H. BELLEN AND C . V A N HERBRUGGEN
EVALUATING
THE QUALITY
O F L I F E IN B E L G I U M
(Received 30 May, 1979) ABSTRACT. This paper deals with the evaluation of social welfare inequalities in order to establish a qualitative growth model for Flanders. As a base for the enquiry, quantitalive, objective result indicators are chosen. The various quantified components are dealt with separately and different methods of aggregation are discussed. 32 indicators are selected on the basis of a specific definition of social welfare and taking account of the difficulties of collecting certain information. The indicators are aggregated in three different ways and in two stages: first per component for each region and secondly per region. The results show that major variations in the components are weakened by the aggregation and further that the different aggregation methods lead to only small differences. As a general conclusion one can speak of a regional homogeneity in Belgium.
0. INTRODUCTION The main purpose o f this paper is to give a short synthesis o f an enquiry* to establish a qualitative growth model for Flanders. It is mainly based upon the development o f an explanatory model o f social welfare inequalities in the various regions o f Belgium, and it intends to give a satisfactory picture o f
how well or badly the nation is dealing with its problems. 1 This study only deals with the problems connected with the evaluation o f
social welfare inequalities; this can be divided into 4 parts: (1) (2) (3) (4)
A description o f the theoretical approach. The methodological problems encountered in the evaluation. The selection o f indicators. The results o f the evaluation and their interpretation.
1. THE THEORETICAL APPROACH As welfare cannot strictly speaking be quantified, we would prefer to use the term 'social welfare'. This in itself is a rather misleading term, because there are only a few aspects which can in fact be quantified. Neither can we completely take over the definition o f 'social indicators' given in T o w a r d a social
Social Indicators Research 8 (1980) 311-326, 0303-8300/80/0083-0311 $01.60 Copyright 9 1980 by D. Reidel Publishing Co., Dordrecht, Holland, and Boston, U.S.A.
312
H. B E L L E N A N D C. V A N H E R B R U G G E N
report' 2, because it implies that social welfare is quantifiable. However, this definition does contain the core of the thinking process of this enquiry: the basic difference between 'means' and 'results' indicators can indeed be formulated clearly; this, however, is often neglected in publications dealing with the quality of life. One of the most typical examples of this can be found in attempts at evaluation of the health of a population, where more often attention is paid to the existence of a medical infrastructure rather than to its use. Literature on this subject identifies two fundamental - though different approach models. We shall call the first 'subjective' and the second 'objective'. The subjective approach means that enquiries are made amongst a certain number of people. Following these enquiries, scales are drawn up, based on the level of satisfaction of the people questioned in relation to their actual situation in society. This approach is fundamentally different from the objective approach, which tries to give a general picture of social welfare or of quality of life, on the basis of concrete information (mostly official statistics). Experience gained from both of these methods shows that the 'subjective' approach, as it is generally applied, is far too superficial. We consequently share Ackoff's criticism saying: I constructed measures of b o t h satisfaction with one's current situation and o f progress
toward an ideal. But these measures are sufficiently difficult to apply to make it tmfeasable to apply them to a large enough sample of individuals over a large enough sample of their states to produce useful statistics, representative of a society 3. This does not mean, however, that we want to over-estimate the value of the 'objective' approach, but the indicators do produce factual information, which - if adequately analyzed - create a source of information within a certain social and political framework. The enquiry is therefore concerted as follows: on the basis of 'objective result indicators' we will try to express the social welfare of the different regions of Belgium in quantitative terms.
2. M E T H O D O L O G I C A L
PROBLEMS
Two criteria should be taken into consideration when selecting the indicators: (a) to give the most complete picture of the component 4 to be quantified; (b) to evaluate the smallest possible number of factors that have no connection with the components.
