Social policy activities and quality of life /Europe/


1. Quality of life as a concept
Quality of life, which has gained prominence in social research study since the 1970s, is a broad concept concerned with overall well-being within society. Its aim is to enable people, as far as possible, to achieve their goals and choose their ideal lifestyle. In that sense, the quality of life concept goes beyond the living conditions approach, which tends to focus on the material resources available to individuals. Three major characteristics are associated with the quality of life concept (Fahey, Nolan and Whelan, 2003):
1. Quality of life refers to individuals’ life situations. The concept requires a micro perspective, where the
conditions and perceptions of individuals play a key role. Macroscopic features relating to the economic
and social situation of a society are important for putting the findings at individual level into their proper
context, but they do not take center stage.
2. Quality of life is a multidimensional concept. As noted above, the notion of quality and the consideration of several areas of life broaden the narrower focus on income and material conditions which prevails in other approaches. Multi-dimensionality not only requires the description of several life domains, but emphasizes the interplay between domains as this contributes to quality of life.
3. Quality of life is measured by objective as well as subjective indicators. Subjective and attitudinal
perceptions are of particular relevance in identifying individual goals and orientations. Individual
perceptions and evaluations are most valuable when these subjective evaluations are linked to objective
living conditions. Applying both ways of measuring quality of life gives a more complete picture.
Drawing on previous studies, the Foundation selected six core areas for the EQLS. These are:
• employment
• economic resources
• family and households
• community life and social participation
• health and health care
• knowledge, education and training.
2. A strategy for the enlarged Europe
Two major challenges underpin Europe’s approach to quality of life:
1. The EU’s strategic goal to ‘become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy,
capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion’, in line
with the Lisbon Strategy.
2. Following EU enlargement in May 2004 to include 10 new countries, and with preparations for the
integration of up to four further candidate countries, there is clear evidence of increased cultural diversity
and disparities in living conditions between the Member States. Strengthening social cohesion as a way of improving living conditions and reducing differences will ultimately facilitate integration. European Union social policy has a key role to play in empowering people and enabling them to take advantage
of social change and improve their lives. Quality has become a key concept in these policies because it allows for a better measurement of progress.
The notion of ‘qualify of life’ links living and working conditions in one holistic concept which in turn, ensures effective monitoring of the success or otherwise of the ambitious Lisbon strategy. The first six issues look at objective circumstances and the last two at subjective perception:
1. Economic situation
Income distribution and deprivation levels are quite diverse across Europe. This is a crucial issue which
affects the aim of building a socially cohesive European society.
2. Housing and local environment
Tenure status is indicative of material resources and long-term security. Housing conditions and surrounding environment are equally important in shaping quality of life.
3. Employment, education and skills
High quality jobs are crucial to social inclusion and an important means of protecting individuals and
households from poverty. Creating more and better jobs to strengthen a competitive economy is a main
objective of EU employment policy. Policies to promote gender equality and support lifelong learning
are also crucial dimensions of the European employment strategy, especially in the light of the enlargement process.
4. Household structure and family relations
Family contributes greatly to an individual’s sense of well-being and the feeling of security and belonging.
Different patterns for men and women may be discerned in households and families as the gender
division of labour still regulates main responsibilities for housework and family care.
5. Work-life balance
Work and love, according to Freud, are the two axes of individual identity which have become separated over time. Also, family not only represents love, but also work, hence ‘family work is the work of love’. There is also an emotional investment in paid work. The goal of reconciling family and paid work has been attempted by the gender division of labour in the past but this approach is now being questioned, not only by women but also by men. Therefore achieving better work-life balance must be done in this new context.
6. Health and health care
Good health is not only important for a sense of well-being but also determines our ability to reach our
goals. Differences in health across Europe and the quality of the health care service need to be addressed
in policy terms.
7. Subjective well-being
The individual’s own assessment of their quality of life and their situation is an important factor which may correct or strengthen the picture which emerges as a result of the survey.
