Home Business & Finance

<<		CONTENTS		>>

Estimation results from the life satisfaction equation

The predicted probabilities for low and high life satisfaction are shown in Tables 2.3 and 2.4 for, respectively, India and South Africa. There was no significant difference between persons from the FCs and non-FCs in their PPs of low satisfaction, but the PP of high satisfaction was significantly higher for persons from the FCs than from the non-FCs (Table 2.3: 35.1% versus 31.5%). The results for South Africa were exactly the opposite: while there was no significant difference between Whites and non-Whites in their PPs of high satisfaction, the predicted probability of low satisfaction was significantly lower for Whites than for non-Whites (Table 2.4: 34.8% vs. 44.4%).

Social contacts, through the importance attached to friends, affected happiness in both countries (as was shown in Table 2.2), but in neither country

	Predicted Probability of Low Satisfaction				Predicted Probability of High Satisfaction
	Probability	Marginal Probability	Standard Error	z - Value	Probability	Marginal Probability	Standard z Error	- Value
Social Group
Forward Castes [R]	0.373				0.351
Non-Forward Castes	0.385	0.012	0.016	0.8	0.315	-0.036**	0.016	-2.3
Gender
Male [RJ	0.391				0.319
Female	0.369	-0.022	0.016	-1.4	0.330	0.011	0.016	0.7
Friends
Not Very/At All Important [R]	0.387				0.318
Rather Important	0.392	0.004	0.018	0.2	0.304	-0.014	0.018	-0.8
Very Important	0.372	-0.015	0.018	-0.9	0.342	0.024	0.018	1.3
Religion
Not Very/At All Important [R]	0.412				0.282
Rather Important	0.389	-0.023	0.020	-1.1	0.282	0.000	0.019	0.0
Very Important	0.371	-0.041**	0.018	-2.2	0.351	0.069**	0.018	3.9
Health (self-assessed)
Good/Very Good [ RJ	0.293				0.466
Fair	0.377	0.084**	0.015	5.7	0.295	-0.172**	0.015	11.2
Poor	0.461	0.168**	0.017	9.9	0.246	-0.221**	0.017	13.1
Age
15-30 Years [R]	0.399				0.303

	Predicted Probability of Low Satisfaction				Predicted Probability of High Satisfaction
	Probability	Marginal Probability	Standard Error	z - Value	Probability	Marginal Probability	Standard Error	z - Value
30-45 Years	0.389	-0.010	0.016	-0.6	0.322	0.019	0.015	1.3
45-60 Years	0.360	-0.039”	0.020	-2.0	0.346	0.043”	0.019	2.2
60+ Years	0.319	-0.080”	0.026	-3.0	0.380	0.077”	0.028	2.7
Marital Status
Married/I.iving Together	0.374	-0.049 ^я'	0.028	-1.8	0.325	0.002	0.028	0.1
Divorced/Separated/Widowed	0.479	0.055	0.045	1.2	0.272	-0.051	0.044	-1.2
Single Never Married [R]	0.424				0.323
Number of Children
None[R\|	0.359				0.337
1-2	0.390	0.031	0.024	1.3	0.318	-0.019	0.025	-0.8
3+	0.383	0.024	0.024	1.0	0.323	-0.014	0.025	-0.6
Education
Elementary Education (partial/ complete) [R]	0.434				0.286
Secondary Education (vocational)	0.336	-0.098”	0.017	-5.8	0.338	0.052”	0.015	3.4
Secondary Education (academic)	0.393	-0.041”	0.019	-2.2	0.305	0.019	0.019	1.0
University Education (partial/ complete)	0.346	-0.088 ^я”	0.020	-4.5	0.378	0.093^я”	0.020	4.7
Economic Status
Full-Time Employed [R\|	0.403				0.307

