A POTENTIAL NEW TOOL
FOR DECISION-MAKERS
The
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Monitoring
Environmental Studies Division
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGEBGY
-------
FOREWORD
The concept of Quality of Life has emerged in the last few years as an
undefinable measure of society's determination and desire to improve or at least
not permit a further degradation of its condition. Despite its current undefin-
ability, it represents a yearning of people for something which they feel they
have lost or are losing, or have been denied, and which to some extent they wish
to regain or acquire. It is at that point, however, that difficulty arises. Quality of
Life is a very personal expression of one's sense of well being. In a very real sense
it expresses that set of "things" which when taken in the aggregate, makes the
individual happy. Yet, it is also probably true that if asked to express the details
of this aggregate an individual would provide a somewhat different set each time
he is queried. By no means does this suggest that it is hopeless to attempt to
describe the concept of Quality of Life in a manner that has some meaning
within the decision-matrix associated with comprehensive planning of societal
actions. Rather, it implies that considerable effort is required to disentangle the
Quality of Life concept to the point where it has decision making relevance.
•S
o It is to this end that the subject symposium was convened. Its purpose was
essentially three-fold. First, a group was invited that provided a cross section of
the interested community. These ranged from the national to the local, from the
private to the public, and from the organized to the individual. The hope was
^ that such a cross section could shed some light on the richness and possible gross
i ordering of the Quality of Life indicators. In the process it was hoped that there
r~* might possibly emerge a sub-set of indicators with substantial commonality and
-- that this commonality would be sufficient to destroy the notion that a
o population of 200 million people would, of necessity, provide 200 million
^-X different expressions of Quality of Life. Second, it was the hope that out of this
symposium would come some sense of whether a potential mechanism exists for
systematically incorporating the inputs of the public into the decision making
processes that affect the quality of their lives. Finally, it was felt that, at the
very least, one could expect such a conference to provide a sense of what
additional research is needed in this area.
Many people worked long and hard to produce this symposium and
adequately report its results. It was the creature of the Environmental Studies
Division of the Office of Research and Monitoring. John Gerba of this Division
and Edward Bartholomew of Booz-Allen Public Administration Services, Inc.,
who brought symposium program and participants together, and Robert Living-
ston of the Division, who structured the QOL exercises at the conference, were
instrumental in producing this report. Alan Neuchatz, Patricia Kolojeski, Albert
Pines and Kathryn Cousins also assisted in innumerable ways.
111
-------
How well this conference succeeded in accomplishing any of its objectives
can be partially judged by this report. In the final analysis, however, its major
accomplishment may be in what each individual carried away at its conclusion,
and the forces it set in motion.
March 1973
Stanley M. Greenfield
Assistant Administrator for Research and
Monitoring
Environmental Protection Agency
-------
THE QOL CONCEPT
SYMPOSIUM PLANNING GROUP
SYMPOSIUM COORDINATORS
For The Environmental Protective Agency:
John Gerba, Chief, Special Projects, (formerly: Exploratory
Research Branch) Environmental Studies Division
For Booz-Allen Public Administration Services, Inc.:
Edward Bartholomew, Senior Associate
CONTRIBUTORS
Select Advisory Group:
John Abbott, Executive Director, California Tomorrow
Harold S. Becker, Director of Programs, The Futures Group
Alfred Heller, President, California Tomorrow
David Holtz, Staff Officer, National Academy of Sciences
Lester Lees, Director, Environmental Quality Laboratory,
California Institute of Technology
Mancur Olsen, Professor of Economics, University of Maryland
Guy J. Pauker, Research Associate, Environmental Quality Laboratory,
California Institute of Technology
Environmental Protection Agency
Stanley M. Greenfield, Assistant Administrator for Research and Monitoring
Leland D. Attaway, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Research
Peter W. House, Director, Environmental Studies Division
Philip Patterson, Assistant to the Director, BSD
Alan Neuschatz, Chief, Environmental Management Research Branch
Martin Redding, Chief, Ecosystems Research Branch
Kathryn Cousins, Urban Planner, Environmental Studies Division
Robert Livingston, Research Analyst, ESD
Albert Pines, Operations Research Analyst, ESD
Booz-Allen Public Administration Services, Inc.:
Edward F. R. Hearle, Vice President
Margo A. Moore, Administrative Assistant
Mary B. O'Brien, Consultant
Robert W. Shaw, Jr., Principal Scientist
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FOREWORD iii
SYMPOSIUM PLANNING GROUP v
SECTION I
QOL DEBATE: ISSUES RAISED AT AIRLIE HOUSE
PREFACE I-i
I. INTRODUCTION: AN OVERVIEW 1-1
II. THE QUALITY PERSPECTIVES OF VARYING LIFE STYLES 1-13
III. THE APPROACHES OF DIFFERENT DISCIPLINES 1-21
IV. QUANTIFICATION OF THE QUALITY OF LIFE 1-35
V. AN EXPERIMENT IN QOL QUANTIFICATION 1-63
VI. THE NEXT STEPS 1-85
APPENDIX 1-91
REFERENCES 1-93
SECTION II
QUALITY OF LIFE ANTHOLOGY
Compiled by Robert Livingston
PREFACE Il-i
I. DEFINING QUALITY OF LIFE MEASURES-THE STATE
OF THE ART II-1
II. THE Q UALITY OF LIFE CONCEPT 11-19
III. QOL: ENVIRONMENTAL PERSPECTIVES 11-123
IV. QOL: ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL PERSPECTIVES II-149
V. QOL: PSYCHOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES 11-189
VI. QOL: ATTEMPTS AT COMPARATIVE STATISTICS 11-223
VII. REFERENCES II-293
Vll
-------
-------
Section
a
QOL" Debate
Issues Raised
at Airlie Symposium
-------
-------
PREFACE
Major programs have been launched the past several decades to improve the
quality of life of Americans. A massive commitment of funds has been made in
the name of that goal. Daily, governmental decision makers are establishing
policy and programs, and allocating resources in ways that significantly impact
the quality of life of different groups of people in different ways.
The Environmental Studies Division, Office of Research and Monitoring,
Environmental Protection Agency is making an effort to improve the tools avail-
able to decision makers who are necessarily involved in "quality of life" delivery
systems. This effort included the sponsorship of a symposium on the subject
"The Quality of Life Concept-A Potential New Tool for Decision Makers." The
symposium was held at Airlie House in Warrenton, Virginia, on August 29-31,
1972. The objectives of the symposium were to explore the "Quality of Life"
(QOL) concept, to define QOL in terms of its components, and to develop
suggested quantitative approaches to its use in guiding public policy. The results
of this symposium and an elaboration of the issues raised at that time are
summarized in Section I of this volume.
Section II of this volume is a revised version of an anthology first published
in preparation for the Airlie House symposium participants. This present anthol-
ogy was assembled to give some background perspectives for the consideration
of the general reader. The selected readings deal with the QOL concept in
general as well as from the more specific perspectives of different disciplines-
environmental, economic, social, and psychological. The articles represent vary-
ing approaches and levels of consideration and were selected to broaden the
reader's exposure to the QOL concept rather than as a definitive review of the
literature in the field. The articles in no way represent the views of EPA.
I-i
-------
-------
SECTION I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE I-i
I. INTRODUCTION: AN OVERVIEW 1-1
1. The Quality of Life in the United States has become
the Subject of Growing Concern 1-2
2. No Concensus Exists Regarding QOL Definition 1-3
3. Some Definitions of QOL, However, Have Been
Attempted 1-3
4. The History of Attempts to Define and Measure QOL
is Long 1-9
5. A General Consensus Does Exist on the Importance
of the QOL Concept and the Need to Deal With It I
II. THE QUALITY PERSPECTIVES OF VARYING LIFE STYLES I
1. QOL from the Broad Perspective of the American Public 1-13
2. The Perspectives of Youth 1-15
3. The Perspectives of Women 1-16
4. The Perspectives of Blacks and Other Racial Minorities 1-17
5. The Perspectives of the Aged M 9
III. THE APPROACHES OF DIFFERENT DISCIPLINES 1-21
1. An Interdisciplinary Perspective 1-22
I-iii
-------
2. The Environmental Perspective 1-24
3. The Economic Perspective 1-25
4. The Psychological Perspective 1-27
5. The Social Perspective 1-29
6. The Integration of Interdisciplinary Perspectives 1-32
IV. QUANTIFICATION OF THE QUALITY OF LIFE 1-35
1. The Need for QOL Quantification 1-35
2. Concerns About QOL Quantification 1-35
3. Some Basic Assumptions 1-38
4. Some Preliminary Attempts at QOL Quantification 144
5. Research Needs and Goals: The Major Problems in
QOL Quantification 1-61
V. AN EXPERIMENT IN QOL QUANTIFICATION 1-63
1. Development of a QOL Factor List 1-63
2. Weighting of the Factors 1-77
3. The Dependence of Factor Weights on the Decision
Process 1-82
VI. THE NEXT STEPS 1-85
1. The Conference's Answer 1-85
2. Research Needs and Goals 1-86
APPENDIX 1-91
REFERENCES 1-93
I-iv
-------
THE QUALITY OF LIFE CONCEPT
A SYMPOSIUM WRAPUP
-------
-------
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION: AN OVERVIEW
Quality-of-Life—QOL—is a new name for an old notion. In the context of
this document it refers to the well-being of people-primarily in groups but also
as individuals—as well as to the "well-being" of the environment in which these
people live.
This chapter, as those which follow, draws upon the presentations,
discussions, and circulated papers of the August 1972 Symposium sponsored by
the Environmental Protection Agency, on "The Quality-of-Life Concept-A
Potential New Tool for Decision Makers."
This report is not meant to be the definitive work on the subject nor does it
present the "final" answers. Rather, it points forward, focusing on the key
issues of the debate, spotlighting the questions that have been raised, and sifting
through some of the available alternatives as known to us today.
The National Environmental Policy Act mandates the Federal Government
to take action:
"...in protecting and enhancing the quality of the Nation's environ-
ment to sustain and enrich human life."
The Act declares a policy:
"to foster and promote the general welfare, to create and maintain
conditions under which man and nature can exist in harmony, and
fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of present and
future generations of Americans."
Quality of life means different things to different people. It can be stated
that at the present no consensus exists as to what it is or what it means. Many
definitions have been attempted-both theoretical and empirical. Yet a
consensus does exist regarding the importance of the QOL concept, the need to
define it, and its significance as a potential new management tool.
A number of key questions have been raised. How does one apply values,
order, and weights to such things as people, institutions, and the environment?
How does one achieve improvement in the quality of people's lives within the
context of finite resources? What are the trade-offs-the benefits and costs? Who
is responsible for improving the quality of people's lives? What combination of
1-1
-------
federal, state and local government interaction is required? What is required of
individual citizens?
1. THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN THE UNITED STATES HAS BECOME THE
SUBJECT OF GROWING CONCERN
The preamble to the Constitution includes as one statement of purpose
"to...promote the general welfare." This has been the constitutional base for
recent social legislation. But no indicators or definitions of the "general welfare"
were provided by the founding fathers. The only provision for quantification
was that of the dicentennial census, called for in Article 1 of the Constitution.
Nevertheless, the United States is the only country to acknowledge consti-
tutionally the importance of gathered information. This is the first instance of a
nation establishing a guide for its destiny at the very moment of declaring the
civil and political rights of its citizens (Lear, 1972).
When Schopenhauer cynically stated that there are only two sources of
human unhappiness-"not having what you want and having what you
want"—he may have been alluding to the dilemma of quantity versus quality.
The aspirations of the past for quantities of things are rapidly giving way to a
rising concern for quality in life. This shift is precipitating new attempts by
individuals and by government to ascertain just what will bring a sense of well-
being to people.
People today are increasingly aware of significant changes going on around
them. Sheldon and Moore (1968:3) state that the "growth and urbanization of
the population, the rising technicality and bureaucratization of work, the general
upgrading in standards of living, the spread and increasingly higher attainment
levels of education, and the heightened self-awareness and rise of minority
groups have created serious social strains."
A question of central concern to the citizen and to the government is made
more acute by this rapid modern change: how can we know where we have been,
where we are now, and where we are going? Although this is not a new question,
the consequences of the answers may be.
Past ways of analysis no longer seem adequate. As Gross and Springer
(1967:209) have put it: "Executive officials and members of Congress alike are
misled by inadequate interpretation of bad information based on obsolete
concepts and inadequate research and collected by underfed and overlobbied
statistical agencies." The search for quality of life indicators is an attempt to
gather new information that would be useful to evaluate the past, guide the
action of the present,and plan for the future.
1-2
-------
As it now stands, the United States "has no comprehensive set of statistics
reflecting social progress or retrogression" (National Goals Research Staff,
1970). No procedure currently exists for taking the temperature of the nation's
health.
In our nation of rising and unprecedented affluence, social discontent runs
deep and as yet unmeasured. The vague areas of dissatisfaction form the heart of
the problem known as the "quality of life" question. A new emphasis on that
which is beyond "just economics" is developing which underscores the concern
for the natural environment, concern about pollution, health, over-crowding,
cultural opportunities, and political influence. These are the concerns of the new
discussions about "quality of life " (Report of the White House Conference on
Youth, 1971:71-74).
2. NO CONSENSUS EXISTS REGARDING QOL DEFINITION
Most people approach QOL with widely varying preconceived
"definitions." Some definitions deal with such seemingly "non-measurables" as
love, affection, status, happiness, and other subjective feelings. Although in
Chapter IV we will deal with measurement in more detail, it is worth noting at
this stage that the tools are not yet available which will enable one to
confidently do such things as: quantify work satisfaction; set a value on leisure
time; relate both work and leisure to such debates as growth vs. non-growth; and
then relate it all to the environment.
Each individual, organization, agency, and group has its own idea as to
what kind of clock might be placed beside the population clock for the purpose
of counting human well-being. People tend to alter their viewpoints depending
upon what role they are playing and in what group. A person may be responding
as a parent, a subordinate or a supervisor at work, a citizen in the voting booth,
or an attendee at an ethnic dinner and will make decisions regarding what, in a
given situation, will enhance his well-being.
QOL is seen differently by people of different life styles (youth, racial
minorities, women, men, aged, WASPS). People with different academic and
cultural backgrounds likewise approach it differently. For some QOL means
being free to make decisions; for others it is having the security of others making
tough decisions for them.
3. SOME DEFINITIONS OF QOL, HOWEVER, HAVE BEEN ATTEMPTED
Many attempts at defining QOL have been made. In addition, numerous
criteria for a definition of QOL have been advanced (Schmaltz, et al, 1972:1-3).
These include:
1-3
-------
The notion that quality of life refers to an indefinite number of states
and does not imply an evaluation of life styles
The idea that there are as many different life states as there are indi-
viduals (i.e., there is no single, universal quality of life criteria extant
in any society at any given time)
The proposition that quality of life refers to a subjective state of the
individual and can only be partially explained by using such terms as
"trained," "happiness," "educated," "welfare," "self-fulfilled,"
"satisfied," "reason," "purpose," etc. The same holds true of their
opposites: "discontent," "illiterate," "frustrated," "apathetic,"
"alienated," etc.
These criteria suggest that one may proceed simplistically at the risk of
considerable peril. When we look at the rising divorce rate, how do we weigh the
good and the bad when we consider the negative effects of a family staying
together in a continual state of conflict? Also, in defining QOL as well as in
attempting to measure it, how influential or skewed are the results, when data
typification, collection, and evaluation are based on a given value standard: i.e.,
that inside plumbing will improve people's well-being, that higher education is a
ticket to the good life, etc.
QOL definitions are generally of three types:
Precise definitions of what constitutes QOL
Lists of components or factors of QOL without weights
Indirect definitions through definitions of social indicators
(historically, a common way of "defining" QOL)
Nordhaus (James, 1972) suggests a "MEW" index, a measure of economic
welfare. It includes defense spending, police and sanitation, services, road
maintenance (GNP items), and the value of time devoted to leisure, pollution,
urbanization, congestion, and crime (non-GNP items). All of these are based on
their costs, on an objective basis.
Hornback and Shaw (1972) focused on the definition and measurement of
QOL as "a function of the objective conditions appropriate to a selected
population and the subjective attitude toward those conditions held by persons
in that population."
The Report of the White House Conference on Youth (1971:71-74) calls
for the development of criteria for measurement that will fit both individuals
1-4
-------
and the general society. It lists 10 areas of social and individual concern it
^.believes should be considered. These include: the natural environment (preser-
vation of natural beauty and wildlife); the living environment (overall main-
tenance of urban, suburban, and rural living and working areas...clean air and
water...building and street aesthetics); income and basic economic security
(guaranteed living standard, equitable distribution of wealth); training,
education, and culture (opportunity to learn usable skills, problem solving
abilities and the value of the world); and individualism (opportunity for free
expression and selection of "life style," and levels of social tolerance and
alienation), among others.
Singer (1971) looks at QOL in part, economically, stating that QOL will
diminish with the rising costs of such disamenities as pollution and traffic snarls.
He goes on to state that as most people perceive happiness in terms of material
comforts, a loose QOL definition might be "having as much money as possible
left over after taking care of basic necessities, and having the necessary time and
opportunities for spending it in a pleasant way." This also means "having a
maximum range of choices for a way of life."
Perloff (1969) contributes an understanding of measurement concepts in
terms of "indicators" and "accounts" as aspects of a QOL definition. He notes
that "indicators" are "normally used to describe the condition of a single
element, factor, or the like, which is part of a complex interrelated system"
(employment, cost of living, production, etc.). He refers to "accounts" as
"comprehensive systems of data characterized by a balance between inputs and
outputs or inflows and outflows...or providing the value of the total stock of
various items in a total system." He feels that we have a long way to go before a
comprehensive social accounts system for the environment will be feasible. He
suggests that, because of the various interrelations and tradeoffs in developing
such an overall indicator of environmental quality, the concept of net social
benefit (the total or incremental social benefit less social cost) should be
developed.
Atkinson and Robinson (1969) talk in terms of "amenities": a cluster of
variables whose importance increases as more and more people cluster together
in urban regions. For the public interest and the interest of the natural environ-
ment, they state that the urban environment must be treated and managed as a
system with certain inputs and outputs. They provide a survey of a number of
definitions of amenities:
Catherine Bauer Wurster (1960:22547) includes New England village,
Gold Rush town, historic or merely rustic flavor, open space
recreational use, clean air, and water.
1-5
-------
Jean Gottmann (1966:163-78) includes "physical and cultural"
components related to the "good life"; attractive, climatologically
pleasant surroundings, Riviera-type environments, good landscaping,
and urban beauty.
John Burchard includes urban beauty elements: weather and sky,
lakes, river banks, parks, and squares (1965). He also ranks various
cities of the world in terms of an "urban amenity score sheet," based
on 24 qualitative characteristics, which include trees and shrubbery,
generally pleasant climate, distinguished buildings, distinguished
museums, visible past, art in the streets, etc. (1968).
Jon Alexander (1968:55) says that amenities are "those things beyond
life's necessities which make human life meaningful...Their function is
the development of that in us which is uniquely human."
Perloff and Wingo (1964) link the notion of amenities with economic
development and population growth, viewing the concept in terms of
a special constellation of environmental conditions that "affords
conditions of the life highly sought after in an affluent and mobile
society."
Sir William Holford (Mandelker, 1962:32) states "amenity is not a
single quality, it is a whole catalogue of values. It includes the beauty
that an artist sees and an architect designs for; it is the pleasant and
familiar scene that history has evolved; in certain circumstances it is
even utility-the right thing in the right place—shelter, warmth, light,
clean air, domestic service—and comfort stations."
Gunnar Myrdal has called for "uniform standards in regard to all
community amemities," which he defines as everything from "the
provision of streets, parks, and playgrounds and their upkeep to the
building of schools and the improvements of the level of teaching."
Webster's dictionary provides the broadest definition of the term and
by so doing underscores the problem of trying to quantify such
qualitative components. It also sets the stage for our later discussion
of microlevel and macrolevel measurement. Webster includes in the
definition of "amenities" the following: "the quality of being pleasant
or agreeable...the attractiveness and aesthetic or nonmonetary value of
real estate...some thing that conduces to physical or material comfort
or convenience or to a pleasant or agreeable life...an area or location
that provides comforts, conveniences, or attractive surroundings to
residents or visitors."
1-6
-------
Another attempt to get a solid handle on a complex QOL system is the
environmental evaluation system (EES) developed by the Battelle-Columbus
research team. EES (Whitman, 1971) was developed to be replicable, analytical,
and comprehensive, broad enough to include all relevant types of environmental
measurements and indicators as determined through an interdisciplinary
perspective.
The system is based on four environmental categories, seventeen environ-
mental components, and sixty-six environmental parameters. In using the
system, each parameter would be defined according to one or more specific
measurement, as appropriate. This is definition of QOL by category listing.
The system can be viewed structurally, on four levels. Thus, environmental
categories are in general terms, components in intermediate terms, parameters in
specific terms, and measurements in more specific terms. Each level links up to
the level above. The categories and components are:
Ecology
Species and populations
Habitats and communities
Ecosystems
Environmental pollution
Water pollution
Air pollution
Land pollution
Noise pollution
Esthetics
Land
Air
Water
Biota
Manmade objects
Human interest
Education-scientific significance
Historical significance
Cultural significance
Mood-atmosphere significance
1-7
-------
The National Goals Research (NCR) Staff report of 1969 (National Goals
Research Staff, 1970) did not set any goals or offer any planning. However, it^
did compare a variety of national domestic strategies available to the Nation to
guide the processes of change. President Nixon, in directing the staff, stated that
the report should "serve as a focus for the kind of lively widespread public
discussion that deserves to go into decisions affecting our common future."
Although the NGR staff did not offer a definition of QOL, they did come to
grips with the quality of life concept and attempted to outline the problem of
QOL as it relates to a national growth policy. This effort also has contributed to
the debate regarding growth, economic and social indicators, and the attempt to
get at real measures of life's quality.
Dalkey (1968) suggests that the phrase QOL supplants such words as
"happiness," "welfare," and the like, in current discussions of policy in the
urban and domestic areas. Even so, he feels the phrase is just as vague. To
eliminate this vagueness he proposes the development of a comprehensive set of
three kinds of scales:
Relatively objective measures (such as income, age, amount of
communication with friends, etc.)
Subjective ratings (such as job satisfaction, perceived social status,
degree of excitement in daily activities, etc.)
Global subjective scales (such as happiness, amount of worry, number
of times thought of suicide, optimism about the future, etc.)
Using the Delphi technique Dalkey conducted an exercise involving nine
factors of QOL, which settled into four main groups. The groupings were: (1)
health; (2) status, affluence, activity; (3) freedom, security, novelty, with
sociality midway between 2 and 3; and (4) aggression.
Later on, Dalkey, with Rourke (1971) defined the QOL "to mean a
person's sense of well-being, his satisfaction or dissatisfaction with life, or his
happiness or unhappiness." From their interviews 13 QOL factors were
developed and rated, as well as 48 characteristics of QOL.
Another recent attempt at defining QOL (Schmalz, 1972) was also
subjective: "QOL can be measured by determining the difference between an
individual's state of being as he perceives it and the individual's aspirations,
desires, and needs."
Christakis (1972 a:37,42) makes clear the need to consider individual value
bases in developing QOL definitions. He states that QOL is a multidimensional
1-8
-------
entity of many components (such as the quality of housing, quality of
education, quality of health care, etc.). He defines a social issue, or problem, as
"the dissonance between the desired (or aspired) QOL level and the actual (or
perceived) QOL level." He ties together man's search for meaningful ways to
shape his future with the ecological crisis that now exists and that needs direct
and prompt intervention. He then develops a framework for public participation
in the goals and policy formulation process based on QOL considerations and
value bases. Christakis also proposes a methodology for determining regional
economic development futures, based on QOL and value base considerations.
4. THE HISTORY OF ATTEMPTS TO DEFINE AND MEASURE QOL IS
LONG
Most of the attempts to deal with QOL and social indicators occurred in
the 1960's.
For many years only economic indicators, such as the Gross National
Product and the Consumer Price Index, have been available to decision makers
to measure "progress" and the health of the nation. The failure of these
indicators to account for non-economic factors has led to the quest for QOL
indicators.
The Hoover appointed Research Committee on Social Trends was one of
the earliest attempts in this country to develop the social side of the public
equation. Appointed in 1929, it issued its report in 1933. William F. Ogburn, the
director of the study, was a pioneer in social indicators. Three of the leading
experts in social indicators today were once his students: Albert Biderman, Otis
Dudley Duncan, and Eleanor Bernert Sheldon. The report was one of the first to
stress the need for planning for the general welfare, observing that man's cultural
heritage was mutating faster than his physical and biological heritage.
The Employment Act of 1946 established the Council of Economic
Advisors, the annual Economic Report of the President, and the Joint Economic
Committee in the Congress. This was the legal basis for the compilation and use
of major economic indicators.
In 1962, Harvard Business School's Raymond Bauer asked why a system
that was like the highly organized economic indicators could not be developed.
He followed with a book (1966) in which he focused on the need to assess where
the country is in relation to its values and goals. He discussed the need to
evaluate programs to determine their impact as a means of facilitating the
1-9
-------
correct anticipation of the consequences of change. This book was a result of his
studies for NASA in 1959 in which he noted that no true indicators of
i
behavioral change existed.
The Social Science Advisory Committee (to President Kennedy), in 1962,
urged the establishment of a systematic collection of basic behavioral data for
the United States. The Russell Sage Foundation Annual Report for 1964-1965
announced an interest in social change and social indicators. Bertram Gross
advocated, in 1966, the use of the Employment Act of 1946 as a precedent for
developing a series of viable social indicators. The National Commission on
Technology, Automation, and Economic Prograss, in 1966, called for social
accounting, annual Social Reports to the President, and a full opportunity and
social accounting act.
In 1967, Senate Bill S843, the "Full Opportunity and National Goals and
Priorities Act," called for an annual Social Report to the President, Council of
Social Advisers, and a Joint Committee (of Congress) on the Social Report.
Though passed, it was not enacted. It was introduced again in 1972 (Senate Bill
S-5). Again it was passed by the Senate, but did not come to a vote in the House.
Sponsored by Senator Mondale and others, its purpose is to help devise "a
long-term strategy for well-being" (Mondale, 1967:3).
Although many theoretical articles and books have been written, not much
actual research has been done.
The current debate centers on what social indicators can, in reality, actually
do. On one side of the debate is the belief that social indicators will be able to
identify and develop specific social goals, measure the progress toward attaining
those goals, determine priorities among goals, and link policy tools to social
objectives (National Science Foundation, 1971).
Sheldon and Freeman (1970) on the other hand, state that social indicators
are not a panacea, but do have significant potential, such as improving
descriptive reporting, providing an analysis of social change, and predicting
future social events and social life. Social indicators cannot, they suggest, set
goals and priorities, evaluate programs, or develop a national balance sheet.
The debate centers not on gathering the information but on what you do
with it once you've gathered it. To help resolve the debate, the Social Science
Research Council (headed by Eleanor Bernert Sheldon) is establishing a Center
for the Coordination of Research on Social Indicators (to be funded initially by
the National Science Foundation). The Center will work from the following
pre-suppositions:
1-10
-------
Priorities and goals are more dependent on national values than on
* assembled data.
Program evaluation necessitates the demonstration that the programs
determine the outcomes (measured by indicators) rather than
uncontrolled extraneous variables.
The essential theoretical prerequisites for the development of a system
of social accounts—defining the variables and the interrelationships
among them—is particularly deficient, if not completely lacking.
A significant recent development is the study currently being done by the
Office of Management and Budget, which will lead to a first draft of a "Social
Report." The report is to help in the understanding of social conditions and
social change in the United States. The publication, expected in the winter of
1973, will have no analysis accompanying its statistical presentation. The eight
major social areas to be covered are: health; education; employment; income;
housing and physical environment; leisure and recreation; public safety and legal
justice; and population. OMB believes that these areas comprise the basic human
needs and wants, and will reveal the general well-being of the entire population.
Criteria for selection were that it should:
Measure individual or family well-being
Reflect a desirable output, or end products of a social process
Include measures that could be significant in appraising circum-
stances in more than one area.
Perhaps the most significant recent development is the discussion regarding
micro-level and macro-level indicators. As a national measurement of the
nation's health, GNP has some utility. But it is on the macro-level. It is
inadequate when applied to individuals. QOL, on the other hand, can easily be
applied directly at the local or individual level with the same specificity that
GNP relates to the nation. This is a micro-level measure. QOL is viewed by many
as not applying to the nation as a whole. In their view, the only way QOL could
be applied at the macro-level would be by homogenizing the country, forcing
everyone to accept the same value standards.
One of the key difficulties in the modern world is the fear engendered by a
lack of understanding among the country's pluralistic micro-cultures. Each
person's view of the world is determined by his personal and group experience of
life (Solzhenitsyn, 1972). To reduce the fears, Bohannon (1971) suggests
adhering to civil rights laws based on equality and justice combined with
Ml
-------
sufficient intercultural education. This provides us with a typical suggestion for a
national goal. Perhaps indicators, with sharply defined QOL components, can rf
reveal how such a goal might be accomplished.
5. A GENERAL CONSENSUS DOES EXIST ON THE IMPORTANCE OF
THE QOL CONCEPT AND THE NEED TO DEAL WITH IT
Although the literature offers no consensus on a QOL definition, a clear
consensus does exist regarding the importance of the concept. People in
business, in government, and in the universities are re-thinking the old tendency
to equate a rising GNP with national well-being. It is recognized that the paradox
of economic indicators continuing to progress (rising income, increasing employ-
ment) in the face of growing discontent (ghetto violence, campus strife, street
crime, alienation and defiance) must be addressed (U.S. Department of Health,
Education and Welfare, 1969).
Also desired is a means of handling swings and shifts in QOL pendulums.
QOL for youth in the 1960's meant "doing one's own thing," independence, an
absence of authority, an absence of guidance. Now there is some evidence of a
swing toward a desire for order and standards. Wanted now in many cases are
boundaries, direction,and guidance.
Yet an urgent question remains: whose QOL1
In the developing consensus as to the need for QOL measurement,
consideration is being given to the need for the QOL measurements and factors
to include physical and material concepts, as well as values and ideals.
In the following chapters, the QOL concept is discussed from two
perspectives:
The ways representative spokesmen of different life styles and values
view the question
The ways researchers in the different disciplines approach it
As may be expected, available literature on the QOL concept is dominated by
the latter perspective. Economic, social, psychological,and "urban" approaches
and interpretations of the QOL concept predominate.
The deliberations prior to, during,and subsequent to the QOL conference,
however, have focused on the significance of life styles and their underlying
values as a primary perspective in assessing quality of life. This represents an
important contribution of the 1972 Airlie conference to the,development of the
quality of life concept as a decision making tool.
1-12
-------
CHAPTER II
THE QUALITY PERSPECTIVES OF VARYING LIFE STYLES
Richard Nixon has stated: "In the next ten years we will increase our
wealth by 50 percent. The profound question is: does this mean that we will be
50 percent richer in any real sense, 50 percent better off, 50 percent happier?"
This brings us again to the basic question of macro/micro-level under-
standings and the pluralism of our society: Is there a basic attitude of the
American public? Or does each group or life style group in the U.S. (whether
determined by class, age, interest, economic level, education, ethnic background,
religion, sex, or whatever combination thereof) have its own idea oiQOLI
1. QOL FROM THE BROAD PERSPECTIVE OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC
At the EPA conference, Ted Gordon, who is President of the Futures
Group presented some startling data regarding the values and priorities of the
American people. His data were based on an analysis of polls taken over the past
twenty-five years.
These data indicated a number of things about the value priorities of the
American people:
There is growing cynicism and distrust of the government
Optimism about the future is declining
Cultural and political views are becoming uncoupled
A better standard of living remains at the top of the "personal hopes"
list
Owning a house is still the number one goal of Americans
Vacation/travel come next among the priorities of Americans
It would not take much additional money to make most people
happy:
$ 10/week for 10% of the population
$10-30/week for nearly 40% of the population
$30-50/week for nearly 30% of the population
$50 or more/week for nearly 20% of the population
1-13
-------
Peace in the world remains a hope that more and more have
i
New fears, developed only since the 1960's, are of inflation and drugs
and pollution
Fear of war is down considerably, but fear of national disunity is
rising fast.
Gordon raised the question regarding the wisdom of concentrating on
happiness scales. To do so, he suggests, is to invite totalitarianism.
GuyPauker, Research Associate at Cal Tech's Environmental Quality
Laboratory, presented additional information regarding the priorities of the
American people. He stated that a survey in Watts indicated that the three most
serious problems, in order, were stray cats and dogs; garbage; and noise. Yet
many policy planners, viewing Watts from their own value bases or standards,
would have thought of something else. It is believed that social indicators or
QOL indicators would provide this kind of information regarding the feelings of
the people as they actually are, not as planners may think they are.
Cantril and Roll (1971:1-15) have produced an excellent document on the
topic of the hopes and fears of the American people. Their concern centers upon
assessing accurately the changing values of the country and the responsiveness/
resistance of the American people to this change. They use a "self-anchoring
striving scale" to allow individuals to rate self and society on a scale of one to
ten for past, present, and expectations for the future. Their effort reflects one
method of developing social indicators, and determining how people view their
own QOL.
They found that health and standard of living were most frequently
mentioned in terms of both hopes and fears over the period of their study. The
striving scale was utilized to obtain data in 1959, 1964, and 1971. It was
discovered that:
There is less preoccupation with the traditional "American dream"
A shift of concern from strictly personal problems to social ones had
occurred
Concern regarding inflation has risen, concern regarding unemploy-
ment has decreased
Fear of war has declined; fear of Communism has dropped
1-14
-------
Young people displayed a greater concern over a broader range of
issues
*
No truly meaningful differences in rating shifts existed between the
races, although they did occur between classes
Drug use and pollution did not register as concerns in 1959 or 1964,
but figured prominently in 1971
There is a new and urgent concern over national unity, political
stability, and law and order (with 26% listing national disunity or
political instability as a fear in 1971-a threefold increase over 1964)
These findings can be assessed on both the micro-level and macro-level. On
the micro, or individual, level Americans express less concern with material
aspects. A considerable sense of achievement and optimism is expressed
regarding themselves. On the macro, or national, level the picture is different.
Their concerns have broadened beyond what the individual can solve alone:
drugs, inflation, pollution, and crime. All segments of the population express a
fear of national disunity. The American people have felt that their nation is in
trouble.
2. THE PERSPECTIVES OF YOUTH
At the EPA Quality of Life conference, Stephen Kaffa, Director of the
Student Farm Program, University of California, provided a youth oriented
perspective of the back to the earth movement—celebrating work with the
hands. Self-identity seemed more certain when the youth of the student farm
worked with their hands and got them dirty. Emphasized in his presentation was
the need to touch things and to have responsibility for growing things. Personal
relationships were emphasized. A social climate was described as being of kinship
in principle, without contracts or competition. The desire was happiness and the
attempt was to create a living environment in which happiness would be
continuous. Reflected was the value system of youth from middle and upper-
middle class homes.
The term "youth culture" is a term that has gained currency during the
past decade (Berger and Berger, 1972:223). Today the term has connotations
not only as evidence of the massive opposition of youth to the social-cultural
status quo, but also as the harbinger of the future society. These latter views can
be seen in such works as Kenneth Kenniston's The Uncommitted (1965),
Theodore Roszak's The Making of a Counter Culture (1969), and Charles
Reich's The Greening of America (1970).
1-15
-------
Perhaps Yale's Kenneth Kenniston (1965, 1968) has provided us with one
of the best summaries regarding youth today. He identifies their life style with
the following generalizations:
Their identity, like contemporary history, is fluid and indeterminate
They identify with their own generational movement rather than with
cross-generational organizations, institutions, ideologies
They conscientiously seek to meet others with an open and trusting
manner
They want to be sexually and expressively free
They think in terms of inclusiveness, which allows them to
empathetically identify with aliens, the poor people, and other nations
They oppose the "worship" of technology
They seek new participatory forms of organization
They favor discovery and exploration over academism
"Youth" is of course not the homogeneous grouping that the popular
media tends to portray. Obviously, young people reflect a wide range of values.
Nevertheless there are some values which the youth of the nation generally hold
in common. Such values as those listed above must be considered in any quality
of life assessment that is responsive to the perspective of youth.
3. THE PERSPECTIVES OF WOMEN
Dr. Barbette Blackington, Director of the International Institute of
Women's Studies, stated at the QOL conference that the central question for the
21st century regarded how we go about reordering institutions according to how
people feel. She stated that professional women feel that their intellectual status
affects their relationship with men. Women, she said, basically want men to like
them. Her presentation in discussing the women's perspective focused on men.
She talked of the pressures on men in a highly competitive society and the effect
of these pressures on their human relations and sense of well-being.
The "women's movement" is at present basically a white middle/upper-
middle class movement. The essential argument is that women are a slave class
seeking liberation. They are asking for equal pay for equal jobs and for equal
opportunity to get those jobs. They are asking for the men to share in the
rearing of the children. They are asking for men to accept the gentle side of
1-16
-------
being human. They are asking to be freed from slavery to daddy and to brother
and to husband. They are asking to be free to determine for themselves whether
or not they shall engage in sexual activity and whether or not they will have any
child they may carry, i.e., the freedom to have abortions if they so choose.
What of the changes in other values which affect women? For instance, the
conventional wisdom at the White House Conference on Children in 1960 stated
that if a woman wanted federal support for her children, she had to stay home
and take care of them. The conventional wisdom of the 1970 White House
Conference on Children stated that the support would be forthcoming only if
the mother worked.
For those attempting to construct indicators of quality of life the problem
is further compounded by the great dearth of literature until recent years. The
literature that has existed has been written mostly by men and is viewed by the
"movement women" as reducing women to an inferior status. The psychological
problems of low self-esteem and low achievement motivation as it relates to
women affect their concept of quality of life.
4. THE PERSPECTIVES OF BLACKS AND OTHER RACIAL MINORITIES
Carlos Campbell, Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary of HUD for
Community Planning and Management, noted how television helped to set the
stage for social clashes by portraying a quality of life that is not accessible to
minority viewers. According to Campbell, the "genocide question" is an
important QOL matter from the minority perspective because it is real in a
cognitive sense. For them there is precedent in the experience of Hitler's
Germany and the Afrikaners' South Africa. Given the fact that on half of the
prison population of the country is black, that there is a higher percentage of
blacks unemployed than whites, and that infant mortality is higher among
blacks, it is not difficult to think in negative terms. Belinsky can always change
his name to Bell and move to the suburbs. No name change is going to enable a
black to go unnoticed in a white suburb. The question is one of choice, and the
options available to blacks are fewer than those of whites.
Another QOL problem for blacks is the lack of black success models for the
young. The affluent are usually pimps or dope pushers running around in
expensive clothes, big automobiles, with beautiful women on their arms.
Although there is no written rule concerning the advent of new develop-
ments, it is Campbell's view that for the present, it takes a crisis to bring the
country to focus on difficulties in the black community. Watts and Attica are
two cases in point.
1-17
-------
From a QOL/public policy standpoint, the misunderstandings of history
exacerbate the problem. Although it is true that other ethnic and racial groups
began in the slums of our cities, four significant differences exist:
Color, as mentioned above (you can change your name but not your
color)
Earlier immigrants to the shores of America had crafts and skills that
were needed
There is no longer great opportunity in moving West in the great
migrations
There is the effect on psychological motivation of the heritage of
working as slaves.
Policy/decision makers may well assess their knowledge of the categorical
groups, such as:
Races (the Negro, Indian, Eskimo, Puerto Rican, Spanish, Oriental,
Middle Eastern, Chicano-the obvious minorities, as well as other
minorities)
Ethnic groups (Greek, Polish, Irish, Italian, German, Scandinavian,
Russian, etc.)
Religious groups (Protestant, Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox,
Jewish; also Protestant includes over 250 branches, and that there are
a myriad of oriental and other cults and sects springing up all over
America)
Sex Oriented Groups (such as the homosexual)
Special Interest groups (sports fans, classical music fans, rock music
fans, country and western music fans, needle pointers—including many
executives-card players, potters, handicraftmen, chess players, etc.)
Physical (short, tall, crippled, in wheel chairs, blind, deaf, dumb, ugly,
etc.)
Geographical (urban, suburban, country, mountain, valley, desert,
plains, cold, heat, sun, rain, water, snow, sand, dust, etc.)
1-18
-------
Economic (wealthy in abundance, just rich, affluent, well off, poor,
* destitute, getting by, poverty level)
Cultural (highly sophisticated, mildly sophisticated, not sophisticated,
gauche, living in a cultural ghetto-i.e., isolated-such as Harlem or
Scarsdale)
Education (lots of formal education, no formal education, a little
formal education, lots of practical knowledge, no practical knowledge,
wise, sensible, foolish)
Age (babies, children, youth, young adults, middle aged, elderly, aged,
ancient).
A key to measuring and planning for QOL in such a pluralistic society is for
the planner/decision maker to be cognizant of such unique values of minority
populations. Social unrest which affects the QOL of the nation is rooted in the
QOL of the nation's constituent minority groupings.
5. THE PERSPECTIVES OF THE AGED
Ms. Jessie S. Gertman, Deputy Chief, Division on Aging of HEW, reported
that by the year 2000, it is estimated that there will be between 28 and
40 million "oldsters." The major problems of the elderly are health and income.
Another serious QOL concern is that of retirement. People who are still able to
work are forced to retire, some at 65, others earlier. Most oldsters, however,
report high satisfaction or happiness.
In a country that worships youth, the elderly are indeed the "unwanted
generation." While more and more programs are developed for the young, the
elderly are gradually but continually devalued and excluded. While youth play
increasingly important cultural and political roles in the West, the elderly play
continually diminishing roles.
Yet both groups are remarkably alike. Both are at the extremes of the age
pyramid—largely unemployed, introspective with bodies and psyches in greater
process of change, and heavy users of drugs. Time is an obsession with both
groups. Where youth is worshipped, however, the aged are avoided. The aged are
treated as a "lower class", while youth are treated as an "upper class." After
racism and sexism, the latest, rapidly growing "-ism" is age-ism.
One of the most interesting aspects is that of senility. It is a catchword to
describe old people. Yet senility is not peculiar to the elderly. In administered
senility tests, college students were found to be more neurotic, negative,
1-19
-------
dissatisfied, socially inept and unrealistic than were the oldsters. The significant
difference is that the young people were usually treated if their psychological*
problems were severe. Similar symptoms in oldsters were passed off as par for
the course for the elderly.
Many QOL factors are relevant from the perspective of the aging: isolation,
joblessness, decrease in mobility, ill-health, low income, legal problems, death
and dying, out of date education, low energy, loneliness, etc. Although the more
blatant injustices of "age-ism" can be alleviated by governmental action and
familial concern, the basic issue will not be solved, it is suggested, until there is a
fundamental reordering of the basic values of our society in respect to the aged.
Recently, the aged have organized their "cane, crutch and Cadillac vote" to
put pressure on banks and cities and have picketed in wheelchairs. Due to their
increased numbers, they are out to flex their political muscle and are being
rather successful at it (Isenberg, 1971:1).
Important QOL questions for the future regard the roles the oldsters are
expected to play and are allowed to play. How are they to maintain their own
sense of identity as they pass through the biological stages of life? How do they
relinquish the role afforded by the social structure at an earlier period of their
lives? What is the effect of having to let go?
There is a wide-ranging continuum of life styles from which to view quality
of life values. The perspectives presented at the conference were in no way
representative of the nation as a whole. The views presented may well have been
representative only of those individuals making the presentations. Nevertheless,
the conference illustrated just how basic the various sets of life style values are
to the concept of Quality of Life.
Each life style grouping needs its place in the sun. The QOL of each life
style involves considerations related to the four factor areas of QOL: the social,
the economic, the psychological, and the environmental. No public planning, no
decision making should be attempted without first taking into consideration the
varying and multitudinous values and priorities of the different life styles.
1-20
-------
CHAPTER III
* THE APPROACHES OF DIFFERENT DISCIPLINES
The quality of life (QOL) concept has become a focal point of converging
economic, social and environmental considerations. The wide range of back-
grounds of those at the QOL conference as well as the range of issues raised bear
dramatic testimony of this fact.
The different disciplines of economics, sociology, environmental science,
psychology, etc., which heretofore have tended to approach the concept
"quality of life" in terms of their respective methodologies, concepts,
techniques, "worldview," etc., have been turning more and more toward
interdisciplinary cooperation. The perspectives of each of these disciplines in
approaching the QOL concept is the subject of this chapter.
The purpose of the Airlie conference was to focus on QOL issues, not to
solve the complex problems related to them.
An effort has been needed to free the discipline-locked fragments of QOL
research in order that they might be put together into a cohesive whole.
Innovative efforts, both in intellectual endeavors and in organizational coopera-
tion, is necessary if the knowledge being gained related to the concepts of QOL
and the social/physical environment is to be of maximum use.
We have already discussed the difficulty of getting people of varying life
styles to agree on what constitutes a quality life. Men and women of the
different disciplines, of course, carry their personal values into their professional
roles and approach subjects from the particular vantage point of their discipline.
The QOL concept, to be an effective tool to decision makers, requires an
interdisciplinary perspective.
This chapter will attempt to weave together the many contributions made
by the conference participants. It will be difficult to assign credit, since so much
of this is the result of the on-going synthesis, the interdisciplinary interaction, of
the conference process. It might be useful to define our use of "inter-
disciplinary" as opposed to "multi-disciplinary." "Multi-disciplinary" refers
merely to gathering the information of the disciplines. "Interdisciplinary" means
proceeding from the basis of an integration of the knowledge at hand, avoiding
temptation to subjugate other disciplines to support one's own specialty.
One of the difficulties in approaching a subject such as QOL is that of basic
methodology. At the conference, Maruyama (1972:1) made the point that our
forms of logic and philosophy are not always up to the job at hand. He calls for
1-21
-------
the abandonment of the traditional, absolute forms of logic, which are
uniformistic, hierarchial, classificational, undirectional, competitive,
quantitative, object-based, and self-perpetuating. He advocates that we adopt
instead the emerging form of logic that is heterogenistic, interactionist,
relational, mutualistic, symbiotic, qualitative, process-oriented, and self-
transcending (self-renewing). There are others who would say just the opposite.
The direction to take may well involve and integration of the two forms of logic
in developing an interdisciplinary apporach.
Three major areas of public welfare—economics, social concerns, and
environmental conditions-are the ones to which indicators are being either
applied or developed. The quality of life concept cuts across these three areas.
The question is thus raised as to whether or not a public consensus can be
achieved that can be applied to the whole of society .
1. AN INTERDISCIPLINARY PERSPECTIVE
A number of helpful suggestions came from the QOL symposium regarding
how to approach a QOL definition. Called for was a public and open discussion
of the indices to be considered, plus the development of indices by which the
citizen could evaluate government action. Another suggestion was to adapt
methodologies to the local level.
Most symposium attendees agreed that the development of QOL indicators
was necessary for several significant environmental reasons:
As an early warning system to head off pending disaster
As an educational device to arouse lethargic citizens about a danger or
an opportunity to their environs
To assist decision makers in ordering their priorities
In approaching a definition of QOL, however, a caveat was issued regarding
an attempt to compress it to fit a pet methodology.
Concern was expressed regarding how to relate labor, work, leisure, perfor-
mance criteria, etc., to QOL and the environment, as well as what to do with
non-measurables: love, affection, status. A general consensus seemed to be
expressed that a difference should be maintained between happiness and
welfare—that the environment was one thing, a person's feelings something else.
Therefore, QOL measurement should be broad enough to include the whole
environmental, economic, and social system.
1-22
-------
It was also suggested that different indices be devised and be allowed to
.compete against each other: i.e., with a pluralist society why not have pluralist,
and thus competing indices? This could help develop either an overall index or at
least demonstrate what such an overall index could not do. More theorizing,
conceptualizing, and philosophizing about QOL definition and what to do about
it were also suggested. Regardless, it was agreed that a solid, firm, intellectual
base was necessary if correct decisions were to be made from adequate
definitions. In approaching QOL definitions from the environmental perspective,
it was suggested that a real world model be used, which would mean a behavioral
model.
An often referred to book at the conference was that of the MIT study,
Limits to Growth (Meadows et al, 1972). Conferees discussed the five major
components for the more important environmental considerations raised by the
Meadows group:
Population increase
Agricultural production
Non-renewable resource depletion
Industrial output
Pollution generation
Many participants considered that basic to a discussion of QOL was the ability
to maintain a life support system for mankind and other forms of life. According
to Meadows, et al, the life support system is limited: the earth's resources cannot
support present rates of economic and population growth much beyond the
year 2100, if that long, even with advanced technology.
In the literature, Buckminster Fuller (1969:156) has suggested an approach
whereby the problems pointed up by the Meadows book can be alleviated. Do
more with less. The consequences of this idea for those enamored with GNP are
enormous; it doesn't necessarily mean reduced GNP,but it certainly implies a
different way of measuring it. The vision of maximum abundance, which Fuller
sees as now being within our grasp, is translated as Utopia. The only other
alternative in his view is oblivion, which will be the result of using the means of
destruction instead of the real wealth of the world: i.e., information and energy.
To accomplish this requires a "design revolution" that must come "in time to
accomplish "Utopia" before "Oblivion" occurs."
These doomsday projections may serve positive ends, however, if they can
be instrumental in getting the nations of the world to work together to escape
the consequences of not cooperating. As Commoner (1972:49) has pointed out,
"peace among men... must precede a peace with nature."
1-23
-------
2. THE ENVIRONMENTAL PERSPECTIVE
Environmental approaches to QOL definition attempt precise formulation
in order that the QOL factor can be included within various models of the
environment and in environmental planning and management.
The problems of the environment are not new. Interest in them, however,
on a wide scale, however, is new. Environmental management is thus an
important albeit new concern for decision makers, a concern that now includes a
broader concept (QOL) and provides a new platform for our continuing analyses
of our world.
QOL considerations are now possible because man is willing to redefine his
relationship to his environment. From having feared the environment, man came
to understand it, used it, then abused it, and is now concerned about what he
has done and what he can do to invest his physical and biological world with
quality (National Goals Research Staff, 1970) The desire to achieve oneness with
nature is what Burstein calls our new religion (Burstein, 1972:88).
There is a dawning recognition of the fact that the values of the society will
determine the quality of the environment and that, depending upon the costs
the citizen is willing to bear, that level of quality will be obtained. Not to be
forgotten is that improvement of the environment provides other benefits, not
the least of which are aesthetic and moral satisfaction (in addition to
contributing to life survival).
A key factor in developing environmental QOL factors and components is
weighting them. This is done through a series of trade-off analyses. How does
one make trade-offs even among environmental factors without making it merely
a trade of one form of pollution for another (such as reducing air pollution by
washing smoke and sluicing it out into the water courses; or reducing auto
exhaust by limiting its use, but then precipitating transportation problems and
affecting the micro-environments in which people work and live) (Perloff,
1972:111-10).
How are human beings to be factored into environmental equations
without automatonizing them? For instance, the New York Academy of
Sciences meeting in early 1972 featured a paper that advocated the "manage-
ment of natural and man-made systems, on a local, regional, national, and global
basis" by further developing homo sapiens into "mechanical man," which would
be of a higher evolutionary form. "Mechanical man" would have "a much more
complex sensory and motor organization" and, even more fundamental, "a
better organized cerebral mechanism" (Lukasiewicz, 1972:373).
1-24
-------
Certain environmental indicators regarding quality of life can be cited as
possible beginning points in discussing quality in terms of human welfare: the
extent of air pollution and the number and percent of persons experiencing air
pollution at levels hazardous to health (including the level of pollutants in the air
of a given area by type); a comparison of different areas in terms of air quality;
the number of polluted bodies of water and the number of persons living within
certain radii of the polluted bodies; and the numbers of bodies of water and
percentage of given rivers and streams in terms of specified pollution levels
hazardous to health.
A measurement system is vitally necessary if we are to be able to accurately
assess the effects of dumping wastes in the oceans, the rivers, the skies, and
anywhere else man can find to dump. Will the mercury getting into fish seriously
endanger the biosphere and the eco-cycle, for example? What will be the effect
of unrestrained population growth: starvation, disease, catastrophic war? If we
cannot measure adequately and accurately the results of current and projected
environmental policies, then we cannot really plan for a balance and harmony
between nature and man's relationship with nature. Without this balance there
can be no quality of life for human beings.
3. THE ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVE
Traditionally the economic approach to achieving quality of life definition
was "by the numbers." The economic methodology was to interpret quality in
quantitative terms.
Increasingly, however, economists like Mancur Olsen* have recognized the
need for incorporating qualitative factors in their technical analysis, input-
output studies, econometrics, operations research, game theory, and linear or
mathematical programming. Steps are being taken to address the knotty prob-
lems of human action and behavior in economic methodologies. The economists
are beginning to pay attention to the fact that such concepts as production and
distribution, goods and services, commodities and performances are related to
the human actors who control them and who, in turn, are controlled by them.
The top priority for any nation historically has been its economic health.
Consideration of the humanistic elements of life, the stuff of social conscious-
ness and social indicators, has generally come after the basic problems of eco-
nomic survival and growth have been overcome. Thus in America today, the
"economics of quality" is the subject of considerable study.
Professor of Economics at the University of Maryland (and a participant in the Airlie
Conference).
1-25
-------
The application of macro-level indicators at the micro-level has been a
problem for economists. The Depression nurtured the idea of economic
indicators that could be used to control economic fluctuations and thus*
maintain economic growth. The economic measure became the major indicator
of prosperity and well-being of societies and nations. Thus, as long as Gross
National Product rose, it was assumed that the prosperity and well-being of the
individual were also rising.
Recent studies (Agenda for the Nation, 1968) have shown, however, that
economic prosperity has no high correlation with the solving of social ills.
Widespread social unrest and the questioning of the legitimacy of certain
traditional institutions have stimulated a major reexamination of socioeconomic,
environmental and behavioral phenomena both within and outside the economic
context (Kamrany & Christakis, 1969:1-2).
Dr. Fred Singer (Conference Board Record, 1971) of the University of
Virginia and an Airlie conference participant, has made the point that predicting
the economic future is complicated since each GNP item behaves in a different
way. "But what are we trying to optimize?" he has asked. "Surely not GNP.
Even GNP per capita is not the right index, since it corresponds to an index of
national production rather than consumption. We want to achieve the highest
quality of life for the population as a whole. We must first define quality of life
acceptably, and operationally-i.e., the definition will incorporate a method for
calculating quality of life and expressing it in some unit, like dollars. Our next
job is to devise a way to translate national income accounts (like GNP) into a
more meaningful expression of well-being-an index of quality of life (QOL).
He has presented a definition of QOL from an economic perspective:
"In our society, where material comforts contribute importantly to what
people perceive as happiness, a loose definition might be 'having as much money
as possible left over after taking care of basic necessities, and having the
necessary time and opportunities for spending it in a pleasant way.' This also
means 'having a maximum range of choices for a way of life'." This definition
satisfies our criteria reasonably well. It measures the quality of life in dollar
terms by calculating potential consumption and assigning a monetary value to
free time. Specifically, we start by examining the national income accounts,
which aggregate the nation's output, to see which items contribute to QOL, and
to what extent. We include amenities like leisure time and environmental
quality-not counted in GNP. We subtract items that enter into GNP but are
really disamenities which don't contribute to quality of life. Among the most
important are pollution and increased distribution costs in crowded urban areas.
1-26
-------
Many economic planners and policy makers who have been in the habit of
•reducing everything to the quantifiable are now recognizing the heretofore
unquantifiable: human needs for "myths," festivals, dignity, love, belongingness,
etc.
Income distribution is considered by many as a major component of an
inspired quality of life for everyone. It has been assumed by some that QOL can
only be achieved by providing everyone in the country with sufficient income
support.
Economists have been confronted by the fact that members of the middle
and upper middle class—those already free from want, tyranny, ignorance, and
superstition-are among the loudest declaring themselves the most oppressed and
miserable. The economic approach is increasingly recognizing that materialistic
quantifiers no longer suffice as the base of QOL.
4. THE PSYCHOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE
The psychological approaches to QOL center on human needs and their
fulfillment. Many of these needs involve noneconomic factors. Ignoring these
needs is what narrows many planners' and thinkers' vision to thinking of QOL
only in terms of distribution of economic resources (James, 1972:11-4). QOL,
however, must be approached in terms of patterns, taking into consideration
everything that makes up the mosaic of a life.
This question of what are man's fundamental needs is not a new one.
Behavioral scientists, political scientists, theologians and philosophers alike have
long debated the question. A consensus has formed over the years that human
needs are many and varied, and that the particular socialization process of
particular groups will greatly influence the sum and substance of the needs. It
has also been found that the distinction between the primary drives and the
more complex secondary or learned social motives is quite often more apparent
than real. Again, it depends upon the sociocultural systems (family, neighbor-
hood, geographical region, etc.) (Proshansky, et al, 1970:170).
"Physical setting" needs are those that express desired properties of given
physical settings in the attempt to satisfy day-to-day motivations, including
hunger, good job performance, and parental role. It could thus be said that
"physical setting" needs are in most instances mediational or instrumental in
character and provide the basis for understanding the emergence in the
individual of such complex, environment-related phenomena as privacy,
territorially, personal space, and others (Proshansky, 1970:171). Related to and
affected by these physical setting needs are existential needs. Together they
comprise the substance of various theories of "needs hierarchies." The
conference discussed a number of these approaches as a means of grasping more
fully the QOL concept.
1-27
-------
Dalkey (1972) and Dalkey and Rourke (1972) used the Delphi technique
to develop a catalog of needs. Their list of factors and definition of QOL can be «
found in Chapter I.
Martin Buber approached QOL (although he did not use the phrase) in
terms not of material abundance and status acquisition but of satisfaction from
living "the good life" and relating to others in a non-objective way. His concept
of "I and Thou" mutually foreshadowed much of the current writing concerning
QOL.
Skinner (1971) suggests a behaviorist theorem: to achieve the QOL you
want change the environment around you. For Skinner, the important factor is
not man's choice but rather the environment (natural and social). Skinner would
have us jettison such sacred cows as freedom, mind, dignity, will, and virtue. In
Skinner's world, man would be "controlled by the world around him, and in
large by other men." This is another form of the quest for a universal QOL
standard for everyone.
Toffler (1970:417) viewed QOL as something that a person could attain if
he learned to cope with change. Having "copability" would prevent "future
shock." To achieve one's preferred QOL, he calls for the creation of a
"consciousness needed for man to undertake the control of change, the guidance
of his evolution."
The basic factor or component discussed at the conference as in the
literature is that of satisfaction, fulfillment, or growth. QOL can also be
discussed in terms of alienation—that apathy, deviance, and organized protest are
the results of pervasive disaffection with the times due to the nature of the
industrialized society. It can also be considered in terms of the impact of family
structure on personality formation, which would include child-rearing tech-
niques, the nature of the family relationships, and the experiences in alternative
family styles, such as the communes or intentional communities. The manner of
adult socialization would also include those experiences of transition from total
institutions-prisons, mental hospitals—to "freedom" in society. The impact of
group membership on attitudes and behavior (groups, gangs, fraternities, the
army, etc.) is still another approach. All of these factors relate to the fulfillment
of some need.
Yet in our search for QOL approaches we find that little is really known
about the relationship between attitudes and behavior. The hierarchy of needs
theory attempts to bridge this gap. According to the various theories, a person
moves from one needs level to another when the current level no longer satisfies.
The most famous needs theory is that of Abraham Maslow (1969:67-68).
He is the father of the concept of "self-actualization." From many viewpoints,
1-28
-------
QOL is defined in psychological terms as achieving "self-actualization." For
Maslow, man evolves from lower to higher levels of consciousness. The five levels
are survival, security, belongingness, esteem, and self-actualization. To Maslow,
the self-actualized people are "gratified in all their basic needs-embracing
affection, respect, and self-esteem...belongingness and rootedness...love
needs...status, place in life...respect from other people...feeling of worth and
self-respect."
A different kind of needs theory is the levels of existence theory of Clare
Graves (1970). Graves lists eight levels (with the caveat that there may be more;
but so far, all he has been able to identify empirically are eight). Each level of
existence has its own existential state. Each level of existence has its own
motivational system and end values. Most important to the theory and a major
distinction from other theories, each existential level has its own peculiar
existential problem. Thus, no matter how "high" you go, you cannot become
perfect or self-actualized.
In a recent and significant book in the field by Campbell and Converse
(1972:444, 458, 459) they discuss quality of life from the standpoint of the
quality of personal experience. They discuss such states as frustration, satis-
faction, disappointment, and fulfillment. They say these are from the individual
perspective, as in "the eye of the beholder." They assume that "satisfaction and
dissatisfaction are experiences that most people can report with reasonable
validity." Then we read this: "The revolution of rising expectation will go
beyond the demand for better housing and cleaner air to the requirement of a
fuller life." The full life, however, is based on the Maslow perspective: "We
assume that the experience of failure to fulfill oneself is important to the
individual, however exalted or modest the personal aspiration may be."
Alienation, a negative form of QOL, and other psychological misery could
well be the result of people attempting to set a QOL goal that is impossible to
attain. Maslow developed his theory on a study of his interviews with 100 very
wealthy, successful men. Graves developed his theory over a period of twenty
years, observing and testing individuals from every socioeconomic level.
Although this is not the place to take up the age old question of what is
happiness, we can nonetheless avoid some pitfalls by not trying to equate
well-being, satisfaction, and fulfillment with a position on an income scale.
5. THE SOCIAL PERSPECTIVE
No one would argue with the fact that more intensive field work is
necessary if we are to achieve any sense of staying in touch with reality as it is
perceived. Paukers comment, on the Watts mood cited earlier, is a good example.
The social perspective is best seen through the discipline of sociology.
1-29
-------
Sociology provides a number of useful concepts by which to approach the
various verbal and acted QOL statements: class, race, ethnicity, values, matters
of "ultimate concern," etc. What many policy analysts and decision makers seem
to forget all too ofter is that their backgrounds in relation to these categories
greatly influence their "scientific" approach to the development of indicators
that will measure the quality of life.
Sociology can provide insights valuable to anyone concerned with action in
society; but this action need not mean "social" work or humanitarian work.
Knowledge established scientifically can be used for good or evil. Sociology is
"value-free" in that its purpose is scientific inquiry and integrity (Berger,
1963:12, 15). But sociology is very important in the understanding of the search
for QOL definition. Our increasingly complex and variegated society (i.e.,
pluralism) could collapse in howling chaos unless a measure of mutual
understanding exists and is fostered in the plurality of social groups and social
worlds coexisting together (Berger and Berger, 1972 b:363).
The sociological view is a particularly necessary element of an inter-
disciplinary approach to QOL definition in a vastly pluralistic society such as
ours. For instance, sociology has brought to our attention the fact that modern
man is the first to be provided with discretionary leisure time. Although the
development of leisure time has been hailed by many, for others who do not
know how to fill their leisure time, it is a curse.
One of the major methods related to QOL is that of social indicators. They
reveal that society is a community of individual and collective meanings, that are
objective and subjective. Both must be taken into account and quantified. The
social perspective can be used to help clarify some of the confusion between
ends and means (or output and input) and to help focus on the distinction
between the two (Terleckyj, 1970:1).
Two components significant to the discussion but often confused are those
of "class" and "race and ethnicity." They are particularly useful to the
understanding of suggestions and policies regarding economic housing groupings,
educational transportation policies, and quota systems for job hiring and school
admission.
"Class" understanding is most important to QOL discussions. Parents want
their children to live in neighborhoods and to go to school with children of
comparable class position. Without making a value judgment, we can state that
one factor in QOL definition for many parents is to be able to shield their
1-30
-------
children from the social and cultural realities of lower-class life, particularly if
.the parents have experienced it personally (Berger and Berger, 1972 a:20).
Important in ascertaining QOL components is that value preferences are
more akin to socioeconomic position than to race. Rokeach and Parker (1970),
found that, as economic differences between the races disappear, other
differences disappeared also. Thus, different QOL definitions may be necessary
for each of the different classes.
One of the biggest components in the equation of QOL definition is that of
change. A feeling for the extent and magnitude of change in modern life can be
seen from the chart below regarding the evolution of socioeconomic organiza-
tion as a structural underpinning of society (Molitor, 1972).
KNOWLEDGE
(EST. FOR 1972-33%
OF WORK FORCE
YEAR 2000 SOME
66% SO ENGAGED)
1600
1900
1956
1972
2000
YEAR
Many observers believe that the traditional industries-agricultural and
manufacturing—are declining in terms of the commitment of human resources
while output continues to increase at incredible rates. The actual result of this
and of its implications are not yet clear,but it seems safe to say that a major shift
in social values will result. Several shifts may occur; for example,
Incentives to discourage people from working may be devised
1-31
-------
Work may become a privilege and a coveted status symbol, not a
necessity
Life without work from cradle to grave may be possible
Use of leisure time may become our main preoccupation
An economy of abundance, not one of scarcity may prevail
Undreamed-of equality, and economic sharing may become possible
Such epochal changes in the society make it clear not only that are we in
the midst of a values revolution, but also that hard definitions of QOL at the
macro level will be impossible except in the most general terms. The implications
for QOL measurement are clear: whatever measurement system(s) is (are)
devised must be fluid, flexible, and capable of rapid adjustment to the new
technological realities and their ramifications. Also people must realize
contemporary society, more than ever before, needs citizens with the ability to
understand the situations and social worlds of others (Berger and Berger, 1972
b:362).
6. THE INTEGRATION OF INTERDISCIPLINARY PERSPECTIVES
It should be obvious by now that no one answer yet exists. Indeed, it
should be clear that the quality of life concept has yet to provide us with the
full understanding of how its utilization will be of greatest benefit to decision
makers. The discipline of history provides some insights that could be most
useful to the QOL definition task before us.
A sense of history can help to dispel the "national hypochondria" that has
caused our "imprisonment in the present" (Boorstin, 1970:27). A sense of
history enables comparisons and brings to bear the wisdom of ancestors and the
culture of kindred nations. The historical perspective is one check on the
sometimes emotional and Utopian programs suggested (as well as the sometime
emotional and Utopian re-interpretation of past history).
Boorstin (1970:28) puts it quite bluntly when he states:
We flagellate ourselves as "poverty ridden"—by comparison only
with some mythical time when there was no bottom 20 percent in
the economic scale. We sputter against The Polluted Environment—
as if it was invented in the age of the automobile. We compare our
smoggy air not with the odor of horsedung and the plague of flies
and the smells of garbage and human excrement which filled cities
1-32
-------
in the past, but with the honeysuckle perfumes of some nonexistent
City Beautiful. We forget that even if the water in many cities today
is not as spring-pure nor as palatable as we would like, for most of
history the water of the cities (and of the countryside) was
undrinkable. We reproach ourselves for the ills of disease and
malnourishment, and forget that until recently enteritis and measles
and whooping cough, diphtheria and typhoid, were killing diseases
of childhood, puerperal fever plagued mothers in childbirth, polio
was a summer monster.
These are all factors of what we would call "negative" QOL. In their own day
they were considered "facts of life."
This suggests that the QOL concept, as a tool for decision makers, must
take into consideration what has occurred in the past to be better enabled to
understand the present, particularly as the present extends into the future. It is
true that "Doomsday is quite within our reach, if we will only stretch for it"
(Wainwright, 1972:28). But, to prevent it, decision makers need to hear not only
the "awful truth," such as in The Limits to Growth by MIT or A Blueprint for
Survival from scientists of Great Britain (Meadows, 1972; "A Blueprint," 1972),
but also what can be done to prevent the awfulness.
The Federal Government is more than aware that our environmental
problems stem from not only our technological and economic successes but
from our philosophical view of nature as well (National Goals Research Staff,
1970). One of the reasons for attempting to factor the QOL into ecological
studies is to provide an unprecedented expansion of our knowledge if considera-
tions regarding our current technological and economic alternatives are to be
made in light of what we are beginning to discover as necessary to achieve true
long-range ecological balance Viewing QOL from the perspective of the various
disciplines as well as from the perspective of varying life styles should help to
facilitate the development of new means by which decision makers can do their
jobs.
1-33
-------
-------
CHAPTER IV
QUANTIFICATION OF THE QUALITY OF LIFE
We have seen that the quality of life (QOL) concept, though it attracts
widespread interest, is by no means precisely defined. There are different life
quality perspectives associated with various life styles, and we have touched on
some of them. There are also disciplinary perspectives to the problem of defining
QOL, reflecting economic, psychological, sociological and ecological viewpoints.
And there are widely different views on what quality of life actually means, as
conditioned by the insight one wishes to gain. The social researcher, in other
words, has different needs, and hence different perspectives, from the decision
maker or government planner. Unfortunately this multidimensional nature of
the life quality concept, though it implies an intellectual richness, limits the
usefulness of the concept. In essence, it is too illusive a concept, at least as we
now understand it, to serve as more than a focus for loosely structured
philosophical discussion.
1. THE NEED FOR QOL QUANTIFICATION
Because of the diffuse, imprecise nature of the QOL concept as it is
currently understood, there is an acute need for making a serious attempt at
quantification. This is particularly so since there is widespread discussion of the
possibility that QOL measures may be useful in government decision making,
planning and evaluation. Without a precise definition of what is meant by QOL
(and that definition may of course vary somewhat as a function of context) and
without some valid and reliable procedure for measuring whatever parameters
are associated with QOL, however, there is no way in which the concept can be
used in a meaningful way as a planning tool. Indeed, without such quantifi-
cation, or at least a clearly defined algorithm for attempting such quantification,
the concept cannot be intelligently discussed because there is no common
framework for comparison of different ideas or approaches.
One can legitimately ask why is it necessary to compare what may seem to
be intangible elements of QOL in a quantitative way, and we shall consider the
types of concerns which generate such questions shortly. For the moment,
however, the point is simply this: If QOL is to be applied to improve the way in
which we make decisions about our social programs and our future, then it must
be quantified in the best, and most acceptable, way we can devise.
2. CONCERNS ABOUT QOL QUANTIFICATION
There is a wide variety of legitimate, and deeply felt, concerns about any
attempt to quantify QOL, and these concerns were vociferously, and often
1-35
-------
eloquently, articulated at the 1972 EPA Conference on the quality of life
concept. Roughly speaking, one can group these various concerns into two
generic categories: The "cannot do it" and the "should not do it" declarations*
Clearly there is some tendency for these two classes of concern to overlap, but in
the main the issues raised by each camp are distinct. Though we shall focus
primarily on the concerns expressed by those conferences opposed to QOL
quantification, it is important to emphasize that these are "positive" concerns as
well. Virtually all those who favor a research effort to explore QOL quantifi-
cation recognize that there are pitfalls to be avoided and serious concerns to be
dealt with. Generally speaking, the points raised by these cautious optimists
echo those of the negativists, though with reduced intensity. Hence by discussing
the negative viewpoints expressed at the conference, we will treat most of the
major concerns.
Those who argue that one cannot possibly quantify QOL in a meaningful
way raise a number of compelling points. The one voiced most frequently is that
the parameters, or factors, which are important in determining QOL are so
highly individual that any attempt to describe QOL for a group, no matter how
small, will inevitably miss the mark as far as the individuals in that group are
concerned. Virtually everybody acknowledges that there are distinct differences
between, for example, urban slum dwellers, midwest farmers, and suburban
housewives. While the broad differences between cultures, races, economic
strata, age groups, and so on are widely recognized, even by the most
enthusiastic advocates of QOL quantification, there are some who will admit to
no common groupings of QOL parameters at all. These champions of the
entirely individualistic view of QOL argue that each person's view of life is
unique and that it is not possible, or acceptable, to compare that person's
satisfactions, happiness, achievement, or whatever with anybody else's. In brief,
this view holds that any aggregation of QOL measures, even if such measures
could be obtained, would so totally distort the individual's situation as to make
the aggregated measure meaningless.
Apprehension about the statistical approach to establishing QOL measures
quite properly reflects a concern about the sublimation of the individual to the
group, but it overlooks an important point, namely that we, as a nation, do
conduct social programs aimed primarily at groups rather than individuals. If we
collectively acknowledge that such programs have value, then we may legiti-
mately look for ways to measure their success or failure from the group
perspective. Hence any outright rejection of some degree of community in QOL
factors or parameters must inexorably be coupled with an equally adamant
rejection of any group oriented programs, no matter how apparently beneficial
they may be.
A second group in the "cannot do it" camp holds the view that, even if a
suitable set of common QOL factors could be produced, no valid measurements
1-36
-------
of these factors are obtainable. Even the most optimistic of social indicator
•research specialists will admit to some reservation on this point. The concern,
quite simply, is that QOL, being a highly subjective concept involving profound
feelings, values, and attitudes, cannot be reduced to quantitative measures.