8. Perceived quality of society
Quality of life can be related to how appealing a society is to live in and the degree of trust citizens
across Europe have in one another and in their social and political institutions. Equally important are social divides. Survey findings show that perceptions of tensions between social groups differ between old and the new Member States and do not always reflect the issues predominant in public debate. The report concludes with a summary of the survey’s key results, relating them to recent policy debates and developments.
3. European Quality of Life Survey
The survey was carried out by Intomart GfK in 28 countries: the 15 EU Member States before May 2004
(EU15); the 10 acceding countries which became Member States in May 2004 (NMS); and the three candidate countries Bulgaria, Romania and Turkey (CC3). Around 1,000 persons aged 18 and over were interviewed in each country, except for the ‘smaller’ countries – Cyprus, Estonia, Luxembourg, Malta and Slovenia – where around 600 interviews were conducted. The questionnaire (see Annex) was developed by a research consortium and covers a broad spectrum of life domains with an emphasis on employment and working conditions, housing, family, social and political participation, quality of society, and
subjective well-being. The processing of data was carried out by the Social Science Research Centre in Berlin (WZB). Several macro indicators were added at this stage in order to provide a linkage between individuals’ self reports (e.g. household income) and the social situation of the country as a whole (e.g. GDP per capita). The finalized dataset is presented here as the European Quality of Life Survey (EQLS).
The EQLS represents an ambitious attempt to explore quality of life in a wide range of countries. It is a major source of information, highlighting the challenges the EU faces in the light of recent enlargement. The survey enables an accurate picture of the social situation in the enlarged Community to be drawn, a picture that includes both objective and subjective elements. At the same time, it should be noted that there are some limitations to the data. While the sample sizes of around 1,000 per country provide a general population profile, they are too small to allow for detailed analysis of sub-groups, such as
immigrants or single parent families. Furthermore, although the wide range of topics covered by the survey is on the one hand a clear advantage, it also means that none of the topics could be treated in great depth. Some of the dimensions of quality of life are measured with a narrower set of indicators than one would use in highly specialized surveys. However, the strength of the survey is that it provides a synthesis of information on the main aspects of quality of life, both objective and subjective.
4. Methodology
The data collection was organised by Intomart GfK, which assigned national institutes to draw the random samples and conduct the interviews in each country. The overall response rate was 58.4%. However, there was a large variation in national response rates, ranging from 30.3% in Spain to 91.2% in Germany (see Annex). After data collection, the data were checked thoroughly by the Social Science Centre (WZB) with the help of national experts.
The report illustrates the results for all 28 participating countries. Where appropriate, data are displayed for all countries separately, although statistical values are only presented in the report if at least 30 cases are represented. To highlight any differences between the former acceding countries (the recently joined Member States), the three candidate countries, and the former 15 EU Member States, the complexity and amount of data need to be reduced. For this purpose, four cross-country averages are
provided:
1. The EU15 average refers to the former 15 EU Member States: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom
2. The NMS average refers to the 10 former ‘acceding’ countries which joined the European Union in May 2004: Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia.
3. The CC3 average refers to three pre-enlargement ‘candidate’ countries which are set to join the
European Union at a later date: Bulgaria, Romania, and Turkey.
4. The EU25 average refers to the 25 countries of the Community following the 2004 enlargement: EU15
and NMS. All the averages are population-weighted. This means that population rich countries have more impact on the value of the average than countries with lower populations. Therefore, Poland and Turkey dominate the cross-country averages for the NMS and the CC3 respectively. The advantage of this weighting procedure is that the average represents the number of individuals living in the respective region. However, the reader should bear in mind that a specific cross-country average is not necessarily shared by the majority of countries in the respective group because the average reflects the very different population sizes of the respective countries.
All analyses are descriptive. This means that the tables and figures show how European countries differ in some respects and how the results are interrelated with other characteristics of social groups. There are no extensive attempts to explain why such differences arise. A descriptive report of many variables for 28 countries necessarily has to highlight core results, while neglecting many other findings. In this report, the criteria for selecting core results was consistency. This means either that single
countries stand out clearly from all other values and can be related to empirical findings in recent literature; or that there are clear-cut country groups visible which reveal consistent social patterns, even if for one country the significant relation did not exist.