Q U A L I T Y O F L I F E IN B E L G I U M
313
Etzioni and Lehman s exhaustively commented on those criteria. According to the authors, there are three main cases where we have to deal with a partial evaluation of a component: (a) When only one component is used. Of course, the sum of the various indicators will only be useful if more than one aspect of a component is being evaluated; (b) When a component with one or more purely qualitative aspects is being quantified. Those who wish to quantify definite aspects of society should ask themselves each and every time whether any purely qualitative aspects are hidden behind the component's aspect; (c) When a component is being quantified in the light of the means indicators. Indeed, it is far easier to measure means than results. If remits indicators were excluded, means could often be considered as targets in themselves. These theoretical reflections exclude in fact all evaluation of social welfare. The methodological limitations which occur while selecting the indicators enter into the framework of the three items mentioned above, and they are of such a nature that it is necessary to search for a compromise between theory and reality, bearing in mind that these theoretical reflections will serve as a basis for the settling of a compromise. Once the choice of indicators has been determined, the problem of aggregation of the various indicators in a component or in an index is still to be settled. A number of theoretical roles were therefore formulated. Moser 6 lays down 4 conditions: (1) The indicators cannot be summed up, if there is a causal relationship between the indicators summed up; (2) The indicators cannot be summed up, if one or more of them is a part of the other; (3) The indicators cannot be summed up, if they evaluate objectives which are totally different; (4) The summing up of indicators is only allowed within the same unity of evaluation. Although these rules seem to be self-evident, it is by no means easy to apply them in practice. In addition, it can be just as dangerous to aggregate various indicators in one index as to forget a series of indicators, because the internal variations of one indicator could be neglected in an attempt to reach one uniform result. In addition, the various quantified factors (or components) should be laid
314
H. B E L L E N A N D C. V A N H E R B R U G G E N TABLE I o O
a
e
k
o
Aspects o f social wealth 2
Food 21othing
1
Housin~
*
*
*
*
*
*
Health (physical)
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
10
*
*
*
*
10
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Health (phychologicat) *
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Environment
*
*
*
*
Employment
*
*
*
*
.Participation
*
*
*
Education
*
Income Leisure
*
Public safety
*
6 *
8
*
9
* *
* *
*
*
*
Overall satisfaction
10
*
5 *
7
*
*
8
*
*
7
*
1
Law & Order
*
*
4
Racial disparity
*
*
4
Public transport
2
*
Crime
*
*
Social stability
*
*
Art and Culture
*
Social security
*
*
*
*
*
* *
The last column shows that three factors appeaz These are: Housing Physical and Psychological Health Education Income Leisure
*
*
*
*
6
*
6
*
$
*
4
six times and eleven six times or more. Environment Employment Participation Crime Social stability.
QUALITY OF LIFE IN BELGIUM
315
down separately and different methods of aggregation applied in the same study, even if the comparability of the results obtained gets into a comer.
3. THE SELECTED INDICATORS Before selecting the indicators, we carried out a comparative study of literature available on this subject. The aim o f such a study is to try to draw up a generally acceptable definition, where the different quantifiable aspects could be determined. We then selected the indicators on the basis of our definition o f social welfare. We chose ten articles from magazines, books and papers from the publications available on social welfare and quality of life. The components or factors processed and considered by the various authors as being part and parcel of social welfare are marked with an asterisk in the following table. Only the components which are mentioned 6 times (half plus one) or more have been considered as components receiving general consensus and they are consequently included in our definition o f social welfare (see Table I). Only crime was not explicitly included in the definition. In fact, this factor is considered as a sub-factor o f social stability.
References of Table I
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)
Drewnowski, Jan: On Measuring and Planning the Quality of Life (Mouton, Den Haag, 1975). Smith, David: The Geography of Social Well-being in the United States (MaeGrawHill, New York, 1972). Liu, Ben Chieh: 'Quality of life: Concept, measure and results', The American Journal of Economics and Sociology 34 (1975). Knox, P.L.: 'Level of living: A conceptual framework for monitoring regional variations in well-being', Regional Studies 8. Flax, M. J.: A Study in Comparative Urban Indicators: Conditions in 18 Large Metropolitan/ureas (The Urban Institute, Washington, 1974). U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare: Toward a Social Report (U.S.G.P.O., Washington, 1969). Institut National de la Statistique et des Etudes Econorniques, Donn~es sociales (Paris, 1973). Allardt, E.: About Dimensions of Welfare: An Exploratory Analysis of a Comparative Scandinavian Survey (University of Helsinki, Helsinki, 1973). Soeiaalen Cultureel Planburean: Sociaal en Cultuteel Rapport, 1974 (Den Haag, 1975). Thorndike, E.L.: Your City (Harcourt Brace and Co., New York, 1939).