Part-Time Employed	0.444	0.041 *	0.025	1.6	0.286	-0.021	0.024	-0.9
Self-Employed	0.340	-0.064”	0.019	-3.4	0.337	0.030*	0.018	1.7
Housewife	0.384	-0.020	0.022	-0.9	0.332	0.025	0.021	1.2
Student	0.363	-0.040	0.027	-1.5	0.310	0.003	0.029	0.1
Unemployed	0.396	-0.007	0.026	-0.3	0.328	0.022	0.025	0.9
Retired/Other	0.379	-0.025	0.025	-1.0	0.344	0.037	0.025	1.5
Social Class
Upper/Upper Middle [R]	0.301				0.379
Lower Middle	0.388	0.087”	0.015	5.7	0.333	-0.047**	0.015	-3.0
Working Class	0.397	0.09”	0.019	5.1	0.286	-0.093**	0.019	-4.9
Lower Class	0.502	0.201”	0.023	GO OO	0.227	-0.152”	0.021	-7.2
Period
1994-98	0.291	-0.014	0.016	-0.9	0.469	0.134**	0.017	7.8
1998-2004	0.664	0.359”	0.019	18.7	0.105	-0.230**	0.014	-16.8
2010-14 [R]	0.305				0.335

Source: Own calculations from WVS Longitudinal.

Note: Multinomial logit estimates based on 5,580 observations. [R] is reference category. Data by social groups was missing for 2005 through 2009. ** Marginal probability significant at 5% level; * Marginal probability significant at 10% level.

	Predicted Probability of Low Satisfaction				Predicted Probability of High Satisfaction
	Probability	Marginal Probability	Standard Error	z -Value	Probability	Marginal Probability	Standard Error	z -Value
Social Group
Whites [R]	0.348				0.264
Non-Whites	0.444	0.096”	0.014	7.0	0.254	-0.011	0.012	-0.9
Gender
Male [R\|	0.430				0.247
Female	0.423	-0.007	0.009	-0.8	0.263	0.016	0.008	1.9
Friends
Not Very/At All Important [R]	0.444				0.260
Rather Important	0.416	-0.029”	0.011	-2.6	0.246	-0.014	0.011	-1.4
Very Important	0.426	-0.018*	0.012	-1.6	0.261	0.000	0.011	0.0
Religion
Not Very/At All Important [R]	0.488				0.192
Rather Important	0.445	-0.042**	0.016	-2.6	0.229	0.036	0.014	2.6
Very Important	0.411	-0.076**	0.015	-5.2	0.272	0.079	0.013	6.2
Health (self-assessed)
Good/Very Good [R\|	0.339				0.338
Fair	0.448	0.109”	0.010	11.1	0.208	-0.130	0.009	-14.3
Poor	0.580	0.241**	0.013	18.7	0.150	-0.187	0.011	-17.5
Age
15-30 Years [R]	0.438				0.238

30-45 Years	0.437	0.000	0.012	0.0	0.242	0.004	0.011	0.4
45-60 Years	0.411	-0.026*	0.016	-1.7	0.277	0.038	0.015	2.6
60+ Years	0.358	-0.079**	0.025	-3.1	0.335	0.097	0.026	3.8
Marital Status
Married/Living Together	0.414	-0.021*	0.012	-1.7	0.260	0.001	0.012	0.1
Divorced/Separated/Widowed	0.456	0.021	0.020	1.1	0.206	-0.054	0.017	-3.2
Single Never Married [R]	0.435				0.259
Number of Children
None[R\|	0.420				0.255
1-2	0.427	0.007	0.013	0.6	0.249	-0.006	0.012	-0.5
3+	0.432	0.012	0.015	0.8	0.263	0.009	0.014	0.6
Education
Elementary Education (partial/	0.469				0.237
complete) [R]
Secondary Education (vocational)	0.399	-0.070**	0.019	-3.7	0.270	0.033	0.017	1.9
Secondary Education (academic)	0.420	-0.049**	0.013	-3.8	0.262	0.025	0.012	2.0
University Education (partial/complete)	0.405	-0.064**	0.020	-3.2	0.237	0.000	0.017	0.0
Economic Status
Full-Time Employed [R]	0.415				0.259
Part-Time Employed	0.457	0.042**	0.018	2.3	0.225	-0.035	0.016	-2.2
Self-Employed	0.381	-0.034*	0.021	-1.6	0.304	0.045	0.020	2.3
Housewife	0.399	-0.016	0.018	-0.9	0.266	0.006	0.016	0.4
Student	0.426	0.011	0.018	0.6	0.279	0.019	0.017	1.2
Unemployed	0.468	0.053**	0.013	4.2	0.219	-0.041	0.012	-3.5
Retired/Other	0.367	-0.049**	0.022	-2.2	0.284	0.025	0.021	1.2

