1 / 17

Keeping up with the Schmidts

Join Gundi Knies from DIW Berlin and the University of Bristol as they delve into the impact of satisfaction with one's community and neighbors on life satisfaction. Through empirical studies and methodological analysis, discover how interactions with better-off neighbors and neighborhood infrastructure affect individual happiness. Explore the intricate relationship between personal income, neighborhood income, and overall contentment. Dive into discussions on relative deprivation, neighbourhood indicators, and the surprising link between neighborly wealth and well-being.

orlandomorgan
Download Presentation

Keeping up with the Schmidts

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Keeping up with the Schmidts Gundi Knies DIW Berlin and University of Bristol Do better off neighbours cause unhappiness?

  2. Structure of the talk • Problem Formulation • Methdology • Data • Empirical Results • Discussion G. Knies/ SOEP & CMPO

  3. Problem Formulation (1)- Neighbourhood Research - Theory of relative Deprivation “a person’s sense of contentment depends not on objective conditions, but on the subjective perceptions and comparisons of self to others”Lopez Turley 2002, S. 672-673 Empirical studies: comparison with better-off neighbours increases propensity to riot (Gurr 1970, Canache 1996) G. Knies/ SOEP & CMPO

  4. Problem Formulation (2)- Happiness Research - Impact of Satisfaction with the Community and Neighbourhood on Life Satisfaction: Sirgy & Cornwell 2002; Shields & Wooden 2003 Neighbours as a Reference Group: Michalos 1986: Multiple Discrepancy Theory Luttmer 2005: relative consumption G. Knies/ SOEP & CMPO

  5. 2. Methodology (1) Individuals living in neighbourhoods where they are worse off than their average neighbour are unhappier Given one’s own income: How is happiness affected by one’s neighbour’s income? Micro-economic happiness modell: LSi = α + β´Xi + γ’Zi+ εi xi = per capita household income zi = per capita neighbourhood income LSi = β1log x1i + γ1log z1i+ εi G. Knies/ SOEP & CMPO

  6. 2. Methodology (2) Playing Devil‘s Advocate: - lower life satisfaction = feeling deprived? - interaction with the NB - neighbourhood infrastructure effects - unobs. heterogeneity controlled G. Knies/ SOEP & CMPO

  7. 3. Data Neighbourhood Indicators German Socio-Economic Panel Characteristics of individuals and households (all years) NB Infrastructure (94,99,04) IDs: address, hhid, persid Ø disposable pc income (Infas) ID= PLZ 93, 98 PLZ Zip-code areas: 9-63,000 inhabitants Ø 9,000 inhabitants (SOEP: 17,000) Impact of NB on... Life-Satisfaction G. Knies/ SOEP & CMPO

  8. 4. Empirical Results: Structure I. Household Income, Neighbourhood Income and Average Happiness in 1999 (very similar results in 1994) II. Multivariate Prediction 1999 (very similar results in 1994) III. Further Hypotheses/ Robustness tests - Measure of Relative Deprivation - Effects of Neighbourhood Infrastructure - Interaction with NB - Unobserved Heterogeneity G. Knies/ SOEP & CMPO

  9. 4. Empirical Results (1)Mean Life Satisfaction by Classes of Household and Neighbourhood Income 1999 G. Knies/ SOEP & CMPO

  10. 4. Multivariate Prediction of Life-Satisfaction G. Knies/ SOEP & CMPO

  11. 4. Measurement of Relative Deprivation G. Knies/ SOEP & CMPO

  12. 4. Interactions 1999 G. Knies/ SOEP & CMPO

  13. 4. Neighbourhood Infrastructure Reduction of β neighbourhood income to 0.04 Statistically significant effects: β <0: parks, sports ground, gym, bars Not statistically significant: β >0: kindergarten, primary school, city β <0: banks, shops, doctors, public transport, youth club, club for elderly G. Knies/ SOEP & CMPO

  14. 4. Unobserved Heterogeneity G. Knies/ SOEP & CMPO

  15. 5. Discussion If anything, people in Germany are happier the more income their neighbours have! Is the theory wrong? Are not all neighbours relevant? Is the neighbourhood scale inappropriate? G. Knies/ SOEP & CMPO

  16. Definitions: Income Measures G. Knies/ SOEP & CMPO

  17. Definitions Income Measures: Σ (SOEP HHY* HH Pop-Weight)= SOEP National Y Σ (PLZ total HHY)= Infas National Y Infas National Y = SOEP National Y Assumptions: distribution of NB Y unaltered through three additional income components Per capita incomes: HHY/HH size= Σ NB HHY/ NB population G. Knies/ SOEP & CMPO

More Related