Qualitative measures of quality of life: A composite index of subjective « global » measure of quality of life

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

Introduction

The objective of a development policy is to improve the living conditions of the people. In the process people’s quality of life improves. One question that arises when one thinks about improving quality of life is, can quality of life be measured? This question needs an objective answer if comparison in people’s quality of life is to be made. Some indicators of quality of life which are currently in use vary from micro-level indicators like household income to aggregated measures like the gross domestic product (GDP) and Gross national product (GNP) (Todaro, 2000). Quality of life however, is not just about money as expressed in terms of per capita income and other aggregated economic measures.
Quality of life is a complex and multidimensional phenomenon which needs to be viewed holistically. Other measures of quality of life have taken into consideration the basic human needs – a socio-economic status approach. One such measure is the living standards measure (LSM) which was developed by the South African advertising research foundation (SAARF). While the measure is at the micro – level (the unit of measurement being individuals or households), the measure uses data that are nominal in nature. This excludes the use of data that are ordinal in nature – take for instance, distance from a water source or the type of toilet facility used by a household. The quality of life enjoyed by households varies considerably in terms of the degree to which households access most basic needs. The aim of this study is to develop a measure of quality of life where data pertaining to socio-economic aspects are at the ordinal level of measurement.

The background

The inequalities in socio-economic conditions experienced in South Africa can be traced mainly in the previous apartheid policies. This is evident in the settlement pattern of the African people which differs considerably from those of the other racial groups in the country. According to Gelderblom and Kok (1994:67) Africans did not share the experience of widespread urbanisation undergone by the other inhabitants of South Africa to the same extent as the latter, mainly because of the influx control measures. The reasons for influx control were intended to serve political and economic purposes but, the social and economic consequences were far reaching.
On the economic side, many employers in South Africa (especially those in mining and agriculture) saw influx control as an aversion to the workings of the African labour market and the usual forces of supply and demand, because they felt that competing for African labourers would cause a rise in wages. This was undesirable. On the political side, there was a fear that if Africans were allowed to reside permanently in towns, they would insist on demanding political rights. Granting political rights would inevitably lead to a demand for economic rights–the rights to employment, access to municipal services and even a right to property.
With time, particularly in the early sixties, it became evident that the influx control measures were not effective, partly because restricting black urbanisation went on in spite of the influx control measures and, restricting blacks to townships resulted in overcrowding and terrible living conditions. Of course the ineffectiveness of the influx control measures never came with no cause. During the Second World War the ANC, founded in 1912, together with its allies organised protests against the pass laws. This to a fair extent, coupled with the failure of the labour bureaux to control the employment of the Africans in urban areas, saw African/Black urbanisation rise substantially. By 1960 31% of the total African population was urbanized (see Gelderblom & Kok, 1994).

TABLE OF CONTENTS :

