8i s s u e

J u n e 2 0 1 0

A helping hand forparents: family life andwork

Interview with LászlóAndor, EuropeanCommissioner forEmployment, SocialAffairs and Inclusion

Getting better all thetime? Trends in qualityof life 2003-2009

Room for improvement:evaluating publicservices and society

Interview with FintanFarrell, Director of theEuropean Anti-PovertyNetwork

Migrants: developing asense of belonging

How are you?Quality of life in EuropeHow are you?Quality of life in Europe

2 / Foundation Focus / issue 8 / June 2010

EditorialAs Europe 2020 sets the stage for a path towards a more inclusive Europe, the

effects of the economic crisis are still clearly shaping and changing the quality of life

of Europeans across the 27 Member States. Cuts in public spending and social

services are having immediate effects on Europe’s most vulnerable citizens and the

long-term structural implications for society in terms of social cohesion and

exclusion are of real concern. Indeed, as Fintan Farrell of the European Anti-Poverty

network highlights in this issue, poverty, one of the key elements of the Europe 2020

strategy, is caused by deep-seated inequalities – unjust distribution of resources and

income. Commissioner for Employment, Social Affairs and inclusion, László Andor,

also writing in this issue of Foundation Focus, notes the risk that cutting public

services will create a broader gap in society instead of building social cohesion. It

would seem therefore that monitoring progress in this area will be key to ensuring

that the targets set by the Europe 2020 strategy in terms of alleviating poverty and in

improving social cohesion are actually achieved as Europe tries to pull itself out of

recession. In this context, it is increasingly acknowledged that economic indicators,

such as GDP, are important but inadequate measures of the well-being of countries.

A more comprehensive approach to monitoring this complex reality must include

consideration of social and environmental, as well as economic, conditions. These

considerations are reflected in recent initiatives from the OECD and the European

Commission, including the new 2020 Strategy, which is ‘putting people first’, as well

as the Sarkozy Commission report on ‘Measurement of Economic Performance and

Social Progress’. Via concepts and data from Eurofound’s European Quality of Life

Survey, which permit some mapping of trends and developments from 2003 to 2007

and – from questions in a Eurobarometer survey – changes up to September 2009,

Eurofound is attempting to play its part in contributing to this crucial process.

IN THIS ISSUE

2 Editorial

3 A helping hand for parents:family life and work

5 What makes for happiness?

7 Interview: László Andor,European Commissioner forEmployment, Social Affairsand Inclusion

8 On the outside looking in:social exclusion in Europe

10 Getting better all the time?Trends in quality of life,2003–2009

12 Room for improvement:evaluating public servicesand society

14 When work doesn’t pay:assisting the working poor

15 Fintan Farrell, Director of theEuropean Anti-PovertyNetwork

16 Migrants: developing a senseof belonging

17 Social partners and quality oflife: mixed messages

Issue 8 - June 2010

This issue of Foundation Focus looks at the findings of Eurofound's pan-European quality of life surveys and what they reveal about the process ofeconomic and social cohesion across the Union, within Member States, betweendifferent groups of European citizens, and the impact of the economic crisis. Theaim of each issue is to explore a subject of social and economic policyimportance and contribute to the debate on key issues shaping the future ofliving and working conditions in Europe.

Subscribe online at www.eurofound.europa.eu/publications/focusform.htm

Foundation Focus is published by the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living andWorking Conditions (Eurofound), Wyattville Road, Loughlinstown, Dublin 18, Ireland.Eurofound is an autonomous body of the European Union, established by Regulation (EEC)1365/75 of the EU Council of Ministers of 26 May 1975.

Editor-in-chief:Mary McCaughey | Director: Jorma Karppinen | Deputy Director: Erika MezgerOriginal language: English

European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working ConditionsWyattville Road | Loughlinstown | Dublin 18 | IrelandTel: (+353 1) 204 31 00 | Fax: (+353 1) 282 42 09 | 282 64 56Email: information@eurofound.europa.eu | Web: www.eurofound.europa.eu

3

In today’s busy world, time is a scarce andhighly valued commodity: just think of thephrase ‘time-poor’, and all that it implies.Having sufficient time to fulfil bothprofessional and personal goals – raisingchildren, caring for older relatives,maintaining social and family contacts – isa crucial element in determining a goodquality of life. However, findings from theEuropean Quality of Life Survey (EQLS2007) indicate that work–life balanceremains an elusive goal for many workingEuropeans. Around half of those inemployment (primarily persons in centraland eastern Europe and the candidatecountries) declared that at least a few timeseach month they come home from worktoo tired to do household jobs, while morethan a quarter (mainly in the NordicMember States, the Benelux countries andin France) said that several times a monththey found it hard to carry out domesticresponsibilities because of the amount oftime they spent at work.

Workers are happiestoverallNevertheless, resolving the conflict betweenwork and family duties by abandoningone’s job and family is emphatically notthe answer, as the EQLS makes clear. Thefindings show that people in employmentand with families are the happiest group.However much we may complain abouthaving to go to work, it seems thatEuropeans with a job enjoy greater lifesatisfaction than those without. And peopleare also happiest, it would seem, whenthey are part of a couple, with children,and can rely on family support – happierthan those with no children, those withouta partner or those who cannot count onany support from their family or friends.Lone parents have the lowest levels of lifesatisfaction of all. Even those who face agreat deal of pressure in juggling their joband their home life are more satisfied with

life than someone who is unemployed.They are even happier if the work–familyconflict they experience is not too acute.This applies to both women and men,although not equally. Given that womenstill perform the majority of domestic careresponsibilities, it is perhaps not surprisingthat women who work outside the homeand experience work–family conflict tendto be less satisfied with life than womenwho work solely in the home. However,women who are employed and whoexperience little or no pressure inreconciling their domestic and professionalresponsibilities are the most satisfied of all(see the figure below).

