Top

Journal of Happiness Studies

Published in:

01-12-2018 | Research Paper

Social Capital Dimensions and Subjective Well-Being: A Quantile Approach

Authors: Isabel Neira, Maricruz Lacalle-Calderon, Marta Portela, Manuel Perez-Trujillo

Published in: Journal of Happiness Studies | Issue 8/2019

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

Abstract

This paper investigates the effects of different dimensions of social capital (i.e., trust, social network and norms of civic engagement) on subjective well-being (SWB) at the individual level by attending to differences between the extremes of SWB distribution, that is, between the happiest and the unhappiest people. To this end, we use the 7th wave of the 2014 European Social Survey to run a quantile regression analysis to investigate whether any of these dimensions of social capital has a heterogeneous effect on the full distribution of well-being. We also perform a factor analysis to summarize the principal components of these three dimensions. Our results show that each dimension of social capital has a positive and significant correlation with SWB, but the different dimensions have a heterogeneous effect on the different quantiles of the well-being distribution. All of these dimensions of social capital have a stronger effect on the SWB of the least happy people in society than on the happiest.

previous article The Efficacy and Mechanism of Online Positive Psychological Intervention (PPI) on Improving Well-Being Among Chinese University Students: A Pilot Study of the Best Possible Self (BPS) Intervention

next article Subjective Well-Being Effects of Coping Cost: Evidence from Household Water Supply in Kathmandu Valley, Nepal

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Available only for authorised users

The QR approach, developed by Koenker and Bassett (1978), is quite useful when the conditional distribution of the dependent variable does not meet the assumption of normality, as it improves the robustness of the estimates in the presence of outliers.

For more information, see the Big Five Theory (Digman 1990; John and Srivastava 1999).

Criticisms of the concept of social capital are reviewed by Fine (2010), Bjørnskov and Sønderskov (2013) and Andriani and Christoforou (2016).

For detailed information on the ESS and the data collected, see http://www.europeansocialsurvey.org.

Austria, Belgium, Switzerland, Czech Republic, Germany, Denmark, Estonia, Spain, Finland, France, United Kingdom, Hungary, Ireland, Lithuania, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Sweden and Slovenia.

Prior to this analysis, we performed categorical principal component analysis—nonlinear principal component analysis (NLPCA)—using CATPCA in SPSS14, due to the ordinal and nominal nature of the variables (see Manisera et al. 2010).

Some of the control variables that have been recoded or aggregated are the following: (1) Income level, which has been recoded into three new categories. From the original variable: “Household's total net income, all sources”, deciles 1–4 have been recoded as “Low”, deciles 5–7 as “Medium” and deciles 8–10 as “High”. (2) Political position. From the original EES question: “In politics people sometimes talk of “left” and “right”. Where would you place yourself on this scale, where 0 means the left and 10 means the right?”, it has been recoded into the following categories: “Left” (0–2), “Center” (3–7) and “Right” (8–10). (3) Religion. From the original question: “Regardless of whether you belong to a particular religion, how religious would you say you are?”, it has been recoded into the categories “Low” (0–2), “Medium” (3–7) and “High” (8–10).

This package follows the estimation procedure explained by Geraci and Bottai (2014).

E(Y) is equal to 2.7 in Q.10, 5 in Q.25, 6.67 in Q.50, 8 in Q.75 and 9.41 in Q.90.

For the sake of space, we include the full results for the QR on life satisfaction in the Appendix. Table 7 shows that the signs of the coefficients of the variables of interest largely coincide, although there are differences in the size of the effects.

See coefficients in column Q(0.10) of Table 2.

See coefficients in column Q(0.90) of Table 2.

See descriptive statistic by quantile of the 20 ESS questions explaining dimensions of social capital in Table 8, “Appendix 1”.

See the last columns in Tables 8 and 9 (Appendix 1).

Afandi, E., Kermani, M., & Mammadov, F. (2017). Social capital and entrepreneurial process. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal,13(3), 685–716.

Andriani, L., & Christoforou, A. (2016). Social capital: A roadmap of theoretical and empirical contributions and limitations. Journal of Economic Issues,50(1), 4–22.

Aslam, A., & Corrado, L. (2012). The geography of well-being. Journal of Economic Geography,12(3), 627–649.

Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2014). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. arXiv preprint arXiv:1406.5823.

Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B. M., Walker, S., Christensen, R. H. B., Singmann, H., et al. (2015). Linear mixed-effects models using “Eigen” and S4, R package version 1.1-8.

Becchetti, L., Pelloni, A., & Rossetti, F. (2008). Relational goods, sociability, and happiness. Kyklos,61(3), 343–363.

Binder, M., & Coad, A. (2011). From Average Joe’s happiness to Miserable Jane and Cheerful John: Using quantile regressions to analyze the full subjective well-being distribution. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization,79(3), 275–290.

Binder, M., & Coad, A. (2015). Heterogeneity in the relationship between unemployment and subjective wellbeing: A quantile approach. Economica,82(328), 865–891.

Binder, M., & Freytag, A. (2013). Volunteering, subjective well-being and public policy. Journal of Economic Psychology,34, 97–119.

Bjørnskov, C. (2006). The multiple facets of social capital. European Journal of Political Economy, 22(1), 22–40.

Bjørnskov, C. (2008). Social trust and fractionalization: A possible reinterpretation. European Sociological Review,24(3), 271–283.

Bjørnskov, C. (2014). Do economic reforms alleviate subjective well-being losses of economic crises? Journal of Happiness Studies,15(1), 163–182.

Bjørnskov, C., & Sønderskov, K. M. (2013). Is social capital a good concept? Social Indicators Research,114(3), 1225–1242.

Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). Westport, CT: Greenwood.

Bruni, L., & Stanca, L. (2008). Watching alone: Relational goods, television and happiness. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization,65(3–4), 506–528.

Clark, A. E., & Oswald, A. J. (1994). Unhappiness and unemployment. The Economic Journal,104(424), 648.

Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human-capital. American Journal of Sociology,94, 95–120.

De Neve, J. E., Christakis, N. A., Fowler, J. H., & Frey, B. S. (2012). Genes, economics, and happiness. Journal of Neuroscience, Psychology, and Economics,5(4), 193–211.

Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Lucas, R. E. (2003). Personality, culture, and subjective well-being: Emotional and cognitive evaluations of life. Annual Review of Psychology,54(1), 403–425.

Diener, E., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Very happy people. Psychological Science,13(1), 81–84.

Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 276.

Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: emergence of the five factor model. Annual Review of Psychology,41, 417–440.

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(1), 94–122.

Easterlin, R. (1974). Does economic growth improve the human lot? Some empirical evidence. Nations and Households in Economic Growth,89(2), 89–125.

Easterlin, R. A. (2001). Income and happiness: Towards a unified theory. The Economic Journal,111(473), 465–484.

ESS Round 7: European Social Survey Round 7 Data. (2014). NSD—Norwegian Centre for Research Data, Norway—Data Archive and distributor of ESS data for ESS ERIC.

Fang, Z., & Sakellariou, C. (2016). Social insurance, income and subjective well-being of rural migrants in China—An application of unconditional quantile regression. Journal of Happiness Studies,17(4), 1635–1657.

Ferrer-i-Carbonell, A., & Frijters, P. (2004). How important is methodology for the estimates of the determinants of happiness? Economic Journal,114(497), 641–659.

Fine, B. (2010). Theories of social capital. London: Pluto Press.

Frey, B. S., & Stutzer, A. (2002). What can economists learn from happiness research? Journal of Economic Literature,40(2), 402–435.

Geraci, M., & Bottai, M. (2014). Linear quantile mixed models. Statistics and Computing, 24(3), 461–479.

Grootaert, C., & van Bastelaer, T. (2001). Understanding and measuring social capital: A synthesis of findings and recommendation from the social capital initiative. Word Bank Working Paper No. 24.

Helliwell, J. F. (2006). Well-being, social capital, and public policy: What’s new? Economic Journal,116(510), 34–45.

Helliwell, J. F., & Putnam, R. D. (2004). The social context of well-being. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences,359(1449), 1435–1446.

Hudson, J. (2006). Institutional trust and subjective well-being across the EU. Kyklos,59(1), 43–62.

John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 102–138). New York: Guilford Press.

Khodyakov, D. (2007). Trust as a process: A three-dimensional approach. Sociology,41(1), 115–132.

Klein, C. (2013). Social capital or social cohesion: What matters for subjective well-being. Social Indicators Research,110(3), 891–911.

Koenker, R., & Bassett, G. (1978). Regression Quantiles. Econometrica,46(1), 33–50.

