Inzinerine Ekonomika-Engineering Economics, 2013, 24(1), 111-118

Determinants of Subjective Wellbeing in Lithuania

Mindaugas Degutis, Sigitas Urbonavicius

Vilnius University
Sauletekio av. 9, LT-10222, Vilnius, Lithuania
e-mail: mindaugas.degutis@ef.vu.lt; sigitas.urbonavicius@ef.vu.lt

http://dx.doi.org/10.5755/j01.ee.24.2.2024

The article analyses relation between subjective wellbeing (SWB) expressed as general satisfaction with life and its
possible micro level determinants. Many studies have been published that relate macro level determinants (such as GDP
or unemployment level) with aggregated national level of SWB. There is a vast amount of economic literature which
analyses few or even single demographic, socio-economic, social and attitudinal/cultural variables that influence life
satisfaction at an individual level. But it is a rare case that study is done on a rich data set that includes all the
aforementioned variables in a single analysis and is nationally representative. Moreover, there is no thorough analysis of
micro level determinants of life satisfaction in Lithuania. The present study analyses Lithuanian data of Eurobarometer
study on social capital that includes many variables that are considered by theoretical literature as likely determinants of
SWB. Micro level analysis shows that most important determinants of general life satisfaction in Lithuania are satisfaction
with health and financial situation. Employment status, educational level, marital status, community involvement, presence
of children also tend to be significantly related to subjective wellbeing. The study also revealed that age in contrary to
many previous studies should not be considered as an important determinant of SWB as its effect is explained by
differences of health and financial satisfaction levels. Nevertheless, further studies are needed to reveal the nature of
relations and interdependency of different variables and SWB more deeply. Further analysis of rich data sets that include
many countries would also allow better understanding the influence of such variables as country development level or
culture.
Keywords: subjective wellbeing, determinants of SWB, life satisfaction, happiness studies, Lithuania.

Introduction SWB phenomenon is addressed by different scientists:

The last two decades show an increasing interest of economists, psychologists, sociologists, and others. As
scientists to subjective wellbeing (SWB) studies. Scientists noted by Dolan et al., (2008) more than 150 articles
as well as policy makers tend to recognize the importance analyzing SWB problems were published only in economic
of subjective wellbeing as one of the targets and indicators literature during the period from 1990 to 2006. When
of general wellbeing of society (Hayo & Seifert, 2003; looking into determinants of SWB there are two main
Diener & Seligman, 2004). It is considered not only a streams of research: macro level analysis and micro level
measure of success that could be used in any policy making analysis. The first one concentrates on understanding what
domain, but also a determinant of general public support to macro level variables (national income, inflation,
democratic regime and market economy. SWB is being unemployment level, etc.) influence subjective wellbeing,
more increasingly perceived as a supplement or even an in most cases paying attention to GDP relation to SWB and
alternative to such “objective” indicators as GDP or the so-called “Easterlin paradox” (Degutis et al., 2010).
UNDP’s Human Development Index. Therefore, While the second approach is concentrating on micro level
understanding the nature of SWB, its consequences as well variables that influence personal subjective wellbeing
as its determinants became a major topic for happiness (Bjornskov et al., 2008; Dolan et al., 2008; Peiro, 2006;
studies. In order to influence wellbeing it is necessary to Baird et al., 2010; Helliwell, 2003; Hudson, 2006; Busseri
understand its determinants. et al., 2009).
The concept of SWB is the broadest concept in a group Nevertheless, majority of those studies concentrate on
of concepts that are used to describe the subjective one or two variables that influence SWB or use a specific
indications of personal wellbeing (Diener, 2006). Usually it or unrepresentative sample of respondents to measure the
is used as a synonym to happiness or life satisfaction effect. Moreover, there are very few studies that focus on
concepts which are the most common empirical indicators determinants of SWB in Central and Eastern Europe. They
of SWB in large worldwide or regional data sets (Dolan et either use quite old data including a limited number of
al., 2008). Studies show that happiness and life satisfaction countries and variables (Hayo & Seifert, 2003; Hayo,
indicators are highly correlated (Di Tella et al., 2003). It 2007), or focus on macroeconomic indicators (Degutis et
means that whatever indicator is taken to represent al., 2010; Malesevic & Perovic, 2008), or focus on a single
subjective wellbeing their trends in longer time period country (Verbic & Stanovnik, 2006; Malesevic & Perovic,
remain the same. 2010). Although there are studies (Akranaviciute &
Ruzevicius, 2007) that measure quality of life in Lithuania,

-111-
 Mindaugas Degutis, Sigitas Urbonavicius. Determinants of Subjective Wellbeing in Lithuania

