Subjective well-being of food aid recipients in the capitals of Finland, Greece and Lithuania

UEF // University of Eastern Finland

TITA seminar 16.9.2016, TurkuMaria Ohisalo, Tuomo Laihiala, Antti Kouvo, Nina Kahma & Juho Saari

Subjective well-being of food aid recipients in the capitals of Finland, Greece and Lithuania


Introduction• A great deal of information about the covariates of subjective well-being (SWB)

• However, surveys on SWB often based on representative data on general public

• Usually only a limited number of observations from the top and the bottom of the social strata (exceptions: Biswas-Diener & Diener 2001; Oswald 1997)

• Hard-to-survey (H2S) -populations (e.g. Tourangeau)


SWB and the welfare state

• SWB lower in poor nations (eg. Diener & al. 1995)

• W&P (2009): Happiness higher in generous welfare states (see also Pacek & Radcliffe 2008)

• Veenhoven (2000): happiness not higher or more equally distributed because welfare state generosity (also Berg & Veenhoven 2010)– But how about the bottom of the welfare state?– Nation level studies tend to exaggerate well-

being


Three worlds of food aid?

• Finland - Nordic welfare state– population 5 472 000, Helsinki 621

000 (+Vantaa 211 000) • Greece - Mediterranean welfare state– population 11 126 000, Athens 665

000 • Lithuania - post communist welfare state– population 2 958 000, Vilnius 532

000


Research Questions

1. What is the level of the self reported well-being among the recipients of food aid in three European capitals?

2. What kind of explanatory factors are associated with SWB among recipients of food aid?

3. What are the main differences between the different countries when explaining SWB recipients of food aid?


Data

•Finnish, Greek and Lithuanian food aid surveys

•Survey from charity food aid distributions– Helsinki district (N=600)– Athens (N=500) – Vilnius (N=558)


Dependent variables

Respondent’s satisfaction with 1. life in general2. standard of living 3. mental health4. physical health • 0 = very rarely, sometimes; 1 = quite often, constantly


Independent variables•Age (4 cat.)•Education (3 cat.)•Gender (female-male)•Living alone (no-yes)•Unemployment (no-yes)•Homelessness or supported housing


Methods

•Descriptives•Logit models •Predicted probabilities (average marginal effects)


Results


Satisfied with life (%)

Helsinki district

Vilnius

Athens

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

12.6

30.7

48.9

29.5

38.7

18.2

39.1

19.3

17.4

18.8

11.3

15.4

Very rarely Sometimes Quite often Constantly

UEF // University of Eastern Finland 01.05.2023SWB 3 capitals breadlines / Antti Kouvo 12

European Social Survey 2010, three countries (population aged 16-) Satisfaction with life 0-10

Helsinki 7.9 Athens 5.6 Vilnius 5.3

UEF // University of Eastern Finland 13

Satisfied with standard of living (%)

Helsinki district

Vilnius

Athens

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

38.6

55.5

42.2

32.8

30.1

22.4

19.5

9.8

17.8

9.1

4.6

17.6



Satisfied with physical health (%)

Helsinki district

Vilnius

Athens

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

20.1

30.0

27.9

25.8

29.8

19.0

35.6

26.7

16.2

18.5

13.4

36.9



Satisfied with mental health (%)

Helsinki district

Vilnius

Athens

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

11.4

19.9

13.6

22.7

23.4

19.4

40.4

26.3

15.4

25.5

30.4

51.5


UEF // University of Eastern Finland 01.05.2023 18

Life satisfaction and age


Life satisfaction and housing


Standard of living and education


Standard of living and employment


Physical health and age


Physical health and gender


Mental health and age


Mental health and education


Conclusions

•Well-being perceived by the recipients of food aid is associated with both demographic and socio-economic factors

•Different determinants explain SWB among the recipients of food aid in the three cities

•The institutional and economical context heavily influences SWB among the recipients of food aid


Conclusions• Levels of SWB highest in Helsinki and lowest in Vilnius

– Athens best in satisfaction with standard of living• Age: 46 year-olds and older report lower levels of SWB

on all aspects• Higher education: higher levels of standard of living &

physical health• Gender difference: women report lower levels of SWB

on all aspects• Unemployment affecting SWB on all aspects but

physical health


Discussion• Generosity of the welfare state• However standard of living interesting in Greece – food aid easing the situation?– whole society in a severe economic situation?

• Differences between generations • Gender difference – old females in food aid reporting low levels of SWB – role of labour, family and pension politics


Discussion

•The results follow mainly the international level comparisons on employment, poverty and SWB between the countries– but also reveal the demographic and socio-

economic differences in SWB that these comparisons often lack

– need for including hard-to-survey -populations

[email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Subjective well-being of food aid recipients in the capitals of Finland, Greece and Lithuania

Government & Nonprofit

Transcript of Subjective well-being of food aid recipients in the capitals of Finland, Greece and Lithuania