as the most and least essential components of happiness. As in these four societies, all segments of the Chinese population except the high-income people rate enjoyment as the most essential component. To them, satisfaction, not achievement, is the least essential. In Singapore, all segments are alike in rating satisfaction as the most essential and achievement as the least essential. Within each society, however, there is great consensus among population groups about the essentiality of the three happiness components. Apparently, it is the characteristics of the societies that determine the priority of each component, not those of individual citizens.

9 Sources of Happiness What makes people live a happy life? Economists have identified money and other financial capital as a force promoting a happy life (Cumins 2000; Frey and Stutzer 2002; Easterlin 2001, 2003; Lane 1993). Sociologists have identified the human capital of knowledge and skills and the social capital of family life and other interpersonal relationships as important sources of happiness (Helliwell and Putnam 2004; Lu and Shih 1997). Psychologists, on the other hand, have established that a person’s relative assessment of his/her own life compared to that of others’ shapes perceptions of happiness (Diener et al. 1999; Campbell 1981; Veenhoven 1991). From previous research findings, we chose four variables that represent those four known categories of influence upon happiness. They are family income, representing physical capital; educational attainment, representing human capital; marital status, representing social capital; and the relative assessment people make of their own standard of living, representing a sense of relative well-being. We included gender and age in the Multiple Classification Analysis (MCA) as control variables to estimate the net effects of the four independent variables on happiness as the dependent variable (Andrews et al. 1973). For each Confucian society and Confucian Asia as a whole, Table 11 reports the beta and R statistics from the MCA analyses. Of the four independent variables, which ones contribute most and least to the experience of a happy life in Confucian societies? Do these variables differ across the societies? The beta coefficients reported in Table 11 reveal which independent variables are the most and least powerful influences on happiness. In every society, the most powerful variable was respondents’ assessments of their own standard of living compared to others. The rest of predictors, including the two control variables of gender and age, have much less explanatory power. This subjective assessment variable is the only predictor whose coefficients are statistically significant in all seven Confucian societies. In five societies—China, Hong Kong, Korea Singapore, and Taiwan, moreover, the magnitudes of those coefficients exceed those of any of the other three independent variables. Only in Japan, does marriage have larger beta coefficients than the relative assessment of one’s own standard of living. These findings indicate that interpersonal comparisons of one’s standard of living are the most pervasive influence on perceptions of happiness in Confucian Asia. The findings also suggest that subjective assessments of the conditions of life shape the experience of a happy life more powerfully or directly than do objective life conditions. Reprinted from the journal

239

123

123

74

2

78

81

2

3

240

77

2

67

49

2

3

83

61

59

1

2

3

Income

81

1

Education

61

1

Marriage

63

1

Age

69%

1

Gender

46

60

78

41

63

77

74

58

89

70

60

70

64%

68

65

76

54

65

79

76

60

82

75

64

70

71%

56

60

75

69

78

71

69

79

80

71

71

70

73%

Enjoyment

Satisfaction

Enjoyment

Achievement

Hong Kong

China

Table 10 Demographic differences in the assessments of happiness components

58

56

65

65

59

65

61

70

65

65

62

63

64%

Achievement

53

54

63

63

58

61

59

69

57

61

62

59

62%

Satisfaction

84

81

87

75

86

90

80

86

73

86

81

77

86%

Enjoyment

Japan

50

65

70

60

65

84

52

79

62

68

59

58

66%

Achievement

78

78

78

69

80

80

72

81

72

83

70

70

80%

Satisfaction

D. C. Shin, T. Inoguchi

Reprinted from the journal

Reprinted from the journal

84

2

87

95

2

3

87

2

241

88

83

2

3

86

81

2

3

52

56

67

53

61

66

60

62

70

67

55

58

63%

Source: 2006 AsiaBarometer surveys

91

1

Income

92

1

Education

91

1

Marriage

81

1

Age

91%

1

Gender

48

62

69

58

57

83

62

71

80

69

53

87

71%

82

62

74

80

83

67

67

80

86

72

69

71

72%

Enjoyment

Satisfaction

Enjoyment

Achievement

Singapore

Korea

Table 10 continued

60

39

52

39

58

52

45

59

53

54

43

47

52%

Achievement

80

63

89

67

88

79

72

89

88

75

82

84

73%

Satisfaction

73

77

70

76

73

76

75

75

64

79

73

67

81%

Enjoyment

Taiwan

60

61

61

53

63

65

65

53

57

69

56

55

66%

Achievement

70

71

60

69

67

69

71

62

61

76

66

63

73%

Satisfaction

Avowed Happiness in Confucian Asia: Ascertaining its Distribution, Patterns, and Sources