Related concerns focus on the time variability of an individual's QOL, both over
a lifetime and on a far shorter time scale, and on the fact that the way in which
an individual weights one QOL factor relative to another may depend more on
the immediate degree of his satisfaction/gratification than on his overall
considered view of priorities. Then there is the widely expressed concern that,
even if an individual claims to be offering a carefully reasoned evaluation of his
QOL situation, he may, in fact, not be articulating his true views at all, but may
instead be attempting to offer an "acceptable" response that will please the
interviewer. Each of these concerns, and a number of others not yet enumerated,
can be treated as raising implicitly a scientific question. In essence they question
the feasibility, or even possibility, of developing valid and reliable methods for
measuring an individual's QOL in a scientific fashion. Fortunately such concerns
can, because they are essentially scientific, be answered in principle. Later we
shall deal with these matters in more detail when we treat measurement
problems.
Among the concerns voiced by those who argue that we "should not"
attempt to quantify life quality, two stand out as particularly pervasive. The first
is epitomized by the work of Maruyama (1972) who argues that the entire
notion of quantifying quality of life is inextricably linked with a traditional
Western logic system that is being replaced by a new approach stressing the
symbiotic rather than the competitive. As a consequence, Maruyama concludes
that any attempt to classify and quantify QOL factors merely serves to prolong
an outdated system, and hence should not be undertaken. This somewhat
extreme view is nonetheless representative of concerns expressed frequently,
particularly by those who regard QOL quantification as philosophically
repulsive—an assault on the individual.
The second of the dominant "should not" concerns does not dwell on the
philosophical or even the scientific questions associated with QOL quantifi-
cation. Rather it focuses on the kind of harmful use to which a QOL index
might be put. Such strong fears of the potential for abuse of a QOL measure by
a large bureaucracy were expressed frequently at the EPA Conference. There is
no truly effective counter to these deeply held concerns, though one can argue
with some conviction that if a bureaucracy is to act, it is better that it base its
actions on some information about the state of society, no matter how
incomplete, than on total ignorance.
What has been presented here is a rationale for progressing in an attempt to
attach precision and quantitative measures to the QOL concept, as well as a
1-37
-------
highlighting of some concerns, even fears, that are expressed about such a
program. Where, then, does all this lead? One can certainly make a strong case.
for pressing ahead for a very simple but compelling reason. Because the business
of trying to define and quantify QOL is an intellectual challenge, it will certainly
be undertaken (unless of course we enter a period of complete thought
suppression). Hence we had best go about it in as systematic and as scientific a
way as possible, and with all due dispatch.
3. SOME BASIC ASSUMPTIONS
A comprehensive discussion of all that has been done in the field of social
indicator research or on QOL quantification is well beyond the scope of this
chapter. Furthermore, several excellent reviews of the subject are already
available (Dalkey, (1972), Campbell and Converse, (1972), Sheldon and Moore,
(1968).) The intent is rather to focus on the ideas presented at the EPA
Conference or by conference participants in their contributed papers. In this
discussion we will not advocate any particular approach to QOL quantification
but will present, as clearly as possible, the alternatives that have been suggested
at the conference and in literature and the difficulties associated with each of
them. In addition we will describe, and comment on, the experiments in QOL
quantification conducted at the conference.
The first step in any attempt to attach quantitative measures to the quality
of life concept must necessarily be to establish a rigorous, working definition of
what this illusive concept actually means. As the preceding chapters have made
abundantly clear, however, even this first step along the road to quantification
presents a major hurdle. As Dalkey (1972:85) points out, even the word
"quality" can be thought of in two ways: it can refer to a condition or it can
imply a degree of excellence. Many authors have avoided the definitional
problem altogether by simply listing a series of QOL components and defining
the concept in terms of its parts. Even this approach can easily lead to
controversy, however, There are, for example, differences of opinion on the
types of factors that should be included in a QOL component list. Some
researchers favor inclusion of only those external, or objective, factors that are
amenable to direct measurements; others opt for inclusion of various internal, or
subjective, factors. Later in the discussion we will present a tableau of QOL
factor lists prepared by various authors to illustrate both the diversity of the
components included and their common features.
In order to emphasize the diversity of potential definitions of QOL, it is
instructive to consider the variety of definitions offered by participants at the
EPA conference. A number of researchers have focused on the individual
psychological aspects of QOL. For instance, Dalkey (1972:58) has defined QOL
"to mean a person's sense of well-being, his satisfaction or dissatisfaction with
1-38
-------
life, or his happiness or unhappiness." This kind of definition, although
admitting the possibility of the objective indicators* being important to an
"individual's sense of well-being, tends to elicit more psychologically oriented
responses, as evidenced by the list of QOL factors developed by Dalkey and
Rourke (Dalkey, 1972:60). Mitchell et al (1972:4) have also emphasized the
"phenomenological, direct or psychologically oriented (measures) as distinct
from the behavioristic, inferential or physiologically oriented (ones)" in defining
QOL as "an individual's overall perceived satisfaction of his needs over a period
of time." These authors point out, quite correctly, that it is possible for an
individual to have a nominally high QOL as seen from the social indicator
viewpoint but to perceive his QOL to be low (an example of this phenomenon is
seen in the so-called "paradox of affluence").
The apparent difficulties inherent in treating the subjective or psychological
aspects of QOL in a rigorous, scientific fashion (and we shall return to these
problems shortly) have led many researchers to restrict their scope by defining
QOL in terms of objectively measurable parameters. This point of view was
represented at the EPA conference by Hornback and Shaw (1972:4), who
defined QOL "as a function of the objective conditions appropriate to a selected
population and the subjective attitude toward those conditions held by persons
in the population." This kind of definition limits consideration to those QOL
indicators that can in principle be measured in an objective fashion but it admits
the necessity of seeking some subjective measures of how people perceive their
situation vis a vis these indicators.
Emphasis on objectively measurable parameters has been the hallmark of
the "social indicators movement" in QOL research. Even within the framework
of social indicators research, however, there are various perspectives reflecting
different views on the definition of social indicators and how they should be
developed. Brooks et al (1972) have summarized this situation very clearly and
have identified four principal approaches, viewing social indicators as:
Instruments for detecting changes in the QOL of individuals, groups or
societies
Instruments to monitor progress toward societal goals, thereby
reducing the normative implications inherent in the QOL concept
A widely referenced list of such indicators was proposed in the document "Toward a
Social Report", U.S.D.H.E.W., (1969). This list includes: health; social mobility;
physical environment; income; public order and safety; learning, science and art;
participation and alienation.
1-39
-------
Social statistics, particularly emphasizing the reporting of social
statistical series that reflect change in time
Measures of changes in variables that are components in a social
system model, thereby focusing objectively on the performance of
social systems/groups
These authors emphasize that any one of the four approaches provides a
legitimate framework for conducting meaningful social indicator research. They
do, however, express preference for the use of social indicators as parameters in
a social system model designed to provide a basis for making effective policy
decisions. This approach offers wide horizons for concrete, scientific research
while avoiding the definitional morass that accompanies less precise conceptual
perspectives.
There is no way to reconcile the divergences of opinion on how to define
QOL, nor should any attempt be made to do so. The important thing, from the
point of view of making scientific progress is that each research effort be based
on a carefully conceived definition which is then adhered to rigidly. Sheldon and
Freeman (1970) state that it is the "conceptual needs (in QOL research) which
are greatest—what to measure and what are valid operational measures of critical
phenomena." In order to meet these conceptual needs, however, it is necessary
to begin research programs with clear directions. That some research teams are
focusing on objective QOL measures and others on subjective measures is not at
the present stage particularly critical. In time the outputs of both efforts will
meld into one, more comprehensive, understanding of the QOL concept.
Once a precise definitional framework has been established for proceeding
with research on QOL quantification, the next step is to develop a series of
hypotheses that can be tested scientifically. If we keep emphasizing the scientific
approach to the problem, it is for good reason. Without a reasoned, logical
approach to answering well-posed questions, it is not possible to make any real
progress at all. A usual first step after definitions have been established is to
make a series of assumptions or constraints to guide the research effort. Such
assumptions can limit the scope of the problem. In order to simplify it, they can
provide classification guidelines, and so on. To illustrate, it is appropriate to
comment briefly on some assumptions that have been made in the research
efforts reported at the EPA conference.
The approach taken by Dalkey (1972:9), for example, is based on two
assumptions:
That "the basic components of QOL are common to practically all
individuals, and are only weakly dependent on ethnic or socio-
economic status"
1-40
-------
That "differences between individuals in (their) relative emphasis on
(various QOL components) are due in large part to the fact that
tradeoffs among the components are dependent on how much the
individual is receiving of each."
One might disagree with these hypotheses (in particular the first one is not, as
we have noted earlier, widely accepted) but at least they have the virtue of being
amenable to scientific testing.
A slightly different set of assumptions, or definitional constraints, might
require that any QOL quantification scheme:
Apply to all individuals
Specify points about which there is general consensus
Focus on areas in that individuals have an active personal interest
Focus on factors that can be influenced by known or conceivable
strategies of social organization
Focus on factors for which there are both objectively and subjectively
measurable features and that the objective and subjective measures for
a given factor exhibit some consistent correlation
Consider the necessity of reflecting differences among different people
under widely ranging conditions
Be sensitive to changing societal and physical conditions
Be open to criticism and to proof or disproof according to recognized
scientific criteria
These constraints, though perhaps not universally accepted, are at least
consistent with the QOL definition proposed by the authors, and they serve to
provide strong direction to (and limitation of) the detailed quantification
approach.
Mitchell, Logothetti and Kantor (1972:6) also established a series of
attributes to be satisfied by any QOL quantification procedure. Though very
different in character from the constraints just proposed, they satisfy the basic
1-41
-------
requirement of internal consistency with the QOL definition established by
Mitchell and his coworkers. These authors suggested that a QOL measurement^
system should:
Distinguish between various QOL levels, each with its special pattern
of needs, values, and beliefs
Be sufficiently general that it apply to a large majority of Americans
(we see that this condition is rather widely accepted)
Be flexible enough to encompass any life style (again, we see that this
constraint is essentially universal)
Be based on subjective definitions of QOL (but these interior
assessments must reflect the exterior aspects of life, such as social
functioning, economic well-being and physiological need)
Reflect the motion of life—the directionality, expectation, growth and
so on—as well as the static aspects of life—history, demography,
possession, circumstance experience, and the like
We have noted in this list of attributes two that seem to occur in basically the
same form in nearly all the research approaches that have been discussed. This is
an important observation because it reflects, already, a tendency toward some
universality of approach. The strong subjective emphasis in this work differs
strikingly from the more objective orientation of other researchers. However,
one may expect that, as knowledge accumulates, the apparent divergences
between the objective and subjective approaches will become less pronounced.
Before leaving the subject of definitional constraints or assumptions, it is
worth commenting briefly on another class of such assumptions, that dealing
with the requirements for a QOL component classification scheme. One of the
more basic, and widely quoted, sets of classification criteria is that proposed by
Ayres (1972). The four principal criteria he suggested are that:
The classification be unambiguous (i.e., have no overlap of categories)
All possible cases be covered (i.e., there should be no gaps)
The number of classes be small enough to manipulate but large enough
to permit adequate detail
Any entity must be homogeneous within a class but differentiate from
entities in other categories.
1-42
-------
In practice it is almost impossible to devise a classification of QOL components
that meets all these criteria, but they serve as a useful guide for structuring a
classification.
The preceding discussion has dealt at some length with a variety of
alternative assumptions and constraints in order to illustrate the kind of careful,
logical process that must be followed in developing a QOL quantification
scheme. We must acknowledge that it is virtually impossible to produce a scheme
that is above criticism on philosophical grounds. If the QOL researcher is
consistent within the scientific framework of definition and assumption he
establishes, however, then he will quite likely make a useful contribution to our
knowledge about QOL quantification, and that must be the main objective at
this stage of development of the field.
Establishing working definitions and assumptions is the first step to be
taken in beginning a research program on QOL quantification, and in our
preliminary remarks we have sampled some typical definitional constraints to
illustrate the diversity of approaches adopted by various research groups. The
next step in the quantification process is to identify the principal elements that
must be included. We have already touched on the key points in our earlier
discussion. Most researchers agree on the following five basic features:
Factors, indicators or components: Various names are used to describe
the categories or characteristics that contribute to overall life quality.
One might refer to these elements in more scientific terms as variables.
Classifications: The factors are typically ordered according to a logic
that makes sense to the researchers. Some criteria may be invoked to
guide this classification, and frequently the classification scheme is
fundamental to the method of quantification.
Measures: A set of measures must be obtained to describe each factor
or group of factors. These measures may be objective in nature (e.g.,
air pollution in ppm, number of doctors per unit population) or
subjective/attitudinal. Where a series of measures for the same factor is
available, some kind of condition on the correlation between these
measures may be imposed. One necessary condition is that some type
of universal scale be established for each measure.
Weights: It is essential to develop some form of hierarchy of factors in
order to compare the measures associated with them. A common way
to achieve this relative ranking of factors is to obtain individual
1-43
-------
weightings from each member of the sample population. Frequently it
is difficult to distinguish between the subjective measures and relative
weights, and often the distinction is not made formally.
Aggregation: Once specific QOL factors have been assigned quanti-
tative measures, it is necessary to obtain a QOL index appropriate to
each individual in the sample population and then to aggregate the
results for a selected group of individuals to obtain an average or
effective QOL index or measure. It is on this subject of aggregation
that one encounters the most disagreement and uncertainty among
QOL researchers, largely because so little concrete and testable work
has been done.
The remainder of the discussion in this chapter will be devoted to a review
of some recent attempts to develop a QOL quantification scheme and a synopsis
of the severe research problems that have been encountered. We will focus on
each of the five elements introduced above and will endeavor to point out what
may be some useful avenues of research relating to each element. Primarily we
will draw on results and opinions presented at the EPA conference on the QOL
concept. A more thorough review of the available literature on the problem has
been conducted by the EPA Fellows and is presented in their recent report
(Hornback et al, 1972).
4. SOME PRELIMINARY ATTEMPTS AT QOL QUANTIFICATION
Most of the research on quality of life that has been done to date has been
devoted to the identification of appropriate factors or indicators and to
exploring and testing methods for measuring these factors in a valid (that is,
correct or meaningful) and reliable (that is, repeatable) way. The state of social
research in this field has been admirably summarized in two recent books: The
Human Meaning of Social Change by Campbell and Converse (1972) and Studies
in the Quality of Life by Dalkey and coworkers (1972). The work by Campbell
and Converse provides a comprehensive statement of the evolving need for new
measurement techniques that transcend those characteristic of a social
accounting system relying primarily on economic and demographic data. It
draws together the most advanced concepts that have evolved during the last
decade of research on measuring the state of society. This important research
endeavor, known formally by such names as social reporting, social indicator
research, and social goals accounting, reflecting the economic models from that
the early writers drew their first perspectives,* has now matured to the point
where significant effort is being devoted to measuring a broad spectrum of QOL
See for example Bauer (1966), Gross (1966), and the excellent work by Sheldon and
Moore (1968).
1-44
-------
factors going far beyond the economic and demographic indicators upon which
the initial research was based.* The work by Dalkey, on the other hand, presents
a very different approach to QOL research, emphasizing the determination and
weighting of QOL components using the Delphi technique. Delphi has its
historical roots in the disciplines of decision theory and technological forecasting
but, as clearly demonstrated by Dalkey and his colleagues, it is a technique that
has much to recommend it as a tool in QOL quantification.
It is not the intent of this discussion to repeat or even to summarize these
outstanding reviews or any of the others that are available in the social science
literature. Instead we shall comment on the ideas presented at the EPA
Conference, both in the plenary sessions and in group discussions. Primarily the
emphasis at the conference was on establishing a definitional framework for
thinking about the QOL concept and on developing a preliminary list of
components or factors characterizing life quality. Indeed this has been the
primary emphasis of professional research on the subject as well.
(1) Factors, Indicators, Components
Every individual when asked to state what is important in determining
his quality of life will come up with a list of factors: good health, adequate
income, love, freedom from anxiety and so on. The research problem one
faces is, then, to develop a composite list of factors that describe every
aspect of QOL. As Ayres (1972) properly points out, establishing a factor
or component list that is both totally inclusive and yet nonredundant is
extremely difficult, particularly so since a wide variety of life styles must
be accommodated by such a list. An alternative approach is to abandon the
idea of a comprehensive list and develop instead a classificational scheme
for QOL levels and then attach separate factor lists to each level. This
attack has been suggested by a number of authors, most notably Maslow
(1954, 1968), and has recently been pursued by Mitchell et al (1972). We
will come back to a discussion of this approach shortly but, since the idea
of a comprehensive factor list has attracted considerable attention, it is
appropriate to look first at the types of factor lists that have been
generated.
With only a few exceptions, factor lists have been produced by the
"armchair" method-that is, the research team arrives at a consensus as to
which factors are important on the basis of, at best, minimal survey
research. One such list uses four criteria: (1) that the list should be as
comprehensive as possible; (2) that it should not contain any redundancies;
An outstanding example of this kind of research is that being conducted by
F. Andrews and colleagues in the Urban and Regional Studies Division of The Institute
for Survey Research, U. of Mich.
1-45
-------
(3) that it should deal with conditions amenable to both objective and
subjective measurement; and (4) that it should contain characteristics that
are as single-dimensional as possible. The resulting list consists of nearly
thirty items grouped under six main component headings:
Economic Environment
Political Environment
Physical Environment
Social Environment
Health Environment
Natural Environment
The authors next compared their factor list with similar lists generated by
other research groups, and the result of this comparison is shown in
Exhibit A. There are a number of specific points to note about this exhibit.
First, the horizontal structure is designed to match items in the ten other
factor lists with the six principal component headings given above. It is
evident that, despite the apparent differences in the various lists, there is
some underlying structure that is common to essentially all of them.
Furthermore, when we study the words and phrases used to denote specific
factors, we find that the same concepts are emphasized repeatedly, albeit in
different language. There are, however, some exceptions to this uniformity
trend, and they are listed outside the double-line boundaries on the chart.
The most striking exception to the overall trend is found in the factor
list developed by Dalkey and Rourke (1971). Exhibit A gives only a few
representative examples from their psychologically oriented list. Because of.
its importance from a scientific viewpoint, it is appropriate to discuss the
research carried out by Dalkey and Rourke in some detail. Instead of
relying on the "armchair" method of list generation, these authors made
use of a sample population of college students and conducted a three-step
survey program based on Delphi techniques:
The subjects were asked to list from five to ten items that they
considered to be most important in determining their QOL
(biological factors were to be excluded) and then to rank those
items. From this initial survey some 48 categories of similar items
were generated by a panel of researchers. This factor list is shown
in Exhibit B.
In the second session, the subjects participated in an exercise to
reduce the number of distinct items on the factor list by rating
the similarity between labels on the initial list of 48. The result
of this exercise was a 13-component list, with each component
containing a number of related factors.
1-46
-------
EXHIBIT B
Characteristics of QOL Obtained
by Dalkey and Rourke [Dalkey (1972)]
1. Fear, anxiety
2. Aggression, violence, hostility
3. Ambition
4. Competition, competitiveness
5. Opportunity, social mobility, luck
6. Dominance, superiority
7. Money, acquisitiveness, material greed
8. Comfort, economic well-being
9. Novelty, change, newness, variety, surprise
10. Honesty, sincerity, truthfulness
11. Tolerance, acceptance of others
12. Status, reputation, recognition, prestige
13. Flattery, positive feedback, reinforcement
14. Spontaneity, impulsive, uninhibited
15. Freedom
16. Communication, interpersonal understanding
17. Loneliness, impersonality
18. Dependence, impotence, helplessness
19. Power, control, independence
20. Good health
21. Failure, defeat, losing
22. Involvement, participation
23. Love, caring, affection
24. Self-respect, self-acceptance, self-satisfaction
25. Self-knowledge, self-awareness, growth
26. Self-confidence, egoism
27. Security
28. Challenge, stimulation
29. Privacy
30. Boredom
31. Escape, fantasy
32. Concern, altruism, consideration
33. Humor, amusing, witty
34. Relaxation, leisure
35. Sex, sexual satisfaction, sexual pleasure
36. Success
37. Achievement accomplishment, job satisfaction
38. Faith, religious awareness
39. Peace of mind, emotional stability, lack of conflict
40. Suffering, pain
41. Stability, familiarity, sense of permanence
42. Individuality
43. Humiliation, behttlement
44. Being needed, feeling of being wanted
45. Conformity
46. Social acceptance, popularity
47. Friendship, companionship
48. Educational, intellectually stimulating
1-49
-------
The final step involved a relative rating of the 13 QOL
components using two independent weighting schemes. The
results of this exercise are indicated in Exhibit C.
One can certainly argue that the definition of QOL used by Dalkey and his
coworkers (see our earlier discussion) may well have shaped the kind of
responses given by the subjects, focusing their attention primarily on
factors influencing their sense of well being—assuming that all the more
mundane needs represented by the more conventional social indicators
were satisfied. It is an inescapable fact, however, that the Dalkey factor list
emphasizes very strongly the subjective, the psychological, the strongly
individualist, the emotional aspects of QOL. The social indicator movement
(and the factors given in Exhibit A are characteristic of that movement) has
tended to steer away from such subjective/psychological factors because of
the difficulties of saying anything quantitative or precise about them. How,
for example, does one establish a "self-respect" measure for a sample
population? And even if one could, what meaning does the result have, and
can the result be useful in developing social programs to improve QOL1
When we can give sound answers to such questions, we will have come a
long way toward having a clearer understanding of what factors to include
in a QOL quantification scheme and toward having resolved the apparent
discrepancy between the factor lists in Exhibit A and that in Exhibit C.
(2) Classifications
We have already considered several classifications of QOL factors into
a limited set of major components. In fact any list of factors at all
represents a certain level of classification because it involves describing
aspects of QOL by single words or phrases. There are, however, classifica-
tional approaches to QOL quantification that are more involved than a
simple ordering of factors, and it is worth commenting briefly on one such
approach proposed by Mitchell et al (1972). The authors focused on the
needs, values, and beliefs (NVB's) of individuals (these NVB's are
essentially equivalent to QOL factors), but they did not restrict themselves
to a single set of NVB's for all types of people. Rather they classified
individuals according to a hierarchial "level of growth" scale and then
identified a distinct set of NVB's or quality of life criteria with each level.
Mitchell and his coworkers compared human growth schemata developed
by a large number of researchers and demonstrated the close parallelism
between all of them. They elected to work with Maslow's (1954) five level
scale discussed earlier in developing their quantification method. They
further classified the NVB's within each growth level into three "quality"
components. These components are described by the groups of words
1-50
-------
EXHIBIT C
Grouping and Relative Ranking of QOL
Factors from the Dalkey and Rourke
Relative
Importance
1. Love, caring, affection, communication, interpersonal understanding;
friendship, companionship; honesty, sincerity, truthfulness; toler-
ance, acceptance of others; faith, religious awareness. 15.0
2. Self-respect, self-acceptance, self-satisfaction: self-confidence, egoism;
security; stability, familiarity, sense of permanence; self-knowledge,
self-awareness, growth. 11.5
3. Peace of mind, emotional stability, lack of conflict; fear, anxiety;
suffering, pain; humiliation, behttlement; escape, fantasy. 10.0
4. Sex, sexual satisfaction, sexual pleasure. 9.5
5. Challenge, stimulation; competition, competitiveness; ambition; op-
portunity, social mobility, luck; educational, intellectual stimulating. 8.0
6. Social acceptance, popularity; needed, feeling of being wanted;
loneliness, impersonality; flattering, positive feedback, reinforcement. 8.C
7. Achievement, accomplishment, job satisfaction; success; failure, de-
feat, losing; money, acquisitiveness, material greed; status, reputation,
recognition, prestige. 7.0
8. Individuality, conformity; spontaneity, impulsive, uninhibited;
freedom. 6.0
9. Involvement, participation; concern, altruism, consideration. 6.0
10. Comfort, economic well-being, relaxation, leisure; good health. 6.0
11. Novelty, change, newness, variety, surprise; boredom; humorous,
amusing, witty. 5.0
12. Dominance, superiority; dependence, impotence, helplessness; aggres-
sion, violence, hostility; power, control, independence. 3.5
13. Privacy. 2.0
1-51
-------
presented in Exhibit D. The idea of this somewhat complex classification
scheme is to establish a framework for identifying need levels and for,
constructing survey questions that get at these needs in a systematic and
reliable way.
EXHIBIT D
Three Types of Quality Levels of Components
inQOL
EXTERNAL INTERNAL MOTION
Objective
Physiological
Substantative
Observed
Position
Environmental
Cognitive
Things
External
Physical
Subjective
Psychological
Process
Felt
Action
Personal
Affective
Relations
Internal
Emotional
Directional
Motion/Development
Normative
Intended
Guidance
Symbol/Image
Conative
Goals
Growth
Vision
The relative complexity of the classification scheme proposed by
Mitchell et al (1972) leads inevitably to a somewhat involved quantification
method, which we will comment upon shortly. But before leaving the
subject of classification we should take note of the social modeling scheme
proposed by Brooks et al (1972). As currently structured, this model is
really little more than a classification approach. The authors seek to
construct a model for a Community Ecosystem, and they have divided the
full system into four major subsystems, each with a series of basic
components, as follows:
Cultural System
Values
Knowledge
1-52
-------
Social Organization
Religion
Politics
Family
Economy
Education
Population
Institutional and Social Patterns
Physical and Environmental Characteristics
Organic Characteristics
Cultural Esthetics
Environmental System
Social
Physical
Brooks and his coworkers have explored the detailed taxonomy of each of
these subsystems and have sought to establish a series of appropriate
(qualitative) indicators for each component. They have not yet developed a
detailed approach to attaching valid weights to these indicators, however.
(3) Measures and Weights
The amount of effort that has been devoted to attaching quantitative
values to the factors/indicators discussed above is quite limited. Largely this
is because no consensus has emerged on what factors are important or on
what appropriate measures for them might be and also because the scale of
data collection required implies a large-scale research effort that cannot be
mounted without substantial support. In talking about quantitative
measures for quality of life factors we must really deal with two problems:
(1) what measures provide a suitable description of the actual state of a
QOL factor as far as an individual is concerned; and (2) how to construct a
reliable scientific procedure for collecting quantitative information about
the parameter to be measured.
One fairly simple approach equivalent to the one used by Dalkey
(1972:65) is to ask subjects to provide relative rankings of factors using
some systematic procedure such as "splitting 100." This may, in fact, be
the only acceptable procedure to use when dealing with the purely
1-53
-------
psychological QOL factors. The problem with such an approach is that it
does not lend itself particularly well to developing an overall QOL index for
an individual or to aggregating individual indices to obtain a group QOL
index.
Another very direct, but not particularly sophisticated, approach to
developing objective QOL measures is represented by the matrix suggested
by Joyce (1972). This matrix, shown in Exhibits, suggests a series of
objective, readily obtainable measures representing the attitudinal, societal,
political, economic, and physical aspects of selected QOL factors. This set
of measures is appealing because of its simplicity, but the defect in the
approach (aside from the very small number of factors considered) is that
there is no way to determine whether the measures suggested are significant
or to learn whether they are in any way correlated with how people
perceive their QOL.
A quantification scheme that combined the features of both the
Dalkey and the Joyce approaches into quantifiable methodology was
proposed for the EPA Conference. The essence of the idea can be
summarized briefly by stating that for each QOL factor and for each
individual in the sample population the following four quantities are
generated:
The objective measure of the factor for each individual,
normalized to a 1-10 scale. When more than one measure is
available (e.g., measurements of various pollutant concentrations)
a combined measure is developed using a suitable technique (e.g.,
the CEQ air quality index)
The subjective, or satisfaction, measure of the same factor for the
same individual, also normalized to a 1-10 scale
The correlation between the objective and subjective measures
for the entire population with P members
The importance weighting that the individual attaches to the
particular factor, relative to the other factors, on a rank order
scale.
Both objective and subjective measures can be converted to a standard
1-10 scale. For the objective measures this involves establishing upper and
lower bounds and partitioning the range in an appropriate way. For the
subjective measures the self-anchoring ladder scale used by Cantril and Roll
(1971) is recommended.
1-54
-------
•<
C
O
'•3
3
o
•M
o
«
3
rt
s
c
« .2
£ o
8-3
£ 2
is
Housing and
Neighborhood
Education
c
o
A
o;
«
u
BE
.g
"1
"£
Law
Enforcem
Accessibility
A
<£ C "o
g .2 o o.
S 2 <
c
•a n o
£ -3 o.
* o E
ss o a
Elementary
School En-
rollment
High School
Dropout
Rates
E •*
>~<
JD J^
3 S S
o .2 c
£ O 3
3
III
fits
g 2 S3 S
>-» CL, G. > M
O O O G
g- 0,1-1 T3 0
£ ^ 1 " S
>Au£s.BS
U — '
•2 •&
£ & g
SS X O
'So '? ^
C rt O
W 0.°
.§ 1 s &
B- U 0. o.
a o,
B a
o S
H 0.
Deficient Se-
lect System/
Total Select
System Streets
•a
— •
£
u
^O
*o.
i »
c n
D at
Median Im-
puted Rent
per Median
Income
% of People
25+ Yrs.
Completed
College
§s!
£as£ S.
S4>
bO
isl
c
^ M
^ ** O
z o «3
a^,
n> c
0 & &
III
030
_i m c;
% By-passed
Employment
Due to Lack of
Transportation
U
I
0
o
U
2 1
1 - °
|| 8.8
° 2 2 &
2 « ** O
% Stand Hous-
ing. % lack-
ing Facilities
iS w w
i*S
^Slg
s£.se
V M
a v
>. *3
t*-i o
o a
Z'o
>,
•*-* 13
ill
"B » 3
a "
S £ 2 3
-I!
ll§
Median Work
Trip Time by
Private Trans-
portation.
•a
o
1-55
-------
We should consider an alternative quantification scheme suggested by
Mitchell et al (1972), that the rigorous research required to generate the_
objective and subjective measures we have been discussing with confidence
has not yet been done. Results that will help to point us in the proper
directions are now being obtained by several research groups, but it may be
some time before we really know which objective measures are significant
and how to obtain meaningful subjective measures.
Earlier we reviewed the classificational scheme proposed by Mitchell
and coworkers (1972). The five level personal growth scale used by these
authors suggests the need for five separate QOL scales. The central idea of
the quantification scheme proposed is to construct a questionnaire that
samples the NVB concern of individuals at each of the five levels,
emphasizing in roughly equal proportion NVB's reflecting the three
components presented in Exhibit D. It is, of course, necessary to first
determine the growth level appropriate to each individual in the sample by
administering a "belief response questionnaire" to each subject.
The responses to the NVB questions are converted to an 0-9 scale,
nine representing the highest degree of satisfaction with the particular QOL
component under consideration and zero the lowest. A composite
three-digit score is then generated for each individual:
The first digit represents the need level (1-5)
The second digit relates to readiness for change to a new need
level (0-9) and is obtained from an average of the NVB scores
pertaining to the "motion" component
The third digit (0-9) relates to perceived satisfaction with the
existing need level and is obtained by averaging the NVB scores
pertaining to the static "external" and "internal" components
(see Exhibit D)
This composite score is constructed in such a way that the numerical value
increases as the individual progresses to a higher QOL within one of the five
need levels and as he moves to higher levels of personal growth. In many
respects the method of QOL quantification recommended by Mitchell et al
(1972) is quite elegant, if somewhat complex. It is, however, intrinsically
limited to providing a QOL index for an individual (averaging the
composite scores for members of a group to obtain an aggregated QOL
index does not make much sense given the method of constructing the
score). It also requires very extensive research effort before all of the
required questionnaires and procedures can be validated.
1-56
-------
Only limited attention has been given to the problem of how to
construct an aggregated QOL index for a population group in QOL research
" done to date. A paper by House, (1972) deals with the aggregation problem
in abstraction, and it is worth summarizing the approach they suggested. A
measure of the quality of life can be carried out in a number of ways. QOL
can consist of a set of measures that attempt to encompass a number of
relevant parameters that comprise QOL or it can be represented by a single
index. There is much to be said on behalf of both approaches; however, the
need for an operational approach is what is needed most at present.
One may postulate a general form for an aggregated satisfaction
indicator defined as follows:
T _ , I Status of Factor \
i VDesired Level of Factor J
This formulation asserts that regardless of the factor under consideration
both a measurable reflection of its status and a measure that reflects the
populace's desired level for the same factor must be taken into account.
The initial scale is established by inquiry or well established standards, with
a value of 10 assigned to the desired (or optimum) level and numerical
values assigned in decreasing order to lower levels of satisfaction. On-going
measures of status can be either directly obtained from monitoring data of
one sort or another or obtained from a suitable surrogate whose movement
correlates highly with the parameter under consideration. The ratio of the
status score to the desired level score will then yield a measure of the
current performance of the system.
A rationale exists for combining the individual indicators into a
quality of life index where:
QOL=/(I1,I2...In)
Together the individual indicators for the factors make up a profile of the
QOL but not a single number. To convert this profile to a single measure, let
us hypothesize what addition or summing up would have to be performed.
We shall assume that this additional process is possible through use of a
Preference Function.
The Preference Function is a construct, highly theoretical in nature,
used to represent a numerical measure of that illusive thing that sociologists
call culture. A possible way to actually quantify this concept is suggested
1-57
-------
by Stuart H. Mann and Richard Hobson (1972) of the Pennsylvania State
University, Division of Man-Environment Relations, in a paper entitled
Toward the Development of a Quality of Life Index. If culture as a learned"
and inculcated feature of human existence has any meaning, and if the
psychologists premise that deeply held beliefs are a part of us and control
both our individual and group actions has validity, then this Preference
Function should by definition at least be able to be approximated.
The Preference Function can be viewed as a measure of the relative
importance; i.e., a weighting (w) of selected features of a society to the
members of that society. The concept consists of a relative ranking of the
factors that make up the quality of life by a randomly chosen sample of the
people in a particular society. As theory, it suggests that given the QOL
factors a randomly selected societal sample would rank them both in order
of importance and in terms of their relative value in such a fashion that it
should reflect the preferences of the people for the chosen items. The same
measure could be used for sub-sectors of the society.
The derivation of this weighting is assumed to be feasible. The specific
method used in operationalizing this weighting scheme is not necessary for
this discussion. Having derived this weighting of factors we can define the
Quality of Life Indicator as follows:
Having defined the relationship between individual indicators and QOL
based on a Preference Function or weighting of Indicators, one must then
ask how to allocate resources to improve this QOL in an optimum manner.
Assume that there exist definable Resource Costs (RC) to allocate for
maintenance and improvement of QOL . The resources under consideration
consist not only of money but of time, power, and other resources at the
disposal of the system. In short, it is a function that measures the relative
cost to maintain the system at levels that it considers adequate or
expenditures that it makes to redress imbalances that it wants to correct.
The cost is measured so that it can be defined in terms of raising the level
of each indicator by one unit. That is, one has a defining relationship
between any L^ and any RC/j\.
For purposes of illustrating resource allocation-to maximize
QOL -one can select a numerical example utilizing the QOL relationship
defined in this chapter and make the following assumptions.
1-58
-------
Assume that the QOL relationship includes three indicators,
Ij - Environmental Indicator
\2 - Social/Political Indicator
Ig - Economic Indicator
Assume that a Preference Function; i.e., importance measured by
weighting for a culture, has been established for each of the areas
defined by these indicators:
Wj - Environmental Preference Weighting
W2 - Social Preference Weighting
Wj - Economic Preference Weighting
Assume further that there exists a defined functional relationship
between the Resource Costs (RC) required to maintain and
improve the indicators that constitute the QOL. This relationship
is assumed to show diminishing returns to expenditures past a
certain point. That is, we have relationships as illustrated in the
following exhibit.
RESOURCE COST (RCi)
Note that this relationship will be typically non-linear (i.e., for a fixed amount of
resources allocated Alj = f(level I.)) and approaches the desired level of I asymptomatically.
Note also that we can approximate an incremental change Al^/ARCj by a linear ratio or
slope.
1-59
-------
Assume that there is available to us 1000 Resource Cost
units—900 of which are required to maintain the current level of
QOL
With the foregoing assumptions one can illustrate a resource allocation
scheme to improve QOL using quantities. (An example is given in the
Appendix.)
The above description of a potentially, quantifiable QOL indicator
allows us not only to define our current system but, if measurement could
be implemented, it could give us a powerful tool for forecasting future
events. For example, the theoretical structure behind the Preference
Function suggests that the society's intrinsic nature is quite stable and that
the society will go to some lengths to maintain it. This measure, of course,
is subject to change over time but is conceived of as comparatively
permanent-usually taking long periods to readjust the societal equilibrium.
On the other hand, it is possible to influence this Function in the
short run, say through the media. A concerted effort on the part of the
public or private sector to emphasize one or more segments or factors can
temporarily rebalance the Preference Function and cause the society to
allocate resources accordingly. To the extent that this change becomes
imbedded in the society, the Preference Function is actually changed and is
no longer temporary. The current interest in the environment is a case in
point. It is obvious that the environment and its problems did not suddenly
come into being but that the interest evidenced in it recently has come
about because of a concerted effort on the part of many groups to make us
more aware of the dangers and needs of our physical system. To the extent
that those who are most concerned succeed in implanting an "environ-
mental ethic," then the Preference Function will be readjusted to reflect
this change in the ethos of the society. If they fail, then the present trend
could very well be no more than a fad.
One of the controversial portions of a QOL construct is the ability to
get meaningful measures of both the subjective and the objective
parameters making up the quality of life. As noted earlier, much effort has
gone into the construction of indicators, and yet work needs to be done
both to determine what data is needed on the measurement of the factors
selected and on whether the factors and indicators chosen are usefully
sensitive to the ideas that are to be measured.
Finally, the concept of cost effectiveness is hard to get at. The idea of
the "biggest bang for the buck" is intuitively easy to grasp and is often
difficult enough to derive when just economic factors are considered. When
other resources are added in, the problem is magnified several times. A
1-60
-------
promising alternative approach may be to employ a time budget allocation
as suggested by Mann and Hobson (1972).
*
5. RESEARCH NEEDS AND GOALS: THE MAJOR PROBLEMS IN QOL
QUANTIFICATION
In the preceding pages we have endeavored to give an accurate and
reasonably thorough discussion of the ideas concerning QOL quantification that
were presented at the EPA conference on the quality of life concept. One of the
principal threads running through all the conference discussions was an emphasis
on the major problems one encounters in doing research on QOL quantification.
Hence, by way of recapitulation, it seems fitting to highlight once again those
problems.
The first of these problems occurs at the definitional stage and involves the
selection of a suitable perspective and the development of a sufficiently rigorous
and precise definition of QOL. At the present time, given the enormous diversity
of viewpoints we have noted above, there can be no one "correct" perspective or
definition; but one can ask of the researcher a degree of consistency between his
definitions, his assumptions, and his approach.
Selection of a comprehensive, yet precise and manageable, list of QOL
factors is, we have noted, one of the principal problems faced by the research
community today. The factors to be included must ultimately reflect the views
of the people whose QOL is being measured. The importance of individual
participation in the QOL definition and quantification process was repeatedly
emphasized at the conference and is certainly not to be overlooked. One
approach to solving this problem is to conduct a broadly based social research
program aimed at establishing a universal factor list and then to include in the
list any factor that is nominated by a significant percentage of the sample
population. This approach is similar to that used by Dalkey (1972) on a small
scale and in the research programs reviewed by Gordon at the EPA Conference
(see Chapter II for a report of this research.)
We have dealt in some detail with the severe problems associated with the
selection of appropriate objective and subjective indicators for QOL factors and
with the actual measurements involved in trying to quantify these indicators.
The difficulty, of course, is that the science of QOL measurement is so new that
it is not yet possible to say with confidence whether a particular measurement is
meaningful in the sense that it relates to how individuals perceive their quality of
life. In fact it is not even clearly established that one can ask people what they
think about their own QOL and get a meaningful answer. Some researchers
believe that the only acceptable approach is to gather data indirectly by
observing behavior patterns. The problems of measurement are certain to be the
major challenge faced by social researchers in the decade ahead and, if proper
support is forthcoming, we can logically expect significant progress to be made.
1-61
-------
Even if the problem of measurement can be solved completely, there still
remains the problem of how to devise a suitable composite measure or index of
the QOL for an individual. The suggestion has been made that tests of"
correlation between multiple indicators for a given factor and between objective
and subjective measures for the same factor are essential and perhaps should be
included explicitly in any expression for a QOL index. One also faces the
question of how to attach relative weights to the various factors contributing to
QOL.
Once a valid and reliable procedure for establishing an individual QOL
index has been developed, the questions associated with aggregation of the
results to form a group index remain to be answered. Aside from the essentially
non-scientific question of whether one should aggregate the individual results at
all, the social researcher must deal with such concerns as: What level of dilution
of the individual QOL indices occurs on aggregation? What population
characteristics or features (e.g., age, income, race, etc.) define the most suitable
classes for aggregation? How large a sample should be used to get meaningful
results and can the sample be too large? What are the maximum levels of
aggregation, if any, beyond which the aggregated index loses significance?
Obviously there are serious and difficult research problems to be solved
before we can introduce into the planning and decision making process a QOL
index that can be used with confidence. In addition to addressing these problems
of perspective, of components/factors, of measurement, and of formulas for
indices and aggregation, we cannot lose sight of the necessity for strong policy
initiatives on the part of the government to stimulate, support, and guide the
major research effort that is required. A clear statement of the need for QOL
quantification must be made, and it must be made clear to the population that
they will have an active role in the process, that their judgment will be called
upon, and that mechanisms will be established to unequivocally eliminate any
concern they may have that the QOL quantification process amounts to
government manipulation of their private lives. In addition, it seems essential
that the QOL researchers and social modelers be permitted ready access to the
decision makers and planners who will use their product. The interchange of
ideas and the resulting clearer understanding of the needs of both parties will
certainly pay handsome dividends in the development of a QOL quantification
scheme that is both useful to, and used correctly by, the decision maker.
1-62
-------
CHAPTER V
AN EXPERIMENT IN QOL QUANTIFICATION
One of the main objectives of the EPA Conference on the QOL concept,
upon which this book reports, was to conduct a series of exploratory experi-
ments dealing with the important aspects of QOL quantification: factor list
generation, factor weighting and the influence of specific decisions on those
weights. Many of the conference participants brought with them profound
concerns about the possibility and/or advisability of QOL quantification
(concerns that have been discussed in some detail in the preceding chapter). As a
result, the conference experiment was received with a certain degree of hostility
by some participants. Despite the controversy and discord that surrounded the
experiment, useful and interesting insights concerning methododogy were
obtained. The purpose of this chapter is to review and discuss the QOL quantifi-
cation exercises considered at the symposium.
1. DEVELOPMENT OF A QOL FACTOR LIST
The first experiment at the conference called upon the conference
attendees to use their judgment to develop a consensus list of QOL factors.
Because of constraints on time, it was not feasible to generate a list from scratch.
Instead, a candidate factor list was prepared by the EPA Environmental Studies
Division (BSD) prior to the conference and was used in the experiment as a
point of departure. The initial list is reproduced in full here as Exhibit F. It
consists of nearly fifty factor items, with accompanying descriptive phrases,
grouped under five major QOL component headings:
Natural Environment
Man-Made Environment
Social
Political
Economic
This list was based on an extensive compilation of similar lists from the literature
on QOL quantification and was prepared only after a large number of potential
QOL factors had been carefully considered.
The idea of the initial group experiment was to provide the conference
members with the opportunity to modify this list as they saw fit, based on group
discussion. Rather than open consideration of the complete list to discussion by
the full conference audience of some 150 people, the attendees were split into
sub-groups and asked to consider the factors under one of the component
headings which contained intentional overlaps. The opportunity to add/delete
1-63
-------
EXHIBIT F
Component Factor List
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
To Delete Place X In Box
D Overall Pollution
D Air Pollution
D Water Pollution
[H Noise Pollution
CH Aesthetics
n Land Use Planning
O Ecosystem
D Radiation
Q Pesticide/Chemical
The state of the environment as it re-
lates to all forms of pollution.
The amount of foreign and harmful
substances in the air from all possible
sources.
The amount of foreign and harmful
substances in the water from all possi-
ble sources.
The production of sounds at a level
that can be considered annoying and
possibly harmful.
The beautiful and/or pleasing aspects
of the natural environment.
The well organized, planned, and pre-
sumably beneficial use of the land.
The flourishing of animal and plant
life in support of the natural balance.
The release of radioactive materials
into the environment.
The use of pesticides and chemicals
and their subsequent release into the
environment.
1-64
-------
EXHIBIT F (2)
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
D Soil Quality
D Solid Waste
ADDITIONS
(Continued)
- The ability of the soil to support the
needs of man as well as animal and
plant life.
- The problems engendered by the re-
quirements to effectively and perma-
nently dispose of the residual matter
remaining after the initial use and/or
consumption of society's products.
1-65
-------
EXHIBIT F (3)
MAN-MADE ENVIRONMENT
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
a
To Delete Place X In Box
Leisure Facilities -
Work Environment -
Housing -
Technology -
Aesthetics -
Transportation —
Material Quality -
Utilities
Physical Structures -
ADDITIONS
The availability of resources (non-
personal) for use in leisure activities.
The working conditions consisting of
location, physical surrounding, per-
sonal relationships, and job status.
The availability of adequate housing
facilities.
The state of our applied scientific cap-
ability as it relates to everyday life.
The beautiful and/or pleasing aspects
of the physical man-made environ-
ment.
A combination of services and facili-
ties that provide for the mobility of
the population.
The capability and reliability of manu-
factured products.
The capabilities, effectiveness, effi-
ciency, and reliability of the utility
systems (water, gas, electricity) both
public and private.
The availability and/or condition of
offices, factories, public buildings, etc.
1-66
-------
EXHIBIT F (4)
SOCIAL
To Delete Place X In Box
D Family Structure
D Status
D Culture
D Privacy
D Safety
D Social Stability
The knowledge, skills, character, etc.
of the population and the process of
obtaining and developing the above by
formalized schooling and/or training.
The arrangement or interrelation of
the family unit with emphasis on co-
hesiveness and indivisibility.
One's position, rank, or standing with-
in the societal structure.
The concepts, habits, skills, arts, in-
struments, institutions, etc. of a given
people in a given period.
The ability to withdraw from public
view or company; seclusion or secrecy
in a given situation; and limitation of
use of information concerning a per-
son's background, status, etc.
Freedom from danger, injury, or
damage.
Degree of cohesiveness within a socie-
tal structure and between societies;
war/peace; absence of riots and other
disturbances; law and order.
1-67
-------
EXHIBIT F (5)
SOCIAL (Continued)
D Personal Skills
D Equality
n Choices in Life
D Community
D Health
ADDITIONS
- Degree of ability, proficiency, or ex-
pertise in a given area or areas.
- State or instance of being equal in
political, economic, or social rights.
- The change, right, or power to make
fundamental choices in life usually by
the free exercise of one's judgment
and the use of one's resources.
- A group of people living in the same
area living under the same culture and
norms and having interests in com-
mon.
Physical and mental well-being. Abil-
ity to detect, treat, and control spe-
cific causes and characteristic symp-
toms of illness and ailments. Quality
and quantity of services provided in
order to maintain mental and physical
growth and development.
1-68
-------
EXHIBIT F (6)
POLITICAL
To Delete Place X In Box
D Opportunity Structure -
D Information Media -
D Democratic Process -
D Civil Liberties -
D Justice -
ADDITIONS
A combination of circumstances fa-
vorable for and/or offering a good
chance or occasion for individual ad-
vancement in relationship to ability.
The freedom, responsibility, and re-
liability of information sources that
are public and/ or private.
The acceptance and practice of the
principles of equality of rights, oppor-
tunity, and treatment.
Rights guaranteed to the individual by
law, such as thinking, speaking, and
acting as one likes without interfer-
ence or restraint except in the inter-
ests of the public welfare.
The use of authority and power to up-
hold what is right, just, or lawful.
1-69
-------
EXHIBIT F (7)
ECONOMIC
To Delete Place X In Box
D Living Costs
D Income
D Income Distribution
D Consumption
D Economic Security
D Economic Growth
D Labor
That portion of total income required
to satisfy basic human needs such as
food, clothing, shelter, etc.
The money or other gain periodically
received by an individual, corporation,
etc. for labor, services, or from prop-
erty investments, operations, etc.
The stratification of incomes in rela-
tion to various sections of society.
The utilization of economic goods or
services in the satisfaction of wants or
in the process of production.
The relative degree to which one is
satisfied, secure in his economic state
with relation to his needs and require-
ments for his level of aspiration.
The change over the previous year in
total production of goods, total eco-
nomic activity, total consumption, or
total productive capacity.
The quantity and/or quality of the
labor force in terms of productive ca-
pacity, specialized skills and diversity.
1-70
-------
EXHIBIT F (8)
ECONOMIC (Continued)
D Capital
D Investment
CD Public Spending
The accumulated and concentrated
wealth used to finance the creation,
operation, and expansion of economic
activity.
The outlay of land, labor, and/or capi-
tal to the future production of goods
and services.
The amount of current and consum-
able resources that are channelled
through the public sector for either
direct redistribution or final consump-
tion by public agencies.
ADDITIONS
1-71
-------
factors from the list was offered, and it was also possible to recommend that a
factor be transferred to another component. Each group was assigned a leader
and was given an hour and a half to produce a revised factor list. Experience"
derived from the Dalkey (1972) experiments would suggest that this was ample
time for completion of the exercise.
Observation of the groups suggested that the experiment was not
particularly successful. Most groups spent a substantial portion of their time in
trying to understand precisely what they were supposed to accomplish and in
lengthy discussion which was largely undirected and often off the point. Toward
the end of the allotted time, most groups made somewhat hasty decisions on
modifying their lists and completed the experiment. One group was extremely
disorganized and divided, however, and was completely unable to make any
decision about the list they were asked to modify. As a result of the difficulties
encountered in running the experiment, a revised factor list was developed
following the session by the group chairmen. That list is presented in Exhibit G
and is the one used in the remainder of the experiments.
It would, of course, be presumptuous, and scientifically untenable, to
attach any great significance to this factor list. It was deliberalty generated to
provoke debate. There are numerous ambiguities in the definitions of individual
factors, and there is even duplication. (The factor health appears under two
components.) Furthermore, there is no uniformity in the scope of individual
factors: Democratic Process and Solid Waste have equal stature in the list.
Structurally the final list consists of some 47 factors grouped under three
component headings:
Economic
Political/ Social
Environment
The fact that a wide variety of factors was grouped under one super-
component, political/social, is a reflection of the difficulties that were
encountered in running the experiment and the disagreements that arose and
went unresolved.
It is certainly worth commenting on the outcome of the experiment.
Largely the difficulties encountered resulted from lack of clarity in presenting
the objective of the experiment to the group and from the fact that the
sub-group leaders were not very adequately prepared in advance for their roles.
One lesson to be learned is that a group experiment of this type must be handled
with considerable finesse and be based on meticulous planning.
1-72
-------
Policy Decision No.
ECONOMIC
Accumulated Assets -
Essential Living Costs —
Income —
Income Distribution —
Consumption —
Economic Security —
Discretionary Income —
Capital -
Investment —
Rate of Population —
Growth
Economic Opportunity —
Economic Development -
EXHIBIT G
QOL Factor List
The assets owned by an individual in the form of
savings, property, insurance, etc.
That portion of total income required to satisfy
basic human needs such as food, clothing, shelter,
etc.
The money or other gain received by an individual
in the form of wages, salaries, tips, dividends, rent,
interest, etc.
The distribution of incomes in relation to various
sections of society.
The utilization of economic goods or services in
the satisfaction of wants.
The degree to which one can maintain his econom-
ic state in relation to his needs.
The money remaining from the individual's income
after essential living costs have been deducted.
The accumulated and concentrated wealth used to
finance the creation, operation, and expansion of
economic activity.
The outlay of land, labor, and/or capital to the
future production of goods and services.
The rate at which the total population is increas-
ing.
Circumstances favorable to improvement of an in-
dividual's material welfare in relation to his ability.
Capacity to utilize resources, natural and human,
and capital stock to achieve greater and higher
quality output.
O
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
1-73
-------
EXHIBIT G (2)
POLITICAL/SOCIAL
Democratic Process —
Public Participation _
National Security _
Education —
Status -
Culture _
Privacy _
Safety -
Social Stability _
Personal Skills _
The system by which the public governs itself in
accordance with the principles of equality of
rights, opportunity, and treatment.
The ability of citizens to be heard and to interro-
gate the decision makers.
The provision and dispersal of military forces and
other resources in a manner determined by the
democratic process and reasonable public participa-
tion.
The knowledge, skills, character, etc. of the popu-
lation and the process of obtaining and developing
the above by schooling, training, and other means.
One's position, rank, or standing within the socie-
tal structure.
The concepts, beliefs, habits, skills, arts, instru-
ments, institutions, etc. of a given people in a given
period.
The ability to withdraw from public view or com-
pany; seclusion or secrecy in a given situation, and
limitation of use of information concerning a per-
son's background, status, etc.
Freedom from danger, injury, or damage, physical
or psychological.
Degree of cohesiveness within a societal structure
and between societies; war/peace; absence of riots
and other disturbances; quality of law and order.
Degree of ability, proficiency or expertise in a
given area or areas.
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
1-74
-------
EXHIBIT G (3)
POLITICAL/SOCIAL (Continued)
Equality — State of instance of being equal in political, eco-
nomic, legal, or social rights and opportunities.
Choices in Life — The chance, right, or power to make fundamental
choice in life usually by the free exercise of one's
judgment and the use of one's resources.
Health — Physical and mental well-being. Ability to detect,
treat, and control specific causes and characteristic
symptoms of illness and ailments. Quality and
quantity of services provided in order to maintain
mental and physical growth and development.
Primary Social — Personal, informal relationships of the individual to
Relationships others within families and other circles of inti-
mates.
Secondary Social — Impersonal, formal relations of the individual to
Relationships others in work and other community environment.
Use of Free Time —
Amount of free time alone or in voluntary associa-
tions (e.g., church clubs) and variety of activities
engaged in.
o
o
o
o
o
1-75
-------
EXHIBIT G (4)
ENVIRONMENT
Air and Water Categories (measures quality and quantity)
Air O
Water Q
Noise f)
Climate/Weather C J
Hazardous Substances C j
Land Related Categories (measures land shifts and quantities)
Land Use Q )
Recreation Resources ( J
Ecosystem ( j
Natural Resource Depletion C j
Solid Waste
Man-Made Categories (measures availability, accessibility, aesthetics and
design, product quality, ecological linkage)
Employment ( J
Housing ()
Transportation (^ J
Health
Cultural and Spiritual
Commercial and Service
Utilities
Education ( )
Leisure ( )
1-76
-------
2. WEIGHTING OF THE FACTORS
The second experiment in the series was designed to elicit individual
judgments from the conference attendees in assigning relative weights to the
various QOL factors on the revised factor list. In many respects the approach
used was similar to that employed successfully by Dalkey and Rourke (1971).
The idea was that each individual would make two types of weighting
judgments, using the "split 100" technique in both cases. The first was to assign
relative weight to the three component groups used in structuring the revised list
of factors. The second involved rating the specific factors within each
component group relative to each other, again splitting 100 marks among the
factors as the individual felt appropriate.
The attempt to introduce this experiment and encourage the conference
attendees to participate elicited a surprisingly hostile reaction from a substantial
percentage of the group. There were two common themes underlying this
dissent: (1) that individuals were (somehow) being "manipulated" by the
Federal bureaucracy, and (2) that the quick rating judgments asked for would
(somehow) be professionally demeaning and unacceptable, despite the
assurances to the contrary offered by Professor Norman Dalkey, based on his
own research experience. The discussion of the experiment's validity and of
various concerns about its conduct lasted for over an hour and at times became
quite heated. In the end some eighty of the conference attendees (slightly over
half) agreed to complete the weighting exercise, and their judgments were used
in the data analysis that follows.
On balance the apparent breakdown of the formal experiment was
probably beneficial to the conference as a whole. The marathon discussion
session permitted people to voice their deeply felt concerns about the whole
QOL quantification enterprise and it provided insight about the care that must
be exercised in conducting such an experiment. No doubt the presentation of
the experimental approach was cavalier enough to offend the sensibilities of
some members of the audience. And quite possibly the admittedly experimental
design was too "simplistic" for some. Nonetheless, the experience obtained from
the exercise was quite interesting.
In the first step, the participants were asked to divide 100 points among the
three component groups (economic, political/social, environment) according to
the relative weight they attached to each. The results of this rating are shown in
Exhibit H where we plot the distribution of scores and indicate on the graph
both the median and mean of the distribution. Because most participants split
their votes at five point intervals, we have drawn the distribution to illustrate the
accumulated score in every five point span (i.e., all scores between 32.5 and 37.5
1-77
-------
EXHIBIT H
Component Distributions and Statistics
COMPONENT DISTRIBUTIONS AND STATISTICS
= MEAN = 324
- — = MEDIAN = 33
VOTES/SCORE
\
= MEAN =364
- — = MEDIAN = 35
O =947
• - VOTES/SCORE
MEAN = 3) 7
MEDIAN - 30
975
VOTES/SCORE
ENVIRONMENTAL
\
1-78
-------
are plotted at 35 to show the distribution). The exact number of votes is,
however, shown on the graph as they were cast via the bold points. The total
* number of usable data points is 52. This means that 28 of the original 80 forms
returned were unusable for one reason or another (such as incomplete votes of
incorrect total votes.) Apparently the voting procedure was not well understood
by a large faction of those participating in the experiment.
There are a number of important points to be made about the results
shown in Exhibit H. The first is that the distributions are remarkably smooth
and reasonably close to normal (in a statistical sense), as shown by the nearly
identical value for the median and the mean. The means are all very close to 33,
and this implies no very strong differences between the three components. The
confidence level for differences between the means is, in fact, sufficiently small
that the three components cannot be statistically distinguished as far as relative
weight is concerned. Qualitatively, of course, one can note that the political/
social component tended to score somewhat higher than the other two.
The ratings for individual factors on the list in Exhibit H were obtained by
asking the participants to split 100 votes between the factors under each
component. Because the number of factors under economics is smaller than the
number under environment, for example, this scoring system tends to weight the
economic factors more heavily than it should. To correct for this we must
multiply the direct votes by a term that we call the fractional bias for the
component, which is defined as the number of factors in the component list
divided by the total number of factors in the whole list. The fractional biases, f,
for the three components are:
f(Economics) = 0.26
f(Political/Social) = 0.34
f(Environment) = 0.40
The next step in the analysis is to weight each factor score with the weight
assigned by the individual subject to the component under which the factor falls.
Specifically, if we let C: be the component weighting assigned by individual i to
the component and Fj be the appropriately corrected (with f) vote assigned to
the particular factor under component C, then the weighted factor score for that
individual would be CjFj and the average factor score for the group would be
1 N
<\\>=^i C.F. =
where N is the number of individuals in the sample (that is 52 in the particular
case.)
1-79
-------
The results of this computation are shown in Exhibit I and they illustrate
some very interesting points. The most striking of these is the substantial spread
in the weights that the sample population attached to the different factors?
Clearly they differentiate strongly between economic security and utility service,
to pick two extreme expamples. The 10 most highly weighted factors in order
were:
Democratic Process
Public Participation
Health
Choices in Life
Housing
Economic Security
Education
Land-Use
Essential Living Costs
Economic Opportunity
The eleventh ranked factor was Ecosystem. There are two significant
observations, at least, to make about this list: (1) the factors on it are from
among the objectively based social indicator types rather than from the class of
psychological factors; (2) economic factors were well represented in the top ten
list of factors, thus indicating that economic indicators cannot be ignored in
developing a representative QOL index. One rather surprising feature of the
factor weighting results in the rather low weight given to environmental
pollution factors. Housing, Land Use, and Ecosystem are the three most highly
rated factors in the Environment component, and the specific pollution factors
are far down on the list. This may not be as odd as it first appears. The layman,
when he thinks of environmental pollution, does not think of the specific
components of environmental pollution (i.e., air pollution, water, noise,
pesticide, solid waste) but rather the concept of environmental pollution on a
holistic scale. This is substantiated by the results of the experiment. It should be
noted that the three component headings are given relatively similar weights
(Economic - 31.8, Political/Social - 35.6, Environmental - 31.2), thus leading one
to believe that the members tended to equate them almost equally important. In
the case of the weighted factor breakdowns, however, many of the
environmental factors tend more toward the bottom of the scale. This
interesting finding shows that those concerned and working in some aspect of
the environment think of the environment not as a total concept but rather as
the sum of its parts. This result may also reflect the fact that the participants in
the EPA conference, being from a typically high income strata, are not very
directly impacted by pollution problems.
1-80
-------
EXHIBIT I
Weighted Ratings for
QOL Factors
1-81
-------
3. THE DEPENDENCE OF FACTOR WEIGHTS ON THE DECISION
PROCESS
The third step in the experiment run at the conference was to determine if,
in the view of the individuals present, particular QOL factors would be strongly
affected by the implementation of a set of social programs. The following five
policy decisions were selected by the Environmental Studies Division as being
interesting ones to consider:
A national policy is instituted that will establish free public mass
transit systems in the major metropolitan areas.
National water standards are established that will require complete
recycling of all industrial and municipal water by 1982.
A national policy is instituted providing a guaranteed minimum annual
income of $ 1,500 per capita.
A national urban renewal policy is established, and a major effort for
implementation is undertaken to provide for the replacement of all
slum areas with planned communities consisting of mixed class
housing by 1987.
A national energy policy is adopted requiring the use of low sulphur
fuels and atomic energy.
Approximately fifty conferees participated in this phase of the experiment (the
remainder joined a discussion on alternative methods of QOL quantification),
and they were split into groups of ten. Each group considered the effect of one
of the national policies on the quality of life as viewed from the perspective of
residents of a typical American city. If the decision would produce an improve-
ment in the conditions relating to a particular factor, the participants were asked
to rank that improvement on a 1 to 10 scale. Alternatively, if the decision would
have a negative impact on a QOL factor in their judgment, the participants were
to indicate that effect on a -1 to -10 scale. No impact at all was noted by
marking zero on the scale.
The idea of the experiment was to determine if certain QOL factors tended
to be strongly influenced (either positively or negatively) by implementing
policy decisions. Any such factors would then stand out as particularly
important ones to consider before making a major decision or in planning a
program.
This third part of the conference experiment went very well in the sense
that the participants seemed interested in the problem at hand and
1-82
-------
enthusiastically discussed the tradeoffs involved. Many of them certainly came
.away from the experience with a clearer understanding of the kind of problems
faced by a decision maker who is attempting to include QOL factors as a
consideration in his thought process. From an analytical point of view, however,
the experiment did not provide particularly useful results. The data obtained had
numerous defects (due primarily to lack of clarity in the voting instructions) and
did not in the end provide a big enough statistical base to permit any meaningful
conclusions to be drawn. In fact, on a qualitative basis, there appeared to be no
easily distinguishable group of factors that were impacted more than the others
by the decision process. Hence if any conclusion is to be drawn, it is that we
must look back to the factor weights themselves for guidance in the decision
making process.
In summary, the conference experiment was a useful and informative
exercise for the sponsors. Both experimenters and participants found the
experience educational. It may be hoped that the lessons learned in conducting
this experiment will help to insure that future efforts of this type are more
successful and productive of useful information on QOL quantification.
1-83
-------
-------
CHAPTER VI
THE NEXT STEPS
The quality of life concept has evoked considerable discussion and some
significant research, and yet the techniques for its practical application to
society's decision making processes continue to elude us. There appears to be a
clear consensus for the need to develop the concept into a tool for decision
makers both in and out of government. If so, what then are the next steps?
1. THE CONFERENCE'S ANSWER
At the EPA conference, a panel discussion addressed the specific question:
"What are the next steps to make QOL a valid guide for public policy?"
The panel chairman, Alfred Heller, President of California Tomorrow,
emphasized the need for developing a set of indicators that would provide the
basic ingredients of a "systematic, comprehensive" approach to government
planning and policy. He also underlined the need for a regionally based approach
as opposed to a local, state, or federal system. In the development of such a
system, he said, a number of points require clarification. Terms must be defined
more precisely. He asked, "Are we seeking measures of happiness or of welfare?"
These are quite different things.
To be useful, he noted, measurements must be part of a working economic,
social, and political structure. A QOL index is of no value without a system of
government at the local or regional level that can act to solve problems. In other
words, the QOL concept, he summarized, should be part of a larger system for
social change.
Dr. Mancur Olsen, Professor of Economics at the University of Maryland,
noted that two major points of view had been expressed:
The need for measurement of QOL
The inadequacy of any attempt at aggregate measurement.
He suggests that no single index will be satisfactory or appropriate to
everyone. A different QOL index for every type of population may be required.
Olsen outlined two major "next steps":
Develop a pluralistic approach to QOL with competing indices
reflecting diverse ideologies and values. One overall index could be
developed—recognizing its limitations, of course
1-85
-------
Extend the range of objective measurement. Improve the quality of
measures of social welfare or "ill fare". (A social indicator is by
definition one that measures a variable to which no market value is*
attached, he added.)
The basic need, he said, is to get facts and priorities straight, and then apply
judgments.
Another panel member, Guy Pauker, Research Associate at Cal Tech's
Environmental Quality Laboratory urged that more intensive field research be
undertaken to develop quality of life measures that are in touch with social
reality. He illustrated the point by citing a study in Los Angeles that showed
that stray animals, garbage, and noise (in that order) were the primary concerns
of ghetto residents. A "ward boss" would have known these "QOL issues" in the
past. Today, in our more complex, removed system, feedback from people to
government is breaking down. "We don't know where the shoe is pinching
anymore," he observed.
Pauker believes that we must go beyond polling and use long, unstructured
interim and in-depth interviewing techniques to uncover QOL values and
priorities. He warned of the danger of becoming disconnected from the "real
world" in the application of econometric theory.
Loudon Wingo, who is Director of Urban and Regional Studies at
Resources for the Future, discussed the need to consider individual differences
and intellectual diversities in the development of QOL measurement approaches
and techniques. He indicated a need to detect "subtle interactions" and "critical
links" among QOL factors and to examine real world phenomena from a
behavioristic perspective as we develop a QOL information system to guide
public policy.
The general discussion from the floor of the conference was devoted largely
to a need to ensure that long-range policy decisions be amenable to change in
light of shifting QOL values and priorities.
2. RESEARCH NEEDS AND GOALS
One of the principal threads running through all the conference discussions
was an emphasis on the major problems to be confronted in future research on
QOL measurement.
The first of these problems exists at the definitional stage and involves the
selection of a suitable perspective and the development of a sufficiently rigorous
and precise definition of QOL. At the present time, given the enormous diversity
1-86
-------
of viewpoints noted earlier, there can be no one "correct" perspective or
_ definition, but one can ask of the researcher a degree of consistency between his
definitions, his assumptions, and his approach.
Selection of a comprehensive, yet precise and manageable, list of QOL
factors is one of the principal problems faced by the research community today.
The factors to be included must ultimately reflect the views of the people whose
QOL is being measured. The importance of individual participation in the QOL
definition and quantification process was repeatedly emphasized at the
conference and is certainly not to be overlooked. One approach to solving this
problem is to conduct a broadly based social research program aimed at
establishing a universal factor list and then to include in the list any factor that is
nominated by a significant percentage of the sample population. This approach
is similar to that used by Dalkey (1972) on a small scale and in the research
programs reviewed by Gordon at the EPA conference (see Chapter II for a report
of this research.)
The conference dealt with the severe problems associated with the selection
of appropriate objective and subjective indicators for QOL factors and with the
actual measurements involved in trying to quantify these indicators. The
difficulty, of course, is that the science of QOL measurement is so new that it is
not yet possible to say with confidence whether a particular measurement is
meaningful in the sense that it relates to how individuals perceive their quality of
life. In fact it is not even clearly established that one can ask people what they
think about their own QOL and get a meaningful answer. Some researchers
believe that the only acceptable approach is to gather data indirectly by
observing behavior patterns. The problems of measurement are certain to be the
major challenge faced by social researchers in the decade ahead and, if proper
support is forthcoming, we can logically expect significant progress to be made.
Once a valid and reliable procedure for establishing an individual QOL
index has been developed, the questions associated with aggregation of the
results to form a group index remain to be answered. Aside from the essentially
non-scientific question of whether one should aggregate the individual results at
all, the social researcher must deal with such concerns as: what level of dilution
of the individual QOL indices occurs on aggregation? what population
characteristics or features (e.g., age, income, race, etc.) define the most suitable
classes for aggregation? how large a sample should be used to get meaningful
results, and can the sample be too large? what are the maximum levels of
aggregation, if any, beyond which the aggregated index loses significance?
Dr. Peter House, moderating an impromptu session, noted that some
investigators had abandoned the attempt to measure satisfaction and instead had
decided that it was more defensible and easier to measure dissatisfaction. Their
1-87
-------
logic is based on the belief that happiness is an infinite function and always
subject to change as one's aspirations change, even when previous goal is about,
to be achieved. On the other hand, they felt that it is possible to define
thresholds that are at lower bounds of a system and that it is not possible for the
system to readjust in the short run. It has been argued that the identification of
this lower limit would allow the policy maker to measure the effects of his
decisions in terms of how far they move the system away from the dissatis-
faction threshold for various population groupings rather than toward an
indefinitely changing future objective. None-the-less, there is still a great deal of
conceptual work in the "happiness" or satisfaction vein which has potential
research payoffs.
Out of the discussion came three possible directions for further research:
Further work on the pure quantification of measure, not only in
defining the factors and the weights but also in statistically
manipulating them
Development of an output vector for large-scale comprehensive
models making use of factors used directly by the policy maker or his
research staffs
Development of a methodology that will allow the policy maker to
use such a concept as he makes his trade-offs between numerous
conflicting resource needs.
Obviously there are serious and difficult research problems to be solved
before we can introduce into the planning and decision making process a QOL
index that can be used with confidence. In addition to addressing these problems
of perspective, of components/factors, of measurement, and of forumulas for
indices and aggregation, we cannot lose sight of the necessity for strong policy
initiatives on the part of the government to stimulate, support, and guide the
major research effort that is required. A clear statement of the need for QOL
quantification must be made, and it must be made clear to the population that
they will have an active role in the process, that their judgment will be called
upon, and that mechanisms will be established to unequivocally eliminate any
concern they may have that the QOL quantification process amounts to
government manipulation of their private lives. In addition, it seems essential
that the QOL researchers and social modelers, be permitted ready access to the
decision makers and planners who will use their product. The interchange of
ideas and the resulting clearer understanding of the needs of both parties will
certainly pay handsome dividends in the development of a QOL quantification
scheme that is both useful to and used correctly by the decision maker.
1-88
-------
The goal of on-going QOL research is a significant one; it is nothing less
than to provide society with a tool for determining its values, setting its
> priorities, and allocating its resources in a way that will serve its rational interest.
1-89
-------
-------
APPENDIX
A NUMERICAL RESOURCE ALLOCATION EXAMPLE
Given indicators of the following values:
Ij =.9;I2 = .4andI3 = .7
Given preference function weightings:
Wj = 50; w2 = 20 and w3 = 30
Given Resource Costs (RC=), the resource costs to raise the Ps one
percent are obtained from slopes derived from such relationships
between Ij and RCj as depicted in exhibit on page 1-5 9. Assume the
following have been so derived:
RCj=25
RC2 = 10
RC3 = 20
The above set of values is summarized below:
I2 = .4 w2 = 30 RC2=10
I3 = .7 w3 = 20 RC3 = 20
Thus:
n
QOL = 2 wjlj = 50 ( 9) + 3Q (-^ + 20 p) = ? j
i
We may allocate 100 units of RC to maximize improvement of QOL.
Allocation of 1 00 units to Ij yields AQOL of 2.0
Allocation of 1 00 units to I2 yields AQOL of 3 .0
Allocation of 100 units to I3 yields AQOL of 1 .0
1-91
-------
Our maximum benefit in this case would be allocation of all our resources
to the social/political sector. Following such allocation we have:
QOL = 50 (.9) + 30 (.5) + 20 (.7) = 74
Obviously, the problem just illustrated could be made a great deal more
realistic and complex by taking into consideration the changes in the three
functions each year; but even here the solution is amenable to standard linear
programming techniques. The above examples suffice to indicate the concept.