5. QL in the different country groupings
A/ Objective key issues
Economic situation: lower living standards in the NMS and CC3
Analysis of individual data and situations has confirmed what was already known from data relating to aggregate GNP: standards of living are much lower in the NMS and CC3 than in the EU15. In eight of the NMS/CC3 group, the average standard of living of the population is lower than in the least well-off EU15 country, Portugal. Most importantly, average household income in purchasing power standards in these countries is only half that of the average EU15 household. Turning to very low standards of living (deprivation), measured as the non-possession of basic consumer durable, it can be seen that deprivation is three times higher in the NMS than in the EU15, and four times higher in the CC3. In addition, rent arrears are much more common in the NMS/CC3.
Housing: worse housing conditions, but more home owners in the NMS
Housing conditions confirm the general picture of lower living standards in the NMS and CC3. By and large, living space is smaller, homes are less comfortable, and neighborhoods are not as safe. The standard of housing illustrates this. One in five households in the NMS and one in three in the CC3 have housing problems such as rotting windows, damp and leaks, or no indoor flushing toilet: in the EU15, fewer than 10% of households face these problems. With regard to environmental problems, such as air
pollution, poor water quality, noise or lack of green space, there are no clear differences between the NMS/CC3 and the EU15, but the country differences are striking. On average, one in five households in the EU25 complains about at least two of these environmental problems.
Although home ownership is widespread in the NMS/CC3, housing conditions in these countries are poor and this can severely limit people’s social integration. Therefore, it is clear that public policy has a role to play in establishing better housing and environmental conditions in the NMS and also in some of the EU15.
Working conditions: working longer under worse conditions
On average, people in the NMS and CC3 work longer hours than their EU15 counterparts. Around 40% of employed men in the NMS, and two-thirds in the CC3, report working 48 hours or more a week, compared to one third in the EU15. Women also work longer, since full-time arrangements are the norm in these countries. At the same time, the overall employment rate for women is lower than in the EU15. Part-time contracts only play a minor role; this contrasts with the situation in the EU15 (with the partial exception of the southern countries), where women in particular have a higher rate of part-time work. These findings indicate that access to the labour market in the NMS/CC3 is predominantly divided into employees who have full-time contracts and those who do not work at all. This situation is not likely to change as long as part-time work does not provide an income which is sufficient to meet household needs.
Educational levels
Educational attainment is one area in which the NMS appear to be ahead of the EU15. The NMS have higher numbers of people with an upper secondary education than the EU15, and the two groups are relatively equal with regard to third-level education. However, the NMS lags behind with respect to the skills which are increasingly important for living in a globalized network society: the ability to read English and Internet usage (although it should be pointed out that the survey did not ask about competence in other foreign languages and that many east-central Europeans speak Russian or German).
The proportion of the population who can read English is more than three times higher in the EU15 (34% - not counting the English speaking countries, Ireland and the UK). This advantage can be seen across all educational levels and age groups, although the younger groups in the NMS are showing signs of catching up. In much the same way, EU15 citizens are more familiar with using the Internet. Hence, some efforts are necessary to enable the NMS/CC3 to be able to better meet the demands of the information society. At the same time, the fundamental modernization of the infrastructure after the breakdown of the communist regimes has opened up the possibility of establishing a sophisticated electronic infrastructure in these countries. Estonia, for example, has become a forerunner in the area of e-governance. Therefore, while it is evident that the NMS/CC3 are lagging behind the EU15 as far as Internet usage is concerned, they have plenty of opportunity to implement new information technologies
and even to overtake the EU15 in this area.
Family ties: compensating for economic strain and weak institutions
Family patterns are somewhat different across Europe, particularly for young people and for the elderly. Altogether, the young remain longer in the parental home in the NMS/CC3 than in the EU15, but they become parents earlier. In general, one-person households are more prevalent in the EU15 than in the former group. There are, however, many similarities which cut across old–new distinctions, particularly between the NMS and southern EU15 countries.