316
H. BELLEN AND C. VAN HERBRUGGEN
On the basis of these components, we defined a social welfare state as follows:
A social welfare state is a society in which individuals would live in decent lodgings and where people would earn en~ money to satisfy certain basic - and even less basic - needs. People wouM enjoy high standards of health and benefit from cheap and adequate medical care. Education would be free and accessible to all those who desire it. Employment opportunities would be extensive, enabling everybody to have a lob in respect o1: one's skills. And, in this connection, being satisfied with one's lob and working conditions is a basic element of welfare. In addition, people would enjoy sufficient leisure time. The environment would be healthy and unpolluted. Moreover, a feeling of safety would be dominant and certain social relationships would be long-lasting. Facilities for active participation in society would be organized for all those who do not ]ust wish to look passively on at what's happening. It should however be mentioned that, as far as Belgium is concerned, no suitable indicators for the item 'participation' were found. Elections are compulsory in Belgium (local council as well as general elections). The number of people belonging to political parties and trade unions is not available on a regional basis and all our efforts to select some valuable indicators relevant to participation have led to disappointing results. On the basis o f the above-mentioned definition o f social welfare, we have selected the following indicators, bearing in mind the difficulties o f coUecting certain information (see Table II).
TABLE II Components A. Housing
B. income
Indicators 1. 2. 3.
Average number of rooms per person Percentage of homes inhabited by their owners a Percentage of homes with household facilities 3.1. running water
4.
3.2. private lavatory 3.3. private bathroom or shower 3.4. central heating Percentage of individual lodgings per building b
5.
Average gross income, corrected by a GINI-coefficient
QUALITY
O F LIFE IN B E L G I U M
317
Table II/continued) Components
Indicators
C. Health
6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.
D. Education
12. 13. 14.
Life expectation at the age of one Mortality rate in % of children between the age of 28 days and 1 year. Hospital admission rate (general medicine) per 1000 inhabitants Visits to a family doctor per 1000 inhabitants Number of hospital beds per 1000 inhabitants c Number of patients admflted to psychiatric institutions, per 10.000 inhabitants Average number of school year~ completed by people over 30 Percentage of illiterate recruits declared fit for duty School attendance rate between the age of 12 and 18 on one hand and 18 and 24 on the other
E. Employment
15. 16. 17. 18.
Average hourly wage for male and female workers Socially unjustified commuting Net balance of migration per 10.000 inhabitants Level of work carried out
F. Leisure
19.
Number of books borrowed per inhabitant from public libraries Number of people belonging to sports clubs per 1000 inhabitants Number of youth clubs and art workshops for young people (under 30) per 1000 inhabitants aged under 30 Number of visits to the cinema per 1000 inhabitants Number of people registered in cultural academies on a part time basis (evening classes), divided into plastic arts academies and academies of music, per 10.000 inhabitants
20. 21. 22. 23.
G. Environment
24. 25. 26. 27. 28.
H. Social stability
29. 30. 31. 32.
Number of dwellings per square kilometer Number of people working in the highest polluting industry sectors per square kilometer Number of cars per square kilometer Indicator of biopollution (pollution resulting from the use of pesticides and non-recycled animal manure) Number of inhabitants per square kilometer Crime rate per 100.000 inhabitants Number of divorced men and women per 1000 inhabitants Number of illegitimate babies born per 1000 inhabitants Number of suicides (men and women) per 100.000 inhabitants.
a This indicator refers to a certain extent to satisfaction with regard to housing. b This is an evaluation of privacy. c This is the only means indicator used in the study.
318
H. B E L L E N A N D C. V A N H E R B R U G G E N
We do not feel the need to justify this selection in such a short survey, though all indicators were subject to a deliberate choice. While aggregating these indicators, first, we determined whether they had a positive or negative effect on welfare. Thus we can say that the indicators No. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 are positive,i.e., that if a given indicator has a high value in a certain region, then it really contributes positively to the social welfare. The remaining indicators constitute a group that produces by high values negative effects on social welfare. Evidently, we cannot simply sum up the indexed indicators, if negative indicators cannot be substituted by positive ones. Therefore, a simple formula was applied. It is: l=(l-X).
