SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi / 2019 / Cilt: 21 - Sayı: 2

Measuring Wellbeing in OECD: An Application of Grey Relational Analysis

OECD Ülkeleri İçin Refah Ölçümü: Gri İlişkisel Analiz Uygulaması

Hasan TÜRE
Pages
310–327
Publication Date
2019-08-26
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

At the other end of ranking, Hungary, Greece, Turkey, and Mexico have been observed to have relatively lowest well–being level.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:There has been growing interest in the assessment of well-being in recent years and a wide range of statistical and optimization techniques have been used to measure well-being at regional and national level.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This paper aims at computing the well-being scores of 34 OECD countries, using a methodological approach that combines grey relational analysis (GRA) with entropy formula.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:At the other end of ranking, Hungary, Greece, Turkey, and Mexico have been observed to have relatively lowest well–being level.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2000–2014 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Refah seviyesi · entropy · OECD

Abstract

There has been growing interest in the assessment of well-being in recent years and a wide range of statistical and optimization techniques have been used to measure well-being at regional and national level. This paper aims at computing the well-being scores of 34 OECD countries, using a methodological approach that combines grey relational analysis (GRA) with entropy formula. The measurement of well-being process was examined by considering the two-dimensional framework of the OECD. The dimension of quality of life is examined by the indicators such as health status, work – life balance, education – skills, social connections, civic engagement – governance, environmental quality, personal security, subjective well-being. And the dimension of material living and conditions covers income – wealth, jobs – earnings and housing indicators. The data were collected from the OECD Regional Well-Being Database. The data used in this study refer to last available year in 15-year period (2000–2014), belonging to various quality of life and material conditions. Consequently, it was revealed that Iceland, Australia, Norway and Switzerland have achieved the highest level of well–being. At the other end of ranking, Hungary, Greece, Turkey, and Mexico have been observed to have relatively lowest well–being level.

Özet

Son yıllarda refah değerlendirmesine olan ilginin artması, bölgesel ve ulusal düzeyde refahın ölçülmesinde çok çeşitli istatistiksel ve optimizasyon tekniklerinin kullanılmasını sağlamıştır. Bu çalışmada, gri ilişkisel analizini (GRA) entropy formülü ile birleştiren metodolojik bir yaklaşım kullanılarak, 34 OECD ülkesinin refah düzeyi skorlarının hesaplanması amaçlanmıştır. Refah ölçümü OECD'nin iki boyutlu çerçevesi göz önüne alınarak incelenmiştir. Bu boyutlardan ilki olan yaşam kalitesi boyutu sağlık durumu, iş - yaşam dengesi, eğitim - beceriler, sosyal bağlantılar, sivil katılım - yönetişim, çevresel kalite, kişisel güvenlik, öznel refah gibi göstergeleri ile incelenmektedir. Diğer boyut olan fiziki durum ise gelir - servet, iş - kazanç ve barınma göstergelerini kapsamaktadır. OECD Bölgesel Refah Veri tabanından toplanan, yaşam kalitesi ve fiziki duruma ilişkin göstergeler 15 yıllık dönem (2000-2014) içerisindeki en güncel verilerden oluşmaktadır. Sonuç olarak, İzlanda, Avustralya, Norveç ve İsviçre'nin en yüksek refah seviyesine ulaştığı tespit edilmiştir. Sıralamanın diğer ucunda yer alan Macaristan, Yunanistan, Türkiye ve Meksika’nın ise nispeten daha düşük refah seviyesine sahip oldukları gözlenmiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

TÜRE, H. (2019). Measuring Wellbeing in OECD: An Application of Grey Relational Analysis. Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 21 - Sayı: 2, 310–327. https://ajindex.com/articles/14053

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (15)

  1. Balazentis, T., Balazentis, A., & Brauers, W. K. M. (2011). Multi–Objective Optimization of Well–Beıng In The European Unıon Member States, Ekonomska istraživanja, Vol. 24(4), 1-15.
  2. Benzeval, M., Judge, K., & Whitehead, M. (1995). Tackling Inequalities in Health. Kings Fund, London. Boarini, R., Kolev, A., & McGregor, A. (2014). Measuring well-being and progress in countries at different stages of development: Towards a more universal conceptual framework. Working Paper No. 325. OECD Development Centre. Clark, A. E. (2009).
  3. Work, Jobs and Well-Being across the Millennium, IZA Discussion Paper, No. 3940. Cloninger, C. R. (2004). Feeling good: the science of well-being. Oxford University Press.
  4. Costanza R., Hart M., Posner S., & Talberth J. (2009). Beyond GDP: The Need for New MEasures of Progress, The Pardee Papers, No:4, Jauary, Boston University The Frederick S. Pardee Center for the Study of the Longer-Range Future. Deng, J-L. (1982). Control problems of grey systems. Systems & Control Letters, 1(5), 288-294.
  5. Diener, E. (1984).
  6. Subjective Well-Being, Psychological Bulletin, 95(3), 542-575.
  7. Dolan, P., Peasgood, T., & White, M. (2008). Do we really know what makes us happy? A review of the economic literature on the factors associated with subjective well-being, Journal of Economic Psychology, 29, 94–122.
  8. Durand, M. (2015). The OECD Better Life Initiative: How’s Life? And The Measurement of Well-Being, Review of Income and Wealth, 61(1), 4-17.
  9. Evans, G., W., Kantrowitz, E., & Eshelman, P. (2002). Housing Quality and Psychological Well-Being Among the Elderly Population, The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, 57(4), 381–383.
  10. Fleurbaey, M. (2009). Beyond GDP: The Quest for a Measure of Social Welfare. Journal of Economic Literature, 47 (4), 1029-75. Ginevičius, R., Podvezko, V. (2009). Evaluating the changes in economic and social development of Lithuanian counties by multiple criteria methods, Technological and Economic Development of Economy 15(3), 418–436.
  11. Greenhaus, J. H., Collins, K. M., & Shaw, J. D. (2003). The relation between work–family balance and quality of life. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63, 510–531.
  12. Gröpel, P., & Kuhl, J. (2009). Work-Life balance and subjective well-being: the mediating role of need fulfilment. The British Journal of Psychology, 100, 365-375.
  13. Headey, B., Holmstrom, E., & Wearing, A. (1985).
  14. Models of well-being and ill-being, Social Indicator Research, 17 (3), 211-234.
  15. Helliwell, J. F., & Putnam, R. D. (2004). The social