Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Monitoring
Environmental Studies Division


             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.
 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.

     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
Environmental Protection Agency

                         THE QOL CONCEPT
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


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

    PREFACE                                           I-i

  I. INTRODUCTION: AN OVERVIEW                        1-1





 VI. THE NEXT STEPS                                   1-85

    APPENDIX                                        1-91

    REFERENCES                                      1-93

                       SECTION II
                 Compiled by Robert Livingston

    PREFACE                                          Il-i

    OF THE ART                                       II-1

 II. THE Q UALITY OF LIFE CONCEPT                       11-19



 V. QOL: PSYCHOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES                 11-189


VII. REFERENCES                                     II-293


QOL"  Debate
Issues Raised
      at Airlie  Symposium


     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.


                           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


    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


    1.    An Interdisciplinary Perspective                         1-22

    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


    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


    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





                               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


federal, state and local government interaction is required? What is required of
individual citizens?


     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.

     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

     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).


     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.


    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:

         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


 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

      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.

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

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."

     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

     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:


              Species and populations
              Habitats and communities

         Environmental pollution

              Water pollution
              Air pollution
              Land pollution
              Noise pollution


              Manmade objects

         Human interest

              Education-scientific significance
              Historical significance
              Cultural significance
              Mood-atmosphere  significance

     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

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.


    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
     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

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
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

          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

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.


    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

         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.


                             CHAPTER II

     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


     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"

         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

              $ 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


         Peace in the world remains a hope that more and more have
         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

         Concern regarding inflation has risen, concern regarding unemploy-
         ment has decreased

         Fear of war has declined; fear of Communism has dropped

          Young  people displayed  a  greater concern over a broader range  of

          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


      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).

     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

         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.


     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


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.


     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.

     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
          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

          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

          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

          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,

          Geographical  (urban,  suburban, country,  mountain,  valley,  desert,
          plains, cold, heat, sun, rain, water, snow, sand, dust, etc.)

          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

          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,

     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.


     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,

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.

                               CHAPTER III

     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


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 .


     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.

      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

      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."


     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,

     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).

     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.


     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

     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.

      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,

      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

      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.


      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.

     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

     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,


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

     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.


    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.


     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

     "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


 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).
                                                       (EST. FOR 1972-33%
                                                       OF WORK FORCE
                                                       YEAR 2000 SOME
                                                       66% SO ENGAGED)
      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

         Work may become a privilege  and a coveted status symbol, not a

         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

     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

      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


                              CHAPTER IV

     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.


     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.


    There is a wide variety  of legitimate,  and deeply felt, concerns  about any
attempt to quantify QOL, and these concerns were  vociferously,  and often


 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


 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

     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

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.


     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

 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

         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.

          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

     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

         That "the  basic components of QOL  are common to practically all
         individuals,  and  are  only weakly dependent on  ethnic or socio-
         economic status"


          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

     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

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.

 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

     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

          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).


     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).


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

         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.


(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.


                           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

          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

                                     EXHIBIT C
                      Grouping and Relative Ranking of QOL
                        Factors from the Dalkey and Rourke
 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

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

  EXTERNAL             INTERNAL                MOTION
     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


          Social Organization



               Institutional and Social Patterns
               Physical and Environmental Characteristics
               Organic Characteristics
               Cultural Esthetics

          Environmental System


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

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

     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

          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

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.







« .2
£ o
£ 2
Housing and







<£ C "o

g .2 o o.
S 2 <
•a n o
£ -3 o.
* o E
ss o a
School En-
High School

E •*



3 S S
o .2 c
£ O 3



g 2 S3 S
>-» CL, G.  > M
g- 0,1-1 T3 0
£ ^ 1 " S


U — '

•2 •&
£ & g

'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

— •
i »
c n
D at
Median Im-
puted Rent
per Median
% of People
25+ Yrs.


£as£ S.



^ M
^ ** O
z o «3
n> c
0 & &
_i m c;
% By-passed
Due to Lack of

2 1
1 - °
|| 8.8
° 2 2 &
2 « ** O
% Stand Hous-
ing. % lack-
ing Facilities
iS w w

a v
>. *3
t*-i o
o a



•*-* 13

"B » 3
a "

S £ 2 3

Median Work
Trip Time by
Private Trans-


     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.

      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:


 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

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.

               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

          Assume that there  is  available  to us  1000  Resource  Cost
          units—900 of which are  required to maintain the current level of

     With the foregoing assumptions one can illustrate a resource allocation
scheme to improve  QOL using quantities. (An  example is given in the

     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


      promising alternative approach may be to employ a time budget allocation
      as suggested by Mann and Hobson (1972).


      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

      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.

     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

     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.

                               CHAPTER V

      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.


     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

 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


                             EXHIBIT F
                        Component Factor List

     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

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

D Soil Quality
D Solid Waste
- 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.