123

D. C. Shin, T. Inoguchi Table 11 Multiple classification analyses of happiness Predictors

Countries China

Hong Kong

Japan

Korea

Singapore

Taiwan

Region

Gender

.05

.00

.05

.10*

.03

.09*

.05

Age

.05

.06

.12*

.13*

.07

.08

.08*

Marriage

.10*

.04

.28*

.12*

.10*

.03

.10

Education

.07

.13*

.10*

.08

.02

.06

.04

Income

.02

.07

.05

.04

.06

.06

.06

Assessments

.26*

.31*

.25*

.33*

.25*

.08*

.25*

R2

.31

.40

.41

.43

.29

.18

.31

Source: 2006 AsiaBarometer surveys * Significant at the .05 level

Of the three other independent variables, only marriage significantly influences happiness in most Confucian societies. In four of the six societies—China, Japan, Korea, and Singapore, their relationships are estimated to be statistically significant. In Hong Kong and Taiwan is marriage not significantly associated with the experience of happiness when the effects of all other predicators are controlled. In contrast, education is significantly associated with happiness in Hong Kong and Japan. Surprisingly, family income, the most important component of physical or financial capital, does not significantly affects happiness in any society. In Confucian Asia, money itself does not buy happiness. Thus, we conclude that throughout Confucian Asia, social capital is more instrumental in shaping happiness than either financial or human capital.

10 Summary and Conclusions In Confucian Asia, as in all other regions of the world, it is common that people desire to live lives of happiness. To what extent are they happy with their own lot? What constitutes the happy life? Do objective conditions of life or subjective assessments of those conditions determine their state of happiness? Utilizing the latest round of the ASB surveys conducted in seven Confucian societies, we sought to address these and other questions that concern how various segments of the societies’ populations understand and judge happiness. To explore these questions that have not been adequately addressed in previous research about Asia, we first placed the notion of happiness into the context of a person’s whole life and then allowed respondents to appraise their happiness according to their own criteria. Then we reviewed the philosophical literature to identify from it what are asserted to be the three essential components of happiness. With these resources, we analyzed the surveys to ascertain the particular components or mix of the components that most and least often lead to reports of a happy life among the ordinary citizens of Confucian Asia. We also analyzed the surveys to compare the levels and sources of avowed happiness across the seven societies and within each one. Previous survey-based studies have reported low levels of avowed happiness among average citizens in Asia (Diener and Oishi 2002; Ng 2002). The 2006 ASB surveys revealed that ‘‘happy’’ people, not ‘‘very happy’’ people, constitute a majority in every

123

242

Reprinted from the journal

Avowed Happiness in Confucian Asia: Ascertaining its Distribution, Patterns, and Sources

Confucian society, yet the proportions of respondents expressing happiness vary considerably across the seven societies. These proportions are significantly higher in Singapore, Japan, and China than in Hong Kong, Korea, and Taiwan. The proportions also vary considerably across demographic groups within these societies. Of the five variables reported for these groups, education and income matter most, especially in Hong Kong and Korea. When all five characteristics are taken into account, the unmarried with a low level of income are the least happy while the college-educated with a high level of income are the happiest population groups in Confucian Asia. In the region, happiness means much more than emotional pleasantry; it is a positive assessment of a whole life, the holistic judgment of life experiences that recognizes not only the enjoyment of living but also the achievement of goals and/or the satisfaction of desires and needs. In most Confucian societies, enjoyment is more essential to a happy life than achievement and satisfaction. Yet feelings of enjoyment alone do not lead to such a life among the vast majority of the citizens in all seven Confucian societies. When these citizens experience enjoyment together with achievement and satisfaction, then they are happy or very happy with their lives. With growing age and increasing wealth, people in these societies become more multidimensional in their conceptions of happiness. Consequently, the multidimensional conceptions of happiness are most pronounced in Japan and Singapore, the two wealthiest of the seven societies in the region. The preponderance of such conceptions throughout the entire region of Confucian Asia poses a direct challenge to the hedonistic, single dimensional conception of happiness that is most commonplace in the affluent West (Bradburn 1969; Bradburn and Capilovitz 1965; Campbell 1981). To determine what contributes most to happiness in Confucian Asia, we analyzed the three most prominent—physical, human, and social—conditions of life and the subjective assessments of those conditions. Of these three conditions, social capital measured in terms of marriage is the most instrumental in shaping a happy life. Financial capital measured in terms of family income is, on the other hand, the least instrumental. In Confucian societies that emphasize the importance of community more than the individual (Bell 2006; De Barry 1998; Lu and Gilmore 2004; Uchida et al. 2004; Dienter and Suh 2000), interpersonal relationships matter far more than the level of knowledge or wealth. Nonetheless, social capital does not matter most for a happy life in all these societies. Instead, subjective assessments of one’s own conditions of life relative to others are the most powerful influence on self-assessments of happiness (Andrews and Withey 1976; Campbell et al. 1976; Diener 2000). In this respect, Confucian Asia is more alike, rather than different from, all other regions of the world.