only few of them analyze subjective wellbeing and its already mentioned, this article will focus on micro level
determinants particularly in the country. Silinskas & determinants and will not analyze macro level variables
Zukauskiene (2004) analyzed demographic and personality such as GDP, inflation, unemployment, climate, income
variables that influence life satisfaction in middle aged inequality, safety, urbanization, welfare system, political
men’s sample. Daukantaite & Zukauskiene (2011) studied regime and other variables that are commonly analyzed in
relation of optimism and SWB in Swedish and Lithuanian SWB studies (Dolan et al., 2008).
middle aged women sample. Susniene and Jurkauskas Income, financial situation of the household is one of
(2009) analyzed the importance of inclusion of SWB the most often used variables, which influence on SWB is
measurement into the assessment of quality of life. From measured. Most of the studies find that there is a direct
time to time there is even a public debate in popular media positive (although gradually diminishing with higher
on what makes people happy. Some of the participants income) relation between individual/household income and
argue that elder people are more satisfied, others, that vice life satisfaction (Clark et al., 2007; Verbic & Stanovnik,
versa (Alfa, 2011a). There are also arguments in public 2006; Jagodzinski, 2010; Malesevic & Perovic, 2010): the
media given by scientists that income is not important higher the income, the higher the level of subjective
determinant of subjective wellbeing (Alfa, 2011b). But all wellbeing. Some authors find that relative income is as
this debate either lack scientific rigidity or are based on much or even more important than absolute income (Dorn
studies carried out in other countries. Therefore, hopefully et al., 2007; Luttmer, 2005). While others conclude that
the present study will contribute to the ongoing debate in perception of financial status (or valuation of financial
an academic manner and will provide evidence based situation) has more predictive power than actual income
scientific knowledge on the issue. The problem which is per se even if it is highly related to the latter (Haller &
addressed in this article could be summarized by the Hadler, 2006; Wildman & Jones, 2002). Nevertheless,
following question: what are the main micro-level there is a common agreement that income is an important
determinants of subjective wellbeing in Lithuania. variable and even if it is not used in analysis directly, it is
Therefore, having in mind the lack of systematic and used as a control variable when measuring effects of other
comprehensive analysis of SWB determinants using determinants.
representative national data sets that include as many There is no wide consensus on the effect of education
variables as possible, the aim of this article is to analyze on SWB. Some studies show positive effect with increasing
micro level determinants of life satisfaction in Lithuania life satisfaction in higher education groups (Blanchflower
based on Eurobarometer survey data and to find out which & Oswald, 2004; Ferrante, 2009), others argue that
of them are the most important ones making a major impact education effect is correlated to income and health and
on subjective wellbeing indicators. therefore the latter should be controlled in order to measure
As the majority of previous studies concentrated on the sole power of education (Bukenya et al., 2003). The
very few or even single micro level determinant of SWB positive effect of education is confirmed on Lithuanian data
and used not nationally representative samples, the current as well (Silinskas & Zukauskiene, 2004). Marriage or close
article provides an analysis of high quality comprehensive relations usually are associated with more life satisfaction.
data set and aims at an analysis of as many determinants as Many studies find positive relation between being in close
possible. The article uses the newest available relation and higher life satisfaction scores (Helliwell,
representative data from 2004 Eurobarometer survey. 2004 2003). Separation with a partner due to divorce or death
data is used as all later surveys do not have that according to studies causes the lowest level of subjective
comprehensive set of measures of different determinants of wellbeing.
life satisfaction. They include one or several measures but Also there is no clear answer whether type of work is
not all necessary variables in one set in the same sample of significant in determining happiness. Some studies suggest
respondents. The study employs a secondary analysis of that self – employed respondents tend to be happier
survey data using non-parametrical statistical testing (Blanchflower & Oswald, 1998), but this relation obviously
procedures, namely Chi-square tests, to determine the needs more investigation. But there is a consistent
relation between variables. agreement that unemployment negatively affects subjective
The first section of the article is devoted to literature wellbeing. The effect is apparent controlling for other
analysis and construction of research hypotheses. Then, variables (education, income, health) as well (Winkelmann,
results of data analysis are presented and discussed, and, 2004; Meier & Stutzer, 2006). Unemployment causes both
finally, conclusions of the study are drawn. non-financial and financial loses, therefore its effect on
wellbeing is considered as one of the strongest effects.
Determinants of subjective wellbeing Some authors argue that unemployment effects also depend
on the gender: males are affected more (Brereton et al.,
Micro level determinants of SWB indicated in previous 2008).
studies can be grouped into several broad groups: 1) Studies suggest a U-shaped curve relation between age
demographic characteristics, such as age, gender, presence and subjective wellbeing. Younger and older age group
of children, health; 2) socio-economic characteristics, such respondents tend to be happier than middle aged
as income, education, marital status, (un)employment, type respondents (Ferrer-i-Carbonell & Gowdy, 2007). Other
of work; 3) social relations, such as caring for others, studies find a different shape of relation (Baird et al.,
community involvement, seeing friends and relatives; 4) 2010), but nevertheless, agree, that age is an important
attitudes such as trust in other people, religiousness. As determinant of happiness. There is no agreement among

- 112 -
 Inzinerine Ekonomika-Engineering Economics, 2013, 24(1), 111-118

scientist whether gender is an important variable in Analysis of determinants of subjective wellbeing