To Delete Place X In Box
Leisure Facilities -
Work Environment -
Housing -
Technology -
Aesthetics -
Transportation —
Material Quality -
Physical Structures -

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
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-
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.


                            EXHIBIT F (4)

    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

 Degree of cohesiveness within a socie-
tal structure  and between societies;
war/peace; absence  of riots and other
 disturbances; law  and order.

SOCIAL (Continued)
D Personal Skills

D Equality

n Choices in Life

D Community

D Health


- 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-
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.


To Delete Place X In Box
D Opportunity Structure -

D Information Media -

D Democratic Process -

D Civil Liberties -

D Justice -


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.


                             EXHIBIT F (7)

    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.

                            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

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.

 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:

          Political/ Social

     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.

Policy Decision No.
Accumulated Assets -
Essential Living Costs —
Income —
Income Distribution —
Consumption —
Economic Security —
Discretionary Income —
Capital -
Investment —
Rate of Population —
Economic Opportunity —
Economic Development -
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,
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-
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.


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-
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
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.



                                EXHIBIT G (3)

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-

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.

                         EXHIBIT G (4)

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


Cultural and Spiritual

Commercial and Service


Education                            (  )

Leisure                              (  )


      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

                     EXHIBIT H
       Component Distributions and Statistics
	   =  MEAN = 324

- —   =  MEDIAN = 33

	   =  MEAN =364

- —   =  MEDIAN = 35

  O   =947

  •   -  VOTES/SCORE

       MEAN = 3) 7

       MEDIAN - 30



 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

      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

          Democratic Process
          Public Participation
          Choices in Life
          Economic Security
          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.

Weighted Ratings for
   QOL Factors


     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

     This  third part of the conference experiment went very well in the sense
that  the  participants  seemed  interested in  the problem  at hand  and


 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.


                              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?


     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


         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

     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.


     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

 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

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.

      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.




     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:


     RC2 = 10

     RC3 = 20

     The above set of values is summarized below:
    I2 = .4             w2 = 30             RC2=10

    I3 = .7             w3 = 20             RC3 = 20

          QOL = 2 wjlj = 50 ( 9) + 3Q (-^ + 20 p) = ? j
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

     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.


• 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,

 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.

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,

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,

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

Kenniston, Kenneth, The Uncommitted, Harcourt  Brace & World: New York,

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.

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,

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.

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.


QOL" Anthology


      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.

     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"

                            SECTION II

                       TABLE OF CONTENTS


    PREFACE                                              II-   i

    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


    •    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


    •   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


    •   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






                        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

          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


     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

     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:

         Housing (costs)

          Mental Health
          Environmental Quality
          Public Order/Crime
          Traffic Safety
          Racial Equality
          Community Concern
          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


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.


     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

     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."


     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


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

     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

     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,

     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

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


     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

          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.


     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.


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

     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


     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.


     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


notion  of QOL is deeply imbedded in the body of thought  related to social
     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.

     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.

 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.


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

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.




               QUALITY OF LIFE

          Some preliminary Research Ideas

            Kenneth W. Terhune, Ph.D.
               Principal Psychologist
        Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory, Inc.

                           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.

                                 STUDY 1

     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

     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).


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

           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
    From various polls; would be documented in proposal.


     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

         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,

     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


     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


     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.


                                 STUDY 2

     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

     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.

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

     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?

      Underlying theoretical question: What values are related contingently, such
 that A is not desired until B is attained to some degree?
      "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

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.

      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.

                                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).

                                STUDY 4

     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.

     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.

             Prepared for:

   Arnold Mitchell, Thomas J. Logothetti,
          and Robert E. Kantor
   SRI Projects 90414 and 48953102AME

                            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


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.
     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.


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.

     *   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.


     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

          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.

     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

     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

Physical Health       |	X	

Mental Health         |	1

Standard of  Living    |	X	

Equality              |	*	

Opportunity            |	X	

Education             j	X	

Safety                |	K	



      X = Ghetto resident

      0 = Business executive


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

     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.

                           Figure 2 "Spectrum" QOL
                    LEVEL 1      LEVEL 2      LEVEL 3      LEVEL 4      LEVEL 5
                                                                  10     = 50
     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

     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.

                                 Table 10

     (Bessie the cow as an instance of several abstract concepts)
   Level of Abstraction

1.  (Lowest):   The process
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

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

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

When Bessie is referred  to an an "asset,"
still more of her characteristics are left

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.

     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.

                                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

 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

 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

 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.

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.

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).

                               Appendix C

     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

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


                  Table 2  Three Types of Components In QOL

                             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...


    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


                                  Graves  Level

    I am suggesting that the flare accompanying transition from one level
    to another introduces a second set of pulses shown by the dotted line


                         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

    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



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

 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.

                  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.

                            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

          *  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

          *  it is not important to develop new improved techniques for
             controlling individuals and groups.