In all societies, families and friends are shown to be the crucial factor in promoting social integration and providing support. Social support networks are strong in all 28 countries. In both groups of countries, a huge majority of the population – around 80-95% – can count on help from relatives, friends or neighbors when personal problems arise; and in all countries, people rely primarily on family members. In general, support from family members is found to be more important in the NMS/CC3 than in the EU15. Strong family ties in the former group are also indicated by a higher frequency of contacts with other family members. Here, around 85% have frequent contact with parents or children, compared
with 72% in the EU15. In addition, household production of food is much more widespread in the NMS/CC3 than in the EU15. Hence, to some extent, closer cooperation between household and family members compensates for lower economic resources.
Health: improving health status is a crucial task in the new Member States
Being in good health is an indispensable precondition for enjoying a high quality of life. In the NMS/CC3, self-rated health status is on average worse than in the EU15. Compared to the EU15, a poor health status is reported 2.5 times more often by citizens living in the NMS, and twice as often by people in the CC3. Around one third of the population in the NMS report that they have a long-standing illness, compared to one fifth in the EU15. People living in post-communist countries report health problems more frequently than Cypriots, the Maltese or Turks. These findings for individual health correspond with widespread dissatisfaction with the quality of health services and with feelings prevalent in post-communist countries that access to medical care is problematic.
B/ Subjective key issues:
Subjective well-being: citizens in the NMS/CC3 are less happy and less satisfied, but equally optimistic
A further striking difference between the NMS and the EU15 is that subjective well-being is lower in the NMS. This is true for life satisfaction and happiness, which overlap to a large extent. There is a considerable gap in subjective well-being, echoing the gaps found in objective living conditions, especially economic resources and living standards, working conditions, and health. In most EU15 countries, the least satisfied groups are still more satisfied than affluent groups in the NMS and CC3. This mainly reflects the huge difference in living standards between these two groups of countries, although this is not the only factor. Material living conditions are of paramount importance for citizens’ subjective well-being, but aspects of ‘loving’ and ‘being’ also impact on how satisfied people are with their lives. Whereas current living conditions are evaluated very differently, there is no division regarding optimism about the future.
More optimistic or more pessimistic people are to be found in both groups of countries. On average, two thirds of European citizens are optimistic about the future. In this respect, the differences
between individual countries are much more striking than those between old and new Member States. People in countries which have undergone huge social reforms against the background of stagnating economic performance, such as France and Germany, are less optimistic.
6. Quality of life of specific social groups
A/ Basic conclusions
Vertical inequalities: stronger in the NMS/CC3
Low income, low education, unemployment, and a low occupational status are related to a lower standard of living and to correspondingly lower levels of subjective well-being consistently across the 28 countries. Not surprisingly, having a low income is often accompanied by deprivation in terms of household essentials, difficulties in making ends meet and sub-standard housing conditions. But the detrimental effects go far beyond standard of living, since low income is often also associated with poor health status. By and large, low education, a non-skilled occupational status and unemployment are also associated with precarious living conditions. Respondents’ subjective assessments also show that life is not as good for these social groups: people in these groups are clearly less satisfied and less happy with the life they lead,
compared to the national average.
Gender gap most obvious in work-life balance
The gender division of responsibilities within households, and the different allocation of time between paid and unpaid work which derives from it, is responsible for the counter-balancing result that women apparently have no greater difficulty balancing work and family life than men. Men usually work for pay longer than women, while women usually perform unpaid family work (housework, caring for children and frail elderly or disabled persons) longer than men. However, when women work full-time – defined as working between 35 and 47 hours a week – they have more difficulties reconciling work and family life than full-time working men; this indicates that their partners do not take equal responsibility for family work. This is also indicated by the fact that women are three times more likely than men to report that they do more than their fair share of housework.