happiness studies. Some scientists find a significant in Lithuania
relation (Alesina et al., 2004), while others argue, that
relation is not significant (Louis & Zhao, 2002). Studies Data. Data of Special Eurobarometer study “Social
find that impact of having children may vary depending on capital”1 carried out in the whole EU and Lithuania as well
other factors. If other factors are negative (low income, no is used in the analysis. It is the latest and most
partner, poor health), children may further increase comprehensive empirical study that includes majority of
dissatisfaction with life (Alesina et al., 2004; Frey and indicators of determinants of subjective well being. The
Stutzer, 2000). Haller and Hadler (2006) find that current study is not aimed at trend’s analysis nor is
children’s effect is insignificant. Still other authors find a supposed to measure change. Moreover, it looks legitimate
positive relation between having children and life to claim, that importance and nature of relation between
satisfaction (Angeles, 2010). Most of studies also determinants and SWB does not change over time.
consistently show a strong impact of health on SWB Lithuanian data is extracted from the file and analyzed
(Dolan et al., 2008). Both physical and mental health has a separately. Lithuanian sample is 1004 respondents aged 15
strong positive effect on life satisfaction. +. The survey was conducted in November – December,
Few studies done about impact of care giving to others 2004 using a random probability sampling procedures. It is
suggest that in majority cases it is associated negatively representative of total Lithuanian population aged 15 years
with life satisfaction (Marks et al., 2002). The effect is and over with a marginal error of ± 3.1 percent.
especially strong when care is given to a close relative, Indicators. Eurobarometer survey provides a unified
family member. On the other hand, community measure of life satisfaction in sense of questioning and
involvement and volunteering has positive impact to life methodology employed to sampling and interviewing
satisfaction according to many studies (Pichler, 2006; respondents. The standard life satisfaction question asked
Helliwell, 2003; Helliwell & Putnam, 2004). Strong in Eurobarometer is “On the whole how satisfied are you
relations and socializing with family and friends also have with the life you lead?” The answers are given on Likert
positive impact on life satisfaction (Pichler, 2006). scale of four possible answers where 4 means – very
Trust in other people is associated to higher satisfaction satisfied; 3 – fairly satisfied; 2 – not very satisfied; and 1 –
with life by majority of studies. Helliwell (2003), Helliwell not satisfied at all. Life satisfaction variable is measured on
and Putnam (2004) analyzing World Values Survey data ordinal level. Values of general life satisfaction question
show that happiness is positively related to trust level. were recoded into two categories: “satisfied” and “not
Although the direction of relation is not always clear. satisfied”.
Moreover, even trust in public institutions such as Eurobarometer study does not include a question about
government, police, legal system is also positively associated individual or household income. Therefore, to measure an
with higher life satisfaction (Helliwell & Putnam, 2004; effect of income, the question about satisfaction with
Hudson, 2006). In this case it is also not clear whether trust financial situation was used. As already mentioned this
is a predictor of life satisfaction or vice versa. Evidence from indicator by some authors is considered even better
several studies also supports the idea that greater life determinant of SWB than income per se. Eurobarometer
satisfaction is related to religiousness. This relation between study also uses a standard question about education “How
SWB and religion is found irrespective of their confession old were you when you stopped full – time education”? In
(Helliwell, 2006; Heliwell & Putnam, 2004). this analysis responses are recoded into two groups: a)
Hypotheses. Based on review of literature the following before 22 years old meaning less than university education
hypotheses are formulated for the analysis of Lithuanian and b) 22 years and over meaning university education.
data: Also importance of religion is used as an indicator of
H1: People with higher income will show the higher religiousness (Question: How important is each of the
level of subjective wellbeing. following in your life? 4 point Likert scale). Satisfaction
H2: Younger people will be more satisfied with their with health will be used as an indicator of respondent’s
lives in Lithuania. health shape. Full questionnaire used of the survey could be
H3: People with higher education level will be more found in the end of the survey’s report.
satisfied with their lives. Data analysis. Chi-square tests were applied to
H4: Unemployed respondents will show lower level of measure the equality of distribution of life satisfaction
SWB. levels within different categories of determinant variables.
H5: People living in marriage will be happier. Adjusted standardized residuals are used to determine
H6: People who have children will be more satisfied which categories of variables are significantly different
with their lives. from the expected distribution of values.
H7: People involved in communities will be more Results of the analysis by each single determinant are
satisfied with their lives. summarized in table No. 1.
H8: Religious respondents will be more satisfied with
their lives.
H9: People who are satisfied with their health will be
happier. 1
Eurobarometer reports may be found at
H10: People who trust in others more will show higher http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/index_en.htm. Eurobarometer data files
level of SWB. may be downloaded from German Social Science Infrastructure Service
http://www.gesis.org/redirect/alte-institute/.

- 113 -
 Mindaugas Degutis, Sigitas Urbonavicius. Determinants of Subjective Wellbeing in Lithuania

Table 1
Analysis of SWB determinants
Satisfied with life, % Adjusted standardized residuals N p, Chi – square probability
Satisfaction with financial situation*
Satisfied 92.8 13 995 0.000
Not satisfied 48.9 -13
Age
15-24 81.8 5.8 998 0.000
25-39 67.3 1.8
40-54 60 -0.6
55+ 51.8 -5.3
Education
Still studying 84.9 5.4 968 0.000
Non – university 56.3 -6.2
University 71.8 2.8
Employment**
Employed 68.6 3.5 482 0.000
Not employed 42.1 -4.2
Marital status
Married, living with partner 66 2.9 995 0.000
Never married 76.4 3.9
Unmarried*** 47.9 -6.1
Presence of children
Yes 70.5 3.4 998 0.001
No 58.6 -3.4
Community involvement****
Yes 70.6 2.4 998 0.02
No 60.2 -2.4
Religiousness*****
Important 61.8 0 989 0.97
Not important 62 0
Health******
Satisfied 75.2 9.8 996 0.000
Not satisfied 44.8 -9.8
Trust in others
Trust 72.5 2.8 990 0.007
Don’t trust 60.3 -2.8
Notes:
*Satisfaction with financial situation. Survey question: „For each of the following, please tell me if you are very satisfied, fairly satisfied, not very
satisfied or not satisfied at all? Your financial situation.“ Answers were recoded into two groups: „satisfied“ and „not satisfied“.
**Employment. Retired, housekeepers and students are not included into analysis.
***Unmarried. The category includes divorced, separated and widowed respondents.
****Community involvement. Respondents were given a list of 14 organizations and activities and asked if they are active members of any of them.
Answer “Yes” means a respondent is a member of at least one organization or activity from the list.
*****Religiousness Survey question: How important is each of the following in your life? Would you say it is very important, fairly important, not very
important or not important at all in your life? Religion. Answers were recoded into two groups: „Important“ and „not important“.
****** Health. For each of the following, please tell me if you are very satisfied, fairly satisfied, not very satisfied or not satisfied at all? Your own
health. Answers were recoded into two groups: „satisfied“ and „not satisfied“.