1-92
-------
REFERENCES
• Atkinson, Arthur A. and Robinson, Ira M., "The Concept of Amenity
Resources," an extract from "Amenity Resources for Urban Living," in Perloff,
Harvey S., ed., The Quality of the Urban Environment, Resources for the
Future: Washington, D.C., 1969.
Ayres, Robert U., "A Material-Process-Product Mode," in Allen V. Kneese and
Blair T. Bower, ed., Environmental Quality Analysis, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
Press for Resources for the Future, Inc., 1972.
Bauer, Raymond A., ed., Social Indicators, The MIT Press: Cambridge, 1966.
Berger, Peter L., An Invitation to Sociology, Doubleday and Co.: New York,
1963.
Berger, Peter L. and Berger, Rrigltle, Sociology: A Biographical Approach, Basic
Books, Inc., New York: 1972b.
Boorstin, Daniel J., 'A Case of Hypochondria,' in "The Spirit of '70: Six
Historians Reflect on What Ails the American Spirit," Newsweek, July 6, 1970,
pp. 19-34.
Brookings Institution, Agenda for the Nation, 1968.
Brooks, Ralph M., "Toward the Measurement of Social Indicators: Conceptual
and Methodological Implications," Proceedings of the American Statistical
Association, 1971.
Burchard, John, "Some Antidotes for Ugliness," A.I.A. Journal, April 1965.
Burchard, John, "The Culture of Urban America," paper given at 50th
Anniversary Meeting of American Institute of Planners, February 1968.
Burstein, Samuel M., "Science, Abraham & Ecology," Intellectual Digest,
October 1972, p. 88.
Campbell, Angus and Converse, Philip, The Human Meaning of Social Change,
New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1972.
Cantril, Albert H. and Roll, Charles W., Hopes and Fears of the American
People, A Potomac Associates Book, New York: Universe Books, 1971, pp.
1-15.
1-93
-------
Christakis, Alexander N., "Limits of Systems Analysis of Economic and Social
Development Planning," Ekistics 200, July 1972a, pp. 37-42.
Commoner, Barry, "Motherhood in Stockholm,"Harpers, June 1972, pp. 49-54.
Conference Board Record, of May 1971, pp. 20-21.
Dalkey, Norman C., "Quality of Life," unpublished paper by Norman C. Dalkey,
March 1968.
Dalkey, Norman C. and Rourke, Daniel L., "The Delphi Procedure and Rating
Quality of Life Factors," an extract from "Experimental Assessment of Delphi:
Procedures with Group Value Judgments, Rand, 1971.
Dalkey, Norman C., Studies in the Quality of Life-Delphi & Decision-Making,
D. C. Heath & Co., Lexington, Mass., Rand, 1972.
Gottman, Jean, "The Rising Demand for Urban Amenities," in Sam Bass Warner,
Jr., ed., Planning for a Nation ofCities, The MIT Press: Cambridge, 1966.
Graves, Clare W., "Levels of Existence: An Open System Theory of Values,"
Journal of Humanistic Psychology, Fail 1970, Vol. 10, No. 2, pp. 13-154.
Gross, Bertram M. and Springer, Michael, "New Goals for Social Information,"
The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, "Social
Goals and Indicators for American Society," Vol. II, September 1967.
Hornback, K. E.; Guttman, J. M.; Himmelstein, H. L.; Rappaport, A. B.; and
Reyma, R., Quality of Life Report—EPA Summer Fellows Program, Washington,
1972.
Hornback, Kenneth E. and Shaw, Robert W., Jr., "Toward a Quantitative
Measure of the Quality of Life," paper presented at the Quality of Life
Symposium, Environmental Protection Agency, August 1972.
House, Peter; Martin Brossman et al, "How Do You Know Where You Are
Going?" Seminar in Multiple Criteria Decision-Making, University of South Caro-
lina, October 1972.
Isenberg, Barbara, "Out to Pasture," The Wall Street Journal, November 17,
1972.
1-94
-------
James, Richard D., "Measuring the Quality of Life," The Wall Street Journal,
May 18,1972.
Joyce, Robert E., "Systematic Measurement of the Quality of Urban Life,
Prerequisite to Management," California, 1972.
Kamrany, Nate M. and Christakis, Alexander N., Social Indicators in Perspective,
International Seminar on Ekistics and the Future of Human Settlements, July
1969.
Kenniston, Kenneth, The Uncommitted, Harcourt Brace & World: New York,
1965.
Kenniston, Kenneth, Young Radicals: Notes on Committed Youth, Harcourt
Brace & World, New York, 1968.
Lear, John, "Where Is Society Going: The Search for Landmarks," Saturday
Review, April 15,1972.
Lukasiewica, J., "The Ignorance Explosion: A Contribution to the Study of
Confrontation of Man with the Complexity of Science-Based Society and
Environment," Transaction New York Academy of Science, pp. 373-391,
submitted January 4,1971, revision accepted February 28, 1972.
Mann, Stuart H. and Hobson, Richard, "Toward the Development of a Life
Index," Pennsylvania State University, 1972 (unpublished).
Maruyama, Margoroh, "Commentaries on the 'Quality of Life' Concept,"
mimeograph, August 1972.
Maslow, Abraham H., "The Good Life of the Self-Actualizing Person," Kurtz,
Paul, ed., Moral Problems in Contemporary Society: Essays in Humanistic
Ethics, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1969.
Meadows, Dennis; Meadows, Donella; Randers, Jorgen; and Behrens, William W.,
Ill, The Limits to Growth: A Report for "The Club of Rome's" Project on the
Predicament of Mankind, Universe Books, New York, 1972.
Molitor, Graham T. T., "A Hierarchy of Needs and Values," extracted from
"Evolution of Socio-Economic Organization—A Structural Underpinning for
Understanding Societal Value," presented before Ad Hoc Interagency
Committee on Futures Research, April 20, 1972.
1-95
-------
Mondale, Walter F., "Social Indicators as a Method for Forecasting and
Planning," presented before the World Future Society Meeting of July 21,1967.
Mitchell, Arnold; Logothetti, Thomas J.; and Kantor, Robert E., An Approach
to Measuring Quality of Life, prepared for the Stanford Research Institute,
September 1971.
National Goals Research Staff, Report to the President, Washington, D.C., 1970.
Perloff, Harvey S., "Policy Measures for the Environment," extracted from "A
Framework for Dealing with Urban Environment: Introductory Statement," in
The Quality of the Urban Environment, Washington, D.C., Perloff, Harvey S.,
ed., Resources for the Future, Inc., 1969.
Perloff, Harvey S. and Wingo, Lowdon, Jr., "National Resource Endowment and
Regional Economic Growth," in Friedmann, John and Alonso, William, eds.,
Regional Development and Planning, A Reader, The MIT Press, Cambridge,
1964.
Proshansky, Harold M.; Ittelson, William H.; Rivlin, Leanne G., Environmental
Psychology: Man and His Physical Setting, Holt Rinehart and Winston, Inc., New
York, 1970.
Report of the White House Conference on Youth, Washington, B.C., April 1971.
Rokeach, Milton and Parker, Seymour, "Values as Social Indicators of Poverty
and Race Relations in America," The Annals of the Academy of Political and
Social Science, March 1970.
Schmalz, Anton B., et al, "Social Indicators," report to National Science
Foundation, New World Systems, July 1972.
Sheldon, Eleanor and Moore, Wilbert E., eds., Indicators of Social Change,
Russell Sage Foundation, New York, 1968.
Sheldon, Eleanor and Freeman, Howard E., "Notes on Social Indicators:
Promises and Potential," Policy Sciences 1, 1970.
Singer, Fred S., "Our Environment: Controls and Costs," extracted from The
Conference Board Record, of May 1971.
Skinner, B. F., Bey and Freedom and Dignity, Alfred P. Knopf, New York, 1971.
1-96
-------
Solzhenitsyn, Aleksandr, "Truth and the World's Values," from Nobel Prize for
Literature acceptance speech, appearing in exerpts in The Wall Street Journal,
September 6,1972.
Terleckyj, Nestor, E., "Measuring Possibilities of Social Change," Looking
Ahead, August 1970.
Toffler, Alvin, Future Shock, Random House, New York, 1970.
Wainwright, Loudon, "Won't Anyone Hear the Awful Truth?" Life, January 28,
1972, p. 28.
Whitman, Ira L. and staff, Design of an Environmental Evaluation System,
Battelle Columbus Laboratories, June 1971, pp. 7-10.
Wurster, Catherine Bauer, "Framework for an Urban Society," in Goals for
Americans, The Report of the President's Commission on National Goals,
Prentice-Hall, New York, 1960.
1-97
-------
-------
Section
2
a
QOL" Anthology
-------
-------
PREFACE
The National Environmental Policy Act mandates the Federal Government
to take action:
..."in protecting and enhancing the quality of the Nation's
environment to sustain and enrich human life"
Improving the quality of life has become an increasingly urgent national
goal that is commanding the attention not only of environmentalists, but also of
economists, sociologists, psychologists, administrators, and others at all levels of
government and in many areas of the private sector.
Major programs have been launched to improve the quality of life of
Americans. A massive commitment of funds has been made in the name of that
goal. Daily, governmental decision makers are establishing policy and programs,
and allocating resources in ways that significantly impact the quality of life of
different types of people in different ways.
And yet, the concept that inspires this activity, remains largely undefined.
While there is increasing recognition that the concept of quality of life involves
complex interrelationships and tradeoffs among economic, social, and environ-
mental considerations, the means of dealing with these factors, as yet, elude us.
The Environmental Studies Division, Office of Research and Monitoring,
Enviromental Protection Agency is making an effort to improve the tools
available to decision makers who are necessarily involved in quality of life
delivery systems. This effort includes sponsoring a symposium on the subject
The Quality of Life Concept-A Potential New Tool for Decision Makers. The
symposium was held at Airlie House in Warrenton, Virginia on August 29-31,
1972. The objective of the symposium was to explore the Quality of Life (QOL)
concept, to define QOL in terms of its components, and to develop suggested
quantitative approaches to its use in guiding public policy.
This anthology which is also part of the EPA effort presents some back-
ground perspectives for the consideration of the participants prior to the
symposium. The selected readings deal with the QOL concept in general as well
as from the more specific perspectives of different disciplines—environmental,
economic, social, and psychological. The articles represent varying approaches
and levels of consideration and were selected to serve both as a general "brief-
ing" for participants and as a review of the literature in the field.
Il-i
-------
The development of the quality of life concept into a form decision makers
can use is a necessary part of the effort to carry out the policy declared in the
National Environmental Policy Act:
"to foster and promote the general welfare, to create and
maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in
harmony, and fulfill the social, economic, and other require-
ments of present and future generations of Americans"
Il-ii
-------
SECTION II
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Number
PREFACE II- i
I. DEFINING QUALITY OF LIFE MEASURES —THE
STATE OF THE ART II- 1
II. THE QUALITY OF LIFE CONCEPT II- 19
• Relevant Questions on the Quality of Life by Kenneth
W. Terhune II- 21
• An Approach to Measuring the Quality of Life by
Arnold Mitchell, Thomas J. Logothetti, and Robert E.
Kantor, Stanford Research Institute II- 35
• Hopes and Fears of the American People by Albert H.
Cantril and Charles W. Roll, Jr. H- 65
• The Quality of Life-A Try at a European Comparison
by Dr. Lore Scheer II- 79
• Data Requirements for a Quality Growth Policy by
Young P. Joun 11-109
III. QOL: ENVIRONMENTAL PERSPECTIVES 11-123
• Why Environmental Quality Indices? by Thomas L.
Kimball H-125
• Uses of Environmental Indices in Policy Formulation
by Gordon J. F. MacDonald II-135
• A Description of an Environmental Evaluation System
by Ira L. Whitman et al. II-143
-------
Page
Number
w
IV. QOL: ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL PERSPECTIVES 11-149
• Toward Balanced Growth: Quantity With Quality, A
Summary of the Report to the President by the
National Goals Research Staff II-151
• Welfare Measurement and the GNP by Edward F.
Denison 11-165
• Toward A Social Report: Introduction and Summary,
U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare II-175
V. QOL: PSYCHOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES 11-189
• Quality of Life by Norman C. Dalkey and Daniel L.
Rourke 11-191
• A Hierarchy of Needs and Values by Graham T. T.
Molitor 11-202
• The Delphi Procedure and Rating Quality of Life
Factors by Norman C. Dalkey and Daniel L. Rourke II-209
VI. QOL: ATTEMPTS AT COMPARATIVE STATISTICS II-223
• Systematic Measurement of the Quality of Urban Life,
Prerequisite to Management by Robert E. Joyce II-225
• A Study in Comparative Urban Indicators: Conditions
in 18 Large Metropolitan Areas by Michael J. Flax of
the Urban Institute 11-244
• Quality of Life in the United States-An Excursion into
the New Frontier of Social-Economic Indicators by
John Oliver Wilson of North Star Research and
Development Corp. H-259
• Comparison of QOL Factor Lists 11-289
VII. REFERENCES 11-293
Il-iv
-------
THE QUALITY OF LIFE CONCEPT
AN ANTHOLOGY OF READINGS
-------
-------
I DEFINING QUALITY OF LIFE MEASURES-
THE STATE OF THE ART
II-1
-------
-------
DEFINING QUALITY OF LIFE MEASURES -
THE STATE OF THE ART
The quality of life in America has in recent years become the subject of
increasing and widespread concern. This concern is being expressed in terms of a
number of diverse perspectives. Life style groupings such as affluent youth,
ghetto youth, the poor, the feminist movement, the aged, and blue collar
workers view quality of life in terms of their particular values and life experi-
ence. Different disciplines such as economics, sociology, environmental sciences,
and psychology-have tended to approach the issue of quality of life in terms of
their respective characteristic perspectives.
As society attempts to respond to quality of life concerns, it confronts the
interrelated and often conflicting group values from different interdisciplinary
and multidisciplinary approaches.
The quality of life (QOL) concept has received increasing attention as the
focal point of converging economic, social and environmental considerations.
Serious attempts are being made to develop the concept into a useful tool for
decision makers in the public and private sectors. This has involved attempts to:
Define the concept in terms of its constituent components and
factors
Develop indicators to measure the state of each QOL component for a
given demographic group or geographic entity
Relate the indicators to relevant quality standards and aggregate them
into a single QOL index or at least into a set of weighted multiple
QOL indices, and finally—
Relate an overall QOL concept and QOL quantification techniques to
the policy and program decisions of government.
This document is an attempt to summarize the current state of the above
efforts. The following sections discuss: The history of attempts to define and
quantify quality of life; the state-of-the-art from the perspectives of different
disciplines; and considerations related to varying life styles and socio-economic
population groupings. The problems involved in measuring QOL are also
discussed.
II-3
-------
ATTEMPTS TO DEFINE AND MEASURE QOL
For many years, economic indicators such as the Gross National Product
and the Consumer Price Index have been the primary measure on "progress"
available to decision makers. Increasingly, however, decision makers are being
challenged to produce change that improves the quality of life in a social as well
as an economic sense.
Historically, attempts to define and measure quality of life have focused
primarily on social indicators. Significant efforts in the field of social indicators
date back before 1897 when Emile DurRheim's monumental study, Suicide was
published. Later in 1939, E.L. Thorndike in Your City used thirty-nine different
indicators to produce a "general goodness" index. The index was used to
evaluate conditions in a number of American cities.
The concept of social indicators as a tool for social change gained
momentum in the late 60's. A growing body of literature opened new channels
for discussion and growth in this field. Significant works on the subject appeared
in two monographs, Toward a Social Report,l published by the Department of
Health, Education and Welfare in 1969 and later Toward Social Reporting: Next
Step2 by Otis Dudley Duncan. These joined other notable works in the literature
including: Social Indicators3 edited by Raymond Bauer in 1966; Social Intelli-
gence for America's Future4 edited by Bertram Gross in 1969; and Indicators of
Social Change5 edited by Eleanor B. Shelden and Wilber E. Rose. A recent book,
The Human Meaning of Social Change6 by Angus Campbell and Phillip Converse
has added new insights especially as to the social psychological aspects of the
problem.
In an era of urban planning and development, a number of important
studies have been conducted in major metropolitan areas regarding the quality of
life within the urban environment. A recent study undertaken by the Urban
Institute of The Quality of Life in Metropolitan Washington, D.C. was published
in 1970. The study used twelve indicators to make comparisons between
eighteen large urban areas.
An ongoing study of New York uses urban, economic, social, environ-
mental and some general indicators to measure the quality of life. Major
categories for which indicators have been developed on the studies of New York
and Washington include:
Income
Unemployment
Poverty
Housing (costs)
Education
Health
II-4
-------
Mental Health
Environmental Quality
Public Order/Crime
Traffic Safety
Racial Equality
Community Concern
Revenue/Taxation
Welfare and Social Services
These studies were directed at urban decision makers.7a>b>c.
Another current effort of significance is a two-year study by the Survey
Research Center, Institute for Social Research of the University of Michigan.
The primary objectives of the study are to develop a valid and efficient way to
measure the range of life qualities and to learn something about the key factors
contributing to a better life as understood by a representative sample of the
American public. The research is supported by the National Science Foundation.
The Michigan team will measure the relevance of a particular concern to an
individual, the individual's expectations with regard to that concern, and the
individual's conception of change-past, present, and future. The examination of
the effect of changing perceptions over time is of considerable importance in
arriving at a quality of life index useful to government policy-makers.
The National Wildlife Federation has developed an environment quality
index which is based on weighted percentage values for seven factors: soil, water,
air, living space, minerals, timber and wildlife. An "E.Q. Index" has been
published annually since 1969. The E.Q. Index represents an important step
towards an inclusive quality of life index.
The growing concern in the U.S. for identifying the components and
measures of quality of life have led to a number of recent conferences. An
example was a symposium arranged by Dr. Fred S. Singer of the University of
Virginia entitled: Can We Develop An Index for the Quality of Lifel The
symposium addressed the feasibility and methodology of developing an index
for quality of life. The issues discussed included: the components of quality of
life', the measurement of identified components; the handling of nonqualifiable
components; and the conversion of national income aggregate such as GNP into
an index for quality of life.
The expanding concern with quality of life has led to an increasing interest
in the tools of measurement within the U.S. Government. The Office of Manage-
ment and Budget is currently compiling a document for publication in 1973,
tentatively entitled Social Indicators. The purpose of the OMB effort is to
present available statistics to facilitate an understanding of social conditions and
II-5
-------
change in the U.S. There is little agreement on one general instrument of
measurement. Nevertheless, a consolidation of current information in the field
of social indicators is considered useful as a first step in developing the QOk
concept as a potential new tool for decision makers.
PERSPECTIVES OF DIFFERENT DISCIPLINES
Attempts to measure societal conditions have been undertaken from the
standpoint of several major disciplines including economics, sociology,
psychology, and the environmental sciences. Each has its own understanding of
how values and ideals should be defined and manifested in the laws, norms and
sanctions of society. The crucial concern regarding quality of life cannot be
adequately evaluated, without an understanding of these various values
perspectives.
The Economic Perspectives
Since Copernicus and Descares, Western man's thought has tended
toward that of a mechanical universe which can be experienced and
measured scientifically. Anything which could not be measured scientifi-
cally was either ignored or viewed with suspicion. Building upon these
thinkers, Bentham created the economic principle of the greatest good for
the greatest number, not recognizing that human nature is more complex
than the simple summation of pleasures and pains. The most ardent school
of positivist economics is identified with Milton Friedman. This view draws
a distinct line between positive or purely scientific economics and norma-
tive economics concerned with social goals. This school does not consider
values to be necessary for any positive analysis of economic questions.
For economists in general, the methodology has emphasized quantity
as opposed to quality. The stress has been on technical analysis, con-
centrating on input-output studies, econometrics, operations research, game
theory, and linear or mathematical programming. The knotty problems of
human action and behavior have not been addressed to any great extent.
Economics has paid little attention until recent times to the fact that such
concepts as production and distribution, goods and services, commodities
and performances, are related to the human actors who control them and
who, in part, are controlled by them.
The concept of economic indicators as instruments for controlling
economic fluctuations and maintaining economic growth was nurtured by
the depression. Economic prosperity became the major measure of the
overall well-being of societies and nations. In Agenda for the Nations,8 the
Brookings Institution characterized the trend as: "prosperity as a solvent of
social ills has been a chimera-that GNP has turned out to be a small god."
II-6
-------
Widespread social unrest and the questioning of the legitimacy of
certain traditional institutions stimulated a major reexamination of socio-
economic, environmental and behavioral phenomena in other than the
economic context.9
The Social Perspective
Sociology has provided a number of useful lenses through which the
quality of life concept may be viewed: class, race, ethnicity, values, matters
of "ultimate concern," etc. Many policy analysts and decision makers often
forget that their backgrounds as to race, ethnicity, life style, etc.—their
value base-greatly influences their "scientific" approach to the develop-
ment of indicators that will measure the quality of life.
The sociologist has brought to our attention the fact that con-
temporary man is the first to be provided with discretionary leisure time. Is
it a blessing or a curse? For those without the resources to engage in the
activities they desire, it is often seen as a curse.
We can measure the importance of leisure time by quantifying the
leisure time available and the participation levels in various leisure-time
activities, but such quantification does not measure resultant levels of
satisfaction or well-being.
To generalize, the sociologist can be said to approach the quality of
life concept from a group, institutional or societal perspective, whereas the
psychologist approaches it from the personal or individual perspective.
Nonetheless, the sociologist would still have to ask whether we should
approach the question, "what is life all about?" collectively or individually.
The sociologist also provides a long list of questions directly related to
methodologies for measuring the quality of life. The sociologist might ask:
How do people make sense of and define reality? What "ought to be"
(normative) and what "is" (cognitive)? How do religious norms relate to
economics? What is the place of motivation? What is the relationship
between people's actions and their normative expression? How do differing
sets of collective consciousness relate to each other in an overwhelmingly
pluralistic society? How does the matrix of norms and interests affect
people's behavior, both as citizens and as policy makers/analysts? Is there a
balanced view of reality through which a comprehensive explanation of
human experience can be made by both individuals and society as a whole?
How does one approach the ultimate meaning of human experience with all
the subtle complexities of human conduct?
Thus, in attempting to measure the quality of life, the sociologist is at
the forefront of the development of social indicators which accomplish this
II-7
-------
measurement. In developing such social indicators, the sociologist must
address the fact that society is a community of individual and collective
meanings. These must be taken into account and quantified. In the attempt
to quantify quality of life through social indicators, the results often suffer
from confusion between ends and means (or output and input) and the
distinction between the two which is often ignored1 °.
However, even the term "social indicator" is yet to be fully defined,
conceptually or theoretically, although all would agree that it represents
some measure of well-being or quality of life.
The debate in which sociologists find themselves centers upon whether
the demands for social information can be made relevant to public policy
decisions. On one side of the debate are those who would use such
indicators to help establish social goals and priorities, to evaluate public
programs, and to develop a system of social accounts for providing
guidance among alternative interventions. The other side of the debate is
simply that such cannot be done.
The Psychological Perspective
In The Human Meaning of Social Change,6 Campbell and Converse
devote a chapter to "Aspiration, Satisfaction, and Fulfillment." Certainly,
these terms convey the full force of the meaning of "quality" for modern
life. Campbell and Converse discuss quality of life from the standpoint of
personal experience, which means frustrations, satisfactions, disappoint-
ments, and fulfillment all from the eye of the beholder. They assume that
"satisfaction and dissatisfaction are experiences that most people can
report with reasonable validity". Campbell goes on to say that, "The
revolution of rising expectations will go beyond the demand for better
housing and cleaner air to the requirement of a fuller life." But how is this
state to be achieved, let alone measured? Campbell does not answer this
question.
One of the difficulties in disussing the quality of life is that little is
known about the relationship between attitudes and behavior. The
discipline of psychology addresses this relationship. Many of the method-
ologies used to explore the relationship between attitudes and behavior
involves hierarchy of needs theories. The most famous is that of Abraham
Maslow presented in Motivation and Personality.11 Maslow approaches the
perspective of individual needs and values with a well developed five level
(or stages) "needs hierarchy." The five levels in ascending order are:
physiological (or survival); safety/security; social, ego; self-fulfillment (or
self-actualization).
II-8
-------
A more recent theory is the eight level open ended theory of Clare
Graves.12 For Graves, the turmoil (personal, organization, nation-wise) is
due to the transition process of moving from one "need" level to another.
A difficulty with the Maslow scale is that at the highest level, self actualiza-
tion, the theory cannot be applied to organizations-only to individuals.
The Graves approach can be applied to both.
Maslow is actually a positivist, for, with the last level, one has
"arrived" and there is no more development. Graves, on the other hand,
sees the situation in different terms: that growth and development are
endless, open, and continuous. Also, with Graves it is not necessary to
attempt to achieve the top level. This is important in discussing quality of
life, aspirations, satisfaction, happiness, etc. The Graves theory, then,
becomes not a standard by which one compares oneself in the drive to "the
top," but rather a tool to enable people to better manage their relationships
with others. The same would apply to organizations, institutions, nations,
etc.
A person's or organization's level can be discovered through a series of
questions, the answers to which provide the indication of level. The
potential ramification of Graves' theory in the area of measuring quality of
life is enormous.
Because survival needs have been met by the vast majority of the
population, it is the higher needs that dominate in our affluent society.
This often appears in the frantic search for new goals, heroes, and purposes,
with which to, in Toffler's phrase, "cope with the future." Pervading most
people's quest for their vision of quality of life is a sense of meaning, of
individual worth, a feeling that their lives are significant, a sense, therefore,
of personal satisfaction and fulfillment, and the knowledge that personal
growth can continue.
The Environmental Perspective
The environmental sciences attempt to integrate the knowledge of the
physical sciences with the perspectives of economics, sociology, and
psychology. The environmentalists attempt to relate the environment and
the impact of man-made changes to the quality of life.
A number of social concerns can be identified when approaching the
environment from the perspective of quality of life: the continued support
of man by the ecological systems as we know them today; the availability
of suitable land, particularly for agricultural and recreational use; and an
adequate supply of air and water of suitable quality to support all forms of
IT-9
-------
life. Included in these categories would be wildlife, areas of natural beauty,
and recreation areas. It is difficult, given the present state of the art, to
interpret these environmental indicators in terms of human welfare.
Certain indicators of quality of life can be cited as possible beginning
points in determining environmental quality in terms of human welfare: the
extent of air pollution and the number and percent of persons experiencing
air pollution at levels hazardous to health (including the level of pollutants
in the air of a given area by type); a comparison of different areas in terms
of air quality; the number of polluted bodies of water and the number of
persons living within certain radii of the polluted bodies; the numbers of
bodies of water and percentage of given rivers and streams in terms of
specified pollution levels hazardous to health.
The mandate spelled out by the National Environmental Policy Act
not only relates the environment directly to the concept of quality of life
but also provides for the Federal Government to exercise leadership "in
protecting and enhancing the quality of the Nation's environment to
sustain and enrich human life." In so doing, the Council on Environmental
Quality was authorized to "promote the development of indices and
monitoring systems...to determine the effectiveness of programs for
protecting and enhancing environmental quality." The dependence of
man's quality of life on the quality of the environment is made quite clear
in the statement exhorting all levels of government to "promote the general
welfare, (and) to create and maintain conditions under which man and
nature can exist in productive harmony."
However, without the effort being made to raise the quality of life of
all people, no harmony can be possible between man and environment.
People cannot be expected to be concerned about either cultural enrich-
ment or the aesthetic values of their surroundings if their quality of life
does not fulfill the basic needs, wants, and desires for food, shelter and
clothing.7 A wide range of policy issues, both domestic and international,
that relate to the environment may well be determined by considerations
based on what man considers an adequate level of quality of life. For
instance, a major build up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could
seriously alter the world's climate by creating a "hot house" effect.
Although Americans consider an automobile a part of their quality of life,
exporting this ideal of quality to China, with its 800,000,000 people, could
be inimical to the quality of life due to the potential carbon dioxide
emissions that would result.
Another consideration involves the food chain. Will the dumping of
wastes in the oceans, plus the world-wide distribution of mercury in the
various water ways getting into the fish, seriously endanger the biosphere
11-10
-------
and the eco-cycle? What will be the effect of unrestrained population
growth: starvation, disease, catastrophic war? How can we measure, in
advance, the potential danger to the environment, and thus to man, of
massive oil spills, whether in the oceans, lakes, or northland tundra? How
will environment policies which effect: population distribution; conserva-
tion of water resources and wilderness areas; use of coastal land areas;
wildlife; thermal pollution from moving sources of emission; materials
recovery and solid waste management; the use and residue of persistent
chemicals, and so on enhance the quality of the environment and in turn
the quality of life of human beings.
Of vital interest to all concerned with the environment and the
preservation of life, is the linkage between certain environmental factors
and the factors relating to man's sense of what represents for him quality of
life.
Joseph L. Fisher, President of Resources for the Future is concerned
about the more subjective problems of individual and social welfare that
must be taken into account in establishing goals and indicators for environ-
mental quality.13 He notes that most "environmental-quality indicators"
in use in the late sixties were not directly relevant or meaningful for social
welfare as most people think of it. He suggests that perhaps the basic
indicator for social welfare should be one dealing with "net social benefits"
(ie., benefits minus costs or losses in some sense) that would result from
selected interrelated measures to achieve acceptable levels of water or air
quality. He calls for environmentalists to engage with social statisticians,
medical scientists, industrial, agricultural, and sanitary engineers,
economists, sociologists, administrators, and others, in research and
development on indicators of the various environmental trends regarding
pollution and their effect on people.
PERSPECTIVES OF DIFFERENT LIFE STYLES
Each life style grouping whether made distinctive by class, age, interest,
economic level, education, or a combination thereof, tends to define quality of
life in different terms than others. Each has its own value base. Such differences
are heightened by demographic and geographic considerations. Add to these life
style considerations, the pluralism of American society and the challenge of
creating acceptable quality of life measures becomes readily apparent. Such
diverse interests and viewpoints can best be illustrated by concentrating, for the
sake of illustration, upon some of the major categories of class and stage in the
life cycle which influence the various definitions of quality of life. Such
NOTE: Thor Hyerdahl stated that in the Ra, not a day passed when they did not have to
"battle" the debris they encountered, which was opposite of the experience of crossing in
the Kon Ti-Ki 20 years earlier.
11-11
-------
categories are discussed in this section and include: youth and the aged; racial
and ethnic perspectives; blue collar and white collar workers, the poor and the
affluent.
Youth and the Aged
The contrast between youth and the aged in a country that worships
youth can be felt in the phrase often used for oldsters: the "unwanted
generation." As more and more programs are developed to cater to the
young, the elderly are gradually, but continually being devalued and
excluded. Youth in the student movements of the West have played
increasingly important cultural and political roles, particularly in the past
decade (in contrast to the diminishing role played by the elderly.)
The term "youth culture" is a term that has gained currency only
during the past decade.14 Today the term has connotations not only as
evidence of the massive opposition of youth to the social-cultural status
quo, but also as the harbinger of the future society. These latter views can
be seen in such works as Kenneth Keniston's The Uncommitted, Theodore
Roszak's The Making of a Counter Culture, and Charles Reich's The
Greening of America. Little such attention is paid the elderly.
Yet both groups are remarkably alike. Both groups are at the extremes
of the age pyramid, are largely unemployed, introspective, bodies and
psyches in greater process of change, and heavy users of drugs. Time is an
obsession with both groups. But where youth is worshipped, the aged are
avoided. The aged are treated as a "lower class" while youth are treated as
an "upper class." After racism and sexism, the latest, rapidly growing "-ism
is age-ism.
The implications for social indicators of quality of life are significant.
We now have the irony of medicine enabling people to live longer at the
same time technology has made them non-productive. As this is the first
time a society has had to deal with so many aging, there are no models to
follow. The work in quality of life would differ considerably. Such
differences would include such life facets as music, entertainment, clothes,
sexual practices, environmental conditions and environmental surroundings
available for recreation.
Oass, Race and Ethnicity
Two concepts significant to the discussion yet, highly confusing, are
those of "class," and "race and ethnicity." Whether one discusses location
of various economic housing groupings, educational transportation policies,
or quota systems for job hiring and school admission, both concepts are
H-12
-------
relevant. Of the two concepts, however, class may be more relevant. Parents
want their children to live in neighborhoods and go to schools with children
of comparable class position. Rightly or wrongly, quality of life may be
defined in part by parents as being able to shield their children from the
social and cultural realities of lower-class life, which the parents may have
experienced personally.15
Thus, for the different classes, an entirely different set of quality of
life indicators could be necessary. The cultural differences between groups
differing in socioeconomic status (and race) can be discovered by using
value choices made in questionnaires given to people of different economic
and racial groups. Rokeach and Parker16 found that differences between
the races disappeared when socioeconomic position was the same.
From the above we can speculate that differences between blue collar
and white collar workers, between the poor and the affluent, are matters of
class and status reflected by economic level. The implications for the com-
plexity and difficulty in designing quality of life indicators is clear.
Life-style refers to the overall culture or way of life of different
groups in the society. With significant differences existing between the life
styles of different classes it is easy to conclude that different strata of
people live- in different worlds. How quality of life can thus be described
for each world, particularly from the standpoint of the ability of that world
to bring satisfaction and well-being to those within the strata, is a most
complex and, to some, disturbing question. How, in measuring the
differences in values of each of these life-style classes, (blue collar-white
collar, poor-affluent) can diagnoses be made regarding what is right and
wrong with American society and, hence, how can the formulation of
viable policy alternatives be facilitated effectively and efficiently?
The next question that must be asked, regards the whole matter of
whether well-being according to theories of needs hierarchy is to be
measured materially or spiritually. Should indicators measuring assets,
income, basic services, social mobility, education, political position, and
status also measure satisfaction or both? This is a most difficult question
facing those who would develop accurate and meaningful social indicators
with which they can measure the quality of life.
MEASUREMENT OF QUALITY OF LIFE
Quality of Life (QOL) is still primarily a rhetorical notion, although it is
voiced by a growing number of advocates from a variety of interests and
concerns. No one has yet figured out how to measure this most elusive of
concepts. The current literature, 17,18,19 however, makes it clear that the
II-13
-------
notion of QOL is deeply imbedded in the body of thought related to social
indicators.
*
Indicators to date have been used almost exclusively for purposes of
political or economic assessments and projections. The discussion regarding
quality of life is concerned in part with how indicators can be developed which
will measure the state, conditioning, changes and effects of the thought
processes of people.
One of the difficulties in measuring quality of life as opposed to. economic
or production factors, is that there are no "social dollars" flowing throughout
the system which can be counted at critical points. The social "system" has
vastly different characteristics than the economic system. There are no social
costs, prices, incomes, and the like to which most social variables can be
converted given the current state of the art.
In considering measurement of quality of life, one must continually keep in
mind that information and evaluation requirements will change through time.
Evaluation criteria will change because values will change and knowledge will
expand. Examples will help to clarify these points. The state of knowledge at the
1960 White House Conference on children indicated that children's welfare was
enhanced most if the mother devoted full time to them. Thus, welfare policy
directed aid toward mothers who remained home, penalizing mothers who were
employed. This was more than a matter of economics. It was an attempt to
encourage the single mother not to work. In 1972 we see a complete change:
now the emphasis is being placed on day care centers so that mothers can work
and not be home with their children.
The subjective and objective conditions of quality of life measures must be
recognized and dealt with. By definition, objective conditions are empirical and
reproducible. Heads can be counted or absolute scales can be applied. Census
data and economic indicators deal with the objective. Quality of life indicators,
on the other hand, may go beyond this and include the subjective. Subjective
conditions of factors are not reproducible with certainty. They must measure
feelings and attitudes. They must indicate the conditions and conditioning or
"states of mind" of society and its citizens.
Quantitative methods can be used to determine the normative character of
such information. For instance, averages, medians, modes, etc., through all the
measure of central tendency, can be applied to determine how typical an
attitude or value is among a given population or "universe." However, com-
parison of an attitude or value held by one person with respect to a different
attitude or value held by someone else may not be valid.
II-14
-------
Perhaps the measurement problem will not be eased until a grand theoreti-
cal structure is completed, utilizing not a multidisciplinary approach but an
inter-disciplinary approach. Necessary, however, is the condition of getting those
representing the various disciplines to complement each other. The anthro-
pologist is needed to provide solid cross-cultural pre-suppositions to the under-
pinnings of the exercise. The psychologist, usually more willing to tackle all-
inclusive theories, is needed for his adventurousness. The sociologist is needed to
apply his special imagination to the handling of ordinal and nominal data; the
economist is needed too, for who is more at home with sophisticated model
building and the use of mathematical techniques? The historian's adept
extraction of the subtleties of meaning and the broader implications from
textual material is needed. Political scientists are needed to provide a better
understanding of the relationship between research and action. To truly grasp
the handles on measuring quality of life, the contributions and benefits of the
various disciplines must be recognized and utilized.
11-15
-------
REFERENCES
1 U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Toward a Social
Report. U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, D.C., January 1969.
2. Duncan, Otis Dudley. Toward Social Reporting: Next Steps. New York:
Russell Sage Foundation, 1969.
3. Bauer, Raymond A. (Ed.)Sociz/ Indicators. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1966.
4. Gross, Bertram, Social Intelligence for America's Future. New Jersey:
Allynn and Bacon, Inc., 1969.
5. Sheldon, Eleanor and Wilbert E. Moore (Editors). Indicators of Social
Change. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1968.
6. Campbell, Angus and Philip Conversee The Human Meaning of Social
Change. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1972.
7a. Research Analysis Corporation. Environmental Quality Index-A Feasi-
bility Study. County of San Diego, Environmental Development Agency
San Diego, California, June 1972.
7b. Berenyi, John (Ed.). The Quality of Life in Urban America-New York
City: A Regional and National Comparative Analysis.
7c. Jones, Martin V. and Michael J. Flax. The Quality of Life in Metropolitan
Washington, D.C-Some Statistical Benchmarks. The Urban Institute,
Washington, D.C., March 1970.
8. The Brookings Institution. Agenda for the Nation. 1968.
9. Kamrany, Nake M. and Alexander N. Christakis. Social Indicators in
Perspective, International Seminar on Ekistics and the Future of Human
Settlements, July 1969.
10. Terleckyj, Nestor E., "Measuring Possibilities of Social Change". Looking
Ahead, August 1970.
11. Maslow, Abraham H. (Ed.) Motivation and Personality. Harper-Row, New
York, 1970.
11-16
-------
12. Graves, Clare W., W. I. Huntley, and Douglas B. La Bier. "Personality
Structure and Perceptual Readiness: An Investigation of Their Relationship
to Hypothesized Levels of Human Existence," mimeographed paper, May
1965.
13. Fisher, Joseph L. "The Natural Environment" The Annals of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science, May 1967.
14. Berger, Peter L. and Brigette Berger. Sociology: A Biographical Approach,
Basic Books, Inc. New York.
15. Berger, Peter L. and Brigette Berger. "The Assault on Class" World View,
June 1972.
16. Rokeach, Milton and Seymour Parker. "Values as Social Indicators of
Poverty and Race Relations in America", The Annals of the Academy of
Political and Social Science, March 1970.
17. Mitchell, Arnold, Thomas J. Logothetti, and Robert E. Kantor. An
Approach to Measuring Quality of Life, Stanford Research Institute, Menlo
Park, California, September 1971.
18. Corning, Pater A. An Index for the Quality of Life. Paper presented at the
138th meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of
Science. December 1971.
19. Joyce, Robert E. "Systematic Measurement of the Quality of Urban Life,
Prerequisite to Management", from Seminar on Management of the Gty,
Research Analysis Corporation, May 1971, pp. 69-86.
11-17
-------
-------
II THE QUALITY OF LIFE CONCEPT
11-19
-------
-------
PROBING POLICY-RELEVANT QUESTIONS ON THE
QUALITY OF LIFE
Some preliminary Research Ideas
By
Kenneth W. Terhune, Ph.D.
Principal Psychologist
Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory, Inc.
1971
II-21
-------
PROBING POLICY-RELEVANT QUESTIONS ON THE
QUALITY OF LIFE
Some Preliminary Research Ideas
Kenneth W. Terhune, Ph.D.
During the last few years, governmental and citizen concern about the
quality of American life has spawned a number of studies on how to measure
that quality, to facilitate better reporting of where we are, better planning of
where we should go, and better evaluation of what programs have accomplished.
Attention has been given on the one hand to developing "hard" statistical
indications of things like health and crime, and on the other hand to identifying
and measuring, through survey studies, the qualities of life that concern people.
Yet important problems remain to be examined if this new onslaught of
measurement is to really facilitate the ends toward which it is directed. The
studies suggested here would address a few of those problems.
The premise on which the studies are based is that quality of life refers to
human experience, and the criteria of quality of life are those dimensions of life
by which people experience levels of satisfaction - dissatisfaction (pleasure-pain,
happiness-unhappiness, etc.). The conscious expression of those criteria we
designate as human values, so understanding the quality of life requires an under-
standing of the nature of human values.*
In the following pages we briefly describe four studies relating to quality of
life. The first three comprise a package that examines how our values govern our
overall experience of the quality of life. Study 1 concentrates on developing a
general measure of the experience of quality of life in communities. Study 2
examines the nature of community values with respect to issues of considerable
policy relevance. Study 3 develops and tests a model on how value experiences
determine the net experience of quality of life, and thus provides a crucial test
of validity of our understanding of quality of life. Finally, Study 4 examines the
role of quality of life in migration decisions within this country, a problem of
contemporary interest in demographers and policy makers.
The relevance of values to quality of life seems to be commonly recognized now,
although the nomenclature sometimes gets messy with reference to 'Values and needs",
"values and goals", and the like. We shall not use additional concepts until they appear
necessary to make impoitant distinctions.
11-22
-------
STUDY 1
MEASURING THE GLOBAL QUALITY OF LIFE EXPERIENCE
Concepts of "the quality of life," "well-being," "social progress," all
convey the idea that in some way our life experiences aggregate to a net effect.
If they do not, then it makes no sense to say that any group of people is "better
off or "worse off than another, or that our society has gotten "better" or
"worse" over time. Our feelings clearly fly against such a view, and no one seems
to raise the matter as a serious issue. Nevertheless, one finds statements that a
global measure of quality of life is impossible, or at least not to be achieved in
the foreseeable future.* Such statements seem to be based on the notion that a
global measure would be obtained only by learning how to combine measures of
the separate components of quality of life. Errors in the procedure could
produce misleading results, possibly with disastrous policy consequences. The
problem becomes more tractable, however, if we seek not a composite measure
but a direct global measure of quality of life as experienced. Instead of trying to
combine externally evaluated criteria like level of health, amount of income,
extent of recreation and so on we develop indicators that reflect well-being
through expressed feelings and expressive behavior. That is the objective of
Study 1.
Before giving details of the approach, let's consider the potential uses of a
global measure of the quality of life experience. Some are as follows:
1. Evaluating programs-Some programs like Model Cities have the
general goal of improving the quality of life, but evaluation is more likely to be
piecemeal, project by project. It would be a valuable contribution to evaluation
if the question could be answered: "Did our program succeed in making people
happier?"
2. Identifying "pockets of misery "-Just as a person's sickness may not
become apparent until it reaches advanced stage, so also the fact that people are
disturbed in some neighborhoods or cities may not be apparent for a long time,
especially if the response is apathy or lethargy rather than something dramatic
like a riot or an epidemic. By signaling that "something's wrong" in an area,
steps to determine the problems would be prompted.
3. Studying quality of life components-Using the general measure of
quality of life experience as a criterion or dependent variable, research can assess
For example, the Federal government's Toward A Social Report states: "Thus the goal
of a grand and cosmic measure of all forms or aspects of welfare must be dismissed as
impractical, for the present at any rate", (p. 99).
11-23
-------
the contribution of any presumed component of quality of life to that
dependent variable. The relative importance among different components might
be examined in that way. More generally, any model on how quality of life?
dimensions combine to determine overall quality of life experience can be tested
against the criterion measure. (Such an approach will be used in Study 3.)
Since the method we propose is based on expression of feelings by people,
it might be asked whether people's expression of how they feel can be assumed
to reflect the quality of life they are experiencing. Some evidence on this is
available. A recent study by Norman Bradburn of the National Opinion Research
Center asked the simple question: "Taken altogether, how would you say things
are these days—would you say you are very happy, pretty happy, or not too
happy?" The proportion responding "not too happy" was considerably greater
among
unemployed men (34%) than among the employed (about 8%)
in Detroit's inner city (25%) than in a Detroit suburb (5%)
the indigent (15-23%) than among the affluent (6-8%).
If we may assume that the unemployed, inner city residents, and the indigent
experience a lower quality of life than the comparison groups, then already we
have a clue that simple questions about "How happy are you" may be useful for
a global indicator. If so, then the following results have interesting implications
for what has been happening to the quality of life in the United States.*
"Very happy" "Not too happy"
1946 39% 9%
1947 38% 4%
1949 43% 12%
1957 35% 11%
1963 32% 16%
1965 30% 17%
Suggestive though such data are, it would be unwise exclusively to rely upon
verbal reports, since they are subject to the influence of the way questions are
asked and to variations in word interpretations that may occur across time and
locations. Consequently, behavioral expressions of well-being also need to be
sought.
From various polls; would be documented in proposal.
11-24
-------
The general procedure in Study 1 would be as follows:
1. Review ways of assessing felt well-being-Vunous sources would be
investigated to find ways by which felt well-being is expressed and which may
thereby provide bases for measurement. Explored in the review would be:
(a) survey questions pertaining to such matters as happiness, satisfaction,
worries, etc.; (b) behavioral indices of group morale; (c) behavior of animals that
seems to reflect positive affect (such as behavior following reward); (d) human
nonverbal communication of effect; (e) behavioral measures of psychological
health and illness. The endeavor here would include not only a literature review,
but interviews with animal psychologists, clinical psychologists and psychiatrists
to learn what people and animals do when they "feel good".
The following are examples of the kinds of indicators that would be
considered:
a. Mental health indicators: rates of alcoholism, placement in
mental institutions, suicide rates, etc.
b. Stress indicators: psychogenic illnesses (ulcer, asthma, etc.):
behavior that people exhibit under stress.
c. Unconscious or semi-conscious expressions of affective tone:
posture, amount of sleeping, physical activity, frequency of talking, verbal
loudness, making noise, laughter, smiling. (One researcher reports distinct
differences in the extent of smiling in different sections of the U.S.)
d. Frequency of ostensibly "happy activities"—Partying, dancing,
etc.
2. Evaluate candidate measures—The various possibilities would be
evaluated by the following criteria:
a. Availability of data or ease of collecting same. (Various forms of
data collection methods will be considered including interview surveys, content
analysis of cultural products, observation techniques, incident recording.)
b. Boundedness within cultures or subcultures. (Preference will be
given to behavioral measures whose meaning appears less subject to variation
across cultural lines.)
c. Whether the behavior is likely to reflect general feelings or rather
to compensate for general feelings. (For example, certain forms of singing
express one's unhappiness, while some passive forms of entertainment may be
escapist.)
11-25
-------
3. Data collection and analysis—Through some sort of team judgment
process, three or four locations would be selected for exploratory data
collection. The locations might be different cities or neighborhoods within a
city. Selection would be made of locations which consensus agrees differ
considerably in quality of life. Data would then be obtained and factor analyses
made to determine the dimensions within the data. (The NORC study cited
earlier indicated that psychological well-being has two independent components,
positive and negative effect, i.e., absence of happiness is not necessarily misery.
We would want to be aware of such indications in the data.) From the results,
the best indicators of experienced quality of life would be selected.
The study would best be done over two years, with tasks (1) and (2) in the
first year. The first year's effort would be carried on by the principal investigator
and a graduate assistant at an estimated total cost of $30,000. Since the
approach to be used in Task (3) will depend upon the outcome of the first two
tasks, a cost estimate for the second year is more difficult. Assuming that survey
research would be required, the second year's costs are roughly estimated at
$100,000.
A THEORETICAL-AND RELEVANT-POSTSCRIPT ON STUDY 1
The interpretation should not be made that we believe that if environ-
mental qualities remain constant, the experience of quality of life also remains
constant. People do adapt to their circumstances, so what one considers the
"good life" at one time may be thought to be mediocre a decade or so later,
even if the social-physical environment has remained constant. (Thus,
recollections of "the good old days" may be memories of one's earlier feelings
rather than of one's earlier actual circumstances.) Hence, the global experience
of quality of life would reflect not so much static qualities of the environment,
but the dynamic ones. To make this clear, suppose one's feeling of the good life
is enhanced by having natural beauty in the environment and by having regular
exposure to the performing arts. Our hypothesis is that the feeling of a good life
would be sustained by repeated "good happenings" in the performing arts, but if
the beautiful environment remained constant, it would lose its appeal with a
consequent reduction in the experienced quality of life. For a feeling of high
quality of life over a long period, either constant improvement in the social-
physical environment is necessary, or a succession of pleasant events must
continue. Similarly, a continuous feeling of low quality of life requires either
steady decrements in environmental qualities or a succession of "bad events".
These considerations are necessary for the realization of what a measure of
the quality of life experience would and would not reflect, and more generally,
for the way that various social indicators to measure quality of life may relate to
how people feel. Social indicators that reveal the dynamic qualities of the
environment are more likely to relate to people's feelings than are indicators that
do not reflect the nature of change over time.
11-26
-------
STUDY 2
QUALITY OF LIFE. ITS MEANING IN A PLURALISTIC SOCIETY
Policy makers hoping to improve quality of life in a community and social
scientists trying to measure social progress (improvement in quality of life) both
must cope with the fact that quality of life and social progress mean different
things to different people. Unfortunately, especially for the policy maker, this is
not an area that is subject to debate or to the reaching of consensus,* for the
experience of quality of life is a very personal thing; one is not easily persuaded
that he likes what he dislikes or the reverse. In other words, people's values or
value priorities do differ, and, like tastes, it's difficult to dispute values. This
surely challenges the policy maker's art of compromising (or optimizing), while
the social assessor is left with the very sticky question of whether social progress
can be measured at all, except by one set of value standards which of necessity
must be arbitrarily chosen. We doubt that either of these problems is subject to
cleancut solutions, but we do suggest here some research that may reveal some
order in the diversity of values, the understanding of which would make the
problems of the policy maker and social assessor more tractable. It is important
to note that the suggested research is neither clearly basic nor applied, for it
endeavors to construct part of a bridge between theory and practice with respect
to quality of life. This is an area where we believe it particularly true, as the
psychologist Kurt Lewin once said, "There is nothing so practical as a good
theory." If our theory** is correct, there is some order among the values of
different people and different eras, so that there is some basis for agreement on
what quality of life is about, and there is a basis for measuring social progress
from more than a very narrow viewpoint. That is what this study is intended to
show, within the context of the concrete values by which people evaluate life in
communities.
Our use of the term "value" merits a brief statement at this point. We
conceive people as experiencing satisfaction-dissatisfaction with aspects of life
according to various criteria, and those criteria we call values. Values may be
broad and abstract, e.g., beauty, security, or concrete and relevant to particular
domains, e.g., visual beauty of the physical environment, security from crime in
one's community. Concrete values pertaining to one's community we call
"community values". Associated with any value (for a particular person) is a
This is not always realized, hence we see occasional discussions on what quality of life
is all about. Even the federal government's Toward a Social Report seems to presume
that enlightened men can agree on what the quality of life is, in an absolute sense.
Actually, the theory incorporates seminal conceptions of other theorists, especially
Abraham Maslow.
11-27
-------
range of satisfaction. Thus, the range of satisfaction-dissatisfaction between a
beautiful and ugly city may be rather limited for a given individual, yet he may
experience a wide range of satisfaction-dissatisfaction in an income range from "
wealth to poverty.
To describe the approach very briefly, we shall present questions that we
consider important to policy makers and social assessors, following each
question with the relevant theoretical question and a short explanation. After
that ideas will be sketched for an interview survey that would address the
theoretical questions.
Applied question No. 1: On what basis should resources be allocated for
the improvement of society?
Underlying theoretical question: How are people's values ordered by
importance?
Several studies show that people can give a rank order of importance for
their values. Before leaping to the conclusion that policy priorities can be set
simply by referring to the most typical or "average" rank order, it should be
recognized that what such orders mean is not at all clear. We suggest that
different orders will be produced according to whether people are asked to place
things in the order by which they would be willing to give them up or in the
order of the satisfaction yielded by each. That expectation derives from our
theory. If supported by research, the results will indicate what priorities are
dictated as necessities and which additional priorities derive as amenities.
Applied question No. 2: For what objectives can we consider alternatives
and for which can we not?
Underlying theoretical question: What things are valued for themselves and
which are valued only as means to ends?
When people express their value preferences, they most likely will make no
distinctions between things that are intrinsically desirable to them and things
desired as means to ends. Extant surveys apparently ignore this consideration,
which is crucial for policy making. Ends are not substitutable, hence are not
things for which policy makers should consider alternatives in seeking to
improve quality of life in a community. On the other hand, values which refer to
means (instrumental values) are easily yielded to other means.
Applied question No. 3: Is there a reasonable sequence by which we should
seek improvement of different aspects of our community?
H-28
-------
Underlying theoretical question: What values are related contingently, such
that A is not desired until B is attained to some degree?
v
"People are never satisfied; as soon as they get one thing, they want some-
thing else." This bit of folklore seems valid and is incorporated into at least one
psychological theory. That theory further states, however, that there is a certain
order by which new wants appear. If true, then a valid theory would help policy
planning by forecasting further public demands. (Put another way, it would help
policy makers to avoid the erroneous conclusion that because the public doesn't
want something today, it won't want it tomorrow.) Projects could be logically
phased according to the order by which values are likely to be emphasized.
Applied question No. 4: How can we measure social progress when our very
criteria of progress vary among people and change with time?
Underlying theoretical question: Is there an evolutionary character to the
emergence of values?
One of the most crucial considerations in efforts to measure social well-
being and progress is the fact that the yardsticks themselves are subject to
evolution and development. Thus is raised the challenging question: If
yesterday's standards are different from today's, is it sensible or possible to
assess whether we are "better off" today than yesterday? Or must we be content
with just showing differences? Now to be sure, some values like health seem
eternally valid. Yet the research of Milton Rokeach indicates that as people
become more prosperous, prosperity itself is downgraded as a value while
wisdom is elevated. Theories such as Abraham Maslow's suggest that values don't
just "change", but rather "higher" values emerge as "lower" ones are satisfied. If
this be the case, it is important that any measures of "progress" not be assessing
quality of life by outgrown standards. At the same time, however, it is essential
to discriminate the emergence of new values to prominence, as the result of
progression, from the re-emergence of former values as a result of regression.
Man adapts, and it is quite possible that he can adapt to a lower quality of life,
as is the concern of some environmentalists who fear that we will become
adjusted to, hence satisfied with, a deteriorated physical environment.
If value systems are subject to evolution, it is quite possible—as Rokeach's
findings possibly suggest-that part of the contemporary diversity in value
preferences results from different people being at different levels of value
development. Such order in diversity not only would be an important theoretical
discovery, but it would facilitate flexible ordering of governmental priorities for
validity tomorrow as well as today. Values that are dominant only among a
minority today may be shown to herald the majority values tomorrow. (At the
same time, we should be sensitive to the possibility of there being several
11-29
-------
alternative evolutionary paths in value development. If so, this would facilitate
the forecasting of future value diversity.)
•
To be sure, the problem outlined is a profound one, and we have modest
expectations of what may be learned in a single study. But the problem is an
important one to social assessment efforts and we think the contribution of an
initial study could be quite significant. Since we would like to determine
whether our methods will produce results to answer the questions we have
raised, we suggest a feasibility study within one metropolitan area. The Buffalo
metropolitan area has a wide range of qualitative variations, so it would provide
a useful testing ground for the methods proposed.
The study would involve survey research, with field work implemented
through the Survey Research Center of the State University of New York at
Buffalo. Interview questions would be designed, in consultation with the staff at
the Center, to elicit the following information.
1. Perceived characteristics of "best" and "worst" communities—The
objectives here are to reveal the criteria that people use in evaluating quality of
life in communities, and to gain perspective on means-end relationships. Using an
approach similar to that used by Hadley Cantril in his Patterns of Human
Concerns study, respondents would be asked the characteristics of the best
community they could imagine, and the worst. For every characteristic named,
they would be asked "Why is that good (or bad)?" Without leading the respond-
ent towards any specific values, these questions would indicate the community
values that are important to the respondent, with importance related not only to
levels of satisfaction but to dissatisfaction as well. The "why" question would
reveal, partially at least, perceived means-ends relationships.
2. Range of satisfaction of community va/wex-The objective here is to
probe the felt importance of various community values, as indicated by the
maximum satisfaction expected if the value were fully realized. Since the
method requires a list of values to be established in advance, the values examined
will be obtained from a review of the literature on quality of life, with selection
of those values which seem to be the important contemporary ones. (We would
also want to take advantage of the findings of currently ongoing studies, such as
the NSF-sponsored study on the quality of life at Michigan's Institute for Social
Research.) Respondents would be asked to poll the community values first
according to the most satisfaction or pleasure they would gain from them, and
second by their willingness to give up each of the values. From these results the
"satisfaction range" of each value would be readily obtained. The results should
clearly portray the relative importance of values, in that most important would
be the essential or near essential values (those which people feel they can't or are
unwilling to give up), followed by those values which give the most satisfaction.
11-30
-------
3. Progressive steps of community improvement—The objective here is to
learn how value priorities evolve as communities improve. The hypothesis is that
• value differences among social groups in a community will be systematically
related to the quality of life these groups experience. One way to test this would
be to ask survey respondents to specify a neighborhood in their community
where people are somewhat better off, another where people are somewhat
worse off, and similarly they would specify the best and worst neighborhoods in
their community. Choices would be made from a map of the community in
which neighborhoods are delineated. From the responses it should be possible to
establish a rank order of neighborhoods, if there is an internal consistency
among the respondents sampled. (Note that the method does not require any
respondent to be familiar with all neighborhoods of the community.) By
comparing the value results from parts 1 and 2 among residents of the
successively improving neighborhoods, perspective would be provided on the
evolutionary character of community values. (It is recognized, however, that this
approach does not directly study the evolution of values, for it is not time-
longitudinal). Should it be possible without creating an unduly long interview, it
would also be useful to include questions to find the values by which people
judge the other neighborhoods more and less preferable than their own. The
values mentioned should reveal a progressive shift in moving from lower to
higher quality neighborhoods.
Alternate ways of assessing value evolution to be considered for a proposal
would include a comparison of different age groups, beginning with youth. While
some value change may reflect aging rather than evolution, there is substantial
evidence now that indicates that values are fairly stable over time within the
individual, but genuinely generational (age-cohort) differences do develop. A
third alternative is perhaps the most promising, but difficult to explain in a few
words. The respondents would be asked to rank order a set of community values
in order of personal importance and also to rate their own neighborhood on how
it stands on each of the values. If our general hypothesis above is correct, then it
should be possible to develop an array in which neighborhoods are ordered by
quality of life and values are ordered by the sequences in which they emerge.
The various methods we have discussed for Study 2 are of course tentative,
and there are theoretical and methodological questions we would wish to
consider in the development of a proposal. In general, however, the study does
seem to be one that would provide insights on quality of life that could be very
important in the assessment of social progress.
It is estimated that Study 2 would be a one-year project costing about
$115,000. This rough estimate is based upon the expected contributions of the
principal investigator, a graduate assistant, data analysts, plus the services of the
Survey Research Center and social science consultants from the State University.
11-31
-------
STUDY 3
A MODEL OF QUALITY OF LIFE
Study 3 would develop and test a model as a way of determining whether
we adequately comprehend what governs the experience of quality of life. Only
a brief description will be given for this later study which requires the
completion of Studies 1 and 2 to be feasible. It is also assumed that new infor-
mation on the nature of quality of life would be available from other studies.
The basic idea of Study 3 is that (a) if from Study 1 we have successfully
developed an index or indices of the global quality of life experience, and (b) if
we can show significant variations among neighborhoods within cities or among
cities with respect to measured quality of life experience, then (c) we can use as
a measure of our understanding of quality of life the proportion of variance in
the global measure that we can "account" for through other variables.
Community values—the expressed criteria by which people experience
satisfaction with their social-physical environment—may be expected to account
in large measure for the quality of life experience. For each community value
that a person holds he will feel some degree of satisfaction-dissatisfaction with
the environment within which he lives. In some way these feelings combine to
yield net level of satisfaction with his community. We would develop a model
that specifies how the net effect is achieved. This is an ambitious undertaking,
yet not infeasible. Something which may greatly facilitate the development will
be a similar effort we will be making on an NIH-supported contract regarding
family size values. That effort would have been completed by the time we would
be ready to work on the quality of life model.
Development of a model may seem much more of an academic exercise and
little related to planning, policy making, or other activities concerned with doing
something about the quality of life. Yet model construction would not be just
an exercise, for it would indicate how to determine, for any group at a particular
time, the relative emphasis to put upon different community values to achieve
greatest satisfaction. In other words, a good model would provide guidance on
how best to allocate resources (time, money, energy).
11-32
-------
STUDY 4
ROLE OF QUALITY OF LIFE IN MIGRATION DECISIONS
Suppose as a result of studies on the quality of life in various cities and
states, there is wide dissemination and publication of those places where "life is
best". Would masses of people pack up and move on to these promised lands?
The belief that the appeal of the good life is a primary incentive in migration has
long been part of American lore, and it has in fact led to fears among Oregonians
that the "discovery" of the good life in Oregon will attract unwanted hordes to
that state. Migration is not the concern of Oregonians only, for among the
problems of population that this country is faced with is the fact that our
population is concentrated in a small proportion of our nation's geographical
area. Future projections by the government forecast concentration of 71% of
our population in 12 megalopoli by the year 2000. No megalopolis is forecast
for Oregon, but Oregonians should draw little comfort from that, for the federal
government's Center for Population Research acknowledges that we still know
very little about determinants of migration, so forecasts can go wrong. Study 4
would aim toward better understanding of this problem by examining the role of
quality of life and other factors in decisions to migrate within the country.
The study would examine a transactional model, in which the decision of a
family to migrate includes perceived quality of life as one factor. Specifically,
our model would specify the decision to move as a function of:
1. Quality of life: the individual's* community values (his evaluative
criteria of a community) and his evaluation of particular communities (cities,
states) based on those criteria.
2. The individual's roots in his present community: independent of one's
perceived quality of life in one's present community, one establishes ties in the
way of friendships, familiarity with the environment (knowing how to cope, get
around), developed obligations and commitments, and sentimental attachments.
3. Moving costs: financial costs plus the upset and readjustments that are
necessary in relocating.
4. Uncertainties: the lack of knowledge of what life will be like in the
new community.
In the case of families, substitute family for individual in the factors cited.
H-33
-------
To develop a model, survey research would be used to develop a predictive
model. A two-phase study is anticipated. In the first phase recent migrants
would be compared with nonmigrants to determine the relative contribution of
the above factors. With that information the model would be developed to
predict migration decisions, and in a second phase the model would be tested by
predicting which families within a sample are most likely to move and to where.
That phase would include a follow-up six months to a year later to determine
the success of the forecasts.
11-34
-------
AN APPROACH TO MEASURING
THE QUALITY OF LIFE
Prepared for:
THE STANFORD RESEARCH INSTITUTE
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
By
Arnold Mitchell, Thomas J. Logothetti,
and Robert E. Kantor
SRI Projects 90414 and 48953102AME
II-35
-------
I INTRODUCTION
Men have always been concerned with the quality of life. Many of man's *
loftiest artistic achievements have sought to describe, or to picture, or to
intimate a sense of what is highest in life's qualities. Philosophers and religious
leaders have specified the paths to eternal bliss; poets and mystics have hinted at
the elements of earthly paradise; visionaries have outlined the principles of
Utopia; science fiction writers have fantasized the technologies that will lead to
unending happiness, and so on and on. Other groups have been more concerned
with defining, measuring, or controlling quality of life. Thus economists
invented the hypothetical "economic man" and hence inferentially defined
quality of life in terms of material well being. Political economists and reformers
going back several millennia have sought to identify quality of life with panaceas
inherent in political schemes, special types of living arrangements, certain
philosophies, specified interpersonal relationships; some even devised units and
mathematics to measure quality. Historians, sociologists, and a few anthro-
pologists have written on the quality of society, sometimes seeking to identify
the "universals" that underlie cultures. Others have set forth various laws of
societal evolution. Psychologists and psychiatrists have offered great numbers of
schemata of human development, observations on the nature of mental health
and illness, and commentary on what constitutes the good life. Very recently the
sociological literature has been intensely concerned with the allied fields of
social indicators, social goals, social accounts, futurism, systems theory, social
engineering, and the like. Studies in these fields have tended to focus on the
quality of societal functioning.
The purpose of the present paper is to build on the insights of those
concerned with quality life and of society—whether artist, mystic, scholar,
observer, or activist—in order to set forth a conceptual approach to measuring
quality of life (QOL) in the United States of the 1970s. There are many reasons
for wanting to develop quality of life measures. For example, they are central to
assessments of many aspects of social progress and social accounting. They
would have much utility in research on national goals, program evaluations,
priority rankings, and public and private policy decision-making. Insights drawn
from QOL analyses should be useful in studies of the future, in understanding
societal change, in designing strategies for societal transitions, and in construc-
ting national and international social data systems.
This study is concerned wholly with the principles underlying assessments
of quality of life. The myriad technical problems inherent in opinion and
attitude measurements receive little explicit attention at this stage. Similarly, the
study is a necessary first step in dealing with social indicators. If subsequent field
work should show that quality of life can indeed be gauged as proposed here, it
might then be possible to ferret out indicators for the various aspects of quality
of life and thus contribute to the social indicators movement. The final chapter
11-36
-------
deals briefly with this possibility. In Appendix A may be found definitions of
many of the terms used in this report and in contemporary literature in the field
of social indicators.
Sheldon and Freeman (34) have summarized their sense of what is most
needed in the domain of societal measurements: "While technical problems
should not be brushed aside and the craft in the field needs improvement, it
should be emphasized that the conceptual needs are the greatest—what to
measure and what are valid operational measures of critical phenomena." This
report, being very much an interim document, deals almost exclusively with
aspects of the "what to measure" part of the problem.
The authors are grateful to Stanford Research Institute for the support of
this study under its program of Institute Research and Development.
II ON DEFINING QUALITY OF LIFE
A. General Definition
By quality of life we mean an individual's overall perceived satisfaction of
his needs over a period of time. This kind of definition differs radically from
those based principally on external measures and from those dealing chiefly with
societal functioning. The prime distinction is that the proposed measure is
phenomenological, direct, and psychologically oriented as distinct from
behavioristic, inferential, and physiologically oriented. It seems entirely possible,
for example, that a person well situated with respect to the indicator areas*
suggested in the Olson report (38) or those suggested by numerous other
commentators (e.g., 2,7,8,43,44) could suffer a low subjectively felt QOL. Thus
a societal system that provides for the basic wants of citizens is perhaps
necessary, but is certainly not a sufficient condition for high QOL. National
goals have stated repeatedly (9) that democratic societies exist to serve the
individuals comprising the society. Hence a logical starting point in assessing
QOL is the individual rather than the system. For this reason, we have turned to
the psychological literature in search of ways to measure life's qualities.
B. Roles of NVBs
The basic premise underlying the approach is that what people need, value,
and believe (NVB) are the dominating determinants of their sense of quality of
life. That is to say that QOL is highly subjective, especially in its loftier reaches.
Health; social mobility; physical environment; income; public order and safety; learn-
ing, science, and art; participation and alienation.
11-37
-------
As has often been pointed out, it matters more how a person feels about his
situation than how his status, measured in some "objective" way, compares with
others. This approach thus seeks to reflect a person's inner evaluations—his sense *
of the discrepancy between what is and what his needs, values, and beliefs lead
him to anticipate. The current phenomenon of widespread alienation is a case in
point. Many of those most alienated are highly advantaged in economic terms;
the source of their alienation is a misfit between their NVB pattern—their sense
of what comes first, what image to follow, what are the ultimates in human
life—and that of the society at large. Thus NVBs can be thought of as a person's
defining paradigm, as the crucial components of his outlook on life. NVBs,
indeed, are so fundamental to human affairs that they provide a powerful and
useful way of studying societies and institutions, of formulating policies, of
forecasting, and so on. This is particularly true in so-called advanced societies
able to provide most of their citizens with the essentials for physical existence.
Freed from perpetual and central concern with physiological matters, such
populations can afford to be guided by the "higher" values and beliefs-they can
do things because they believe it is good to do those things, or merely because
those things are valued for whimsical, or simple pleasure, or moral reasons. In
short, quality of life for most citizens of the affluent society no longer is a
matter of mere physical comfort and well-being, but, rather, depends critically
on a person's sense that his deeply held values and beliefs are also being fulfilled.
We are, in effect, seeking to measure the interpretation one puts on life—its
meaning rather than its exterior attributes or actions.
C. Attributes of QOL Measures
Ideally, any system of measurement should include several attributes not
always embodied in QOL concepts:
* It should distinguish between various levels of quality of life, each
level having its own special pattern of needs and values and beliefs.
* It should be sufficiently universal that the principles would hold for
the large majority of Americans in the U.S. today.
* It should be individual in the sense that it could provide room for any
mode of life or any view of man-that is, the measures should be
flexible enough to encompass any life style.
* It should be based on subjective definitions of QOL but these
"interior" assessments must reflect or interplay with such "exterior"
aspects of life as societal functioning, economic well being, and
physiological need.
II-38
-------
* It should reflect the motion of life-the aspects of directionality,
expectation, developmental surge, image-seeking, growth-orientation—
as well as the more static components—the aspects of history,
demography, possessions, circumstance, or experience, whether
interior or exterior or both.
D. A Basic Schema
The literature dealing with psychological development seemed the most
logical place to seek out clues to measuring QOL defined in our terms.
V EXTENSION OF QOL WORK
A. Field Testing
Clearly, the first requirement in extending the suggested approaches to
identifying need levels and to measuring QOLs within the levels is to explore
ways in which the approaches can be made operational. This is certainly a major
undertaking involving extensive field work.
Many technical problems relating to questionnaire design, clustering,
variances, replicability, sampling, and many more will have to be solved. A
particularly knotty problem derives from the presumed dependence of QOL
ratings measured as suggested here upon the societal context. An individual's
assessment of a given set of QOL factors presumably would be different in times
of depression than in times of prosperity, in times of war than in times of peace,
and so on. The degree of such fluctuation-the influence of what might be called
the "societal shadow"—will have to be explored for each of the major NVB
groups. Such fluctuations are probably related to a person's sense of the
marginal utility of various QOL factors under different circumstances. Con-
ceivably it would be possible to build into the QOL score a systematic weighting
that will compensate for changed levels of satisfaction with QOL clients resulting
from changed societal conditions. The problem, of course, might also be handled
by concocting QOL questionnaires specific to a variety of social contexts.
Recent anthropological approaches employing techniques in which
respondents frame their own questions and then answer them-followed by
structural and content analysis—should be explored if the approach outlined
here does not work out. Undoubtedly, other techniques should also be examined
if the proposed QOL scales prove unworkable or unwieldy.
11-39
-------
B. Additional Measures
In working out operational QOL scales, explicit attention might be paid to "
incorporating three additional aspects of QOL (in addition to need level,
readiness for NVB change, and satisfaction index in a Maslovian mode). These
are:
1. Expectation measures
2. Frequency of satisfaction measures
3. Measures of the "porosity" of the individual/society interface
Expectation measures should enhance QOL assessments because, in some
basic sense, QOL is calibrated against expectations and not "reality". A person
whose expectations are on the rise probably tends to be in a euphoric state. If, as
a result of unrealistically high expectations, downward corrections are required,
a state of depression tends to result. Associated with expectations are planning
activities, which might provide good measures of this general area, especially as it
relates to the more materialistic, external aspects of 201,. (It will be noted that
Item 5 in each QOL scale utilizes expectations as part of readiness for change). It
might, for example, be possible to use the ratio of long-range to short-range
actions as an expectation measure, at least for levels 2, 3, and 4.
Data on frequency of satisfaction (or attempts to satisfy) of the needs
centrally associated with the various need levels might help provide an important
check on subjective responses to the QOL scales. It is obvious, to the point of
evading attention, that the lower needs must be satisfied more frequently than
the higher needs. Needs for physiological survival must be satisfied at frequencies
of the order of pulse rates (65/min), breathing rates (12/min), eating rates (34
times a day), sleeping rates (once a day). Belongingness needs are typically
satisfied at lower frequencies, as exemplified by social participation rates for
love making (a few times a week), church attendance (a few times a month), and
voting behavior (a few times a year). Esteem needs are satisfied even less
frequently; the deferred gratification pattern leads to recognition, at the rate of
an educational milestone every four years, or of a major contribution to a
profession a few times in a lifetime. Lastly, and least frequently, self-actualizing
experiences are so rare that they are typically once in a lifetime affairs, with the
majority of individuals never having a peak experience.
