Keywords

1 Development of Social Indicators in Social Sciences

The concept of social indicator is a new perspective to human living and strongly disagrees to the earlier view of economic indicators as the basis of human development. The development of social indicators can be traced back to the 1960s in the form of social indicators movement which marked a new way of measuring well-being of people in our society. It was Raymond Bauer (1966) at an early stage, who invented the term and basic concept of social indicators. In his definition, social indicators were ‘statistics, statistical series, and all other forms of evidence that enable us to assess where we stand and are going with respect to our values and goals’.Footnote 1 Duncan (1969) wrote extensively about the existence of ‘social indicators movement’. This was followed by a wide acceptance of social indicators in America. Many American scholars such as Sheldon and Moore, Ferriss, Campbell and Converse, Caplan and Barton had put forward their views on such development.Footnote 2

It was then Drewnowski (1980) who said social indicators were essentially a measuring tool. They were not only a tool but also an integral part of the social sciences. They have a theoretical basis that can find solution to the construction of relevant social indicators. According to Noll (2002), it was Alfredo Niceforo who shaped an approach of comprehensive welfare and quality of life measurement. Thus, the concept of social indicator research spread from the United States to Europe and other countries and international organisations. This kind of research was undertaken with a sense of mission and was known as ‘Social indicators movement’.Footnote 3

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, due to political factors, the movement took a backseat. It was also the growing dissatisfaction among policymakers with the economic indicator like Gross National Product (GNP) per capita due to which the social indicators gained importance again. It was also getting clear that growth-oriented strategies were failing to take care of social welfare. Thus, the concept of human well-being started getting more emphasis, and there was a shift from an economic approach to that of a welfare approach. Social indicators have gained importance in analysing social change. The social change means people living a better life, development of not only economic needs but also social, psychological and other needs. This aspect of a quality life can be studied with the help of social indicators in social sciences. Therefore, the present article shall deal with the development of the concept of quality of life.

2 Determining Quality of Life

The study of social change and development with the help of quality of life starts with the basic question that what human wants to lead a quality life. Different scholars have given different perspectives on human needs. Dalkey and Rourke (1973) tried to identify group value judgement with respect to the determinants of quality of life. The components, which were essential for a good quality of life included life, care, affection, self-respect, peace of mind, emotional stability and sex. They have explored the subjective, psychological, individualistic, emotional aspect of quality of life. According to Koelle (1974), the quality of life is determined by four primary goals, i.e. material, physical, mental and spiritual goals. He had observed that when these goals are compared with other preferences, material goals are viewed as more important in the developing nations than in the developed nations. Morris (1980) did not give an all-round definition or idea of QOL, but assumed that people would desire low infant mortality, high life expectancy at age one and would also like to be basically literate. Hence, he gave the idea of a Physical Quality of life based on these indicators without measuring freedom, justice, security or other intangible goods.

More recently, Lane has defined ‘quality of life not only as a state, but as a process which includes subjective and objective elements. In his approach, he particularly emphasises the active role of personal experience and the capacity of individuals—in his terms the quality of persons—as a constitutive element of life quality: Quality of life is properly defined by the relation between two subjective or person-based elements and a set of objective circumstances’.Footnote 4

3 Utilitarian and Capability Approaches to Quality of Life

The Utilitarian view treats ‘preferences, choices, or tastes as private, individual, unconditioned, and arbitrary. Even abstract preferences, such as the desire for security or freedom, are considered to be formed inside each individual. According to utilitarian theory, QOL involves the satisfaction of the desires of individuals, and the good society is defined as one that provides the maximum satisfaction or positive experiences for its citizens’.Footnote 5

The utilitarian and non-utilitarian views about values and quality of life dispute over the nature of being human. The utilitarian thinks that people have individuality and that it is not wise to study their private desires or internal feelings. Therefore, we see that economists and utilitarians are opposed to value judgement of individuals.

According to Sen (2003), Quality of Life is determined by human capabilities, which is the characteristic of a person to function in this world and lead a full life. He said that instead of depending on a utilitarian view, human capabilities to achieve certain basic functions are more logical. The basic functioning like to live a healthy life, education, etc. are valued everywhere but there are other components like happiness, security, etc. which are equally important but the weightage of these vary person to person, culture to culture and region to region.

According to Cobb (2000), the Gross Domestic Production (GDP), the Measure of Economic Welfare (MEW), the Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare (ISEW) and the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI), all have a utilitarian influence, with social or environmental meaning in it. He has acknowledged an alternative way of thinking about quality of life in the work of nobel laureate Amartya Sen in his capability approach.