References Annas, J. (2004). Happiness as achievement. Daedalus, 133(2), 44–51. Andrews, F., et al. (1973). Multiplication classification analysis. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Institute for Social Research. Andrews, F. M., & Withey, S. B. (1976). Social indicators of well-being: Americans’ perceptions of life quality. New York: Plenum Press. Argyle, M. (1987). The psychology of happiness. London: Methuen. Aristotle, (1998). Nichomachean ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Austin, J. (1968). Pleasure and happiness. Philosophy, 43, 51–62. Bell, D. A. (2006). Beyond liberal democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Beneditt, R. (1974). Happiness. Philosophical Studies, 25, 1–20. Bentham, J. (1996). An introduction to the principle of morals and legislation. In J. H. Burns & H. L. Hart (Eds.), Oxford: Clarendon Press. Reprinted from the journal

243

123

D. C. Shin, T. Inoguchi Biswas-Dienter, R., Diener, E., & Tamir, M. (2004). The psychology of subjective well-being. Daedalus, 133(2), 18–25. Bradburn, N. (1969). The structure of psychological well-being. Chicago: Aldine. Bradburn, N., & Capilovitz, D. (1965). Reports on happiness. Chicago: Aldine. Cameron, P. (1975). Social stereotypes: Three faces of happiness. Psychology Today, 8, 62–64. Chiang, S. M. (1996). The philosophy of happiness: A history of Chinese life philosophy. Taipei : Hong Yei Publication. Campbell, A. (1981). The Sense of Well-Being in America: Recent Patterns and Trends. New York: McGraw-Hill. Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., & Rodgers, W. L. (1976). The quality of American life. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Chu, K.-P., et al. (2005). Integrating the diverse definitions of happiness. Journal of Happiness, 6(3), 261–300. Cumins, R. (2000). Personal income and subjective well-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 1(2), 133–158. De Barry, W. (1998). Asian values and human rights: A Confucian communitarian perspective. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and a proposal for a national index. American Psychologist, 55(1), 34–43. Diener, E., & Oishi, S. (2002). Are Scandinavians happier than asians?’’. In F. Columbus (Ed.), The politics and economics of Asia. Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers. Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 276–302. Dienter, E., & Suh, E. M. (2000). Culture and subjective well-being. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Easterlin, R. (2001, July). Income and happiness: Towards a unified theory. The Economic Journal, 111, 465–484. Easterlin, R. (2003, September 16). Explaining happiness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100(19), 11176–11183. Fletcher, J. (1975). Being happy, being human. The Humanist, 35, 13–15. Frey, B. S., & Stutzer, A. (2002). Happiness and economics: How the economy and institutions affect human well-being. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Furnham, A., & Cheng, H. (2001). Lay theories of happiness. Journal of Happiness, 1(2), 227–246. Goldstein, L. (1973). The role of non-hedonic criteria in its evaluation. International Studies Quarterly, 14, 523–534. Hudson, D. W. (1996). Happiness and the limits of satisfaction. Lantham: Rowman and Littlefield. Haybron, D. (2000). Two philosophical problems in the study of happiness. Journal of Happiness Studies, 1(1), 207–225. Helliwell, J. F., & Putnam, R. D. (2004). The social context of well-being. The Royal Society, 359, 1435– 1446. Kingwell, M. (2000). In pursuit of happiness: Better living from Plato to Prozac. New York: Crown Publishing Group. Kitayama, S., Takagi, H., & Matsumoto, H. (1995). Cultural psychology of Japanese self. Japanese Psychological Review, 38, 247–280. Lane, R. (1993, Fall). Does money buy happiness? Public Interest, 113, 56–64. Lane, R. E. (2000). The loss of happiness in market democracies. New Haven: Yale University Press. Lu, L. (2001). Understanding happiness: A look into the Chinese folk psychology. Journal of Happiness Studies, 2, 407–432. Lu, L., & Gilmour, R. (2004). Culture and conceptions of happiness. Journal of Happiness Studies, 5(3), 269–291. Lu, L., & Shih, J. B. (1997). Sources of happiness: A qualitative approach. Journal of Social Psychology, 137, 181–187. Margolis, J. (1975). Two concepts of happiness. The Humanist, 35, 22–23. McCall, S. (1975). Quality of life. Social Indicators Research, 2, 229–248. McKeon, R. (1941). The basic works of Aristotle. New York: Random House. Ng, Y. (2002). The East-Asian happiness gap. Pacific Economic Review, 7(1), 51–61. Ng, Y. (1996). Happiness surveys. Social Indicators Research, 38, 1–27. New York Times. (2005, October 6). Net national happiness. Nussbaum, M. C. (2004). Mill between Aristotle and Bentham. Daedalus, 133(2), 60–68. Park, S. M. (2005). In defense of happiness. Florida Philosophical Review, 5(1), 1–14. Schaar, J. (1970). The pursuit of happiness. Virginia Quarterly Review, 46, 1–26.