I00
where I is the new index value,x is the value of the indicator,~ is the average of the indicator,100 x/~ isthe normal index value. When aggregating,we must distinguishbetween two stagesof aggregation: a first aggregation to determine the numerical result per component for each region, a second aggregation to calculatethe index of socialwelfare per region. There are three differentways to aggregateindicators: (I) O n the basis of a factor analysis, one calculates an index figure for each component 7. In this process, the variance percentage extracted by the factors is determining. If we do not dispose of a sufficientnumber of indicators,or if the variance percentage extracted by the factors is lower than 50%, we considered it not possible at all to calculate a factor analysisindex. This was the case for the B, D and F components. (2) The second method of aggregation at component level is based upon the calculation of the average value of the Z-results8 for all indicators belonging to one component. (3) As far as the third method is concerned, an index (I = x / ~ 9 100) is calculated and subsequently an average value per component is calculated. The factor analysisindex method could not be applied9 for the aggregation of the indicators used to determine social welfare, though the other two methods could be successfullyused. Let us now have a look at the resultsobtained. It should be noted at this -
-
319
Q U A L I T Y O F L I F E IN B E L G I U M
stage that the data relate to 1970 and that the regions covered comprise Flanders and Brussels. Table III gives an outline of the three methods of aggregation per component. Table IV gives a picture of the index of social welfare per region. In Table IV, we have added a column of figures calculated on the basis of the sum of the rank order of factor analysis indices} ~ The results show that major variations occurring in the various components are considerably weakened by the aggregation itself. This is the result of a compensating relationship between certain components in the same region: e.g. Brussels and St. Niklaas. The rank order (Zscore method) of both districts, as far as the various components are concerned, is as follows:
A
Brussels St. Niklaas
B
23 12
1 3
C
D
E
22 13
15 22
3 10
F
9 2
G
H
23 2
23 10
Brussels obtaines very bad results for the A, C, G and H components, but very good ones for the B and E components. The latter act somewhat as a shockabsorber. The same applies to the district of St. Nildaas, which obtains excellent results three times; but low results occurring four times weaken the previous good performance. The same model applies for several districts. There are practically no homogeneous results for the whole range of components, except for Diksmuide. Another typical feature is the small difference between the results of the different aggregation methods applied. Wilson, Smith and Liu came to the same conclusions 11 . To illustrate this, the correlation matrix of the results of the different methods of aggregation for social welfare is given:
Z-score Index method factor Rank Order
Z-score
Index method
~: factor Rank Order
-
0.90 a -
0.87 b
a Pearson's correlation coefficient b Rank correlation coefficient.
0.88 b
-
320
H. B E L L E N A N D C. V A N H E R B R U G G E N
TABLE III District
Z.score
Rank Order
Index Method
Rank Order
Fac. Method
Rank Order
Z-score
Ranl Orde
HOUSING COMPONENT Prov. Antwerpen Antwelpen Turnhout Mechelen
-0.41 0.06 -0.16
22 9 17
88 101 103
22 14 9
91 101 100
22 12 14
1.77 0.39 -0.61
2 7 17
Prov. Brabant Brussel Halle-Vflvoorde Leuven
-0.89 0.40 0.58
23 2 1
75 107 110
23 2 1
82 105 108
23 2 1
2.79 0.59 0.20
1 4 10
