Well-being (prosperity indicator)

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The well-being or welfare (well-being) is now the key concept in international and national discussions about prosperity and sustainable development of people and companies in science, politics and the general public. As a holistic indicator of prosperity , the concept of well-being is an expression of a new understanding of prosperity and social participation. The classic model was expanded to include aspects such as quality of life and sustainability by taking into account the various dimensions of well-being in the theoretical concepts and measurement methods, which are not least used as the basis and reference points for socio-political measures. The core problem lies in the question of how to adequately measure well-being and development on the basis of a solid and workable theoretical concept.

Development of the new understanding of prosperity: wellbeing

Starting position

Until recently, attempts have been made to measure the prosperity of societies or individuals mainly using monetary or material indicators , especially gross domestic product (GDP). The main reference point for determining social prosperity was the economic growth of the respective national economy. In this respect, it was assumed that a corresponding increase in GDP would also increase the prosperity of society and its members. But both all too often contradict reality, because monetary comparables such as GDP or the gross national income used as an alternative say nothing about the real distribution of this increase, which (ideally) would find its expression in the increase in the real income of the majority of citizens.

In the course of the last two decades, the criticism of the GDP as an indicator of prosperity has grown, as this measurement variable does not allow any statements to be made about the influence of environmental conditions in addition to quality of life. The diverse national and international discussions about alternative indicators, which on the one hand make it possible to overcome the one-dimensional understanding of prosperity and on the other hand lead to adequate and meaningful measurements and results, pervaded many scientific disciplines. Another challenge was, not least, to develop a suitable theoretical foundation on which a measurement is ultimately based.

Realization opportunities, well-being and social participation

With his theoretical concept of the chances of realization and the shifting of the focus on the well-being of the people and its various dimensions and influencing factors, in 1998 a. a. Amartya Sen, who was awarded the Nobel Prize for Economics for his work on welfare economics, paved the way for the development of holistic welfare standards in the early 1980s. With the competency approach presented in 1979 in its basic features and further developed in recent years , he provided the theoretical framework that represented an alternative to the common, mostly economic models of thought about poverty , social inequality and human development and shaped the discussions to a decisive extent. Sens criticism was directed against the traditional welfare economic understanding, according to which the well-being either with prosperity or wealth (English opulence ; e.g. income) or with benefit (English utility ; e.g. joy or fulfillment of Wishes) was merged and almost equated. A key idea in Sens's concept, which he also discussed in detail in his work Economy for People (original title Development as Freedom , 1999) from 2000, is that the goal of social development and progress is to increase people's chances of realization and freedom must be. Sen was and is convinced that human well-being (and thus also inequalities, deprivation and poverty) cannot be adequately captured and depicted with the classic thought models, measurement methods and parameters, as this is influenced by far more than just financial or material ones Resources.

In his concept, Sen therefore makes the fundamental distinction between implementation opportunities (English capabilities ) and functions (English functionings ). The latter refer to the various things and activities that a person values ​​and enjoys doing. In addition to adequate nutrition and freedom from preventable diseases, basic functions also include more complex things such as participating in public life. In contrast, chances of realization correspond to the factual freedom of a person to be able to achieve certain functions. The amount of realization chances of a person can therefore be understood as an individual "potential of realizable life plans, from which he chooses his functions, his actual way of life, in accordance with his own life plans and preferences [...]" (for example actually practicing a religion or not ). Sen makes it clear that individual resources such as income and other goods alone are not sufficient to determine an adequate picture of a person's chances of realization, since other dimensions and factors influence the chances of realization and the well-being of a person indirectly or directly.

According to Sen, the chances of realization are influenced on the one hand by the individual potential of a person and on the other hand by instrumental freedoms and socially determined opportunities. The former include not only material aspects such as income and material goods, but also the skills and needs of a person, which can vary greatly depending on age, gender, educational and health status or disability. The instrumental freedoms, on the other hand, which relate to the real possibilities of the individual, include social protection (e.g. through social benefits) in addition to social opportunities (e.g. access to the education and health system and housing) and economic opportunities (e.g. access to the labor market, further training and working conditions) and protection from crime) as well as political opportunities (e.g. political rights and participation). In addition, there are environmental factors such as ecological security or climatic and geographical conditions, which are also taken into account in this concept. The conceptual differentiation between individual potentials and the instrumental freedoms in Sens's approach makes it possible to emphasize those aspects of the chances of realization which social groups and the state have an influence on.