123

244

Reprinted from the journal

Avowed Happiness in Confucian Asia: Ascertaining its Distribution, Patterns, and Sources Seligman, M. (2002). Authentic happiness: Using the new positive psychology to realize your potential for lasting fulfillment. New York: Free Press. Simpson, R. (1975). Happiness. American Philosophical Quarterly, 12, 169–176. Summers, L. W. (1996). Welfare, happiness and ethics. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Tefler, E. (1980). Happiness. London: Macmillan. Uchida, Y., Norasakkunkit, V., & Kitayama, S. (2004). Cultural constructions of happiness: Theory and empirical evidence. Journal of Happiness Studies, 5(3), 223–239. Vanier, J. (2002). Happiness: A guide to the good life, Aristotle for the new century. New York: Arcade Publisher. Veenhoven, R. (1984). Data-book of happiness: Complementary reference work to ‘conditions of happiness’. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: D. Reidel Publisher. Veenhoven, R. (1991). ‘‘Is happiness relative?’’. Social Indicators Research, 24(1), 1–24. Veenhoven, R. (2000). The four qualities of life. Journal of Happiness Studies, 1(1), 1–39. Thomas, D. (1968). Happiness. Philosophical Quarterly, 18, 97–113. Von Wright, G. H. (1963). The varieties of goodness. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Wilson, W. (1967). Correlates of happiness. Psychological Bulletin, 67, 194–306. Wu, J. H. (1992). Sources of inner happiness. Tong Da Books: Taipei.

Reprinted from the journal

245

123

Soc Indic Res (2009)

Index

A Accomplishment China, 9, 10, 11, 13, 28, 29, 31–35, 37, 41 feelings of, 10, 64 Hong Kong, 113, 133, 134, 137, 142, 147, 148, 150 Japan, 64, 67, 72 Singapore, 155, 174, 178, 179 South Korea, 111 Taiwan, 206, 217 Allard, Eric, 56, 93 Andrews, Frank and Stephen Withey, 4, 226, 243 Annas, Julia, 226 Approaches objective, 4 subjective, 4 Aristotle, 223, 226 Asia Confucian, 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 223, 224, 225, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 234–239, 242, 243 East, 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, 45, 85, 150, 158, 223, 224 AsiaBarometer (ABS), 1, 227 China, 11 Hong Kong, 113, 116 Japan, 45 respondents, 14, 55, 62 Singapore, 197 South Korea, 81, 83 Taiwan, 195, 197 aspiration theory, 150 Assessments, 223, 233, 239, 242, 243 China, 7, 24, 35 domain, 7, 45, 46, 71, 72, 74, 76, 142, 147, 210 global, 24, 62, 95, 105 Hong Kong, 116 Japan, 45, 55, 68, 72 Singapore, 157, 190

South Korea, 81, 83, 98, 100, 105 specific, 68, 83, 100, 181 Taiwan, 195 B Bentham, Jeremy, 223 Bradburn, Norman, 225, 226, 243 British East India Company, 156 Broadband, 48, 77, 83 Buddhism Japan, 51 Singapore, 156 South Korea, 82 Taiwan, 200 C Campbell, Angus, 3–5, 56, 83, 93, 95, 98, 171, 225, 239, 243 Catholicism, 82, 87 Chinese Academy of Social Science Research Center, 13 Chinese Communist Party (CCP), 12 Chinese Nationalist Party (Kuomintang, KMT), 196 Christianity, 46, 156 Chuo University, of Japan, 1 civil liberties, 47, 82, 111, 116, 158 civilization Asian, 9 Confucian, 2 Japanese, 4 collectivism, 2 computers China, 21 Hong Kong, 126 Japan, 48, 54 Singapore, 162, 163, 164, 192 Taiwan, 200, 218 conceivers, multidimensional, 236–238 conceptions, of happiness multidimensional, 235, 236, 243 conceptual model, 10, 12, 13, 15, 227

247

123

Index

conditions of life, 4, 102, 239, 243 objective, 5, 6, 7, 46, 81, 218, 242 conformism, 2 Confucianism, 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 15, 82 Confucian Values, 2 Confucius, 2, 3, 9, 227 Cronbach’s Alpha, 62 cronyism, 130 D Daxue (Great Learning), 3 Decolonization, 149 democratic system, 7 China, 29 Hong Kong, 113, 137, 138, 142, 148, 149 Japan, 68, 69 Singapore, 156, 179, 182, 183, 185, 187, 188, 190, 193 South Korea, 101, 102, 104 Taiwan, 210, 211, 213 democratization, 81, 84, 111, 130, 148, 149, 221 forces, 2 global, 2 democracy, 2, 6, 82, 112, 116, 142, 149, 196, 220 electoral, 111, 115 liberal, 47, 81 non-liberal, 2 third-wave, 2 demographic characteristics (or groups), 224, 235, 243 China, 9, 11–14, 17, 21, 22, 24, 28, 30, 31, 35, 36 Hong Kong, 116, 118, 125, 126, 129, 130, 133, 138 Japan, 50, 51, 56, 57, 60, 62, 64, 67–69, 71, 72, 74, 76 Singapore, 161, 163, 166, 172, 174, 177, 178, 183, 184, 185, 190, 191 Taiwan, 207, 212 demographics, 7 China, 11 Japan, 45, 46 Singapore, 156, 177, 186 South Korea, 106 Taiwan, 203, 213, 220 digital life Hong Kong, 125, 126, 147, 149 Japan, 54 Singapore, 162, 163, 164 South Korea, 88, 89, 90, 109, 110