Data analysis shows that only one hypothesis, i.e. that controlled for. For example, education is obviously related
“religious respondents will be more satisfied with their to income, age is related to health, employment is related
lives” is rejected. In all other cases there is a significant to income, and so on. It could be, that true determinant of
relation between each of the variables and life satisfaction. general life satisfaction is, for example, health condition
The relation is particularly strong in case of satisfaction but not age. Therefore, the next step is to test the same
with income, age, and satisfaction with health: more hypotheses controlling for variables that might be the true
satisfied with their income, more satisfied with their health determinants of both life satisfaction and tested
and younger people tend to report significantly higher determinant. In order to decide which variables should be
overall satisfaction levels. used for controlling, a correlation matrix of determinants
Although the impact of trust in other people, marital was produced and all significant relations are taken as
status, employment, community involvement, presence of control variables. Therefore the following effects were
children, and education is not so obvious, it remains tested2:
statistically significant. Those who have more social Impact of education, marital status, health
involvement and social networking (married, having condition, satisfaction with income, presence of
children, involved in community activities, employed children and employment status on general life
people) report general satisfaction more often. The same is satisfaction when controlling for age variable;
with more educated respondents.
Nevertheless the evident question is whether those
hypotheses would hold true if other variables were
2
The same test procedure (Chi-square test) was used to test the hypothesis

- 114 -
 Inzinerine Ekonomika-Engineering Economics, 2013, 24(1), 111-118

Impact of age on general satisfaction when cases. Not satisfied with their health and not satisfied with
controlling for health condition, financial their income is the only group where significant difference
satisfaction; in general satisfaction among age groups is observed:
Impact of satisfaction with income and employment younger people in this group tend to be more satisfied.
on general life satisfaction when controlling for These results suggest that majority of age effect is
education; explained by differences in health condition and income.
Impact of education when controlling for But if these are the same, age effect almost disappears.
employment and satisfaction with income. Also an interesting relation between religiousness and life
Higher education still has a positive impact even if age satisfaction dependant on age is observed. Religious
is controlled. Respondents that have university education people in age group 45+ years tend to be more satisfied
report higher satisfaction level than those who do not have with their lives, although the difference is not statistically
university education (difference varies from +28 to +8 significant.
percent). But the difference diminishes with increase in age. Both satisfaction with financial situation and
Difference between education groups is not statistically employment status have a positive effect on general life
significant in the age group of 55 years and more (although satisfaction when education variable is controlled. More
satisfaction difference is still +8 percent for university satisfied with their financial situation tend to show
education), but it might be due to a smaller sample. significantly higher general satisfaction levels in all
Effect of marital status also remains significant in educational groups (p=0.000). The same effect is observed
almost all age groups. But the happiest groups are different for employed respondents. They are more satisfied
in different age groups. Never married group of compared to unemployed respondents independently from
respondents is most satisfied in age group of 15-24, but education level. On the other hand education is still related
least satisfied in age group 55+ years (86 and 33 percent of to general satisfaction level when employment status is
the group members are satisfied with their lives controlled (higher education resulting in higher satisfaction
accordingly). And the most stable group is married, living levels, p=0.000), although the relation is insignificant in
together respondents (60 to 70 percent of them report case of retired and unemployed respondents. In these cases
satisfaction in all age groups). The only insignificant higher educational levels do not result in significantly
(p=0.23) difference is in the age group of 45-54 years. But higher SWB levels. The same effect is also observed when
again it is partly due to decreased sample size when it is financial satisfaction variable is controlled. There is a
divided into four age groups, as differences between positive significant relation between educational level and
marital status groups on satisfaction are as large as 10 SWB in case of respondents not satisfied with their
percent. financial situation (p=0.000), but it disappears in case of
Satisfaction with health does not have any significant those who are satisfied with their financial situation
relation with general satisfaction with life only in age (p=0.53).
group of 15-24 years. But only 18 of 135 respondents
representing this age group are not satisfied with their Conclusions
health condition. In all other age groups there is an Subjective wellbeing in Lithuania is determined by
extremely strong positive relation between satisfaction many factors, satisfaction with health and satisfaction with
with health and general satisfaction with life (p=0.0000 in financial situation being the most important ones. The most
all cases, and standardized adjusted residuals are 3.5 and satisfied individuals tend to be employed, well educated,
higher). The same holds true in all age groups in case of socially tied and active (married, having children, involved
satisfaction with financial situation. It has extremely in community), but most importantly financially satisfied
positive impact on general satisfaction with life (the and healthy people. It sets clear guideposts for policy
difference of general satisfaction between financially makers seeking to increase the overall happiness of the
satisfied and not satisfied is 30 to 50 percent). society. Primary focus of any policy set to increase
Employment has most positive effect on SWB in age subjective wellbeing has to be economic wellbeing and
group of 25-54 years (p=0.007 and 0.024 in those two age growth as well as effective health care system. But also
groups). Obviously this age group is the most active social involvement and social/family ties are important in
professionally and work is an important part of the life. order to achieve the maximum level of subjective wellbeing.
The only age group where a significant relation between Age which was considered by many studies as an
life satisfaction and having children is 25-39 years age important determinant of SWB does not have a significant
group (p=0.048). Respondents who have children report impact when health and financial satisfaction is controlled.
higher levels of life satisfaction. Neither younger nor elder population is more satisfied with
Age also has a significant effect on life satisfaction their life in general provided that their financial situation
even when satisfaction with health and satisfaction with and health condition are equal. Therefore, ageing of
income is controlled. Still younger respondents tend to society should not have any effect on general level of SWB
report higher SWB levels. Especially strong effect is if social and healthcare systems are effective.
observed when financial satisfaction is controlled Further studies of rich data sets would allow to analyze
(p=0.000). The effect is not so strong but still significant in more complex relations between subjective wellbeing and
case of controlling health satisfaction variable. But if both its determinants. Such studies might include several
satisfaction with health and satisfaction with income countries with different socio-economic development
variables are controlled, impact of age disappears in some levels to investigate if relations found in Lithuanian case