Due to its multi-dimensionality and the consideration of various influencing factors, the qualification approach is also suitable for a more adequate representation of inequality and poverty. The change in the classic understanding of prosperity and the shift in focus on the well-being and the realization and participation opportunities of people are also reflected in the discourses on development policy and social justice that are closely related to this topic . For example, for a long time, especially in the social sciences, the notion of a stratification or storage model of society, which was based, among other things, on the classic understanding of prosperity and thus also served as a basis for political measures. It was of the opinion that the social participation and chances of people, which were mainly determined using the one-dimensional indicator of income or GDP and derived from this, could be improved or compensated for by means of material resources. In the course of time, this idea had to be reconsidered, as the discussion about the social and welfare state increasingly emphasized the need to take into account the (holistic) life situation of people, especially when it comes to questions of social justice. It was realized that opportunities for participation can no longer be guaranteed only through material resources and are influenced by many factors - both individual and social. Gradually one turned away from the shift model and followed a new interpretation, which is less class-oriented, but rather life-situation-oriented. In addition to equality of opportunity and life satisfaction of people, there was also increasing discussion about taking greater account of subjective well-being with regard to various areas of life, both in theoretical considerations and concepts and in practical implementation in the form of measurements, and as a decisive point of reference in the studies to be included.

Subjective wellbeing

The concept of subjective well-being is best known from research on happiness . Despite some overlaps, subjective well-being can still be defined as an independent research subject. In the social sciences, this multidimensional concept serves as a source of information for people's quality of life. The focus of interest is the subjective assessment and evaluation of one's own life in general and of certain areas of life. The American psychologist Ed Diener, for example, counts both positive and negative emotions as well as global life satisfaction and people's satisfaction with income, family and health among the dimensions of subjective well-being. In this respect, happiness is to be seen as one of many dimensions for recording personal well-being. This is also justified by the general opinion in research that “questions about 'satisfaction with life' produce a more cognitively reflected answer, while questions about 'happiness' can better reflect the emotional state of the respondent”. The most commonly used indicator to measure subjective well-being is general life satisfaction .

In Germany, research on subjective well-being and quality of life goes back to the 1970s. The welfare survey conducted for the first time in 1978 under the direction of Wolfgang Zapf marks a significant turning point in this context, since in addition to the recording of objective living conditions, to which official statistics or early studies of quality of life were mainly limited, the subjective assessment of citizens on a broad basis also was queried. In 1984 by Zapf and his colleague Prof. Wolfgang Glatzer edited volume Quality of Life in the Federal Republic. Objective living conditions and subjective well-being were included in the results of the survey and widely discussed. Since then, subjective well-being has been taken into account and measured as an important reference point for quality of life in the Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP) of the German Institute for Economic Research (DIW) using various indicators. In addition to their self-assessment of their state of health and general life satisfaction, people are asked about their job and income satisfaction, as well as concerns about their general and their own economic development.

However, according to the critical comment of some authors, the orientation towards the material living standard of the population still dominates in German politics , although subjective data have been collected continuously since the 1980s. It seems as if politicians “[...] have not yet been fully sensitized to the findings on the subjective well-being of the population, which means that a lot of potential remains untapped. In this way, these research results could be effectively included as an instrument in the political process. ”Against the background of the findings from science and research, the suitability and meaningfulness of measurement concepts of well-being, which leave out the subjective components, must therefore be used for policy advice and design in relation to improving and strengthening people's participation in society.

Stiglitz-Sen-Fitoussi-Commission and Enquete-Commission of the Bundestag

The development and implementation of the new understanding of prosperity and participation in 2008 by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress (CMEPSP), set up by the French government under President Nicolas Sarkozy, received a new socio-political upswing and its mandate and goal consisted in highlighting the limits of GDP as a previously common indicator of prosperity for economic progress and social development and discussing alternatives and new indicators for an appropriate and meaningful measurement of prosperity. The thoughts and ideas of the chairman Joseph E. Stiglitz and the scientific director Amartya Sen went into the work of the commission, which was called the Stiglitz-Sen-Fitoussi-Commission after its heads . In addition to economic considerations, ecological and social aspects as well as the topic of sustainability had to be included. Last but not least, the Commission's proposals and thoughts aim to reconsider and modify the statistical standards and bases for political measures. The authors are convinced that only correct, i.e. above all adequate, measurements ultimately lead to a policy that can sustainably improve the prosperity of society and the well-being of people. It is therefore necessary to shift the focus from measurements of economic production to measurements of human wellbeing.