123

Digital Opportunity Index, 48, 83 digital technologies, 21 digitalization, 54 Hong Kong, 125, 148 Japan, 54 South Korea, 81, 84, 88, 110, 111 dimensions of life quality, 109 affective, 95, 97, 99, 105, 109, 111 cognitive, 95, 98, 105, 109, 111 hedonic, 95 dissatisfaction with life domains, 5 China, 29 Hong Kong, 138 Japan, 68 Singapore, 181, 183, 189 South Korea, 83, 102, 105 Taiwan, 210, 220 domain assessments, 7 Hong Kong, 142, 147 Japan, 45, 46, 72, 74, 76 South Korea, 104 Taiwan, 210 domain satisfaction, 5 China, 13, 29, 30, 36 Hong Kong, 138 Japan, 76 overall, 180 Singapore, 181, 183, 188, 189 South Korea, 83, 100, 102, 103, 105, 107 Taiwan, 210, 212, 220 domain dissatisfaction, 5 China, 29 Hong Kong, 138 Japan, 68, 69 overall, 180 Singapore, 181, 183, 189 South Korea, 83, 100, 102, 105 Taiwan, 210, 220 E East Asians, 2, 3, 7, 9, 223, 224 East Asian Tigers, 2 eating (or dining) habits China, 21 Hong Kong, 122 Japan, 51 Singapore, 156, 162 South Korea, 118 Taiwan, 213 economic crisis, 82, 111 economic development, 3 China, 10–12

248

Index

Hong Kong, 114, 115, 118, 125, 130, 132, 133, 148, 149 Singapore, 157 Economic Freedom Index, 47, 114, 157 Economist Intelligence Unit, 157, 196 democracy index, 196 economic reforms, 2, 10 education China, 10, 12, 17, 21–24, 29, 31, 36, 37, 38 Hong Kong, 114, 117–119, 122, 126, 130, 134, 135, 138, 148 Japan, 49, 50, 54, 55, 56, 62, 64, 68, 70, 72, 74, 76 Singapore, 156–158, 160–167, 170, 173, 175, 176, 178, 179, 182, 183, 185, 187, 188, 190, 191, 192 South Korea, 82, 83, 86, 88–90, 93, 94, 96, 99, 100, 102, 104, 109, 110 Taiwan, 198–207, 209–211, 213, 218–221 elections China, 12, 22 Hong Kong, 116, 129, 130 Japan, 47, 55 local, 22, 55, 129, 130, 166, 194, 201, 221 national, 22, 55, 166 Singapore, 166, 194 South Korea, 82 Taiwan, 201, 221 email China, 21 Hong Kong, 125, 126 Japan, 54 Singapore, 163, 164, 192 South Korea, 88 Taiwan, 200 English, speaking Hong Kong, 143, 145, 151 Japan, 54 Singapore, 161 South Korea, 89 Taiwan, 200, 218, 220 enjoyment, 223–226, 233–236, 238, 239, 243 China, 10–13, 24, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 34–37 feelings of, 7, 64, 97, 98, 243 Hong Kong, 116, 133, 134, 142, 147–150 Japan, 46, 62, 64, 67, 71, 72, 74, 76, 77 Singapore, 156, 173, 177–179, 185, 187,

189–191, 194 South Korea, 83, 95, 97–100, 105, 106, 109–111 Taiwan, 205–213, 216, 218 environment, 5, 7, 10, 12, 29, 56, 60, 68, 91, 93, 104, 106, 109, 110, 132, 137, 147–149, 161, 172, 182, 194, 196, 203, 205, 217, 219–221 Epicureans, 225 Eudaimonia, 226 Eurobarometer, 6 Europe, 2 European Union, 6 F familism, 130, 150 family life, 3, 7, 227, 239 China, 15, 21, 29, 35 Hong Kong, 137, 138, 142, 147, 150 Japan, 56, 68, 69, 72, 74, 77 Singapore, 168, 179, 182, 185, 187, 190, 191 South Korea, 84, 93, 101, 102, 104–106, 109, 110 Taiwan, 210, 211, 213 Fletcher, Joseph, 225 Food China, 10 Hong Kong, 122, 142 Japan, 51 Singapore, 162 South Korea, 85, 92 Taiwan, 199, 200, 213, 218 freedom, 2, 5, 12, 23, 35, 47, 56, 60, 90, 91, 93, 114, 132, 156–158, 168, 203, 205, 221 Freedom House, 47, 82, 116, 158 Freedom in the World, 47 Friendship, 6 China, 29, 35 Hong Kong, 137, 138, 142, 147–149 Japan, 45, 68, 69, 70, 72, 76 Singapore, 179, 182, 185, 187, 190, 191 South Korea, 93, 100–104 Taiwan, 210, 211 G Gross Domestic Product (GDP) China, 10, 11 growth rate, 10, 11, 114, 196 Hong Kong, 114 Japan, 46, 47, 77