The hope is that satisfaction frequency data can be used to help quantify a
QOL score. A minimum frequency at need level i must be attained before the
upward transition to the i + 1 level can be made. Perhaps the readiness for an
upward shift can be represented by the ratio of satisfaction frequencies, i + 1 to i
(the second digit of the three-digit score). Perhaps the frequency of satisfactions
at a given level can be used to check the third digit in the QOL score.
11-40
-------
Certainly an important factor in QOL is how one relates to the society of
which one is part. If one fails to relate, alienation or anomie is likely to result. If
o'ne relates well, the world is likely to seem a warm and happy place. We suggest
that this aspect of QOL might be gauged through measures of the "porosity" of
the interface between the individual and the social system. Operationally one
might try to measure such things as an individual's (1) sense of his control over
his fate, (2) depth and extent of his trust of others, (3) degree to which elements
of the system seem hostile or friendly, (4) nature of perceived blocks to need
fulfillment, (5) perceived range and types of societal/individual interactions.
C. "Universal" QOL Scales
Once satisfactory QOL scales are worked out for the five levels, attention
should be paid to devising a single or "master" QOL scale that can be admin-
istered to anyone (irrespective of his need level) to yield a "universal" QOL
score.
Several approaches to this problem suggest themselves. In one an attempt
would be made to identify sectors of QOL concern shared by people at all need
levels (such as health or a reasonable standard of living). Questions relating to
these areas would seek to place the subject on a 0-100 continuum in the
fashion suggested in Toward Master Social Indicators (40). Figure 1 shows the
concept. Overall QOL ratings—to state the procedure too simplistically—would
Figure 1 QOL Sector Index
RATING SCALE 0 ^ 100
Sectors
Physical Health | X
Mental Health | 1
Standard of Living | X
Equality | *
Opportunity | X
Education j X
Safety | K
Etc.
Etc.
X = Ghetto resident
0 = Business executive
11-41
-------
be derived by reflecting the sum of conditions as subjectively perceived. In the
illustration, it is evident that the sum of the "X" is much less than the sum of
the "0"; this difference is taken as a reflection of the lesser QOL of the ghetto
resident (represented by the "X") as compared to that of the business executive
(represented by the "0").
This approach clearly fails several of the criteria set forth in Section II of
this paper. One real difficulty lies in the fact that the QOL seems not to move
smoothly along any continuum-rather it moves saccadically or in jumps. This is
to say that a change in need level seems to involve a step function shift in the
internal criteria used to gauge QOL. No smooth continuum can directly reflect
this kind of phenomenon. Moreover, it is clear that no simple additive procedure
is satisfactory. For example, a person might score very high on all sectors other
than, say, physical health or mental health. That single low score could negate all
the high ratings. Another problem is that the meaning of a score in a sector (e.g.,
standard of riving) depends critically on the NVB mode of the subject. Thus a
low standard of living for an esteemer is a far more serious shortcoming than for
most self-actualizers. It is possible that some complicated system of weightings
might be invented to overcome these problems; even so, the approach seems
cumbersome.
A sounder approach would be to seek a total score based on a QOL
"spectrum". That is, a person's universal or master QOL score would consist of
the sum of his scores at all levels up to (and possibly even above) his modal
pattern. Figure 2 clarifies the notion. Perhaps the most interesting aspect of his
approach is that the "degree of coverage" of levels counts toward the total score.
This seems a realistic and useful approach that warrants further development
after the initial QOL scales are worked out.
D. QOL Indicators
One might hope eventually to simplify the entire questionnaire approach to
measuring QOL, whether on a need level or a "universal" basis, by identifying
reliable QOL indicators. An indicator can be thought of as a pointer to a
concept. There can be many different indicators for the same concept, particu-
larly if it is one with a very general definition (i.e., at a high level of abstraction).
Terms like quality of life are at such high levels of abstraction that the number
of possible indicators is very great.
1142
-------
Figure 2 "Spectrum" QOL
LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3 LEVEL 4 LEVEL 5
THEORETICAL MAXIMUM 10
10 = 50
SPECTRUM OF
HIGH SECURITY
SPECTRUM OF
LOW BELONGING
SPECTRUM OF
HIGH ESTEEM
SPECTRUM OF
MID SELF-ACTUALIZING
Table 10 helps to illustrate that there are many levels of abstraction from
which to choose when selecting indicators for testing hypotheses involving
abstract concepts. For example, Table 10 indicates that either assets, farm assets,
livestock, or cows could be used as an indicator of "wealth". The larger the gap
in abstraction levels between nominal and operational definitions (i.e., between
general concepts and specific indicators), however, the greater the necessity of
using multiple indicators which, together, constitute an instance of the general
concept.
Indicators of the same concept, if selected appropriately, will be positively
correlated, yet the correlations will not be perfect. A set of N indicators will not
only encompass a common core of conceptualized reality, but also may capture
N or more other aspects of the conditions being measured. The researcher who
selects and evaluates indicators that are capable of tying concepts to the real
world has both an empirical and theoretical task. It is his responsibility to
determine if the positive but imperfect empirical correlations between indicators
of the same concept represent random, idiosyncratic differences, or whether
they are due to systematic errors in his theoretical propositions and assumptions.
1143
-------
Table 10
HAYAKAWA'S LADDER OP ABSTRACTION1
(Bessie the cow as an instance of several abstract concepts)
Level of Abstraction
1. (Lowest): The process
cow
2. The perceived cow
"n j »
3. "Bessie
4. "Cow"
5. "Livestock"
6. "Farm assets"
7. "Asset
8. (Highest): "Wealth"
Characteristics Included at this Level
The cow known to science: Ultimately con-
sisting of atoms, electrons, etc., accord-
ing to present day scientific inference.
Characteristics are infinite at this level
and ever-changing.
The cow we perceive: Not the word, but
the object of experience; that which our
nervous system abstracts (selects) from
the totality that constitutes the process-
cow. Many of the characteristics of the
process-cow are left out.
The word "Bessie: (cow 1): This is the
name we give to the object of perception
of level 2. The name is not the object;
it merely stands for the object and omits
reference to many characteristics of the
object.
The word "cow": Stands for the character-
istics we have abstracted as common to
cow 1, cow 2, cow 3, ...cow n. Character-
istics peculiar to specific cows are left
out.
When Bessie is referred to as "livestock"
only those characteristics she has in
common with pigs, chickens, goats, etc.,
are referred to.
When Bessie is included among "farm assets,'
reference is made only to what she has in
common with all other salable items on the
farm.
When Bessie is referred to an an "asset,"
still more of her characteristics are left
out.
The word "wealth" is at an extremely high
level of abstraction, omitting almost all
reference to the characteristics of Bessie.
From S. I. Hayakawa, Language in Thought and Action, 1949, p. 169.
1144
-------
Before a reliable set of indicators can be selected to help measure QOL, it is
necessary to have a field-tested theory and an interrelated set of proved-out
propositions from which new propositions can be logically derived. Reliability
refers to the stability of data collected under a fixed set of conditions, regardless
of who collects them or when they are collected. The present document implies
much of the theory required to select QOL indicators but before such work is
justified, field substantiation of the theory is called for.
It seems clear that research on QOL and NVBs would ultimately have a
variety of end uses if efforts meet with any success. Some of these uses are
briefly discussed in Appendix C.
1145
-------
Appendix A
DEFINITIONS OF CONCEPTS
There are a number of reasons to define concepts in developing any
conceptual framework. Researchers can think more clearly about QOL (quality
of life) after defining the concepts that are used when quality of life is being
discussed. A concept is an abstraction from shared experience, an agreement to
let a term stand for a meaning. The responsibility of the defmer is to identify the
range of meanings included, and excluded, when a term is used. He must neither
be too ambiguous, nor too precise. If he is too ambiguous (as is always the case
when terms are not defined), communication is hampered by the introduction of
surplus meaning or by a lack of shared meaning. If he is too precise (as is often
the case in operational definitions, where a unique set of measurement opera-
tions defines a unique term), the concept will not be applicable in a wide-enough
scope of situations and contexts.
The following definitions of concepts include many of the terms that
frequently occur in the context of quality-of-life discussions at SRI. These are
working definitions and may be changed in follow-on work in QOL measure-
ment as the need arises. They may shift either toward greater precision, as
measurement methods are refined, or toward greater generality, or toward a new
terminology that dovetails more easily with an existing conceptual framework.
For the time being, however, these are the concepts used in the assumptions and
approaches to QOL measurement discussed in the main text of this report.
Belief—A statement or sense, declared or implied, intellectually and/or
emotionally accepted by a person as being true. Beliefs on the cognitive level
relate to what exists (rather than what is preferred) and on the affective level to
what is real. Belief-type values are those enduring and deeply held convictions
that guide the core behavior of a person or a group.
Belongingness needs—those needs in Maslow's hierarchy of needs generating
feelings of companionship, togetherness, love, and kinship with other human
beings. Belongingness needs may emerge initially from a view of the group as an
extra support for security.
Cultural universal—denotes aspects of culture believed to exist in all societies and
attributed in most cases to the necessity of meeting needs common to all men.
Culture-consists of patterns, explicit and implicit, of and for behavior acquired
and transmitted by symbols, constituting the distinctive achievements of human
groups, including their embodiments in objects; the essential core of culture
H-46
-------
consists of traditional (i.e., historically derived and selected) ideas and especially
their attached values.
Drive-denotes the energy, particular to a class of purposive behavior, that moves
the individual or members of a group to satisfy a need.
Esteem needs-those needs in Maslow's hierarchy of needs manifested by desires
for attention, appreciation, recognition, status, prestige, good reputation, and
dominance. When satisfied by the acceptance of others, the individual derives a
higher degree of self-acceptance and self-respect. Esteem needs also include a
striving for personal adequacy, competence, achievement, excellence, confidence
in the face of his expanding world, independence, and freedom to be himself.
Gt>a/-a situation or condition which a person or a group intends to bring about
through his or its action to maximize or at least enhance his or its members'
state of satisfaction.
Level of aspiration-denotes the goals or standards that an individual sets
himself.
Level of living—the actual consumption performance of a group of persons,
expressed in terms of the average quantities and qualities of goods and services
consumed per unit of time (e.g., a year) and per typical unit of the group (e.g., a
family).
Life style-the dominant flair of a person's living pattern. Life style reflects
largely how a life is lived, not what is accomplished. Key elements in life style
are needs, values, and beliefs.
Maslow's hierarchy of needs—the set of needs that may develop in the life of an
individual according to the following sequence: (1) physiological or survival
needs, (2) safety or security needs, (3) belongingness needs, (4) recognition or
esteem needs, (5) self-actualization or growth needs. True gratification of a need
tends to foster the development of the individual and releases his energies for the
emergence of the next higher need.
Need—(I) whatever is required for physical well-being, or what if lacking, will
lead to internal disturbance that sets off a drive; (2) a requirement of which the
person becomes aware when he acquires values that demand he should strive for
a certain goal or comport himself in a given fashion in a given situation.
Personality development-the growth of all the many aspects of a person,
including the physical, mental, emotional and social, and their organization into
tendencies to act during the course of his social life.
II-47
-------
Policy—value-based plans or strategies aimed at achieving normative goals.
Priority—the ranking or order of preference in which persons or interests stand
in relation to one another.
Program-a proposed set of specific actions intended to implement a policy,
together with the specification of objectives to be attained and of measures of
the degree of their attainment (i.e., in terms of social indicators).
Quality of life (QOL)-nn individual's perceived or felt overall satisfaction of his
needs over a period of time.
Safety or security needs-those needs in Maslow's hierarchy of needs (emerging
when the survival needs have received at least a minimum level of satisfaction)
for protection from harm and for a life that is safe and secure. In general, safety
needs are disturbed by anything or any one that is unexpected or unfamiliar.
Satisfaction—the quenching of the desires, wants and needs of the individual,
groups, or other constituent parts of a given society.
Security-the condition of being safe; absence of, or protection from, physical
danger; the safety and protection of the individual and/or the state; freedom
from want, freedom from fears; the absence of specific anxieties, a generalized
sense of well-being; material or economic welfare; protection against social
hazards or contingencies, freedom from anxiety concerning such hazards, or the
steps taken to insure a population against such hazards.
Self-actualization or growth needs—the highest needs in Maslow's hierarchy of
needs, which emerge only after the stronger, lower level needs have been
satisfied. The satisfaction of these needs correspond roughly to what some
personality theorists call the "fully mature" person, adding to the notions of
emotional balance and of self-acceptance a notion of drive, of open-ended
achievement in unfamiliar and challenging situations.
Social class—all those individuals (or families) who possess within the framework
of some society or community relatively the same amounts of power, income,
wealth, or prestige or some loosely formulated combination of these elements,
who tend to share the same needs, values, and aspirations, and whose inter-
actions with those in other strata are constrained by status differences (i.e.,
inferiority or superiority).
Social indicator-^ quantity of such a kind that, all else being equal, a change in
its numerical value is expected to reflect a change in some component of the
quality of life.
11-48
-------
Social problem-^ situation affecting a significant number of people that is
believed by them and/or by a significant number of others in the society to be a
Source of difficulty or unhappiness, and one that is capable of amelioration.
Thus, a social problem consists of both an objective situation and a subjective
social interpretation.
Society—(I) the totality of social relationships among men; (2) a society: each
aggregate of human beings of both sexes and all ages bound together in a self-
perpetuating group and possessing its own more or less distinctive institutions
and culture; (3) the institutions and culture of an inclusive and more or less
distinctive and self-perpetuating group of both sexes and all ages (assumes the
behavior of people is substantially affected by shared norms and values).
Survival needs—the lowest needs in Maslow's hierarchy of needs derived from the
body's automatic effort to maintain the life of the individual (and through him
of the species as a whole) by providing an optimum chemical balance, body
temperature, rest, sleep, and reproduction. These needs are very strong and, if
they are not satisfied, their felt urgency dominates the individual's behavior.
Value-a. shared cultural standard that guides and controls day-to-day attitudes
and behavior by helping the individual to select goals satisfying his needs or to
act in accordance with the expectations of others (who share the standard). A
set of these standards may be employed either in "valuing" an action or object
(i.e., relating it to needs or desires) or in "evaluating" an action or object (i.e.,
comparing its relevance to needs with that of alternative actions or objects).
11-49
-------
Appendix C
SOME USES OF QOL AND NVB STUDIES
A. QOL and Studies of the Future
QOL work seems singularly fitted to describing cultures and their positive
and negative aspects as viewed by different NVB types. A nation could certainly
be aptly described in terms of its NVB profile, and hence alternative futures
could presumably be discussed in terms of different profiles, as, indeed, was
done in an early EPRC study (29). It seems entirely possible to use NVBs as an
entry point for identifying the probable directions of "willed change" in a given
society and the probable range of counter-reactions. This, too, was done
schematically in one EPRC report (4).
It is suggested that these approaches could be carried much further.
Starting from the QOL base, a nation's main and sub-NVB patterns could be
ascertained in field studies. Directions of NVB change probably could be gauged
from content analyses of polls, newspaper stories, etc., as well as by direct
surveys of NVB groups. Of especial interest would be identification of the
changing manner in which satisfaction of the various core needs is sought. Thus
the way in which the esteem drive, for example, is fulfilled is as much a part of a
culture as the number of individuals motivated mainly by esteem concerns.
For the purposes of forecasting it would be helpful to know the
demographic, economic, and sociological attributes associated with each
important NVB pattern and sub-pattern. The change characteristics of these
attributes are much better quantified than the shifts among and within NVB
types. Thus, at the present state of the art at least, sensible forecasts of some
types of NVB change would probably have to be based in large part on shifts in
characteristics highly correlated with NVBs.
Analysis of NVB types, distributions, and change patterns could contribute
significant inputs to almost any study of future societies and could form the
basis of a powerful methodology. Such studies would be equally applicable to
tracing the evolution of nations, institutions, and groups. Implications of such
NVB shifts extend to consumer markets, demands for governmental services,
managerial style, city design, aesthetics, and so on and on.
B. Understanding Societal Change
A useful way of looking at the mystifying business of societal change (this
being much more basic than mere social change) is to view it as the result of
II-50
-------
NVB shifts. Thus a very important question involves the mechanism(s) of how
people or groups move from one need level to another.
*
Undoubtedly many factors contribute, including the economic, the
environmental, and the psychological. In NVB terms there appear to be at least
three major modes through which a society changes. First, there are group
movements, such as the labor movement or women suffrage earlier in this
century or Black Power today. In this kind of shift a group, or class, bands
together to impose its NVBs upon society as a whole. Second, there is a
generational shift, which is basically a replacement phenomenon. The young
grow up holding values different from those of their parents and thus introduce
societal changes. Third, there is the mechanism of individual growth. Group
movements are confined largely to a single horizontal stratum of society.
Generational shift cuts across all strata. Individual growth can occur anywhere
and at any age.
It seems clear, as Graves (10) has suggested, that the NVB change of an
individual requires three main elements: (1) dissatisfaction with life as it is,
(2) sufficient energy to attempt to change life patterns, and (3) the insight to
know where and how to induce change in oneself.
We suggest that changes in all three components are essential to effect a
deep personality restructuring-an NVB change. Such a person is a grower—in
some sense a successful rebel. If dissatisfaction and energy are present, but little
insight, the result is a flailer-an ineffective rebel—someone who runs off in all
directions at once. If dissatisfaction is combined with insight without the
requisite energy, you get a groaner, a complainer, someone who says he has all
the answers but does nothing. Finally, if a person has energy and insight but is
not unduly dissatisfied with the way things are, you have a leader—a person full
of zest and intelligence, willing to work within the existing framework.
Using this approach it would be interesting and useful to study "bridge
conditions" between the various need levels. It might well be that the energy
requirements, for example, are greater for the transition into security or
belonging than for the other interfaces because social roadblocks tend to be
severe. Insight requirements may be at their zenith for the step from level 4 to
level 5. Similarly, one would like to know what aspect of perceived QOL is
required at each level to free the individual for upward aspiration.
It is suggested that QOL analysis may aid studies of societal change in a
fundamental way because people's sense of the quality of their lives has much to
do with pressures and directions of social change. The forces of change so basic
to societal and personal growth may be the result of interaction among the three
components of QOL listed in Table 2. For example, goals (column 3) too
discrepant from what one has (column 1) would engender dissatisfaction. Insight
11-51
-------
Table 2 Three Types of Components In QOL
2
Psychological Motion/Development
Process Normative
Felt Intended
Subjective Directional
Action Guidance
Personal Symbol/Image
Affective Conative
Relations Goals
Internal Growth
Emotional Vision
to resolve the discrepancy would result from recognition of the nature of the
mismatch; energy would come from involvement in the problem on a subjective,
felt level (column 2). Thus, it is tentatively proposed, an understanding of the
effects of synchronization and of imbalances among QOL factors could provide
clues to the group(s) within a society that is nearing a change threshold. Under-
standing of the NVB pattern of the group could provide insight into the nature
of the emerging demands and, possibly, the strategies it is likely to employ in
pursuing demands for change.
Such questions are obviously of significance for any attempts at social
engineering. For example, some societal NVB profiles are probably inherently
stable; traditional societies marked by a preponderance of the population at
level 3 may be an example. Conversely, preliminary insights drawn from this area
may also suggest reasons for the societal turbulence so characteristic of recent
U.S. history. For example, one of the authors has expounded a "flare theory" of
personality change (30). The unpublished internal memorandum is quoted below
in part:
...One can put this another way: A person learns to live satisfactorily
at a given level. This very fact can produce a boredom type of dissatis-
faction. The dissatisfaction builds up in some form of internal energy
until it is released, like a solar flare, in a moment or period of insight.
A conversion to a higher level has taken place.
This process suggests several things of interest...
11-52
-------
First, periods of transition are the wild ones. Most of us are familiar
with this on an individual level. More importantly, the phenomenon of
mass transition introduces noise into the prevailing social system. We
see this today most spectacularly on campus and among minorities.
Transition and numbers combine to make the phenomenon of social
significance. I believe we can and should systematically ask ourselves
where future sources of mass transition are likely to be found. In
effect, we should search out groups whose set is on the point of a
phase change.
Second, the phenomenon is, by definition, transitory. It will lead to a
period of relative stability. Therefore, from society's point of view the
problem is to steer and speed the transition in its flare stage, not to
fight it.
Third, the phenomenon presumably represents human progress,
although it is not likely to be seen as such by all. There is also the
implication that transitions cannot be achieved without some sort of
disruption. Expectations should be adjusted accordingly.
Fourth, the phenomenon suggests that a changing society has a
complex pulsing characteristic. Graves points out that his even-
numbered levels are trying to adjust. One might diagram his concept as
follows:
Index
of
Disruption
Graves Level
II-53
-------
I am suggesting that the flare accompanying transition from one level
to another introduces a second set of pulses shown by the dotted line
Index
of
Disruption
12 34567
Graves Level
The main message of this roller-coaster profile is that there is not
much peace in a changing society—that, in fact, there are three
pinnacles of disruption for every trough of relative stability.
I have made the transition humps leading to "adjusting" levels smaller
than those on the upside because adjusters presumably are less
messianic than changers.
This sort of thinking can also be applied to aspects of the alternative
futures worked out by the EPRC. These futures have been plotted in terms of
open/closed and Faustian/inept (or permissive) as shown in Figure 3. If the
foregoing model of NVB change is correct, one can hypothesize that a group
holding a given NVB set will undergo a series of transmutations as it moves
through one NVB set to another. This rhythm characterizes the nation as a
whole when the societal leaders are undergoing the NVB change.
Referring to Figure 3: Phase 4 is the dying gasp of an NVB set. Large
portions of the group are deeply and vocally and perhaps violently dissatisfied
with the society. The group berates the nation and possibly itself. This generates
more dissatisfaction, which primes the energy pumps—and so on until something
gives.
The giving can take the form of iron suppression of the NVB group by a
more powerful faction (reversion to Phase 3 in the diagram) or it can take the
form of a new paradigm-a fresh insight into what is of prime importance. In this
case Phase 1 is introduced. The vast stores of energy piled up in Phase 4 flow
into new NVB channels. Old priorities are abandoned, traditions are set aside as
the dissatisfactions of Phase 4 are dissipated via messianic espousal of a new
11-54
-------
3
to
-J
m
II-55
-------
NVB. As such, Phase 1 will be transitory, but it may also represent the most
exciting, exhilarating, "golden age" period of a nation's cycle of growth. New
views are flooding the society, bringing with them a fresh sense of accomplish-*
ment, well-being, glory. It can also be a time of high hopes, strong visions, trust
in good outcomes, and elation that an answer has at last been found.
Phase 1 starts to merge into Phase 2 as the new NVB set matures. The
once-fresh viewpoints settle into the crannies of the society. They become
accepted as the "way things are"—thus losing their driving power. The radical
fervor abates, changing into an "establishment." As this occurs societal openness
wanes and cultural patterns tend to become fixed.
As this process continues, the society passes through a period in which
enculturation wholly dominates acculturation. This denotes Phase 3. If the
nation is successful, this period may be very prolonged. However, if things go
wrong, little dissatisfactions will once again begin to percolate up through the
layers of the society wherever people are feeling repressed or otherwise in touch
with a view they consider superior to the cultural norm. If the reaction is
disregard or suppression, the little fumaroles of dissatisfaction may grow into
volcanoes. Thus the swing is away from the Faustian toward the inept pole, even
as the "official" society remains closed. In short the society moves toward its
dying (Phase 4) period, hopefully once again to be rejuvenated by the clear and
lovely emergency of a new NVB song.
C. Strategies for Societal Transitions
QOL and NVB studies appear to have value not only for understanding
societal change but for assessing policies and strategies designed to foster or
inhibit societal transitions. This field is being vigorously pursued within the
EPRC and so need not be discussed extensively here. A few uses of the NVB
approach warrant brief mention, however.
It would seem very logical from the NVB standpoint to employ QOL-type
scales to judge how various segments of the population would respond to plans
intended to assist them. QOL-oriented evaluations of various welfare,
educational, and other "remedial" proposals should help keep legislation in line
with the needs and values and beliefs of recipients. The mismatch of NVBs
between framers and recipients of social legislation may, in fact, be a chief
reason why so many well-intentioned programs fail.
Similarly, interesting results should flow from comparisons of the NVB
patterns of society's major institutions (business, church, schools, etc.) with
those of their stakeholders. Such match/mismatch analyses help explain why
11-56
-------
various segments of the population turn against traditional ways of doing things
and even attack the basic (often unstated) objectives of institutions.
•
Clearly, analyses of the NVB patterns of the upper need levels will provide
guidance in identifying and selecting long-term national goals. Particular
attention should be paid to the kind of social trajectory (third column of
Table 2) of foremost appeal to self-actualizing people, since this facet seems to
represent the leading edge of the most advanced NVB group.
Policy makers in both the public and the private sectors would do well to
consider implications of policies from the NVB standpoint. Table C-l shows a
variety of political attributes that appear to vary with need level. Advance
familiarity with such opinions should yield forewarnings of potential opposition.
D. QOL and Social Data Systems
One final use of QOL and NVB studies is worth brief mention. These kinds
of data appear essential for any future social data system designed for social
reporting, trend analysis, or predictive accounting. Indeed the availability of
such data might spur the development of a nationwide system, possibly along
the lines suggested in an EPRC report (40). At a minimum, systematic work in
this field should uncover sufficient advantages that the various federal and state
agencies concerned with compiling statistics will begin to incorporate QOL and
NVB concepts into their work.
11-57
-------
Table C-l Political Opinion and Need Level1
T. Opinions that scale directly with need level
A. The higher the level from 1 through 4, the more likely the
opinion that:
* the level of taxation should be greatly reduced to encourage
the development of private venture capital.
* the institution of private property is a sound basis on
which to build a society that fulfills needs.
* competition is an effective way of promoting social progress.
* eligibility to vote, marry, or incur contractual obligations
should be on the basis of educational level, not age.
B. The higher the level from 1 through 4, the less likely the
opinion that:
* there should be a maximum after-tax income that an individual
can get each year.
* an increasing portion of industrial profits should go to
workers through profit sharing.
* social security should be increased to 50% of one's average
wage during the five high-earning years.
* the government should guarantee a job at minimum wage to
anyone who wants one.
* health care cost should be reduced significantly even at
the expense of doctor's salaries.
* workers should have a greater voice in the policies of
companies they work for.
* the government should subsidize recreation facilities for
the poor comparable to those for the rich.
* everyone should be guaranteed free health care.
* the nation should establish a guaranteed annooj. income for
all citizens.
This compilation is based on the data of Tables B-6 through B-1
in Appendix B.
11-58
-------
Table C-l (continued)
•II. Opinions that typify need level
A. The following opinions are typical of need level 1 and/or 2:
* there should be a maximum after-taxes income that an
individual can receive each year.
* unions should think of the interests of their members
rather than the national effect of their actions.
B. The following opinions are typical of need level 3:
* rather than working on his own, an individual should
cooperate and work for the common good.
* an individual's primary concern should be for others
^Note: self-actualizerj may also agree^/
* the good of community or society as a whole should have
priority over the good of the individual.
* society, not the individual, is the ultimate source of law.
C. The following opinions are typical of need level 4:
* the U.N. should not have the strongest military force in the
world.
* workers should not receive an increasing portion of indus-
trial profits through profit sharing.
* the level of taxation should be greatly reduced to encourage
development of private venture capital.
* that government is best which governs least.
D. The following opinions are typical of need level 5:
* educational institutions should not indoctrinate in the
American way, but instead should present alternative value
systems.
* it is not important to develop new improved techniques for
controlling individuals and groups.
II-59
-------
Table C-l (continued)
* the U.S. should not commit more
-------
REFERENCES
1. Bales, Robert F. and Arthur S. Couch, "The Value Profile: A Factor
Analytic Study of Value Statements," Sociological Inquiry, Winter 1968.
2. Bauer, Raymond A., ed., Social Indicators, The M.I.T. Press, 1966.
3. Bradburn, Norman and David CapoMtz, Reports on Happiness: A Pilot
Study of Behavior Related to Mental Health, Aldine, 1965.
4. Brandes, Ely M., "Normative, NVB-Based Futures," unpublished
memorandum, Educational Policy Research Center, December 1969.
5. Bugental, J. F. T., "Notes on Graves's Levels of Existence Conception,"
Educational Policy Research Center internal memorandum, August 20,
1969.
6. Cantril, Hadley, The Pattern of Human Concern, Rutger's University Press,
1966.
6a. Dalkey, Norman C., Ralph Lewis, and David Snyder, "Measurement and
Analysis of the Quality of Life," prepared for U.S. Department of Trans-
portation, Rand, August 1970.
7. Drewnowski, Jan, and Wolf Scott, "The Level of Living Index," Report No.
4, United Nations Research Institute for Social Development, Geneva,
September 1966.
8. Forrester, Jay W., World Dynamics, Wright-Allen Press, 1971.
9. Goals for Americans, President's Commission on National Goals, Spectrum
Books, 1962.
10. Graves, Clare W., "On the Theory of Value," mimeographed paper, March
1967.
11. Graves, Clare W., W. I. Huntley, and Douglas W. LaBier, "Personality
Structure and Perceptual Readiness: An Investigation of their Relationship
to Hypothesized Levels of Human Existence," mimeographed paper, May
1965.
12. Gross, Bertram M., "The City of Man: A Social Systems Accounting," in
Environment for Man, William R. Ewald, Jr., ed., Indiana University Press,
1967.
11-61
-------
13. Gross, Bertram M., "The New Systems Budgeting," Public Administration
Review, March-April 1969.
14. Gross, Bertram M., ed., "Social Goals and Indicators for American
Society," The Annals, American Academy of Political and Social Science,
volumes 371 and 372, May and September 1967.
15. Gross, Bertram M., The State of the Nation: Social Systems Accounting,
Tavistock Publications, London, 1966.
16. Hammond, Richard J. and Ernest C. Harvey, "Some Tentative Observations
on Social Indicators," SRI IR&D Report, June 1970.
17. Harman, Willis W., "Belief Systems, Scientific Findings and Educational
Policy," Educational Policy Research Center Research Note 6747-4,
November 1967,
18. Harvey, 0. J., David E. Hunt, and Harold M. Schroder, Conceptual Systems
and Personality Organization, John Wiley and Sons, 1961.
19. Inglehart, Ronald, "The Silent Revolution in Europe: Intergenerational
Change in Post-Industrial Societies," to appear in the fall, 1971 issue of The
American Political Science Review.
20. James, Dorothy Buckton, "Poverty, American Values and Change,"
delivered at Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association,
Los Angeles, September 1970.
21. Kantor, Robert E., "Psychological Theories and Social Groupings,"
Educational Policy Research Center Research Memorandum 6747-5, SRI,
November 1969.
22. Kluckhohn, Florence R. and F. L. Strodtbeck, Variations in Value Orienta-
tions, Row, Peterson, 1961.
23. Kohlberg, Lawrence, Stages in the Development of Moral Thought and
Action, Holt, Rinehart, & Winston 1970.
24. Krieger, Martin H., "Social Indicators for the Quality of Individual Life,"
Center for Planning and Development Research, University of California,
Berkeley, Working Paper 104, October 1969.
25. Logothetti, Thomas J., "Social Measurements Handbook," compiled for
SRI, 1970.
11-62
-------
26. Maslow, A. H., Motivation and Personality, Harper, 1954.
•27. Maslow, A. H., Religions, Values, and Peak-Experiences, Ohio State
University Press, 1964.
28. Maslow, A. H., Toward a Psychology of Being, 2nd ed., Van Nostrand,
1968.
29. Mitchell, Arnold, "Alternative Futures: An Exploration of a Humanistic
Approach to Social Forecasting," Educational Policy Research Center
Research Note 6747-2, SRI, November 1967.
30. Mitchell, Arnold, "Note on Personality Change," internal memorandum,
Educational Policy Research Center, September 1969.
31. Mitchell, Arnold and Mary K. Baird, "American Values," Long Range
Planning Service report No. 378, SRI, June 1969.
31a. Peterson, Richard, On a Typology of College Students, 1965.
32. Roberts, Thomas B., "Toward a Humanistic Social Science: A Conscious-
ness Theory Outlined and Applied," Journal of Human Relations, Fourth
Quarter 1970.
33. Rokeach, Milton, "The Role of Values in Public Opinion Research," Public
Opinion Quarterly, Winter 1968-1969.
34. Sheldon, Bernert Eleanor and Howard E. Freeman, "Notes on Social
Indicators: Promises and Potential," Policy Sciences 1, 1970.
35. Sheldon, Bernert Eleanor and Wilbert E, Moore, eds. Indicators of Social
Change: Concepts and Measurements, Russell Sage Foundation, New York
1968.
36. "Social Reporting in Michigan: Problems and Issues," Center for Urban
Studies, Wayne State University, Technical Report A-37, January 1970.
37. Springer, Michael, "Social Indicators, Social Reports, and Social
Accounts," Operation PEP, San Mateo County Board of Education, March
1970.
38. Toward a Social Report, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare, GPO, 1969. This is the so-called "Olson report" because it was
prepared under the direction of Mancur Olson.
11-63
-------
39. Toward Balanced Growth: Quantity with Quality, National Goals Staff,
Washington, B.C., July 1970.
»
40. "Toward Master Social Indicators," Educational Policy Research Center
Research Memorandum 6747-2, SRI, February 1969.
41. Trow, Martin, "Student Cultures and Administrative Action," 1962.
42. Trow, Martin and Burton Clark, "The Organizational Context," 1966.
43. Vestermark, S. D., Jr., ed., "Indicators of Social Vulnerability," Human
Sciences Research, Inc., McLean, Virginia, August 1968.
44. Wilson, John 0., "Regional Differences in Social Welfare," draft, Midwest
Research Institute, Kansas City, August 1967.
11-64
-------
HOPES AND FEARS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
Albert H. Cantril and Charles W. Rolls, Jr.
Albert H. Cantril is an independent consultant in political and survey
research.
Charles W. Roll, Jr. is study director in the Gallup Organization and
President of Political Surveys and Analyses, a research organization.
Albert H. Cantril and Charles W. Roll, Jr., Hopes and Fears of the
American People, A Potomac Associates Book, New York: Universe
Books, 1971, pp. 1-15.
II-65
-------
HOPES AND FEARS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
Albert H. Cantril and Charles W. Roll, Jr.
Analysts of contemporary America make many and varied assessments of
what they see as the unhealthy state of the nation. The characterizations of the
situation differ: a national crisis of identity, a failure on the part of our major
institutions, the alienation and isolation of the individual. Central to the
concern, no matter how it is expressed, is the call for a reformation of old
assumptions about how men relate to each other and to their institutions.
Such a revolution in values ultimately means the abandonment of old
assumptions on a scale so broad that new views will take hold among the public
at large. But this is a painful process, for assumptions will be abandoned only
insofar as frustration with them is truly widespread. The process at best is
uneven, and the resistance is great.
To find out how responsive or resistant Americans are to such change is
what we set out to do. Admittedly, it was an ambitious undertaking. It involved
nothing less than an attempt to define the basic hopes and fears of the American
people.
To get at this level of opinion, we used a technique that has become known
as the "self-anchoring striving scale." The technique was developed by the late
Hadley Cantril and his colleague, Lloyd A. Free, in connection with a series of
studies conducted in eighteen different countries between 1958 and 1964 by the
Institute of International Social Research. Their interest was to determine
patterns of human aspiration among people living under varying kinds of
political systems and at various stages of national social and economic
development.*
In the striving scale technique, the respondent is first asked to describe
what life would be like if he were to imagine his future in the "best possible
light." This question is open-ended and the respondent's comments are recorded
verbatim by the interviewer. The respondent is then asked the opposite: what his
Among countries included in the Institute's studies were the United States, West
Germany, Great Britain, France, Japan, Yugoslavia, Poland, Israel, India, the
Philippines, Nigeria, Cuba, and the Dominican Republic. The results of the studies
appear in: Hadley Cantril, The Pattern of Human Concerns (New Brunswick: Rutgers
University Press, 1965); Lloyd A. Free and Hadley Cantril, The Political Beliefs of
Americans (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1967); and F. P. Kilpatrick and
Hadley Cantril, "Self-Anchoring Scaling: A Measure of Individuals' Unique Reality
Worlds," Journal of Individual Psychology, XVI (November, 1960): 158-73.
11-66
-------
future would be like in the "worst possible light." Again, his comments are
recorded verbatim. The actual wording of the questions follows:
•
All of us want certain things out of life. When you
think about what really matters in your own life,
what are your wishes and hopes for the future? In
other words, if you imagine your future in the best
possible light, what would your life look like then, if
you are to be happy? Take your time in answering:
such things aren't easy to put into words.
Now, taking the order side of the picture, what are
your fears and worries about the future? In other
words, if you imagine your future in the worst
possible light, what would your life look like then?
Again, take your time in answering.
The substance of the hopes and fears mentioned is subsequently coded by major
categories of concern.
The respondent is next shown a picture of a ladder, symbolic of the ladder
of life (see figure 1). The top rung of the ladder, he is told, represents the entire
complex of hopes he has just described as the ideal state of affairs, and the
bottom rung represents the worst state of affairs. He is then asked to indicate
where he feels he stands on the ladder at the present time in relation to his
aspirations, where he believes he stood five years ago, and where he thinks he
will be five years hence.
10
9-
8
7.
6
5-
4-
3
2
1
0
Figure 1
II-67
-------
The respondent's ladder ratings are self-anchored in that the top and
bottom of the ladder are defined in his own terms. Thus a present ladder rating
of "6" for an upper-middle-class housewife in the New York suburbs is the.
psychological equivalent of a "6" rating for a sharecropper in the Southwest,
even though the substance of their hopes and fears may differ markedly.
Further, the respondent's three ladder ratings can be compared, giving a measure
of his personal sense of accomplishment (as indicated by the ladder rating shift
from past to present) and personal sense of optimism (as indicated by the shift
from present to future).
The same series of interrelated questions is then asked about the United
States to determine the respondent's hopes and fears for the nation. The
respondent is asked to describe the best and worst possible states of affairs for
the United States and to indicate national ladder ratings for past, present, and
future.
This striving scale has been employed twice before in the United States, in
1959 and 1964, by the Institute for International Social Research. We were able
to cite these earlier results, thereby placing our own findings in perspective. In
all three surveys, The Gallup Organization was commissioned to do the polling,
so there is comparability between the Institute's results and our own.
HOPES AND FEARS FOR SELF
The American people continue to be preoccupied with two matters—health
and their standard of living (see table 1). These two items were cited most
frequently as both hopes and fears in 1959, 1964, and 1971, though they were
mentioned with considerably less frequency in 1971.
Although the chief hopes and fears expressed by Americans have changed
little in the past twelve years, Americans appear to be less preoccupied with
what has traditionally comprised the American Dream. This conclusion can be
drawn from the decreased frequency with which people mentioned, as either
hopes or fears, higher standard of living, fulfillment of aspirations for children,
owning a home, availability of leisure time, and assurances of a happy old age.
A change in personal concerns is evident in the topics mentioned more
frequently in our January survey than in the earlier studies—drugs, pollution,
and crime. These new concerns relate to problems demanding social rather than
individual solutions.
One economic matter much on the public's mind is inflation, having
bounded into public consciousness over the past few years. In 1959 and 1964,
only 1 percent and 3 percent, respectively, spoke of a fear of inflation; in our
survey, 11 percent did. Yet concern over unemployment, at a time when the
11-68
-------
Table 1 Personal Hopes And Feais in percentages*
Personal Hopes
Good health for self
Better standard of living
Peace in the world
Achievement of aspirations for children
Happy family life
Good health for family
Own house or live in better one
Peace of mind; emotional maturity
Having wealth
Having leisure time
Happy old age
Good job; congenial work
Employment
Freedom from inflation
Other general concerns for family
1959
40
38
9
29
18
16
24
5
2
11
10
7
5
1
7
1964
29
40
17
35
18
25
12
9
5
5
8
9
8
2
4
1971
29
27
19
17
14
13
11
8
7
6
6
6
6
6
5
Personal Fears
111 health for self
Lower standard of living
War
111 health for family
Unemployment
Inflation
Unhappy children
Drug problem in family
Pollution
Political instability
No fears at all
Crime
1959
40
23
21
25
10
1
12
--
--
1
12
- -
1964
25
19
29
27
14
3
10
--
--
2
10
"• ~
1971
28
18
17
16
13
11
8
7
7
5
5
5
-••A shift of 4 percentage points among the three studies
(1959, 1964, 1971) is considered statistically significant.
11-69
-------
number of people out of work remains high, is not much changed from that of
the 1959 and 1964 surveys.
Personal anxiety over international tensions seems to have leveled off. Since
1964, war as a fear has declined, and the slight increase with which peace was
mentioned as a personal hope is statistically insignificant. The jump in personal
concern over international tensions occurred between 1959 and 1964-years
when the cold war was marked by such events as the Cuban missile crisis, the
Vienna Summit, and the downing of a U-2 reconnaissance plane over the Soviet
Union.
One of the most important variations in the patterning of concerns is found
between the young (those twenty-one to twenty-nine years of age) and their
elders. The young people appear to be burgeoning with aspirations. In our
January survey, they displayed a greater degree of concern about a broader range
of issues than older people did. The young mentioned more frequently concern
about a higher standard of living, good family life, a better home, personal
wealth, a good job, and solutions to the pollution and crime problems. In only
one area were they less concerned than their elders—health. With high hopes,
youth has much to be frustrated about and is likely to be impatient.
Table 2 compares the 1959, 1964, and 1971 ladder ratings people gave
themselves with respect to their own personal lives. On the whole, these ratings
reflect a considerable sense of personal accomplishment: the rating for the
present is eight-tenths (+0.8) of a step higher than that for the past—almost a full
step on a ten-step ladder. The public is also optimistic about the future: the
ladder rating for the future is nine-tenths (+0.9) of a step higher than that for
the present. As might be expected, too, young people exhibit the greatest
hopefulness in their ladder ratings (see table 3).
Despite the relative satisfaction of Americans at the personal level,
significant pockets of frustration and hopelessness do exist. Those with only a
grade school education gave themselves a personal ladder rating for the present
that is exactly the same as their rating for the past. Their ladder rating for the
future was just two-tenths (+0.2) of a step higher than that for the present.
A similar picture emerges among lower income groups: their ladder rating
shows no real movement from past to present (-0.1 of a step) and no significant
increase from present to future (+0.4 of a step). The relatively static rating for
lower income groups may be attributable in part to the inclusion of a large
proportion of retired persons whose incomes place them within the lowest
quarter of the economic scale. On the whole, older people generally displayed
only slight shifts in their personal ladder ratings.
II-70
-------
Table 2 Personal Ladder Ratings
1959 1964 1971
Rating
Past
Present
Future
5.9
6.6
7.8
6.0
6.9
7.9
5.8
6.6
7.5
Shift*
Pass to present
Present to future
+0.7
+1.2
+0.9
+1.0
+0.8
+0.9
*A shift of 0.6 in a rating is considered statistically significant.
Table 3 Personal Ladder Rating Shifts By Population Groups
past to present present to future
1971 1971
NATIONAL +0.8 +0.9
Age
21-29 +1.6 +1.8
30-49 +1.1 +1.2
50 & over +0.2 +0.1
Education
College +1.3 +1.1
High school +0.9 +1.1
Grade school 0.0 +0.2
Income
Upper +1.6 +1.0
Upper middle +1.1 +1.0
Lower middle +0.5 +0.8
Lower -0.1 +0.4
Race
White +0.8 +0.9
Nonwhite +0.4 +1.0
II-71
-------
Significantly, these pockets of despair are not concentrated in the nonwhite
community. Table 3 shows that there are no truly meaningful differences in
ladder-rating shifts between races. Although nonwhites gave themselves lower-
ladder ratings than whites, on the key point of movement from past to present
to future the races differed little in their perceptions.
Although Americans show some apprehension over a range of emergent
social concerns, they appear on the whole to be personally rather satisfied with
their lot.
HOPES AND FEARS FOR THE UNITED STATES
When it comes to hopes and fears for the United States, however, the
picture is one of considerably less assurance. Table 4 makes clear that issues of
war and peace have consistently dominated the aspirations and fears Americans
have for their nation. In 1971, though, the percentage mentioning war as a fear
dropped to 30, from 64 percent in 1959 and 50 percent in 1964. The percentage
citing fear of communism has dropped since 1964, too—from 29 percent to only
12 percent. Further, those mentioning reduction of international tensions as a
hope declined from 17 percent in 1959 to 7 percent in 1971. These changes
probably indicate that the public is moving away from its earlier perception of a
bipolar world preoccupied with the threat of nuclear holocaust. In fact, of the
30 percent mentioning fear of war in our study, only 11 percent referred to
nuclear war. Another 7 percent spoke of the Vietnam War, and the remaining
12 percent referred to war in general.
As a national issue, the state of the economy is clearly bothering the
American people. Concern over inflation has escalated as both a hope and a fear.
Hope for economic stability jumped from 5 percent in 1964 to 18 percent in
1971 at the same time that its converse, fear of economic instability, moved
from 13 percent to 17 percent. But, just as we saw with respect to personal
hopes and fears, unemployment has not evoked increased national
concern—regardless of the continued urgency of the problem.
Drug use and pollution emerged distinctly as new national concerns in our
study. One respondent in ten listed solving pollution problems as a hope for the
nation; 6 percent cited solution of the drug problem. On the other side of the
scale, drugs and pollution were newly cited fears, just as at the personal level.
There was virtually no mention of either in 1959 or 1964.
Our most startling finding, however, was a new and urgent concern over
national unity, political stability, and law and order. As a hope for the nation,
national unity jumped from 1 percent in 1959 to 15 percent in 1971. In other
words, one out of every seven Americans in our study cited national unity as an
aspiration. Increased mention of hope for law and order was nearly as
11-72
-------
Table 4 National Hopes And Fears
national hopes
•
Peace
Economic stability; no inflation
Employment
National unity
Law and order
Better standard of living
Solution of pollution problems
Settlement of racial problems
Improved public morality
International cooperation; reduced tensions
Solution of drug problem
1959
48
12
13
1
3
20
--
14
7
17
1964
51
5
15
9
4
28
--
15
10
6
1971
51
18
16
15
11
11
10
10
8
7
6
national fears
War (esp. nuclear war)
National disunity; political instability
Economic instability; inflation
Communism
Lack of law and order
Pollution
Drugs
Racial tensions
Unemployment
Lack of public morality
Loss of personal freedom
1959
64
3
18
12
3
--
--
--
7
4
4
1964
50
8
13
29
5
--
--
9
6
5
5
1971
30
26
17
12
11
9
7
7
7
6
5
*A shift of 4 percentage points among the three studies (1959,
1964, 1971) is considered statistically significant.
pronounced. And, most striking of all, one American in four (26 percent) listed
national disunity or political instability as a fear for the nation—a more than
threefold increase over 1964.
The depth of the concern is apparent in the comments of respondents. A
forty-nine-year-old accountant in Vermont told the interviewer, "I fear more
riots or even revolution if we don't solve some of our present problems." A
twenty-two-year-old mother in Nebraska said, "If people do not learn to live
together with what they have, they will be fighting and trying to get more and
more while people lose their freedom." A forty-seven-year-old mechanic in
Texas commented, "We would be tearing and burning everything up. There
would be no regard for the other man. If you wanted something, you'd just take
it."
11-73
-------
As table 5 shows, fear of national disunity and political instability was
expressed by all segments of the population: young and old, well and poorly
educated, rich and poor, nonwhites and whites, Democrats and Republicans. *
Table 5 Mention Of National Disunity And Political Instability
As A National Fear By Population Groups in percentages*
NATIONAL AVERAGE 26
Age
21-29 29
30-49 24
50 & over 24
Education
College 26
High school 23
Grade school 24
Income
Upper 29
Upper middle 28
Lower middle 25
Lower 20
Political affiliation
Democrat 27
Republican 24
Independent 25
Race
White 25
Nonwhite 26
This public anxiety about the state of the nation was dramatically revealed
by the ladder ratings citizens gave their country (see table 6). Looking at the
United States in January, 1971, Americans gave a rating (on a ten-rung ladder)
of 6.2 for five years past, 5.4 for the present, and 6.2 for five years in the future.
In other words, Americans sense that their country has lost rather than
gained ground over the past five years-as evidenced by the drop from past to
present in the national ladder rating of nearly a full step.
Looking ahead, people expect the United States in 1976-our bicentennial
year—to be merely where it was a full decade earlier, having barely recovered the
reverses of the last half decade.
11-74
-------
Table 6 National Ladder Ratings
1959 1964 1971
Rating
Past
Present
Future
Shift--
Past to present
Present to future
6.
6.
7.
40.
+0.
5
7
4
2
7
6.
6.
7.
+0.
4-1.
1
5
7
4
2
6.
5.
6.
-0.
40.
2
4
2
8
8
*A shift of 0.6 in a rating is considered statistically significant.
The importance of the drop in the ladder rating from past to present can
scarcely be overstated. In the many studies in which the Institute for
International Social Research used the striving scale technique, only once did a
present national ladder rating fall below that for the past. This occurred in the
Philippines in 1959, at a time when the country appeared to lack strong,
dynamic leadership and seemed to many of its people to be standing still.
Historically, shifts in ladder ratings have proven very sensitive indicators of
national mood. In Cuba, for example, the Institute conducted a study in
mid-1960, after Castro's ascent to power. The national ladder ratings showed
that the Cuban public was very excited and optimistic about the revolution.
There was a jump from past to present of nearly five steps on the ladder and
from present to future of just under two. Clearly, with this amount of internal
enthusiasm, there was little reason to believe the Cuban population would join
an uprising to oust Castro. This fact was given implicit recognition after the
abortive Bay of Pigs invasion by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., then serving as a special
assistant to President John F. Kennedy. In a note of acknowledgement to the
Institute, Mr. Schlesinger wrote: "I read with interest your Cuban report-and
only wish that a copy had come to my attention earlier."
Another case was that of the Dominican Republic. National ladder ratings
derived from a 1962 survey showed an intense sense of frustration. Almost half
of the population gave the country a zero ladder rating for the past, yielding an
average past rating of only 1.7. The present rating was just one step higher. The
future rating, however, was over four steps above that of the present. These
results prompted Lloyd Free to point to a revolutionary situation in the
Dominican Republic almost three years before the 1965 crisis actually occurred.
These cases, and others, are described in The Human Dimension: Experiences in
Policy Research, by Hadley Cantril (Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick,
New Jersey, 1967).
11-75
-------
This sense of national regression is evident among most population groups
(see table 7). In particular, the disparities between population groups at varying
education and income levels with respect to personal ladder ratings do n
-------
Table 8 National Ladder Rating Shifts By Race
past to present past to present
t
White
Nonwhite
1959
+0.3
-0.3
1971
-0.9
+0.6
Table 9 National Ladder Rating Shifts By Political Persuasion
past to present present to future
1971 1971
Political affiliation
Democrat -1.0 +0.8
Republican -0.6 +1.0
Independent -0.8 +0.7
Nixon job rating
Approve -0.6 +0.8
Disapprove -1.2 +0.9
when they are set against those of the highly partisan year of 1964 (see
table 10). Then, the sense of accomplishment over the preceding five years was
great among the Democratic "ins," but the feeling was not shared by the
Republican "outs." Now, however, even among Republicans, the sense of
decline is pronounced.
Table 10 Shifts In National Ladder Ratings In 1964 And 1971 By Political Affiliation
past to present past to present
1964 1971
Democrats +1.1 -1.0
Republicans -0.8 -0.6
Independents 0.0 -0.8
We found no single predominant cause behind the drop in the national
ladder rating. The sense that the country has moved backward over the past five
years is shared by all those who mentioned the principal national fears of war,
national disunity, inflation, lack of law and order, communism, and pollution
(see table 11).
II-77
-------
Table 11 National Ladder Rating Shifts By Major National Fears
past to present
1971
NATIONAL AVERAGE -0.8
Those mentioning:
Communism -1.3
Lack of law and order -1.1
National disunity and political instability -0.9
Economic instability and inflation -0.9
War -0.7
Pollution -0.6
The hopes and fears expressed by the American people are thus full of
paradox.
On the personal level, Americans express less concern than they did five or
ten years ago with the material elements that have traditionally comprised the
American Dream. Their concerns, too, have broadened to include problems that
cannot be solved by the individual alone—drugs, inflation, pollution, and crime.
In their personal ladder ratings, they display a considerable sense of achievement
and optimism.
On the national level, however, the picture differs. Most striking is the
degree, in all segments of the population, to which fear of national disunity is
expressed. The mood of the people is vividly shown in the ladder ratings they
gave their country-a present rating almost one step below that for the past, and
a future rating that merely compensates for the ground lost in the last five years.
The American people clearly feel their nation is in trouble.
11-78
-------
THE QUALITY OF LIFE
A TRY AT A EUROPEAN COMPARISON
by
DR. LORE SCHEER
11-79
-------
THE QUALITY OF LIFE
A try at a European comparison %
In the peaceful competition between nations, there are different possi-
bilities of determining who is first, who is ahead. We may go by the number of
ski champions or Nobel prize winners, by the strength of the military forces or
by the gross national product (GNP) per head of the population. This last
yardstick will make the most sense to the economist, who will go on to explain
that the level achieved in an international comparison is useful in forecasting, in
checking on the Tightness of past economic policy or in deciding on the further
course a nation should pursue in order to strengthen its international standing.
The GNP per head does not, however, say enough about that which we call
quality of life. One lives worse-according to western standards-even with a
higher income, in an out-of-the-way smoky industrial town or in the vast wood-
lands of Australia, than one does in Austria. For estimating that which we call
"level of living" (Lebensniveau) we need therefore to consider many other
criteria, yet if such are included, the final picture may be radically changed.
How to measure the level of living
Even though in scientific studies we need not necessarily ask of what use-
fulness such studies are, the value of studies dealing with the level of living is
clear. Just as a government should be able to account for the relative level and
the development of the GNP, it should also know what determines the level of
living and how this is developing in its own and in other countries. In Austria,
where there is a shortage of labor in certain sectors-as in the building industry,
but also in hotels, restaurants and hospitals-government should know how
attractive living conditions in Austria seem to workers from abroad, whether
conditions appear good enough for them to want to work here; or for example
why in the western provinces of Austria people prefer to work across the border
in Germany or in Switzerland rather than at home.
But how can we measure the "how well we live"? And if we can measure it,
how can we find one definition for the "how well" to suit all Austrians—those
from Burgenland in the east of the country as well as those in the province of
Vorarlberg in the west or in the capital city of Vienna—employees as well as
employers and those living on pensions-blue collar workers as well as white
collar workers and farmers-a definition which the majority of these very
different groups could accept. If we succeed in agreeing on such a definition for
the welfare of the people, then we can apply it—in a limited way—and for a
limited span of time—to countries which lie in roughly the same geographical
region and have reached a similar stage of development.
11-80
-------
The Ministry of Economy of the Federal Republic of Germany recently
submitted a forecast of the probable growth of the economy up to the year
4985, according to which the "personal standard of living" and the gross social
product will nearly double during these 15 years. We could infer from this, that
if something is doubled, it must be quantified.
Economists and statisticians have not yet found an acceptable method for
measuring the quality of life. But it's only a little more than one generation since
the member countries of the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations
agreed to accept international norms and methods for measuring the gross
national product. So we can say that, as regards the measuring of the quality of
life., we are, scientifically speaking at approximately the same point where we
were with regard to the GNP before agreement was reached.
In a study on measuring minimum standards of living, N.N. Franklin of the
International Labour Office reached the conclusion that we can define neither
poverty nor a minimum standard of living, nor a condition in which minimum
needs are satisfied in a way that is "right or wrong". All we need is a definition
that is "useful".1 If we defined poverty differently, more or fewer families
would be said to be in poverty, but we could still carry out the operations of
diagnosis, target-setting, selection of policy instruments and review of progress
towards objectives.
We don't doubt that measuring the level of living or the welfare which has
been achieved is a difficult task. There will be disagreements and differences of
opinion as to which indicators to include and how these should be weighted.
Replacing a more or less reasonable indicator by another perhaps better
indicator may improve the comparison, but surely the effect will be similar to
that experienced by improvements in price indicators. More exact measurements
and better assigned weights—the value of which we don't want to question-
result in having an index series which to the surprise of some differ often only
by fractions of a percent from the old "bad" index.
The term "level of living"
As already mentioned, there exists no one definition of standard of living as
there is none of poverty or welfare. International organizations have been
working for years towards agreeing on one single comprehensive measure.
The term "standard of living" is used by us today to cover three different
concepts which were distinguished by a committee of experts of the United
Nations in 1954 as follows:
1 International Labour Review, April 1967, pp. 271-198.
11-81
-------
4
— the level of living—refers to the actual living conditions of a people,
- the standard of living—refers to the aspirations or hopes of a people-,
namely the living conditions which it aspires to or considers as
adequate and right, and
— living norms-refer to the desired living conditions which are defined
for particular aims, as for example the establishing of minimum wage
and working norms.
On the basis of joint consultations by representatives of the United Nations
and its organizations, a study was published in 1961 on the international
definition and measurement of levels of living in which we read that "the most
satisfactory approach to the international measurement of levels of living was
through the measurement of clearly delimited aspects or parts of the total life
situation that were amenable to quantification and that reflected generally
accepted aims of social and economic policy at the international level".2
It is clear why no single comprehensive measure of levels of living was
found which would be acceptable to all countries of the world—to the U.S.A. as
well as to India, to Albania as well as to Sweden. The discussion had been based
on a system of "components" (for example health) and specific statistical
measures or "indicators" (for example infant mortality rate) which had been
suggested for measuring the components, account being taken of the availability
and international comparability of data.
These components are.3
1 health
2 food consumption and nutrition
3 education
4 conditions of work
5 employment situation
6 aggregate consumption and savings
7 transportation
8 housing including household facilities
9 clothing
"International defintion and measurement of levels of living", United Nations, New
York 1961, E/CN 3/270/Rev. 1.
Some of these (aggregate consumption, savings and transportation) were later not
considered as "components" of the level of living, but together with population, labor
force, income and expenditures and communication added as a category of "basic
information". Nevertheless all headings were kept in one form or another.
11-82
-------
10 recreation and entertainment
» 11 social security
4 12 human freedoms
As far as quantification goes, the reader will find that these components or
sectors with the exception of the last pose difficult but statistically not insoluble
problems. But how can we quantify human freedoms? Yet isn't human freedom
one of the most important components of the level of living? Who of us would
want to live in a country which abounds in milk and honey, but in which the
people are not free?
Choice of indicators
The present study is a first attempt, based on foreign studies, to determine
how the development of the quality of life in Austria compares with that of
other countries. The best foreign study on which to base these considerations in
Austria seemed to me to be the SWIGES study of the West Berlin Center for
research into the future.4
This SWIGES-Report describes a method for comparing conditions in
different countries over a span of time with respect to chosen characteristics. To
test the method the Berlin research center had taken the six countries of the
European Economic Community and compared their development trends in the
sphere of "living standards" for the years from 1957 to 1976.
Using these data for the Common Market countries, I worked out
comparable time series for Austria and fed these to the computer in Berlin.5
How can such a comparison be actually carried through? The SWIGES-
model is based on 53 indicators. This choice of indicators can be accepted till
the mid-seventies. For comparisons extending over a longer period other or
possibly additional indicators which will then presumably be of more
importance in determining the quality of life and which possibly can then be
quantified, should be included.
Here follows the list of the 53 SWIGES-indicators:
1 GNP per head of the population (in DM) (purchasing power parity)
2 Share of the gross investment in the GNP (in %)
"Strukturentwicklung der Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft von Einzelstaaten und
Staatengruppen am Beispiel des Lebensstandards in den EWG-Landern" (abbreviated
SWIGES) by the "Zentrum Berlin fur Zukunftsforschung" in West Berlin.
The author is deeply indebted to the Zentrum Berlin fur Zukunftsforschung for its
generous cooperation.
H-83
-------
3 Average gross hourly wage of a worker in industry (in DM)
4 Share of wages and salaries in national income (in %)
5 Unemployment: those seeking work/total labor force
6 Jobs available/labor force (in %)
7 Share of the labor force in total population (in %)
8 Weekly hours worked by workers in industry
9 Strikes: participating workers/workers in industry (in %)
10 Average number of workdays lost through accidents at work in the
iron and steel industry
11 Savings: share of savings in the national income
12 Savings deposits per inhabitant (in DM)
Expenditure in percent of personal consumption for:
13 Recreation and entertainment
14 Transportation and communication
15 Personal care and health
16 Household operation
17 Household goods
18 Heating and lighting
19 Housing
20 Clothing
21 Tobacco
22 Beverages (alcoholic and non-alcoholic)
23 Food (excluding beverages)
24 Expenditure for personal consumption per inhabitant (in DM)
25 Number of telephones per 1000 inhabitants (registered phones)
26 Number of television sets per 1000 inhabitants (registered sets)
27 Number of radios per 1000 inhabitants (registered sets)
28 Consumption of fuels (coal and coal equivalent of other fuels-in
kilograms)
29 Number of physicians per 100,000 ihabitants
30 Number of hospital beds per 10,000 inhabitants
31 Infant mortality=deaths under one year of age per 1000 live births
32 Public expenditure for social security in % of GNP
33 Share of dwelling units with running water in the total number of
dwellings (in %)
34 Share of dwelling units with bath in the total number of dwellings (in
%)
35 Public expenditure for education in percent of national income
36 Number of university students per 1000 inhabitants (total enrollment)
37 Number of 14-year-old pupils in percent of all 14-year-olds
38 Number of 16-year-old pupils in percent of all 16-year-olds
39 Number of 18-year-old pupils in percent of all 18-year-olds
II-84
-------
40 Total circulation of daily newspapers per inhabitant
v 41 Number of newspapers per inhabitant
> 42 Number of books published per inhabitant (including 2nd editions)
43 Number of books translated per inhabitant
44 Consumption of printing and writing paper (except newsprint) per
inhabitant
45 Number of admissions to motion picture theaters per year, per
inhabitant
46 Number of museums per inhabitant
47 Number of libraries per inhabitant
48 Pieces of regular mail handled per inhabitant (domestic mail)
49 Number of passenger cars per 1000 inhabitants
50 Fatal traffic accidents in percent of population
51 Defense expenditure in percent of GNP
52 Emigrants in percent of population (citizens, long-term)
53 Immigrants in percent of population (long-term).
Basically it could be questioned, if data, based on different definitions in
the various countries, collected by different methods and sorted and compiled in
different statistical ways, can be compared. And even if the data were collected
in any one way, there would still be different valuations, as basic difmitions
differ often. The SWIGES-report says, since the data pertain to average values
and since it cannot be checked whether the international compatiblity of the
indicator-evaluation is wholly assured, the data can at best be regarded as
"characteristic". We repeat characteristic and not necessarily wholly exact.
An objection which is often made with regard to international comparisons
pertains to the incomparability due to the different purchasing power of the
currencies. Different purchasing power parities as for example the official
exchange rate and purchasing power comparisons lead to different results. Thus,
for the Austrian schilling and the German mark, there is firstly an official
exchange rate, secondly an exchange rate based on the purchasing power of the
Austrian schilling in Germany, that is for a German shopping basket of goods
and thirdly, the rate according to the purchasing power of the German mark in
Austria.
In the model used only 4 out of the 53 indicators are expressed in a
currency, namely GNP, hourly wages of workers in industry, savings deposits
and personal consumption. In one case—namely for the per capita GNP—the
purchasing power exchange rate according to the German method of calculation
was used, for the rest the official exchange rate.
Generally, only nominal values were used. This means that an inflationary
rate enters the monetary figures. And this may show up sharply in the GNP
which is given in current prices. In extrapolating beyond the year 1967, price
II-85
-------
increases are therefore included and the price increases of the year 1967 and the
last years prior to 1967 (1967, 1966, 1965) have more weight due to the*
weighted regression. Using real values would be possible, but would also raise*
new problems. A basic year would have to be found in which the economy in all
six countries of the European Economic Community was operating at relatively
the same level—and this did not exist; otherwise different basic years would have
to be chosen.
Nearly all indicators are expressed as percentages (for example share of
gross investment in GNP) or as a number per head of population (for example
fuel consumption).
A further objection relates to the fact that the polling to determine the
indicators was carried through in Germany and therefore the German way of life
largely determined the choice of indicators.
Naturally the way of life differs in the six countries of the European
Economic Community and there are differences between the German and the
Austrian way of life. These dissimilarities, however, are not so profound as that
the way of life of one of these seven cannot be taken for purposes of
comparison.
Due to a particular feature—for example a common language-the impor-
tance of an indicator can differ in the different countries. Within the countries
of the European Economic Community the number of books published per head
of population may be an acceptable indicator; but in Austria where all books of
the German-speaking countries (Germany, Switzerland and Austria) are avail-
able, this indicator loses in importance.
We repeat we need indicators that are characteristic for Germany as well as
for most of these countries. National preferences (wine, beer) as well as different
climatic conditions (the need for heating in northern countries, but hardly in
southern Italy) are subordinated, since these probably cause fewer divergencies
in the calculations than the different definitions and methods of compiling data.
(What for example is an institution of higher learning in Germany, what in
France? The difference is large. Or when is an emigrant counted as an emigrant?
As soon as he leaves the country or years later when it's clear that he won't
come back? What is an immigrant who subsequently emigrates? Is he still
counted as an immigrant?) Here we see that the wine-beer-question is not a
decisive one and also that we in Austria can accept the German norms for a trial
study-as a first approximation for Austria.
11-86
-------
*\Vhat is Austria's position?
V
A final question remains. Can Austria be at all compared with the countries
of the European Economic Community or are the differences so great that a
comparison is not possible? What does a study of the indicators show?
The values of the indicators during these years under consideration show
that Austria often lies in the middle range, that is neither near the top nor near
the bottom. This is true for example for the share of gross investment in the
GNP. This applies also to labor market indicators with Austria having little
unemployment and few jobs available.
Austria holds first place as regards the share of public expenditure in the
GNP spent on social security.
Austria also holds first place amongst the seven countries as regards the
number of physicians in relation to the size of the population. Having relatively
more doctors doesn't automatically mean that each larger community has a
doctor nor that everyone has the right to consult a doctor when the need arises
and to do so under the social security system. Nor do the figures tell anything
about the doctor's training or his specialization. The figures simply mean that
the chances of getting medical care are larger and that on the average more
Austrians can profit from this than can the people in the countries of the
European Economic Community.
Austria also holds first place as regards the number of museums and
libraries in relation to the size of population. Even though these figures don't tell
how many people actually visited the museums or how many books were
borrowed in the libraries, these latter figures would again not tell anything about
the number of books available in the libraries or about the kind of books offered
the public. Nevertheless it may be assumed that a person living in a town or city
has, on the average, more and easier access to museums and libraries, if there are
more in that town or city.
There are fewer strikes in Austria than in any of the EEC-countries.
Counting strikes is a dubious task. How many strikes were called? How long did
they last? Did these strikes cause other sectors of the economy to suffer? Were
plants closed? Were strikes broken by force? The strike-indicator shows only
that there were strikes. Yet the fact that there were strikes may be taken as
proof that the workers have the right to strike and that as a last resort they can
call a strike in order to call public attention to their problems and force the
employers to make concessions. If the strike-indicator is low in Austria—(and it
would be low no matter how this indicator would be measured) then this is due
to the stand taken by employers and employees. This does not mean, however,
that Austrian workers are not aware of their rights or don't have any.
11-87
-------
The author would suggest that instead of taking the "strike-indicator" just*
described, an indicator be taken that would merely assert or deny the existence
of the right to strike in a country, without any time series. The same would
apply for example to the indicator expressing the right of a country's citizens to
emigrate.
In Austria the number of workdays lost in the iron and steel industry due
to accidents at work is low. It has been mentioned that public expenditure for
social security is very high. Certainly other factors also account for the low
accident at work figures, such as the intense campaign against accidents carried
on in plants.
The share of military expenditure in the GNP is low, too.
There are also dark spots in the Austrian level of living, according to the
indicators used, namely the high number of fatal road accidents and the high
consumption of alcoholic drinks.
Subsequently some of the relationships existing between the indicators
were examined more closely. Here as in the model generally, the actual values
were used for the years from 1957 through 1967 and the values until 1976 were
estimated by a weighted regression curve.
A comparison of the GNP per head shows that Austria is ahead of Italy, but
lagging behind all other EEC-countries (see Appendix, pg, 98).
As regards the share of gross investments in the GNP, Austria holds a high
position, in fact following right behind Luxemburg and Holland (see Appendix,
pg. 99(A).
The share of Austria's public expenditure for education in the national
income is, according to the figures given, very low. But it should be remembered
that no official figures exist for such expenditures. Time series exist only for
federal expenditure on education. The values used are those of the UNESCO,
but these could easily underestimate the sphere of education don't show up in
the officially published statistics (see Appendix pg. 99(B).
The first few of the diagrams that follow show fuel consumption as well as
the number of telephones, of cars, radios and television sets in use—each
compared with the GNP per head of population. Then follow comparisons of the
share of expenditures for food, drink, clothing, rent and recreation in personal
consumption-each indicator again compared with the GNP per head of the
population. These diagrams show clearly that Austria lies in the middle range of
II-88
-------
i the EEC-countries and that these comparisons with very few exceptions (such as
^ the share of expenditures for beverages and for rent in the personal consump-
^ tion) shows a rather clear-cut trend (see Appendix pp. 100-105).
The general index of this medium-term model combines the 53 indicators
and tries to trace their general trend. This general index, the average or total
mark of the level of living shows that Austria lies in the middle range.
Methods of calculation used
(a) The first of three evaluations
Each indicator was given a weight which should show to what extent it can
be used to describe, in part, the level of living. It should be emphasized that the
weight is not supposed to reflect the importance of the particular indicator, but
rather its part in improving the level of living.
In the SWIGES-study the weights of the 53 indicators used were deter-
mined by polls and these were then made to add up to 100.
The indicators used which have the biggest weights are:
- the number of telephones per head of population 2.8%
— the number of physicians per head of population 2.7%
— the share of public expenditure for education in
the national income 2.7%
The lowest weights were given to:
- strikes 0.9%
- number of workdays lost in the iron and steed industry
due to accidents at work 0.8%
— share of pupils in all youths of the age
(for 14,16 and 18-year-olds) 0.8%
(b) Linear model—not applicable
A linear model should be mentioned briefly, even though such a model
cannot be applied in measuring the level of living.
One particular year—in our case 1967—was chosen as a base year. In the
linear model the index of the level of living was set equal to 100 for each
country in the year 1967.
11-89
-------
The calculations were carried through separately for each country. The
results, however, can neither be compared nor put in relation to one another,
since the conditions in the base year differed widely.
Thus it is clear that too much depends on the base year (that means
whether the economic situation was favorable in the particular country in that
year or not) and that too much depends on chance.
A look at the following graph shows how the year 1967, which was not at
all typical for the strike-indicator in Austria from 1957 to 1967, throws the
Austrian index of the level of living out of line. The same thing is true, although
less pronounced, for Belgium.
In conclusion: The index derived from a linear model would make sense
only if the year chosen as the base year, in our case 1967, would be typical for
the time series of all indicators of the countries. Since this can never be, it
follows, that a linear model cannot be used to estimate an index of the level of
living. (See Appendix pg. 106).
(c) 2nd valuation
In addition to the first valuation, the assigning of weights—which was the
same for the linear and the non-linear model—in a second valuation each
indicator was assigned one of four functions to show the value or the
contribution of each of these indicators towards the level of living. Such a
valuation was found necessary as the effect on the level of living does not
increase to the same extent as the indicator grows or increases.6
Examples may show this more clearly. When one earns little, a rise in
income means more than when one earns a lot. Or the total number of people
working: When several members of a family have the opportunity to work-and
want to work—this raises the family income, raises the level of living. When,
however, all people must work-whether they want to or not-be this because of
the economic or the political situation in the country—this lowers the level of
living. In other words, for a certain time, the value of this indicator rises,
exerting a favorable effect on the level of living; then a maximum is reached;
thereafter any further rise in the indicator implies a lowering in the level of
living.
In general, the assumption is true that a rise in an indicator corresponds to a higher
value of the indicator. Higher wages earned or more libraries accessibile signify a better
level of living. Indicators, for which the opposite is true, however, also called
"negative" indicators, where a lower value of the indicator implies a higher level of
living-such as for example unemployment, traffic accidents, infant mortality-were
counted in such a way that a reduction in the size of the indicator corresponds to a rise
in the level of living.