In its final report published in 2009, the commission formulated various recommendations and emphasized, among other things, that human well-being must be recorded in a multidimensional way, since income or GDP alone is not sufficient to adequately determine and reflect people's well-being and the To form the basis for decisions for a sustainable (development) policy. In addition to the material standard of living (income, wealth and consumption), the Commission also names the dimensions of health, education, personal activities (including work), political voice and governance, social connections and relationships, the environment (present and future conditions) and insecurity (both economic as well as physically). They also write that the quality of life is decisively determined by the objective conditions and the chances of realization of the people. Therefore, for an adequate assessment of well-being, it is also essential to include subjective measurements and data in addition to objective. Because it is precisely people's perception of their subjectively perceived freedoms and opportunities to shape their lives that is a very significant, yet all too seldom used source of information.

The results and proposals of the Stiglitz Commission received a great deal of attention on both the international and national levels. In this way, for example, developments can currently be observed in Germany. Only recently (December 2010 and January 2011) did the German Bundestag set up the study commission “Growth, Prosperity, Quality of Life” , which over the next few years will deal intensively with the current problems and the new requirements for defining and measuring the To deal with well-being and to design a new, more comprehensive indicator of prosperity. The aim is to "determine the importance of growth in the economy and society, [to] develop a holistic indicator of prosperity and progress, and to explore the possibilities and limits of decoupling growth, resource consumption and technical progress."

For this purpose, the purely economic and quantitative GDP is to be further developed as an indicator of social well-being and ecological, social and cultural criteria of well-being should be taken into account. Accordingly, the following aspects in particular should be included: “the material standard of living; Access to and quality of work; the social distribution of wealth , social inclusion and cohesion; intact environment and availability of limited natural resources; Educational opportunities and levels of education; Health and life expectancy; Quality of public services of general interest, social security and political participation; the quality of life subjectively experienced by people and the satisfaction. ”The commission is expected to remain active until the end of the current legislative period and will then present its final report to the Bundestag. It remains to be seen whether and to what extent the Commission will succeed in implementing its goals and in developing a holistic measure of prosperity, which also includes subjective indicators, as a new point of reference for socio-political measures.

Selected examples for the concrete implementation

The recommendations of the Stiglitz Commission and the (theoretical) basic considerations contained in them by Sen and others have been taken up over the last few years in many international and national institutions and organizations, such as the World Bank , the OECD or the social reports of individual countries such as Germany.

Human Development Index and Human Poverty Index I / II

The United Nations Human Development Index (HDI), which has been published annually since 1990, is a multi-dimensional indicator of prosperity that is used to measure a country's level of development. It can be seen as the first attempt to implement Sen's ideas. Central to this concept is therefore the view that the goal of (social) development does not just mean economic growth, but above all the expansion of people's possibilities and freedoms. An adequate indicator of prosperity should be aimed at the well-being and the different needs of the people, because - according to the motto - "[p] eople are the real wealth of nations". The HDI tries to measure the level of development using three dimensions. In addition to per capita income as a monetary indicator for standard of living, the HDI also includes the indicator life expectancy at birth for the dimension of health. To measure the third dimension of education, the average number of school years of a 25-year-old adult and the expected number of school years of children of school age are used as indicators.

In addition to the HDI, a multi-dimensional index for human poverty has also been published since 1997, the Human Poverty Index I + II (HPI) for poor and rich countries, in order to better determine the state of development and human well-being. According to the basic belief, poverty means

“ That opportunities and choices most basic to human development are denied. Thus a person is not free to lead a long, healthy, and creative life and is denied access to a decent standard of living, freedom, dignity, self-respect and the respect of others. From a human development perspective, poverty means more than the lack of what is necessary for material well-being. […] [P] overty must be addressed in all its dimensions, not income alone. ”

As with the HDI, the focus of the HPI is on three essential components of human life, namely longevity, knowledge and an adequate standard of living, with the index for developing countries (HPI-I) and OECD countries (HPI-II) being drawn up separately becomes. While the first dimension is measured using survivability (probability of dying before reaching the age of 40 or, in the case of HPI-II, age 60), the percentage of illiterate people in the adult population is used for the knowledge dimension. The standard of living in the HPI-I is determined using the (unweighted) average of the percentage of the population without access to clean water and the percentage of children who are underweight for their age. In the HPI-II, however, the third dimension is recorded using the percentage of the population below the poverty line (50% of the median of the household's disposable income). In the index for the OECD countries, social exclusion is also determined as a further dimension using the percentage of long-term unemployed.