4 Welfare Approach and Quality of Life

Human beings mostly consider their well-being, based on the satisfaction of their ‘perceived needs and wants’.Footnote 6 Different scholars have given different perspectives of human needs. Lasswell and Kaplan (1950) have observed welfare values and deference values as human needs. Welfare values include the well-being of individual in terms of health, safety, wealth, skill and enlightenment (knowledge, etc.), deference values include the respect, rectitude and affection derived from relationships with people. Dahl and Lindblom suggested survival, psychological gratification (through food, sex, sleep and comfort), love and affection, respect, self-respect, power and control, skill, enlightenment, aesthetic satisfaction, excitement and novelty as human needs.Footnote 7 Maslow has suggested a hierarchical arrangement; he proposed that ‘higher’ needs emerge successively as lower ones are satisfied. Well-being is composed of a variety of objects—health, happiness, association, rights and freedom.Footnote 8

5 Objective and Subjective Approach

There are two distinctive concepts of indicators used in quality of life—first the objective approach and second the subjective approach. In recent years, another trend has emerged that tries to combine both these approaches; the objective approach in one end deals with the component of available resources (health, education, amenities, justice, income, etc.) and capacities to meet needs with these resources. The subjective approach deals with the psychological state or a person’s perception of his life. This can include his state of mental peace, happiness and sadness. Thus, the emerging recent concept of Quality of Life is more holistic and comprehensive that creates a perfect balance between the material and non-material needs.

The objective approach is based mainly on the studies conducted by the Scandinavian welfare researchers following the tradition set by Jan Drewnowski and Richard Titmus. As per this approach, welfare is thought as the ‘individuals command over or under given determinants, mobilizable resources, with the help of which he/she can control and consciously direct his/her living conditions’.Footnote 9 The Scandinavian approach focuses almost exclusively on resources and objective living conditions. Sen (1993)Footnote 10 has put forward a concept about welfare and quality of life in his ‘capability approach’. He has said that the capability approach considers quality of life to be conceived and measured directly in terms of functionings and capabilities instead of resources or utility. The core of well-being is the ability to achieve valuable functionings, e.g. A school has toilets, kitchen and drinking water for students; it is not the resources that decide a good quality of life, the capability of the user is in question, can they use it? If no, may be due to lack of water in the toilets or lack of clean water in tube well or leaking roof of the kitchen, hence, it is understood that overcoming the problem might not be possible and hence the capability of the students to use these resources is poor; hence, the living condition is also poor.

The subjective approach has been adopted by the American researchers based on subjective indicators which focus on the outcomes of conditions and processes. ‘The American school is strongly influenced by social psychology and mental health research, which emphasise subjective experience. Hedonic well-being is the principal benchmark against which state actions and societal development are to be measured. This school uses subjective indicators such as happiness or life satisfaction to measure QOL’.Footnote 11 The followers of this approach have emphasised on welfare and quality of life which has to be subjectively perceived and experienced by the individual, e.g. the ground reality of access to resources in school is found to be poor which impacts to anxiety, illness, psychological issues, unhappiness and exclusion from education. Thus, subjective well-being of an individual citizen is the primary objective of social development and is important in measuring the quality of life. However, Diener and Suh (1997) also said ‘subjective well-being is not a state of simply being merry without having any deeper concerns. The central elements of well-being, a sense of satisfaction with one’s life and positive effective experiences, are derived from the context of one’s most important values and goals…if objective and subjective indicators converge, the researcher can make more definitive conclusions about quality of life. Social indicators and subjective well-being measures are complementary. Not just ingredients alone, but also how they are cooked determines the taste of the final meal’.Footnote 12

6 Conclusion

The quality of life has been conceptualised and measured by two traditions in social sciences: social indicators research and quality of life outcomes in health and social policy research. The quality of life studies has done extensive social reporting and specific age group studies, e.g. on women, immigrants, children and elderly people who have helped in raising several socio-economic issues of present society. It has given a new direction to the concept of human well-being and human development. It has also brought forth comparative analysis on living condition of people in our society both at national and international levels. It has helped us in building theoretical models, empirical analysis, causes and changes of human well-being. However, the rise of objective and subjective indicators which was a debating issue earlier has been replaced by Amartya Sen’s Capability approach. Nowadays, new concepts are emerging based on his approach which is being studied and quality of life measurement is getting further refined in terms of selection of new indicators. Thus, human development studies based on quality of life needs to incorporate new debates and ideas to completely capture the notion of human well-being in our society.