"Quality of life" has quickly become a catch-all term, but confusion over what it actually means could have serious negative consequences.
Once a term largely used by health-care professionals, now everyone, from politicians to economists to advertising executives, cares about offering good "quality of life." But what does it mean, and how can our political leaders, businesses and economists help to improve it if nobody can clearly define what it is?
As medical and technical advances have helped to increase longevity, our focus has shifted from quantity to quality of life. Yet, "quality of life" is subjective and multidimensional, encompassing positive and negative features of life. It's a dynamic condition that responds to life events. It can include everything from physical health, psychological state, level of independence, family, education, wealth, religious beliefs, a sense of optimism, local services and transport, employment, social relationships, housing and the environment.
Scholars of economics, sociology, political science and social psychology have attempted to define and quantify quality of life in order to make meaningful observations of society and formulate optimal policy prescriptions. Unfortunately, few, if any, of these attempts have systematically measured or used quality of life in a quantitative evaluation of data.
It is imperative that such scholars explore the quality of life conceptually, develop and validate an index that measures life quality, and discuss how that measure might be used to explore political and social outcomes. Quality of life information is a useful policymaking tool because it can identify predicaments, provide value weightings, infer prospective project impacts, assess project outcomes, suggest alternate lifestyles and alert leaders to growing disaffection.
Although much is known about well-being and quality of life generally, there is insufficient understanding and measurement of human functioning during chronic constraint. This difficulty is especially true when and where constraints extend beyond economic disadvantage to include persistent political dissatisfaction and polarisation and their associated constraints.
For most of us, achieving the best possible quality of life that we can for ourselves and others is our main aim in life. It is, of course, for people to make their own decisions about their lives, but there are things that public policy can do to support us in doing that. The growing awareness and ability to measure people's quality of life or well-being, and the power this gives both individuals and policymakers to make decisions that can help increase it, is undoubtedly welcome, but, notwithstanding that, I think that we are still lagging behind leading countries whose populations enjoy and boast of a high and tangible standard of quality of life and well-being.
Additional proposals are needed to support an increased and enhanced quality of life and well-being in areas that conventional economic approaches affect little, if at all. Traditionally, economic stability was considered a leading factor and yardstick in assessing a country's quality of life. An inflation rate of 0% was considered a theoretical optimum. So the bigger the deviation, the less attractive it is. Additional risk factors were government debt and budget deficits (in relation to gross domestic product), which, with higher values, also carry higher long-term risks. However, a balanced budget, or even a surplus, was seen as a positive signal. The country's unemployment rate was also included, as it indirectly leads to higher social expenditure, and long-term unemployment is also a risk to old-age pensions. The ratio of the available money supply to currency reserves was also included as a long-term safety criterion.
Political stability does not help if it comes from dictatorial principles and if the people have no influence. The laws passed must not only sound good but must also be implemented and complied with by the government. This subject area therefore primarily includes compliance with the "rule of law" and the regulatory quality of a government. In addition, other factors include democratic participation by the population and, with less weight, measures to combat corruption. Assessing not only the measures against corruption but also how they're perceived by the population is of utmost importance.
Health services are also pivotal to the quality of life. The most heavily weighted factor in the health sector is average life expectancy, which reflects other factors, such as regular and healthy nutrition. In addition, the drinking water supply as well as the number of doctors and hospital beds in relation to the number of inhabitants must also be taken into account in this sector.
Quality of life is generally a non-financial component associated with job and life satisfaction. Yet it remains a highly subjective measure of happiness that is an essential component of many financial decisions, such as financial security, job satisfaction, family life, health and safety. A common quality of life factor includes free time, commute, weather and harmonious relationships with others.
Cultural perspectives, values, personal expectations and goals of what we want from life, too, are not to be excluded.
For too long now, a precise, clear and shared definition of quality of life is still a long way off. Often, our political and social leaders don't even attempt to define the concept, using it instead as an indicator.
Subjectivity continues to be fundamental to our understanding of "quality of life." As it stands, the confusion over what "quality of life" means does little to help in any field and could have serious ethical consequences.
Ultimately, it is our decisions, not our conditions, that determine our quality of life.
Dr Mark Said is a lawyer