                      Table C-l  (continued)
*  the U.S. should not commit more 
  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,

  6.  Cantril, Hadley, The Pattern of Human Concern, Rutger's University Press,

  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

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

12.  Gross, Bertram M., "The  City of Man: A Social Systems Accounting," in
    Environment for Man, William R. Ewald, Jr., ed., Indiana University Press,


 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.

 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,

 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

 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

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.

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.


            Albert H. Cantril and Charles W. Rolls, Jr.
Albert H. Cantril is an independent consultant in political and survey

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.


                  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

     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

     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.

 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.


                                  Figure 1

     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

     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.


     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


              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
Freedom from inflation
Other general concerns for family
Personal Fears

111 health for self
Lower standard of living
111 health for family
Unhappy children
Drug problem in family
Political instability
No fears at all
- -
"• ~

-••A shift of 4 percentage points among the three studies
 (1959,  1964,  1971) is considered statistically significant.

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

     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.

                    Table 2  Personal Ladder Ratings

                                              1959    1964   1971



Pass to present
Present to future



*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	

    21-29                         +1.6                +1.8
    30-49                         +1.1                +1.2
    50 & over                     +0.2                +0.1

    College                       +1.3                +1.1
    High school                   +0.9                +1.1
    Grade school                   0.0                +0.2

    Upper                        +1.6                +1.0
    Upper middle                 +1.1                +1.0
    Lower middle                 +0.5                +0.8
    Lower                        -0.1                +0.4

    White                         +0.8                +0.9
    Nonwhite                      +0.4                +1.0

     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.


     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


                      Table 4  National Hopes And Fears
                                                     national hopes
Economic stability; no inflation
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


                                                     national fears

War (esp. nuclear war)
National disunity; political instability
Economic instability; inflation
Lack of law and order
Racial tensions
Lack of public morality
Loss of personal freedom

 *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

     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

     21-29                                                          29
     30-49                                                          24
     50 & over                                                     24

     College                                                        26
     High school                                                   23
     Grade  school                                                  24

     Upper                                                          29
     Upper  middle                                                 28
     Lower middle                                                 25
     Lower                                                         20

 Political affiliation
     Democrat                                                     27
     Republican                                                    24
     Independent                                                   25

     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.


                      Table 6  National Ladder Ratings

                                                    1959    1964    1971
Past to present
Present to future












 *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).


    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
          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).

          Table 11 National Ladder Rating Shifts By Major National Fears
                                                       past to present

 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

     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.


                         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.

     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.


     —    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.

      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.


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
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

      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
      45  Number  of admissions  to  motion  picture  theaters  per year, per
      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

     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


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

    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.

*\Vhat is Austria's position?
     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.


     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

     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

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.

     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
    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.


              ^-••^ «

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

     —   the number of  telephones,  radio  and  television  sets  per

     —   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).

     —   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

         (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.

     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.

                                 value    1980
         valuation      = a. log   -   +1
                 1980           value
         1  = a. log

     (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).


     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.


     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.


     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.


     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.


                                                                 1973    Zeit

1 1
57 1961 1965
*"••••.. ft.^_
1 1
1969 1973 Zeit
                                                             1973     Zeit

S  4400 -
                       3900           5900            7900           9900

                            Brutto-Nationalprodukt pro Einwohner (in DM)
 £   158-
                      3900            5900            7900

                     Brutto-Nahonalprodukt pro Einwohner (in DM)

     130 -
      SO -
   I               I                I               I
 3900           5900            7900           9900

Brutto-Nahonalprodukt pro Einwohner (in DM)
 £  340-
•s    180-j
        1900            3900            5900           7900

                    Brutto-Nationalproduht pro Einwohner (in DM)

•3  104-
                     3900          5900            1900

                  Brutto-NaUonalprodukt pro unwohner (m DM)
 t  27-
    22 •
                              iefe*—..       ^
                                °Jea    v—•—«.
       1900          3900           5900           7900           9900

                         Brutto-Nahonalprodukt pro Knwohnei (in DM)

    7,0 -
    5,4 -
                                                           X       Luxembur
                                              »	»	>\r	>	>—
  I               I               I  '
5900            7900           9900

Brutto-Nationalprodukt pro Einwohner (in DM)

     ~  13-
                       Italien •
           1900            3900            5900            7900            9900   Zeit

                        Brutto - Nationalprodukt pro Einwohner (m DM),
•e  12-
I   H
     1900           3900            5900           7900

                  Brutto-Nationalprodukt pro Einwohner (in DM)

 5 -
 '               I               I               '
3900           5900            7900           9900

      Brutto-Nationalprodukt pro Einwohner (in DM)

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

oo  2
S   1
                                        Funktionstyp A
                        Wert                    Indikator

oo  2
                                        Funktionstyp B
                        Wert                   Indikator

                                        Funktionstyp C
S   1
Wert           a

                                      Funktionstyp D

130 -
120 -
100 -
 90 -
 80 -
 70 -
 60 -
 50 -
 40 -
 30 -
 20 -
 10 -
Nicht-lmeares Modell
mit bestimmten Anderungen,
bzw. Einschrankungen mittel-
fristig anwendbar.