249

123

Index

per capita, 10, 24, 46, 82, 114, 157 Singapore, 157 South Korea, 82 Taiwan, 196 Gender Gap Index, 82 global life China, 22, 24 Hong Kong, 126, 149 Japan, 54, 72 Singapore, 165, 188 South Korea, 89, 90, 106, 111 Global Peace Index, 47 globalization China, 10, 35 Hong Kong, 114, 115, 126, 148 South Korea, 81, 84, 89, 90, 111 Gross National Product (GNP), 2 China, 24, 35 H happiness, 4, 5 avowed, 7, 223, 224, 229, 242 China, 10–13, 24, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 34–38 conceptions, 224, 233–237, 243 Hong Kong, 116, 133, 134, 137, 142, 147–150 Japan, 46, 62, 63, 64, 67, 71, 72, 74, 76, 77 philosophical accounts, 223, 226 philosophical notion, 7 Singapore, 156, 173–179, 185–187, 190, 191 sources, 31, 224, 239, 242 South Korea, 83, 95–100, 105, 106, 109, 110 Taiwan, 205–210, 212, 213, 216–218, 221 Happy being, 226, 227 feeling, 227 Health China, 10, 12, 23, 29, 31 Hong Kong, 130, 137, 138, 147 Japan, 56, 68, 74, 76 South Korea, 91–93, 100, 104, 106, 109, 110 Heritage Foundation, 47, 114, 157 Herodotus, 225 hierarchism, 2 homeownership China, 15, 17, 21

123

Japan, 50 Singapore, 156, 161, 191–193 Taiwan, 199, 213 Homer, 225 Household Expenditure Survey, of Singapore, 156, 160, 185 Housing China, 17 Hong Kong, 119, 137, 138, 142, 147 Japan, 51, 56, 57, 60, 68, 74 Singapore, 161, 179, 182, 185, 190, 191, 192 South Korea, 85, 91, 92, 93, 100, 109, 110 Taiwan, 210, 211, 213 Human capital, 239, 242 Human Development Index, 10, 48, 82, 114, 156 Human Development Report, 48, 82, 156 Huntington, Samuel P., 4 I Identification Subjective, 118 Identity cultural, 194 China, 22 national, 118, 220 self, 199, 202, 213, 218 transnational, 119 Ill-being, 5 Income, 1, 6, 7, 10, 12–14, 17, 21, 22, 24, 28, 29, 31, 34, 36–38, 45, 47, 49, 50, 51, 55–57, 60–64, 68–70, 72, 74, 76, 77, 82–84, 86, 88–90, 92, 93, 98–105, 109, 110, 117–119, 122, 125, 126, 129, 130, 132, 134, 135, 137, 138, 142, 148, 149, 157, 158, 160, 162, 164, 166, 167, 170, 171, 173, 176–179, 182, 183, 185, 187, 190, 192, 193, 196, 199, 200–204, 207, 210, 211, 213, 216, 218–220, 221, 225, 228, 232, 233, 236, 239, 242, 243 industrialization, 2, 12, 84, 111, 114, 157 Inequalities, 10, 37 Inglehart, Ronald, 5, 55 Internet China, 12, 21 Hong Kong, 126, 149 Japan, 48, 54 Singapore, 158, 163, 164, 192

250

Index

South Korea, 83, 100–103, 105, 106, 109, 110 Taiwan, 195, 197, 210–212, 217–219 life sphere China, 29–35 Hong Kong, 113, 137, 138, 148 interpersonal, 29, 32, 33, 35, 36, 104, 105, 135, 137, 139, 149, 195 Japan, 68, 69, 72 material, 29, 30, 34, 36–38, 68, 72, 81, 149, 211 non-material, 29, 30, 34, 36, 37, 211 personal, 29, 30, 35, 104, 105, 137, 138, 149, 182, 211–213, 219 public, 29, 30, 35, 45, 48, 69, 76, 101, 104–106, 111, 113, 138, 149, 182, 187, 195, 211, 212, 219 South Korea, 81, 104, 105 Taiwan, 195, 211, 212, 219 lifestyles China, 11, 13, 15, 17, 31, 33, 35 Hong Kong, 116, 118 Japan, 45, 46, 50, 55, 71, 72, 74, 76 Singapore, 155, 156, 161, 179, 185, 187, 189, 192, 194 South Korea, 81, 83, 84, 86, 89, 106, 109–111 Taiwan, 197, 199, 213, 218