Above all, the results of both indices make one thing very clear: Poverty is the greatest obstacle to human development. For this reason, socio-political measures to combat poverty at both international and national level can sustainably promote development and thus also people's well-being. However, what is striking about the indices is that they are designed in a multi-dimensional manner, but that subjective well-being is not taken into account. This is mainly due to the fact that there are few or no internationally comparable data sets. Apart from this, Sen emphasizes in this context, the measurement of well-being and development must be handled flexibly, so that the selection and determination of the key dimensions and indicators can vary from country to country.

Report on poverty and wealth by the federal government

Another example is the poverty and wealth report of the federal government , which has been published regularly since 2001, in life situations in Germany . The introduction to the 2nd report (2005) states:

“Based on relevant life situations, […] [the] conception in the report is based on Amartya Sens's concept of the chances of realization. Poverty is then synonymous with a lack of realization opportunities, wealth with a very high degree of realization opportunities, the limits of which are only reached selectively or not at all. "

The central concern of the reporting is the provision of a comprehensive and detailed investigation of the social situation of the people, which represents the necessary basis for a "policy to strengthen social justice and improve social participation". In accordance with the multi-dimensional claim, the report sheds light on the empirically observable differences in life situations by attempting to attribute these differences to unequal opportunities and to more precisely determine the factors that influence the perception of opportunities opened up.

The database used in the current 3rd report (2008) is primarily composed of the official statistics on income and living conditions ( EU-SILC ), the sample income and expenditure ( EVS ), the microcensus , the SOEP as well as suitable individual surveys and studies on relevant issues Questions together. In addition to 15 poverty indicators and 6 wealth indicators, 7 cross-sectional indicators were used to measure Sen's dimensions, which either depict both subject areas or serve as background information for them.

The Poverty and Wealth Report also emphasizes the constant further development of the measurement concepts of well-being and poverty as well as their standardization for international comparisons. However, subjective well-being has so far been largely neglected as a further important dimension. While the authors of the 2nd poverty report explicitly mentioned it - albeit with a reference to its disregard - one searches in vain for it in the 3rd report. It would have been possible to take relevant subjective data from the SOEP and include this as an elementary and meaningful component in the analysis.

Measurements of children's well-being

The well-being of children is a special field of research or topic and has also increasingly come into focus in recent years. Last but not least, the development of multi-dimensional measurement concepts, especially with a view to the best interests of the child , can be viewed as a concrete implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child .

Examples of the measurement of child well-being in industrialized countries are the OECD children's study Doing better for children published in 2009 , the UNICEF report Child Poverty in perspective: An overview of child well-being in rich countries , published in 2007, and the study on the situation based on it of children in Germany 2010 . Both concepts shed light on children's wellbeing on the basis of several dimensions such as education, health and safety, risk behavior and material wellbeing. However, there is one important difference. Because in addition to taking into account the relationship of the child to the family and peers as a further dimension, UNICEF is so far the only institution that explicitly includes the children's subjective perspective. In contrast, the concept of the OECD is currently still in contradiction to the UN Convention, "which explicitly emphasizes the children themselves and their own assessment of their own well-being as an indicator of the realization of children's rights ".

It is therefore not only desirable but also necessary that the OECD expand its concept in the future to include the subjective indicators that have been excluded and take account of the demand that the possibly much more important assessment of children regarding their own development should be included in the analyzes. An important basic prerequisite for measuring child well-being at both international and national level is therefore “that it is accepted in international organizations as well as in the media and in politics that children themselves are in many cases better than adults about their opportunities to participate in this Society can judge and they can therefore also be heard. ”For example, DIW is currently taking an important step in this direction at SOEP 2010 , in which, in addition to youth-specific data on the biography of 16 to 17-year-olds (since 2000), children are for the first time should be interviewed.