- 115 -
 Mindaugas Degutis, Sigitas Urbonavicius. Determinants of Subjective Wellbeing in Lithuania

would hold true in other Eastern European countries or determinants of SWB – should be analyzed more
developing societies in general. Further analysis could also thoroughly in order to understand the nature of its impact
reveal if there are any differences regarding determinants on subjective wellbeing as well as its possible effects in
of SWB between rich and poor countries, different relation with other determinants.
cultures. Also each of the variables – potential

References
Akranaviciute, D., & Ruzevicius, J. (2007). Quality of Life and its Components Measurement. Inzinerine Ekonomika-
Engineering Economics(2), 44-49.
Alesina, A, Di Tella, R., & MacCulloch, R. (2004). Inequality and Happiness: are Europeans and Americans Different?
Journal of Public Economics, vol. 88, pp. 2009-2044. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2003.07.006
Alfa (2011a), Amzius ir laime: ar vyresni zmones tampa laimingesniais? Available from internet: http://www.alfa.lt/
straipsnis/ 10433829/ Amzius.ir.laime.ar.vyresni.zmones.tampa.laimingesniais.=2011-01-01_05-50/
Alfa (2011b). Available from internet: Kiek reikia pinigu, kad butum laimingas? http://www.alfa.lt/straipsnis/
10595165/?Kiek.reikia.pinigu.kad.butum.laimingas.=2011-02-22_16-12
Angeles, L. (2010). Children and Life Satisfaction. Journal of Happiness Studies, 11, 523-538.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10902-009-9168-z
Baird, B., Lucas, R., & Donellan M. (2010). Life Satisfaction Across the life Span: Findings From two Nationally
Representative Panel Studies. Social Indicators Research, 99, 183-203. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11205-010-9584-9
Bjornskov, C., Dreher, A., & Fischer, J. (2008). Cross Country Determinants of Life Satisfaction: Exploring Different
Determinants Across Groups in Society. Social Choice Welfare, 30, 119-173. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00355-007-
0225-4
Blanchflower, D., & Oswald, A. (1998). What Makes an Entrepreneur? Journal of Labour Economics, 16, 26- 60.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/209881
Blanchflower, D., & Oswald, A. (2004). Well – Being Over Time in Britain and the USA. Journal of Public Economics,
88, 1359-1386. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0047-2727(02)00168-8
Brereton, F., Clinch, J. P., & Ferreira, S. (2008). Employment and Life – Satisfaction: Insights from Ireland. The Economic
and Social Review, 39, 207-234.
Bukenya, J., Gebremedhin, T., & Schaeffer, P. (2003). Analysis of Rural Quality of Life and Health: a Spatial Approach.
Economic Development Quarterly, 17, 280-293. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0891242403255325
Busseri, M., Sadava, S., Molnar D., & DeCourville, N. (2009). A Person – Centered Approach to Subjective Well – Being.
Journal of Happiness Studies, 10, 161-181. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10902-007-9072-3
Clark, A., Frijters, P., & Shields, M. (2007). A Survey of the Income Happiness Gradient. Journal of Economic Literature,
46, 95-144. http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/jel.46.1.95
Daukantaite, D., & Zukauskiene, R. (2011). Optimism and Subjective Well – Being: Affectivity Plays Secondary Role in
the Relationship between Optimism and Global life Satisfaction in the Middle – Aged Women. Longitudinal and
Cross – Cultural Findings. Journal of Happiness Studies.
Degutis, M., Urbonavicius, S., & Gaizutis, A. (2010). Relation between life Satisfaction and GDP in the European Union.
Ekonomika, 89(1), 9-21.
Diener, E., & M. Seligman (2004). Beyond Money: Toward an Economy of Well – Being. Psychological Science in the
Public Interest, 5, 1-31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.00501001.x
Diener, E. (2006). Guidelines for National Indicators of Subjective Well – Being and Ill-Being. Journal of Happiness
Studies, 7, 397-404. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10902-006-9000-y
Di Tella, R., MacCulloch, R. T., & Oswald, A. (2003). “The macroeconomics of happiness”. The Review of Economics
and Statistics, 85(4), 809-27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/003465303772815745
Dolan, P., Peasgood, T., & White, M. (2008). Do We Really Know What Makes us Happy? A Review of the Economic
Literature on the Factors Associated With Subjective Well-Being. Journal of Economic Psychology, 29, 94-122.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2007.09.001
Dorn, D., Fischer, J., Kirchgassner, G., & Sousa-Poza, A. (2007). Is it Culture of Democracy? The Impact of Democracy
and Culture on Happiness. Social Indicators Research, 82, 505-526. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11205-006-9048-4
Ferrante, F. (2009). Education, Aspirations and Life Satisfaction. Kyklos, 62, 542-562. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
6435.2009.00450.x
Ferrer-i-Carbonell, A., & Gowdy, J. (2007). Environmental Degradation and Happiness. Ecological Economics, 60, 509-
516. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.12.005