                    GROWTH POLICY
                    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.

               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,

     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.

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.

                                  Figure 1
Quality of.
                   Quality of
                   Quality  of
    -economic environment
     socio-cultural environment
     public service environment
     spatial environment
     health environment
     ather  environments

biotic component ^consumer

abiotic components
     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
 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.

     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.


     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.


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

     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

     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.


services, etc. The ecologic sector in each zone contains both biotic and abiotic
categories, e.g., plants, animals, climate, geology, physiography, hydrology, soil,

     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
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.

     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

     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

         (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


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,

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.

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.

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.


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,

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).

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).



            Thomas L. Kimball
          Executive Vice-President
        National Wildlife Federation
         1412 Sixteenth Street, NW
          Washington, D.C. 20036


                            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

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

     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


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.

             Table 2.  Environmental Categories and Relative Importance
                       Relative importance
               Living space
                   Table 3.  Development of National EQ Index
1971 Score
Relative importance
EQ Points
Living space


NWF National EQ Index:
     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

     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

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


                            Table 4.  Dirty Air Costs
Source of cost
Cost to human health
Cost to residential property
Cost to materials
Cost to vegetation
Total cost
Cost for average
family (S)
                     Tables.  The Price Tag For Clean Water
                             Source of
             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
                  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.

     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

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.


1.  The Gallup Organization, Inc., The U.S. Public Considers Its Environment
    (conducted for the National Wildlife Federation). Princeton, New Jersey,

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.

        Gordon J. F. MacDonald
Member, Council on Environmental Quality
    Executive Office of the President
       Washington, D.C. 20006

                       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

     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

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

     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.

     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


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


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.


     A year ago, a new agency—the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)—
came into  being. EPA is the  pollution control policeman  of the federal

     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

     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


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.


                  A DESCRIPTION OF AN
         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.

                       A DESCRIPTION OF AN

              Ira L. Whitman, Norbert Dee, John T. McGinnis,
                  David C. Fahringer and Janet K. Baker

    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

    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.


    To simplify the structure of the EES, terms at four levels of generality are
used as follows:

        Level 1 -Most general terms          ENVIRONMENTAL

        Level 2-Intermediate terms         ENVIRONMENTAL


    Level 3-Specific terms             ENVIRONMENTAL

    Level 4-Most specific terms         ENVIRONMENTAL

These terms are arranged in a hierarchical order within the EES as follows:
 Level 1

 Level 2

Level 3
Level 4
     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
            (A) Species &
            (B) Habitats &
            (C) Ecosystems
     (D)  Water Pollution
     (E)  Air Pollution
     (F)  Land Pollution
     (G)  Noise Pollution
          (H)  Land
          (I)  Air
          (J )  Water
          (K)  Biota
          (L)  Manmade Objects
      (N)  Education-Scientific
      (O)  Historical
      (P)  Cultural Significance
      (Q)  Mood-Atmosphere
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
      (9)  Parasites
           (B) Habitats and
               (10) Species diversity
               (11) Food chains
               (12) Land use for
                    habitats and

           (C) Ecosystems
               (13) Productivity rate
               (14) Hydrologic budget
               (15) Nutrient budget
CD)   Water Pollution
     (16)  Algal blooms
     (17)  Dissolved oxygen
     (18)  Evaporation
     (19)  Fecal coliforms
     (20)  Nutrients
     (21)  Pesticides, herbicides,
     (22)  pH
     (23)  Physical river
     (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
               (33) Photochemical
                    ox id ants
               (34) Sulfur oxides

           (F) Land Pollution
               (35) Land use and
               (36) Soil erosion
               (37) Soil pollution

           (G) Noise  Pollution
               (38) Noise

                          III.  ESTHETICS
(39)  Land forms
(40)  Geologic surface material
(K)   Biota
            Pleasantness of sounds
(J)    Water
      (42)   Surface characteristics
      (43)   Water-land interface
(L)   Man-Made Objects
      (46)  Visual
      (47)  Condition
      (48)  Consonance with

(M)  Composition
      (49)  Interaction of
           land,  air,  water,
           and man-made
      (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
            Related to architecture
            and styles
            Related to the  "western
     Cultural Significance
     760)  Related to
      (61)  Related to reli-
           gious groups
      (62)  Related to ethnic

     Mood- Atmosphere
     (63)  Isolation -
      (64)  Awe-inspiration
      (65)  "Oneness" with
      (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

     3.   More is  known on how  to express quality in some  categories than
         others—difference between objective and subjective evaluation.




 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

                     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


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.


     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


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


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.