See also

literature

  • Servant, Ed; Suh, Eunkook; Oishi, Shigehiro: Recent Findings on Subjective Well-Being , Indian Journal of Clinical Psychology, 24 (1), Illinois 1997, ISSN  0303-2582 , pp. 25-41.
  • Glatzer, Wolfgang; Zapf, Wolfgang (ed.): Quality of life in the Federal Republic. Objective living conditions and subjective well-being , Frankfurt a. M. 1984, ISBN 978-3-593-33243-7 .
  • Walnut, Martha; Sen, Amartya (Ed.): The Quality of Life , Oxford: Clarendon Press 1993, ISBN 978-0-19-828797-1 .
  • Sen, Amartya: Equality of What? in: McMurrin, S. (Ed.): Tanner Lecture on Human Values , Vol. 1, Cambridge University Press 1980, ISBN 978-0-521-17641-5 .
  • Sen, Amartya: Inequality Reexamined , Third printing, Harvard University Press 1995, ISBN 978-0-674-45256-5 .
  • Sen, Amartya: Der Lebensstandard , Hamburg: Europäische Verlagsanstalt / Rotbuch 2000, ISBN 978-3-434-53062-6 .
  • Sen, Amartya: Economy for the people. Paths to justice and solidarity in the market economy , Munich / Vienna: Hanser 2000, ISBN 978-3-446-19943-9 .
  • Volkert, Jürgen: Introduction. Poverty, Wealth and Capabilities - Central contents, terms and the contributions of this volume , in: Ders. (Ed.): Poverty and wealth at realization opportunities. Amartya Sens Capability Concept as the basis of poverty and wealth reporting , Wiesbaden: VS Verlag 2005, ISBN 978-3-531-14675-1 , pp. 11-19.
  • Volkert, Jürgen: The capability concept as the basis of German poverty and wealth reporting , in: Ders. (Ed.): Poverty and wealth at realization opportunities. Amartya Sens Capability concept as the basis of poverty and wealth reporting , Wiesbaden: VS Verlag 2005, ISBN 978-3-531-14675-1 , pp. 119–147.

Web links

  • Bertram, Hans; Kohl, Steffen: On the situation of children in Germany 2010. Empowering children for an uncertain future , German Committee for UNICEF, Cologne 2010, online (PDF file; 4.36 MB), as of May 25, 2011.
  • Federal Ministry for Labor and Social Affairs (Ed.): Living situations in Germany. The 2nd Poverty and Wealth Report of the Federal Government , Berlin 2005, online , as of May 25, 2011.
  • Federal Ministry for Labor and Social Affairs (Ed.): Living situations in Germany. The 3rd Poverty and Wealth Report of the Federal Government , long version, Berlin 2008, online , as of May 25, 2011.
  • Federal Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs (Ed.): Social Report 2009 , Berlin 2009, as of May 25, 2011.
  • Federal Ministry for Family, Seniors, Women and Youth (Ed.): Scientific inventory of research on “Wellbeing of Parents and Children” , Monitor Family Research, contributions from research, statistics and family policy, issue 19, Berlin 2009, online (PDF file; 827 kB), as of May 25, 2011.
  • Clark, David A .: The Capability Approach. Its Development, Critiques and Recent Advances , Global Poverty Research Group, 2005, online (PDF file; 253 kB), as of May 25, 2011.
  • Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress (Ed.): Report by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress , 2009, online (PDF file; 3.16 MB), as of May 25, 2011.
  • German Bundestag (ed.): Application by the CDU / CSU, SPD, FDP and BÜNDNIS 90 / DIE GRÜNEN parliamentary groups to set up a study commission on "Growth, Prosperity, Quality of Life - Paths to Sustainable Business and Social Progress in the Social Market Economy" , printed matter 17/3853, Berlin 2010, online (PDF file; 70 kB), as of May 25, 2011.
  • German Bundestag: New study commission starts work , 2011, online , May 25, 2011.
  • German Bundestag: Growth, Prosperity, Quality of Life , 2011, online , as of May 25, 2011.
  • German Institute for Economic Research (Ed.): SOEPMonitor 1984–2009. Time series for the development of selected indicators for key areas of life , 2010, online , as of May 25, 2011.
  • OECD: Doing better for children , 2009, online, but not open source , as of May 25, 2011.
  • OECD: Society at a Glance 2009 - OECD Social Indicators , 2009, online , as of May 25, 2011.
  • UNICEF: Child Poverty in perspective. An overview of child well-being in rich countries , Innocenti Report Card 7, UNICEF Innocenti Research Center, Florence 2007, online (PDF file; 1.52 MB), as of May 25, 2011.
  • UNDP: Origins of the Human Development Approach , 2011, online , as of May 25, 2011.
  • United Nations Development Program (UNDP): The Human Development Concept , 2011, online , as of May 25, 2011.
  • UNDP: The Human Development Index (HDI) , 2011, online , as of May 25, 2011.
  • UNDP: The Human Poverty Index (HPI) , 2011, online , as of May 25, 2011.
  • UNDP: The three indicators of the human poverty index (HPI) , 2011, online , as of May 25, 2011.
  • World Bank: Indicators , 2011, online , as of May 25, 2011.