H-90
-------
^-••^ «
The four functions used are:
— Function A—a straight line. This was used for 5 indicators including
— infant mortality,
- number of dwelling units having running water,
— number of dwelling units having a bathroom.
(See Appendix pg. 107).
— Function B—a continuously rising curve of decreasing growth rate or
in other words, rising but levelling off. This was used for 21 indicators
including
— the number of telephones, radio and television sets per
inhabitant,
— fuel consumption per inhabitant,
— the share of public expenditure for education in national income.
(See Appendix pg 107).
— Function C—a curve reaching a maximum; the decrease is slower than
the preceding rise; in other words—a gentle dropping off following the
saturation point. This function was used for 16 indicators including
— the share of gross investment in GNP,
- The share of wages and salaries in national income,
— The share of public expenditure for social security in GNP,
— The number of passenger cars per inhabitant.
(See Appendix pg. 107).
11-91
-------
— Function D—also a curve with a maximum, but differing from the last
curve in that the drop following the saturation point is a sharp, steep
one; this means that beyond the saturation point any rise in the
indicator has a very unfavorable effect on the level of living. This
function was used for 11 indicators including
- the share of the labor force in total population,
— the number of hours worked per week by workers in industry,
— the share of personal consumption spent on tobacco and on
food.
(See Appendix pg. 107).
(d) 3rd, last valuation
For the non-linear functions, that is for all except the straight line, an
additional point must be estimated for each indicator. This valuation
corresponds to a target-setting which should indicate-as seen today-what values
these indicators are likely to reach in Germany by the year 1980, that is what
values would be desirable as well as within reach. It was assumed that the
development of these indicators could still be more or less foreseen over the span
often years.
The second valuation, the choice of the function, is based on the results of
polls. On these graphs the horizontal axis gives the values of an indicator; the
vertical axis shows the contribution of the particular indicator to the level of
living. The valuation equal to "1" is the value of this indicator in Germany in the
base year 1967. A further point "a" is the target set for 1980 in functions C and
D; that is the valuation = 2 corresponds to the point where "a" cuts the curve. In
function B the "a" is calculated from the equation with the previously estimated
target for 1980.
Two examples show how the "a" was computed. The first pertains to the
number of passenger cars per 1000 inhabitants. In 1967 the Germans had 184
cars per 1000 people. In making an estimate for 1980 other factors had to be
taken into consideration such as the expansion of the road-network and the
quality of other means of transportation (railroads and bus connections). Such
factors were called limiting conditions of the indicators, since the indicators can
exist only in connection with their surroundings. This interrelation with the
environment was not dealt with explicitly in the SWIGES-model, but it would be
possible to include it.
11-92
-------
Also not specially considered, but latently entering into the model are the
interdependencies of the indicators with one another. Increasing the number of
passenger cars per 1000 inhabitants-without changing the limiting conditions,
for example without expanding the road network-would affect the indicator
"fatal traffic accidents".
The figure which therefore seemed feasible for Germany for the year 1980
was 500 cars per 1000 people. This does not exclude different targets being set
for later years, all the more so, since the limiting conditions and the inter-
depencencies can undergo change and do undergo change. Such changes can be
the result of structural changes which take place without part of the social
system itself being changed, as for example technological development, or they
can be the result of changes in the system itself, as for example less individual
traffic. Such changes can largely be foreseen for a span of ten years. Not
considered were economic crises or recessions, which could altogether change
the development of the indicators and thus render the estimates for the year
1980 out of place.
It remains to be seen whether the effect a particular indicator has on the
level of living changes at the same pace near the base year (1967) as near the
target year (1980) or quicker or slower. Around the base year the effect in this
case is strong (possessing a car today still implies a considerably higher level of
living for a person living in Germany); around 1980 a certain saturation is likely
to have been reached and a car more or less should not mean as big a change in a
person's level of living as today.
Presumably after 1980 more value will be set on a more luxurious
equipping of cars. This would call for different primary data, that means not
according to the number of passenger cars per 1000 inhabitants. But for the
seventies for Western Europe, the indicator "number of passenger cars per
inhabitant" suffices.
Example 2: personal consumption per inhabitant.
Since the subjective evaluing of the indicator personal consumption largely
depends the same time each rise seems very significant, if the achieved level is
low, but much less significant if the consumption is already high, the function B
was chosen. There is no optimal personal consumption. The value in the year
1967 was 4743 DM that is the personal consumption per German. The target set
for 1980 was 10,000 DM. Inserting this value in the equation of function B we
obtain an "a" of 3.087.
II-93
-------
value 1980
valuation = a. log - +1
1980 value
10,000
1 = a. log
4,743
(e) Non-linear model
The model is a medium-term one. The functions used are non-linear. The
targets were set for the year 1980.
The base country was Germany, the base year 1967. This means the
valuation-or the contribution to the level of living— of each indicator was set for
Germany in the year 1967 equal to "1". In this way the different countries
could be compared with one another.
The target value for 1980 (in our case for Germany) was given the value
"2". If by 1980 or before 1980 the target should be reached this would not
mean, however, that this is the optimal, best or most desirable target in regard to
the level of living. Reaching the value 2 also doesn't mean a doubling of the
effect a particular indicator has on the level of living.
This non-linear model can-within given limits of time and space-be
applied for medium-term forecasting (see Appendix pg. 108).
Conclusions
In the year 1957 Austria's level of living-measured by the German
standard-and on the basis of this attempt at applying a model was just barely
under that of France. Italy's level was much lower.
1970 Austria had passed France and was just overtaking Belgium.
According to this study, this development will continue through 1975 and
Austria's level of living will lie right in the middle range of that of the European
Economic Community, with Germany and Holland at the top and the level in
Belgium, France and Italy below that in Austria.
Postscript
Some time has passed since these calculations were made. In the meantime
the author attended the 138th meeting of the American Association for the
Advancement of Science in Philadelphia. At a symposium there scientists
debated the question whether an index measuring quality of life can be
constructed at all.
II-94
-------
The author is convinced that the method explained in this study can be
made to work, even though it should preferably first be somewhat refined.
The model can still be improved on. The social indicators, if chosen in
Austria, would not necessarily be the same as those chosen by a large European
country. Indicators which don't say much or no longer have much meaning
should be revised or not included at all. The number of letters mailed within a
country for example, hardly means anything in Europe anymore. How many of
these letters are really letters, how many are bills, advertisements, answers to
contests and the like. More decisive perhaps in determining the level of living
than the number of letters mailed or received could be the fact whether mail is
still delivered on Saturdays or whether post offices are open Saturdays.
It would be important to try to quantify indicators which pertain to the
security and the safety of man and to his environment.
The author is not in principle against using output or result indicators
rather than input indicators (for example, asking "How healthy is the
population?" instead of asking, "How many doctors and hospital beds are at the
disposal of the population, how much money is available for medical care?").
Result indicators should, however, only be used when they clearly express
something. The state of health of a population can indirectly be determined
amongst other things by the expected length of life, though, in fact, it could
only be determined if the people had medical check-ups at regular intervals; in
Austria such examinations are still the exception.
And how can we measure successful schooling? The number of engineers
employed doesn't say whether these work in the profession they learned, doesn't
say whether they are capable engineers, whether they like their work, whether
their schooling and training really brought them "success".
What is new in the method used is the three-way evaluation which
takes account of the fact that each indicator's contribution in helping to
determine the level of living has-in the long run-a turning or saturation
point and that once this point is passed-as seen today—what more this
indicator contributes is no longer favorable to the individual, in fact, rather
than raising his level of living tends to lower it.
The methods of calculation used may, to some, seem strange, because they
are not used to them. We accept that which we're accustomed to. Prof. Margaret
Mead expressed it so well in Philadelphia when she said, "We're willing to
homogenize wage rates-those of the carpenter and of the nuclear physicist".
Wage rates are not questioned today. They're published in international
statistics. We don't ask what does such an average mean. We accept such values
and use them for purpose of comparison.
II-95
-------
An index representing the level of living would be a similar "average". It
would not give or indicate any absolute value or level. But it could help to
recognize trends and to make comparisons possible.
11-96
-------
APPENDIX
11-97
-------
11200
1200
1957
1961
1965
1969
1973 Zeit
11-98
-------
(A)
39'
IS
19
^
1 1
57 1961 1965
*"••••.. ft.^_
1 1
1969 1973 Zeit
(B)
<
£
1957
1973 Zeit
11-99
-------
a
s
6400-
S 4400 -
400
3900 5900 7900 9900
Brutto-Nationalprodukt pro Einwohner (in DM)
258-
208-
£ 158-
3900 5900 7900
Brutto-Nahonalprodukt pro Einwohner (in DM)
H-100
-------
290-
210-
130 -
SO -
1900
I I I I
3900 5900 7900 9900
Brutto-Nahonalprodukt pro Einwohner (in DM)
420-
£ 340-
a
260-
•s 180-j
N
100
BRD
Holland
1900 3900 5900 7900
Brutto-Nationalproduht pro Einwohner (in DM)
9900
11-101
-------
264-
•3 104-
24-«
3900 5900 1900
Brutto-NaUonalprodukt pro unwohner (m DM)
9900
32-
t 27-
22 •
N
\
iefe*—.. ^
°Jea v—•—«.
1900 3900 5900 7900 9900
Brutto-Nahonalprodukt pro Knwohnei (in DM)
H-102
-------
7,0 -
6,2-
5,4 -
ttalien
X Luxembur
» » >\r > >—
*\
3,8-
I
I
^
3,0.
1900
T\
3900
^J
I I I '
5900 7900 9900
Brutto-Nationalprodukt pro Einwohner (in DM)
11-103
-------
17-
~ 13-
11-
I
Italien •
Holland
"S
1900 3900 5900 7900 9900 Zeit
Brutto - Nationalprodukt pro Einwohner (m DM),
•e 12-
I H
3
<
Holland
1900 3900 5900 7900
Brutto-Nationalprodukt pro Einwohner (in DM)
9900
11-104
-------
13-
11-
5 -
1900
' I I '
3900 5900 7900 9900
Brutto-Nationalprodukt pro Einwohner (in DM)
11900
11-105
-------
Lineares Modellnicht anwendbar,
da die Gewichtung bestimmter
Indikatoren dazu fuhrt, dalJ diese
im Gesamteigebnis zu stark durch-
schlagen, z. B. Streikquote.
Osterreich II = Osterreich ohne
Streikquote
II-106
-------
oo 2
S 1
u
Funktionstyp A
Wert Indikator
1967
oo 2
Funktionstyp B
Wert Indikator
1967
Funktionstyp C
S 1
Wert a
1967
Funktionstyp D
Indikator
11-107
-------
130 -
120 -
110-
100 -
90 -
80 -
70 -
60 -
50 -
40 -
30 -
20 -
10 -
Nicht-lmeares Modell
mit bestimmten Anderungen,
bzw. Einschrankungen mittel-
fristig anwendbar.
-10
1960
1965
1970
Zeit
11-108
-------
DATA REQUIREMENTS FOR A QUALITY
GROWTH POLICY
by
YOUNG P. JOUN
Department of Planning and Economic Development
State of Hawaii
A paper presented at the 1972 annual conference of the Urban
and Regional Information Systems Association and Concurrent
Government Management Information Science Conference, San
Francisco, California, August 29-September 2.
11-109
-------
Data Requirements for a Quality Growth Policy
By Y. P. Joun*
1. Introduction
Increasing concern has been shown in recent years over our deteriorating
quality of life, and uncontrolled economic growth has been singled out as one of
the major culprits causing the trend. It has been argued that the magnitude of
the Gross National Product (GNP) or its growth is not an appropriate measure of
social welfare and, therefore, the construction of some measure of the quality of
life index has been proposed to replace the GNP.1 This reflects the concern that
the growth of the GNP, or more precisely production and consumption of goods
tjid services, produces external diseconomies; e.g., environmental degradations
which are not subtracted from the computation of the GNP. It has been
suggested, therefore, that the quality of life should take into account all aspects
of the human environment, social and physical as well as economic. Further-
more, government has been urged to adopt quality growth rather than quantity
growth policy to protect the environment and to enhance the quality of life.
The implementation of a quality growth policy should then require some
measure of the quality-of-life index to monitor the effectiveness of policies
aimed to improve the quality of life. The construction of such an index,
however, is extremely difficult, if not impossible, at this time. It involves
identification, compilation, aggregation, and interpretation of all variables
relating to the quality of life. It also involves broadening the relevant data base
to include not only the data on economic activities but also all other data
describing the environment surrounding mankind (e.g., crime, discrimination,
etc.).
Another difficulty in constructing such an index is finding an appropriate
weight to aggregate these variables after all those data are identified.
The purpose of this paper is to identify the data requirements of construc-
ting the proposed quality-of-life index and to discuss the problems in inter-
preting such an index. Also, information requirements in the construction of
Head, Research and Economic Analysis Division, Department of Planning and
Economic Development, State of Hawaii.
1 Population and the American Future, The Report of the Commission on Population
Growth and the American Future (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office,
1972), p. 38.
11-110
-------
so-called "socio-ecological models" will be identified and problems in
interpreting the output of such models will be discussed.
The plan of the paper is as follows:
The next section will deal with the possible components of the quality-of-
life index. Section 3 will deal with the construction and interpretation of this
index. Section 4 is concerned with the information requirement of socio-
ecological models. Section 5 presents conclusions.
2. Components of the Quality-of-Life Index
The quality of life encompasses all aspects of the environment surrounding
human beings. Such an environment could be divided into two broad
categories—human and natural environments.
Human environment is composed of the man-made environment such as
economic, socio-cultural, public service, health and spatial environment.2
Natural environment can likewise be divided into two categories—biotic
(living-organism) and abiotic (non-living-organism) components. The biotic
components of the natural environment can further be subdivided into three
categories—producers (or autotrophic organism); e.g., green plant, consumers (or
heterotrophic organism); e.g., herbivores and carnivores, and decomposer (e.g.,
bacteria).3 The abiotic component can likewise be subdivided into stock
resources or non-renewable resources (e.g., fossil fuels and mineral deposits) and
flow resources (e.g., solar radiation, water in the hydrologic cycle). Figure 1
shows this classification of the quality of life.
This classification follows that of Perloff. See, Harvey S. Perloff, "A Framework for
Dealing with the Urban Environment: Introductory Statement," in Harvey S. Perloff,
ed. The Quality of the Urban Environment (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1968)
pp. 3-25.
Walter Isard, et al, Ecologic-Economic Analysis for Regional Development (New York;
The Free Press, 1972) pp. 50-56. Stanley A. Cain, Conservation: The Developing
Ecological Science of Resource Management, Second National Congress on Environ-
mental Health, Proceedings, 1961, pp. 56-60.
II-lll
-------
Figure 1
Quality of.
Life
Quality of
Human
Environment
Quality of
Natural
Environment
-economic environment
socio-cultural environment
public service environment
spatial environment
health environment
ather environments
producer
biotic component ^consumer
decomposer
stock
/resources
abiotic components
\flow
resources
The above classification is more illustrative than completely inclusive.4 In
order to obtain an all-inclusive and precise classification, it might be useful to
adopt a digital system similar to the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) for
classifying the components of the quality of life. Thus, "the decomposed organic
matter in land" will be referred as LX 7501 and "marine bird dropping" will be
designated as MX 7202.5
The statistics describing the economic activities are adequate if not
complete. The GNP and its components are widely used and misused. One of the
common misuses of the GNP (or per-capita GNP) is the attempt to use it as a
measure of economic or social welfare. It is evident from our analysis that the
economic environment is merely a component of quality of life. Furthermore,
the GNP (or per-capita GNP) is not even a sufficient yardstick for measuring
economic welfare. Other facets of the economic environment; e.g., the size
distribution of income and wealth and other economic variables, should be
considered along with the GNP in order to adequately describe the economic
environment.
4 According to Ayres, the basic criteria for a successful typology are: (1) that the correct
classification of every entity to be classified be unambiguous (no overlap); (2) that all
possible cases be covered (no gaps); (3) that the number of classes be small enough to
manipulate, but large enough to permit adequate detail; and (4) that any entity should
be homogeneous within the class but should be differentiated from those in other
categories. See Robert U. Ayres, "A Material-Process-Product Model," in Allen V.
Kneese and Blair T. Bower, ed. Environmental Quality Analysis, (Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins Press for Resources for the Future, Inc., 1972) p. 42.
5 Walter Isard proposes such a system for classifying ecological process. Walter Isard, et
al, op. cit., pp. 61-65.
11-112
-------
There are also questions as to whether the GNP can even adequately
measure the output of the economy. The problems of quality change, inability
to measure adequately the output of the government sector, and other problems
still plague the national income statistician.6 The fundamental question is,
however, whether a single index similar to GNP can be constructed to measure
the quality of life.
The answer appears to be negative.7 First of all, there are no objective ways
to measure the value of non-market variables. As Arthur Okun noted, there is no
way to prevent the decrease of the GNP when a bachelor marries his cook.8
Secondly, even if we can obtain an objective evaluation of non-market variables,
the aggregation of different variables to construct a single welfare index is
impossible due to the impossibility of finding a suitable weight which can avoid
the interpersonal utility comparisons.9
Other variables describing other aspects of the quality of human environ-
ment shown in Figure 1 require the knowledge of disciplines other than that of
economists. However, illustrative examples will be provided to facilitate the
understanding of the classification.1 °
The socio-cultural environment includes variables such as cultural
experience, democratic process, and individual equality; the public-service
environment, welfare services, and education; the spatial environment, quality of
the housing stock, arrangement of work and a residential center, community-
neighborhood environment, and traffic congestion; the environment for health
care, medical care and other health services. Examples of components of natural
environments are previously given.
3. Construction of the Quality-of-Life Index
Supposing the relevant variables relating to the quality of life are identified,
classified and compiled. How shall those be presented to describe or monitor the
changes in the quality of life"!
6 "The Economic Accounts of the United States: Retrospect and Prospect," Survey of
Current Business, 50th Anniversary Issue, Vol. 51, No. 7, Part II, July 1971.
7 Edward F. Denison, "Welfare Measurement and the GNP," Survey of Current Business,
VoL 51, No. 1, January 1971, pp. 13-16 and 39.
8 Arthur Okun, "Social Welfare Has No Price Tag," in "The Economic Accounts of the
United States: Retrospect and Prospect," op. cit., p. 131.
9 This point will be discussed further in the next section.
10 Harvey Perloff, op. cit.
11-113
-------
One approach is to present a set of such variables without attempting to
aggregate them. These are commonly called social indicators.11 This approach
has several advantages. First, it avoids the impossible problem of aggregation by
presenting each quality-of-life component separately. For example, the pollution
levels in air or water can be represented by physical units of pollutants; whereas,
the economic environment such as per-capita income can be represented by
dollar values. Secondly, social indicators in contrast to social accounts need not
be comprehensive. A set of variables selected as social indicators, therefore, is
merely a selective representation of different aspects of the quality of life. Thus,
it lessens the data shortage problem.
Social indicators, however, pose the problem of interpretation. Since most
of the variables selected represent different aspects of the quality of life, a
question arises on the interpretation of the overall quality of life when there are
divergent trends among variables selected as social indicators. For example, the
improvement in the water pollution indicator level accompanied by the increase
of unemployment as a result of shutdown of a pollution generating factory
could be difficult to assess in judging its overall quality of life impact.
This kind of divergent trend in social indicators cannot be avoided since
most of the variables in the eco-system are interrelated. The decreased use of
pesticides, for instance, will result in a beneficial ecological impact on the wild-
life but, at the same time, will adversely affect the quality and quantity of
agricultural crop production.
The various interrelations and trade-offs of variables contained in social
indicators make it necessary to introduce subjective values and bias in utilizing it
in assessing the overall quality of life.
The difficulties of constructing the aggregate quality-of-life index have
already been discussed. The difficulty of obtaining an objective measurement of
the value of non-market variables and impossible task of finding objective
weights to aggregate different components of the quality of life are main reasons
which prevent us from constructing such an index. One way to lessen such
difficulties is to construct a quality-of-life index for a well-defined homogeneous
group of people; e.g., the quality-of-life index for the middle-aged middle-class
urban Caucasian male wage earners.12 Even if the quality-of-life index is
11 John Q. Wilson, Quality of Life in the United States-An Excursion into the New
Frontier of Socio-Economic Indicators, (Kansas City: Midwest Research Institute,
1969); Center for Urban Studies, Wayne State University, Social Reporting in
Michigan: Problems and Issues (Lansing, Michigan: Office of Planning Coordination,
Bureau of Policies and Programs, 1970); Harvey Perloff, op. cit.
12 This is not an unconventional idea since the consumer price index measures only the
price changes of goods and services bought by the group of the middle class, urban
wage earners, although it is widely misinterpreted as an overall price index.
11-114
-------
constructed for such a well-defined group, frequent surveys should be conducted
to account for the changing values and aspirations of the society over the years.
For example, if such an index were constructed during the 1930 depression
years, the economic variables should have been given a dominant weight
whereas, the weight for social environment variables should have increased
during the 1960s "Great Society." It appears now that the weights for natural
environment variables are on the upward surge, and should, therefore, be given
heavier weights. Such changes in weights should not be regarded as strange since
the consumer expenditure surveys are also periodically conducted to update the
weights for the consumer price index. Such a survey could be held at the time of
major election to find out the changing values and aspirations of the people.
4. Data Requirements for Socio-Ecological Models
In view of the difficulty of constructing an objective quality-of-life index,
attempts have been made in recent years to construct "socio-ecological models"
to study the interrelationships and trade-offs among socio-economic-ecological
variables.
Isard proposes an interregional economic-ecologic input/output table to
describe the interrelationships among economic and ecological variables.13 The
proposed table resembles the ordinary inter-regional input/output table in that
several regional input/output tables are combined to show their interrelation-
ships. However, the delineation of regions in the proposed table is not based on
the economic factors but on the ecological processes and environmental
conditions.
The proposed table contains three main regions based upon similarities of
environmental conditions; i.e., land, marine, and air. The three regions are
further subdivided into several zones, each having a high degree of homogeneity
in terms of geographical location and ecological processes.
For instance, the marine region is subdivided into open water and intertidal
subregions. In turn, each of these subregions is "further subdivided into zones of
similar environmental conditions, depending on the requirements of the
particular problems being investigated.14 Each zone also contains economic and
ecologic sectors. The economic sector contains the normal classification of
industries found in the usual input-output table, e.g., agriculture, manufacturing,
13 Isard, op. cit.
14 Isard, op. cit., p. 59.
11-115
-------
services, etc. The ecologic sector in each zone contains both biotic and abiotic
categories, e.g., plants, animals, climate, geology, physiography, hydrology, soil,
etc.15
The proposed table shows the overall linkage of the economic and ecologic
systems, and also provides a convenient framework to collect the data because of
its consistent classification system. Simulation and projection describing the
relationships among economic and ecologic variables could be performed
utilizing the proposed table. However, many economic-ecologic processes and
their relationships are not linear and, thus, make it necessary to rely on the
various types of appropriate side computations and operations on the data of the
non-linear part of the table.
One useful model which complements Isard's global table is the material-
process-product model (MPP).16 The model provides a detailed knowledge of
the specific physical and chemical processes that occur in the production and use
of goods for a certain sector of the economy.
Although a global model describing the movements of physical materials
through the economy as proposed by Kneese and Ayres could be useful, a
detailed micro process-production model by each industry would be more useful
in obtaining the quantitative information on the relationships among the various
types of residuals, the amount of output produced, and the amount and quality
of inputs used.17 Also, such a model could provide detailed technical and
economic information on the alternative production process of a certain
industry. For example, a detailed material-flow diagram in cane sugar
processing18 could provide the following technical information on the daily
residual discharge per unit of sugar production for alternative production
processes:19
15 Ibid., p. 60.
16 Robert U. Ayres, op. cit., pp. 35-68. Also, Robert U. Ayres and Allen V. Kneese,
"Pollution and Environmental Quality," in The Quality of the Urban Environment, op.
cit., pp. 35-74. "Production, Consumption and Externalities," American Economic
Review, June 1969, pp. 282-313.
17 See, Clifford S. Russell and Walter O. Spofford, Jr., "A Quantitative Framework for
Residuals Management Decision," Environmental Quality Analysis, op. cit.,
pp. 115-179.
18 Kneese and Ayres give the example of material flow diagram in beet sugar production.
See, Environmental Quality Analysis, p. 59 and Quality of Urban Environment, p. 54.
19 I am indebted to Dr. Richard Marland, Interim Director, Office of Environmental
Quality Control, State of Hawaii, for providing the information.
11-116
-------
a. Gallons of waste water.
b. Five-day "biological oxygen demand" or BOD (pounds per ton of
cane processed).
c. COD or "chemical oxygen demand" (pounds per tons of cane
processed).
d. Suspended solids (per ton of cane processed).
e. Dissolved solids (pounds per ton of cane processed).
f. PH.
g. Total and fecal Coliform count.
h. Pesticides and herbicides (PPM).
i. Phosphate, nitrodes, and ammonia (PPM).
j. Soil particles (pounds per ton of cane processed).
k. Temperature of waste water as it enters receiving waters, and profile
of ambient temperature of receiving water unaffected by waste water.
1. Extent of presence of each of the following (grams per ton of cane
processed):
(1) Hexane—extractable facts, greases and oils
(2) Heavy materials (Hq, Pb, Cd, etc.)
(3) Other toxic cations.
m. Sucrose (pounds per ton of cane processed).
Such detailed technical information would enable economists to study the
trade-offs and make a cost-benefit analysis of alternative production processes.
This kind of analysis provides more useful information than does macro cost-
benefit analysis and, therefore, increases our options in dealing with
environmental problems.
After an MPP model, which links the physical flow of goods to the
economic activities, is constructed, we need a mathematical model which
simulates the natural system of a given region (or dispersion and diffusion
11-117
-------
models), in order to assess the quantitative impact of alternative environmental
control measures. Without such natural system models, e.g., hydrological and
meterological model, socio-ecological models would not provide sufficient infor-
mation on the precise geographical distribution of environmental impacts.
As it was discussed, a clean physical environment alone could not insure an
acceptable quality of life. Other economic and human conditions; e.g., adequate
housing, education, an efficient transportation system, and availability of
cultural experiences, should be taken into account in formulating any quality-
growth policy. The socio-ecological models, however, provide necessary
information in formulating such a quality growth policy which must maintain a
delicate balance among economic, social, and environmental variables.
In order to study the feedback relationships among various variables, a
global model relating different sub-models describing different components of
quality of life could be constructed. Such models have been used to study the
effect of population increase on public health, crime and violence, changes of
climate, agriculture, transportation, education, city service, and taxation.20
Also, as it is well known, ambitious world-wide models which study the global
system of feedback relationships among basic variables—population, capital,
food, nonrenewable resources, and pollution—were recently released to the
public to simulate the future of mankind.21
Such global models, although interesting, are still at a preliminary stage and
the validity of these models is not yet established. They lack both theoretical
foundation and the empirical verification of relationships assumed in the model.
Much of the hypotheses and causal relationships described in the model are not
yet well established.2 2 More theoretical work as well as empirical evidence is
required to build such a global model.23 However, a socio-ecological model for a
20 Kenneth Watt, et al, A Model of Society, Environmental Systems Group, Institute of
Ecology, University of California at Davis, 1969. M. A. Goldberg and C. S. Rolling, The
Vancouver Regional Simulation Study, 1970-71, Resource Science Center, The
University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.
21 Donella H. Meadows, et al, The Limits to Growth, (New York: Universt Books, 1972).
Jay W. Forrester, World Dynamics (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Wright-Allen Press,
1971).
22 Young P. Joun, "Information Requirements for Socio-Ecological Models," The Annals
of Regional Science, VoL V, No. 1, June 1971, pp. 25-32.
23 See James N. Gray, et al., "A Critique of Forrester's Model of an Urban Area," IEEE
Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Vol. SMC-2, No. 2, April 1972. Their
criticism is directed more to Forrester's Urban Dynamics but the basic criticism still
applies to similar models.
11-118
-------
small and well-defined geographical area, such as Hawaii, or Plymouth Bay,
Massachusetts, could be constructed with the present state of the art. Such a
model, moreover, could provide very useful information for local planning.
In the case of Hawaii, extending the present State planning models24 by
adding material-process-production and natural systems models would allow
study of a quality growth policy. Once it is constructed, such models would
answer questions relating to the formulation and implementation of a quality
growth policy. For example, they could be used in studying the quantitative
impacts of uncontrolled growth of automobiles, population, and hotel rooms,
etc. Conversely, the effects of various environmental-control measures (e.g.,
limitation of private automobile ownership, in-migration, and hotel
construction) on the economy can be assessed utilizing such models.
Technical difficulties of interpreting the result of such policy simulations
still exist due to the instability of the parameters of such models. However,
policy simulations can be performed if different assumptions on the future
change in technology and legal requirements are made. This is especially true in
the area of environmental-quality management systems. For example, the
environmental effects of uncontrolled automobile growth can be studied under
the various assumptions on the future technology of the internal combustion
engines and required air-pollution standards.
5. Conclusion
The quality-of-life concept has been defined, and the difficulty of
constructing an index describing the quality of life has been discussed. It has
been proposed that a measure of quality of life should include all aspects of the
environment, both physical and human, although the weights of different
components could change reflecting the value and aspirations of mankind.
Social indicators could be useful in monitoring the progress or lack of
progress of quality of life, thus, providing information on the progress of
established quality-growth policies. However, social indicators cannot adequately
describe the condition of the overall quality of life due to the difficulty of
interpreting divergent trends of variables included as social indicators.
Socio-ecological models provide a useful framework for collection,
compilation, and interpretation of variables relating to the quality of life. Also,
the interrelationships and trade-offs among components of quality of life can be
24 The State of Hawaii Planning Models include population, economic, land use, and
transportation models. State of Hawaii General Plan Revision Program in Six Parts,
Department of Planning and Economic Development, State of Hawaii, 1967.
11-119
-------
studied utilizing such a model. Although the accuracy of global models is subject
to discussion, a regional model for a small and well-defined area such as Hawaii
could be very useful in assessing the environmental impact of various
government policies aimed to achieve quality growth. It is hoped that empirical
studies leading to socio-ecological models could begin in the near future in order
to provide the quantitative information required for formulating a quality-
growth policy.
11-120
-------
References
Ayres, Robert U. and Kneese, Allan V., "Production, Consumption and
Externalities," American Economics Review, June 1969.
Ayres, Robert U., "A Material-Process-Product Mode," in Allen V. Kneese and
Blair T. Bower ed. Environmental Quality Analysis, (Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins Press for Resources for the Future, Inc. 1972).
Cain, Stanley A., Conservation: The Developing Ecological Science of Resource
Management, Second National Congress on Environmental Health,
Proceedings, 1961.
Center for Urban Studies, Wayne State University, Social Reporting in Michigan:
Problems and Issues, (Lansing, Michigan: Office of Planning Coordination,
Bureau of Policies and Programs, 1970).
Denison, Edward F., "Welfare Measurement and The GNP," Survey of Current
Business, Vol. 51, No. 1, January 1971.
Forrester, Jay W., World Dynamics, (Cambridge, Mass.: Wright-Allen Press,
1971).
Goldberg, M.A. and Holling, C.S., The Vancouver Regional Simulation Study,
1970-71, Resource Science Center, the University of British Columbia,
Vancouver, Canada.
Gray, James N., "A Critique of Forrester's Model of An Urban Area," IEEE
Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Vol., SMC-2, No. 2,
April 1972.
Isard, Walter et. al., Ecologic-Economic Analysis for Regional Development,
(New York: The Free Press, 1972).
Joun, Young P., "Information Requirements for Socio-Ecological Models," The
Annals of Regional Science, Vol. V, No. 1, June 1971.
Meadow, Donella H. et. al., The Limits to Growth, (New York: University
Books, 1972).
Perloff, Harvey S., "A Framework for Dealing with the Urban Environment:
Introductory Statement," in Harvey S. Perloff, ed. The Quality of the
Urban Environment, (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1968).
11-121
-------
Population and the American Future, The Report of the Commission on
Population Growth and the American Future, Washington, D.C.:
Government Printing Office, 1972).
Russell, Clifford S. and Spofford, Walter 0., Jr., "A Quantitative Framework for
Residual Management Decision," in Allen V. Kneese and Blair T. Bower
ed., Environmental Quality Analysis: Theory and Method in the Social
Sciences, (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press for Resources for the
Future, Inc., 1972).
State of Hawaii General Plan Revision Program, Department of Planning and
Economic Development, State of Hawaii, 1967.
"The Economic Accounts of the United States: Retrospect and Prospect,"
Survey of Current Business, 50th Anniversary Issue, Vol. 51, No. 7, Part II,
July 1971.
Watt, Kenneth, et. al., A Model of Society, Environmental Systems Group,
Institute of Ecology, University of California, Davis, 1969.
Wilson, John Q., Quality of Life in the United States- An Excursion into the
New Frontier of Socio-Economic Indicators, (Kansas City: Midwest
Research Institute, 1969).
11-122
-------
Ill QOL: ENVIRONMENTAL PERSPECTIVES
11-123
-------
-------
WHY ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY INDICES?
Thomas L. Kimball
Executive Vice-President
National Wildlife Federation
1412 Sixteenth Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20036
H-125
-------
WHY ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY INDICES?
Thomas L. Kimball
Science and technology in general, and professionalism in particular, are
under attack in our great nation. The average American citizen is confused and
confounded by purported scientific rationales that mix philosophy, politics, and
opportunism with the analysis of factual research data. That confusion turns to
disgust, and then rejection, when the public listens to professionals trained in
our best institutions of higher learning with similar long-term experience who
come forth with diametrically opposed conclusions and recommendations from
an analysis of environmental research data. Unfortunately, there appears to be a
growing conviction among the American populace that it is extremely difficult if
not impossible to get the unvarnished truth from the scientific community. As a
consequence, professionalism is being downgraded in direct proportion to the
inability of the public to guess which scientist has the right answer. Nowhere is
there a better example of this phenomenon and dilemma than in an analysis of
the current environmental—ecological revolution. In February, 1969, the
National Wildlife Federation commissioned the Gallup Organization to survey
public opinion on environmental degradation.1 Gallup found that the majority
of Americans were either somewhat or deeply concerned about the deteriorating
quality of living brought about by the fouling of our own nests. Both
fortunately and unfortunately, many and varied segments of our modern
complex society have also become aware of this burgeoning public interest. It
has brought forth new pollution abatement laws replete with political tub
thumping, a new dimension to more intense and centralized government
regulation, an alarmed industrial complex—insecure in its continued ability to
pollute at the expense of the environment, the Madison Avenue hucksterings of
endless products reportedly harmless to the plant and animal ecosystems, and a
citizenry that is incapable of separating advertising fantasyland from the truth.
Extremist "eco-freaks" and a rash of instant ecologists whose dire predictions
have failed to materialize have created a king-size environmental credibility gap
that threatens to destroy any significant progress towards the real solution of
our critical environmental problems.
Government leadership has been a great disappointment. Whenever
government finds itself in the middle of two aggressive constituencies with
conflicting viewpoints, its reflexes are predictable. Instead of concentrating on
an aggressive action program based upon the best scientific evidence available,
government usually embraces one of two cop-outs: (1) a proposal for
government reorganization is drafted or (2) a commission is appointed for
further study. Both of these inept measures usually take years to complete, and
neither effort has ever made any great contribution to the solution of a problem.
Then there is a Congressional propensity to place in the same federal executive
H-126
-------
agency the mandate to both promote and regulate a specific important natural
resource. The best examples are: the Atomic Energy Commission, which
possesses the authority both to promote and to regulate the peaceful uses of
atomic energy, and the Federal Power Commission, with authority to promote
and regulate the energy needs of our nation. The Commerce Department is
industry's spokesman in governmental affairs. Agriculture promotes and
regulates the farmer and the commodities he produces. The entire executive
branch of our federal government (and also to a lesser degree in state
government only because of size) is rapidly losing the confidence of increasingly
larger segments of our society because of its apparent willingness to react to
principal special interest lobbies while unable or unwilling to respond to
majority public opinion or to take the responsive actions essential to resolving
critical issues.
The seniority system in our Congress perpetuates rules which essentially
place in the hands of an individually powerful committee chairman the authority
to prevent the entire Congress from considering, debating, and voting on
critically needed legislation.
By now everyone should be convinced why we need Environmental Quality
Indices. The lay citizen is interested in preserving and perpetuating a quality life
in a natural environment in addition to keeping our nation strong, healthy, and
secure from our enemies, both foreign and domestic, by preventing the misuse
and waste of our great wealth of resources. The effort is now entering a crucial
stage. The conservation, environmental, and ecological forces have been and are
anxious to continue the battles which shape our national priorities. The man on
the street must be armed with the facts and figures he considers accurate and has
confidence in if we expect him to enter the fray with any significant firepower.
The NWF's Environmental Quality (EQ) Index2'3'4 is an effort designed to
provide the concerned citizen with a comprehensive review of published
information on factors affecting environmental quality presented in rather
simple language and graphics readily understood by the masses.
While we are very proud of the innovative work done within the ranks of
the National Wildlife Federation staff, we are not so foolish or short-sighted as
to think that our EQ Index-now in its third year-represents the ultimate
product or even the best analysis of available data. However, we do feel that it
gives the average citizen a much better grasp of the environmental situation as it
exists today and as it might look tomorrow and next year and in the foreseeable
future.
The NWF EQ Index is the end product of an exhaustive, scholarly exercise
that attempts to reduce reams of information—much of it disjointed at best and
some possibly erroneous at worst—into a simple, orderly, graphical representa-
tion of environmental conditions. We are persuaded that our EQ Index enables
II-127
-------
the average reader to quickly grasp the overall environmental situation and to
"zero in" on the key issues. Armed with the information contained in a
comprehensive Environmental Quality Index, and the trends that it discloses, a
citizen is in a position to go through the accepted democratic processes of
examining the pros and cons of the issue, listening to the comments and advice
of others, and eventually reflecting his views in the various forums and forces
that shape our national policy.
For those of you who might not be familiar with the EQ Index prepared by
the National Wildlife Federation, I will spend a few minutes outlining its major
points and describing the processes by which some of the judgments are made
and by which some of the costs are determined.
The National Wildlife Federation's third annual Environmental Quality
Index was published in October. When first published in the fall in 1969, the EQ
Index evaluated six natural resources: air, water, soil, forests, wildlife, and
minerals. In 1970, a seventh item-living space-was added to the list.
The various categories of the environment were subjectively rated from best
to worst and then were scored on a numerical scale of 0 to 100, as listed in Table
1. A "0" would equal death or disaster; "100" would be ideal conditions with
environmental equilibrium. For example, soil is, in our relative judgment, in the
best condition of any single resource, but soil conditions are still far less than
ideal. In 1970, it was given an Index value of 80. This year, because of
continuing losses, the rating slipped to 78. Air is the natural resource that is in
the worst shape. It actually poses a danger to human health in many cities. The
1970 Index was placed at 35. Continuing pollution reduced this to 34 in 1971.
Table 1. Evnitonmental Categories and Ratings
Category 1971 Score
Soil 78
Timber 76
Living space 58
Wildlife 53
Minerals 48
Water 40
Air 34
Next, the seven elements were assigned a relative importance value
expressed as a percentage. Some elements such as air, water, living space, and soil
for food are essential to life and must necessarily be assigned a higher value.
Table 2 shows our evaluation of relative importance.
II-128
-------
Table 2. Environmental Categories and Relative Importance
Category
Relative importance
Soil
Air
Water
Living space
Minerals
Wildlife
Timber
Table 3. Development of National EQ Index
Category
1971 Score
Relative importance
EQ Points
Soil
Air
Water
Living space
Minerals
Wildlife
Timber
78
34
40
58
48
53
76
30
20
20
12.5
7.5
5
5
NWF National EQ Index:
23.4
6.8
8.0
7.25
3.6
2.65
3.80
55.50
To develop the EQ points for the comprehensive, overall index, the 1971
score for each category is applied to this percentage figure. Table 3 shows how
our 55.5 National EQ Index was developed.
Quite obviously, a number of value judgments were arbitrarily made. These,
in turn, led to the conclusions presented in the EQ Index. Our judgments and
conclusions were necessarily subjective, but while we consider these judgments
scrupulously fair, they are subject to challenge. In fact, we are hopeful the
scientific community can help in eliminating those judgments which have
insufficient back-up data by filling in the gaps in our body of knowledge about
the biosphere in which we live.
Since trends are the important things, I think you would be interested in
knowing what they are in the various environmental categories. You will note
that only in the categories of water and timber have we made any gains since last
year.
Soil quality has dropped from 80 to 78 with haphazard land development.
Timber quality has risen slightly from 75 to 76 as growth exceeds cut. Living
II-129
-------
space quality has fallen to 58 from 60 as more people crowd into less space with
more pollution. Wildlife quality has dropped to 53 from 55 as more and more
habitat is converted to those uses adverse to wildlife. Minerals have slipped from
50 to 48 as we use up minerals and fossil fuels faster than we find them. Water
quality is holding steady at the intolerably low level of 40 as we continue to
develop tougher legislation but expend capital for physical plants only to the
level of preventing further deterioration of water quality. Air quaility—our most
serious problem—continued to drop from 35 to the shockingly low level of 34
with more autos and more industrial pollutants. The overall trend shows a
decline from 57 in 1970 to 55.5 in 1971.
The costs of pollution with respect to health, vegetation, materials,
esthetics, and property values must be highlighted in any worthwhile EQ Index,
because eventually the entire decision-making process evolves to the point where
the cost of pollution versus the cost of pollution control or abatement must be
addressed head on. Before reasonable decisions can be made, the public must
have an understanding-or at least an appreciation—of what the costs are of
abating or controlling the various forms of pollution, and more importantly of
what the benefits are both in economics and esthetics that will accrue to the
individual if pollution is controlled. Armed with such factual data—even if it has
been oversimplified and generalized by being incorporated in an EQ Index—the
average citizen is in a position to vote more intelligently on pollution issues.
The average annual cost of air pollution in the United States ($16.1 billion)
has a clear impact on the average taxpayer's purse (Table 4). Table 5 brings
together a wealth of water pollution facts and figures in a forceful presentation
of the price tag ($42.3 billion) attached to clean water.
We rely heavily on governmental agency reports, press conferences, and
statements made by key government officials before Congressional committees
and public groups to arrive at our rankings, individual scores, and relative
importance. As part of our Annual EQ Index, we now publish a "Reference
Guide" which is keyed directly to statements made in the EQ Index.5 By
checking the Reference Guide, one can quickly determine the reports, tabular
data, and statements that contributed significantly to the final form taken by
each of the seven environmental factors. A great many of our statistics are
obtained from the Environmental Protection Agency and the Council on
Environmental Quality. In particular, the CEQ's Annual Report on Environ-
mental Quality is probably our single most important source of factual data.
In summary, it is in the great American tradition for the American people
to work their will through our democratic institutions. Through the processes of
public hearings, forums, educational systems, and mass media, the citizen can
examine positions and attitudes and make judgments. Decisions should be made
by a fully informed citizenry with cost-benefit ratios, alternatives, options, and
H-130
-------
Table 4. Dirty Air Costs
Source of cost
Cost to human health
Cost to residential property
Cost to materials
Cost to vegetation
Total
Total cost
($109)
6.1
5.2
4.7
0.1
16.1
Cost for average
family (S)
117
100
90
2
309
Tables. The Price Tag For Clean Water
Source of
improvement
Cost
(S109)
Municipal waste treatment plant
construction costs
Primary and secondary treatment 8.7
Tertiary treatment 3.9
Operation and maintenance 4.5
Industrial abatement costs
Nonthermal 3.2
Reduce thermal pollution 2.0
Operation and maintenance 4.0
Interceptor and storm sewer improvement costs 7.4
Sediment control and acid mine drainage 6.6
reduction costs
Reduction costs for oil spills, water crafts 1.0
discharge, and miscellaneous
Added reservoir storage for low flow 1.0
augmentation
Total 42.3
trade-offs placed before them for consideration. Decisions affecting the quality
of individual living should not be made solely by industry, government,
eco-freaks, doom mongers, or nationally organized environmental groups. If we
reach the point where our policy decisions are made on the basis of only the
powerful, organized lobbies of vested interests or we throw up our hands in
confusion and lose the battles by default, our nation is in deep trouble.
In the final analysis, the people must be the arbitrators of what constitutes
the good life or the decisions on trade-offs and social progress in whatever form.
Without an objective EQ Index to assist them in determining with some accuracy
the degree to which the environment is deteriorating, the costs, the alternatives,
and the trade-offs, they cannot make meaningful judgments.
H-131
-------
We can be pessimistic. We prefer to be optimistic. Constructive actions can
be taken. Pollution can be controlled, strip-mined areas can be reclaimed,
blighted urban ghettos and wide expanses of highway can be made pleasant and
productive through proper planning and meaningful, forceful execution of those
plans. Clear waters and clean air, green forests and fields, flights of birds, and the
sight of wild creatures are among the amenities that make life worth living as
compared to a mere existence.
The scientific community has an obligation to assist our decision makers in
giving the American people the opportunity to choose between a denaturalized,
defiled, and debased existence or a new birth of quality living complete with the
preservation of objects of great natural beauty and aesthetic appeal in addition
to the restitution and rehabilitation of those renewable natural resources upon
which life is dependent. There are those who say science is incapable of
providing the technology to clean up our polluted planet. I say the capability is
there, but the willingness to devote the time, to pay the price, to establish
objective standards of enquiry, and to identify pollution abatement as a high
priority domestic and world problem is lacking.
There are those who advocate a no-growth, no further industrial develop-
ment policy as the only solution to the environmental dilemma. While this may
be a worthy objective, such an advocacy is not very realistic. The real solution
lies in allocating whatever percentage of our increase in the gross national
product is needed to clean up the environment. The construction of a sewage
treatment plant or the development of new technology to more economically
remove sulfur from coal and oil contributes jobs and additions to the GNP as
much as any other productive action.
In conclusion, the question often asked is what can the scientific
community contribute to an improved life style through an improved
environment? First, the AAAS as the leading representative of the scientific
community can help restore the credibility of the scientist and reinstate his
position as the fountain of truth by immediately establishing ethics committees
for the various resource disciplines. The most outstanding, objective, and
respected scientists should be appointed to the committees and specifically
assigned the extremely difficult but not impossible task of discerning scientific
truths in the arena of conflicting analysis and viewpoint. Those scientists whose
position is dictated more by the paycheck than by objectivity or those who
make a conclusion and proceed to gather and consider only data that supports
that conclusion should be called to an accounting before their peers.
Second, the professional resource, manager should immediately embrace an
advocacy role in environmental affairs. The scientist should no longer be content
with publishing the methods and conclusions of a research effort or handling his
II-132
-------
working assignment. In this modern day of the activist and public participation
in policy determination, the cool, calculated, objective, and expert voice of the
true scientist is badly needed in molding public opinion in the proper form and
in formulating guidelines that will direct our national policy towards an
improved natural environment and a quality life style for all Americans.
11-133
-------
REFERENCES
1. The Gallup Organization, Inc., The U.S. Public Considers Its Environment
(conducted for the National Wildlife Federation). Princeton, New Jersey,
1969.
2. National Wildlife Federation, National Environmental Quality Index,
National Wildlife, Aug.-Sept, 1969.
3. National Wildlife Federation, 1970 National Environmental Quality Index,
National Wildlife, Oct.-Nov., 1970.
4. National Wildlife Federation, 1971 National Environmental Quality Index,
National Wildlife, Oct.-Nov., 1971.
5. National Wildlife Federation, 1971 EQ Index Reference Guide,
Washington, D.C.
11-134
-------
USES OF ENVIRONMENTAL INDICES
IN POLICY FORMULATION
Gordon J. F. MacDonald
Member, Council on Environmental Quality
Executive Office of the President
Washington, D.C. 20006
11-135
-------
USES OF ENVIRONMENTAL INDICES
IN POLICY FORMULATION
Gordon J.F. MacDonald
Responsible decision-making in government as in other institutions depends
on the availability of reliable information. In areas such as the environment,
where emotions can run high, hard facts are often of critical importance. If we
are to achieve effective management of our environment, we will need
comprehensive data about the status and changes in the air, water, and land.
Optimally, these data should be organized in terms of indices that in some
fashion aggregate relevant data. At present, our measures are imperfect. The
issue of potentially hazardous chemicals, particularly possible substitutes for
phosphates in detergents, illustrates both the needs and gaps of information in
the formulation of environmental policy.
Last summer, the Federal government was faced with making a difficult
decision concerning nitrilotriacetic acid-more commonly known as NTA. In
such decisions, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) is consulted with
respect to the environmental aspects of the problem. As is usual in many of the
situations facing the Council, a determination had to be made in a relatively
short time as to what sort of policy recommendation would be made on this
issue.
A year or so ago when the great wave of adverse publicity about phosphates
arose, NTA quickly received public attention as a possible substitute for
phosphates in detergents. While possessing many of the beneficial properties of
phosphates, NTA would not have the stimulating effect on eutrophication that
phosphates often have. Indeed, NTA seemed like such a reasonable replacement
for phosphates that at least one company, in good faith, put a sizable investment
into facilities to produce NTA on a sufficiently large scale to meet the demands
for their detergent products.
This is another example of our society jumping the gun on products that
apparently will fulfill a consumer demand, but which have not been sufficiently
investigated for their possible side effects on human health and on other areas of
our environment. In the fall of 1970, investigations concerning the side effects
of NTA were intensified. Just about a year ago, a review to evaluate these effects
was conducted by the Public Health Service, the Environmental Protection
Agency, the Office of Science and Technology, and our Council. From this
evaluation, it became apparent that NTA did indeed have possible adverse side
effects that should be carefully investigated before the product received
widespread distribution, such as it would if used in detergents. These side effects
include a possible chelating action with cadmium and other heavy metals that
11-136
-------
could result in their abnormal concentrations in human and other biological
systems. NTA was also suspected of being carcinogenic.
As a result, the government did not encourage the use of NTA for wide-
spread distribution and pressed for more intensive investigations concerning
other substitutes that might replace phosphates in our detergents. The affected
industries voluntarily held NTA-based detergents off the market. That was the
way the situation stood in August 1971. There was continuing pressure from
environmental groups to remove phosphates, even though many detergent manu-
facturers had already reduced the amount used in their detergents. But no clear-
cut substitute for phosphates, other than NTA, was apparent. The evidence on
the adverse effects of NTA was not conclusive in all aspects. On the other hand,
certain manufacturers urged the approval of NTA, particularly those that had
made substantial capital investments to produce it. The federal government had
to make a decision on what sort of guidelines relating to this problem should be
issued to industry.
It was a tough decison because reliable data were lacking and we had to rely
on imperfect assessments. Ideally we should have had the following information:
1. A definitive model of how eutrophication works in aquatic bodies and
the role that phosphates and other nutrients play in the different categories of
these bodies, such as lakes, streams, and salt water estuaries, as well as under
various conditions of hardness. Information on how to determine the limiting
nutrients in each of these bodies would have been particularly useful.
2. The amount of phosphates from detergent wastes that presently gets
into each of these aquatic bodies as compared to other phosphate sources and
the amount that planned improvements to our industrial and municipal sewage
facilities would remove.
3. The amount of phosphates that has been eliminated from discharges
into our aquatic bodies due to control measures recently instituted and the
resulting effect on the eutrophication process in the aquatic bodies. These
controls include the voluntary measures exercised by the consumer, the controls
promulgated by certain local governments such as Suffolk County in New York,
and the phosphate extraction methods implemented in some sewage treatment
plants.
4. The adverse effects of NTA and of NTA compounds on human health
and on the other areas of the environment. Included would be the amount which
could be safely emitted to the environment, that is, the threshold limit value
that must be achieved before we start detecting adverse effects, in the long as
well as in the short run.
H-137
-------
5. The same adverse effects information on other possible substitutes for
phosphates in detergents and the amounts of these substitutes which would have
to be used in the detergents.
6. The probability for success of technology in removing phosphates,
NT A and other substances of possible use in detergents from sewage, in both
municipal and industrial processes, and the time required to achieve this.
7. The costs to the consumer and to the taxpayer for all the above.
A sound research program could produce part of the desired information,
such as the success potential of various technological techniques to remove these
phosphates and other chemicals in the sewage treatment process. However, much
of it, such as the success of the controls instituted over the past two years to
remove phosphates from detergents and the resulting effects on the
eutrophication process in the receiving bodies of water, would have to be
obtained from actual experience and the empirical data obtained from this
experience. There has been in fact a substantial experience in various control
schemes, but this experience has not been quantified. In the ideal situation, data
on water quality would be compiled and analyzed, and the results would be
presented to the federal policy formulators in the form of indices relating to
water quality. These indices would assist them in their efforts to provide options
concerning new policies or changes to existing policies which might be made in
order to minimize the impact of man's activities on the eutrophication process.
An important feature of these indices is their assistance in showing the
ability of our technology to perform the job listed in each option; the cost, both
economic and social, to implement these options; and the lead time necessary to
initiate these programs. Also, information on the possible incentives—for
example, regulations, tax breaks, and the like-would be extremely helpful.
As you recall, the government did make a policy decision on NTA last
September. It was not to foster its use, but rather to allow the use of phosphates
in detergents at the lowest levels possible, provided other additives did not pose
a health hazard; phosphates at that time appeared to be the "least bad" of the
possible detergent additives. Our recommendation had to be made; so, based on
the best of the inadequate information and expert opinions available at that
time, we made it. This is not the most satisfactory method of operation, but
unfortunately with the current inadequacy of data and indices in the
environmental field, we must do this more often than we like.
The above example illustrates the usefulness of environmental indices to
policy formulators. Other important uses are to assist the informed public in
assessing how well the programs dealing with our environmental problems are
progressing and to assist scientists and engineers in their development of the
H-138
-------
technology essential to solving our problems. A prime requirement for indices is
that they must be in a form that is easily understood by the different groups
using them. The cost of living index used to gage our economy approaches this
goal. A second requirement is that the indices must be representative of the
geographic area and time period which they are supposed to cover. Here a
trade-off must be made between the resources and time required to obtain
sufficiently representative samples and the need and timeliness of the resulting
information. A third requirement is that indices must be reliable. We are
uncomfortable in situations where we are dealing with tenths of a percent to
indicate trends, such as for unemployment, and find out that other factors, such
as seasonal adjustments, might introduce uncertainties of greater than 0.1% to
the apparent values given by the index.
Another requirement is for ease in collecting the data required for the
index, evaluating those which are directly representative and those which are
not, correlating this data, and processing the useful data into the index. Of
course, we would like to use existing information collection and analysis systems
to accomplish this to the maximum possible extent.
Section 204 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, which
established our Council, describes one of our duties as:
"To gather timely and authoritative information concerning the conditions
and trends in the quality of the environment both current and prospective,
to analyze and interpret such information for the purpose of determining
whether such conditions and trends are interfering, or are likely to
interfere, with the achievement of the policy set forth in Title I of this Act,
and to compile and submit to the President studies relating to such
conditions and trends;"
In March 1970, President Nixon in Executive Order 11514 further defined
the duties of the Council in this area to:
"Promote the development and use of indices and monitoring systems
(l)to assess environmental conditions and trends, (2) to predict the
environmental impact of proposed public and private actions, and (3) to
determine the effectiveness of programs of protecting and enhancing
environmental quality."
This amounts to quite a challenge when we examine all of the activities of
man which have effects on the environment. In many of these areas, there is a
great deficiency in the data which we need for determining and understanding
these effects. In others, there is an overabundance of data—so much that we do
not have the capability to process and interpret it. These data, such as that from
some satellites which continuously accumulates on magnetic tapes and cards and
II-139
-------
fills up vast volumes of valuable storage space, contribute to the growth of a new
type of pollution—information pollution. We have got to make sure that the data
we collect are data which we can efficiently use and which will not saturate our
collection and analysis systems. We must take a hard look at existing systems to
insure that they meet this requirement. We must design future collection and
analysis systems to achieve this end.
As a first step in building a national environmental monitoring system, the
Council commissioned a contractor in the summer of 1970 to develop a system
design concept for monitoring the environment of the nation. His final report
was rendered in April 1971 and had been commented on by other federal
agencies and public groups. The report provided us with certain recommended
indices to represent the state of the environment, described the data needed to
derive these indices, reviewed current monitoring programs, and considered the
alternative methods to obtain and utilize these data. The contractor developed a
system to evaluate the indices' environmental impacts, utility, and cost and used
it to obtain a relative priority ranking of each index. Although many of the value
judgments had to be made arbitrarily, the report performed a real service in
giving us something to constructively criticize, whereas before we had nothing.
One of our Council's primary interests is to develop environmental indices
that assist in policy formulation and that also inform the general public on the
state of the environment and how it has changed over time. We would like to
come up with a system similar to that of the Council of Economic Advisors in
which indices such as the cost of living index, the unemployment index, and the
gross national product provide information on the state of our economy.
However, we do not feel that we have sufficient knowledge at the present to
define what overall indices we need to represent the total environment. To
obtain a better handle on this problem, we are now concentrating on a few
selected areas of the environment and are developing detailed indices along with
the pertinent reliability factors for these areas.
The six areas which we have selected are air pollution, water pollution, land
use, recreation, wildlife, and pesticides. The Council has a contractor in each of
these areas who is working with the appropriate federal agencies. Federal
agencies in general have most of the available data which might be used as input
for indices; however, agencies now generally use this data for different purposes.
The available data must be identified, methods of aggregation developed, and
procedures established for a continuing effort. These tasks are the responsi-
bilities of the contractors. After the due date of the contractor reports on April
15, we plan to go directly to the pertinent agencies and ask that they improve
and, at periodic intervals, update these indices. Also, we hope that these will
form the nucleus around which to build the system of indices in other environ-
mental areas so as to eventually have a set of indices that will fulfill the needs of
the national policy makers and of the informed general public.
II-140
-------
A year ago, a new agency—the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)—
came into being. EPA is the pollution control policeman of the federal
government.
EPA fulfills the role of establishing criteria and necessary standards
pertaining to environmental issues and of seeing that the measures to implement
these standards are promulgated and enforced. In conjunction with the other
federal agencies, EPA now provides us with the constructive antagonist-
protagonist ingredient in environmental matters. Historically, this ingredient has
played a key role in so successfully shaping our country's policies in other vital
areas.
With EPA on the scene, it is quite logical that it should play a major role in
establishing the environmental monitoring and information system. It assumed
control of some good monitoring systems as a result of the agencies which come
under its control in the federal reorganization which created EPA. These include
the National Air Sampling Network from the old National Air Pollution Control
Administration and the Pasteurized Milk Network, to monitor several
radionuclides, from the old Bureau of Radiological Health of the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare.
EPA is now in the process of integrating the monitoring systems that it
inherited, along with the information output from the systems of other agencies,
into a form best suited to its mission. It could presently use the data from
environmental monitoring systems to accomplish the following:
1. To help enforce environmental quality standards for air, water,
radiation, pesticides, and solid wastes.
2. To develop new standards and refine existing standards.
3. To analyze and report the early buildup of hazardous pollutants.
4. To ascertain whether segments of the environment are improving or
declining in quality from one time frame to the next.
5. To assist the Executive Branch in establishing priorities for environ-
mental work and in deriving the cost and benefits of alternative EPA actions.
I think we all realize that we cannot separate environmental considerations
from the activities of all agencies in the government and create one superagency
to deal with just this task alone. If we did, there would be very little work left
for the other agencies since environmental considerations enter into just about
everything we do. So, through the environmental impact statement mechanism
which was established by the National Environmental Policy Act, all agencies are
11-141
-------
required to consider environmental factors as an integral part of their actions.
Until two years ago, the main considerations in agency actions had been the
mission, available technology, and the cost. Now a fourth major consideration
has been added—the environment.
As I mentioned earlier, the federal government has a number of existing
agencies that are working on environmental problems and that have developed
monitoring and information systems applicable to this work. An example is the
surface water monitoring network developed by the U.S. Geological Survey in
the Department of the Interior. We do not have the resources to build a new
environmental monitoring and information system from scratch. We must make
use of the systems which have been developed by other agencies of the federal
government, like the USGS network. Of course, most of these systems were
developed to focus on just one medium or pollutant, whereas the effects of
pollutants on man and on the rest of the environment come from a combination
of pollutants traveling through several media. Quite often synergistic effects and
processes create byproducts that are even more harmful than the original
substance itself. An example of the latter is methylmercury, which many think is
produced in marine sediments from man's disposal of metallic mercury. This
methylmercury has a much higher absorption factor in the human body than
does the metallic mercury and hence is much more dangerous to human health
when it enters the human food chain from these aquatic areas.
We must insure that the existing federal assets are used more efficiently. To
help achieve this, the Office of Science and Technology sponsored a study on
Environmental Quality Information and Planning Systems, commonly known as
SEQUIP, in the year preceding May 1971. This study has fairly well identified
what the present assets of the federal government are in the information field
relating to the environment. This is indeed a valuable contribution to the present
CEQ and EPA efforts.
To summarize my remarks, we need better and more reliable data to under-
stand the effects of man's activities on the environment and to determine what
possible things we might do to ameliorate the adverse effects. This data must be
presented in abbreviated but meaningful form to policy and decision makers, to
the informed general public, and to scientists and engineers so that all three
groups may understand them and make use of them in fulfilling their respective
roles in preserving and enhancing the quality of our environment. Our Council
makes policy recommendations to decision makers and coordinates efforts in the
field of the environment among federal agencies. We need indices covering the
whole spectrum of environmental activities as soon as possible so as to make our
recommendations more meaningful and more reliable. These indices will assist us
to define the various options involved in policy decisions, to include their
economic and social cost and their implications on other activities, and to assess
the success of present policies in dealing with some of these problems.
11-142
-------
A DESCRIPTION OF AN
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION SYSTEM*
By
Ira L. Whitman, Norbert Dee, John T. McGinnis,
David C. Fahringer and Janet K. Baker
Mr. Whitman is the Director
of Urban and Regional Development Programs
at Battelle Columbus Laboratories
Messrs. Dee, McGinnis, Fahringer, and Ms. Baker
are also with Battelle Columbus Laboratories
*This article represents an extraction from a larger report, the
"Design of an Environmental Evaluation System" prepared for the
U.S. Department of Interior by Ira L. Whitman and staff, Battelle
Columbus Laboratories, June 1971, pp. 7-10.
11-143
-------
A DESCRIPTION OF AN
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION SYSTEM
Ira L. Whitman, Norbert Dee, John T. McGinnis,
David C. Fahringer and Janet K. Baker
INTRODUCTION
The environment represents the most complex system known to man for it
truly represents the complete set of resources, physical and biological, that exist
on earth, as well as the infinite interactions that occur among this set of
resources.
An environmental evaluation system (EES), to be practical and effective,
must greatly simplify the environment into a relatively small number of
measurements and indicators that can be used to determine whether or not a
proposed water development project has a significant impact upon the environ-
ment. An EES, to be of value, must be comprehensive and broad enough to
include all relevant types of environmental measurements and indicators as
determined through an interdisciplinary perspective. An EES, to be utilized in
the water resources planning process, must be structured in an orderly and
systematic framework that will enable replication from project to project and
yet be flexible enough to be useful over a wide range of water resources develop-
ment alternatives. In short, an EES must be an analytical tool that strikes a
balance between too little detail and too much detail-a tool that can be valuable
in the water resources planning process if used intelligently and honestly.
This chapter describes the structure, content, and values of the EES that
the Battelle—Columbus research team has developed for the Bureau of
Reclamation. In the judgment of the research team, the system presented on the
following pages best meets the condition ascribed by the Bureau at the outset of
this project and will meet the needs of the Bureau in being responsive to the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
STRUCTURE OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION SYSTEM
To simplify the structure of the EES, terms at four levels of generality are
used as follows:
Level 1 -Most general terms ENVIRONMENTAL
CATEGORIES
Level 2-Intermediate terms ENVIRONMENTAL
COMPONENTS
11-144
-------
Level 3-Specific terms ENVIRONMENTAL
PARAMETERS
Level 4-Most specific terms ENVIRONMENTAL
MEASUREMENTS
These terms are arranged in a hierarchical order within the EES as follows:
TOTALITY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Level 1
ENVIRONMENTAL CATEGORIES
Level 2
ENVIRONMENTAL COMPONENTS
Level 3
ENVIRONMENTAL PARAMETERS
dffi
Level 4
ENVIRONMENTAL MEASUREMENTS
However, as an overview to understanding the entire system, it should be
recognized that the ENVIRONMENTAL PARAMETERS are the key level
within the system. The system has been designed so that each parameter
represents—on its own-
-------
Environmental Components
ECOLOGY
(A) Species &
Populations
(B) Habitats &
Communities
(C) Ecosystems
II. ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION
(D) Water Pollution
(E) Air Pollution
(F) Land Pollution
(G) Noise Pollution
III. ESTHETICS
(H) Land
(I) Air
(J ) Water
(K) Biota
(L) Manmade Objects
IV. HUMAN INTEREST
(N) Education-Scientific
Significance
(O) Historical
Significance
(P) Cultural Significance
(Q) Mood-Atmosphere
Significance
Environmental Parameters
I. ECOLOGY
(A) Species & Populations
(1) Rare and endangered plant
and animal species
(2) Productive plant species
(3) Game animals
(4) Other animals
(5) Resident & migratory birds
(6) Sport Fisheries
(7) Commercial fisheries
(8) Pestilent plant and animal
species
(9) Parasites
(B) Habitats and
Communities
(10) Species diversity
(11) Food chains
(12) Land use for
habitats and
communities
(C) Ecosystems
(13) Productivity rate
(14) Hydrologic budget
(15) Nutrient budget
II. ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION
CD) Water Pollution
(16) Algal blooms
(17) Dissolved oxygen
(18) Evaporation
(19) Fecal coliforms
(20) Nutrients
(21) Pesticides, herbicides,
defoliants
(22) pH
(23) Physical river
characteristics
(24) Sediment load
(25) Stream flow
(26) Temperature
(27) Total dissolved solids
(28) Toxic substances
(29) Turbidity
(E) Air Pollution
(30) Carbon monoxide
(31) Hyd roc arbons
(32) Particulate
matter
(33) Photochemical
ox id ants
(34) Sulfur oxides
(F) Land Pollution
(35) Land use and
misuse
(36) Soil erosion
(37) Soil pollution
(G) Noise Pollution
(38) Noise
II-146
-------
III. ESTHETICS
(H)
(I)
Land
(39) Land forms
(40) Geologic surface material
(K) Biota
(44)
(45)
Vegetation
Fauna
Air
W)
Pleasantness of sounds
(J) Water
(42) Surface characteristics
(43) Water-land interface
characteristics
(L) Man-Made Objects
(46) Visual
(47) Condition
(48) Consonance with
environment
(M) Composition
(49) Interaction of
land, air, water,
and man-made
objects
(50) Color
IV. HUMAN INTEREST
(N) Educational-Scientific Significance (P)
(51) Geological significance
(52) Ecological significance
(53) Archeological significance
(54) Unusual water phenomenon
(O) Historical Significance
(55) Related to persons
(56) Related to events (Q)
Related to religions and
cultures
Related to architecture
and styles
Related to the "western
frontier"
(57)
(58)
(59)
Cultural Significance
760) Related to
Indians
(61) Related to reli-
gious groups
(62) Related to ethnic
groups
Mood- Atmosphere
Significance
(63) Isolation -
solitude
(64) Awe-inspiration
(65) "Oneness" with
nature
(66) Mystery
The content of the EES is designed to be as consistent between each
category and each component as is possible. However, it will be immediately
recognized that there are significant differences in the types of parameters that
one is able to designate in one category compared to those in another. There are
three primary reasons for this diversity.
1. The tremendous diversity between category types.
2. The ability to quantify relationships and values in each category is
different.
3. More is known on how to express quality in some categories than
others—difference between objective and subjective evaluation.
11-147
-------
-------
IV. QOL: ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL PERSPECTIVES
11-149
-------
-------
TOWARD BALANCED GROWTH:
QUANTITY WITH QUALITY
A Summary of the Report to the President by the National
Goals Research Staff
Report to the President by the National Goals Research Staff,
Washington, D.C., 1970
11-151
-------
TOWARD BALANCED GROWTH:
QUANTITY WITH QUALITY
Summary of the Report to the President by the
National Goals Research Staff, July 18,1970
President Nixon established the National Goals Research Staff July 13,
1969. The role assigned to the Staff was to analyze social trends, make
projections about the kind of society that could result if present trends
continue, forecast future developments and pose alternatives for the future
domestic life of the nation. The Staff did not undertake to set goals or to be a
planning office. Rather, it studied and compared a variety of national domestic
strategies that are available to the nation and that can help in making the kind of
informed choices essential to guide the processes of change.
The past year's work of the NGRS represented an experiment in supporting
the formulation of national policies. One objective of the experiment was to aid
in the improvement of the national decision-making processes of public and
private institutions by anticipating events rather than by simply reacting to
"crisis" situations. A second objective was to provide longer-range concepts of
future conditions of our society in the recognition that the choices made today
will importantly affect the kind of society we will have in 10, 20, or—in some
cases-even 50 years. A third objective was to provide the American people with
information which would facilitate their participation in setting the nation's
goals and related policies.
In connection with this third objective, the President directed the Staff to
prepare a public report by July 4th of this year. He stated that the report should
"serve as a focus for the kind of lively widespread public discussion that deserves
to go into decisions affecting our common future."
The report of the National Goals Research Staff takes its central theme
from the President's call, in his State of the Union message, for the development
of a policy on national growth. The report examines a number of areas of
American life where the issues of the nature and direction of growth are being
argued. But, increasingly, we have become aware that growth is not enough. We
have become alarmed at the threats to our environment posed by industrial and
technological progress. We have developed a new and acute awareness that the
quality of life cannot be measured in quantitative terms.
Concern has bred alarm, and some have urgently demanded that we call a
halt to growth altogether. Yet, as the report points out, our need is not to stop
growth but to redirect it. We can have quantity with quality. In fact, given our
rising levels of expectation, we cannot have quality without quantity. But it is
H-152
-------
equally true that quantity without quality is no longer adequate either as a goal
or as a standard of measurement. Plainly, we need to develop a concept of
"balanced growth" and the guidance mechanisms through which it can be
achieved on a sustainable basis. Many of the policy debates of this coming
decade will be over how we strike the balances.
Making intelligent policy choices becomes increasingly complex as society
itself becomes more complex, and as the consequences of various courses of
action become more far-reaching and more intricately intertwined.
Though the choices are more complex, our means of making those choices
have also been greatly advanced.
The vast increase in scientific knowledge, in technological capability, in our
understanding of the economic and social forces that shape our society, all
greatly increase both our capacity and responsibility to make intelligent choices
about our future.
Of all the advances in our understanding of the ways in which human
institutions work, none is more significant than those we now are making in our
understanding of the means by which results that we want can be achieved and
those we do not want can be avoided.
The report emphasizes that as we choose our goals for 1976 and beyond, it
is vital that the process of decision be as broadly based as possible—not only
involving the intelligence and the energy of people everywhere, but also inspiring
an active sense of participation-"a role for everyone."
This report is meant to inspire debate-and to help give that debate form,
direction, and meaning.
If people are to make their wishes felt effectively, it is important that they
be aware of what the real issues are-that is, what the real questions turn on,
where the "pressure points" are, and what the considerations are that must be
weighed in any responsible determination of a particular policy. By presenting
some of the emerging major debates in this form, it is the objective of the report
that informed, effective, and constructive discussion of the issues involved will
be encouraged on the broadest possible basis.
A summary of each of the chapters of the report follows.
CHAPTER 1-EMERGING DEBATES
America appears to be at a point of profound change, frequently charac-
terized as that from an industrial society to a "post industrial society"—from a
11-153
-------
society in which production of goods was of primary concern to one dominated
more by services and the generation and use of new knowledge. Consequently,
we are in a period of marked social change, one aspect of which is the search for
a growth policy to guide that change. This report examines several areas in which
the choice of a future growth policy is explicitly and implicitly being debated.
Its intent is to use these case examples as a part of a learning experience, as one
discrete step in the evolution of a policy of balanced growth, as called for by the
President. The approach is analytical and not prescriptive. The purpose is to aid
the American people and their representatives in what is assumed to be a long
process for evolving a growth policy.
The key substantive areas in which the problem of growth is being debated
are: population growth and distribution, environment, education, basic natural
science, technology assessment, and consumerism. In general, these topical areas
do not correspond to the major social problems with which we are presently
concerned, including those of our cities, campus unrest, the Vietnam War, and
race relations. These represent dissatisfactions over our performance according
to our established priorities.