- 116 -
 Inzinerine Ekonomika-Engineering Economics, 2013, 24(1), 111-118

Frey, B., & Stutzer, A. (2000). Happiness, Economy and Institutions. The Economic Journal, 110, 918-938.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-0297.00570
Haller, M., & Hadler M. (2006). How Social Relations and Structures Can Produce Happiness and Unhappiness: an
International Comparative Analysis. Social Indicators Research, 75, 169-216. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11205-004-
6297-y
Hayo, B. (2007). Happiness in Transition: an Empirical Study on Eastern Europe. Economic Systems, 31, 204-221.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecosys.2006.08.003
Hayo, B., & Seifert, W. (2003). “Subjective economic Well-Being in Eastern Europe”. Journal of Economic Psychology,
24, 329-48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0167-4870(02)00173-3
Helliwell, J. F. (2003). How’s Life? Combining Individual and National Variables to Explain Subjective Well-Being.
Economic Modelling, 20, 31-360. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0264-9993(02)00057-3
Helliwell, J. F., & Putnam, R. (2004). The Social Context of Well-Being. Philisophical Transactions of the Royal Society
London, 359, 1435-1446. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2004.1522
Helliwell, J. F. (2006). Well-being, Social Capital and Public Policy: What’s New? The Economic Journal, 510, pp. 34-45.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2006.01074.x
Hudson, J. (2006). Institutional Trust and Subjective Well-Being Across the EU. Kyklos, 59(1), 43-62.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6435.2006.00319.x
Jagodzinski, W. (2010). Economic, Social and Cultural Determinants of Life Satisfaction: are there Differences between
Europe and Asia? Social Indicators Research, 97, 85-104. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11205-009-9555-1
Louis, V., & Zhao, S. (2002). Effects of Family Structure, Family SES, and Adulthood Experiences on Life Satisfaction.
Journal of Family Issues, 23, 986-1005. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/019251302237300
Luttmer, E. (2005). Neighbors as Negatives: Relative Earnings and Well – Being. The Quarterly Journal of Economics,
20, 963-1002.
Malesevic Perovic, L. (2008). Subjective Economic Well – being in Transition Countries: Investigating the Relative
Importance of Macroeconomic Variables. Financial Theory and Practice, 32, 519-537.
Malesevic Perovic, L. (2010). Life satisfaction in Croatia. Croatian Economic Survey, 12, 45-81.
Marks, N., Lambert, J., & Choi, H. (2002). Transitions to Caregiving, Gender and Psychological Well-Being: a
Prospective US National Study. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 64, 657-667. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-
3737.2002.00657.x
Meier, S., & Stutzer, A. (2006). Is Volunteering Rewarding in Itself? Center for Behavioral Economics and Decision-
making. Federal Reserve Bank of Boston.
Peiro, A. (2006). Happiness, Satisfaction and Socio – Economic Conditions: Some International Evidence. The Journal of
Socio – Economics, 35, 348-365. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2005.11.042
Pichler, F. (2006). Subjective Quality Of life of Young Europeans. Feeling Happy but Who Knows Why. Social Indicator
Research, 75, 419-444. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11205-004-4337-2
Susnienė, D. & Jurkauskas, A. (2009). The Concepts of Quality of Life and Happiness – Correlation and Differences.
Inzinerine Ekonomika-Engineering Economics(3), 58-67.
Silinskas, G., & Zukauskiene R. (2004). Subjektyvios geroves isgyvenimas ir su juo susije veiksniai vyru imtyje.
Psichologija, 30, 47-58.
Verbic, M., & Stanovnik, T. (2006). Analysis of Subjective Well-Being in Slovenia. Eastern European Economics, 44, 60-
70. http://dx.doi.org/10.2753/EEE0012-8755440204
Wildman, J., & Jones, A. (2002). Is it Absoliute Income or Relative Deprivation that Leads to Poor Psychological well –
Being? A Test Based on Individual – Level Longitudinal Data. University of York, YSHE.
Winkelmann, R. (2004). Subjective Well – Being and the Family: Results From an Ordered Probit Model With Multiple
Random Effects. Institute for the Study of Labour, Bonn, IZA DP, No. 1016