     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,

the question  of overall  population size and distribution has come under active

     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

     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

     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


     Man is redefining  his relationship to his environment. He  has progressed
from fearing, to understanding, to using, to abusing, and now to worrying about


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

     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.


     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.


     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.

     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.


     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.


     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

     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.


     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


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.


     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


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.


    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.


    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.


     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

     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.

     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.

                       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.


                           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.


     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.


     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

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

2   I ignore here the net capital formation and net export components of NNP.


     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

     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.


     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.

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.


     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

     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.


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.


     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

     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.

     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.


     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.


     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.


     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).

     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.


     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


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.


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.


     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.

         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.

                     TOWARD A SOCIAL REPORT:

                  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


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."


     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


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

     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


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

     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.


     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

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.


     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


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

     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

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.


     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


 "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.


     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-

     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.

     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.


     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

     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.


     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


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.


    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


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

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

     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.




                      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.

                            QUALITY OF LIFE

                               N. C. Dalkey
     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.)


      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

      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-



     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:


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,

     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

     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,

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.


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).


     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,


 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).
                                                               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.
                                                               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.

     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

     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.


     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

     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.

     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


     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.

     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%

     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

     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.


     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


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

     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.


                    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.


                           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.


         Work may become a privilege and  a coveted status symbol, not a

         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

     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


     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

         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-

         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

         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-

         From independence and self-sufficiency to interdependence

         From generalists to specialists

         From  individual freedom  to  voluntary  restraints  to mandatory

         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


     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

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.


     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.


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


     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.


           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.

                      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.



     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.


     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


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



Table 1























































.§ s S
.ffl § £
S3 S w
•g « 2
^j Q; ^
S a z ^
Table 2. Ch

a IS
< * E w
> s o 5; « >
* s K 3 s y
S- £ fc <" Z K
M — ^ rji % y



 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.


     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.

































































0 %
w 5




O 00


rv 07

*T «t

CO «-

— to

o —

(N tO

— O»

^- o

co in

«- o

O t^

•- CO

ro »t

•- in

•- oo

(*> O

(N •-

(N O



CN in

ro oo

0 v






                            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,

 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

 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.

                          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
 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
11.    Responsibility;  concern for society, fellowman; political maturity,
      political awareness.

12.    Motivation,  competitiveness,  purpose in life, development of life
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.

Table 5  Structure of Student Judgements for Session Three
QOL Group
Subgroup 1
Split 100
N = 20
Subgroup 2
N = 19
EE Group
Subgroup 3
Split 100
N - 19
Subgroup 4
7-pt rating
N = 18
                      Part  1
Label factors
Rate self-
with each
factor on
a 1 — 5 pt
Split 100
pts among
the factors
to impor-
tance of
each factor
Label factors
Rate self-
with each
factor on
a 1 — 5 pt
Rate the
most impor-
tant factor
with 100 pts
and rate the
other factors
Label factors
Rate self-
with each
factor on
a 1 — 5 pt
Split 100
pts among
the factors
according to
of each
Label factors
Rate self-
with each
factor on
a 1 — 5 pt
Rate the
of each
factor on a
1 to 7 pt

                      Part  2
ratings in
light of
group me-
dian and
for each
ratings in
light of
group me-
dian and
for each
ratings in
light of
group me-
dian and
for each
ratings in
light of
group me-
dian and
for each
Part 3
Rate the
of each EE
factor to
each of the
QOL factors
on a 0 to 3
point scale
Rate the
of each EE
factor of
each of the
QOL factors
on a 0 to 3
point scale
Rate the
of each EE
factor to
each of the
QOL factors
on a 0 to 3
point scale
Rate the
of each EE
factor to
each of the
QOL factors
on a 0 to 3
point scale

     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




             OF URBAN LIFE,
              Robert E. Joyce
     Director, Community Analysis Bureau
        City of Los Angeles, California

                           OF URBAN LIFE,

                             Robert E. Joyce
                   Director, Community Analysis Bureau
                      City of Los Angeles, California

    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

         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

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.

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


         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


         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.
Measures of the Quality of Life in the Area
Public Sdfety
False Alarms
1 00 pop
Felonies per
100 pop
Engine Companies
1000 Acres
Police Costs
Structural Fires
100 Structures
Dropout Rate
% Minority
Enroll tnent
Percent Voter
Class Room
Instruction Costs
Avg . Daily Attendance
Mean 10th. Grade
Reading Achievement
Housing & Neighborhood
% Renter Occupied
High School
Transciency Rate
Percent Public
Median Household
Percent Sound
ircor-s Production
% White Collar
'/-. Famlies with
two Breadwinners
Percentage Effect
of Discrimination
on Income
Median Household
                Figure 1  State of the City-Measurement Categories

       Figure 2 Illustrative Example of SYMAP Display

     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.
                         Figure 3  Policy Fragmentation

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-

     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.)