Probably the major message that comes from the existing debates over a
growth policy is not that our institutions have proven incapable of doing their
job. Rather, many of our institutions have performed very well the tasks which
we set for them a few decades ago. However, in so doing, they have created
unanticipated problems with which we must now deal, and they must be
reoriented toward the tasks that are appropriate in a society capable of a new
level of performance. The range of criteria whereby we will judge institutional
performance will be broader in scope and longer in time perspective. An essential
part of this period of transition is the attempt to shift from a reactive form of
public decision making, in which we respond to problems when they are forced
upon us, to an anticipatory form in which we try either to avoid them or be
prepared to deal with them as they emerge.
It is the hallmark of our country that Americans have adjusted to change
while preserving the basic qualities of their institutions. This has happened a
considerable number of times in our history. In the course of this history, a
predominant theme has been one of economic growth, and an accommodation
to a larger population. At no time was economic growth considered so dominant
a goal that it obscured all other concerns, but neither was the growth per se
viewed as other than a good thing.
Today, for the first time, we find the virtues of economic growth
questioned, and this issue is put in popular terminology as one of "quantity
versus quality." This is, in the view of this report, a false phrasing of the issue,
since the new qualitative goals being proposed and the old goals yet unmet can
be achieved only if we have continued economic growth. The issue is better put
11-154
-------
as one of how we can ensure continued economic growth while directing our
resources more deliberately to filling our new values.
A large portion of the explanation for this seems to lie in our demonstrated
ability to achieve economic stability and growth in the period following the
passage of the Employment Act of 1946. Even though our economy is at the
moment in a period of transition, the pervading public and official view is that
we are a nation of growing, unprecedented economic resources.
At the same time that we have become a nation that can afford to care we
have also become a nation that cannot afford not to care. The past decade has
been marked by an emerging sense of conscience for the plight of the under-
privileged, an awareness of social and economic problems that are the
unanticipated consequence of our past actions, a resolution that we can guide
our affairs more rationally, and simultaneously, a broad popular demand for
citizen participation in the management of their own fate. While this was
happening, we also developed new techniques of decision making whose promise
spurred the resolution to run things more rationally, but whose full potential is
incompletely understood or tested.
While this resolution to run our affairs both more rationally and more
effectively was emerging, two complicating circumstances arose. The Vietnam
War placed a strain on our admitted large resources and belatedly forced us to
recognize the necessity of considering priorities more seriously. And, a more
complex model of how to go about purposive action evolved in part from the
ecologists' experience with the environment, and in part from our increasing
knowledge of social science and our mixed experience in attempting social and
political reform.
We thus find ourselves at a point at which the following things are true: We
have rising expectations and changing values concerning the goals we should set
for ourselves both in resolving existing inequities and in improving the quality of
our lives. However, while our resources are large and growing, they are finite and
we must set priorities more deliberately. In compensation for this complication
we have the promise of more rational methods of public decision making as a
way of selecting and implementing our priority goals. But, this must be brought
about in a context in which there is greater public participation, and greater
recognition of the complexities of the world—both social and environmental—in
which we live.
CHAPTER 2-POPULATION GROWTH AND DISTRIBUTION
In a nation that once valued its population size and growth, and in which
the phrase "fastest growing" was attached to the name of proud municipalities,
11-155
-------
the question of overall population size and distribution has come under active
debate.
The question of population size in the United States is not Malthusian. The
issue is not whether we can feed and clothe a population of any size we can
realistically envisage, or even supply it with the expanding amount of energy it
may demand. It is rather that of whether a technologically advanced and
industrially prosperous nation wants, or can continue to pay the price of
congestion and contamination that comes from our overall affluence. It is
suggested that our size may be limited by the ability of the environment to
absorb the wastes that result from our economic success.
Students of the overall size of our population are in no agreement as to
precisely what the size will be by the year 2000 nor on what optimum
population size for a nation such as ours would be. But, more recent projections
suggest that the increase in our population over the next 30 years may be
considerably less than the additional 100 million that had generally been
forecasted. In fact, it may even be that the present rate of increase will slacken
off so that we will reach the zero growth rate that some demographers have been
advocating.
However, the issue of population distribution is a different matter, and one
to be taken seriously regardless of what may be the upper limit of the
population size. Our population has been concentrating increasingly, not only in
cities, but more and more proportionately into a few rather large urban masses.
This has resulted in a lowering of the quality of life in both urban and rural
areas. Projection of such a migration pattern is actually a de facto distribution
policy since it will affect such decisions as industrial plant location and other
types of investment which will make the prophecy of increasing concentration
self-fulfilling.
We have before us a set of decisions. One which appears not to be urgent is
that of overall size of the population—even after the effects of a considerable
amount of immigration are taken into account. Apropos of population
distribution, we need to decide on whether or not we will adopt a deliberate
strategy to encourage internal migration to negate the forecasts of ever-growing
urban congestion in a few megalopolis. A viable option for such an alternate
strategy is a policy of encouraging growth in alternate growth centers away from
the large urban masses, coupled with a complementary effort of the use of new
towns.
CHAPTER 3-ENVIRONMENT
Man is redefining his relationship to his environment. He has progressed
from fearing, to understanding, to using, to abusing, and now to worrying about
11-156
-------
the physical and biological world about him. Throughout all but the very recent
history of the United States, our relationship to the environment has been one
of exploitation. We have seen our natural endowment as a source of riches to be
extracted and used, or later, to be extracted and processed. Concern for the
environment was generally limited to whether or not we were exhausting our
inheritance of sources of food, energy, and materials.
The current interest in the environment has two distinctively novel
emphases. The first is that the limitations that the environment places on our
activities may not be on the input side (sources of food, energy, and materials),
but on the output side (a place to dispose of our wastes). The second, which is
closely related to the first, is that the environment, in addition to having a
limited capacity to absorb wastes, is a complex ecological system in which
intervention of an apparently minor sort can, and often does, have far-reaching
consequences through a chain of unsuspected reactions.
Both of these aspects of thinking about the environment have important
consequences on the way we think about other things. They raise the question
of whether or not there may be an upper limit on our economic growth as a
consequence of the limitations on how much waste can be absorbed. And, the
model of complex ecological systems affects our whole way of thinking about
the consequences of our action not only in the environmental sphere, but also in
the social sphere where we are corning to realize that causation is just as
complex.
Some scientists and other anxious citizens assume a doomsday model of the
future in which increased economic production will drive us to our destruction.
In response, others propose what is called a paradise—regained model which
would return us almost to a state of nature. Fortunately, the doomsday model
does not forecast that which is inevitable, and the latter, which would probably
be unattainable if tolerable, need not be entertained.
A mixed strategy of response to our environmental problems is proposed.
We need to expand our inadequate knowledge of ecological systems. But while
expanding this knowledge, we must take those measures which we know are
called for. We need to consider our current technological and economic
alternatives in the light of long-range ecological balance. Additionally, we need
to resolve conflicts between our demands for products and services, and the
depletion and pollution generated by them.
The market mechanism can and should be used as one of the devices for
regulating these demands. Government should play a role through appropriate
regulations, taxes, subsidies, and standard setting. Since environmental problems
and their solutions are of a global nature, we must and are beginning to act in
concert with the other nations of the world.
11-157
-------
Our environmental problems are a result of our technological and economic
successes and of our philosophical view of nature. Now we must learn to use our
technology and our economic output better to bring us in harmonious
relationship to that environment. As will be found in other sections of this
report, it is becoming apparent that the relatively narrow criteria by which we
have, in the past, judged technical and economic progress must be expanded to
consider a wider range of consequences.
CHAPTER 4-EDUCATION
We have an educational system that is in many respects unparalleled. It has
grown in size and resources to the point where we have nearly universal
education through the secondary schools and a proportion of our population
attending institutions of higher education that is unprecedented. Yet, this
system is under severe attack and criticism; it is seen as having been set up to
serve the needs of an America that has greatly changed in the intervening years.
There are many who argue that it is necessary for the schools to deemphasize
quantitative expansion along traditional lines and emphasize adaptation to the
needs of a rapidly changing society.
In the past, the public has equated going to school with education. The role
of the school was to transmit information and instill traditional values. The
society of today is one changing so rapidly that skills and information become
outmoded, and traditional values are under challenge. Furthermore, the
proportion of information that children receive from the mass media is so large
and the range of values to which they are exposed so diverse that it may well be
that the schools should be devoted to giving them the cognitive skills for
integrating information, and a framework within which to sort out the diverse
values to which they are exposed.
In addition to what may fundamentally be a new orientation demanded of
the schools, they are being asked to respond to current problems in two ways.
First, it is said that they should be relevant to the needs of the student, which is
to say that they should teach him as an individual to be able to deal with
contemporary problems. Second, the higher institutions of learning, in
particular, are being asked to solve the present problems of society.
The choices with which the schools are confronted involved, on the one
hand, teaching problem-solving skills, fostering the development of students as
individuals, and conducting problem-oriented research. Or, on the other hand,
there is the option of continuing to transmit the old knowledge and values at the
primary and secondary levels, and continuing to transmit the traditional
knowledge and seeking to develop knowledge for its own sake at the higher
levels of education.
11-158
-------
By and large, it would seem that we must look for some appropriate mix
rather than shift over to a complete doctrine of relevance. In the meantime, we
need to develop further understanding of the educational process and of how to
evaluate it. We must further develop an experimental posture toward innovation
in education which will reflect our basic uncertainty as to how to go about the
many problems with which the educational system is faced.
All of the above holds for the educational system at large. With respect to
the children of minority groups, we have the special task of ensuring equal
educational opportunity, and of understanding and dealing with those special
disadvantages which are imposed on them by their environment.
Taken all in all, the educational system, which is the crucial single
institution for the development of our citizenry so that they can live happily,
shape our system, wisely, and contribute to both the direction and rate of its
growth, is in a state of severe stress. The educational system is having its own
"growth" problems which, if not solved, will have a profound impact on the
growth of the Nation as a whole.
CHAPTER 5-BASIC NATURAL SCIENCE
The American scientific establishment has grown and the capacities of its
researchers have developed to the point that our capability in basic research has
made us preeminent in the world. Having achieved that position, basic natural
science finds itself in a crisis of both financial and social support. Historically,
Federal funding, the main source of basic scientific research, has been large
relative to the scientific resources available to do the work. In the recent past, as
the scientific establishment continued to grow, the supply of funds leveled off so
that the previous relationship has in effect been reversed. There is too little
money relative to the number of scientists involved. At the same time, in the
past half decade, scientists and their works began to come under fire as a result
of the association of scientists with the military, and with industrial technology
which has produced environmental pollution. In concert with these two
developments, our national priorities have shifted to the solution of social
problems, and basic scientists are being asked to shift their focus of work from
the development of knowledge for its own sake to working on basic problems
which have relevance for today's social issues.
The result is serious strain on an institution which furnishes us with our
most fundamental understanding of ourselves and of our world, and which has
been the source from which technology has evolved in recent times to serve
economic growth. In the past few decades, we have been very successful in
making basic science useful, but now we find ourselves in a crisis as to how to
ensure its future usefulness, and of how to balance the long-range utility of basic
knowledge with present urgent needs.
11-159
-------
One of the major decisions with which we are faced is that of the level of
support we will furnish basic science in the future. This is clouded by the
problem of making basic research "useful" in the short run. It is in the nature of
basic research that answers to practical problems may be found in unsuspected
areas of inquiry. Some problem areas, at a given time, have a greater potential
for exploitation than others. Setting research priorities on the grounds of
probable utility is often a choice of possible short-term benefits against the
longer-term ones which might result from a more rapid expansion of the basic
pool of knowledge by permitting science to pursue the internal logic of its own
development.
What is needed, and may in fact be developing, is a forum in which the
partially conflicting needs for maintaining the integrity of the core of basic
research and the practical needs of the society are resolved.
In conjunction with the need to work out an appropriate level and
distribution of funding, we must face the fact that an articulate minority are
attacking the very rationale and spirit of science and of rational inquiry itself—
the most elementary tools man has for the orderly guidance of his affairs.
CHAPTER 6-TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT
The nation's infatuation with technology is at a turning point as profound
as that of its relationship to the environment. Historically, we have tended to do
that which was technically possible, if it were economically advantageous, on the
simple ground that this represented "progress." However, as technology has
increased with great rapidity, it has forced on us increasing unplanned social
change and environmental problems we did not anticipate and do not want. At
the same time, our notions of the complexity of social and environmental
problems have made us increasingly cautious with respect to the actions we plan
to take. Our level of affluence has given us a longer time perspective within
which to assess the consequences of our actions. As with so many other of the
debates with which we have been concerned, the technology assessment
movement—which embodies this new attitude toward technology—asks us to
judge our actions by a wider range of criteria than we have used in the past.
Formally, technology assessment is a term coined in the Congress to label a
set of procedures to aid the Congress in making decisions for the orderly
introduction of new technology and the evaluation of technology already in use.
However, it is better viewed as a manifestation of a larger phenomenon of a
decreasing willingness of both the public and its representatives to tolerate the
undesirable side effects of things done in the name of progress. The public has
protested effectively against the displacement of people by highways, aircraft
noise, and the building of new power plants. Specific actions have indicated that
we have the disposition to forego immediate economic benefits in order to avoid
11-160
-------
social and environmental costs which once would have been accepted with no
more than pro forma consideration. The existence of formal technology
assessment, now in both the congressional and executive branches, is to be taken
as no more than a specific manifestation of the broader concern.
There are major policy problems with the prospect of doing technology
assessment in a formal fashion. One is that of establishing criteria for deciding
which among all of the new technologies emerging shall be selected for
assessment, and how inspections, standards, and controls shall be established.
Another is the extent to which technology assessment shall become a "way of
life" in the American economy with increased consideration of the second-order
consequences of technology through all strata of decision making, both private
and public. Most general, however, is the problem of how we will manage the
impact of the possibility of technology's adverse effects with the demand for
new technology to ensure economic development. Among other things, we may
have to accelerate our efforts to detect new benign technology opportunities and
facilitate their rapid introduction to offset the impact of inhibiting the
introduction and use of harmful technology.
CHAPTER 7-CONSUMERISM
American business prides itself in its ability to develop, produce, and
deliver a great flow of new technologically sophisticated products of a wide
variety. Yet, its very success in this has produced a wave of complaints. There
have been consumer movements in the past based on issues of product safety
and quality, deceptive practices, monopolistic practices, aesthetics, and so on.
However, what marks the new consumer movement as distinctive is that it
features resentment that the stream of new products is so large and the
differences among products so small that choice among them is said to have been
made difficult. Furthermore, it is argued that the technical complexity of many
of them is such that the untrained individual cannot evaluate them.
The result has been the evolution of a system of consumer protection
which, since 1964, has featured commissions and special assistants at the highest
levels of Government, increased activity in the regulatory agencies, and finally in
1969, a Presidential enunciation of a "Buyer's Bill of Rights." Laws have been
passed and new standards set. Testing procedures have been tightened. Consumer
information services have grown.
The anomaly of the present consumerism market is that a highly market-
oriented economy has produced a situation, in which it is said by at least an
influential minority, that the doctrine of consumer sovereignty—the notion that
the consumer can regulate business by his free choices-is no longer tenable for
some undefinable but sizable segment of the marketplace. Some extreme
manifestations of this position would have a considerable impact on the way our
11-161
-------
economy runs. Already, the consumerism movement has had an important and
probably beneficial influence on business practice. This movement consists of a
myriad of small issues, but the large one confronting us is that of developing a
proper policy posture that will give the desirable amount and kind of protection
to the consumer and, at the same time, preserve a business environment in which
the economy can continue to grow.
The consumerism movement has been regarded by some as a fad. It is
important to note that the complaints which stimulate the present consumer
concerns are an integral part of technologically sophisticated, market-oriented
economy such as we have so deliberately developed in recent decades and which
seems certain to continue.
CHAPTER 8-ECONOMIC CHOICE AND BALANCED GROWTH
The search for a policy of balanced growth has major implications for the
allocation of economic resources and is crucially dependent upon economic
growth. Conventional economic policy goals include full employment, an
acceptable rate of growth, price stability, and a satisfactory balance of
payments. Added to these now is a new set of goals under the vaguely defined
label of "quality of life." These concerns mirror a desire by many Americans to
create a society better able to enjoy what it produces, and to grow in ways
harmonious with its physical environment.
The setting of new goals and the establishment of priorities among them are
matters of social choice. Economic analysis can help in understanding some of
the central aspects of these choices, but it cannot dictate the answers. The
choices themselves are those of the people, expressed individually through their
private institutions and through their governments. The key choices are among
competing ends. Economic analysis can contribute toward the meeting of these
ends once they are chosen, and an economic policy of sustained growth can
make it possible for more of these ends to be achieved.
CHAPTER 9-TOWARD BALANCED GROWTH
This report is motivated by the President's explicit call for the development
of a national growth policy. It is assumed that both the meaning and form of
this policy will evolve and that contributions such as this are but steps in that
direction. This report takes an inductive approach to the overall problem by
identifying a number of issue areas in which it seems meaningful to say that a
debate bearing on growth policy is taking place. The issues which were selected
are those which the National Goals Research Staff judged would make a
distinctive contribution to the Nation's awareness. An example of an exclusion
might be that of urban problems, a subject truly essential to our growth, but a
matter much discussed by others of greater competence on that topic.
II-162
-------
The major lesson to be extracted from the substantive problems reviewed
here is the high desirability of an explicit growth policy with a relatively long-
term perspective. In instance after instance, it was found that today's problems
are a result of successes as defined in yesterday's terms. The object lesson has
not been that our institutions are incapable, but that in the past we set
performance criteria for them in terms now recognized as too narrow but which
at one time were appropriate. We have become widely aware of the second-order
consequences of our action, and we have demonstrated our resolution to take
them into account when we can anticipate them. What we need is increased
ability to anticipate those consequences and an explicit policy framework within
which to evaluate them.
The central ingredient in the development of a growth policy will be for the
American people to decide just what sort of country they want this to be. This
process is in being, as reflected in these debates. Hopefully, this report and other
events will serve as vehicles to facilitate discussion and choice. To further
facilitate this process, we will have to develop better institutional arrangements
for the people to relate to the leadership and better mechanisms of policy
analysis to serve all parties.
While it is clear that an explicit growth policy is desirable, it seems equally
clear from these debates that it is likely that what will emerge is not a single
policy but a package of policies consistent with each other, each designed to
meet one or more of our national objectives. This package of policies will shape
both the directions of our society and the balance among the many segments of
society in terms of priorities and interrelationships. It will not be a set of policies
which the government alone can develop and effect. It will be a set of policies
which emerge from the decisions of the government and the people, and which,
in turn, will affect the decisions of both the government and the people.
These are only a few examples of possible developments, many of which
have begun or may begin to emerge in the 1970's. Many of these developments
may not appear in the 1970's or even later, but the list suggests that, as we view
the prospects for our nation, we must broaden our vision to take into account a
variety of developments which will bring many new dimensions to human
experience.
As illustrated by these selected trends and forecasts, the 1970's promise to
be a decade of extraordinary change. Our nation in 1980 could be one in which
cities are more clogged with immovable traffic, air is less breathable, streams
polluted to the point where expensive processes will be necessary to get usable
water, seashores deteriorating more rapidly, and our people suffering needlessly
from having not developed the necessary institutional arrangements for achieving
the promise of this decade of change.
11-163
-------
On the other hand, America in 1980 can be a nation which will have begun
to restore its environment, to have more balanced distribution of regional
economic development and of population; a nation which has abolished hunger
and many forms of social inequality and deprivation; and a nation which will
have begun to develop the new social institutions and instruments necessary to
turn the promises of this decade of change into reality.
If we are to see the second of these possible futures realized in the America
of 1980, we must begin now to define what we wish to have as our national
goals, and to develop in both our public and private institutions the specific
policies and programs which will move us toward these goals.
11-164
-------
WELFARE MEASUREMENT AND THE GNP
Edward F. Denison*
Edward F. Denison is a Senior Fellow of The
Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C.
Extracted from: Survey of Current Business, Office of Business Economics,
Washington, D.C.: Department of Commerce, January 1971, p. 13.
The views expressed are those of the author and do not purport to represent
the views of the other staff members, officers or trustees of The Brookings
Institution or of the Office of Business Economics.
11-165
-------
WELFARE MEASUREMENT AND THE GNP
Edward F. Denison
It would be enormously convenient to have a single, generally accepted
index of the economic and social welfare of the people of the United States. A
glance at it would tell us how much better or worse off we had become each
year and each decade. We could judge the desirability of any proposed action by
asking whether it would raise or lower this index.
Some recent discussion seems almost to imply that such an index could be
constructed. Articles in the popular press even criticize GNP because it is not
such a complete index of welfare, on the one hand ignoring the fact that it was
never intended to be such an index, and on the other, suggesting that with
appropriate changes it could be converted to one.
COMPONENTS OF A WELFARE MEASURE
A single, generally acceptable index of welfare cannot be constructed. This
ought to be obvious, but it may be instructive to state some of the changes in
society such a measure would have to encompass and the problems its compilers
would face.
OUTPUT
The output available to satisfy our wants and needs is one important deter-
minant of welfare. Whatever want, need, or social problem engages our
attention, we ordinarily can more easily find resources to deal with it when
output is large and growing than when it is not. GNP measures output fairly
well. Net national product (NNP) measures it even better, provided that
depreciation is calculated in a consistent and reasonable way. The capital stock
study of the Office of Business Economics provides data that can be used to
calculate NNP.
A myriad of different products must somehow be combined if one is to
obtain a measure of total output. We can obtain a generally acceptable measure
only because market prices provide weights to combine them that are widely
accepted as reasonable and objective. The rationale is that, given the relative
prices they face, people individually or collectively are free to spend their money
in whatever way maximizes their satisfactions. If they preferred to do so, they
11-166
-------
could shift purchases from one product to another, substituting at the ratio of
market prices.1 If automobiles cost $3,000 and TV's $300, they could choose to
buy another car and 10 fewer TV's, or the reverse.
GNP and NNP valued at constant prices permit measurement of changes in
the quantity of output with products combined by use of prices in the base year
(at present 1958). They are extremely useful measures. But users should under-
stand their characteristics. Two of these seem to me to be the most important in
qualifying their use in welfare measurement.
First, households, governments, and nonprofit organizations are regarded as
the final users of the economy's output, and GNP and NNP measure the goods
and services they buy.2 How effectively they use their purchases is outside the
purview of GNP or NNP. Soap, vacuum cleaners, washing machines, and the time
of domestic servants bought by the housewife are measured, not how clean her
house and linen may be. Similarly, the teachers' services, books, school
buildings, etc., purchased by school systems are measured, as are the planes,
ammunition, and soldiers' services bought by the Department of Defense; NNP
does not tell how much education and national security are obtained per dollar
(in 1958 prices) of expenditure for such items.
It is sometimes suggested that governments (and nonprofit organizations)
should be treated as if they were businesses "selling" services to individuals. NNP
in constant prices would include the services provided (measured in constant
prices) instead of government purchases. Because most government purchases are
for education and defense, this proposal requires ways to measure changes in the
amounts of education and defense that are independent of government expendi-
tures. But how? Educators and generals have found no acceptable procedure to
make such an estimate, and until they do, it would be a bit absurd to expect the
national accountant to do so. Present estimates of real GNP truly measure the
services provided by governments only if the services provided per dollar of
government purchases (in 1958 prices) are the same each year as in 1958.
The prospect for measuring the services a household secures from its
purchases (when they are combined with the "labor" of household members,
which is omitted from national product) as distinct from the value of its
purchases seems at least equally remote.
1 In an economy with indirect taxes and subsidies, there is a complication which leads
national accountants to construct two measures of national product. One,
recommended for "welfare" questions, uses market prices as weights; the other,
recommended for resource allocation problems and productivity measurement, uses
factor cost values instead. For most questions and comparisons the choice can be
made.
2 I ignore here the net capital formation and net export components of NNP.
11-167
-------
The second characteristic concerns the "quality change problem." When
expenditure for a new or improved product appears, it is counted as output
equal to the quantity of previously existing products that could have been
bought for the same expenditure (based on 1958 price ratios if the new product
had appeared by then, otherwise on price ratios when it first entered price
indexes).
Real NNP in 1950 was half that of 1968. This means that output in 1950
was half as big as the sum of (1) the quantity of products produced in 1968 that
were the same as those produced in 1950 and (2) the quantity of 1950 products
that could have been produced in 1968 by the resources that were actually used
in 1968 to produce products that did not exist in 1950.
The change in real NNP understates the change in the ability of output to
satisfy our wants because it ascribes no value to the increased range of products
the economy is able to provide; for example, in 1968 medicines were available
that did not exist at all in 1950. I am personally convinced that there is no way
to measure this understatement; not all economists agree.
Such characteristics, which in my view are not remediable, limit the
accuracy of real product as a measure of changes over time in the ability of
output to satisfy our wants.3 Nevertheless, real product is a very useful measure.
But to evaluate welfare we would need additonal measures which would be far
more difficult to construct.
REAL COSTS OF PRODUCTION
We would need an index of real costs incurred in production, because we
are better off if we get the same output at less cost. The starting point for an
index of labor costs exists in series for total man-hours worked, and we can also
compute hours per capita or per worker. But use of man-hours for welfare
evaluation would imply unreasonably that to increase total hours by raising the
hours of eight women from 60 to 65 a week (coverage of the Maryland 60-hour
law recently was reduced greatly) imposes no more burden than raising the hours
of eight men from 40 to 45, or even than hiring one involuntarily unemployed
man for 40 hours a week. A usable measure of the real costs of working would
The two characteristics I have described result from changes over time in the kinds of
end products that the state of knowledge permits the economy to provide, and in the
skill of individuals and governments in utilizing their purchases to meet their
objectives. They do not limit the significance of comparisons of alternative conditions
or policies unless these alternatives would affect such knowledge or skill.
11-168
-------
consider that the welfare benefits from working fewer hours decline as hours are
shortened and may even disappear.4
A measure of real costs of labor would also have to consider working
conditions. Most of us spend almost half our waking hours on the job and our
welfare is vitally affected by the circumstances in which we pass those hours.
From the beginning, labor unions have concerned themselves with "wages,
hours, and working conditions." Only the first of these related to the goods and
services the worker can buy; the others relate to real costs. Perhaps it is under
this heading, too, that the deaths and injuries from wartime service in the armed
forces, and the disutility of involuntary service in the armed forces in war or
peace, should be counted.
We have data on saving, but no measure of the real costs of what was once
called "abstinence." And we have no acceptable way to combine the real costs
of labor and abstinence.
NEEDS
To measure welfare we would need a measure of changes in the needs that
our output must satisfy. One aspect, population change, is now handled,
crudely, by converting output to a per capita basis on the assumption that, other
things equal, twice as many people need twice as many goods and services to be
equally well off.5 Beyond this, an index of needs would account for differences
in the requirements for living as the population becomes more urbanized or
sub urbanized; for the effect of weather changes on requirements occasioned by
epidemics or new diseases; and, most of all, for changes in national defense
requirements. Such an index would have to tell us the difference between the
cost of meeting our needs, to the extent that we do, in a base year, and the cost
of meeting them equally well under the circumstances prevailing in every other
year.
It is sometimes wrongly supposed that the necessity of taking account of
some changes in needs can be obviated by omission from NNP of expenditures
for purposes for which needs change: for example, by elimination of expendi-
In this formulation I regard the real costs of working additional hours as including the
loss of welfare resulting from less leisure time. If it is necessary to treat the two as
separate items affecting welfare, the problem is still more complicated.
In my view, this is a tolerable assumption only if no change occurs in the composition
of the population by age and family status. In the first place, requirements for individ-
uals vary with age and marital status. Second, an intractable problem is created by the
simple fact that a couple with two wanted children is not worse off than if it had no
children and the family had twice the per capita income. Since the couple rejected that
option they must be better off. Also, greater ability to control family size has surely
improved welfare in a way that cannot be captured in any measure I know.
11-169
-------
tures for local transportation, heat and air conditioning, health, or defense. This
procedure fails utterly. It yields the false result that we are equally well off
whether, in the same circumstances, we ride or must walk to work, freeze or are
comfortable, do or do not obtain medical care when we are sick, or provide or
do not provide for national security. Needs and provision to meet them must be
separately evaluated.
THE ENVIRONMENT
Measures of "needs" shade into measures of the human and physical envi-
ronment in which we live; perhaps it is here that the concept of economic
welfare broadens to encompass "social welfare." We are all enormously affected
by the people around us. Can we go where we like without fear of attack? Can
we attend a lecture without its being disrupted? Will we be discriminated
against? Are our neighbors congenial? We are also affected by the physical
environment-purity of air and water, accessibility of park land, presence of
trash or rats in our alleys, and all the other conditions receiving so much
attention just now.
To measure the state of affairs with respect to any aspect of the human and
physical environment requires adequate and accurate data. Such data are
generally deficient in both quantity and quality, and collection and evaluation
urgently need expansion. But, given data, construction of an index of the good-
ness or badness of almost any environmental aspect faces at least two serious
problems.
First, relations between environmental conditions and welfare are rarely
linear, and nonlinear relationships are hard to establish. A little air pollution is
harmless, more an annoyance, a great deal lethal. Discrimination against Jews by
a random 10 percent of employers, landlords, and operators of public places
might be merely an annoyance to those affected; by 40 percent, a real hardship;
by 90 percent, an economic and social catastrophe. The last situation is far more
than nine times as undesirable as the first.
Second, if anything except the most detailed imaginable set of data is
contemplated, weighting is required: To combine robberies and murders in a
crime index; to combine pollution of the Potomac and pollution of Lake Erie in
a water pollution index; to combine trash in Northeast Washington alleys and its
absences on Route 70-S into a trash index. An expert in a field may be able to
provide judgments with respect to the problems of nonlinearity and weights that
would permit an interesting index to be calculated. However, the necessity for
numerous individual judgments that are difficult to assess or even to describe
must impair general acceptability of measures based upon them.
11-170
-------
The absence of any natural weighting scheme is an even greater obstacle
combining indexes of crime, water pollution, racial discrimination, and the like
into a single index. Personally, I see no basis at all for combining indexes of
different aspects of the environment into a combined index that will command
general acceptance. I can imagine only letting each individual in the country
compute his own index with his own personal weights, and then averaging them.
But even this procedure is almost sure to be biased because we are all concerned
with the aspects of the environment that currently are problems. Who would
now think to consider the dangers of attack by hostile Indians? Or the risk of
being doused by slops thrown from windows as he walks the city streets? Even
the very recent elimination of refrigerator doors that cannot be opened from
within, and cost the lives of so many children, is almost forgotten. The annual
series for "Persons Lynched" appeared in the Census Bureau's Historical
Statistics but not in its current Statistical Abstract.
THE DISTRIBUTION OF INCOME
To measure welfare we would need an index of the "goodness" of the size
distribution of income. There is probably a consensus that, given the same total
income and output, a distribution with fewer families in poverty would be better
than the present distribution, and possibly that less inequality throughout the
distribution would be an improvement. There is no agreement on an ideal distri-
bution, from which departures could be measured.
OTHER ASPECTS
The list I have presented is not exhaustive. I have ignored the hard fact that
tastes differ among individuals and change over time. I have not yet recalled that
welfare is affected by people's perception of reality as well as the objective facts;
one's fear of crime on the streets need not be closely related to actual risks. The
authors of "Toward a Social Report"6 stressed the need for attitudinal data to
develop welfare measures. I have not provided room for any of the pleasures and
worries that are related to purely personal relationships and that for most people
dominate all else in affecting their feeling of well-being.
IMPRACTICABILITY OF A GENERAL MEASURE OF WELFARE
Even if we could construct indexes of output, real costs, needs, the state of
the environment, income distribution, and other relevant aspects of life, we
could not compute a welfare index because we have no system of weights to
combine them. Certainly statisticians and social scientists are in no position to
assign weights.
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, "Toward a Social Report"
(January 1969).
11-171
-------
The point to be stressed is that the situation is just the same as in making
policy decisions in government, in business, in the family, or anywhere else.
Most decisions that might be made have favorable and unfavorable effects on
various aspects of life. Decision makers must try to determine the favorable and
unfavorable effects of alternatives and then decide on their course of action.
Economists, statisticians, and other social scientists can help determine what the
effects are likely to be. But the responsible decision maker must decide how the
favorable and unfavorable effects balance out, and different persons will decide
differently. This is only another way of saying that a generally accepted
weighting system does not exist.
COSTS OF GROWTH AND THE NATIONAL PRODUCT
It is fashionable to describe our environmental problems as costs of
economic growth, and even to suggest that these costs should be deducted from
GNP and NNP. I have no idea whether this would raise or lower the growth rate
in any particular period. But a few observations are in order.
First, some of the objections to "growth" are to an increase in population
(or its geographic concentration) and the resulting congestion. Over the last two
centuries, it is true, increases in productivity have permitted population to
increase and led to its doing so. But this relationship is increasingly uncertain;
births, which are the chief population determinant in this country, do not now
follow changes in per capita income in any predictable way. It is no longer
possible to regard the increase in population, and whatever disadvantages it may
bring, as the consequence of an increase in output; there is no presumption that
less output would mean fewer people. Moreover, there is no unanimity as to
whether population growth or the steps that would be required to curtail it are
undesirable or desirable. Population increase has meant less space per person and
has affected other aspects of life adversely in the view of many people. Others
stress the pleasures derived from children; almost none would like a higher death
rate; and immigration, which has contributed importantly even to recent popu-
lation growth, has presumably meant a better life for the immigrants.
Second, many aspects of the environment are only remotely, if at all,
connected with the amount of production or income; and when they are, it is by
no means obvious that high income worsens rather than improves the environ-
ment. Would such problems of the human environment as crime, drugs, student
unrest, racial tension, and labor-mangement conflicts now be absent or even
smaller if output and income had increased less than they did in the past decade
or two? It seems unlikely.
I now turn to what clearly are environmental costs associated with
production. Air and water pollution, the volume of solid waste, and other
undesirable aspects of the physical environment have been increased by
11-172
-------
economic growth or, more accurately, by the increase in the production and use
of particular products which have been produced and used in particular ways.
Given an index of the state of the environment, a complete welfare evaluation
would not require knowledge of the extent to which changes in this index were
the result of production. Nevertheless, the idea of measuring the net gain from
production by balancing the value of the deterioration of the physical
environment caused by production against the value of greater output is
attractive. The value of this deterioration could then be deducted from NNP to
obtain what many would regard as a better measure of net output. But imple-
mentation of this suggestion would require an objective measurement of the
value of the deterioration expressed as a dollar amount. Such a valuation does
not exist, and its estimation would encounter all the problems involved in
measuring the goodness of the environment plus those of deciding what portion
of changes in its goodness were due to production.
At this point, let me emphasize that expenditures actually incurred to
preserve or improve the environment are not at all the same thing as the value of
the deterioration of the environment that is caused by production. Such expend-
itures must not be deducted in lieu of the value of the deterioration caused by
production. To do this would mean that the more we diverted our resources and
output from other uses to improvement of the enviroment, the smaller would be
GNP and NNP. This surely is not a desirable result.
Fortunately, GNP and NNP are not reduced by diversion of resources from
other uses to environmental improvement when the costs are borne by
government or by consumers because expenditures by these groups are counted
as final products. (This generalization includes such cases as the addition of
antipollution devices to automobiles because in the national accounts the
addition is regarded as increasing the quantity, rather than the price, of cars.)7
GNP and NNP can be regarded as providing defective measures of changes
in output when expenditures to protect the environment are incurred by
business in the form of current costs. Such purchases are not themselves counted
as final products and they absorb resources that would otherwise be used to
produce products that are counted as final. Steps already taken, and adoption of
additional proposals, to increase expenditures for environmental control of this
type will have the effect of reducing real output and productivity, as measured,
below the values they would take if resources were not so diverted. Business
expenditures for the safety of employees, which are also likely to rise as a result
of new legislation, will have the same effect. The reduction in measured output
could be avoided only by isolating business expenditures for these purposes and
Neither are GNP and NNP reduced, in the first instance, when business makes capital
outlays for this purpose. But in the case of business capital outlay NNP is eventually
reduced by a rise in depreciation, just as it is in the case to which I turn next.
11-173
-------
adding them to national product as final product. Such a solution is not, I fear,
feasible because such a classification of business expenditures would encounter
distinctions that are gradual and blurred. What we would need to know is the
amount by which business unit costs exceed the theoretical minimum that could
be achieved if production were to be conducted with no regard at all to the
external environment or to employee welfare—implying no laws, no community
pressure, and no conscience. Such a situation has never prevailed and is difficult
even to imagine. What perhaps can be done, and should surely be attempted, is
to start now to collect information on changes in expenditures for
environmental and employee protection that will occur in the future. Even if
such information does not lead or enable us to change the measure of output, it
will enable us to interpret better the changes in output and productivity that we
observe in the future as well as to know the true costs of the new programs.
IMPLICATIONS FOR STATISTICS
We need, can obtain, and should obtain additional information, including
statistics, on many aspects of American life that affect welfare. We can and
should explore ways of presenting and analyzing such information in a compre-
hensible form. Some of this research could well be performed by individuals
familiar with estimation of the national accounts, because some of the statistical
and conceptual problems are similar. However, we cannot obtain a compre-
hensive index of welfare.
There are likely to be pressures to make ad hoc changes in the existing
national product measures that, it is supposed, will move the national product
series closer to a complete welfare measure in one way or another. Such
suggestions should be welcomed if they improve the measurement of the
nation's output. I would myself urge regular publication of series for NNP and
national income, as well as GNP, in constant prices. But some suggestions to
change the measurement of national product will derive from confusion between
an output measure and a comprehensive welfare measure. Such proposals must
be rejected. GNP and NNP cannot be transformed into a comprehensive welfare
measure. Efforts to do so can only impair their usefulness for the very important
purposes of both long-term and short-term analysis that they now serve well.
11-174
-------
TOWARD A SOCIAL REPORT.
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
U.S. Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare
Toward a Social Report, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office,
January 1969, pp. xi-xxii.
11-175
-------
TOWARD A SOCIAL REPORT:
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
U.S. Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare
The nation has no comprehensive set of statistics reflecting social progress
or retrogression. There is no government procedure for periodic stocktaking of
the social health of the nation. The government makes no social report.
We do have an Economic Report, required by statute, in which the
President and his Council of Economic Advisors report to the nation on its
economic health. We also have a comprehensive set of economic indicators
widely thought to be sensitive and reliable. Statistics on employment and
unemployment, on retail and wholesale prices, and on the balance of payments
are collected annually, quarterly, monthly, sometimes even weekly. These
economic indicators are watched by government officials and private citizens
alike as closely as a surgeon watches a fever chart for indications of a change in
the patient's condition.
Although nations got along without economic indicators for centuries, it is
hard to imagine doing without them now. It is hard to imagine governments and
businesses operating without answers to questions which seem as ordinary as:
What is happening to retail prices? Is national income rising? Is unemployment
higher in Chicago than in Detroit? Is our balance of payments improving?
Indeed, economic indicators have become so much a part of our thinking
that we have tended to equate a rising national income with national well-being.
Many are suprised to find unrest and discontent growing at a time when national
income is rising so rapidly. It seems paradoxical that the economic indicators are
generally registering continued progress-rising income, low unemployment-
while the streets and the newspapers are full of evidence of growing discontent-
burning and looting in the ghetto, strife on the campus, crime in the street,
alienation and defiance among the young.
Why have income and disaffection increased at the same time? One reason
is that the recent improvement in standards of living, along with new social
legislation, have generated new expectations-expectations that have risen faster
than reality could improve. The result has been disappointment and disaffection
among a sizeable number of Americans.
It is not misery, but advance, that fosters hope and raises expectations. It
has been wisely said that the conservatism of the destitute is as profound as that
of the privileged. If the Negro American did not protest as much in earlier
11-176
-------
periods of history as today, it was not for lack of cause, but for lack of hope. If
in earlier periods of history we had few programs to help the poor, it was not for
lack of poverty, but because society did not care and was not under pressure to
help the poor. If the college students of the fifties did not protest as often as
those of today, it was not for lack of evils to condemn, but probably because
hope and idealism were weaker then.
The correlation between improvement and disaffection is not new. Alexis
de Tocqueville observed such a relationship in eighteenth century France: "The
evil which was suffered patiently as inevitable, seems unendurable as soon as the
idea of escaping from it crosses men's minds. All the abuses then removed call
attention to those that remain, and they now appear more galling. The evil, it is
true, has become less, but sensibility to it has become more acute."
Another part of the explanation of the paradox of prosperity and rising
discontent is clearly that "money isn't everything." Prosperity itself brings its
own problems. Congestion, noise, and pollution are by-products of economic
growth which make the world less livable. The large organizations which are
necessary to harness modern technology make the individual feel small and
impotent. The concentration on production and profit necessary to economic
growth breeds tension, venality, and neglect of "the finer things."
WHY A SOCIAL REPORT OR SET OF SOCIAL INDICATORS?
Curiosity about our social condition would by itself justify an attempt to
assess the social health of the nation. Many people want answers to questions
like these: Are we getting healthier? Is pollution increasing? Do children learn
more than they used to? Do people have more satisfying jobs than they used to?
Is crime increasing? How many people are really alienated? Is the American
dream of rags and riches a reality? We are interested in the answers to such
questions partly because they would tell us a good deal about our individual and
social well-being. Just as we need to measure our incomes, so we need "social
indicators," or measure of other dimensions of our welfare, to get an idea how
well off we really are.
A social report with a set of social indicators could not only satisfy our
curiosity about how well we are doing, but it could also improve public policy-
making in at least two ways. First, it could give social problems more visibility
and thus make possible more informed judgments about national priorities.
Second, by providing insight into how different measures of national well-being
are changing, it might ultimately make possible a better evaluation of what
public programs are accomplishing.
The existing situation in areas with which public policy must deal is often
unclear, not only to the citizenry in general, but to officialdom as well. The
11-177
-------
normal processes of journalism and the observations of daily life do not allow a
complete or balanced view of the condition of the society. Different problems
have different degrees of visibility.
The visibility of a social problem can depend, for example, upon its "news
value" or potential drama. The Nation's progress in the space race and the need
for space research get a lot of publicity because of the adventure inherent in
manned space exploration. Television and tabloid remind us almost daily of the
problems of crime, drugs, riots, and sexual misadventure. The rate of infant
mortality may be a good measure of the condition of a society but this rate is
rarely mentioned in the public press, or even perceived as a public problem. The
experience of parents (or infants) does not insure that the problem of infant
mortality is perceived as a social problem; only when we know that more than a
dozen nations have lower rates of infant mortality than the United States can we
begin to make a valid judgment about the condition of this aspect of American
society.
Moreover, some groups in our society are well organized, but others are
not. This means that the problems of some groups are articulated and advertised,
whereas the problems of others are not. Public problems also differ in the extent
to which they are immediately evident to the "naked eye." A natural disaster or
overcrowding of the highways will be immediately obvious. But ineffectiveness
of an educational system or the alienation of youth and minority groups is often
evident only when it is too late.
Besides developing measures of the social conditions we care about we also
need to see how these measures are changing in response to public programs. If
we mount a major program to provide prenatal and maternity care for mothers,
does infant mortality go down? If we channel new resources into special
programs for educating poor children, does their performance in school
eventually increase? If we mount a "war on poverty," what happens to the
number of poor people? If we enact new regulations against the emission of
pollutants, does pollution diminish?
These are not easy questions, since all major social problems are influenced
by many things besides governmental action, and it is hard to disentangle the
different effects of different causal factors. But at least in the long run
evaluation of the effectiveness of public programs will be improved if we have
social indicators to tell us how social conditions are changing.
The present volume is not a social report. It is a step in the direction of a
social report and the development of a comprehensive set of social indicators.
The report represents an attempt, on the part of social scientists, to look at
several important areas and digest what is known about progress toward
11-178
-------
generally accepted goals. The areas treated in this way are health, social
mobility, the condition of the physical environment, income and poverty, public
order and safety, and learning, science, and art.
There is also a chapter on participation in social institutions, but because of
the lack of measures of improvement or retrogression in this area, it aspires to do
no more than pose important questions.
Even the chapters included leave many-perhaps most-questions
unanswered. We have measures of death and illness, but no measures of physical
vigor or mental health. We have measures of the satisfaction that income brings.
We have measures of air and water pollution, but no way to tell whether our
environment is, on balance, becoming uglier or more beautiful. We have some
clues about their creativtiy or attitude toward intellectual endeavor. We have
often spoken of the condition of Negro Americans, but have not had the data
needed to report on Hispanic Americans, American Indians, or other ethnic
minorities.
If the nation is to be able to do better social reporting in the future, and do
justice to all of the problems that have not been treated here, it will need a wide
variety of information that is not available now. It will need more data on the
aged, on youth, and on women, as well as on ethnic minorities. It will need
information not only on objective conditions, but also on how different groups
of Americans perceive the conditions in which they find themselves.
We shall now summarize each of the chapters in turn.
HEALTH AND ILLNESS
There have been dramatic increases in health and life expectancy in the
twentieth century, but they have been mainly the result of developments whose
immediate effect has been on the younger age groups. The expectancy of life at
birth in the United States has increased from 47.3 years at the turn of the
century to 70.5 years in 1967, or by well over 20 years. The number of expected
years of life remaining at age 5 has increased by about 12 years, and that at age
25 about 9 years, but that at age 65 not even 3 years. Modern medicine and
standards of living have evidently been able to do a great deal for the young, and
especially the very young, but not so much for the old.
This dramatic improvement had slowed down by the early fifties. Since
then it has been difficult to say whether our health and life status have been
improving or not. Some diseases are becoming less common and others are
becoming more common, and life expectancy has changed rather little. We can
11-179
-------
get some idea whether or not there has been improvement on balance by calcu-
lating the "expectancy of healthy life" (i.e., life expectancy free of bed-
disability and institutionalization). The expectancy of healthy life at birth
seems to have improved a trifle since 1957, the first year for which the needed
data are available, but certainly not as much as the improvements in medical
knowledge and standards of riving might have led us to hope.
The American people have almost certainly not exploited all of the
potential for better health inherent in existing medical knowledge and standards
of living. This is suggested by the fact that Negro Americans have on the average
about seven years less expectancy of healthy life than whites, and the fact that
at least 15 nations have longer life expectancy at birth than we do.
Why are we not as healthy as we could be? Though our style of life (lack of
exercise, smoking, stress, etc.) is partly responsible, there is evidence which
strongly suggests that social and economic deprivation and the uneven distrib-
ution of medical care are a large part of the problem.
Though the passage of Medicare legislation has assured many older
Americans that they can afford the medical care they need, the steps to improve
the access to medical care for the young have been much less extensive.
The nation's system of financing medical care also provides an incentive for
the relative underuse of preventive, as opposed to curative and ameliorative,
care. Medical insurance may reimburse a patient for the hospital care he gets, but
rarely for the checkup that might have kept him well. Our system of relief for
the medically indigent, and the fee-for-service method of physician payment,
similarly provide no inducements for adequate preventive care.
The emphasis on curative care means that hospitals are sometimes used
when some less intensive form of care would do as well. This overuse of hospitals
is one of the factors responsible for the extraordinary increases in the price of
hospital care.
Between June 1967 and June 1968, hospital daily service charges increased
by 12 percent, and in the previous 12 months they increased by almost
22 percent. Physicians' fees have not increased as much—they rose by
5H percent between June 1967 and June 1968—but they still rose more than the
general price level. Medical care prices in the aggregate rose at an annual rate of
6.5 percent during 1965-67.
SOCIAL MOBILITY
The belief that no individual should be denied the opportunity to better his
condition because of the circumstances of his birth continues to be one of the
11-180
-------
foundation stones in the structure of American values. But is the actual degree
of opportunity and social mobility as great now as it has been?
It was possible to get a partial answer to this question from a survey which
asked a sample of American men about their fathers' usual occupations as well as
about their own job characteristics. Estimates based on these data suggest that
opportunity to rise to an occupation with a higher relative status has not been
declining in recent years, and might even have increased slightly. They also show
that by far the largest part of the variation in occupational status was explained
by factors other than the occupation of the father.
These encouraging findings, in the face of many factors that everyday
observation suggest must limit opportunity, are probably due in part to the
expansion of educational opportunities. There is some tendency for the sons of
those of high education and status to obtain more education than others (an
extra year of schooling for the father means on the average an extra 0.3 or 0.4 of
a year of education for the son), and this additional education brings somewhat
higher occupational status on the average. However, the variations in education
that are not explained by the socio-economic status of the father, and the effects
that these variations have on occupational status, are much larger. Thus, on
balance, increased education seems to have increased opportunity and upward
mobility.
There is one dramatic exception to the finding that opportunity is generally
available. The opportunity of Negroes appears to be restricted to a very great
extent by current race discrimination and other factors specifically related to
race. Though it is true that the average adult Negro comes from a family with a
lower socioeconomic status than the average white, and has had fewer years of
schooling, and that these and other "background" factors reduce his income, it
does not appear to be possible to explain anything like all of the difference in
income between blacks and whites in terms of such background factors. After a
variety of background factors that impair the qualifications of the average Negro
are taken into account, there remains a difference in income of over $1,400 that
is difficult to explain without reference to current discrimination. So is the fact
that a high status Negro is less likely to be able to pass his status on to his son
than is a high status white. A number of other studies tend to add to the
evidence that there is continuing discrimination in employment, as does the
relationship between Federal employment and contracts (with their equal
opportunity provisions) and the above-average proportion of Negroes in high
status jobs.
The implication of all this is that the American commitment to
opportunity is within sight of being honored in the case of whites, but that it is
very far indeed from being honored for the Negro. In addition to the handicaps
11-181
-------
that arise out of history and past discrimination, the Negro also continues to
obtain less reward for his qualifications than he would if he were white.
THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT
This chapter deals with the pollution of the natural environment, and with
the man-made, physical environment provided by our housing and the structure
of our cities.
Pollution seems to be many problems in many places-air pollution in some
communities, water pollution in others, automobile junk yards and other solid
wastes in still other places. These seemingly desperate problems can be tied
together by one basic fact: The total weight of materials taken into the economy
from nature must equal the total weight of materials ultimately discharged as
wastes plus any materials recycled.
This means that, given the level and composition of the resources used by
the economy, and the degree of recycling, any reduction in one form of waste
discharge must be ultimately accompanied by an increase in the discharge of
some other kind of waste. For example, some air pollution can be prevented by
washing out the particles—but this can mean water pollution, or alternatively
solid wastes.
Since the economy does not destroy the matter it absorbs there will be a
tendency for the pollution problem to increase with the growth of population
and economic activity. In 1965 the transportation system in the United States
produced 76 million tons of five major pollutants. If the transportation technol-
ogy used does not greatly change, the problem of air pollution may be expected
to rise with the growth and the number of automobiles, airplanes, and so on.
Similarly, the industrial sector of the economy has been growing at about 4-1/2
percent per year. This suggests that if this rate of growth were to continue,
industrial production would have increased tenfold by the year 2020, and that in
the absence of new methods and policies, industrial wastes would have risen by a
like proportion.
The chapter presents some measures of air and water pollution indicating
that unsatisfactorily high levels of pollution exist in many places. There can be
little doubt that pollution is a significant problem already, and that this is an
area in which at least in the absence of timely reporting and intelligent policy,
the condition of society can all too easily deteriorate.
As we shift perspective from the natural environment to the housing that
shelters us from it, we see a more encouraging trend. The physical quality of the
housing in the country is improving steadily, in city center and suburb alike. In
1960, 84 percent of the dwelling units in the country were described as
11-182
-------
"structurally sound;" in 1966, this percentage had risen to 90 percent. In central
cities the percentage had risen from 80 percent in 1960 to 93 percent in 1966.
In 1950,16 percent of the nation's housing was "overcrowded" in the sense that
it contained 1.01 or more persons per room. But by 1960, only 12 percent of
the nation's housing supply was overcrowded by this standard.
The principal reason for this improvement was the increased per capita
income and demand for housing. About 11-1/2 million new housing units were
started in the United States between 1960 and 1967, and the figures on the
declining proportions of structurally unsound and overcrowded dwelling, even in
central cities, suggest that this new construction increased the supply of housing
available to people at all income levels.
Even though the housing stock is improving, racial segregation and other
barriers keep many Americans from moving into the housing that is being built
or vacated, and deny them a full share in the benefits of the improvement in the
nation's housing supply.
INCOME AND POVERTY
The Gross National Product in the United States is about $1,000 higher per
person than that of Sweden, the second highest nation. In 1969 our GNP should
exceed $900 billion. Personal income has quadrupled in this century, even after
allowing for changes in population and the value of money.
Generally speaking, however, the distribution of income in the United
States has remained practically unchanged over the last 20 years. Although the
distribution of income has been relatively stable, the rise in income levels has
meant that the number of persons below the poverty line has declined. The poor
numbered 40 million in 1960 and 26 million in 1967.
A continuation of present trends, however, would by no means eliminate
poverty. The principal cause of the decline has been an increase in earnings. But
some of the poor are unable to work because they are too young, too old,
disabled or otherwise prevented from doing so. They would not, therefore, be
directly helped by increased levels of wages and earnings in the economy as a
whole. Moreover, even the working poor will continue to account for a
substantial number of persons by 1974: about 5 million by most recent
estimates. This latter group is not now generally eligible for income supple-
mentation.
The nation's present system of income maintenance is badly in need of
reform. It is inadequate to the needs of those who do receive aid and millions of
persons are omitted altogether.
11-183
-------
This chapter concludes with an analysis of existing programs and a
discussion of new proposals which have been put forward in recent years as
solutions to the welfare crisis.
PUBLIC ORDER AND SAFETY
The concern about public order and safety in the United States is greater
now than it has been in some time.
The compilations of the Federal Bureau of Investigation show an increase
in major crimes of 13 percent in 1964, 6 percent in 1965, 11 percent in 1966,
and 17 percent in 1967. And studies undertaken for the President's Crime
Commission in 1965 indicate that several times as many crimes occur as are
reported.
Crime is concentrated among the poor. Both its perpetrators and its victims
are more likely to be residents of the poverty areas of central cities than of
suburbs and rural areas. Many of those residents in the urban ghettoes are
Negroes. Negroes have much higher arrest rates than whites, but it is less widely
known that Negroes also have higher rates of victimization than whites of any
income group.
Young people commit a disproportionate share of crimes. Part of the recent
increase in crime rates can be attributed to the growing proportion of young
people in the population. At the same time, the propensity of youth to commit
crime appears to be increasing.
Fear of apprehension and punishment undoubtedly deters some crime. The
crime rate in a neighborhood drops with much more intensive policing. But
crime and disorder tend to center among young people in ghetto areas, where
the prospects for legitimate and socially useful activity are poorest. It seems
unlikely that harsher punishment, a strengthening of public prosecutors, or more
police can, by themselves, prevent either individual crime or civil disorder. The
objective opportunities for the poor, and their attitudes toward the police and
the law, must also change before the problems can be solved.
LEARNING, SCIENCE, AND ART
The state of the nation depends to a great degree on how much our
children learn, and on what our scientists and artists create. Learning, discovery,
and creativity are not only valued in themselves, but are also resources that are
important for the nation's future.
In view of the importance of education, it might be supposed that there
would be many assessments of what or how much American children learn. But
11-184
-------
this is not in fact the case. The standard sources of educational statistics give us
hundreds of pages on the resources used for schooling, but almost no informa-
tion at all on the extent to which these resources have achieved their purpose.
It is possible to get some insight into whether American children are
learning more than children of the same age did earlier from a variety of
achievement tests that are given throughout the country, mainly to judge
individual students and classes. These tests suggest that there may have been a
significant improvement in test score performance of children since the 1950's.
When the chapter turns to the learning and education of the poor and the
disadvantaged, the results are less encouraging. Groups that suffer social and
economic deprivation systematically learn less than those who have more
comfortable backgrounds.
Even when they do as well on achievement tests, they are much less likely
to go on to college. Of those high school seniors who are in the top one-fifth in
terms of academic ability, 95 percent will ultimately go on to college if their
parents are in the top socioeconomic quartile, but only half of the equally able
students from the bottom socioeconomic quartile will attend college. Students
from the top socioeconomic quartile are five times as likely to go to graduate
school as comparably able students from the bottom socioeconomic quartile.
It is more difficult to assess the state of science and art than the learning of
American youth. But two factors nonetheless emerge rather clearly. One is that
American science is advancing at a most rapid rate, and appears to be doing very
well in relation to other countries. The Nation's "technological balance of
payments," for example, suggests that we have a considerable lead over other
countries in technological know-how.
The other point that emerges with reasonable clarity is that, however
vibrant the cultural life of the Nation may be, many of the live or performing
arts are in financial difficulty. Since there is essentially no increase in produc-
tivity in live performances (it will always take four musicians for a quartet), and
increasing productivity in the rest of the economy continually makes earnings in
the society rise, the relative cost of live performances tends to go up steadily.
This can be a significant public problem, at least in those cases where a large
number of live performances is needed to insure that promising artists get the
training and opportunity they need to realize their full potential.
PARTICIPATION AND ALIENATION: WHAT WE NEED TO LEARN
Americans are concerned, not only about progress along the dimensions
that have so far been described, but also about the special functions that our
political and social institutions perform. It matters whether goals have been
11-185
-------
achieved in a democratic or a totalitarian way, and whether the group relation-
ships in our society are harmonious and satisfying.
Unfortunately, the data on the performance of our political and social
institutions are uniquely scanty. The chapter on "Participation and Alienation"
cannot even hope to do much more than ask the right questions. But such
questioning is also of use, for it can remind us of the range of considerations we
should keep in mind when setting public policy, and encourage the collection of
the needed data in the future.
Perhaps the most obvious function that we expect our institutions to
perform is that of protecting our individual freedom. Individual liberty is not
only important in itself, but also necessary to the viability of a democratic
political system. Freedom can be abridged not only by government action, but
also by the social and economic ostracism and discrimination that results from
popular intolerance. There is accordingly a need to survey data that can discern
any major changes in the degree of tolerance and in the willingness to state
unpopular points of view, as well as information about the legal enforcement of
constitutional guarantees.
Though liberty gives us the scope we need to achieve our individual
purposes, it does not by itself satisfy the need for congenial social relationships
and a sense of belonging. The chapter presents evidence which suggests (but does
not prove) that at least many people not only enjoy, but also need, a clear sense
of belonging, a feeling of attachment to some social group.
There is evidence for this conjecture in the relationship between family
status, health, and death rates. In general, married people have lower age-
adjusted death rates, lower rates of usage of facilities for the mentally ill, lower
suicide rates, and probably also lower rates of alcoholism than those who have
been widowed, divorced, or remained single. It is, of course, possible that those
who are physically or mentally ill are less likely to find marriage partners, and
that this explains part of the correlation. But the pattern of results, and
especially the particularly high rates of those who are widowed, strongly suggest
that this could not be the whole story.
There are also fragments of evidence which suggest that those who do not
normally belong to voluntary organizations, cohesive neighborhoods, families, or
other social groupings probably tend to have somewhat higher levels of
"alienation" than other Americans.
Some surveys suggest that Negroes, and whites with high degrees of racial
prejudice, are more likely to be alienated than other Americans. This, in turn,
suggests that alienation has some importance for the cohesion of American
II-186
-------
society, and that the extent of group participation and the sense of community
are important aspects of the condition of the nation. If this is true, it follows
that we need much more information about these aspects of the life of our
society.
It is a basic precept of a democratic society that citizens should have equal
rights in the political and organizational life of the society. Thus there is also a
need for more and better information about the extent to which all Americans
enjoy equality before the law, equal franchise, and fair access to public services
and utilities. The growth of large scale, bureaucratic organizations, the
difficulties many Americans (especially those with the least education and
confidence) have in dealing with such organizations, and the resulting demands
for democratic participation make the need for better information on this
problem particularly urgent.
Though almost all Americans want progress along each of the dimensions of
well being discussed in this report, the nation cannot make rapid progress along
all of them at once. That would take more resources than we have. The nation
must decide which objectives should have the higher priorities, and choose the
most efficient programs for attaining these objectives. Social reporting cannot
make the hard choices the nation must make any easier, but ultimately it can
help to insure that they are not made in ignorance of the nation's needs.
11-187
-------
-------
V QOL: PSYCHOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES
II-189
-------
-------
QUALITY OF LIFE
Norman C. Dalkey*
Norman C. Dalkey is with the RAND Corporation
at Santa Monica, California.
Unpublished paper by Norman C. Dalkey, March 1968
*Any views expressed in this paper are those of the author. They do
not purport to reflect the views of the RAND Corporation or the
official opinion or policy of any of its governmental or private
research sponsors. Papers are reproduced by the RAND Corporation
as a courtesy to members of its staff.
11-191
-------
QUALITY OF LIFE
N. C. Dalkey
INTRODUCTION
The phrase "quality of life" has almost supplanted the older words "happi-
ness" and "welfare" in contemporary discussions of policy in the urban and
domestic areas.* The phrase does have a fine ring to it and is somewhat less
maudlin than "happiness" and somewhat less shopworn than "welfare."
However, there is some question whether the brave new phrase is any less vague.
The expression is most often encountered as a slogan-a call to think bigger.
There is nothing particularly objectionable in the sloganistic use; except that the
term is rarely defined and one suspects that it contributes its bit of soot to the
verbal smog-most of the users are careful not to pause for definition, but hurry
on to more operational problems, like setting performance goals.
This is not the place to examine goal-oriented decision making. And, I am
going to make a further simplification, which is to accept the restriction of social
programs as aimed at doing something for the individual. Whether that is a
reasonable attitude is, I believe, a wide open question, but I won't open it here.
(What is involved is the question whether there are group interests which trans-
cend the interests of the individual members of the group. It is my impression
that there are—beside the standard ones of national security—but discussion of
this issue would lead too far afield.)
There is a final simplification I would like to make before proceeding. The
notion of "quality" has two elements: it can refer to state or condition, or it can
refer to excellence. The difference is probably subtle, and mainly semantic; but
life becomes a little simpler if we start off with a descriptive, rather than a
prescriptive notion. This boils down to considering the aim to be the characteri-
zation of the factors which are relevant and important to the well-being of
individuals, and not to prescribing what is socially good. (In my own framework,
these two are not really distinct; but other frameworks exist, and I don't want to
get tangled up in them at this stage.)
"These goals cannot be measured by the size of our bank balances. They can only be
measured in the quality of the lives that our people lead." (Remarks of the President
(Johnson), Madison Square Garden, October 31, 1964.) "But no one has compared the
two modes of transport (SST, public urban transit) in terms which might reflect how
they improve the quality of life." (System Science, Congress and the Quality of Life,
feature article by Murray E. Kanross, IDA for WORC Newsletter, Sept. 1967.)
H-192
-------
As you will observe I tend to be rather bullish about the feasibility of
getting somewhere in the attempt to make the notion of QOL* useful to
planners (as more than a, handy slogan). My reasons are pretty diffuse. There is a
small but growing body of information in psychology that is relevant; there have
been several studies by social scientists that are applicable; and there is a fair
amount of agreement between armchair thinkers on the factors which are signi-
ficant. This is not a sufficient basis for optimism-but it is a little better than an
excuse.
I remarked earlier that few users of the phrase QOL bother to define it;
however, some have attempted to give content to the notion, and it is worth
examining these characterizations.
These attempts have taken two** forms, (a) armchair "analyses," and
(b) public surveys.
The armchair approach generally consists of devising a list of general factors
which are important to the quality of life of an individual. Representative
samples are to be found in Bauer (2), Berelson (1), Lynd (3), SRI (4). A kind of
super-armchair procedure is that of the prestigious commission, most notably
the President's Commission on National Goals and Values (5). Again, the output
is a list of items deemed (in this case) most important for the well-being of
nation, and hence, derivatively, for the individual. The report of the President's
Commission has become a sort of bible in the national area (6) (7). One
investigator, Wilson (8), has used the list of goals as a structure to rank the
50 states in the order of the quality of life they offer their residents.
The public survey approach is well represented by two investigations,
reported in (9) and (10). These are analyses of the results of extensive interviews
with cross-sectional samples of the American public. Despite the somewhat
Reader's Digest air lent these studies by their unabashed use of words like
"happiness," "feelings," etc., they have the virtue that they at least ask the
relevant questions, rather than imposing a priori assumptions.
Following a brief discussion of the armchair and public survey efforts, a
research strategy is suggested that appears to go well beyond these two with
respect to coherence and comprehensiveness.
This abbreviation of Quality of Life will be used intermittently below.
I am excluding the host of ethical, aesthetic, and religious essays in this area, as well as
the mass of clinical material in the psychoanalytic and mental hygiene areas; the first
three because of lack of empirical claims, and the last two because of extreme mis-
cellaneity.
11-193
-------
ARMCHAIR EFFORTS
As noted above, the armchair approach consists in devising a list of general
factors which are presumed to be significant in determining the well-being of
humans. The lists referred to are, of course, not capricious. They are distilled
from clinical lore, sociological think pieces, some psychological and social
psychological experimentation, and the like. There is a great deal of overlap
among the lists-in general the shorter lists tend to be contained bodily in the
longer ones. The shortest list I have run across is that of SRI, which involves
three basic factors:
Safety
Belongingness
Self-esteem
A fourth item is appended, self-realization, but this is treated on a different level
than the basic three.
The oldest list of this genre I have run across is dated 1923 (Thomas,
quoted in Berelson, p. 257) and is next to the shortest. Thomas adds "new
experience." I cooked up a list semi-independently of the ones mentioned, and I
suppose it is only fair that I use it as an example. The list contains nine items:
Health, Activity, Freedom, Security, Novelty, Status, Sociality, Affluence,
Aggression.
Strictly physiological items such as food, sleep, shelter, etc., have been
omitted primarily on the grounds that, in the U.S., at least, these are pretty well
taken care of at better than subsistence levels.
A number of dubieties arise at once concerning any attempt to set down a
list of the significant factors in the quality of life. The lists are intended to be
comprehensive, but the varying lengths of those in the literature indicate that
there is no trustworthy stop rule for the multiplication of items. Again, the
items are presumably distinct, but there is no good way of telling whether they
overlap, or in fact refer to the same thing. Finally, the items are extremely
difficult to relate on the one hand, to human behavior, and, on the other, to
policy.
In an attempt to introduce a somewhat more systematic treatment (but still
within the armchair tradition) I conducted a preliminary Delphi (14) exercise,
using twelve RAND staff as a panel. They were asked to judge three things
concerning the nine factors listed above: whether the items were a) meaningful,
11-194
-------
b) measurable, and the relative weight of the factors for the quality of life of the
average American.* They were also asked to add any new factors which they
thought were significant.
There was good agreement that the items were meaningful, and good agree-
ment that all were measurable except for Freedom, Novelty, and Aggression.
There was considerable diversity on the values of the relative weights, but
reasonable agreement on the ranking. In terms of proportionate parts of 100, the
median relative weights were those in Table 1.
Table 1 Median Relative Weights of 12 Respondents for Nine Factors in Quality of Life
Factor Median Weight
1. Health 20
2. Status 14
3. Affluence 14
4. Activity 12.25
5. Sociality 9.8
6. Freedom 8. 2
7. Security 8. 2
8. Novelty 7. 2
9. Aggression 6. 1
As can be seen, the items break up into three main groups, (1) Health,
(2) Status, Affluence, Activity, (3) Freedom, Security, Novelty, with Sociality
midway between (2) and (3) and Aggression rather by itself at the bottom.
How much this table reflects the RAND environment, I don't know. I had
intended to pursue the exercise for at least another round, feeding back the
results of the first round to the panel for further consideration; but I gave up for
* The questionnaire used for this exercise is included as an appendix.
11-195
-------
two reasons: 1) no procedure suggested itself for dealing with the overlap
problem. The clustering of 2,3,4, and 5,6,7 indicated they might be describing
one single factor each. 2) No procedure suggested itself for dealing with the
completeness problem.
The only two items suggested for addition by more than one member of
the panel were sexual activity, and care of children (including education).
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
Without a good deal more empirical study than now exists, the armchair
lists are probably only suggestive. However, they are in agreement on one general
proposition: Whatever QOL is, it is determined mainly by some very general
features of the individual and his environment, and not by specifics. What this
means is that two different individuals who score about the same in a "factor
space" should, for example, report about the same degree of contentment with
their lot, irrespective of the special circumstances that make up the score. This is
a very strong statement. Providing the factors are measurable, it is testable, and
one of the problems to be tackled is how we can go about testing it.
A great deal of the issue is whether we are looking for a "single thing" that
can be called QOL, or whether we presume it is a congeries of incomparable
elements. There are several levels possible here: If we consider the factors to
be—as Lynd (3) does—motivations, or forces, we can ask whether there are trade
offs among them. If so, there is a reasonable sense in which "equi-motivating"
curves can be drawn and a general "desirability" index defined. A somewhat
different notion is involved in use of terms such as "happiness" to describe an
overall "feeling-tone" to which the various status variables "contribute." A third
point of view is that of the mental hygienist which apparently would include
some notion of the effectiveness of the individual, as well as his "feeling-tone."
In the present discussion I vacillate between the three. My prejudices lead
me to favor the mental health approach, but the difficulties of implementing this
approach for purposes of systems analysis in domestic problems nudge me
toward the simpler structures.
In addition to the very general postulate that QOL is determined by some
highly abstract properties of the living space of the individual, there are two
other propositions for which there seems to be a fair amount of evidence: The
first is that the influence of factors on QOL are a rapidly decreasing function of
distance away, either in space or time. The statement with respect to time is very
similar to the notion of discount rate in economics. The opportunity of
obtaining a dollar one year from now is much less motivating than the
opportunity to obtain a dollar this afternoon. With regard to space, there has
been a fairly rich experimental program with animals, and especially with rats,
11-196
-------
demonstrating the properties of what the psychologist Clark L. Hull called the
goal gradient. If any of several indicators of motivation are employed (velocity
with which the rat runs toward a goal, the physical tug the rat exerts against a
restraint, which can be measured by a harness and a spring balance, etc.,) the
genera] relationship of this measure and distance from the goal is that of an
exponential decrease (see Figure 1).
TUG
Figure 1
DISTANCE TO GOAL
One of the most beautiful sets of experiments in all psychology
demonstrates the interaction of positive and negative goal gradients (11). In a
given maze, the positive goal gradient, e.g., for food, can be measured. Suppose
for the same maze, a negative goal gradient is measured, e.g., for an electric
shock. The curve will again look like Figure 1, except, of course, the effect is a
push away from the "goal" rather than a tug. Now, suppose the rat is faced with
the situation where there is food and an electric shock at the goal position. It
appears to be the case that the decline of the negative "force" is more rapid than
the decline of the positive force, hence the two curves will cross, as in Figure 2.
TUG
OR
PUSH
Figure 2
DISTANCE TO GOAL
The remarkable thing is that although the two curves were measured
independently, when the goal is mixed, the rat will approach the goal until he
reaches the crossover point, and then stop. If he is placed closer to the goal than
the crossover point, he will retreat to the crossover and again stop. If he is placed
precisely at the crossover, he will remain there. In short, the reality of the
equality of the push and the tug is elegantly borne out.
II-197
-------
Probably, even for rats, but certainly for humans, the goal gradient would
need modification in terms of psychological distance, as well as physical
distance; although it is striking that sheer physical distance appears to be
sufficient for many psychological and sociological phenomena. In particular,
Zipf (12) has found some surprising relationships between distance and social
interactions.
The other general proposition is that human beings probably live much
more "in the future" than lower animals. Hope, anticipation, ambition, aspira-
tion level, anxiety, etc. are clearly important elements of QOL. But it seems
reasonable to assume that events of the distant future are much less influential
than near events. It also seems reasonable that the "discount rate" depends on
the kind of event and the amount of uncertainty surrounding it. I don't know of
any experiments in which the time-wise goal gradient for animals has been
systematically investigated, but it looks like a tractable subject.
SURVEY
A somewhat more empirical approach is furnished by the cross-sectional
survey. The two studies "Americans View Their Mental Health" (1960) (9) and
"Reports on Happiness" (1966) (10) are among the more complete and recent
such surveys. The procedure is reasonable, if a little uninspired. Lengthy inter-
views (of the order of two hours involving over a hundred questions) were held
with cross-sectional samples of the population. Questions ranged from the sub-
jective and global (Taking all things together, how would you say things are
these days—would you say you're very happy, pretty happy, or not too happy
these days?) to the objective and specific (About what do you think your total
income will be this year for yourself and your immediate family?...list of income
brackets.)