Mindaugas Degutis, Sigitas Urbonavičius

Subjektyvios gerovės veiksniai Lietuvoje
Santrauka
Pastaruosius du dešimtmečius mokslininkai skiria vis daugiau dėmesio subjektyvios gerovės tyrimams. Ji suvokiama ne tik kaip politikos sėkmės
matmuo, bet ir svarbus bendros paramos demokratijai ir rinkos ekonomikai veiksnys. Todėl tyrimai, kuriais siekiama išsiaiškinti pasitenkinimo gyvenimu
prigimtį bei nustatyti jo pagrindinius veiksnius, tampa vis svarbesni. Subjektyvi gerovė tyrimuose paprastai apibrėžiama naudojant vieną iš rodiklių:
laimės arba pasitenkinimo gyvenimu vertinimus (Dolan ir kt., 2008). Nors subjektyvios gerovės fenomeną tiria daugybė mokslo sričių – ekonomistai,
psichologai, sociologai – egzistuoja dvi pagrindinės studijų kryptys: makro lygmens analizė ir mikro lygmens analizė. Pirmuoju atveju ieškoma ryšio tarp
pasitenkinimo gyvenimu ir dažniausiai makroekonominių rodiklių: BVP, infliacijos, nedarbo lygmens ir pan. Antruoju atveju, ieškoma, kas lemia
subjektyvų gerovės suvokimą individo lygmenyje. Tačiau šiuo atveju dažniausiai apsiribojama vieno, dviejų ar daugiausiai keleto kintamųjų įtakos

- 117 -
 Mindaugas Degutis, Sigitas Urbonavicius. Determinants of Subjective Wellbeing in Lithuania