Prov. West-Vlaanderen Brugge Diksmuide leper Kortrijk Oostende Roeselare Tier Veume
0.21 -0.29 -0.04 0.22 -0.13 0.04 -0.24 0.22
7 21 11 5 16 10 20 6
103 95 97 104 94 102 97 102
8 20 17 7 21 11 18 10
102 97 99 103 96 101 98 102
8 20 16 6 21 11 8 9
0.22 -1.70 -0.99 0.29 0.47 -0.18 -0.65 -0.41
9 23 20 8 6 13 18 16
Prov. Oost-Vlaanderen Aalst Dendermonde Eeklo Gent Oudenaarde Sint Niklaas
0.31 0.00 -0.13 0.04 0.38 -0.05
4 10 14 11 3 12
106 101 99 95 102 100
5 13 16 19 12 15
105 101 99 98 105 99
4 10 17 19 3 15
-0.15 -0.08 -0.27 0.58 -0.35 1.21
12 11 14 5 15 3
Prov. Limburg Hass~t Maaseik Tongeren
-0.II -0.14 0.12
13 15 8
105 107 107
6 4 3
100 102 104
13 7 5
-0.85 -1.25 -1.02
19 22 21
EDUCATION COMPONENT Prov. Antwerpen Antwerpen Mechelen Tumhout
0.68 0.16 0.31
3 10 7
115 104 110
1 11 3
1.06 0.29 0.09
2 8 11
Prov. Brabant Brussel Halle-Vilvoorde Leuven
-0.04 0.15 0.80
15 11 2
105 98 109
I0 14 4
0.45 1.48 -0.15
3 1 16
Prov. West-Vlaa deren Brugge Diksmuide Ieper Kortrijk Oostende Roeselare Tielt Veurne
0.63 -0.66 -0.76 0.23 -0.02 0.38 0.10 0.29
4 18 20 9 14 6 13 8
119 87 89 102 94 107 106 113
4 21 20 12 16 7 8 2
0.33 -1.31 -0,51 -0.12 -0.07 0.24 --0.10 -0.42
6 23 20 15 13 9 14 18
,-1
z
ul
0
,..1 .< 0
tN
0
0
ooo
,"~
0"~ ,--o 0
OX ' , 0 ('~
~
~ o o,...-4 .--I
I
I
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
I
0 0 0 0 0 0
i
o~'~
I
6,
000
~oo
0 O0 ,-~ ,-4
000 il
0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 111 I I I I
322
H. BELLEN AND C. VAN H E R B R U G G E N
Table 111 (continued) District
Z-score
Rank Index Order Method
Rank Fac. Order Method
Rank Order
Z-score
Rank Order
Prov. Oost-Vlaanderen Aalst Dendermonde Eeklo Gent Oudena~.rde Sint Niklaas
-0.75 -0.48 -0.50 0.59 -0.82 -0.77
21 16 17 5 23 22
87 96 94 102 78 93
22 15 16 12 23 18
-0.62 -0.47 0.32 0.37 -1.03 0.10
21 19 7 4 22 I0
Prov. Limburg Hasselt Maaseik Tongeren
0.15 1.08 -0.74
11 1 19
106 108 90
8 6 19
0.32 0.01 0.28
5 12 7
ENVIRONMENT COMPONENT Prov. Antwerpen Antwerpen Mechelen Tumhout
0.08 0.27 0.37
12 6 4
109 113 113
7 5 4
99 109 108
21 8 4
-0.95 0.27 1.02
21 9 2
Prov. Brabant Brussel Halle-Vilvoorde Leuven
-3.29 0.15 0.20
23 8 7
40 105 105
23 10 9
10 103 105
23 11 6
-2.15 -0.27 0.32
23 18 8
Prov. West-Vlaanderen Brugge Diksmuide leper Kortrijk Oostende Roeselare Tier Veume
0.00 0.01 0.00 -0.18 -0.01 -0.08 -0.17 0.12
18 16 7 22 19 20 21 11
95 92 92 92 94 93 84 97
16 21 20 19 17 18 22 13
102 104 103 97 102 100 I00 105
16 10 14 22 17 19 20 7
-0.13 0.11 0.10 -0.41 -0.37 0.36 0.44 - 1.02
16 11 12 20 19 7 5 22
Prov. Oost-Vlaanderen Aalst Dendermonde Eeklo Gent Oudenaarde Sint N'tklaas
0.06 0.12 0.07 0.14 0.02 0.56
14 15 13 19 15 2
102 104 96 105 96 122
12 11 14 8 15 1
101 103 104 103 102 110
18 13 9 12 15 2
0.03 0.39 -0.24 -0.10 -0.09 0.21
13 6 17 14 15 10
Prov. Limburg Hasselt Maaseik Tongeren
0.35 0.41 0.56
5 3 1
113 114 121
6 3 2
107 109 111
5 3 1
0.84 1.07 0.57
3 1 4
323
Q U A L I T Y O F L I F E IN B E L G I U M
Index Method
Rank Order
Fac. Method
Rank Order
81 86 i17 108 75 102
20 19 4 5 22 10
86 91 108 108 80 104
21 18 5 4 22 9
102 100 97
9 12 14
103 99 95
10 13 17
SOCIAL STABILITY COMPONENT 73 108 129
22 9 2
80 127 139
19 13 I
46 92 108
23 18 8
73 76 129
21 13 2
97 101 103 86 92 111 113 71
15 12 11 20 19 7 5 21
71 84 88 87 68 93 84 78
22 18 15 16 23 14 17 20
101 111 92 98 95 105
13 6 17 14 16 10
108 111 98 99 106 110
9 7 12 11 10 8
123 129 114
3 1 4
122 126 129
6 4 5
Z.score
Rank Order
Index Method
Rank Order
-0.30 -0.09 0.05 -0.19 -0.41 0.87
18 14 12 I0 19 2
86 104 I16 94 83 153
18 11 6 14 19 I
0.50 0.42 0.29
4 6 7
112 110 113
8 10 7
Fac. Method
Rank Order
10 7 16
Prov. Limburg Hasselt Maaseik Tongeren
Source: Own calculations.