                                   Figure 4  Citizen Needs
                                 URBAN SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT FLOW
               OF VVHAI
               MUST BE








                  Figure 5  Urban Community Analysts System Concept

     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

     7.   The system must  have a constant monitoring, evaluation and feed-
         back loop capacity.

     8.   The system must produce annual documentation definable to action

     9.   The system must contain a community information program to assure
         citizen  awareness  and  participation  in  partnership with  local

    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


               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

             Determination of  the impact  of on-going community improve-
             ment programs on  the urban environment.

             Recommendations of alternative  community improvement action

             Continual monitoring and evaluation of action programs.

             Determination of  legislative changes required  to prevent urban

 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

         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
         Home/Community Environment
         Economic Satisfaction

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






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

         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.








•H •
s; -

0) -H
i ^
O 0
o 3
C 'g

-o o
a ,c

•H .G
w bO




r-i ro
& W i-H
3 ttJ OJ



•H W
•H U C
cd at rH
S PH <

QJ O •
rH -H P.
•H P O
C Cd ft rH

r> O h I
*-3 EX, ft OJ
1 W
& s

£ H S

O 4J
rH.  -p
•a o (n
o c o
E D ft


i-t W
Q 01

CD -H tO
W tS G

~ -P "S

•BS. £ 5

3 G
+3 CD
a rH -H
e o q QJ
aj ,G ™ -P
f-l O h CJ
1 QJ
SH +J -P
o q 4-> o o
rH J3 C ft ^
cd 4J (I) G
rJ W CJ-69- W

0 +J

. 2 a
ft CD ft
O CH ^
ft CM O
•iH (-1
"6^ O CJ
CD ft
ft 0

•S 0
•H O
O •>
rH O
"J 0
W rH
ft •

w O
G ft
f-t O

rH QJ ft I
•H T3 O O
G C ftOJ
> ft m QJ
3 CD QJ tlfl
'-a P ft Cd

cd w
"O rH
-^. "0
•H P p
CM ul 0)
nt in r(
rl r-4 -P
EH < W


W < Vn
SH - rt
i-H i-i T— <

u ir\
"fe^^t O

i G
G O rH
CD rt
13 w -H
•rH CD P
to v) C w
QJ 1^) CD rH
In t) QJ
1 rH H CJ
G CO 03 fci

1 (/]
aj j)
ft 43
•H (tJ
o a;
QJ 4^ C
4-> ^ O
0 CO -H
> CM 43
1) -
W > fn
o o o c
ft m CH TJ O
O ft 5 --H
t* s s a -P
CM H Co Cd
JH W 0)
>H • Ml ^ |^
t*, ft £5 (H O
ITv U PH fln (^

rH P
3 ft QJ
0 nJ
"^ M O

9 rH
QJ ft •
(H g LH ft
h u ft ft
±> •

t< ft

rH S
4J m
H ft

1 4^
CD OJ tn
4? rH 4J

>H rH CD
•%«. c\j o o

§p o
c ft
•rH QJ
CU 4J 0 O
P cd +> o
aj o> w rH
> tj 4)
•H 0 > r.
** Q) C fl)
CM K M ft

•H U}

5 J &
P c\j o
Q) CO tO
•H 4J O
[t, ^

O +J Q
• CU O
O ^ rH
+* *rt

ti) r-t CU

W H rO
o 3 o
t-3 P3 ffi
Cj_. Q
0 §
*a ^ -P
QJ 4^ O flj
w C cd -P
W CD r-^1 H
Cd g O
ft p, O ft
>»rH q
ffl O. 0) (0


TJ i)
'o 5
^3 tn 'J

W QJ ft i-H

x 3 o P
• « O ft
O it rH C!
1 1 QJ

3 cj P
O d -H
X r-1 rH
T3 -feS. CJ

§ -S
CO tO bO
1 0)

QJ <


0) rH t< O
S E-t rU ft


                            IMMEDIATE PROGRAM IMPACT
                           POTENTIAL PROGRAM IMPACT
     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.

 STEP 8 - Survey of On-Going Programs and Fiscal Base for Renewal from All

     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

 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.


, UE

        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.

     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.


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?

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

                      A STUDY IN
           Conditions in 18 Large Metropolitan Areas

                     Michael J. Flax

An expanded revision of "The Quality of Life in Metropolitan Wash-
ington, (D. C.): Some Statistical Benchmarks," 136-1, March 1970.

                        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

     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

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

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

     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.

     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

     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.


     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

     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

          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

     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.


                Table 1  Quality Categories and Selected Indicators






Mental Health
Public Order
Racial Equality

Community Concern

Citizen Partici-








% 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

Air Quality1

Social Disinte-




*Median school years completed by
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-
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

         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

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.

     *   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-

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.

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.

                             APPENDIX C


    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

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.