analize, bet retai yra imamas visas veiksnių kompleksas ir naudojami reprezentatyvių tyrimų duomenys. Lietuvoje šia tema nėra atlikta daug studijų.
Paminėtini Šilinsko ir Žukauskienės (2004), Daukantaitės ir Žukauskienės (2011) ir Degučio ir kitų (2010) darbai. Tačiau nei vienas iš šių tyrimų
nebandė nagrinėti viso veiksnių komplekso remiantis reprezentatyvia šalies gyventojų apklausa. Juose arba buvo nagrinėjami makro lygmens duomenys,
arba analizuojamos specifinės visuomenės grupės, kurios neatspindi visos visuomenės situacijos.
Tad šio straipsnio tikslas ir yra naudojant reprezentatyvius Eurobarometro tyrimo duomenis išanalizuoti, kurie iš teorinėje literatūroje sutinkamų
veiksnių daro įtaką subjektyvios gerovės suvokimui Lietuvoje. Tyrimui naudojami 2004 m. atliktos Eurobarometro apklausos duomenys dėl to, kad nė
viename naujesniame tyrime vienoje vietoje nebuvo įtraukti visi reikalingi subjektyvios gerovės veiksnių rodikliai. Šiame straipsnyje naudotas antrinės
duomenų analizės metodas. Taikytos neparametrinės statistinės analizės procedūros, Chi-kvadrato testas.
Šiame tyrime naudojami įvairūs mikro lygmens veiksniai: a) demografinės charakteristikos, tokios kaip amžius, lytis, vaikų turėjimas; b) socialinės
ir ekonominės charakteristikos, kaip pajamos, išsimokslinimo lygmuo, šeiminis statusas, užimtumas; c) socialinių ryšių rodikliai kaip rūpinimasis kitais,
įsitraukimas į bendruomenės veiklą; d) nuostatos ir vertybės, tokios kaip pasitikėjimas kitais žmonėmis, religingumas. Daugumas autorių (Clark ir kt,
2007; Verbic ir Stanovnik, 2006; Jagodzinski, 2010; Malesevic ir Perovic, 2010) sutinka, kad pajamos arba pasitenkinimas savo finansine padėtimi yra
pozityviai susijęs su bendru pasitenkinimu gyvenimu. Gaunantys aukštesnes pajamas paprastai geriau vertina bendrą pasitenkinimą gyvenimu. Lygiai
taip pat dauguma autorių sutinka, kad toks pats ryšys egzistuoja ir tarp pasitenkinimo savo sveikata lygio ir bendro pasitenkinimo gyvenimu lygio:
geresnis sveikatos būklės vertinimas lemia geresnį bendro pasitenkinimo vertinimą (Dolan ir kt., 2008). Aukštesnis išsimokslinimo lygmuo taip pat
dažniausiai yra siejamas su aukštesniu subjektyvios gerovės lygmeniu. Toks pats ryšys anot autorių (Helliwell, 2003) randamas tarp buvimo santuokoje
bei artimų ryšių su kitais žmonėmis palaikymo bei pasitenkinimo gyvenimu. Dar vienas dažniausiai fiksuojamas teigiamas ryšys yra tarp užimtumo ir
subjektyvios gerovės. Paprastai bedarbiai yra mažiau patenkinti savo gyvenimu nei dirbantieji. Ir nors skirtingi tyrimai atranda skirtingo pobūdžio ryšį
tarp amžiaus ir pasitenkinimo gyvenimu, visi sutinka, kad ryšys egzistuoja (Ferrer-i-Carbonell ir Gowdy, 2007; Baird ir kt., 2010). Tiesa, šio ryšio kryptis
ir pobūdis skirtingose studijose skiriasi: vieni autoriai teigia, kad laimingesni yra jauni žmonės, kiti teigia, kad ryšys yra U formos. Pasitikėjimas kitais
žmonėmis ankstesnių studijų rezultatais taip pat dažniausiai yra teigiamai susijęs su subjektyvia gerove: labiau pasitikintys kitais žmonėmis respondentai
paprastai yra laimingesni nei nepasitikintieji. Galų gale, kai kurie autoriai atranda pozityvų ryšį tarp religingumo ir pasitenkinimo gyvenimu ( Helliwell,
2006; Heliwell ir Putnam, 2004): religingesni žmonės yra labiau patenkinti savo gyvenimu. Tad visi šie ryšiai suformuluoti kaip hipotezės ir buvo
siekiami patikrinti analizuojant 2004 m. atlikto Eurobarometro tyrimo Lietuvos duomenis. Šio tyrimo metu Lietuvoje buvo apklausti 1004 respondentai,
kuriems yra 15 ir daugiau metų. Tyrimo respondentai atrinkti atsitiktinės – tikimybinės atrankos būdu. Tyrimo duomenis galima rasti Vokietijos
socialinių mokslų infrastruktūros tarnybos duomenų archyve adresu: http://www.gesis.org/redirect/alte-institute/.
Remiantis literatūros ir anksčiau atliktų tyrimų analize, buvo suformuluotos tokios tyrimo hipotezės:
Žmonės, gaunantys aukštesnes pajamas yra labiau patenkinti gyvenimu;
Jaunesni žmonės yra labiau patenkinti gyvenimu;
Žmonės, kurių išsimokslinimo lygis yra aukštesnis yra labiau patenkinti gyvenimu;
Bedarbiai yra mažiau patenkinti gyvenimu;
Gyvenantys santuokoje yra labiau patenkinti gyvenimu;
Turintys vaikų žmonės yra labiau patenkinti savo gyvenimu;
Žmonės, įsitraukę į bendruomenės veiklą yra labiau patenkinti gyvenimu;
Religingi respondentai yra labiau patenkinti savo gyvenimu;
Žmonės, kurie yra patenkinti savo sveikatos būkle, yra ir labiau patenkinti gyvenimu bendrai;
Žmonės pasitikintys kitais žmonėmis yra labiau patenkinti gyvenimu.
Duomenų analizėje naudota atskirų grupių pasiskirstymų tolygumo analizė, kurioje pritaikytas Chi-kvadrato statistinio reikšmingumo testas.
Duomenų analizė parodė, kad visi aukščiau aptarti veiksniai yra pozityviai reikšmingai susiję su pasitenkinimu gyvenimu. Vienintelis kintamasis, kuris
nėra reikšmingai susijęs su subjektyvios gerovės vertinimu yra religingumas. Taigi, galima teigti, kad visos išskyrus vieną, tyrimo hipotezės pasitvirtino.
Stipriausias ryšys yra stebimas su amžiaus, pasitenkinimo finansine padėtimi ir pasitenkinimo sveikata kintamaisiais. Tyrimo metu taip pat buvo
tikrinamas ryšys su minėtaisiais veiksniais, kai yra kontroliuojami kiti kintamieji. Ši analizė parodė, kad tiek sveikatos vertinimas, tiek pasitenkinimas
reikšmingai koreliuoja su bendru pasitenkinimu gyvenimu, kai yra kontroliuojamas amžiaus ir išsimokslinimo poveikis, taip pat ryšys yra ir tarp
išsimokslinimo, šeiminio statuso bei pasitenkinimo kontroliuojant amžiaus poveikį. Tačiau kontroliuojant iš karto dviejų kintamųjų – pasitenkinimo
finansine padėtimi ir pasitenkinimo sveikatos būkle – poveikį, ryšys tarp amžiaus ir pasitenkinimo gyvenimu išnyksta. Kitaip tariant amžiaus efektas yra
paaiškinamas kitų kintamųjų poveikiu ir jam dingus, nebelieka ir amžiaus svarbos.
Apibendrinant galima teigti, kad subjektyvi gerovė Lietuvoje yra veikiama daugelio veiksnių, bet labiausiai sveikatos ir finansinės padėties
vertinimo. Taip pat svarbūs veiksniai, lemiantys aukštesnį gerovės lygmenį, yra užimtumas, išsimokslinimas, socialiniai ryšiai, bendruomeninis
dalyvavimas. Taigi, tyrimas aiškiai nubrėžia pagrindines gaires socialinės politikos įgyvendintojams: sveikatos apsaugos priemonės bei ekonominės
gerovės didinimas yra prioritetiniai politikos veiksniai siekiant didinti bendrą visuomenės subjektyvią gerovę. Amžius, kuris daugelyje kitų studijų buvo
laikomas svarbiu kintamuoju, iš tiesų neturi tiesioginio poveikio ir galima teigti, kad jei pensijų sistema ir sveikatos apsauga veikia efektyviai,
visuomenės senėjimas neturi daryti didelio poveikio bendram subjektyvios gerovės lygiui. Tolesni šios krypties tyrimai Lietuvoje turi būti skirti
detalesnei kintamųjų tarpusavio ryšių analizei bei kompleksiniam visų veiksnių modeliavimui tiriant jų poveikį pasitenkinimui gyvenimu.
Raktažodžiai: subjektyvi gerovė, subjektyvios gerovės veiksniai, pasitenkinimas gyvenimu, laimės studijos, Lietuva.

The article has been reviewed.

Received in July, 2012; accepted in April, 2013.

- 118 -