Such surveys are subject to a host of well-known objections. These were
recognized by the investigators, but, of course, are hard to deal with. It is
difficult to check the reliability of verbal reports; they are hard to relate to
behavior; subjective evaluations are subject to bias and cultural distortion, etc. In
addition, the survey approach has very little in the way of conceptual framework
to suggest hypotheses and structure.
Nevertheless the survey results are not empty. For one thing, they over-
turned several well-entrenched bits of popular sociology. A good example is the
myth of the carefree bachelor. Standard lore has it that the single man enjoys his
freedom, while the single woman is anxiously awaiting the loss of hers. Some-
thing like the opposite appears to be the case. The unmarried male is much more
likely to rate himself as "not very happy" than the unmarried female.
11-198
-------
An interesting result from the "Reports on Happiness" study is that a
succession of events, some with positive and some with negative feeling tones do
not smear into an intermediate shade of emotional grey, but make distinct
contributions to a self-evaluation. Persons reporting being very or pretty happy
are likely to report a greater number of both unpleasant and pleasant events in
the recent past than those reporting being not very happy.
For those interested in urban affairs, the surveys raise somewhat of a
puzzle. In comparing self-evaluations of urban and rural dwellers, no measurable
difference could be found when respondents were matched for other obvious
variables-age, sex, education, income, married or not. Admittedly, the measur-
ing stick is crude, but at least the other variable mentioned did make a distinct
difference.
A RESEARCH PROPOSAL
In this section a research proposal will be outlined that represents an
attempt to be somewhat more systematic in studying the quality of life than
either the armchair or survey approaches. The pros and cons will be left to a
later section.
The basic idea is quite straightforward, namely, to prepare a comprehensive
set of scales relevant to the quality of life; let a large, representative sample of
Americans rate themselves on these scales via confidential interview; and employ
factor analysis to summarize the interrelation between the ratings. With any luck
at all, many of the factors derived in the analysis would be interpretable and
could replace the armchair lists with something more solid. However, this
felicitous result is not vital to the usefulness of the study.
The scales would consist of three sorts: a) relatively objective measures
such as income, age, amount of communication with friends, etc., b) subjective
ratings such as job satisfaction, perceived social status, degree of excitement in
daily activities, etc., c) global subjective scales like happiness, amount of worry,
number of times thought of suicide, optimistic about future, etc.
Since one expectation would be that the results of such a study would be
relevant to policy in the urban and domestic areas, several blocks of scales
should be allocated to issues directly involved in these, e.g., amount of time
spent in parks and places of public recreation, satisfaction with neighborhood,
amount of income from welfare payments, and so on. In light of the large role
that aesthetic and "cultural" considerations play in the deliberations of many
urban planners it would seem reasonable to include a number of scales relevant
to this dimension.
H-199
-------
Obviously, one of the great difficulties with the study would be to include
the "dark" areas—aggression, antisocial behavior, bigotry, and the like. The
presumption that the quality of life is determined solely by "acceptable" items
is, of course, false; but probably on a first go round, the dark items would have
to be under-emphasized. On the other hand, there is no reason to leave them
out-the President's Commission on Crime (13) had no difficulty in pursuing the
question whether respondents had committed one or more serious crimes. 90%
had.
The most critical part of the study, and the one that would probably
consume a majority of the elapsed time is the construction and selection of the
set of primary scales. There is an essentially limitless potential set of such
indices. A large proportion of the items could probably be derived from the
extensive literature on sociometrics. The armchair lists can be used for some
guidance. However, an intensive preexamination by a panel of social
psychologists would undoubtedly be required. In addition, several pilot runs to
test the reliability and where feasible, the "validity" of the items would be
needed.
An extremely useful substudy would be to combine the quality of life
questionnaire with a personality inventory and an intelligence test. The problem
here would be to find a meaningful small group of respondents-it obviously
would be of limited value to use only college graduate students.
The less difficult part would be conducting the survey and initial analysis of
the data. The interviewing would doubtless be done most efficiently by one of
the established survey groups, and computer routines exist to carry out the very
large amount of computation required for the factor analysis. Summative
analysis and drawing conclusions would certainly not be routine.
PROS AND CONS
There are a number of negative considerations with regard to the research
proposal sketched above. All of the difficulties with using "verbal behavior"
previously noted in connection with public surveys still apply. It is likely that
some increase in reliability will accrue from the statistical aggregation in the
factor analysis, but this is not a large effect compared with the questionable
aspects of relying on verbal reports. In addition, it is easy to oversell the signi-
ficance of factor analysis. The technique itself has some formal drawbacks—
principally that it is not independent of irrelevant indices—and the question
whether the derived factors are "real" or simply statistical artifacts is generally
an open one. In the case of the quality of life analysis there is a form of internal
criterion of meaningfulness, in that it is possible to include a number of "global"
scales, and the degree to which the derived factors can be used to estimate the
global indices can be assessed. However, this internal criterion is of limited
II-200
-------
weight with respect to the question whether the derived factors are related to
behavior or to the effects of varying the environment of an individual. There is,
in fact, a nondismissable question whether all the analysis is doing for you is
shortening your dictionary.
Not to be overlooked is the fact that a study of this scope would be
expensive.
Despite these reservations, there are several reasons for urging that the
study be undertaken. Above all, the factor analytic approach—whatever the
ultimate significance of the derived factor structure—furnishes a systematic
framework for tying together a vast amount of information about the perceived
well-being of present day Americans. It should be a fertile source of hypotheses
concerning the interrelation of various influences on the quality of life. It clearly
is several steps beyond the armchair approach in both empirical content and in
rationale for assessing the importance of various factors. (In this respect,
"shortening the dictionary" has by itself a nontrivial payoff.)
The discipline imposed by the analysis on the basic scales should result in a
much sharper set of measures. And, of course, one would expect to cut through
at least parts of the great mass of common misunderstandings concerning the
interrelations of these measures. There is a reasonable expectation that for many
of the derived factors, there would be a high enough correlation with objective
measures so that relating public programs to the quality of life could be
accomplished via these indices.
II-201
-------
A HIERARCHY OF NEEDS AND VALUES
Graham T. T. Molitor
Mr. Molitor is Director of Government Relations
at General Mills, Inc.
Extracted from "Evolution of Socio-Economic Organization—A
Structural Underpinning for Understanding Societal Value" by
Graham T. T. Molitor. Presented to: Ad Hoc Interagency Committee
on Futures Research, April 20, 1972.
11-202
-------
A HIERARCHY OF NEEDS AND VALUES
Graham T. T. Molitor
One recent prediction states that "within less than a generation in the
United States two percent of the population may be able to produce all the food
and manufactured goods." The statement, perhaps extreme, dramatically makes
the point that the traditional industries-agricultural and manufacturing-are
declining in terms of the commitment of human resources, while output
continues to increase at incredible rates.
Agrarian pursuits at an early stage in national development involved
perhaps 90% of the labor force. Underdeveloped nations nearly 100% of the
populace may be so committed, even today. As recently as the turn of the
century some 35% of America's workers were involved in agriculture. Today
only 4.4% of the labor force is involved and-realistically-that figure might
decline to 2% by the year 2000. Agriculture has passed from an atomistic, labor
intensive activity to a large-scale, capital intensive kind of operation.
Agriculture's biggest problem is no longer scarcity, but rather abundance.
So prodigious is the output that a welter of laws actually restrain output, restrict
acreage, discourage planting, and ban importation of competing foreign
products. Despite all this, America not only has enough food to go around, but
is capable of feeding a sizable portion of the world, as well.
Manufactured goods production seems headed the same way.
The industrial stage in economic evolution dominated until the 1950's
when the post-industrial or service economy emerged. In about 1956 America
became the first nation in all the history of the industrialized world where the
number of manual or blue collar workers was exceeded by so-called white
collared occupations. Around 1956, the service-producing industries (trade,
finance, services, real estate, public utilities, transportation, and government)
took the lead over jobs in the goods-producing industries.
The service economy has been born. Presently some 24% of the labor force
are blue collar workers. The number may decline downward to some 11% before
the end of this century.
The steady eclipse of traditional industrial pursuits—agriculture and
manufacturing—brings on many significant changes that will profoundly alter the
business structure, and our values systems.
Incentives to discourage people from working may be devised.
11-203
-------
Work may become a privilege and a coveted status symbol, not a
necessity.
Life without work from cradle to grave may be possible.
Use of leisure time may become our main preoccupation.
An economy of abundance, not one of scarcity may prevail.
Undreamed of equality, of economic sharing may become possible.
One prominent writer (Peter Drucker) has predicted the emerging post-
industrial state will be dominated by knowledge/information industries. If
matters of the mind and intellectual genius become tomorrow's dominant
resource, it means that individuals will enjoy a new permanence and importance.
A new era of humanism may be in prospect.
Such changes may alter traditional concepts of property. In a knowledge-
based society the traditional wealth generating mechanisms of property and
physical resources are no longer the central or crucial assets—the new resources
will be the intellect, a very highly individualized kind of inner resource.
In turn, this could bring about the "reprivatization" of industry. Economic
activity will no longer be dependent upon huge aggregations of property and
wealth. Instead, new economic pursuits will be based upon the individual
intellect. New opportunities for small, individual entrepreneurships—cottage
industries—may flourish. In this process, not only may the composition of the
work force change, but the very structure of organized economic activity may be
radically reformed.
Ramifications of the knowledge industries becoming the dominant
economic activity of the future are broad scale.
Tomorrow's critical shortage will be knowledge. Electrical data processing
makes possible a global sharing and centralization of man's collective wisdom-
such a "global data bank" will bring new intellectual horizons within grasp. In
the ensuing competition for men's minds world-wide brain drains might come
about.
Assuming education will remain primarily a government-operated service
activity, the main enterprise of tomorrow takes on a statist or socialized cast.
Such a turn of events may bring the economies-and interests-of the recognized
socialist and even the communist countries ever closer together to the capitalist
ones.
11-204
-------
THE CHANGING CHARACTER OF SOCIOECONOMIC ACTIVITY
Whatever the exact outcome, some broad outlines of the changing character
of socioeconomic activity are becoming apparent. Already well underway are the
following basic shifts:
From primary and secondary industries (agriculture/manufacturing) to
tertiary and quaternary industries (service/knowledge activities)
From Maslowian values posted on survival to security, then belonging-
ness and esteem, and ultimately to self-actualization
From goods to services
From goods/services produced by muscle power to those produced by
machines and cybernetics
From unassisted brainpower to knowledge assisted and amplified by
EDP
From materialistic to the sensate
From "things" to experiences
From basic necessities then to amenities and eventually to a higher
order of sensate needs
From physiological to psychological needs
From scientific emphasis based on physical, "hard" sciences to one
based on social, "soft" sciences
From "have not" (poverty) to "have" (shared abundance; egalitar-
ianism)
From quantity to quality
From a few innovative technological introductions to vast and varied
new inventions
From scarcity to abundance and eventually to super abundance
From a few stark choices to a bewildering array of choices
II-205
-------
From durability to disposables and planned obsolescence and back to
recyclables, reclaimables
From ownership to rentalism
From self-interest motivation to broader social and humanitarian out-
look
From independence and self-sufficiency to interdependence
From generalists to specialists
From individual freedom to voluntary restraints to mandatory
restraints
From profit-mindedness to balanced consideration of social responsi-
bilities and the public interest
From Puritan hard-work ethic to leisure as a matter of right
From Darwinian self-survival to humanistic security
From atomistic to large-scale pluralistic institutions
From national to multi-national and "one-world" scale operations
From decentralization to centralization and eventual globalization
From the simple to the complex
From the obvious to subtle, non-discernible (X-rays, radiation)
From irrational chaos to logical planning
EPOCHAL CHANGE
Americans are experiencing an epochal transmutation of the society they
live in. Many don't even know it, although intuitively they may be aware of it.
In the following comments I will begin to describe some of the powerful struc-
tural forces giving rise to the epochal transition period America is going through.
A post-industrial values revolution is at the bottom of the baffling
succession of anti-thesis that are crowding in upon us all-anti-
establishmentarianism, anti-materialism, rejection of the Puritan ethic of hard
H-206
-------
work, radicalization, counter-culture. The most important change is the massive
search for QUALITY.
The sharp shift in values which is revolutionizing consumer behavior has
been brought on-basically-by unprecedented affluence and abundance. An
enormous middle and upper class, the largest ever known in the history of
mankind (including some 90% of all Americans) are in the process of defining
new goals with which are associated higher values. The new framework of human
values involves satisfying ever-higher human needs.
Through an understanding of this constant human upgrading process-a
constant striving to continually improve the social lot of mankind-we can
appreciate the forces of consumerism which seem to be demanding more and
more rational information useful to upgrading the quality of life; the demand for
zero defects in product safety, and zero discharge in water pollution.
Values, then, are at the bottom of this understanding. They define ideas
which unleash aspirations that eventually become the goals toward which
society, as a whole, inevitably strives.
THE FIVE MASLOWIAN LEVELS
Maslow describes the five different stages or phases through which society
evolves in his "needs hierarchy":
Level 1-Survival. Here the dominant driving force is simply the struggle to
sustain life, to secure food, drink, sleep, warmth. This state involves scarcity and
extreme poverty. Primitive man, social outcasts, and severe defectives fall into
this category as do prisoners in POW camps—to these persons survival is all
important. Little else counts.
Level 2—Security. Persons living within this socioeconomic environment are
motivated by a desire for protection—from beasts, from people, from natural or
economic catastrophies. Individuals are afraid of chaos and seek the familiar,
security in numbers—the outlook is basically status quo. Minorities, the poor,
marginal farmers, and small businessmen fall within this category.
Level 3—Belongingness. People at this level of social activity strive to be a part of
something bigger, conform to group norms ("organization men"), depend upon
the opinion of others. The mass middle class falls into this category.
Level 4—Esteem. People in this category are goaded by achievement that is
"visible," ostentatious; they want to stand out and have others think well of
them; materialism, and "keeping up with the Joneses" pervades this social strata.
Within this category are business executives, politicians, and nouveaux riches.
11-207
-------
Level 5-Growth or Self-Actualization. Living up to one's full potential is the
primary concern at this level of development. Individuals within this social strata
are tempered by idealism, motivated by ends not means, willing to follow—or to
lead. They have an abiding conviction that the world can be better, their outlook
is dominated by social awareness, and with a future-oriented and global
perspective.
SELF-ACTUALIZERS-THE VANGUARD OF CHANGE
It is this process of inward turning—self-actualization or realization (level
5)-that is central to understanding the quest for quality and the elusive goal of
perfection that grips us. All previous levels are motivated by quantitative needs;
however, self-actualizers become all-concerned with quality.
In a post-industrial society persons falling into level 5 are increasing. As
they increase in numbers their role as opinion leaders and trend setters becomes
increasingly important. Although the real power over the socioeconomic system
is wielded by those within the esteem group (level 4), the thinking of those in
the esteem group is significantly shaped by opinion leaders in the self-
actualization category.
Self-actualizers are the advocates of change. We need to carefully listen to
them. More often than not, they are the cutting edge of change. Maslow stops at
self-actualization. It always bothered me that he never went any further. Other
psychologists describe where we go from here. One now obscure commentator
may become world famous for his work-Clare Graves (Union College, New
York) whose values system goes far beyond Maslow.
II-208
-------
THE DELPHI PROCEDURE AND RATING
QUALITY OF LIFE FACTORS*
Norman C. Dalkey and Daniel L. Rourke
*This article is an extraction from the larger report, " Experimental
Assessment of Delphi: Procedures With Group Value Judgments" by
Norman C. Dalkey and Daniel L. Rourke: Rand, 1971, pp 8-24.
11-209
-------
THE DELPHI PROCEDURE AND RATING
QUALITY OF LIFE FACTORS
Norman C. Dalkey and Daniel L. Rourke
This document describes the method used in an experiment assessing the
appropriateness of Delphi procedures for group value judgments.
In this study one group of subjects used the Delphi procedure to rate the
relative importance of each of a set of factors in terms of the factor's contribu-
tion to a person's assessment of the Quality of Life. (In our instructions to the
subjects we defined the term "Quality of Life" (QOL) to mean a person's sense
of well-being, his satisfaction or dissatisfaction with life, or his happiness or
unhappiness.) A second group used the Delphi method to scale a set of changes
in characteristics of students occurring as a result of their participation in the
process of higher education. This scale measured the Effects of Education (EE)
in terms of the importance of the changes for the student. These topics were
selected because our subject population (UCLA upper-division and graduate
students) could be expected to have informed opinions concerning each of them.
The two groups received nearly the same instructions for the different topics and
were for the most part treated identically.
The experiment required three sessions, the first two of which were
devoted to the generation of the items to be scaled by the Delphi method in the
third session. In the first session, each subject made up a list of from S to 10
items important either for the assessment of the Quality of Life or for the
evaluation of the Effects of Education on students.
The items from the QOL group (about 250 in all) were sorted into
48 categories of similar items, while the 300 items from the EE group were
sorted into 45 categories. In the second session of the experiment the subjects
who had made up the lists of items in response to the QOL questionnaire rated
the similarity of all possible pairs of categories formed from the original QOL
items. The EE group rated the similarity of all pairs of the EE categories. The
similarity ratings were used to cluster the categories of the original items into
super-categories. Thirteen super-categories or factors were formed from the QOL
categories and fifteen from the EE categories. The relative importance of each
factor was assessed during the third session of the study. The QOL group rated
the importance of the QOL factors and the EE group rated the EE factors. A
two-round Delphi procedure was employed where both groups revised their
importance ratings during the second round in view of the median ratings for
each factor obtained from the group's first-round ratings. As a check on the
reliability of the ratings, the QOL and EE groups were each split into two
subgroups and each subgroup used a different procedure to scale the factors.
11-210
-------
SUBJECTS
The subjects were 90 UCLA upper-division and graduate students. They
were recruited by advertisements in the school paper and were paid for their
participation. No attempt was made to select subjects according to sex or field
of interest.
ITEM GENERATION
During the first session, which was conducted at UCLA, subjects were
instructed to list from 5 to 10 items pertaining either to the Quality of Life or
the "Effects of Education." The subjects were randomly assigned to a particular
topic so that 45 subjects responded to each.
Subjects in the two groups were treated identically. The subjects were given
printed instructions and a deck of 10 blank cards. The instructions briefly
introduced the subject to the purpose of the experiment and then requested him
to list from 5 to 10 items (one item per card) pertaining either to the QOL or
the EE topic.
In the QOL condition, subjects were asked to list the characteristics or
attributes of those events having the strongest influence on determining the QOL
of an adult American. The subjects were instructed to ignore events concerned
with basic biological maintenance, but not to overlook characteristics with
negative connotations, e.g., aggression. Subjects in the EE condition were asked
to view higher education as a process which causes (or fails to cause) changes in
characteristics of students. The subjects were requested to list those charac-
teristics which should be considered in evaluating the process of higher
education. Subjects were instructed to consider only undergraduate education
while forming their lists.
Subjects were also instructed to rank their items from most important to
least important. These ranks were used only as rough guides in the initial aggre-
gation of items by the experimental team. Questions concerning the experiment
were answered either by repeating or paraphrasing the instructions. No subject
required more than half an hour to complete the first session. They were then
given appointments for the second and third sessions which were conducted at
The Rand Corporation in Santa Monica at intervals of one week.
Prior to the second session of the experiment, the items generated by the
subjects in the first session were sorted into categories of similar items. Two sets
of categories were formed: one for the QOL items and another for the EE items.
The sorting was done by a panel of three; each member assisted in the design and
execution of the experiment. Two criteria were used during the sorting of the
items: (1) The perceived differences of any pair of items within a category were
11-211
-------
to be smaller than differences between any pair of items drawn from two differ-
ent categories; and (2) No more than 50 categories were to be formed.
Composite labels were developed for each category either by quoting or para-
phrasing (or both) a few of the most frequently occurring items in each of the
categories. The 48 QOL category composite labels are given in Table 1 and the
44 EE composite labels are shown in Table 2.
During the second session, each subject was presented with a list of all
possible pairs of either the QOL or EE category labels. The task for all subjects
was to rate the similarity of the labels in each pair. Every subject was given
printed instructions, a list of the category labels, and a computer-generated list
of pairs of labels. Each subject received a different random ordering of label
pairs. The instructions informed the subjects that the items they had developed
during the first session had been categorized to form the list of category labels.
This list had in turn been used to form the computer printed list of label pairs.
The subjects were instructed to rate the similarity of the labels in each pair on a
0-4 scale where the numerical ratings were tied to the following adjective scale:
4 Practically the same
3 Closely related
2 Moderately related
1 Slightly related
0 Unrelated
If a subject felt that the labels were connected, but in an inverse fashion, he was
to use negative ratings, e.g., -4 being equivalent to "practically opposites." The
following two examples were given: Drowsy - Physically Tired, illustratively
scored at 2, and Drowsy - Alert, scored at -3. Both groups received the same
instructions. The QOL group rated 1128 item pairs and the EE group rated 990.
The experiment was conducted in two 1-1/4-hour periods with a 1/2-hour break
between periods.
The means of the absolute values of the similarity ratings for each label pair
were computed over subjects for both groups. These mean absolute ratings were
then analyzed by Johnson's hierarchical clustering procedure (8). In this
procedure objects are clustered according to the similarities between them. The
objects within a cluster are more similar to one another than to objects
belonging to a different cluster. In addition, the procedure merges similar
clusters into larger clusters in a stepwise fashion until all the objects are placed
into a single cluster. Consequently, the user of this procedure must select the
number of clusters which seems compatible with both the data and any theoreti-
cal or empirical predictions about the results of the procedure. The problem is
not unlike selecting the number of factors to retain in a factor analysis. The use
of the absolute values of the ratings "folds" the label pairs given the negative
11-212
-------
£
"3
&
&
•s
M
_O
."S
I
a
2
rt
*
Table 1
c_
a
V
t
z
[i.
0:
<
£
<
fa
J
p
SELF-KNOWLEDGE, !
in'
EGOISM
SELF-CONFIDENCE,
a
2. AGGRESSION, VIOLENCE, HOSTILITY
SECURITY
r-
ATTON
CHALLENGE, STIMUL
ro
C
o
o
a
t-
>•
H
H
IUMOR, AMUSING, Wl
j-
L)
0
c
L
5
T
'
.
U
CC
Cf.
5
z
c
H
<
X
<
E
ff.
'J
&
D
H
"
1
X
W
Q.
s
y:
U
g
W
§
[i
a
[i
t
;
[i.
V
>•
h
CC
<
"
i
<
u,
>•
b
a
<
e
C
5
«?
s
w
z
DEPENDENCE, IMPOTENCE, HELPLESS
1
L
LEMEN1
UMILIATION, BELITT
I
i
6
L
U
f-
2
<
£
C
Z
cc
u,
o
o
z
LING NEEDED FEELI
CC
n
j
c
j
c
3
3
C
2
u
S
H
<
W
fc
U
D
W
K
D
<;
tL.
3NFORMITY
U
fa
t
i
b
-j
i
—
%
J
2
I,
a
;
'-,
c
fc
5
z
o
tIENDSHIP, COMPANI
i-
Cb
<
P
s
H
V3
^H
J
J
.ECTUA
5UCATIONAL, INTELt
W
Z
o
H
\J
<•
fe
2
H
<
k,
J
U
SELF-RESPECT. SELF- ACCEPT ANCE. S
11-213
-------
P
Z
u
p
Q
Q
W
CC
4, IRRELEVANCY, PRESCI
1
>
5. MOTIVATION, COMPET
h
S
SIONMEN1
D
J
g
6. IMPRACTICAL EDUCAT
Z
f
W
>
s
w
o
1
USEFULNESS
7. LOSS OF CREATIVITY.
h
Z
O
S
w
X
o
z
c
z
0-
X
w
8. GREATER CREATIVITY,
Z
P
£
cfi
S
CC
Z
l). LOSS OF IDEALISM, GE
H
H
H
<
, SEXUAL
C/3
£
p
>
t-
z
g
CC
cc
z
g
H
p
o
t*
O
O
z
K
CC
Z
U.
;/3
H
<
j''
t.
W
ji
U
<
E
w
u
5 SELF-HESPECT, SELF-
I
O
g
6. DEPENDENCY, PROLOT
i
=• ORGANIC
o
fe
en
z
•*
S
^
z
S;
tn
C
OH
.ATIONSH1
W
E-"
S
z
8. AWARENESS OF ENVIR<
W
>
3LITICAL
ct
a
z
s
ENVIRONMENT
(). LIBERALIZATION OF SC
OALS
O
e
H
W
J
0 PURPOSE IN LIFE, DEV
3
1 ELITISM, SOCIAL STAT
EMENT
>
O
z
u
2 INVOLVEMENT. POLIT]
S
&
o
J
J
fc.
3. CONCERN FOR SOCIETY
4. RELATING TO OTHERS
tu
*o
.§ s S
.ffl § £
S3 S w
•g « 2
^j Q; ^
S a z ^
Table 2. Ch
SELF-AWARENESS, INCREASED SELF-UN
MATURITY
ABILITY TO LEARN, LEARNING TO LEAR
CRITICAL ABILITY, QUESTIONING, DEVE
Z
U
CRITICAL ATTITUDE
HONESTY, PERSONAHNTECRITY
CURIOSITY, DESIRE TO LEARN MORE
SOCIAL AWARENESS, AWARENESS OF OT1
t.
*-
a IS
< * E w
> s o 5; « >
* s K 3 s y
S- £ fc <" Z K
M — ^ rji % y
SOCIAL CONTACTS, OPPORTUNITY TO M]
PEOPLE
TOLERANCE, DECREASE IN PREJUDICES
OPEN-MINDEDNESS
UNDERSTANDING OF OTHERS
CULTURAL AWARENESS
SOCIAL ISSUES, AWARENESS OF SOCIET A
SOCIAL SKILLS, ABILITY TO GET ALONG
BROADER OUTLOOK, NEW PERSPECTIVE
POLITICAL MATURITY, POLITICAL AWAI
COMMUNICATION SKILLS
KNOWLEDGE
DEHUMAN1ZATION. REPRESSIVE BUREAl
CAREER SKILLS, JOB COMPETENCE
Q
W
E
0
o
H
'&
SPECIALIZATION, NARROWING OF INTER
^
REASONING ABILITIES, ABILITY TO THIN
11-214
-------
ratings into the same clusters. The clusters which were generated by this
procedure are shown in Figure 1 for the QOL groups and Figure 2 for the EE
group. Numbers across the top refer to the list of items in Tables 1 and 2
respectively. The lefthand column indicates the similarity level at which the item
is included in a cluster. The "histogram" of x's displays the progressive aggrega-
tion of items into clusters. For example, in Figure 1 at the highest level of
similarity (3.78) Failure (21) and Success (35) are associated—probably as
straightforward opposites. At almost the same level, Achievement (37) is joined
to the cluster. Nothing further is added to this cluster until level 1.9 when the
previously associated pair, Money (7) and Status (12) are added. This is the
"core" of characteristic 11 in Table 3. The thirteen QOL and fifteen EE clusters
which were selected are given in Tables 3 and 4.
IMPORTANCE RATING
The task for the subjects in the third session of the experiment was to rate
the clusters or factors in terms of their importance to the topic in question. The
subjects who had developed the QOL factors rated them as did the subjects who
generated the EE factors. The design of this session is shown schematically in
Table 5. As can be seen in Table 5, the QOL and EE groups were each split into
two subgroups, and each subgroup used a different scaling procedure. During the
third part of the session, the QOL ancl EE group both rated the relevance of each
of the EE factors in terms of its contribution to each of the QOL factors.
Otherwise, the groups were treated identically.
In order to familiarize the subjects with the factors they would be rating,
they were instructed to look over the factors and devise a convenient word or
phrase label for each. The subjects were then asked to rate their self-confidence
in working with each of the factors on a 1 to 5-point scale. The factors they felt
most confident about were to receive a 5 and those they felt least confident
about were to receive a 1. Next the subjects were requested to rate the relative
importance of each factor in terms of the contribution of that factor to the
general topic. Using the split-100 (S-100) procedure, QOL Group 1 and EE
Group 1 were instructed to distribute 100 points among the factors so that the
most important factors received the most points. Using the magnitude-
estimation (M-E) procedure QOL Group 2 was instructed to find the most
important factor and give it a rating of 100. Then this group was asked to rate
the other factors in terms of the most important one, so that a factor which they
felt was half as important as the most important was to receive a rating of 50.
The group using the rating scale (7-pt) procedure (EE Group 2) was asked to use
a 1- to 7-point scale to rate the factors; a rating of 1 was to apply to
"unimportant" factors, 4 to "moderately important" ones, and 7 to "extremely
important" factors.
11-215
-------
X
X
X
XXX
XXX
XXX
X X
X X
X X
X
X
X
XXXX
XXXX
XXXX
XXXX
XXXX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
xxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
X X X X X
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
X
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
xxxxxxxxx
XXXXXXXXX
X X
XXXXXXXXXX
xxxxxxxxxx
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X,X XXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XX XXXX
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXX
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
XXXX XXXXXXXXXX
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
X X X X X X
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
XXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
X X X X X X X
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
xxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxx
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
xxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxx
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
X X
11-216
-------
z
1-
CC
r-
£
55
0 %
w 5
UJ
O
00
•^
u.
O
lit
2
O 00
CO (O
rv 07
O CM
*T «t
CO «-
— to
o —
(N tO
— O»
^- o
co in
«- o
O t^
•- CO
ro »t
•- in
•- oo
(*> O
•W CM
(N •-
(N O
CM O»
CN CQ
CN in
ro oo
0 v
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
ggsgggg!ggSS8S8ggg3gggSgg8gg
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
X X X X X X
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxx
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
X X
xxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxx
XXXXXxXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXx^XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXxXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
X X XX
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
XXX
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
xxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxx
X X X X X
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
c
'•C
^*
a
n
•3
g
33
hJ
«
e
-------
Table 3 QOL Factors
1. Novelty, change, newness, variety, surprise; boredom; humorous,
amusing, witty.
2. Peace of mind, emotional stability, lack of conflict; fear, anxiety;
suffering, pain; humiliation, belittlement; escape, fantasy.
3. Social acceptance, popularity; needed, feeling of being wanted;
loneliness, impersonality; flattering, positive feedback,
reinforcement.
4. Comfort, economic well-being; relaxation, leisure; good health.
5. Dominance, superiority; dependence, impotence, helplessness;
aggression, violence, hostility; power, control, independence.
6. Challenge, stimulation; competition, competitiveness; ambition;
opportunity, social mobility, luck; educational, intellectually
stimulating.
7. Self-respect, self-acceptance, self-satisfaction; self-confidence,
egoism; security; stability, familiarity, sense of permanence;
self-knowledge, self-awareness, growth.
8. Privacy.
9. Involvement, participation; concern, altruism, consideration.
10. Love, caring, affection; communication, interpersonal understanding;
friendship, companionship; honesty, sincerity, truthfulness; tolerance,
acceptance of others; faith, religious awareness.
11. Achievement, accomplishment, job satisfaction; success; failure,
defeat, losing; money, acquisitiveness, material greed; status,
reputation, recognition, prestige.
12. Individuality; conformity; spontaneity, impulsive, uninhibited; freedom.
13. Sex, sexual satisfaction, sexual pleasure.
11-218
-------
Table 4 Educational Factors
1. Greater creativity, expanding the imagination; loss of creativity, loss
of creative thinking
2. Broader outlook, new perspectives, scope, new experiences, exposing
to new activities; knowledge; curiosity, desire to learn more.
3 Social awareness, awareness of others; awareness of environment,
relationship of individual with environment; cultural awareness; social
issues, awareness of societal problems.
4. Career skills, job competence; specialization, narrowing of interest
to own field; elitism, social status
5. Involvement, political involvement; isolation from real world, ivory-
tower syndrome; dehumamzation, repressive bureaucracy
6. Self-awareness, increased self-understanding; honesty, personal
integrity.
7. Loss of idealism, general dissatisfaction; political disillusionment.
8. Self-confidence, self-reliance, independence; self-respect, self-
acceptance, self-satisfaction; maturity; sexual maturity, more liberal
sexual attitude.
9. Tolerance, decrease in prejudices; open-mindedness; understanding
of others; narrowing of outlook, narrowing of values; liberalization of
social and political views.
10. Communication skill; relating to others; social contacts, opportunity
to meet a variety of people; social skills, ability to get along with
others.
11. Responsibility; concern for society, fellowman; political maturity,
political awareness.
12. Motivation, competitiveness, purpose in life, development of life
goals.
13. Dependency, prolonged youth.
14. Ability to learn, learning to learn; reasoning abilities, ability to
think, critical ability, questioning, development of a critical attitude;
synthesizing ability, a sense of organic relationship.
15. Impractical education, disillusionment with educational usefulness;
irrelevancy, prescribed education, educational trivia.
11-219
-------
Table 5 Structure of Student Judgements for Session Three
QOL Group
Subgroup 1
Split 100
N = 20
Subgroup 2
Magnitude
Estimation
N = 19
EE Group
Subgroup 3
Split 100
N - 19
Subgroup 4
7-pt rating
scale
N = 18
Part 1
Label factors
Rate self-
confidence
with each
factor on
a 1 — 5 pt
scale
Split 100
pts among
the factors
according
to impor-
tance of
each factor
Label factors
Rate self-
confidence
with each
factor on
a 1 — 5 pt
scale
Rate the
most impor-
tant factor
with 100 pts
and rate the
other factors
proportionately
Label factors
Rate self-
confidence
with each
factor on
a 1 — 5 pt
scale
Split 100
pts among
the factors
according to
importance
of each
factor
Label factors
Rate self-
confidence
with each
factor on
a 1 — 5 pt
scale
Rate the
importance
of each
factor on a
1 to 7 pt
scale
Part 2
Revise
ratings in
light of
group me-
dian and
quartiles
for each
factor
Revise
ratings in
light of
group me-
dian and
ranges
for each
factor
Revise
ratings in
light of
group me-
dian and
quartiles
for each
factor
Revise
ratings in
light of
group me-
dian and
quartiles
for each
factor
Part 3
Rate the
relevance
of each EE
factor to
each of the
QOL factors
on a 0 to 3
point scale
Rate the
relevance
of each EE
factor of
each of the
QOL factors
on a 0 to 3
point scale
Rate the
relevance
of each EE
factor to
each of the
QOL factors
on a 0 to 3
point scale
Rate the
relevance
of each EE
factor to
each of the
QOL factors
on a 0 to 3
point scale
11-220
-------
The subjects recorded their self-confidence ratings, factor labels, and
importance ratings on preprinted response sheets. They also kept a record of
their labels and importahce ratings which they referred to during the second and
third parts of the session.
During the second part of the session, the subjects again rated the
importance of the factors with the same method which they used during the first
part. This time, however, they were given information about the group's
previous ratings on each of the factors. The QOL split-100, EE split-100, and EE
7-point rating scale groups were provided with the median and the first and third
quartiles for each factor, while the QOL magnitude-estimation group was given
ranges and medians which were normalized so that the largest median was 100.
The instructions explained the meanings of the statistics and requested the
subjects to consider this information in revising their estimates of the relative
importance of each of the factors. The subjects were given 20 minutes to
complete this part of the experiment.
During the third part of the session, the QOL and EE groups rated the
"relevance" of each of the EE factors to each of the QOL factors. Each group
received response sheets containing spaces along the top for each of the factor
labels that they had developed during the first part of the session, and a list of
QOL factors or EE factors, respectively, down the left margin. The subjects were
briefly informed about the origin of the list of factors appearing on the left
margin of their worksheets. Next, the subjects were instructed to familiarize
themselves with these new lists of factors. Any questions concerning the list
were answered by the experimenter. Finally, the subjects were required to rate
the relevance of each of the EE factors to each of the QOL factors on a 0- to
3-point rating scale. Relevance was defined in the instructions as either
"contributing to" or "means the same thing as." The 0- to 3-point scale was tied
to the following adjectives:
3 Contributes strongly (or is pretty much the same)
2 Contributes moderately
1 Contributes slightly
0 Irrelevant
The subjects were allowed 30 minutes for the completion of this part of the
session.
II-221
-------
-------
VI QOL: ATTEMPTS AT COMPARATIVE STATISTICS
11-223
-------
-------
SYSTEMATIC MEASUREMENT OF THE QUALITY
OF URBAN LIFE,
PREREQUISITE TO MANAGEMENT
Robert E. Joyce
Director, Community Analysis Bureau
City of Los Angeles, California
11-225
-------
SYSTEMATIC MEASUREMENT OF THE QUALITY
OF URBAN LIFE,
PREREQUISITE TO MANAGEMENT
Robert E. Joyce
Director, Community Analysis Bureau
City of Los Angeles, California
Background
In June 1967, an ordinance was passed by the City Council of Los Angeles
which provided for the establishment of a Community Analysis Bureau, whose
continuing purpose is to prepare a comprehensive analysis of the entire city and
to develop a program in accordance with the provisions of an agreement* with
the Federal Government, designed to correct existing obsolescence and to
prevent further inroads of the physical, economic and social forces which
contribute to obsolescence.
In the course of discharging its responsibilities, CAB has performed
extensive analyses utilizing the existing data sources and files available to
describe and analyze the State of the City in a complete and comprehensive
manner. The five major works which have been completed and published to date
are relevant to the management processes of the city and represent the principal
formal paper products of the bureau. These are listed in the order of
publication:
The Catalog of Information Sources of the City (in 3 volumes)
The State of the City
A Strategy for City Survival
Programs for City Survival
Monitoring and Evaluation of City Survival Programs
The last four of these works are reports that will be prepared annually on a time
schedule to permit use of the data and recommendations in the city's budget
cycle.
Highlights of Accomplishments
The first of these works has identified, cataloged and obtained pertinent
information on the State of the City as viewed from data developed by operating
departments of city and certain county organizations, such as Police, Fire,
HUD Grant to City of Los Angeles under provisions of Title I of the Housing Act of
1949 amended.
11-226
-------
Streets, Planning, County Assessor, Building and Safety and the Los Angeles
Regional Transportation Study. The documents describe both the reports avail-
able and the data available in machine readable form. The project has con-
tributed in a major way to improved uniformity of data reduction processes
within the city and in assisting departments in defining their data processing
requirements. As a result, the city now has a continuously updated catalog and
information source containing an inventory and dictionary of all data main-
tained in the city. At this point in time, the Community Analysis Bureau is also
serving as a major factor in structuring data for various federal programs in
which the city is engaged. In this regard it has provided the basis of a central
data bank available to support the city's planning and decision needs, and while
the quality and comprehensiveness of the data needs continual improvement, the
results to date have been used in developing a comprehensive picture of the State
of the City.
In the second and third works listed, a systematic inventory of the city's
physical, social, and economic structure is portrayed, describing the State of the
City. This report, a first of a kind in the field of City Management, describes the
nature and extent of blight and obsolescence, the interrelationships and impact
of blight characteristics and the requirements to counteract the undesirable
conditions. In the work released by the CAB entitled "A Strategy for City
Survival" the outputs of a computer technique for evaluating urban blight and
its interrelationship in the city's 65 community areas are described. The data
files mentioned above were used in this task. Each community area is rated
utilizing the following 20 criteria:
Public Safety
Malicious false alarms per 100 population
Felonies per 100 population
Engine companies per 1000 acres
Police costs per acre
Structural fires per 100 structures
Education
Dropout rate
Percent minority enrollment
Percent voter participation
Classroom instruction costs per average daily attendance
Mean tenth grade reading achievement scores
Housing and Neighborhood
Percent renter occupancy
11-227
-------
High school transiency rate
Percent public housing
Median household rent
Percent sound housing
Income Production
Percent white collar employment
Percent families with two breadwinners
Percentage of discrimination of income
Unemployment rate
Median Household Income
Data for 18 of the 20 criteria were obtained from the automated data files.
Figure 1 illustrates how these measurement criteria may be organized in groups
to measure attitudinal, societal, political attributes of the community area. The
report displays the data by community area and is synthesized into a single
number ranking of each area in an Overall Blight Scale. The use of a computer
technique, SYMAP, is made to graphically describe the status of communities in
accordance with each rating category. Figure 2 is illustrative of one of these
maps, showing in this case the number of felonies per 100 population.
Manifestations
Attltudmal
Societal
Political
Economic
Physical
Measures of the Quality of Life in the Area
Public Sdfety
Malicious
False Alarms
per
1 00 pop
Felonies per
100 pop
Engine Companies
per
1000 Acres
Police Costs
per
Acre
Structural Fires
per
100 Structures
Education
Dropout Rate
% Minority
Enroll tnent
Percent Voter
Participation
Class Room
Instruction Costs
per
Avg . Daily Attendance
Mean 10th. Grade
Reading Achievement
Scores
Housing & Neighborhood
% Renter Occupied
High School
Transciency Rate
Percent Public
Housing
Median Household
Rent
Percent Sound
Housing
ircor-s Production
% White Collar
Employment
'/-. Famlies with
two Breadwinners
Percentage Effect
of Discrimination
on Income
Unemployment
Rate
Median Household
Income
Figure 1 State of the City-Measurement Categories
11-228
-------
NUWKR OF PART I F?LOUIES PER 100 POPULATION
:IT\
DF
LD5 RNEELEi
Figure 2 Illustrative Example of SYMAP Display
H-229
-------
In the text that follows, additional details and descriptions of CAB's for-
ward program will be made. However, before getting into the details of our
approach, a few words concerning the overall philosophy of and the need for a
continuous basis of support for our program are in order. Success in a program
as fundamental as CAB's is dependent on a continuous interest, both financial as
well as professional from the federal government. In a very real sense, CAB is
serving as the means for defining and communicating the problems and programs
of the city to its citizens and to the city's funding sources which are coming
more and more from outside of the city proper. Therefore, let us briefly
examine the broader setting in which the city must operate in defining and
resolving its problems.
The Problem of Interfacing with Federal Programs—The Needed Ingredient
At the national level, an earnest and continual interest in citizen well-being
exists and is manifested in the development of White House policies aimed at the
delivery of goods and services to the American people to enhance the quality of
life for all. These policies are translated into requirements coupled with budgets
which are placed with appropriate federal agencies responsible for various
"product lines" (HUD, HEW, etc.) Federal agencies develop major programs,
coordinate enabling legislation, prepare guidelines and coordinate program
implementation at the local levels, Figure 3. State, County and City govern-
ments, in miniature, follow a similar pattern in the programs they originate.
INTEGRATED
FEDERAL
POLICY
FRAGMENTED
MUNICIPAL
PROGRAMS
Figure 3 Policy Fragmentation
11-230
-------
Thus, the city is confronted with a spectrum of programs from all sources, by
city, county, state and the federal government.
These programs are intended to be a great resource pool to aid the city.
However, in reality, from the city's perspective, it is a fragmented mess! The
resultant degree of gaps, overlaps, and inconsistencies among the available
programs is an implementation and evaluation nightmare. Municipal Government
credibility continues to suffer as citizens who are the intended beneficiaries of
these programs openly scoff at their fumbling execution. The cost of overhead
alone for uncoordinated piecemeal approaches to curbing urban ills is astro-
nomical.
In the early stages of our work we came to the conclusion that a vital link
or capability was missing. This was a city prepared system specification which
would set forth, in all categories, what the city needed and would depict the
interrelationships of these needs, Figure 4. In CAB, we have set out to develop
an "Urban System" which would give Los Angeles the capability to:
Assess the threat facing it
Determine requirements in meeting the threat
Inventory and evaluate existing action programs underway
Develop conceptual designs for filling program gaps and deficiencies
Select promising concepts for program design
Design an action oriented program
Conduct action programs
Measure and monitor performance
Evaluate impact and suggest corrective action
Figure 5 describes the kind of capability we are in the process of developing
for the City of Los Angeles.
Criteria for System Design and Development
The CAB has been in the process of developing a community analysis
system which will accomplish these objectives as the principal means of dis-
charging our legal and contractual responsibilities. The following criteria have
guided our efforts.
1. The system must be a permanent, continually updated function of
city government, operable by city employees.
2. The system must functionally relate to human needs (not simply to
city departments.)
11-231
-------
Figure 4 Citizen Needs
URBAN SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT FLOW
ASSESSMENT
RBAN
BLIGHT TO
HE COMMU
DEFINITION
OF VVHAI
URBAN
ASPECTS
MUST BE
IMPROVED
ON GOING
STUDIES;
PROGRAMS
EVALUATION
OF DEGREE
EXISTING
ACTION
ARE MEETING
MENTS
DESIGNS
ACTION
PROGRAMS
ROMISING
;QNCEPTS
COMPILE
REQUIRE
MENTS
PROGRAM
?LftN
>ESIGN
DEVELOP
STUDY'
PLAN
DESIGNS
FOR
SELECTED
ACTION
PROGRAMS
ACTION
PROGRAM
PLAN
DEVELOPMENT
PROGRAM
5JODIE5
RECOMMENC
ACTION
PROGRAMS
SUBMIT
ACTION
PROGRAM
PLANS
Figure 5 Urban Community Analysts System Concept
11-232
-------
3. The system must provide local city officials and administrators with a
comprehensive, continually current objective decision making and
programming tool.
4. The system must provide resultant analytically-based program
recommendations to be incorporated into the yearly budget cycle and
must project multi-year plans and resource allocation.
5. The system must employ techniques to interpret, manipulate and
evaluate data using existing, continually updated operating files as its
data base.
6. The system must provide analytical input to all plans for urban
development.
7. The system must have a constant monitoring, evaluation and feed-
back loop capacity.
8. The system must produce annual documentation definable to action
agencies.
9. The system must contain a community information program to assure
citizen awareness and participation in partnership with local
government.
10. The system must have national applicability so as to provide
instructional material to other local governments.
System Policy is set by the Board of CAB which is composed of both
operating department and political representation. In this way action on the
findings and recommendations is insured.
Our Approach to the Development of the Community Analysis System
The CAB has functioned essentially as a large system development project
and has been managed using the tools of project management pioneered in some
of our military/aerospace programs. A discussion of the major phases or steps
comprising our work plan will serve two purposes. It will chronologically relate
some of the activities involved and secondly it will permit some additional
description of the system under development to be made. Figure 6 depicts this
work program. Each of these major steps will be discussed in turn.
STEP 1 - Development of Community Analysis System Specification
The Los Angeles Community Analysis System Specification was laid out in
11-233
-------
Figure 6 Community Analysis System - Work Program
the Study Design developed in 1968. This governing document established the
scope and requirements of the program to meet the following objectives:
The development of an integrated program for conducting continuing
comprehensive analysis of the entire city and the establishment of
priorities of city-wide action programs to correct existing deteriora-
tion and to prevent further inroads of a physical, economic and social
nature that contribute to such urban decay.
The use of the comprehensive city analysis in the following ways:
Determination, measurement, examination and analysis of city
problems.
Determination of the impact of on-going community improve-
ment programs on the urban environment.
Recommendations of alternative community improvement action
programs.
Continual monitoring and evaluation of action programs.
Determination of legislative changes required to prevent urban
decay.
11-234
-------
STEP 2 - Data Base and Software Development
Large amounts of data had to be assembled in order to perform the analysis
and depictions required. To accomplish data processing tools designed to ease
the tasks of retrieval, the Los Angeles Urban Information System was designed
to accomplish this need. The structure of this system is described in Figure 7 and
includes:
Cataloging data
Input structuring/data base
Data processing/output (software)
Feedback and monitoring
In the development of this system emphasis was placed on acquiring and
manipulating existing operating, updated files and available computer software
to relate urban blight symptoms to the characteristics of the city and its people,
STEP 3 - Planning and Management Philosophy Development
The task of developing an overall planning and management process for
CAB was undertaken concurrently with the development of the Urban Informa-
tion System. This activity featured two main thrusts—development of manage-
ment system for management of the project, and secondly, the selection of the
framework for analysis—i.e., the subject areas to be treated. The first of these
thrusts has been discussed earlier and will be described in greater detail in Step 6.
In the second, the CAB elected to use the subject areas found in PPBS as
developed federally. These categories were deemed appropriate because they are
comprehensive in coverage, people oriented, and can be readily incorporated
into the Los Angeles PPB-oriented Budgeting System. The main PPB subject
areas adapted are:
Personal Safety
Health
Education
Home/Community Environment
Economic Satisfaction
Recreation
Accessibility
STEP 4 - Initiation of Work Program
After initial development of the Information System and Management Plan,
a more definitive organization of the Community Analysis Project team evolved.
Organizational assignments were made to perform major task elements and
11-235
-------
•I
a.
9
1
•a
I
I
D
3
r~
11-236
-------
technical service contracts were issued to provide training and support in areas
currently beyond city personnel capability.
STEP 5 - Development and the Scientific Urban Matrix
The Scientific Urban Matrix (SUM) was developed as a computer based
technique to describe and evaluate urban blight and its interrelationships for Los
Angeles' 65 community areas. This tool views the urban system in terms of its
constituent functional subsystems, such as education, public safety, etc. These
are the PPB categories described in Step 3. Each subsystem is further subdivided
into its various aspects or manifestations, (physical, economic, social, political,
etc.) Figure 1 showed this matrix and relationships. In our current work program
we have expanded SUM to include the analysis of 40 measures as contrasted to
the 20 used in our first State of the City Report. Figure 8 describes this new set
of measures-the data for which comes from existing machine readable files. In
the SUM system it is possible to sum up the effects by either column or row and
thereby measure each aspect of each function examined. This computer-driven
analysis of the Urban Data Base contains 29 files and approximately 8 million
machine-readable records. The system not only addresses principal deficiencies
within a given category, but examines closely the horizontal relationships across
categories. For example, using SUM, we are able to assess the impact of enhance-
ment of education on income production, housing, public safety, etc. By use of
SUM we are able to measure each of the Los Angeles 65 communities, integrate
their problem ratings, and rank them against city-wide norms.
STEP 6 - Development and Implementation of Project Management System
The primary function of the Community Analysis Project Management
System is to describe the game, its players, the rules and the current score.
Specifically, the system is comprised of the following elements:
A management information center for community analysis (Figure 9)
A comprehensive statement of the mission of the Community Analysis
System.
A definition of project task elements and their relationships in the
form of a project breakdown structure.
Organization structures for each program participant.
Assignments of program responsibility to participants.
Definition of required documentation.
11-237
-------
1)
0)
s
•H
•H
0
>s
4-5
•rt
3
of
S
4J
O
I
i
oi
£
,
to
QJ
CH
•H •
s; -
G
O
0) -H
i ^
O 0
o 3
C 'g
fn
-o o
a ,c
Ms
•H .G
w bO
O CJ
W S
G
o
•H
4J
cd
1
w
s
-69-<;
r-i ro
& W i-H
3 ttJ OJ
Owe
MO--'
g
•H W
•H U C
cd at rH
S PH <
C
QJ O •
rH -H P.
•H P O
C Cd ft rH
r> O h I
*-3 EX, ft OJ
I
1 W
& s
£ H S
O 4J
rH.
-------
MUNICIPAL
GOVERNMENT
PARTICIPANTS
ACTIVITY
MASTER PHASING
SCHEDULE
PROBLEM/ACTION
ITEM BOARD
DETAIL DEPART-
IMENTAL SCHEDULES
STATE, FEDERAL
AND
PRIVATE SECTOR
PARTICIPANTS
ACTIVITY
IMMEDIATE PROGRAM IMPACT
-l-
CITY
MILESTONES
POTENTIAL PROGRAM IMPACT
DEPARTMENTAL
MANPOWER
DEPARTMENTAL
COSTS
Figure 9 Comminity Analysis Management Information Center (MIC) Operations
Development of program milestones and master schedule.
Resource management displays.
Continual monitoring, control and necessary executive re-direction of
work effort.
The function of the Community Analysis Program Management System is
to provide total program visibility to all participants at all times in order to
assess progress and resolve problems.
STEP 7 - Assessment of Urban Threats and Requirements
The SUM system previously described is used to determine and verify the
threats to urban survival in terms of the 20, now 40 measures of the quality of
life used. The results of this effort are documented annually in the following two
volumes-I "The State of the City" and II "The Strategy for Urban Survival".
The primary objective of these two documents, part of an annual quartet, is to
establish a description of the "as is" condition of the various areas of the city
and to provide a determination of the types of remedial actions to be investi-
gated and programmed.
11-239
-------
STEP 8 - Survey of On-Going Programs and Fiscal Base for Renewal from All
Sources
This task involves an investigation and structuring of programs from all
sources on-going within the city and those being conducted elsewhere which
may have local relevance. For example, as a result of these analyses we have been
able to make a determination of total government spending in the City of Los
Angeles from all sources, broken down by PPBS Categories. Figure 10 illustrates
this breakout.
These programs and their benefits are matched against the needs assessed in
Step 7 and form a basis for determining new programming needs. The existing
revenue and expenditure base, from all sources, is identified and related to
programming requirements. This fiscal base enables the municipality to develop
financial resource strategies to assign and match local, state and federal funds to
priority needs.
STEP 9 - Identification of Integrated Programming Requirements
Based upon findings from the previous steps, a programming package was
developed to translate comprehensive requirements into relevant on-going
measures and new concepts to integrate programming applications. This package,
Volume III, "Programs for City Survival", details on-going action programs
assigned to correct deficient urban conditions and develops new concepts to
address potential gaps in renewal programming. In all, we inventoried
118 programs in this exercise. Figure 11 illustrates the breakout by PPBS cate-
gory. The accomplishment of this task establishes, against a fiscal base, the
proposed family of action programs to be undertaken during the succeeding
year.
STEP 10 - Production of State of the City Document Series-Submission of
Budget Recommendations
This task represents the culmination of the production portion of the
annual work program. It entails the production and distribution of the three
documents previously described, as well as the development and dissemination
of the plan and calibrator for the next year's work program. Volume IV,
"Monitoring and Evaluation of City Survival Programs" provides a procedure to
appraise the operational effectiveness of remedial action programs currently
being implemented, and thereby guides the city to more effectively allocate
scarce resources to the solution of urban threats. This documentation, including
fiscal information in Volume III, "Programs for City Survival", is submitted for
inclusion in the city budgeting system.
11-240
-------
RAL
'ATI
I
I
.
I
c
1
a.
03
RESC
ASS1
LOPM
UMA
CON
, UE
11-241
-------
Figure 11 Summary of Inventory of Ongoing Programs in Los Angeles
Program Status
PPBS Program Category Functioning Potential New Total
Personal Safety 5 7 U 16
Recreation 5 229
Satisfactory Shelter 13 3 16
Education - Pre School 55 10
In School 6 1* 10
Post School 1+ 26
Accessibility - Traffic Congestion 53 8
Personal Immobility 8 ** 12
Health 13 >+ 17
Economic Satisfaction 5 6 _3 lU
Total £§ 35 15 TIB
STEP 11 - Initiation of Project Evaluation Feedback/Initiation of Next Year's
Work Program
Subsequent to municipal approval, program and proposal coordination with
affected city departments and executive and legislative branches is performed. In
addition, necessary county, state and federal agency liaison is accomplished to
bring all supportive actions to focus on selected programs and priorities. Once
underway, projects are subjected to techniques of surveillance and evaluation
described in Volume IV, "Monitoring and Evaluation of City Survival
Programs". In the establishment of criteria for the next year's work program is
found the framework for the Project Management System to guide all
community Analysis activities.
SUMMARY
In summary, the eleven steps, outlined above, embodied in the systems
framework, have been successfully applied in Los Angeles to evaluate and plan
towards the comprehensive solution of its urban problem specification. This is
perhaps the first successful application of these principles in America. This
methodology thus holds promise for all cities, large or small, facing today's
urban crisis.
DISCUSSION FOLLOWING MR. JOYCE'S PRESENTATION
Q: To what extent in what you have done so far have you found that the
source problems can be identified or be related one-to-one to federal programs?
11-242
-------
A. Joyce: We are in the process of setting up what we call a Community
Program Information System. This will take all the current community programs
and set them up on the chart showing the requirements to be met. This will
identify those programs that most completely meet requirements as well, thus,
we're going to look at it as far as writing applications in various places.
Q: Do you yet have a feel for the relevance of federal programs to given
problems perceived in the city?
A. Joyce: No, we are just in the process of doing that now. That system is just
being set up so that federal programs can be interfaced with the matrix. One
might expect to find big gaps in the programming which leads us to start trying
to fill those gaps. We also may find some things that are completely irrelevant
that have been going on for a long time.
Q: Can what you are doing and have learned be readily transferred to another
city or state?
A. Joyce: Technically, everything we are doing can be transferred. However,
the political and social situation that will be encountered in each new juris-
diction will have to be assessed and made part of the program. To install any
system requires a guiding hand which must be included in the plan for the
transfer.
II-243
-------
A STUDY IN
COMPARATIVE URBAN INDICATORS:
Conditions in 18 Large Metropolitan Areas
Michael J. Flax
1206-4
An expanded revision of "The Quality of Life in Metropolitan Wash-
ington, (D. C.): Some Statistical Benchmarks," 136-1, March 1970.
THE URBAN INSTITUTE
WASHINGTON, D. C.
11-244
-------
II. USES OF THIS REPORT
In this paper we are trying to reach many potential users of urban
indicators, such as government administrators, planners, businessmen, labor
leaders, journalists, community action groups, and concerned citizens in general.
We believe that these groups have a real need for a simple set of urban quality
measures that will help reduce the role of hearsay, intuition, and isolated bits of
personal experience as the major criteria for citizen decision making. To
illustrate what can be done, we have attempted here to collect diverse data from
widely scattered sources, to screen them, to integrate them, and to present them
in a form that few in the potential non-technical user groups are themselves
likely to do.
We recognize that this report deals with complex subject matter and that
non-professional readers may misinterpret and misuse the data we present. We
have, therefore, documented the deficiencies of the data we used. The primary
function of the simplified indicators presented here is to offer a method of
better communicating the state of urban conditions to a wide audience. In any
of these functional areas more detailed information than is provided by these
simple indicators is desirable for evaluation or design of governmental programs.
The possibility of an indefinite continuation of the present lack of under-
standable indicators relative to many urban issues is an even more intolerable
prospect than is the possible misinterpretation of the limited imperfect data now
available.
One way, we feel, to get better data is to spotlight, rather than to conceal,
the highly imperfect data now available. Our earlier report, for example, led to
numerous suggestions for changes and improvements in our indicator set, some
of which we have been able to incorporate into this revision. We hope that this
report will also encourage other researchers and administrators to suggest and
develop conceptually better and statistically more accurate indicators to replace
some of the crude quality measures we have used in this report. An important
consideration is that in many cases the basic raw statistics are already available
from which to develop better indicators. In other words, with minimum
additional cost many improved indicators could be developed if there is the will
or public pressure to do so. It is intolerable, for instance, that in a field as
important as public education, (and one in which so many statistics are collected
at the individual student and individual school level), that there are not better
data consolidations which would permit more meaningful intercity comparisons
of student achievement.
The city/suburban tabulations developed in this report are presented not
only for their substantive content. They are also meant to furnish an illustration
11-245
-------
of how simple manipulation and innovative comparative presentation of existing
data can sometimes facilitate improved comprehension and insight.
This report has been limited principally to data series available on a yearly
basis so that recent changes could be measured. A large amount of detailed
Census data will be available shortly. We suggest that innovative and comparative
presentation techniques similar to those demonstrated in this report could aid
those analyzing Census data in effectively presenting their results to a large
audience.
Specific Suggestions for Using this Report
The indicators presented here are an approximate attempt to quantify some
aspects of a wide variety of concerns. Some suggestions as to how they might be
used are listed below:
1. Exhibits similar to those shown for metropolitan Washington, can be
prepared for any of the other 17 metropolitan areas, e.g., exhibits
could be prepared for Pittsburgh or Buffalo.
2. Metropolitan areas or cities not included in this report could compare
their levels or rates of change for specific indicators with the values
provided, e.g., infant mortality or reported robbery data for Atlanta
could be compared with other large metropolitan areas or cities.
3. The indicators can be used as a basis for comparison with other
available data.
a. additional data in specific functional categories could be used to
supplement that presented here (as was done in Unemployment
and Housing in this paper). If presented in a comparable format,
additional data on these 18 metropolitan areas could provide a
broader picture, e.g., burglary and violent crime rates could be
added to the data on public order.
b. additional data on different functional categories could be
displayed in this format for these 18 metropolitan areas, e.g., tax
effort, population growth, etc.
4. The metropolitan area data could serve as a comparative reference for
all sorts of further breakdowns (the city/suburban technique used in
this paper is one example). The same could be done for population
groups, e.g., by race or income level, or geographical areas, e.g., census
tracts.
11-246
-------
5. Surprising variations in the data might be detected by inspection or
simple correlation. Further study might explain some of these varia-
tions, and in some cases might suggest corrective action.
III. QUALITY CATEGORIES AND SELECTED INDICATORS
Five general ground-rules governed our selection of quality categories and
indicator measures included in this study:
1. We wanted to include a wide cross-section of urban quality considera-
tions, some relatively objective and some more subjective in nature.
For example, we used income and unemployment as well as
community concern and citizen participation.
2. We wanted to include quality considerations for which there is a
general consensus relative to their importance and desirable direction
of change. For instance, there is wide-spread concern and interest
regarding the amount of criminal behavior, the severity of air pollu-
tion and the state of the health of our population. Furthermore, few
would favor rising levels of reported crime, air pollution or infant
deaths.
3. Initially, to keep this study as simple as possible, we selected only one
indicator for each quality category. In some cases we could have
obtained many measures; for instance, in health as many as
60 indicators. In this revision we generally continued this policy, since
the addition of many multiple measures would have greatly
complicated the presentation of findings. However, wherever a new
measure was adopted, the data on the measure previously used are
presented and in two cases we presented other data in Appendix A
(participation rates relating to unemployment data, and recent Census
data related to housing) to supplement our yearly series.
4. In most cases the availability of data influenced our selection. For
instance, we could obtain no recent data for leisure opportunities or
criminal justice. As a ground-rule, we initially required data for two
recent years to obtain some measure of comparative rates of change,
but for this revision the data available concerning narcotics addiction
did not permit measurement of changes in this category.
5. Wherever possible we sought "output" oriented measures of urban
quality, i.e., to measure what urban conditions actually are rather than
how much money communities are spending or in what activities they
are engaging to improve quality.
11-247
-------
Table 1 lists the quality categories and specific indicators used in the initial
and revised version of this report, as well as the latest year for which the data are
available.
In the course of revising this report the specific indicators used were
changed in four quality categories. The rationale behind these changes is briefly
discussed below.1
1. EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT OF THE ADULT POPULATION -
Within the past year, the Census Bureau began issuing yearly data2 on
the educational attainment of adults in large metropolitan areas. At
the same time decreasing draft quotas and change in the
administration of the draft introduced uncertainties which made the
use of yearly selective service test score data more questionable. It
should be emphasized that in this case switching indicators involves a
conceptual change in our education indicator. Previously, we were
measuring (in a crude fashion) the education imparted to a certain
segment of a metropolitan area's youth. In this report we are measur-
ing the formal educational attainment of the adult population which
was not necessarily attained in the metropolitan area of current
residence.
2. TRANSPORTATION - We were unable to obtain data for a trans-
portation indicator in our initial report. Data availability led us to
attempt to estimate a related quality-traffic safety, by measuring the
ratio of traffic deaths to population in each metropolitan area.
Further thought and discussion suggested that higher traffic deaths
may in fact be associated with higher speed vehicular traffic, and
therefore may indicate less traffic congestion and more convenient
transportation. This ambiguity led us to discard traffic deaths as an
unsuitable indicator.
Further search for a transportation indicator revealed that the Bureau
of Labor Statistics publishes biennial family budgets designed to
compare the costs of similar standards of living in the 39 largest
U.S. metropolitan areas. The transportation component of these
budgets is a measure of what it costs families with similar life styles to
provide the transportation they need. Thus this is a measure of only
1. Gail Finsterbusch has expanded this discussion in her paper on Conceptual and
Methodological issues (op. cit. footnote b, page v).
2. These data are obtained from the Current Population Survey, a monthly 50,000 sample
nationwide household survey, conducted by the Census Bureau. Further details on the
data used for each of the indicators in this report can be found in Appendix A.
11-248
-------
Table 1 Quality Categories and Selected Indicators
QUALITY CATEGORIES
Unemployment
Poverty
Income
Housing
Health
Mental Health
Public Order
Racial Equality
Community Concern
Citizen Partici-
pationb
Latest
Year
Date
1970
1970
1969
1969
1969
1969
1970
1970
1970
1968
INDICATORS USED
% of labor force unemployed
% of households with incomes less
than $3,000 per year
*Per capita money income adjusted for
cost of living differences
Cost of housing a moderate income
family of four
Infant (under 1 year) deaths per 1,000
live birthsa
Reported suicides per 100,000 pop.3
Reported robberies per 100,000 pop.3
Ratio between nonwhite and white u.i-
employment rates
*Per capita contributions to United
Fund appeals
*% of voting age population that voted
in recent presidential elections
REVISED INDICATORSC
Educational
Attainment
Transportation6
Air Quality1
Social Disinte-
gration8
1969
1969
1969
1969
*Median school years completed by
adults
Cost of transportation for a moderate
income family of four
Average yearly concentrations of three
air pollution components, and change in
the concentration of suspended par-
ticulates
Estimates of number of narcotics addicts
per 10,000 population
*An increase in the absolute value of these indicators is assumed to
represent an improvement in the quality of life. The reverse is true of
all the others.
J!/Data is also provided on central city, suburban, and city/suburban ratio
levels and their rates of change. b/This indicator did not require re-
vision. £/Data on previous indicator used are presented in Appendix A.
d_/Selective Service Mental Test rejection rate was used previously.
e/Deaths from auto accidents per 100,000 population (an indicator of
traffic safety) was used previously. _f/A composite index of pollutants
was used previously. £/A new method of estimating addiction rates is
used.
11-249
-------
one aspect of transportation—its money cost—not the cost in time, or
inconvenience, for example.
Also, it is not a measure of the quality, speed, comfort or convenience
of transportation in these areas. As a matter of fact, a low total cost
for transportation in a given city may be caused by the inconvenience
and high costs of specific transportation services. Despite these
conceptual difficulties, it remains the only comparable data available
and it does measure one component of the transportation picture. As
such we have used it as an indicator of transportation.
3. AIR QUALITY-The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) no
longer computes the composite index used in the initial report. How-
ever, data on three air pollution components are available for the
central cities of the metropolitan areas considered here (the best
available estimate of metropolitan area conditions), and the EPA has
issued air quality standards. We investigated a proposed weighted
pollution index (referred to in Appendix A) and decided not to use it
at this time due to data acquisition, conceptual, and presentation
difficulties. Instead we ranked the central cities of the metropolitan
areas with respect to their average yearly concentrations of the three
pollutants and referenced each to the applicable EPA standard. We
also calculated changes in the concentrations of suspended particulates
during recent years as an indicator of changing air quality conditions.
4. SOCIAL DISINTEGRATION - Here the problem was that our
previous data source, the narcotics addict register in each city, was
seen not to be a consistent measure of the actual number of addicts.
Investigation revealed that the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous
Drugs was beginning to use a more sophisticated method of estimating
the actual addict population from the available data in each city. A
description and caveats concerning this technique are supplied in
Appendix A. At this time, data are available for only seven cities for a
single year (1969).
IV. MAJOR CAVEATS
1. We believe that urban indicators have the potential of becoming a useful
tool that can aid urban planning and administrative decision-making by provid-
ing a more quantitative picture of many complex functional areas. However, in
this, as in our earlier paper, our objective is more limited. We aim only to
describe certain recent urban conditions and provide some quantitative estimate
of how they have been changing. We make no attempt in this report to explain
11-250
-------
why these conditions exist, to suggest how these conditions might be improved,
or to assess the merits of particular action programs in major cities.
2. We caution the reader about reading into our measure of urban conditions
more than we have specified. At best, we have measured representative qualities
of urban life. In each of the fourteen quality categories we have studied, we have
given "an" indicator of urban life. In no case do we contend that our measure is
a surrogate of the total quality in the category cited. We recognize that con-
ceptual as well as data limitations have resulted in our measuring some aspects of
the "standard of living," i.e., citizen income, crime, etc., rather than the quality
of life, which would require at least some measurements of numerous
"amenities" and of how people perceive the conditions under which they live.
3. The experts we consulted in the course of obtaining our data were
unanimous in cautioning us from reading too much into the crude data available.
Although we state caveats applicable to each data series in Appendix A, and we
rounded off the data for each measure to a number of decimal places consistent
with their accuracy and the range of values displayed, we feel obliged to
reemphasize the crudeness of the available data.
4. Because we have attempted to make our report comprehensible to a
broader class of readers than most papers on social indicators, we have expended
considerable time and effort toward intelligent simplification of the data in
order to communicate effectively. In all cases we explicitly documented the
weaknesses of the data we used. It is also true, that more information than is
contained in these simple indicators is desirable for the evaluation and design of
governmental programs.
5. There is disagreement as to the proper "scale" on which urban indicators
should be developed. We have chosen the "metropolitan area" as the primary
basis of analysis, partly because more data were available to us on that basis. One
shortcoming of this basis is that it may conceal some great disparities between
the central city and suburbs and other intra-metropolitan divisions. Where data
were available (for 5 of our indicators) we computed and presented figures
highlighting central city/suburban differences. Further disaggregation of these
data (for different areas within cities) seems desirable, and we intend to continue
our work in this area.
6. An increase in the numerical value of most of the measures used represents
an unfavorable trend. We attempted to use familiar measures in deriving our
indicators, and the most applicable data series measure unfavorable conditions,
e.g., crime, pollution, etc. For the four measures (and the categories for which
they are employed as an indicator) listed below, however, an increase in numeri-
cal value is considered favorable.
II-251
-------
* per capita income (income)
* per capita United Fund contributions (community concern)
* percent population voting (citizen participation)
* median school years completed (educational attainment)
7. We have used the technique of ranking cities as one of our methods of
presentation. This technique is useful in many ways but ranks are only an
approximate measure of the degree of differences among cities. To mitigate this
difficulty we have presented data along with the rankings wherever possible.
Conditions considered more favorable were assigned lower numerical rankings,
(e.g., the metropolitan area with the lowest reported robbery rate was ranked
#1) and the tables were footnoted to make this assignment explicit in each case.
8. We have used annual percentage changes as a measure of changing condi-
tions. This form of measurement tends to make the same absolute change appear
larger in areas that have the lowest measured levels (e.g., a given increase in the
unemployment rate produces a larger rate of change in areas with lower
unemployment rate levels). In order to obtain a more balanced appraisal of
changing conditions one should examine the absolute numerical size of the
change in what is being measured (e.g., the numerical change in the unemploy-
ment figures) and the numerical change in the rate itself (e.g., the amount by
which the unemployment rate changes), as well as the percentage change data
presented in this report.
9. The one-year time span used to study the rate of change in the initial
version of this paper was usually too short a period to detect significant trends.
In this revision we have widened this time span to include five-year annual
average rates of change (wherever the data were available), while continuing to
present one-year change data in Appendix A. Data adequate for measuring
change in the rate of narcotics addiction (social disintegration) were not avail-
able.
10. Although we have used some form of objectively verifiable data for all the
measures in this report, we recognize that the manner in which people perceive
the conditions around them is also a legitimate aspect of the quality of life. We
hope to investigate means of combining measures of citizens' perceptions with
measures of existing conditions in order to provide a more comprehensive and
valid description of conditions in numerous functional categories for different
geographical areas.
II-252
-------
11. In the future, the basic technique demonstrated here (e.g., comparing the
conditions and rates of change of cities with one another and displaying the
results in a simple manner) could be combined with available computer software
to allow the user a choice of much more sophisticated yet readily describable
statistical treatment of the data (such as simple correlation) together with a wide
variety of output formats (both tabular and map-like presentations). This
combination could enable a decision-maker to specify and conveniently obtain,
in a form which he could understand, some of the information which would
assist him in his tasks.
H-253
-------
APPENDIX C
SUMMARY TABLES FOR ALL DATA
Three summary tables are presented in this appendix.
1. Summary Ranking Table for the 18 Metropolitan Areas -
The rankings using the most recent metropolitan area data are
presented.
2. Summary Ranking Table for the City/Suburban Analyses -
Relative standings of metropolitan areas, central cities and suburban
areas are tabulated.
3. Metropolitan Summary Table -
Symbols representing direction of recent progress, latest standing and
comparative rates of change are tabulated.
11-254
-------
90
fe>
a
9
O
0)
H
t.
»
,? £
c
-a
i u-
— °
c3 «
>
I
11
3 1
£7;
u e-
5
c u
1 c
u
- ^
e0 c
u
3 I-
-*
«i
f
1
g
1
1
I
>
I
f
I
6
1
r
-^-TT^."