	Predicted Probability of Low Satisfaction				Predicted Probability of High Satisfaction
	Probability	Marginal Probability	Standard Error	Z -Value	Probability	Marginal Probability	Standard Error	Z - Value
Social Class
Upper/Upper Middle [R\|	0.293				0.356
Lower Middle	0.393	0.100“	0.014	7.2	0.265	-0.091	0.013	-6.8
Working Class	0.406	0.114“	0.013	8.5	0.246	-0.110	0.013	-8.6
Lower Class	0.564	0.271“	0.015	18.2	0.167	-0.190	0.013	-14.2
Period
1994-98	0.508	0.131“	0.013	10.0	0.231	0.000	0.0	-0.04
1998-2004	0.517	* * -f •— о	0.013	11.1	0.221	-0.010	0.0	-0.92
2005-09	0.317	-0.060“	0.012	-5.1	0.337	0.105**	0.0	9.01
2010-14 [R]	0.377				0.231

Source: Own calculations from WVS Longitudinal.

Note: Multinomial logit estimates based on 11,299 observations. [R] is reference category.

” Marginal probability significant at 5% level; * Marginal probability significant at 10% level.

did it affect life satisfaction. On the other hand, religiosity - which in both countries raised the PP of being happy - also increased life satisfaction: Tables 2.3 and 2.4 show, respectively, that in India and South Africa, persons for whom religion was very important had a significantly smaller PP of low satisfaction - and a significantly larger PP of high satisfaction - than persons for whom religion was not important.¹²

As Table 2.2 showed, the state of respondents’ health affected their happiness; it also significantly affected, as shown in Tables 2.3 and 2.4, their life satisfaction. The PP of low satisfaction was significantly smaller for those in good health than for those in poor health (Table 2.3: 29.3% vs. 46.1% for India; Table 2.4: 33.9% vs. 58% for South Africa) while the PP of high satisfaction was significantly greater for those in good health than for those in poor health (Table 2.3: 46.6% vs. 24.6% for India; Table 2.4: 33.8% vs. 15% for South Africa).

In a similar vein, the social class of respondents in India and in South Africa affected both their happiness (Table 2.2) and their life satisfaction. The PP of low satisfaction was significantly larger for those in the lowest social class than for those in the highest class (Table 2.3: 50.2% vs. 30.1% for India; Table 2.4: 56.4% vs. 29.3% for South Africa) while the PP of high satisfaction was significantly greater for those in the highest social class than for those in the lowest class (Table 2.3: 37.9% versus 22.7% for India, and Table 2.4: 35.6% versus 16.7% for South Africa).

The results for education in South Africa provide an interesting contrast between emotional well-being (happiness) and life satisfaction. As Table 2.2 showed, acquiring educational qualifications did not have any significant effect on the PP of happiness in South Africa but, as shown in Table 2.4, it did have a significant effect on life satisfaction. The PP of low satisfaction was significantly smaller for those with high than for those with low qualifications (Table 2.4: 40.5% for university vs. 46.9% for elementary) while the PP of high satisfaction was significantly greater for those with high than for those with low qualifications (Table 2.4: 27% for secondary vs. 23.7% for elementary). In India, however, education made a significant contribution to both happiness and life satisfaction.

The issue of age also provides a contrast between happiness and life satisfaction. As Table 2.2 showed, age did not have any significant effect on the predicted probability of happiness in South Africa, but it did have a significant effect on life satisfaction. The PP of low satisfaction was significantly higher for those in the 15-30 age group than for those in the 45-60 and 65+ age groups (Table 2.4: 43.8% for 15-30 vs. 35.8% for 65+) while the PP of high satisfaction was significantly lower for those in the 15-30 age group than for those in the 45-60 and 65+ age groups (Table 2.4: 23.8% for 15-30 vs. 33.5% for 65+). In India, however, both the predicted probability of happiness and that of high life satisfaction increased - and, conversely, that of low life satisfaction decreased - with respondents’ age.

<<		CONTENTS		>>