South Korea, 83, 88 Taiwan, 200, 220 interpersonal life China, 9, 13, 29, 30, 32, 35, 36 Hong Kong, 135, 137, 138, 149 South Korea, 104, 111 Taiwan, 195 interpersonal relationship, 4, 31, 36, 132, 142, 187, 190, 210, 219, 223, 239, 243 International Communication and Technology Index, 48 International Monetary Fund, 114, 157 Islam, 156 J Jefferson, Thomas, 223 Job, 7, 17,24, 29, 50, 56, 57, 60, 74, 90, 91–93, 100, 104, 105, 109, 110, 126, 130, 132, 134, 138, 147, 155, 164, 168, 170, 171, 175, 179, 182, 185, 187, 190–193, 203, 204, 210, 211, 220 K Kozumi, Junichiro, prime minister of Japan, 48, 77 L Latin America, 6 legatum Institute for Global Development, 187 leisure China, 30, 31 Hong Kong, 137, 138, 141, 142, 144, 146–149, 152 Japan, 68–70, 73, 75, 79 Singapore, 179, 181, 182, 187–189, 191 South Korea, 91, 98, 101, 102, 104, 106–109 Taiwan, 210–212, 215, 216, 221 Liberal Democratic Party, Japan, 46 life concerns China, 23 Japan, 56, 60, 74 life domains China, 9, 11–13, 29–32, 35–38 Hong Kong, 135, 137, 138 Japan, 45, 46, 68–70, 71, 73–76, 79 Singapore, 156, 179, 180–187, 189, 190

M marriage China, 9, 24, 29, 30, 31, 35, 37, 38 Hong Kong, 137–141, 144, 146–148, 152 Japan, 58, 68–73, 76, 77, 79 Singapore, 155, 179, 181–185, 187, 189–191, 193 South Korea, 81, 82, 87, 92, 95, 97, 100–106, 108, 110–112 Taiwan, 206–217, 219 Maslow, Abraham needs hierarchy, 203, 218 theory of needs, 205 material life China, 9, 13, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 36–38 Hong Kong, 137, 138, 149 Japan, 68, 69, 72 South Korea, 81, 105, 109, 110, 112 Taiwan, 195, 211, 218 materialism, 23, 31, 38, 43, 55, 91, 94, 112, 130, 133, 143, 145, 151

251

123

Index

Mercer Human Resource Consultancy, 156, 194 Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare of Japan, 47 Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport of Japan, 46, 80 Mobile phone China, 16, 21, 39 Hong Kong, 125–127 Japan, 48, 51, 54 Singapore, 162–164, 192 South Korea, 86, 88 Taiwan, 199, 218, 220 modern life China, 21 Japan, 51–53, 73, 75, 79 South Korea, 85, 86, 87, 90 Modernization, socioeconomic, 2, 54, 81, 114 N National Health Insurance (NHI), 220 national pride, 301 Hong Kong, 119, 147 nationalism China, 34, 35 need, 95, 105, 117, 171–173, 191 for being, 56, 60, 61, 73, 75, 76, 93, 94 for having, 56, 60–62, 73–76, 92–95, 105, 111, 171–173, 191 hierarchy of, 203, 218 human, 61, 91, 93, 171, 225, 227 physiological, 92, 203 for relating, 56, 60, 61, 73–76, 92–95, 105, 171–173 non-material life China, 29, 31, 34 Hong Kong, 137 norms Confucian, 2 of authoritarian rule, 2 political, 2 O OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development), 2, 82, 83 online communication, 126, 128 overseas travel Hong Kong, 126

123

P participation in elections, 13 political, 55, 93 People’s Action Party, of Singapore, 157 Percentage Differential index (PDI) China, 29 Japan, 69 personal life China, 13, 29, 30, 31, 33, 35 Hong Kong, 135, 137, 138, 149 Taiwan, 217, 218 Perspectives, theoretical, 5 Pew Foundation, 6 Political and Economic Risk Consultancy (PERC), 157 political involvement China, 16, 18, 22, 40 Hong Kong, 142, 143, 145, 148, 151 Singapore, 156, 166 Taiwan, 201, 221 political life Hong Kong, 129 Japan, 52, 53, 55, 73, 75, 79 political rights, 47, 81, 111, 116, 158 policy makers, 156, 191–194 policy making, 46, 77, 193 population China, 10–14, 18, 21, 22, 28, 35, 37 Hong Kong, 113, 118, 119, 150 Japan, 45, 46, 48, 49, 50, 54, 56, 59, 72, 74, 77, 78 Singapore, 156, 159, 160, 163, 190–194 South Korea, 82–86, 88, 90, 92–94, 96, 98–100, 102, 103 Taiwan, 195–198, 200 Population and Housing Census, of Korea, 84, 85 post-materialism, 24, 80, 111, 130, 133, 138, 145, 151 Protestantism, 82, 87 public life China, 13, 29, 30, 31, 33, 35 Hong Kong, 113, 137, 138, 149 Japan, 45, 69, 72 South Korea, 112 Taiwan, 195, 205, 211, 212, 219, 221 public safety China, 29–31 Hong Kong, 137, 141, 144, 146, 152 Japan, 68–70, 73, 75, 79