CHAPTER ONE
- 1.1 Introduction
- 1.2 The background
- 1.3 The problem statement
- 1.4 Aims of study and research questions
- 1.5 Operationalisation, assumptions, and delimitations
- 1.6 Contribution of the study
- 1.7 Outline of the study
- 1.8 Summary
CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE
- 2.1 Introduction
- 2.2 Qualitative measures of quality of life: A composite index of subjective « global » measure of quality of life
- 2.3 Qualitative measures of quality of life: Components of life satisfaction within South Africa’s population categories
- 2.4 Qualitative measures of quality of life: Household satisfaction – Past, present and future perspectives
- 2.5 Quantitative measures of quality of life: The SAARF Universal Living Standards Measure
- 2.6 Descriptions of inequality; The Swedish approach to welfare research
- 2.7 Basic needs and the Physical Quality of Life Index (PQLI)
- 2.8 Measuring quality of life: Economic, Social, and Subjective indicators
- 2.8.1 Objective or Social indicators
- 2.8.2 Subjective well – being (SWB) indicators
- 2.9 Quality of life and national policy
- 2.9.1 The Consumer confidence index (CCI)
- 2.9.2 The Index of economic well being (IEWB)
- 2.9.3 Miringoff’s Index of social health
- 2.9.4 The Human Development Index (HDI
- 2.10 Housing, electricity supply, water and sanitation
- 2.11 Access to sanitation
- 2.12 Health services
- 2.13 Human development and quality of life
- 2.14 Household fertility and development
- 2.15 Household-based development index and quality of life
- 2.16 Aspects of the quality of life in black townships in a South African-city: implications for human development
- 2.17 Summary
CHAPTER THREE: THE DEVELOPMENT OF A HOUSEHOLD – BASED MEASURE OF QUALITY OF LIFE
- 3.1 Introduction
- 3.2 Conceptualisation of quality of life
- 3.2.1 Conceptualising the model: questions informing the conceptualisation of–quality of life
- 3.2.2 The link between female education and quality of life
- 3.2.3 Conceptualising the model: Social status and-quality of life
- 3.2.4 Conceptualising the model: lifestyles and quality of life
- 3.2.5 Conceptualising the model: poverty and quality of life
- 3.3 The conceptual model
- 3.4 The research methodology
- 3.4.1 Introduction
- 3.4.2 Data sources
- 3.4.3 Sample size
- 3.4.4 The instrument and its design
- 3.4.5 The relevant indicators
- 3.4.6 Overview of data analysis
- 3.4.7 Ordinal level data analysis
- 3.4.8 Cluster analysis
- 3.4.9 Discriminant function analysis
- 3.4.10 Interpretation of study findings
- 3.4.11 The quality of life index
- 3.4.12 Summary
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS OF THE STUDY (OHS 1999)
- 4.1 Introduction
- 4.2 Applying discriminant function analysis to the OHS (1999) data
- 4.2.1 Prediction of group membership
- 4.2.2 Interpretation of discriminant function results
- 4.3 Formation of the quality of life groups using cluster analysis
- 4.4 Comparing the different aspects of the eight quality of life
- 4.4.1 Analysis of demographics (OHS 1999)
- 4.4.2 Analysis of residence (type of dwelling)
- 4.4.3 Analysis of fuel used by households
- 4.4.4 Analysis of sanitation
- 4.4.5 Analysis of households’ water source
- 4.4.6 Analysis of durables
- 4.4.7 Subjective evaluation of quality of life
- 4.5 Summary
CHAPTER FIVE: FINDINGS OF THE STUDY (OHS 1998)
- 5.1 Introduction
- 5.2 Applying discriminant function analysis to the data
- 5.2.1 Interpretation of discriminant function results
- 5.2.2 Prediction of group membership
- 5.3 Formation of the quality of life groups using cluster analysis
- 5.4 Comparing the different aspects of the eight quality of life
- 5.4.1 Analysis of demographics OHS (1998)
- 5.4.2 Analysis of residence (type of dwelling)
- 5.4.3 Analysis of fuel used by households
- 5.4.4 Analysis of sanitation
- 5.4.5 Analysis of households’ water source
- 5.4.6 Analysis of durables
- 5.4.7 Subjective evaluation of Quality Of Life
- 5.5 Summary
CHAPTER SIX: FINDINGS OF THE STUDY (OHS 1997)
- 6.1 Introduction
- 6.2 Applying discriminant function analysis to the data
- 6.2.1 Interpretation of discriminant function results
- 6.2.2 Prediction of group membership
- 6.3 Formation of the quality of life groups using cluster analysis
- 6.4 Comparing the different aspects of the eight quality of life
- 6.4.1 Analysis of demographics OHS (1997)
- 6.4.2 Analysis of residence (type of dwelling)
- 6.4.3 Analysis of fuel used by households
- 6.4.4 Analysis of households’ water source
- 6.4.5 Analysis of sanitation
- 6.4.6 Analysis of durables
- 6.4.7 Subjective evaluation of quality of life
- 6.5 Summary
CHAPTER SEVEN: FINDINGS OF THE STUDY (OHS 1996)
- 7.1 Introduction
- 7.2 Applying discriminant function analysis to the data
- 7.2.1 Interpretation of discriminant function results
- 7.2.2 Prediction of group membership
- 7.3 Formation of the quality of life groups using cluster analysis
- 7.4 Comparing the different aspects of the five quality of life groups
- 7.4.1 Analysis of demographics OHS (1996)
- 7.4.2 Analysis of residence (type of dwelling)
- 7.4.3 Analysis of fuel used by households
- 7.4.4 Analysis of sanitation
- 7.4.5 Analysis of households’ water source
- 7.4.6 Analysis of durables
- 7.4.7 Subjective evaluation of Quality Of Life
- 7.5 Summary
CHAPTER EIGHT: DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
- 8.1 Introduction
- 8.2 Summary of findings
- 8.3 Discussion of findings in respect of age and sex distribution of household heads
- 8.4 Discussion of findings in respect of cluster analysis and the QOL index
- 8.5 Discussion of findings in respect of perceived quality of life
- 8.6 Discussion of findings in respect of the indicators differentiating between quality of life groups – disriminant analysis
- 8.7 Summary
CHAPTER NINE: OVERVIEW, CONCLUSION, RECOMMENDATIONS AND LIMITAIONS
- 9.1 Introduction
- 9.2 Conclusions arising from the analysis and interpretation of the research findings
- 9.3 Recommendations emanating from the analysis and interpretation of the research findings
- 9.4 Problems and limitations of the study
- 9.5 Summary