Layard, R. (2005). Happiness: Lessons from a new science. London: Penguin Books. Allen Lane.

Leifeld, P. (2013). texreg: Conversion of statistical model output in R to LATEX and HTML tables. Journal of Statistical Software,55(8), 1–24.

Lykken, D., & Tellegen, A. (1996). Happiness is a stochastic phenomenon. Psychological Science,7(3), 186–189.

Manisera, M., Van der Kooij, A. J., & Dusseldorp, E. (2010). Identifying the component structure of satisfaction scales by nonlinear principal components analysis. Quality Technology & Quantitative Management,7(2), 97–115.

Neira, I., Bruna, F., Portela, M., & García-Aracil, A. (2018). Individual well-being, geographical heterogeneity and social capital. Journal of Happiness Studies,19(4), 1067–1090.

OECD. (2001). The well-being of nations: The role of human and social capital. Paris: OECD.

OECD. (2013). How’s life? 2013: Measuring well-being. Paris: OECD.

Oorschot, W. van, & Arts, W. (2005). The social capital of european welfare states: The crowding out hypothesis revisited. Journal of European Social Policy, 15(1), 5–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0958928705049159.

Pittau, M. G., Zelli, R., & Gelman, A. (2010). Economic disparities and life satisfaction in European regions. Social Indicators Research,96(2), 339–361.

Portela, M., Neira, I., & Salinas-Jiménez, M. M. (2013). Social capital and subjective wellbeing in Europe: A new approach on social capital. Social Indicators Research,114(2), 493–511.

Puntscher, S., Hauser, C., Walde, J., & Tappeiner, G. (2015). The impact of social capital on subjective well-being: A regional perspective. Journal of Happiness Studies,16(5), 1231–1246.

Putnam, R. D., Feldstein, L., & Cohen, D. (2003). Better together: Restoring the american community. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Putnam, R. D., Leonardi, R., & Nanetti, R. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Rodríguez-Pose, A., & von Berlepsch, V. (2014). Social capital and individual happiness in Europe. Journal of Happiness Studies,15(2), 357–386.

Rothstein, B., & Eek, D. (2001). The causal mechanism between trust in authorities and trust in others: An experimental approach. Research Proposal to the Swedish Science Council (ronéo).

Sarracino, F. (2010). Social capital and subjective well-being trends: Comparing 11 western European countries. Journal of Socio-Economics,39(4), 482–517.

Scrivens, K., & Smith, C. (2013). Four interpretations of social capital: An agenda for measurement. OECD Statistics Working Papers, 2013/06, 71.

Stanca, L. (2010). The geography of economics and happiness: Spatial patterns in the effects of economic conditions on well-being. Social Indicators Research,99(1), 115–133.

Stutzer, A., & Frey, B. S. (2006). Political participation and procedural utility: An empirical study. European Journal of Political Research,45(3), 391–418.

Veenhoven, R. (1995). World database of happiness. Social Indicators Research,34(3), 299–313. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01078689.CrossRef

Weitz-Shapiro, R., & Winters, M. S. (2011). The link between voting and life satisfaction in Latin America. Latin American Politics and Society,53(4), 101–126.

Title: Social Capital Dimensions and Subjective Well-Being: A Quantile Approach
Authors: Isabel Neira
Maricruz Lacalle-Calderon
Marta Portela
Manuel Perez-Trujillo
Publication date: 01-12-2018
Publisher: Springer Netherlands
Published in: Journal of Happiness Studies / Issue 8/2019
Print ISSN: 1389-4978
Electronic ISSN: 1573-7780
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-018-0028-6

Springer Professional

Abstract

Please log in to get access to your license.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Other articles of this Issue 8/2019

Teachers Matter: Student Outcomes Following a Strengths Intervention are Mediated by Teacher Strengths Spotting

Longitudinal Trajectories of Passion and Their Individual and Social Determinants: A Latent Growth Modeling Approach

Happiness Inequality in China

The Efficacy and Mechanism of Online Positive Psychological Intervention (PPI) on Improving Well-Being Among Chinese University Students: A Pilot Study of the Best Possible Self (BPS) Intervention

Is Subjective Ill-Being Related to Islamophobia in Germany? In Search for Moderators

Commuting and Life Satisfaction Revisited: Evidence on a Non-linear Relationship