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Sen, Amartya: Equality of What? In: McMurrin, S. (Ed.): Tanner Lecture on Human Values , Vol. 1, Cambridge University Press 1980. (Lecture version delivered at Stanford University, May 22, 1979, online ( Memento from April 9, 2011 on the Internet Archive ) (PDF file; 161 kB), as of May 25, 2011.)
  2. ↑ See Clark, David A .: The Capability Approach. Its Development, Critiques and Recent Advances , Global Poverty Research Group, 2005, p. 2 f., Online (PDF file; 253 kB), as of May 25, 2011.
  3. ↑ See Sen, Amartya: Economics for people. Paths to justice and solidarity in the market economy , Munich / Vienna: Hanser 2000, introduction as well as chapter 1 u. 2, pp. 13-70.
  4. ↑ See Sen, Amartya: Economics for people. Paths to Justice and Solidarity in the Market Economy . Munich / Vienna: Hanser 2000, p. 95.
  5. ↑ See Sen, Amartya: Inequality Reexamined . Third printing, Harvard University Press 1995, esp. Chapter 3, pp. 39-55.
  6. ↑ Cf. Volkert, Jürgen: Introduction. Poverty, Wealth and Capabilities - Central contents, terms and the contributions of this volume . In the S. (Ed.): Poverty and wealth at realization opportunities. Amartya Sens Capability concept as the basis of poverty and wealth reporting . Wiesbaden: VS Verlag 2005, p. 12.
  7. ↑ Cf. Volkert, Jürgen: The capability concept as the basis of German poverty and wealth reporting . In the S. (Ed.): Poverty and wealth at realization opportunities. Amartya Sens Capability concept as the basis of poverty and wealth reporting . Wiesbaden: VS Verlag 2005, p. 121 ff.
  8. ↑ See Sen, Amartya: Economics for people. Paths to Justice and Solidarity in the Market Economy . Munich / Vienna: Hanser 2000, p. 52 ff.
  9. ↑ See Federal Ministry for Family, Seniors, Women and Youth (ed.): Scientific inventory of research on “Well-being of parents and children” , Monitor Familienforschung, contributions from research, statistics and family policy, Edition 19, Berlin 2009, p. 4 , online (PDF file; 827 kB), as of May 25, 2011.
  10. ↑ See Federal Ministry for Family, Seniors, Women and Youth (ed.): Scientific inventory of research on “Well-being of parents and children” . Monitor family research, contributions from research, statistics and family policy, issue 19, Berlin 2009, p. 6 f.
  11. ↑ a b Cf. Federal Ministry for Family, Seniors, Women and Youth (ed.): Scientific inventory of research on “Well-being of parents and children” . Monitor family research, contributions from research, statistics and family policy, issue 19, Berlin 2009, p. 8.
  12. ↑ See German Institute for Economic Research (Hrsg.): SOEPMonitor 1984–2009. Time series for the development of selected indicators for key areas of life , 2010, p. 66 u. 102–114, online , as of May 25, 2011.
  13. ↑ Federal Ministry for Family, Seniors, Women and Youth (ed.): Scientific inventory of research on “Well-being of parents and children” . Monitor family research, contributions from research, statistics and family policy, issue 19, Berlin 2009, p. 9 f.
  14. ↑ See Bertram, Hans; Kohl, Steffen: On the situation of children in Germany 2010. Empowering children for an uncertain future . German Committee for UNICEF, Cologne 2010, p. 33, online (PDF file; 4.36 MB), as of May 25, 2011.
  15. ↑ See Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress (Ed.): Report by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress . 2009, pp. 7-18, online ( Memento from September 16, 2009 in the Internet Archive ) (PDF file; 3.16 MB), as of May 25, 2011.
  16. ^ German Bundestag: Growth, Prosperity, Quality of Life . 2011, online ( Memento from May 18, 2011 in the Internet Archive ), as of May 25, 2011.