,? £
i u-
— °
c3 «

3 1

u e-
c u
1 c
- ^
e0 c
3 I-

£ -H 'c
VI <~J
&° ^

.-( (^ (/•
C --- U

C — i
u ffl ^
^ "o -

T ° i
= 11
u. 2 t

t o
u C -i
C £ u
•o > ?
£ 5 2
-c "S c?
C 3 HI
u > c-
3 II
t- C ^
;2 =
^ J <5
^ 0
1 =

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

« ,

™ _* c
e rf o «
53 "" 2
c ^ jij j
E * ^
! *• J •
5 u « u
* « -a
s « S o -



•H V4
r-t 0)
J2 T3
13 V-i
C- O

t—l _r*
E cd
01 01
r K






H 01
4J h
01  U
C CO -^^
4-1 > cr
C 4J — 1
CO -i-t •—
U- iH

E «
C "Ocj
O iH ^
C O C^
H .e vo

£ K -H
c r ^

>• 0
0 .-v
C ^D

ED 1—4
c ^^^

r-l tfl
O 01
O. V4












— T



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 «

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
                                                                                                                          4J  14
                                                                                                                          01  O
                                                                                                                          •O >4-l

                                                                                                                          01  91
                                                                                                                          tJ ^
                                                                                                                          O J3
                                                                                                                            •  0)
                                                                                                                          M  >
                                                                                                                          C  id
                                                                                                                          •H  0)
•O  P

 O  J3|

                                                                                                                           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
                                                                                                                           O  J3  4-1

                                                                                                                              (0  Q
                                                                                                                          -a  ai  ^
                                                                                                                           ai      -o|
                                                                                                                           B  H
                                                                                                                           oo o      -a
                                                                                                                          •H  VH
 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









I— 1
i— 1







fl" W
tO rJ
g W
R ^
3 H
•i! r-l
•rl Q
3 w
cr w

T3 O
•rl O


rl •
C -r)
QJ -0
01 3
43 4-J
to en
42 to
£ rl
0 (0
i— i
43 «
rH i— 1
43 O
4-1 O
01 4-1
42 CU
H e
4-J (2
CO 03
O 4-1
•rl -1-1
rO i— H
c o
•rl CX

JJ to
0 42
60 <->
4-1 'O
tO rl
0 -T-l


I— 1
•rl 0) CU
•-H 42 42
to H 4-i
cr ^
42 s— '
to en M-l
O) cu O
O CO >-.
4-1 O 4-1
•rl -rl
4-1 TD i— 1
0 C tO
OJ -H 3
cx cr
en ri
rl 4-1
43 CO
4-J rl
•rl CO
& 42
T3 T3
o c
o o
rl CU
OJ en


, — i


o cu cu
tO 42 42
rl EH 4-1
^ (~* ^— ^
•• — '

u| to


42 4-1
4-J O
O r-l
4J Ol
O r-l
in C
o> to
rl O)
42 ^
•H 01
3 60
tO rl
cu cu
rl >
to to


4-1 CU
0 C
OJ r-l
4-1 OJ
to tn
M to

60 0
tO rl
rl CU
to to




i — i








tO rl
C >
3 <£

o> cu
60 00
C (2
42 42

4H 4H
0 0

4-1 4J
10 10
Pi Oi

^-^ , — ^
1 0

01 -!:
> 01

4-1 <

01 4-1
tn 3
rl 0
O 43
3 <

^-^ ^— s
l O
^— ' *^S

T3 01
0) 60
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



i— 1


r— 1
I— 1

i— 1






i— 1




. .

P 1










• rl






en tn
- to
to oi
01 U
rl tO
C «
cd 4-J
4-1 -rl
•H rH
rH O
CX 0
0 rl
M 4J
4-1 CU
cu e
rl CU
CO 42
rH 4-1
3 O
•rl OJ
•U 42
rl 4J
42 tn
4-1 0)

•H efl

60 O
rl 01
Ol M
> C
CO tfl
- rl
rl 01
O 43
^0 4H
0) O

to c
42 CU
3 rl
r cu
to o
i— i
01 +|
•rl C
4H to
Ol 42
*O 4-1

rl 10
Cfl CU
i— 1
12 >•>
O 43
4-1 T)
•i-l CU
•0 -r(
C rl
0 >


Table C

                 ^ 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
                      H^ HH:
           um  IH  inn tun
           I.11I?  1:1  UiH tlli!


                 John Oliver Wilson
3100 Thirty-Eighth Avenue South, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55406
                   January 1973


                           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

     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.


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.

     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.


          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.


     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

     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).


     •   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


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.


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.


score for component, Fp, is given by:
                              I   =
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
    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.


     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


 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.

    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
 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

    \22 '•    rati° °f nonwhite to white income adjusted for educational

      X^:   Discrimination in Human Investment
  dx   ;    education.

     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
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

     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

     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
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.