Older persons in the NMS/CC3: lower standard of living and lower subjective well-being
Differences between age groups are relevant, but not easy to interpret, since age is related to different stages in the life cycle. It comes as no surprise that older people consistently report more health problems than younger people. Other effects, however, vary considerably across the 28 countries. The most striking result is the sharp decrease in household income for persons aged 65 and over, which can be observed in all countries except the Netherlands and Poland. By and large, material deprivation and economic strain are also more frequently experienced by the elderly in the NMS/CC3 than by younger age groups, which points to the fact that the elderly face the risk of poverty. In contrast, home ownership is substantially higher for older people, which reflects the accumulation process of capital during the life cycle.
B/ Perceptions of the quality of society
Objective living conditions and subjective well-being are key dimensions of the quality of life of individuals. However, individual well-being is also affected by the social context in which individual lives are embedded.
Countries where citizens have little trust in the quality of political institutions, or perceive the societies they live in as conflict-ridden, lack an important element of welfare; a lack of trust in political institutions or in the organisation of society breeds insecurity and promotes worries about the sustainability of the existing level of personal welfare. In line with their lower levels of material and subjective well-being, citizens in the NMS/CC3 have a much more critical view than EU15 citizens of the quality of public services (education, pension and health care systems, and social services). In the EU15, citizens are most satisfied with the education system and with the health care system. The rating of the quality of social services is almost as high, but there is a distinctly lower level of satisfaction with pension schemes. In the NMS, only the educational system is given a ranking above the mid-point of the scale, while citizens are particularly disappointed with the quality of the pension scheme and with social services. Citizens in the CC3 give the health care system the poorest ranking, while the education system fares best, although it is also given a predominantly negative ranking.
When differences in the ratings in both groups of countries are compared, it can be seen that the satisfaction gap is largest for the health care system. In other words, the health care system stands out as the policy field in which the perceived gaps in quality between the old and new Member States are greatest, and where the need to invest in a more cohesive European Union may therefore prove to be strongest.
7. New country clusters in the enlarged EU
Most of the analyses have followed the usual classifications by membership status, which up to May 2004 differentiated between the EU15, the NMS and the CC3. However, the distribution of the results frequently ran counter to this classification. Malta and Cyprus in particular, but also the Czech Republic and Slovenia, frequently proved to be closer to the old EU Member States than to the rest of the NMS/CC3. The level of income for these four countries comes closer to the EU15 median than to that of the NMS, housing conditions are much better compared to all other countries in the group, deprivation relating to household items is less widespread, and reported health status is much better than in the other
NMS. In addition, they also show the highest levels of general life satisfaction within their group. In this sense, these four countries promise to be the vanguard in the attempt to build a more cohesive future European Union.
Likewise, the old EU15 countries Portugal and Greece, and to a lesser extent Spain, have, in many respects, more similarities with the four well-off NMS countries than with the other EU15 Member States. The standards of living and the health situation in these countries are comparable to Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Malta and Slovenia. The level of subjective well-being also differs only slightly. Hence, three country groups, which are faced with very different living conditions, have become apparent with EU enlargement:
1) The old northern and central European Member States;
2) the old Mediterranean Member States (Greece, Portugal and Spain), together with the most well off NMS countries (Cyprus, Czech Republic, Malta and Slovenia); and
3) the Baltic countries (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania), Hungary, Poland and Slovakia.
The allocation of Italy is not clear. In some respects, such as living standards and working conditions, Italy tends more to the first group. In other respects, such as the quality of its social security system and family support, it is closer to the second group. The three candidate countries which will join the EU later stand clearly apart from these three groups. As highlighted in this report, their quality of life in terms of objective living conditions and subjective well-being is distinctly lower than that of the EU25.
The enlargement of May 2004 means that the NMS will require support from regional and structural funds in the pursuit of greater EU cohesion. Hence, there is the double policy challenge of integrating the new European Member States into the enlarged Union, and continuing efforts to help disadvantaged regions within the old EU Member States to catch up.