£ -H 'c
PI
VI <~J
&° ^
.-( (^ (/•
C --- U
?fl
C — i
u ffl ^
^ "o -
7-3
26*
T ° i
= 11
«
u. 2 t
t o
u C -i
C £ u
•o > ?
£ 5 2
-c "S c?
C 3 HI
ifs
u > c-
3 II
SSI
t- C ^
;2 =
^ J <5
"•5S
IF
^ 0
1 =
<5
03 U ^ C C- Q
>;<3S jj l^^i H j!5 1 ^^l^
« «
« < « « * <
— — . — - — ' —
* * * * * * *
----- - • — •
* *
- _
- -- -- -
i . i
^!l! !-l l^lll =jlts
Ijee? i^i rssSI =is;S
« ,
|
°
i
.
5
5
"
rf
g
5
!
r
a
g-
s
n
i
«
=
5
a
1
:
:
™ _* c
e rf o «
53 "" 2
c ^ jij j
E * ^
! *• J •
5 u « u
* « -a
s « S o -
11-255
-------
I
.2
•d
i
•a
B
£>
o
a
I
u
•H V4
r-t 0)
J2 T3
13 V-i
C- O
t—l _r*
CO 4J
E cd
01 01
r K
.c
.H
££
>i
JJ
V-i
^
0
4_J
d
c
|,
6'
r-t
C
e
01
£
O CO
H 01
4J h
01 U
C CO -^^
VC1
4-1 > cr
C 4J — 1
CO -i-t •—
U- iH
E CO
01
E «
C "Ocj
O iH ^
C O C^
H .e vo
£ K -H
c r ^
*~
CJ
>• 0
0 .-v
C ^D
ED 1—4
c ^^^
«
cO
4J
•r-t
r-l tfl
O 01
O. V4
0
3
j^
CJ
7T
01
uy
.
4J
01
S
,d
(/)
~7
U
"^
4J
(U
XI
CO
•
O
,,__
4J
rO
CO
— T
o
^^
4J
CC iH «
• O U Jd ^-4 C Cu O
tJO£'-H CC 'S-'O *«• iH
• • U r-4 lJ U • • U^4^^J(f> ^ i— | U ^ ^
• • J^ JZ O O * * *H 4J i-H (fl O * H3 *H r^ 3
?:JUP.P tfc^c fx^uwK ? c u r «
,_0,
mr-^H-tJCl7 C »— lOt'*-'
^<-'^!'^*J {/• Ci- C/l 4J • 0) i-H P UrHpr-H^-
g: •-: C E" C. t- v: ^r t- cr, cj cc x -r" c c f* tf
rt sr
T-t f-H
CO
4J 14
01 O
•O >4-l
01 91
tJ ^
O J3
• 0)
M >
C id
o
•H 0)
•O P
O J3|
U
0)
cO >-i •
O OCrH
> 0) ,0
crj p cd
<4-l Cd •-!
o 1-1
4-1 CO
CO f*i >
O 4J CO
B 1-1
l-l U
01 CO O
JC 3 B
4-1 cr
co
O J3 4-1
(0 Q
-a ai ^
ai -o|
B H
oo o -a
•H VH
01
01
3 c/i co
E >
Q| CO 4J 4J
3 4J CO
O -H T3 C
3 4J 01
(= co S
bO T3 Of
B 01 01
•H -a x
J^ 1-1 4->
B P> —'
CO O
h U • 00
p. >. E
01 rM •!-(
M a) c ^
CO l-i O B
CO CO
01 0} |^
CO CO CO
01 4-1 0) 01
X CO H i-l
H -0 <0 H
11-256
-------
00
CO
rS
JH
*o
,2
>,
e3
c
r3
o
B.
VQ
-M
iS
"
X
1
2
"o.
H*
U
Ol
42
4-1
I— 1
i— 1
to
rl
0
4H
•o
CU
en
3
en
01
rl
3
en
to
cu
B
^
4-1
•H
r-l
CO
3
cr
0)
42
4J
4-1
O
fl" W
tO rJ
g W
R ^
3 H
en
p?-
•i! r-l
o
•rl Q
3 w
cr w
CO
W
CU P
T3 O
•rl O
£>
o
rl
CX
o
4J
"O
OJ
rl
CO
ex
Ol
rl •
CX *O
0)
C -r)
QJ -0
01 3
43 4-J
tn
en
to en
42 to
OJ
£ rl
0 (0
i— i
OJ C
43 «
4J
OJ -H
rH i— 1
43 O
CO CX
4-1 O
rl
01 4-1
42 CU
H e
tn
01
4-J (2
CO 03
O 4-1
•rl -1-1
rO i— H
c o
•rl CX
0
(J
01
4J
O
CO
JJ to
0 42
60 <->
01
4-1 'O
tO rl
0 -T-l
42
rl
4-J
CU
g
rl
tfl
I— 1
3
O
•1-1
4J
}_l
CO
cx
4J
•rl 0) CU
•-H 42 42
to H 4-i
3
cr ^
m
42 s— '
O
to en M-l
O) cu O
4J
O CO >-.
4-1 O 4-1
•rl -rl
4-1 TD i— 1
0 C tO
OJ -H 3
cx cr
en ri
QJ CU
rl 4-1
U
43 CO
4-J rl
•rl CO
& 42
O
OJ
T3 T3
o c
o o
CJ
rl CU
OJ en
4-1
O
, — i
cu
0)
,_]
4-1
eo
CU
4-1
eo
4J
o cu cu
tO 42 42
rl EH 4-1
to
^ (~* ^— ^
O CN
•• — '
0)
u| to
oo
I-l
rH
10
01
42 4-1
4-J O
O r-l
4J Ol
p>
4J OJ
O r-l
OJ
CX ^N
in C
o> to
rl O)
B
42 ^
4J
•H 01
3 60
tfl
tO rl
cu cu
rl >
to to
43
4-1
•rl
3
CU
60
eo
42
0
•
4-1 CU
0 C
•rl
OJ r-l
4-1 OJ
to tn
M to
OJ
60 0
tO rl
rl CU
CU N
p>
to to
,
tn
to
cu
rl
tfl
C
to
4J
•rl
rH
0
CX
o
rl
4J
CU
B
•
tn
tfl
01
rl
to
c
to
4J
•rl
i — i
0
cx
o
4-1
cu
B
Ol
i-H
43
tfl
rl
O
£>
to
[>,
Ol
60
C
to
43
O
4H
O
cu
4-1
tfl
Pi
^^
-1^
^_/
cu
60
tfl
rl
OJ
to
tO rl
4H OJ
C >
3 <£
o> cu
60 00
C (2
CO CO
42 42
O U
4H 4H
0 0
Ol OJ
4-1 4J
10 10
Pi Oi
^-^ , — ^
1 0
01
60
CO
rl
01 -!:
> 01
4-1 <
01 4-1
tn 3
rl 0
O 43
3 <
^-^ ^— s
l O
^— ' *^S
-):
•a
T3 01
0) 60
C C
01 efl
en 42
rl 0
0 t2
3 S
tn co
0 0
•rl -1-1
4J 4-1
•rl -rl
13 T3
a a
o o
o u
*"s / — *
1 0
4J
3
O
43
tfl
en
•rJ
>
4J
•H
i— 1
to
3
C7
4-1
O
r— 1
OJ
£>
0)
I— 1
4J
en
01
4J
tfl
i— 1
CO
4-1
•H
f
6C
C
•rl
O
rl
a
E
•i-i
tn
•H
eo
OJ
rl
to
c
CO
4-1
••-1
i— 1
O
a
0
rl
4J
01
e
Ol
42
4-1
4-1
tfl
43
4-1
to
C
efl
01
B
i
o
-l-
. .
w
P 1
*r*
3
[xj
W
Pi
0
»
0)
00
to
rl
Ol
p>
ts
a
tO
42
4-1
Ol
rH
O
CO
rl
0
W
to
CO
01
i-H
eo
•H
01
60
C3
tfl
42
U
<4-l
O
01
4-1
CO
rl
en
4-1
• rl
•a
C
CO
n
CU
60
CO
rl
Ol
CO
OJ
CJ
(2
eo
g
£4
0
rl
CU
cx
en tn
- to
to oi
01 U
rl tO
tfl
G
C «
cd 4-J
4-1 -rl
•H rH
rH O
O CX
CX 0
0 rl
M 4J
4-1 CU
cu e
g
rl
rl CU
CO 42
rH 4-1
3 O
CJ
•rl OJ
•U 42
rl 4J
tfl
CX4H
O
01
42 tn
4-1 0)
3
•H efl
-.
CU 4H
60 O
tfl
rl 01
Ol M
> C
CO tfl
- rl
rl 01
O 43
4J
—
^0 4H
0) O
60
to c
42 CU
O O
c
3 rl
r cu
ex
tn
to o
i— i
"0
01 +|
c
•rl C
4H to
Ol 42
*O 4-1
OJ CO
rl 10
Cfl CU
i— 1
en
12 >•>
O 43
•H
4-1 T)
•i-l CU
•0 -r(
C rl
O CO
0 >
-!<
11-257
-------
J
1
S
01
Table C
u
SS
*nr
SS-
its
l
!•_
^ u s . t - i a a s i 5
.•d ZSUJJ S.33S*
III J!i$l ni?£
Hit? ill t:?4t 4441'
iiisi Hi !Jf;4 iifl!
fc+ +cio* ttc
t J t?f ! I U"?'
i!i titH iliii
iit?f IJi U it4
UHT 4H HHi HIU
H^ HH:
um IH inn tun
I.11I? 1:1 UiH tlli!
~
i
!i
1*1
ll"
11-258
-------
QUALITY OF LIFE IN THE UNITED STATES -
AN EXCURSION INTO THE NEW FRONTIER
OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC INDICATORS
By
John Oliver Wilson
NORTH STAR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE
3100 Thirty-Eighth Avenue South, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55406
January 1973
11-259
-------
QUALITY OF LIFE IN THE UNITED STATES -
AN EXCURSION INTO THE NEW FRONTIER OF SOCIO-ECONOMIC INDICATC
by
John Oliver Wilson*
I. INTRODUCTION
With the acceptance of Keynesian economics and the subsequent develop-
ment of a system of national income and product accounts, such economic
measures as gross national product, personal income and the unemployment rate
have frequently been indiscriminately accepted as measures of our total well-
being. As one economist has stated, "While there are other individual and social
objectives, at least as important as making money, money income provides the
principal measure of performance of the urban economy."1 Whether our con-
sideration is the urban, state, or national economy, money income has been
readily accepted as an appropriate measure of both economic and social
progress.
There are, however, increasing signs of discontent with the continued use of
these traditional measures of economic progress as measures also of our political
and social progress. Raymond Bauer has succinctly summarized this discontent
in his statement: "For many of the important topics on which social critics
blithely pass judgment, and on which policies are made, there are no yardsticks
by which to know if things are getting better or worse."2 Yet changes in our
current attitudes are increasingly evident. The crisis in our cities in recent years
has demonstrated, if nothing else, the urgent need to broaden our concern to
include all aspects of the quality of life in our urban areas. The Federal Space
Agency recognized several years ago the need to assess more precisely the social,
* The author is currently President of North Star Research Institute in Minneapolis.
From 1969 to 1972 he served as Director, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation,
Office of Economic Opportunity in Washington, D.C. Prior to that he served on the
economics faculty at Yale University. This study, originally published in 1969, was
undertaken with grants from Midwest Research Institute in Kansas City, Missouri, and
from Yale University.
1 Wilbur R. Thompson, A Preface to Urban Economics (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press,
1965) p. 61.
2 Raymond A. Bauer, ed., Social Indicators (Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1966), p. 20.
11-260
-------
economic, and political conditions in our society. And there have been discus-
sions in the past of the need to establish a President's Council of Social Advisors
akin to the present Council of Economic Advisors.3
Economists have long been aware of the many limitations of our current
economic yardsticks. The problems of imputation, price indexes, and valuation
of government output are well documented. And when the economic measures
are used for purposes other than evaluation of strictly economic conditions, the
limitations become not only structural but also conceptual. The national income
and product accounts were not conceptually designed to measure changes in our
total socio-economic environment. Yet their misappropriation to this use has
been an error more of omission rather than of commission. For lack of anything
better, social scientists, politicians, and the general public have resorted to the
use of those quantitative measures currently available.
With the increasing dissatisfaction with the limitations of the traditional
economic indicators and our awareness of the need to assess the impact of social
and political phenomena on our total society, it is imperative that the new
frontier of social indicators be explored. This paper will first explore the concept
of social indicators, then discuss the weighting problem of combining numerous
individual measures into a more aggregate measure of social well being, and
finally examine the modeling problem of how such measures are actually
constructed. The concepts that are developed will then be applied in measuring
social well-being in eight different areas for each of the fifty states.
II. THE CONCEPT OF SOCIAL INDICATORS
With the existing sources of data it is possible to construct a limited
number of social indicators to provide a much broader measure of state
differences in living conditions than is now available. First, however, we must
define what is meant by a social indicator. Throughout this analysis, we will
adopt the following definition:
3 The federal government and the academic community are increasingly expressing their
concern over the lack of sufficient measures with which to assess our socio-economic
environment. Several years ago, NASA became a pioneer among government agencies
in acting upon its concern with the impact of space exploration on society in general.
The result of this concern was a volume edited by Raymond A. Bauer, Social Indi-
cators, op. cit., which has received widespread consideration by the national leaders in
the United States, France, India, Canada and England. This volume, plus two issues of
the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, published in
1967, represent the major published contributions in this relatively new area. The U.S.
government has taken more than passive interest in developing social accounts, and in
July of 1967, the Office of Assistant Secretary of Social Indicators, Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare, was established with the purpose of preparing the first
Social Report of the President.
11-261
-------
A social indicator is probably most usefully defined as an
aggregate or representative welfare measure; that is, as a
statistic that measures the extent to which some goal of
general interest has been achieved (rather than the govern-
ment expenditures or inputs used to achieve that goal). The
indicator can be obtained by aggregating other statistics into
a meaningful summary statistic or by selecting from some
properly defined set of statistics one series whose move-
ments are reasonably representative of the rest.4
The development of a set of social indicators with which to assess inter-
regional differences in the quality of life in the United States requires the follow-
ing steps: (1) selection of the geographical unit of analysis: (2) specification of
the general areas of social concern for which indicators are to be developed;
(3) collection of a relevant set of basic statistics from which a summary statistic
can be created; and (4) aggregation of the basic statistics to obtain a limited
number of meaningful social indicators. The first three steps will be discussed
below, while the "weighting" problem inherent in the final step will be discussed
in the following section.
In this study, states were chosen as the basic unit of analysis. There were
several reasons for this selection. All of the literature to date has been addressed
to the question of creating a set of social indicators at the national level. While
this is certainly an appropriate level for the initiation of such an undertaking, we
must also consider what problems may be unique in extending our concepts to
sub-national levels. In particular, consideration should be given to the unique
problems that may be encountered as we attempt to develop social indicators for
state and city decision-making units. In addition, the public sector of our
economy must receive considerable attention in any relevant social indicator.
And because state and local governments have somewhat autonomous and
clearly more dominant roles "han the federal government has in providing those
public services that have a dhect and immediate impact on the quality of life
provided the American citizen, it becomes imperative that the concept of social
indicators be developed concurrently at all levels of government. At the state
and local levels there may be far less certainty about the attributes of any social
indicators. Governors and state legislatures may likely be less than enthusiastic in
their acceptance of any quantification of an area previously so elusive as, for
example, that of the extent of racial inequality existing within the state. Such
political reluctance must be recognized early in this attempt to create a new
social accounting system. Finally, states were chosen as the basic unit of analysis
because the data necessary for the construction of social indicators are most
readily available at the state level.
Mancur Olson, Jr., "An Agenda for the Development of Measures of the Progress of a
Racial or Ethnic Group," U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (Feb-
ruary 6, 1968), unpublished paper, p. 1.
11-262
-------
The use of states as the basic unit for comparison, which is dictated by the
availability of sufficient relevant data, raises some rather significant problems.
First, an implicit homogeneity assumption is made concerning the quality of life
throughout the state. Clearly, within any state, social and economic conditions
will vary considerably between urban and rural areas, between the central city
and the suburbs, and even from neighborhood to neighborhood within the
central city. Such variations cannot, unfortunately, be taken into consideration
until data become more readily available and the techniques of developing social
indicators are more fully developed. Second, given the open economy of the
states and the rapid mobility of our population, specific assumptions must be
made about exactly to whom the social attributes available within a state will
accrue. This problem becomes quite crucial in assessing, for example, state
differences in the quality of their educational systems. Do the services provided
by Yale University and the University of Michigan accrue to residents of the
states in which these schools are located or is the population that is served by
these schools distributed throughout the nation?
In selecting the relevant areas for which social indicators should appropri-
ately be developed, the researcher is faced with an endless task. The list of our
current areas of social concern is almost unlimited. So for simplicity of choice,
eight of the eleven domestic goal areas included in the Report of the President's
Commission on National Goals5 published in 1960 were selected for this present
study.
The Commission on National Goals was a nonpartisan group appointed by
President Eisenhower to suggest a set of goals for vital areas of our national life.
The eleven members of the Commission, supported by private funds and having
no direct connection with the federal government, used the contributions of
over 100 leading authorities and specialists in defining the final goals. The
objective of the goals report was to stimulate a continuing discussion and debate
among Americans concerned with the quality of life in the nation; adoption of
these recommended goals for use in this study is in keeping with this objective.
We do not intend to suggest that these goals represent the ultimate set of
normative variables with which to assess the existing quality of life, but they do
represent the latest consensus of any type on a definitive set of goals for the
nation as a whole.
The eight areas for which social indicators were developed are:
• Individual status: Enhancing personal dignity, promoting maximum
development of capabilities, and widening the opportunities of
individual choice.
5 Report of the President's Commission on National Goals, Goals for Americans
(Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1960).
11-263
-------
• Individual equality: Eliminating discrimination on the basis of race.
• Education: Improving the quantity and quality of education.
• Economic growth: Increasing both the quantity and quality of
growth, including capital investment in the public sector, improving
the standard of living, and providing education for a more capable and
flexible work force.
• Technological change: Increasing the effort in research and the avail-
ability of manpower and facilities to maintain economic growth and
improve living conditions.
• Agriculture: Improving the quality of life in the agricultural sector of
our economy.
• Living conditions: Alleviating general poverty and the decayed
conditions of the cities.
• Health and welfare: Improving the levels of welfare assistance,
vocational rehabilitation, and provision of medical services in both the
public and private sectors of the economy.
With the selection of the general areas for which social indicators are to be
developed, it is then necessary to collect the relevant set of basic statistics from
which a summary statistic can be created. This task proved to be the most
difficult phase of the study, since data on the social and political conditions in
our society are much less developed and available than data pertaining to the
economic conditions. A total of 72 different measures were used in constructing
the final eight indicators. These measures and their sources are listed in the
Appendix. The selection of these individual measures must be carefully
considered since the quality of the summary indicator is quite clearly dependent
upon the reliability and relevancy of the initial measures from which it was
constructed. Every effort was made to relate the measures as closely as possible
to the interpretation given each of the eight general areas as discussed in the
President's Commission Report and related papers.
Measures of output were carefully distinguished from those of inputs to
avoid duplication of what is essentially identical information, assuming a
relevant relationship can be defined between the two. Such a dichotomization is
complicated by an inability to specify clearly the output of certain areas. In the
area of education, for example, the distinction between outputs and inputs is
quite apparent and presents few problems. The quantity and quality of the
educational service can be assessed by the level of achievement on tests and years
of schooling. The inputs to achieve this output include the availability of
11-264
-------
educational facilities and the socio-economic environment in which the educa-
tional process occurs.6
In other areas, such as health and welfare, the distinction between inputs
and outputs is far less clear. The output could appropriately be measured by the
age-race adjusted mortality rates for each state and inputs could be assessed by
the number of physicians and hospital beds that are available to the residents of
a given state. Such a formulation implies the existence of a given technical
relationship or, in terms of the economist, a production function, for the health
sector of the economy. Unfortunately, the research in this area is far less
developed than in the previous example of education. And for certain other
areas, such as racial equality and individual status, it is questionable whether
such a technical relationship is even feasible. In these cases, individual measures
were carefully selected to reflect the general intent of the area for which an
overall indicator is being developed.
The entire analysis is highly interrelated, reflecting the actual conditions
existing in our socio-economic environment. Some of the measures and
indicators themselves are used to develop other indicators of the study.
"Individual Status", for example, is measured by equality of individual oppor-
tunity, itself a separate indicator; an index of the quality of medical services,
living conditions, and education; and the level of welfare and social security
payments. All of the factors promote ihe maximum development of individual
opportunities and contribute to the enhancement of personal dignity. Such
interrelationships cannot, and should not, be avoided if the model is to have any
correspondence to the real world.
III. THE WEIGHTING PROBLEM
Once the social indicator has been defined, it is possible to collect a set of
basic statistics from which to construct the aggregate measure. But the quite
formidable problem of weighting each of these statistics remains to be resolved.
Many of the previous attempts at developing social indicators have simply
For an exhaustive study of the factors which influence educational achievement see
James S. Coleman and others, Equality of Educational Opportunity (Washington, U.S.
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education, 1966). This study
of racial differences in educational opportunity, which was based on a survey sample of
more than 645,000 pupils located in 4,000 public primary and secondary schools, has
generated a substantial amount of new discussion and research. While its conclusions
are far from readily accepted, it has served a momentous service by at least challenging
the conventional wisdom that school and teacher characteristics are the most
important determinants of educational achievement. A critique of the sampling and
statistical techniques used in this study and, consequently, the findings of the study are
contained in Samuel Bowles and Henry M. Levin, "The Determinants of Scholastic
Achievement-An Appraisal of Some Recent Evidence," The Journal of Human
Resources, 3, (Winter 1968), pp. 3-24.
11-265
-------
weighted all of the basic statistics equally in deriving an aggregate measure. This
approach, while straightforward and simple, produces a measure that is some-
what suspect. Many basic statistics tell the same story. They are highly
correlated with each other. An individual's income, educational level and
occupation are all highly correlated. To weigh all of these measures equally in
deriving a simple measure of that individual's economic well-being could be
quite misleading.
Factor analysis provides one mathematical approach to resolution of the
weighting problem.7 It is the object of factor analysis to represent a constructed,
nonobservable social indicator, I, in terms of several underlying factors or
hypothetical constructs. A linear model is employed in the analysis which makes
a distinction between two approaches: (1) to extract the maximum variance
from the original set of statistics, and (2) to "best" reproduce the observed
correlations in the original set of statistics.
The mathematical procedure for extracting the maximum variance is
formally called "component analysis" where each of n observed variables is
described linearly in terms of n new uncorrelated components Fj, F2, • • • Fn:
z. = a.,F + a. F + . . . a. F
3 31 1 J2 2 jn n
where z; is the standardized form of the observed variable x;.
Each component, in turn, makes a maximum contribution to the sum of
the variances of the n variables. In a practical problem, component analysis
provides an efficient summarization of the data since a few of the components
will generally account for a large amount of the total variance. Once the factor
loadings or weights for each variable are determined, it is possible to aggregate
the standardized initial statistics into a set of indicators. These aggregated
indicators are the "factor scores" associated with each component. The factor
The following discussion of the mathematical aspects of factor analysis represents a
paraphrasing of the presentation contained in: Harry J. Harman, Modern Factor
Analysis, 2nd ed., rev., (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1967). Any
similarity between the discussion and that in Harman is intentional so that we have to
be concerned only with presenting the generalized concept of factor analysis. For an
explicit discussion of the mathematical techniques used in the present analysis, the
reader is referred to Harman, op. cit., Chapters 2,5,6,8, and 16.
11-266
-------
score for component, Fp, is given by:
n
I =
p
where A is the eigenvalue.8
A set of factor scores, m, will, in practical problems, reduce the initial set
of statistics to some set of aggregated indicators m < n which will account for
the major portion of the variance in the original set of data.
The second model, called the "factor analysis" model, seeks to "best"
reproduce the observed correlations in the original set of statistics. The mathe-
matical form of the factor analysis model is:
Z. = b.^F, + b.J?0 + ...+ b. F -f- c.U.
J jl 1 j2 2 jm m j j
(j = 1,2, ... , n)
Each of the n observed variables is described linearly in terms of m (usually
much smaller than n) common factors and a unique factor. The common factors
account for the correlations among the variables while the unique factor
accounts for the remaining variance (including error) of that variable. The factor
scores for the factor analysis model cannot be exactly determined as for the
component analysis model and must be estimated using conventional regression
methods.9
The eigenvalue has several important properties in factor analysis. Let Vp represent the
value of the variance which the model seeks to maximize:
X = V = T a2...
P P jSi J1
In other words, the eigenvalue is equal to the maximum amount of variance accounted
for by factor F_ and, in addition, equals the sum of the squared factor weights.
The factor scores for the component model can be determined exactly and are unique
since the model involves n common components, giving a nonsingular matrix. But the
factor model involves both common and unique factors with the total number of
factors exceeding the number of variables. An inverse does not exist for such a singular
matrix so the accepted procedure is to estimate the factor scores by regressing factor
Fp on the n variables. The factor score can be estimated from the correlations of the
variables with the factor and the correlations among the variables.
11-267
-------
Both the component and factor analysis models start with the observed
correlation matrix, R, of the initial data. The set of n variables is then analyzed
in terms of common factors by inserting unities in the diagonal of R or in terms
of common and unique factors by inserting communahties in the diagonal of R.
Since there is no a priori knowledge of the values of the communalities, they
must be estimated in the factor analysis model. (Note that they are implicitly
assumed to equal unity in the component model.) The advantage of the factor
model is that it enables more information to be included in the analysis,
assuming that the estimates of the communalities existing among the original
data are valid.
Both the component and factor analysis models were used in constructing
the state rankings for the eight social indicators. As there was very little differ-
ence in the final rankings between these two models, the results from the factor
model are given in this paper, since this model embodies more information
concerning the initial set of measures. The factor scores for the first factor for
each indicator were used in ranking the states, and in no case did the fust factor
account for less than SO percent of the total variance in the initial set of data.
IV. THE MODELING PROBLEM
This section of the paper discusses the modeling technique used in one of
the eight areas—equality of racial opportunity. It is hoped that this example will
help clarify the general mathematical discussion presented above and assist the
reader in assessing the modeling and weighting techniques that were used
throughout this analysis.
The meaning of equality of opportunity is hardly self-evident. To some
readers, particularly the white middle-class suburbanite one or two generations
removed from Eastern Europe, equality implies the opportunity of long hours of
hard work, diligent savings, temporary domicile in the large city ghetto, and
education for the young. This was the formula for success when he started at the
bottom of the economic ladder, and what was good enough for his family is
good enough for the new class of immigrants. To the concerned white liberal
who espouses the virtues of equality and justice, racial equality may connote the
opportunity for anyone to purchase a home where he pleases, given his
economic capacity, and equal access to employment and education, so long as he
abides by the existing laws. But the young black from the city ghetto may take a
far different view. Equality of opportunity may mean a $130 a week job,
irrespective of whether he is educationally or emotionally qualified; it may mean
greater than proportionate expenditures on schools, recreation facilities, and
health and welfare than is spent in the white suburbs.
The definition of equal racial opportunity adopted throughout this paper
will be more akin to that of the concerned white liberal, not so much reflecting
11-268
-------
the value system of the author as reflecting the nature of the data which are
available for such an analysis. Consequently, the analysis may reflect a more
middle-of-the-road position. To the extent that racial discrimination cannot be
corrected without an initial imbalance of expenditures and initiation of oppor-
tunities, this study will be somewhat conservative.
The model adopted in the study contains three major elements: (1) current
economic status, (2) current economic discrimination, and (3) discrimination in
human investment.
The logical point of departure for constructing a model is with the best
aggregate socio-economic indicator that is now available—personal income.
Racial differences in personal income, adjusted to account for structural differ-
ences among the states, can be readily obtained. But even such adjusted income
data are inappropriate for our present consideration. Interstate differences in
nonwhite personal income will reflect two levels of current economic status of
the nonwhite relative to the white. The nonwhite may be at a relative economic
disadvantage to the white within the state, and both the nonwhite and white
may be at a relative disadvantage to residents of a more affluent state. A
nonwhite living in Arkansas, for example, will have an income significantly less
than that of a white person who also is a resident of Arkansas. But in addition,
the nonwhite may be double cursed since he lives in a state that has a rather
poor economy where the average income for all races is well below the average
income level in the nation.
This situation points out the necessity of carefully defining the objective of
the study. Our objective is to develop a social indicator of the degree of racial
inequality existing within a given state. Our concern is that given a certain
economic level within a specific state, we must then determine how equitably
that economic level is made available to all the residents within the state.
The current economic status of the nonwhite within a state is hardly a
sufficient aggregate indicator of racial inequality of opportunity. A nonwhite
may receive less income, not because of discrimination, but simply because he
works in a lower paid occupation or he has less education and the value of his
marginal product is low. In the second element of the model, current economic
discrimination, differences in income levels between the whites and nonwhites
are compared after adjusting for occupational and educational differences. Given
that a white and nonwhite are employed in the same occupation or have the
same amount of education, what are the differences in their income levels? We
still do not have a sufficient indicator. Current educational levels and occupa-
tional attainments are the accumulated result of investment in human capital.
Discrimination in the investment in such areas as education, health, and living
conditions reduces the future level of productivity of human capital.
II-269
-------
The major elements of the model are now complete, not that we have a
perfect measure of equality, for there are many other vital areas of considera-
tion. But we have exhausted the limit of our available data and we have provided
a beginning, admittedly quite embryonic, for future development. Our model
appears as follows in its mathematical form:
^ = 31X1 + b2X2 + C3X3
= a, £ a..X.. + b~ £ b0. x_. + c
1 I li li 2 j 2j 2j 3
(c. I d. x0, + c E x. + c, £ xc )
4 k k 3k 5m 4m 6n 5n
I
where X.. = 1 ax
X2 - I hi*2i
v y v
X,. = c. f d, x01 + cc x. + c, x,.
3 4 k k 3k 5 m 4m 6 n 5n
RD: Socio-Economic Indicator for Inequality of Racial Opportunity
Xj : Current Economic Status
Xj j -. ratio of nonwhite to white per capita median income adjusted for
urban-rural differences in population distribution
Xj2 : rati° °f nonwhite to white employment rates.
\2'- Current Economic Discrimination
X2 j : ratio of nonwhite to white income adjusted for occupation
differences.
\22 '• rati° °f nonwhite to white income adjusted for educational
differences.
X^: Discrimination in Human Investment
v
dx ; education.
11-270
-------
x-^j : educational attainment as measured by the ratio of the white to
nonwhite high school drop-out rate.
Xj2 : educational attainment as measured by the ratio of nonwhite to
white college graduate rate.
Xj3 : educational quality as measured by the ratio of white to non-
white percent of draftees who failed the mental requirements
portion of their preinduction examination.
mx4m: health
x^ j : ratio of white to nonwhite age adjusted mortality rates
yj
nX5n : environmental conditions
X(j j : urban housing density as measured by the ratio of white to non-
white percent of occupied units with 1.01 or more persons per
room.
x^2 : quality of urban housing as measured by the ratio of nonwhite to
white percent of occupied urban housing units which are sound
and have all plumbing facilities.
x^ : segregation of urban housing as measured by a weighted index of
the extent of segregation by census block.
In assembling the basic data, three primary considerations were found to be
essential:
First, the data had to be "standardized" to exclude extraneous elements
that would bias the results. Where necessary, all data were adjusted for urban-
rural and sex and age structure differences among the states. In the areas of
current economic status and current economic discrimination, the data had to be
adjusted for sex because of the quite different occupational structures existing
for males and females. A sample analysis of the data indicated that the same
trend occurred whether such data included a weighted value of data for males
and females or only the data for males.1 ° Information for males was, in general,
included in the final study as the expense of assembling the data was quite
significant.
10 A structured sample was taken of the data used in measuring current economic status
and current economic discrimination by race for both sexes separately. The data were
then weighted by the percent of the population within a state within each category and
compared to the data for males only. There was not found to be any appreciable
difference in the results.
11-271
-------
Second, a clear distinction should be made between inputs and outputs.
Akin to the economic indicator of the value of all our goods and services—gross
national product—a socio-economic indicator must carefully distinguish between
data reflecting the final output of a social system and the inputs that went into
that system. While this distinction may seem obvious, it is quite frequently
overlooked in the current practice of presenting an ad hoc collection of socio-
economic data.
Third, data were collected to reflect both the quantity and quality aspects
of the specific area being measured. Measures of quantity are much more readily
available than those of quality, creating a quite natural tendency to bias the
resulting indicator in favor of quantity. Cognizance must be taken of this
inadvertent bias by diligently seeking measures of quality. While a few quality
indicators are available in the areas of education and housing conditions, the
measurement of the quality of our socio-economic environment is sorely in need
of vitalization.
The data represent a wide range of consideration, from income levels to
segregated housing. Quite naturally, information contained in some of the data
will be similar to that contained in the other data. As indicated by the simple
correlation coefficients shown in Table 1, there is a substantial amount of
correlation between the specific measures. As would be expected, income
adjusted for occupation is highly correlated with income adjusted for education
since education is a significant prerequisite for access to the majority of occupa-
tions. Conversely, the employment rate has a low correlation with segregated
housing, the latter being more a social phenomenon. The high degree of correla-
tion existing between some of the data and the wide range of the degree of
correlation, ranging from a high of 93.1 percent to a low of 6.1 percent, raise the
interesting problem of weighting in constructing the overall socio-economic
indicator. As was discussed in Section III, factor analysis was used to develop a
set of weights.
Since the weighting system is not unique, three different social indicators
of equality of racial opportunity were developed.
Indicator I applies the component analysis model to the two major areas:
Current Economic Status, Xj, and Current Economic Discrimination, X2,
individually. The same approach is then applied to the sub-areas of education,
health, and environmental conditions within the major area of Discrimination in
Human Investment, X^. The three sub-areas are then weighted equally in
obtaining the aggregate value for Xg. Finally, all three major areas, Xj, X2, and
Xg, are weighted equally in obtaining the overall value of the racial discrimina-
tion indicator, I^p. Indicator II applies the factor analysis model to all the
initial data simultaneously using squared multiple correlation coefficients as
11-272
-------
a
&
.a
c§
03
CM
O
•!
1
c
1
"S
<3
a>
"3.
.§
^H
4J
•a
H
,CVJ
to in
w in
X 1 •
0
H
CU|l/3
in |i-
x 1 •
0
,cn
rH r-
in|^<
x 1 •
0
rHlg
x* h
0
,r-
to co
to I co
* d
OllcS
IOJCO
d
,r-
cy 01
•H in
d
o
cHIO
iHIO
rH
V P.
§ g
o o
c o
•H
,_,
cu
X
p^
in
o
10
01
CO
d
r-
in
in
o
in
OJ
in
o
in
in
d
in
to
in
d
CO
8
0
o
o
0
rH
^
^H
"D C
tJ O
§!!)
o
0 S
O -0
C (D
•H
OJ
OI
X
to
0
to
d
r-
JS
d
rH
O
§
d
H
CO
CO
d
en
r>-
d
o
8
0*
TJ
r-(
O "' *
O flJ
fl JO
0 9)
W >M
§ g
rH
to
X
to
in
to
d
o
CM
O
Sj
o
OI
o
CO
rH
CO
d
o
o
0
rH
f
t!
In V
V !H
OJ 0)
H -r>
H (t)
O 3
O
OJ
to
X
^
in
d
in
01
d
3
o
CO
CO
to
d
8
o
H
C ^^
o e
•H 0)
CJ 4J
3
•0 rH
1 C
0) 0)
& E
to
to
X
CO
to
o
CO
CO
d
rH
to
in
d
o
0
o
rH
^^
O
a
t*
*}
•r<
rH
$
J_|
J
rH
^
X
co
01
o
•<*
CO
o
0
8
H
^.
•H
8
-H
rH 3
cr
OI
in
X
0
o
o
rH
n
>H
in
3
0
•a
$
s
a;
M
d>
to
to
in
X
II-273
-------
estimates of existing communalities. Indicator III applies the component analysis
model to all the initial data simultaneously.
These three indicators, each with different weights associated with the
initial data, are similar in one basic aspect. They all depend upon the previous
definition of inequality of racial opportunity to select the appropriate set of
initial data. With Indicators II and III, this is the sole purpose of the definition as
the data are all treated as equal inputs in the factor and component analyses. But
with Indicator I, the definition assumes a much more dominant role. Not only
does it serve to select the initial set of data, but also it implies information on
the weighting of the data. The three major elements, Xj, \2, and X^ are
assumed to contribute equally in determining the degree of discrimination in
human investment.
The weights used in constructing the three socio-economic indicators of
inequality of racial opportunity are given in Table 2. These are the weights
associated with the first factor in the mathematical solution. As we recall, the
first factor makes the maximum contribution toward accounting for the total
observed variance in the initial data. Thus, the weights used in constructing
Indicator III accounted for 53.5 percent of the given variance. There is very little
difference in the weights between Indicators II and III which applied factor and
component analyses to the initial data, respectively. The weights used in con-
structing Indicator I cannot be compared with those for the other two due to
the quite different treatment of the sub-elements of the basic model, as shown
by the weights in parentheses. For each of the sub-areas, the first factor
accounted for a substantially greater amount of the initial variance as would be
expected with much smaller sets of initial data.
The sets of weights given in Table 2 were then applied to the standardized
initial data to obtain the results for each state as presented in the following
section.
The results from the three socio-economic indicators are shown in Table 3
where the states are ranked according to the value of their factor scores. The
states indicating the greatest equality of opportunity are ranked highest where,
according to our model, Hawaii is clearly the least segregated of the 40 states
that have significant nonwhite populations. Colorado, California, Minnesota, and
Washington vie for the other high positions with some variation in their ranking
according to the particular indicator. The most segregated states are still in the
Deep South despite the existence of large ghettos in the northern cities.
There is actually very little difference in the rankings of the states for each
of the indicators. The Spearman rank order correlations show that the rankings
vary in correlation from 94.4 percent between Indicators I and II to 96.0
II-274
-------
Table 2 Factor Weights Used In Construction of Socio-Economic Indicators of Inequality
of Racial Opportunity
Elements of
Model
Weights for
Indicator I
Percent of
Variance Accounted
for by Weights of
Indicator I
Weights for
Indicator II
Weights for
Indicator III
X12
*31
X32V
"41
X51
X52
13.8783
8.6525
(1.0)
12.4030
11.5411
(1.0)
(1.0)
7.3323
20.3961
14.4030
(1.0)
10.8204
(1.0)
7.3530
12.7255
3.6817
78.5
96.6
94.2
100.0
100.0
72.1
0.9177
0.4204
0.8903
0.8251
0.5321
0.7473
0.8345
0.6101
0.5861
0.8107
0.5886
0.9225
0.4364
0.8851
0.8185
0.5257
0.7451
0.8306
0.6402
0.6256
0.8129
0.6345
Percent of variance
accounted for by weights
52.3
53.
a/ The unitary values in parentheses indicate the equal weights associated
with various sub-elements of the basic model in constructing Indicator
I.
b/ In constructing Indicator I, educational quality, x^j , was given equal
weight to educational quantity,
and x.
•32
II-275
-------
Table 3 State Rankings for the Three Social Indicators of Inequality of Racial Opportunity
State
II
III
Hawai i
Colorado
California
Minnesota
Washington
Iowa
Massachusetts
Oregon
Wisconsin
Michifan
Connecticut
New York
Indiana
Kansas
Illinois
Pennsylvania
Ohio
New Jersey
Alaska
Missouri
Nebraska
West Virginia
Ar izona
Hew Mexico
Maryland
Kentucky
Oklahoma
Delaware
Texas
Tennessee
Virginia
Louisiana
Horth Carolina
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
South Dakota
Arkansas
Mississippi
South Carolina
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12.5
12.5
15
IS
15
17
18
19
20
21.5
21.5
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35.5
35.5
37.5
37.5
39
40
1
5
3
2
4
7
9
6
8
12
17
10
15
20
13
11
14
22
21
18
19
16
26
30
27
23
24
29
31
28
33
35
32
34
38
36
25
37
40
39
1
5
3
2
4
7
8
6
9
11
13
12
17
19
20
16
14
18
10
22
21
15
23
25
29
24
26
28
30
31
32
34
35
37
36
38
33
27
39
40
Indicator III
Expressed as a
Percentage Measure
60.8
57.3
59.3
60.7
57.3
52.7
51.4
54.7
49.4
48.2
47.8
48.0
46.2
45.0
45.0
46.3
47.2
45.4
48.7
43.6
43.7
47.0
40.9
41.4
40.2
42.4
41.3
40.3
39.3
37.7
35.9
35.2
34.8
33.1
33.2
32.5
35.5
42.7
29.5
29.4
11-276
-------
percent between Indicators II and HI.11 Since the correlation would be 100.0 if
there was perfect agreement, it is quite evident that all three indicators give
nearly identical results.
The rankings shown in the first three columns of Table 3 are, of course,
ordinal and give no indication of whether or not Hawaii and California are
approaching a fully integrated society. The only information contained in such
an ordinal ranking is that a Negro, on the average, has a greater equality of
opportunity in Massachusetts than he does in Kentucky, but whether that differ-
ence in opportunity is or is not significant is indeterminate. Just how much
better off is the nonwhite in Hawaii than the nonwhite in South Carolina?
An answer to this question requires cardinal indicators, indicators that can
distinguish the degree to which equality of opportunity in one state exceeds that
in another. Such cardinal information is contained in the factor scores, but the
scores themselves have little intuitive meaning. To enhance the interpretation of
the factor scores, they have been transformed to a percentage scale. Factor
scores were calculated for two hypothetical states which have perfect integration
and perfect segregation. A perfectly integrated state would achieve a score of
100 percent while the converse would rate a score of 0 percent. A linear
mapping of Indicator III was then performed onto this percentage range.12 The
11 Spearman rank order correlations, rs are determined by the following equation:
r = l-(6 Ed2)(l/n(n2 - 1))
S XX
where dj represents the difference in ordinal rank value for two series of data. The
value for is will equal +1.0 whenever the rankings are in perfect agreement, 0 when no
relationship whatsoever occurs, and —1.0 where there is perfect disagreement. The rank
order coefficients for the three socio-economic indicators are:
Spearman Rank Order Correlations
(All significant at the one percent level)
I II
II 0.944
HI 0.951 0.960
12 The factor score for a perfectly integrated state was calculated by assuming that it
achieved a value of 100.0 percent for all of the basic statistics. As we recall, all the
basic data represent ratios of nonwhite to white or vice versa for the specific areas of
measurement Conversely, a perfectly segregated state would achieve a hypothetical
value of 0.0 percent in all areas. These extreme hypothetical factor scores for Indicator
III were 6.6523 and -5.1926, establishing the relevant percentage range. The actual
factor scores were then added onto this percentage range according to the following
equation:
YJ (percentage value for state i) = (X; (factor score) + 5.9926)(1/11.8449)
11-277
-------
results of this linear mapping are given in the fourth column of Table 3 where it
is readily apparent that while Hawaii, Colorado, and California rank at the top,
the nonwhites in these states have access to less than 60 percent of the equality
of opportunity available to the white residents of the states. Even the "best"
states in the nation are far from a perfectly integrated society; and in the South,
the nonwhite exists in a substantially greater segregated society, enjoying less
than 30 percent of opportunity made available to the white majority.
V. CONCLUSIONS
The results of the state rankings for all eight social indicators, shown in
Table 4, indicate that California leads the nation in the areas of individual status,
education, and technological change. Living conditions are highest in Connecti-
cut while Hawaii provides the least segregated society. The highest ranking states
in the eight areas for which social indicators have been developed are generally
located in the North and Far West. The northeastern states of Connecticut,
Massachusetts, and New York fare quite well. In the Midwest, Michigan,
Minnesota, and Wisconsin all rank high for the majority of the eight areas. And
on the West Coast, California ranks substantially above the surrounding states.
The Southern states, primarily in the South-Central and South-Atlantic regions
of the nation, are among the lowest in the rankings. Alabama, Arkansas,
Mississippi, and South Carolina invariably rank near the bottom for most of the
areas. There are, however, some significant individual exceptions within these
extreme states. For instance, Michigan fares rather poorly in welfare and
Alabama ranks relatively high in technological change.
These rankings represent a static analysis which attempts to assess state
differences in certain socio-economic areas at one point in time. But the
economic, social, and political conditions existing in any state are undergoing
continuous, dynamic change. From a policy standpoint, a more relevant issue
would concern the nature, direction, and rate of change in the quality of life
within the various states or regions in the nation. Such a dynamic analysis,
unfortunately, cannot be made with the current lack of historical data, particu-
larly in the areas of racial equality and health and welfare.
It is readily obvious that the development of a set of social indicators is
only the initial task. The causal relationship existing between any indicator and
specific public or private policy programs in our society is a much more difficult
problem to be resolved. As we have learned from our experience in developing a
quantitative measure of gross national product where the causal relationship
between fiscal and monetary policy and the level of gross national product is a
far from resolved issue, this task could well be quite formidable long after social
accounts become commonplace. But the task will be exceedingly more difficult
in the area of social indicators. The social indicators represent aggregations of
basic statistics which are obtained from the application of certain mathematical
11-278
-------
Table 4 Quality of Life in the United Ststes-Individual State Rankings foi the Eight Social
Indicators, 1960-1965
Aiat-a-wi
Alaska
Ari zona
Arkansas
Calircrnla
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Icuisiana
*faine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Misrisslppi
H ssouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
»ew York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Verc-cnt
Virg.nta
Washington
Vest Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
* Data available
Individual
Status
47
32
30
46
1
13
4
S7
IS
48
K
24
5
23
15
20
40
41
36
26
3
10
9
50
38
19
31
IB
16
6
39
2
45
28
14
34
12
17
7
49
37
44
43
21
33
42
11
35
8
25
for only 40 states
Racial
Equality*
34
19
23
37.5
3
2
11
26
35.5
35. S
1
_
15
12.5
6
15
26
32
-
- _ as_ .
7
10
4
39
20
-
21.5
-
-
18
24
12.5
33
_
17
27
8
15
-
40
57.5
30
29
1
-
31
5
21 5
9
'
Educa-
tion
49
37
5.5
44
1
18.5
4
21
36
46
35
9
e
13.5
23
12
40
41
45
18 5
2
16
17
47
28
25
10
31
33
5.5
32
3
48
27
29
20
13 5
24
11
50
26
42
34
7
36
39
15
43
30
22
Economic
Growth
Quality
36
47
27
42
3
16 5
7
4
15
22
13
25
5
12
10
30
2*
41
49
2
18
1
6
35
39
46
23
26
33 5
19
48
16 5
32
20
29
45
8
40
31
37
44
21
33.5
28
36
9
14
SO
11
43
Techno-
logical
Change
21
49
28
35
1
19
14
29
7
24
40
43
10
17
26
31
30
25
50
15
4
8
11.5
38
20
47
39
44
42
9
36
2
18
41
6
23
32
5
37
33
48
22
3
27
45
16
13
34
11.5
46
Agricul-
ture
48
35.5
1
49
2
8.5
8 5
12 5
34
41
15
12.5
7
17. S
4
17.5
45
40
37
21 5
27.5
31
21.5
50
38
5.5
10.5
6
32
10 5
35.5
19
43 5
21.5
25
39
16
29.5
25
43 5
21 5
46
33
25
29 5
42
14
47
27.5
5 5
Living
Condi-
tion
47
26
31
41
3
24
1
8
37
45
7
18
1<
34
29
38.5
27
49
IS
21
9
13
10
46
36
23
40
5
19
4
32
2
44
33
17
43
11
16
6
48
35
38.5
SO
20
25
42
12
30
2?
28
Health
an'l
Jr. Ifar-
44 5
25
38
36
14
6
9
3
42
39
27
44.5
21
37
13
34
46
31
23
5
12
41
1
48
28
19
29
35
22
24
43
2
33
8
30
17
11
16
4
50
18
37
49
40
10
26
20
15
7
32
11-279
-------
techniques. There is no underlying theory of causal relationships nor is there the
existence of a generally accepted weighting system. The Keynesian model and
market-determined prices provide both of these important ingredients in the
construction and causality analysis of our current economic indicators. To
simply apply the statistical techniques of multiple-regression analysis, for
example, to a derived social indicator as the dependent variable, seriously
impairs any causality implications that may be made. Various socio-economic
explanatory variables will be significant in their causality impact upon the
individual measures that are included in the aggregate statistics, but the impact
upon the aggregate statistic itself is far from obvious due to the nature of its
construction.
11-280
-------
REFERENCES
1. Annuals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, "Social
Goals and Indicators for American Society," Volsl and II (May 1967 and
September 1967).
2. Arrow, Kenneth, Social Choice and Individual Values (New York: John
Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1951).
3. Batchelder, Alan, "Decline in the Relative Income of Negro Men,"
Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 78 (November 1964), pp. 525-48.
4. Bauer, Raymond A., ed., Social Indicators (Cambridge: M.I.T. Press, 1966).
5. Becker, Gary, The Economics of Discrimination (Chicago: The University
of Chicago Press, 1957).
6. Bergson, Abram, "A Reformulation of Certain Aspects of Welfare
Economics," Quarterly Journal of Economics (February 1938), pp. 310-34.
7. Blalock, Hubert M., Social Statistics (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960).
8. Bowles, Samuel, and Levin, Henry M., "The Determinants of Scholastic
Achievement—An Appraisal of Some Recent Evidence," The Journal of
Human Resources, 3 (Winter 1968), pp. 3-24.
9. Brazer, Harvey E., and David, Martin, "Social and Economic Determinants
of the Demand for Education," in Economics of Higher Education, Selma
J. Mushkin, ed. (Washington: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare, Office of Education, 1962), pp. 21-42.
10. Carmichael, Stokely, "What We Want," New York Review of Books, Vol. 7,
No. 4 (September 22, 1966), p. 5.
11. Coleman, James S., et al, Equality of Educational Opportunity, U.S.
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education
(Washington, D.C.: 1966).
12. Coleman, James S., "Equality of Educational Opportunity: Reply to
Bowles and Levin," The Journal of Human Resources, 3 (Spring 1968),
pp. 237-46.
13. Denison, Edward F., The Sources of Economic Growth in the United States
New York: Committee for Economic Development, January 1962).
11-281
-------
14. Drewnowski, Jan, and Wolf, Scott, "The Level of Living Index" (Geneva:
United Nations Research Institute for Social Development, 1966).
15. Dorfman, Robert, ed., Measuring Benefits of Government Investments
(Washington: The Brookings Institution, 1965).
16. Eckstein, Otto, "A Survey of the Theory of Public Expenditure Criteria,"
in Public Finances: Needs, Sources, and Utilization (Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1961).
17 ,Water Resources Development, The Economics of Project Evalua-
tion (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1961).
18. Fellner, William, "Operational Utility: The Theoretical Background and a
Measurement", in Ten Economic Studies in the Tradition of Irving Fisher
(New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1967).
19. Oilman, Harry J., "Economic Discrimination and Unemployment,"
American Economic Review, Vol.40, No. 5 (December 1965),
pp. 1077-96.
20. Harman, Harry J., Modern Factor Analysis, 2nd ed., rev. (Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press, 1967).
21. Henderson, James M., "Local Government Expenditures: A Social Welfare
Analysis," The Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol L, No. 2 (May
1968) 1956-63.
22. Krueger, Anne O., "The Economics of Discrimination," Journal of Political
Economy, Vol. 71 (October 1963), pp. 481-86.
23. McKean, Roland N., Efficiency in Government Through Systems Analysis
(New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1968).
24. Michelson, Stephan, "Incomes of Racial Minorities", unpublished manu-
script (Washington: The Brookings Institution, February 1968).
25. Musgrave, Richard A., The Theory of Public Finance (New York: McGraw-
Hill, 1959).
26. Olson, Mancur, Jr., "An Agenda for the Development of Measures of the
Progress of a Racial or Ethnic Group," U.S. Department of Health, Educa-
tion and Welfare (February 6,1968), unpublished paper.
11-282
-------
27. Report of the President's Commission on National Goals, Goals for Ameri-
cans (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, I960).
28. Rothenberg, Jerome, The Measurement of Social Welfare (Englewood
Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1961).
29. Siegel, Paul M., "On the Cost of Being a Negro", Sociological Inquiry
Vol. 35, No. 1 (Winter 1965), pp. 51-57.
30. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, U.S. Census of
Population, 1960, United States Summary, PC (1>1C, Table 137.
31. Statistical Abstract, op. cit., p. 75 3.
32. Census of Governments, 1962, Compendium of Government Finances, op.
cit., Table 37.
33. Statistical Abstract, op. cit., p. 149. The "weighted index of crime rates"
was calculated from the seven crime rate series published by the FBI-
murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated
assault, burglary, larceny, and auto theft. Each series was given equal
weight.
34. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, County and City
Data Book, 1962 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office,
1962), Tables 3 and 6. This indicator contains two basic elements: first, the
ratio of median family income in central cities to that for the SMSA, and
second, the level of median family income in the central cities. Each
element was weighted equally in determining the final ranking. All 130
cities with 1960 populations of 100,000 or more were included in the
analysis and where the relevant SMSA extended into more than one state,
the population was allocated to the relevant state. The ratio was weighted
by the absolute level of income to reflect regional income differentials.
35. Statistical Abstract, op. cit., p. 206.
36. "State Data and State Rankings in Health, Education, and Welfare," op.
ciY.,pp.S-2,4,5,6,13.
11-283
-------
APPENDIX
THE SPECIFIC STATISTICS USED IN CONSTRUCTING EACH SOCIAL INDICATOR
I. THE STATUS OF THE INDIVIDUAL
A. Enhance Individual Dignity
Level fo Public Assistance
for:1 (average monthly
payments)
Old-age assistance
Aid to families with de-
pendent children
Social Security payments
for:1 (average monthly
payments)
Retired
Disabled
Living conditions index2
B. Promote Maximum Development
of Individual Capabilities
Quality of medical service
index3
Education index
C. Widen Opportunities for
Individual Choice
Equality index5
II. INDIVIDUAL EQUALITY
Eliminate Discrimination on the
Basis of Race, Sex, and
Religion
A. Current Economic Status
Ratio of nonwhite to white
per capita median income
adjusted for urban-rural
differences in population
distribution6
Ratio of nonwhite to white
employment rates6
B. Current Economic Discrimination
Ratio of nonwhite to white
income adjusted for
occupation differences6
II. INDIVIDUAL EQUALITY (Continued)
Ratio of nonwhite to white
income adjusted for edu-
cational differences6
C. Socio-economic Impairment
Discr imination
Educational attainment as
measured by the ratio of
the white to nonwhite high
school dropout rate
Educational attainment as
measured by the ratio of
nonwhite to white college
graduate rate6
Educational quality as
measured by the ratio of
white to nonwhite percent
of draftees who failed
the mental requirements
portion of their pre-
induction exams7
Health
Ratio of white to nonwhite
age adjusted mortality
rates8
Environmental Conditions
Urban housing density as
measured by the ratio of
white to nonwhite percent
of occupied units with 1.01
or more persons per room9
Quality of urban housing as
measured by the ratio of
nonwhite to white percent
of occupied housing units
which are sound and have
all plumbing facilities9
Segregation of urban housing
as measured by a weighted
index of the extent of
segregation by census block
10
11-284
-------
III. EDUCATION
A. Output
One minus the high school
dropout rate
Percent passing pre-induction
Array mental examination12
Percent of population ages 5-
20 enrolled in high school13
First-time college enrollees
as a percent of high school
graduates11*
Percent of population ages 18-
44 enrolled in higher
education 5
First-time professional and
graduate students as a
percent of full-time
undergraduates 21*
TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE (Continued)
Manpower
Number of scientists21*
NASA research contracts with
universities and nonprofit
organizations net sub-
contracts2^
Military prime contracts for
research25
AEC research contracts with
universities and nonprofit
•JO
organizations
B. Education and Retraining
Enrollment in vocational and
technical eduation as per-
cent of population
Per capita expenditure for
vocational education
IV. ECONOMIC GROWTH
VI. AGRICULTURE
A. Output
Percentage increase in personal
income, 1960-6516
Percentage increase in per
capita personal income,
1960-6516
B. Input
Per capita capital outlay by
state and local govern-
ments17
Unemployment rate1^
Living conditions index2
Technological change index
Education index1*
V. TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE
A. Promotion and Encouragement
of Technological Change
Patents issued to residents
of each state20
Current expenditure on research
in universities and
colleges
Industrial research and de-
,,23
A. Farm Level-of-Living
Average value of land and
buildings per farm
Average value of sales per
farm
Percent of farms with telephone
Percent of farms with freezers
Percent of farms with auto-
mobiles
VII. LIVING CONDITIONS
A. Remedy Slum and Poverty
Conditions
Total state technical
assistance expenditure per
poor person
Economic opportunity assistance
expenditure per poor person29
Percent of families with
income under $3,00030
Percent of sound housing units
with plumbing facilities
velopment expenditures
22
11-285
-------
VII. LIVING CONDITIONS (Continued)
B. Reverse the Process of Decay
in Larger Cities
Per capita general expenditure
of state and local govern-
ments for housing and urban
renewal
Weighted index of crime rates
C. Relieve the Necessity for
Low-Income and"Minority
Groups to Loncentrate in
Central Cities
Weighted index of median
family income in central
cities as a percent of SMSA
median family income
D. Expand Parks and Recreation
as Necessary to Meet Demand
Per capita recreation area
VIII. HEALTH AND WELFARE
A. Medical Care
Number of doctors per 100,000
population
Number of dentists per 100,000
population
Number of nurses per 100,000
population
Number of acceptable general
hospital beds per 1,000
population
Number of acceptable mental
hospital beds per 1,000
population
VIII. HEALTH AND WELFARE (Continued)
Number of beds for long-term
care for aged per 1,000
population
Special and general patient
days of care per 1,000
population
Mental patient days of care
per 1,000 population
State and county mental
hospital admissions per
100,000 population
State and county mental
hospital releases per
1,000 average daily patients
Percent population served by
fluorinated water supply
Infant deaths per 1,000 live
births
B. Welfare
Child health and welfare
Child welfare expenditure
per child under 21
Mothers receiving medical
clinic services
Crippled children served
Children receiving child
welfare services
Full-time caseworkers per
10,000 children
Vocational rehabilitation
Rehabilitants per 100,000
population
Cases per counselor
Per capita expenditures
Public assistance
Old age assistance
Aid to families with de-
pendent children
11-286
-------
REFERENCES TO APPENDIX
1. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Program Coordination, "State Data and State
Rankings in Health, Education, and Welfare" (Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1965), p. S-6.
2. The ranking contained in Goal VII.
3. The ranking contained in Goal VIII under the medical care category.
4. The ranking contained in Goal III.
5. The ranking contained in Goal II.
6. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Characteristics of
the Population, Detailed Characteristics, Individual States, 1960.
7. Unpublished data obtained from the Medical Statistics Agency, Office of
the Surgeon General, Department of the Navy.
8. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service,
National Vital Statistics Division, Vital Statistics of the United States,
1960, Volume II - Mortality Part B, and Forrest E. Linder, and Robert D.
Grove, Techniques of Vital Statistics (Washington: U.S. Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare, June 1959).
9. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Census of Housing,
States and Small Areas, I960, and "Measuring the Quality of Housing, An
Appriasal of Statistics and Methods", working paper No. 25, 1967.
10. K.E. Taeuber, and A.F. Taeuber, Negroes in Cities, (Chicago, Aldine
Publishing Company, 1965).
11. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education,
A State Profile on School Dropouts, Juvenile Delinquents, Unemployed
louth, and Related Federal Programs, Fiscal Year 1966.
12. Statistical Abstract.
13. Ibid., and Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Current Popu-
lation Estimates, "Estimates of the Population of States, by Age, 1960
to 1966", Series P-25; No. 384, February 13, 1968.
14. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Education,
Residence and Migration of College Students, Fall 196Z (OE-54033,
Circular Number 783).
11-287
-------
15. Ibid., and Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of
Education, Resident and Extension Enrollment in Institutions of Higher
Education, Fall 196Z (OE-5400, Circular number 776).
16. Statistical Abstract, op. cit., p. 330.
17. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Census of Governments,
1962, Compendium of Government Finances, Vol. IV, No. 4, p. 56.
18. U.S. Department of Labor, "Manpower Report of the President", March 1966,
p. 208.
19. The ranking contained in Goal V.
20. U.S. Commissioner of Patents, "Annual Report, Fiscal Year 1966,"
(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office), pp. 28-29.
21. National Science Foundation, "Reviews of Data on Science Resources,"
NSF 66-27, No. 9, August, 1966, p. 14.
22. National Science Foundation, "Basic Research, Applied Research, and
Development in Industry, 1964," NSF 66-28, p. 35.
23. U.S. House of Representatives, 88th Congress, "Hearings Before the
Subcommittee on Manned Space Flight of the Committee on Science and
Astronautics" (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1963),
p. 170 and pp. 720-23.
24. National Science Foundation, "Reviews of Data on Science Resources,"
NSF 66-34, No. 11, December 1966, p. 3.
25. D.A. Murry, "Scientific Research in Missouri" (Columbia, Missouri:
Research Center, School of Business and Public Administration, University
of Missouri, 1965), pp. 44-47.
26. "State Data and State Rankings in Health, Education, and Welfare," op.
ait., p. S-3 and p. S-42.
27. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, "Vocational and
Technical Education, 1964" (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1965), Tables 1 and 5.
28. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, "Farm
Operator Level of Living Index for Counties of the United States, 1950
and 1959," pp. 29-30.
29. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, "Intergovernmental
Relations in the Poverty Program" (Washington, D.C. : April 1966),
Tables B-8 and B-9.
11-288
-------
COMPARISON OF QOL FACTOR LISTS
The following table was developed by Ken Hornback, member of the EPA
Summer Fellows Research Program conducted in 1972 and Dr. Robert W. Shaw,
Jr. of Booz-Allen Applied Research. The QOL factor lists suggested by various
authors are compared to that developed by the EPA Fellows. The horizontal
structure in the table is intended to emphasize similarities between the lists. The
table is excerpted from a report entitled A Quantitative Measure of the Quality
of Life researched and written by Hornback and Shaw.
11-289
-------
-------
VII REFERENCES
11-293
-------
-------
REFERENCES
Ayres, Robert U. and Kneese, Allan V., "Production, Consumption and
Externalities," American Economics Review, June 1969.
Ayres, Robert U., "A Material-Process-Product Mode," in Allan V. Kneese and
Blair T. Bower ed. Environmental Quality Analysis, (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
Press for Resources for the Future, Inc. 1972).
Bales, Robert F. and Arthur S. Couch, "The Value Profile: A Factor Analytic
Study of Value Statements," Sociological Inquiry, Winter 1968.
Bauer, Raymond A., ed., Social Indicators, The M.I.T. Press, 1966.
Biderman, Albert D. Social Indicators- Whence and Whither. A paper presented
to First Annual Social Indicators Conference, American Marketing Association,
Feb. 17-18,1972.
Bradburn, Norman and David Capolvitz, Reports on Happiness: A Pilot Study of
Behavior Related to Mental Health, Aldine, 1965.
Brandes, Ely M., "Normative, NVB-Based Futures," unpublished memorandum,
Educational Policy Research Center, December 1969.
Bugental, J. F. T., "Notes on Graves's Levels of Existence Conception,"
Educational Policy Research Center internal memorandum, August 20, 1969.
Cain, Stanley A., Conservation: The Developing Ecological Science of Resource
Management, Second National Congress on Environmental Health, Proceedings,
1961.
Campbell, Angus and Philip Converse, The Human Meaning of Social Change.
New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1972.
Cantril, Hadley, The Pattern of Human Concern, Rutger's University Press,
1966.
Center for Urban Studies, Wayne State University, Social Reporting in Michigan:
Problems and Issues, (Lansing, Michigan: Office of Planning Coordination,
Bureau of Policies and Programs, 1970).
Commission on Population Growth and the American Future. Population and
the American Future, 1972.
11-295
-------
Corning, Pater A. An Index for the Quality of Life. Paper presented at the 138th
meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
December 1971.
Dalkey, Norman C., Ralph Lewis, and David Snyder, "Measurement and
Analysis of the Quality of Life" prepared for U.S. Department of Transporta-
tion, Rand, August 1970.
Dalkey, Norman C., Studies in the Quality of Life-Delphi & Decision-making,
D.C. Heath & Co., Lexington, Mass., Rand, 1972.
Denison, Edward F., "Welfare Measurement and The GNP," Survey of Current
Business, Vol. 51, No. 1, January 1971.
Drewnowski, Jan, and Wolf Scott, "The Level of Living Index," Report No. 4,
United Nations Research Institute for Social Development, Geneva, September
1966.
Duncan, Otis Dudley, Toward Social Reporting: Next Steps. New York: Russell
Sage Foundation, 1969.
Fisher, Joseph L. "The Natural Environment" The Annals of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science, May 1967.
Forrester, Jay W., World Dynamics, Wright-Allen Press, 1971.
Goals for Americans, President's Commission on National Goals, Spectrum
Books, 1962.
Goldberg, M.A. and Holling, C.S., The Vancouver Regional Simulation Study,
1970-71, Resource Science Center, the University of British Columbia,
Vancouver, Canada.
Graves, Clare W., "On the Theory of Value," mimeographed paper, March 1967.
Graves, Clare W., W. I. Huntley, and Douglas W. LaBier, "Personality Structure
and Perceptual Readiness: An Investigation of their Relationship to Hypothe-
sized Levels of Human Existence," mimeographed paper, May 1965.
Gray, James N., "A Critique of Forrester's Model of An Urban Area," IEEE
Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Vol., SMC-2, No. 2, April 1972.
Gross, Bertram M., "The City of Man: A Social Systems Accounting," in
Environment for Man, William R. Ewald, Jr., ed., Indiana University Press, 1967.
11-296
-------
Gross, Bertram M., "The New Systems Budgeting," Public Administration
Review, March- April 1969.
Gross, Bertram M., ed., "Social Goals and Indicators for American Society," The
Annals, American Academy of Political and Social Science, volumes 371 and
372, May and September 1967.
Gross, Bertram M., The State of the Nation: Social System Accounting,
Tavistock Publications, London, 1966.
Gross, Bertram, Social Intelligence for America's Future. New Jersey: Allynn
and Bacon, Inc., 1969.
Hammond, Richard J. and Ernest C. Harvey, "Some Tentative Observations on
Social Indicators," SRI IR&D Report, June 1970.
Harman, Willis W., "Belief Systems, Scientific Findings and Educational Policy,"
Educational Policy Research Center Research Note 6747-4, November 1967.
Harvey, 0. J., David E. Hunt, and Harold M. Schroder, Conceptual Systems and
Personality Organization, John Wiley and Sons, 1961.
Huddle, Franklin P. The Evolution and Dynamics of National Goals in the
United States. Congressional Research Service: Washington, D.C., 1971.
Inglehart, Ronald. "The Silent Revolution in Europe: Intergenerational Change
in Post-Industrial Societies," to appear in the fall, 1971 issue of The American
Political Science Review.
Isard, Walter et al, Ecologic-Economic Analysis for Regional Development,
(New York: The Free Press, 1972).
James, Dorothy Buckton, "Poverty, American Values and Change," delivered at
Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Los Angeles,
September 1970.
Jones, Martin V. and Michael J. Flax, The Quality of Life in Metropolitan
Washington, D.O.-Some Statistical Benchmarks. The Urban Institute,
Washington, D.C., March 1970.
Joun, Young P., "Information Requirements for Socio-Ecological Models," The
Annals of Regional Science, Vol. V, No. 1, June 1971.
Joyce, Robert E. "Systematic Measurement of the Quality of Urban Life,
Prerequisite to Management," from Seminar on Management of the City.
Research Analysis Corporation, May 1971, pp. 69-86.
11-297
-------
Kamrany, Nake M. and Alexander N. Christakis, Social Indicators in Perspective,
International Seminar on Ekistics and the Future of Human Settlements, July
1969.
Kantor, Robert E., "Psychological Theories and Social Groupings," Educational
Policy Research Center Research Memorandum 6747-5, SRI, November 1969.
Kluckholm, Florence R. and F. L. Strodtbeck, Variations in Value Orientations,
Row, Peterson, 1961.
Kohlberg, Lawrence, Stages in the Development of Moral Thought and Action,
Holt, Rinehart, & Winston 1970.
Krieger, Martin H., "Social Indicators for the Quality of Individual Life," Center
for Planning and Development Research, University of California, Berkeley,
Working Paper 104, October 1969.
Logothetti, Thomas J., "Social Measurements Handbook," compiled for SRI,
1970.
Maslow, A. H., Motivation and Personality, Harper, 1954.
Maslow, A. H., Religions, Values, and Peak-Experiences, Ohio State University
Press, 1964.
Maslow, A. H., Toward a Psychology of Being, 2nd ed., Van Nostrand, 1968.
Meadow, Donella H. et al, The Limits to Growth, (New York: University
Books, 1972).
Mitchell, Arnold, "Alternative Futures: An Exploration of a Humanistic
Approach to Social Forecasting," Educational Policy Research Center Research
Note 6747-2, SRI, November 1967.
Mitchell, Arnold, "Note on Personality Change," internal memorandum,
Educational Policy Research Center, September 1969.
Mitchell, Arnold and Mary K. Baird, "American Values," Long Range Planning
Service report No. 378, SRI, June 1969.
National Wildlife Federation, National Environmental Quality Index, National
Wildlife, Aug.-Sept., 1969.
National Wildlife Federation, 1970 National Environmental Quality Index,
National Wildlife, Oct.-Nov., 1970.
H-298
-------
National Wildlife Federation, 1971 National Environmental Quality Index,
National Wildlife, Oct.-Nov., 1971.
National Wildlife Federation, 1971, EQ Index Reference Guide, Washington,
B.C.
Perloff, Harvey S., "A Framework for Dealing with the Urban Environment:
Introductory Statement," in Harvey S. Perloff, ed. The Quality of the Urban
Environment, (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1968).
Peterson, Richard, On a Typology of College Students, 1965.
Roberts, Thomas B., "Toward a Humanistic Social Science: A Consciousness
Theory Outlined and Applied," Journal of Human Relations, Fourth Quarter
1970.
Rokeach, Milton and Seymour Parker, "Values as Social Indicators of Poverty
and Race Relations in America," The Annals of the Academy of Political and
Social Science, March 1970.
Rokeach, Milton, "The Role of Values in Public Opinion Research," Public
Opinion Quarterly, Winter 1968-1969.
Russell, Clifford S. and Spofford, Walter 0., Jr., "A Quantitative Framework for
Residual Management Decision," in Allen V. Kneese and Blair T. Bower ed.,
Environmental Quality Analysis: Theory and Method in the Social Sciences,
(Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press for Resources for the Future, Inc., 1972).
Sheldon, Bernert Eleanor and Howard E. Freeman, "Notes on Social Indicators:
Promises and Potential," Policy Sciences 1, 1970.
Sheldon, Bernert Eleanor and Wilbert E. Moore, eds. Indicators of Social
Change: Concepts and Measurements, Russell Sage Foundation, New York 1968.
"Social Reporting in Michigan: Problems and Issues," Center for Urban Studies,
Wayne State University, Technical Report A-37, January 1970.
Springer, Michael, "Social Indicators, Social Reports, and Social Accounts,"
Operation PEP, San Mateo County Board of Education, March 1970.
The Gallup Organization, Inc., The U.S. Public Considers Its Environment
(conducted for the National Wildlife Federation). Princeton, New Jersey, 1969.
Toward Balanced Growth: Quantity with Quality, National Goals Staff,
Washington, D.C., July 1970.
11-299
-------
Toward a Social Report, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
GPO, 1969. This is the so-called "Olson report" because it was prepared under
the direction of Mancur Olson.
"Toward Master Social Indicators," Educational Policy Research Center
Research Memorandum 6747-2, SRI, February 1969.
Trow, Martin, "Student Cultures and Administrative Action," 1962.
Trow, Martin and Burton Clark, "The Organizational Context," 1966.
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Toward a Social Report.
U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, D.C., January 1969.
Vestermark, S. D., Jr., ed., "Indicators of Social Vulnerability," Human Sciences
Research, Inc., McLean, Virginia, August 1968.
Watt, Kenneth, et al, A Model of Society, Environmental Systems Group,
Institute of Ecology, University of California, Davis, 1969.
Wilson, John Q., Quality of Life in the United States - An Excursion into the
New Frontier of Socio-Economic Indicators, (Kansas City: Midwest Research
Institute, 1969).
Wilson, John 0., "Regional Differences in Social Welfare," draft, Midwest
Research Institute, Kansas City, August 1967.
II-300
-------
-------
------- |