     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




to in
w in
X 1 •
in |i-
x 1 •
rH r-
x 1 •
x* h
to co
to I co
* d



cy 01
•H in


V P.
§ g
o o
c o










"D C
tJ O
0 S
O -0
C (D








O "' *
O flJ
fl JO
0 9)
W >M

§ g






In V

V !H
OJ 0)
H -r>
H (t)
O 3




C ^^
o e
•H 0)
•0 rH
1 C
0) 0)
& E









rH 3





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

     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

 Table 2  Factor Weights Used In Construction of Socio-Economic Indicators of Inequality
         of Racial Opportunity
Elements  of
Weights for
Indicator I
    Percent of
Variance Accounted
 for by Weights of
    Indicator I
Weights for
Indicator II
 Weights for
Indicator III








Percent of variance
  accounted for by weights
a/ The unitary values  in parentheses indicate the equal weights associated
     with various  sub-elements  of the basic model in constructing Indicator
b/ In constructing Indicator  I,  educational quality, x^j ,  was given equal
     weight to educational quantity,
                                           and  x.

Table 3  State Rankings for the Three Social Indicators of Inequality of Racial Opportunity
Hawai i
New York
New Jersey
West Virginia
Ar izona
Hew Mexico
Horth Carolina
South Dakota
South Carolina
  Indicator III
  Expressed as a
Percentage Measure


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

    YJ (percentage value for state i) = (X; (factor score) + 5.9926)(1/11.8449)


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


Table 4  Quality of Life in the United Ststes-Individual State Rankings foi the Eight Social
         Indicators, 1960-1965

Ari zona
H ssouri
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
»ew York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Vest Virginia
* Data available

for only 40 states

35. S
- _ as_ .
21 5

18 5
13 5

16 5
33 5
16 5


8 5
12 5
17. S
21 5
10 5
43 5
43 5
21 5
29 5
5 5


Jr. Ifar-
44 5


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


 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).

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.

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

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.

    A.  Enhance Individual Dignity
        Level fo Public Assistance
        for:1  (average monthly
          Old-age assistance
          Aid to families with de-
            pendent children
          Social Security payments
            for:1  (average monthly
          Living conditions index2
    B.  Promote Maximum Development
          of Individual Capabilities
        Quality of medical service
        Education index
    C.  Widen Opportunities for
          Individual Choice
        Equality index5

    Eliminate Discrimination on the
        Basis of Race, Sex, and
    A.  Current Economic Status
          Ratio of nonwhite to white
          per capita median income
          adjusted for urban-rural
          differences in population
        Ratio of nonwhite to white
          employment rates6
    B.  Current Economic Discrimination
          Ratio of nonwhite to white
          income adjusted for
          occupation differences6
          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
        Ratio of white to nonwhite
          age adjusted mortality
        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


     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
         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*

          Number of scientists21*
          NASA research contracts with
            universities and nonprofit
            organizations net sub-
          Military prime contracts for
          AEC research contracts with
            universities and nonprofit
      B.  Education and Retraining
          Enrollment in vocational and
            technical eduation as per-
            cent of population
          Per capita expenditure for
            vocational education
                                        VI.  AGRICULTURE
     A.  Output
         Percentage increase in personal
           income, 1960-6516
         Percentage increase in per
           capita personal income,
     B.  Input
         Per capita capital outlay by
           state and local govern-
         Unemployment rate1^
         Living conditions index2
         Technological change index
         Education index1*

     A.  Promotion and Encouragement
           of Technological Change
         Patents issued to residents
           of each state20
         Current expenditure on research
           in universities and
         Industrial research and de-
      A.  Farm Level-of-Living
          Average value of land and
            buildings per farm
          Average value of sales per
          Percent of farms with telephone
          Percent of farms with freezers
          Percent of farms with auto-

      A.  Remedy Slum and Poverty
          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


      B.  Reverse the Process of Decay
            in Larger Cities
          Per capita general expenditure
            of state and local govern-
            ments for housing and urban
          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


      A.  Medical Care
          Number of doctors per 100,000
          Number of dentists per 100,000
          Number of nurses per 100,000
          Number of acceptable general
            hospital beds per 1,000
          Number of acceptable mental
            hospital beds per 1,000

          Number of beds for long-term
            care for aged per 1,000
          Special and general patient
            days of care per 1,000
          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
      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
          Cases per counselor
          Per capita expenditures
          Public assistance
          Old age assistance
          Aid to families with de-
            pendent children

                            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).

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.

    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.




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,

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,

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.

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

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.

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.


Kamrany, Nake M. and Alexander N. Christakis, Social Indicators in Perspective,
International Seminar on Ekistics and the Future of Human Settlements, July

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,

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.


National Wildlife  Federation, 1971  National  Environmental Quality Index,
National Wildlife, Oct.-Nov., 1971.

National Wildlife Federation,  1971,  EQ Index  Reference Guide, Washington,

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

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.

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.