0.17 0.19 -0.14
19 13 14 6 21 2
Prov. O.-Vlaand. Aalst -0.20 Dendermonde 0.00 EeHo -0.09 Gent 0.21 Oudenaatde -0.26 Sint Niklaas 0.28
Kortrijk Oostende Roeselate Tielt Veume
Ieper
8 23 20 12 15 11 18 17
22 5 9
1 3 4
Rank Order
0.18 -0.69 -0.22 0.07 -0.12 0.14 -0.15 -0.14
Prov. W.-Vlaand. Brugge Diksmuide
Brussel Halle-Vilv. Leuven
-0.47 0.21 0.17
0.37 0.28 0.24
Prov. Antwerpen Antwerpen Mechelen Turnhout
1~ou Brabant
Z-score
District
106 106 103
95 101 101 101 91 112
103 80 93 100 96 102 94 95
89 105 103
109 108 109
Index method
6 5 10
18 14 12 13 21 1
8 23 20 15 16 11 19 17
22 7 9
3 4 2
Rank Order
The index of social welfare
TABLE IV
72 73 98
123 86 87 80 115 64
87 157 120 90 135 90 112 98
107 75 65
77 70 55
~ Fac. Rank Order
15
5 6
21 10 11 9 19 2
12 23 20 13 22 13 18 15
17 7 3
8 4 1
Rank Order
M z
z -v
r <
z
z
M
~r
t,o 4~
QUALITY OF LIFE IN BELGIUM
325
To conclude, we can say that regional differences in social welfare in Belgium are of such a nature that we cannot speak of an heterogeneous territory o f prosperity. Maybe this kind of appreciation is due to the limited field of enquiry. Nevertheless, this view is generally shared by many workers in the social and political field. Moreover, it should be pointed out that no statistical soundings can or could possibly be taken in order to explain the meaning of those differences 12.
4. CONCLUSION Results in the quality of life research depend greatly on definitions (which imply alternative choices of variables) and the geographical delimitation of the enquiry (nations, regions, smaller territorial entities). Statistical methods used and changing periods of investigation can also influence these results. Lack of adequate information and subsequent limitation of the number of indicators retained reduce the quality of this kind of research. Nevertheless, the attempts made to estimate social welfare components and indices on a regional basis can bring valuable information to economic planners, policymakers and sociologists. The observation of quasi-homogeneity for regions of a small country like Belgium, provides information that can be considered interesting and valuable. More delicate will be the parametric evaluation of simultaneous and dynamic feed-back effects between economic growth and social welfare, especially on a macro-scale, when differences are relatively small. Rijksuniversitair Centrum at A n t w e r p
NOTES * Research subsidized by the 'Fends veer Kollektief Fundamanteel Onderzoek' (Fund Collective Basic Research). i Olson L.: 'Social indicators and social accounts', Socio-EconomicPlanning Science 2 (1969), pp. 335-346. which facilitates concise, comprehensive and balanced judgment about the condition 2 "A social indicator.., may be defined to be a statistic of direct normative interest which facilitaties concise, comprehensive and balanced judgment about the condition of major aspects of society. It is in all cases a direct measure o f welfare and is subject to the interpretation that, if it changes in the 'fight' direction, while other things remain equal, things have got better, or people axe better off. Thus statistics on the number o f for
326
l-t. B E L L E N AND C. V A N H E R B R U G G E N
doctors or policemen could not be social indicators, whereas figures on health or crime rates could b e " (United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Toward a Social Report, U.S.G.P.O., 1969). 3 Ackoff, R . L . : 'Does quality of life have to be quantified? ', Operational Research Quarterly 27 (1976), p. 297. 4 By this term, we mean an important aspect of social welfare, e.g. housing, health, etc. s Etzionl, M. and Lehman, E.: 'Some dangers in valid social measurement', Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 373 (1967), pp. 1 - 5 5 . 6 Moser, C.: 'Social indicators, systems, methods and problems', Review of Income and Wealth, Series 2 (1973). A global factor analysis with 32 indicators is possible. However, as there are only 23 regions, it is impossible to calculate factor indices (due to overdetermination, the inverse matrix cannot be calculated). s Z-score = x-F/o, x = indicatorvalue, ~ = the average value of the indicator, o = the square root of the variance of x. 9 See Note 7. 10 As for B, D and F components, we took the rank order of the ordinary index method (third method of aggregation). 11 Liu Ben Chieh: 'Quality of life: Concept, measure and results', The American Journal of Economics and Sociology 43 (1976), p. 6. 12 For further suggestions, please contact: H. Bellen, Dienst Wiskunclige Economie, Middelheimlaan 1, B. 2020 Antwerp, Belgium.