  17. ↑ See German Bundestag: New Enquete Commission starts work . 2011, online May 25, 2011.
  18. ↑ German Bundestag (ed.): Application by the CDU / CSU, SPD, FDP and BÜNDNIS 90 / DIE GRÜNEN parliamentary groups to set up a study commission on “Growth, Prosperity, Quality of Life - Paths to Sustainable Business and Social Progress in the Social Market Economy” . Drucksache 17/3853, Berlin 2010, p. 3, online (PDF file; 70 kB), as of May 25, 2011.
  19. ↑ See World Bank: Indicators , 2011, online , as of May 25, 2011.
  20. ↑ See OECD: Society at a Glance 2009 - OECD Social Indicators , 2009, online , as of May 25, 2011.
  21. ↑ See Federal Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs (Ed.): Social Report 2009 , Berlin 2009, as of May 25, 2011.
  22. ↑ See United Nations Development Program (UNDP): The Human Development Concept . 2011, online , as of May 25, 2011.
  23. ↑ See UNDP: The Human Development Index (HDI) . 2011, online , as of May 25, 2011.
  24. ^ UNDP: The Human Poverty Index (HPI) . 2011, online ( memento from August 6, 2011 in the Internet Archive ), as of May 25, 2011.
  25. ↑ Cf. UNDP: The three indicators of the human poverty index (HPI) . 2011, online ( memento from August 6, 2011 in the Internet Archive ), as of May 25, 2011.
  26. ↑ See UNDP: Origins of the Human Development Approach . 2011, online , as of May 25, 2011.
  27. ↑ Federal Ministry for Labor and Social Affairs (Ed.): Lebenslagen in Deutschland. The 2nd poverty and wealth report of the federal government . Berlin 2005, p. XVI, online , as of May 25, 2011.
  28. ↑ a b See Federal Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs (Ed.): Lebenslagen in Deutschland. The 2nd poverty and wealth report of the federal government . Berlin 2005, p. XV.
  29. ↑ See Federal Ministry for Labor and Social Affairs (Ed.): Lebenslagen in Deutschland. The 3rd report on poverty and wealth by the federal government . Long version, Berlin 2008, p. 1, online , as of May 25, 2011.
  30. ↑ See Federal Ministry for Labor and Social Affairs (Ed.): Lebenslagen in Deutschland. The 3rd report on poverty and wealth by the federal government . Long version, Berlin 2008, p. 3 u. P. 22.
  31. ↑ See Federal Ministry for Labor and Social Affairs (Ed.): Lebenslagen in Deutschland. The 3rd report on poverty and wealth by the federal government . Long version, Berlin 2008, p. 3.
  32. ↑ See Federal Ministry for Labor and Social Affairs (Ed.): Lebenslagen in Deutschland. The 3rd report on poverty and wealth by the federal government . Long version, Berlin 2008.
  33. ↑ OECD: Doing better for children , 2009, online, but not open source , as of May 25, 2011.
  34. ↑ UNICEF: Child Poverty in perspective. An overview of child well-being in rich countries . Innocenti Report Card 7, UNICEF Innocenti Research Center, Florence 2007, online (PDF file; 1.52 MB), as of May 25, 2011.
  35. ↑ Bertram, Hans; Kohl, Steffen: On the situation of children in Germany 2010. Empowering children for an uncertain future . German Committee for UNICEF, Cologne 2010.
  36. ↑ See Bertram, Hans; Kohl, Steffen: On the situation of children in Germany 2010. Empowering children for an uncertain future . German Committee for UNICEF, Cologne 2010, p. 8 ff.
  37. ↑ Bertram, Hans; Kohl, Steffen: On the situation of children in Germany 2010. Empowering children for an uncertain future . German Committee for UNICEF, Cologne 2010, p. 32.
  38. ↑ See Bertram, Hans; Kohl, Steffen: On the situation of children in Germany 2010. Empowering children for an uncertain future . German Committee for UNICEF, Cologne 2010, p. 10.
  39. ↑ Bertram, Hans; Kohl, Steffen: On the situation of children in Germany 2010. Empowering children for an uncertain future . German Committee for UNICEF, Cologne 2010, p. 33.