252

Index

Singapore, 155, 179, 181, 182, 184, 185, 188, 189, 190 South Korea, 100, 101, 104, 106–111 Taiwan, 210–213, 215, 216 Q quality of life global, 71, 83, 95, 105, 106, 109–111 overall, 5–7, 28, 29, 46, 62, 68, 71–74, 79, 81, 99, 105, 109, 110, 133–135, 142, 147–149, 155, 156, 173, 178, 179, 185, 187–191, 197, 205, 206, 213, 218–220, 226 subjective, 4 R regression logistic, 14, 18, 20, 25, 28, 31, 33 multilevel, 34 OLS, 14, 17, 18, 28, 30, 32, 33, 142 religion(religious life) China, 12, 21 Hong Kong, 117–121, 123–125, 127–129, 131, 132, 134, 136, 141, 150, 151 Japan, 46, 51, 52, 54, 55, 73, 79 Singapore, 156, 158–161, 163–165, 167–169, 171–190 South Korea, 82, 86–88, 90, 111 Taiwan, 200–202, 205, 207, 209, 210, 213–215, 217, 219 religious affiliations as Buddhists, 21, 51, 82, 118, 160, 161, 185, 167 as Christians, 21, 160, 118, 161, 164, 165, 167 as Hindus, 160, 161, 167 as Muslims, 21, 160–162, 164, 165, 167 as Taoist, 160, 161, 200 S satisfaction with life domains China, 13, 31, 35, 37 Hong Kong, 135, 137 Japan, 71 Singapore, 179, 189 South Korea, 106, 109, 110 secularization Hong Kong, 129, 143, 145, 148, 151 Singapore, 156, 165 South Korea, 84, 86 Shintoism (Shinto), 46, 51, 117 social capital, 239, 242, 243

social connectedness Japan, 55 socioeconomic resources, 64, 68, 96, 98, 99, 102, 103, 109–111, 205, 216, 219, 236 spiritual life China, 21, 30, 31 Hong Kong, 137, 142, 152 Japan, 45, 68–70, 72, 73, 75, 79 Singapore, 179, 181, 182, 187– 189, 191 South Korea, 101, 104–110 Taiwan, 210, 211, 215, 216, 221 Spirituality index, 165, 166, 187 standard of living China, 11, 17, 19, 20, 22, 30, 34, 36–38, 40 Hong Kong, 118, 130, 132, 137, 142, 144, 146–148, 150, 152 Japan, 55, 68–70, 73, 75, 77, 79 Singapore, 156, 166, 167, 179, 180, 182, 187–194 South Korea, 81, 82, 100, 101, 104–112 Taiwan, 199, 207–211, 216, 217, 219–221 T Taiwan Social Trend Survey, 206 Transparency International, Corruption Perceptions Index, 48, 115, 157 trust China, 22, 23 interpersonal, 55, 201, 220, 221 Japan, 55 Taiwan, 201, 217, 218, 220, 221 turnout rate, 130 U University of Tokyo, of Japan; Urbanization, 1 Utilities China, 10, 16, 18, 21, 39 Hong Kong, 118, 125, 130, 142, 151 Japan, 51 Singapore, 156, 162, 163 South Korea, 85, 86 Taiwan, 195, 199, 200, 213, 216–218, 220, 221 V values cultural, 2 dimensions, 205 familial, 130, 132, 133, 148

253

123

Index

materialistic, 81, 132, 147, 148, 150 self-expression, 133, 138 orientations, 6, 37, 116 preferences, 5 Values and Lifestyles Surveys, of Singapore, 181 value priorities China, 9, 11, 12, 23–25, 28, 30–33, 35–37, 41 Hong Kong, 130, 132, 142, 147 Japan, 45, 46, 55–57, 71–75, 79 Singapore, 179, 187–189, 191 South Korea, 83, 84, 90, 93, 94, 106–110 Taiwan, 195, 197, 203, 205, 214, 216–219 virtues Confucian, 2, 3, 4 ethical, 3 non-Confucian, 3, 4 personal, 3 Von Wright, Georg Henrik, 4, 226 W way of life, 5 welfare, 104, 110, 111, 113, 148, 149, 179, 182, 183, 185, 186, 190, 193, 210, 211

123

social, 3, 7, 29, 30, 68–71, 76, 77, 83, 101, 102 system, 29, 30, 68–70 well-being China, 9–13, 15, 24, 27–29, 31, 32, 34–38, 41 citizen, 1, 6, 12, 72, 81 economic, 1, 6, 9, 27, 35, 37, 38 Hong Kong, 129, 142 global, 6, 35 Japan, 45 Singapore, 168, 182, 187, 190, 192, 194 South Korea, 81, 99, 109, 110–112 sense of, 5, 13, 24, 31, 32, 35, 37, 72, 111, 168, 195, 239 subjective, 1, 4, 5, 6, 9–11, 13, 15, 27, 28, 31, 32, 34–38, 41, 45, 74, 111, 142, 148–150, 182, 236 Taiwan, 195, 236, 237, 239 Western Enlightenment, 2 Westernization, 149 World Bank; governance indicators (WGI), 47, 82 World Values Survey, 24, 34

254