Part-time work a mixedblessing

As the figure shows, the ideal situation isone in which neither employment nordomestic duties impose an undue burden.Again, the EQLS provides evidence to show

that all families aim to make employmentdecisions that favour a good work–lifebalance. Clearly, working less can help andthe figures indicate that part-time workingis on the increase. Nearly 20% of Europeanworkers nowadays work part time, withwomen accounting for 80% of this group,generally choosing the part-time route inorder to accommodate their domesticduties. Therefore it is mainly women whohave to deal with the drawbacks that part-time work can bring. Eurofound researchon company practices has found that oncea worker has moved to part-time hours,going back to full-time work is not alwayspossible. This can result in lower socialsecurity contributions over the working life,and hence lower pension payouts.Moreover, working part time can have anunfavourable impact on a person’s career:part-time work is rarely practised by thosehigher up in organisational hierarchies (onenotable exception in this regard is theNetherlands, where part-time working ismore common).

A helping hand forparents: family lifeand work

0

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

0

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

Looking afterthe home

Not employed employed

UnemployedPressure

at home orat work

Weakpressure No pressure

Woman Men

1.49 1.34

0.73 0.66

1.48

1.72 1.69

3.02

2.64

Life satisfaction and work-life balance

Note: The category‚ ‘ looking after the home‘ is not included for men due to the low level of responses (below 30 survey observations).Reference category: pressure at home and at work, odds ratio 1.00

Source : EQLS 2007

A more flexible approach to working timearrangements generally could also help.Longer part-time hours could make peoplemore available for work and help avoidsome of the associated disadvantages.Flexitime, based on a 40 hour-per-weekmodel, would mean that workers couldadapt their starting and finishing times totheir household demands, for instance,while working time accounts would allowthem to save up time and ‘spend’ it at alater date.

Time off for parentsParental leave is designed to help workingparents; it also has the potential to reducegender inequality by enabling both menand women to look after children.However, given that it can also interrupt a

worker’s career, it could in fact reinforcegender inequality if it is primarily womenwho avail of it. Moreover, parental leavevaries widely in terms of length, flexibilityand in the payment provided. In a numberof Member States it is unpaid; in theremainder, the percentage of salary paidvaries. As a result, many parents arefinancially unable to avail of it. Becausewomen are generally paid less than men, ahousehold suffers less of a financial ‘hit’ ifthe woman’s smaller salary is forfeited orreduced. Experience in Sweden andNorway in take-up of parental leaveindicates that reserving a portion of leavefor each parent is a key incentive inencouraging men to partake of it. Fatherstend to avail of parental leave under thefollowing conditions: when leave is paid,when the payment provided nearly

matches their usual salary, and where thereis a specific quota of days that cannot betransferred to the mother.

Introducing more ‘non-working’ time into acareer is a departure from many traditionalmodels of employment. As indicatedabove, it can have serious repercussions interms of issues like social security,pensions, and other employment-relatedbenefits. As men’s and women’s workinglives gradually become more diverse andnon-standard, the instruments of socialprotection need to be adapted accordingly,to facilitate, for instance, moving fromstandard full-time employment to a periodof part-time working, or taking time off toraise children and consequently extendingone’s working life into traditionalretirement years. Workplace cultures alsoneed to change if both men and women areto be supported and encouraged inbuilding a home together. There are manyexamples of family-friendly measures thathave proven to have worked: in the UK,Xerox claims that it saved GBP 1 millionbetween 1999–2004 by introducing flexibleworking time and parental leave initiatives.Work–life balance measures cansubstantially reduce sickness absenteeism,as well as increasing productivity and staffretention rates.

While it may appear to be the most privateof concerns, a satisfactory work–lifebalance has repercussions all the way tothe level of EU policymaking. As well assignificantly raising the quality of people’slives, it enables the employment rates ofwomen and men to rise, and so safeguardsmore citizens against poverty and socialexclusion; moreover, a second income inthe home could help prevent in-workpoverty. Work–life balance can also boostgender equality. And, by not forcingwomen to choose between a job and afamily, it could boost birth rates and somitigate Europe’s demographic decline.

Greet Vermeylen

4 / Foundation Focus / issue 8 / June 2010

5

Measuring well-beingSatisfaction with life, optimism about thefuture, happiness and other aspects ofsubjective well-being have attracted theattention of European policymakers inrecent years. The latest spotlight on thetopic was the report by Nobel Prizewinning economists Joseph Stiglitz andAmartya Sen that was published inSeptember 2009, at a time when most ofEurope was grappling with the immediateand long-term repercussions of therecession. The report called for new waysof measuring well-being next to traditionalobjective measures of economicperformance, such as gross domesticproduct (GDP).

Although the Stiglitz report does notprovide the specific recipe for a bettermeasure of social progress and welfare, ithighlights the importance of measuringboth objective and subjective well-being, oflooking at it from the perspective of

individuals rather than the economy as awhole, as well taking into account themultidimensional nature of well-being.According to these parameters, therefore,the European Quality of Life Surveyconducted by Eurofound since 2003represents a step in the right direction.Most importantly, the survey offers theopportunity to examine the interplay ofhappiness and life satisfaction withdifferent areas of life, such as family, work,health and standard of living.

The survey measures subjective well-beingby asking respondents to rate the level oftheir life satisfaction on a ten-point scale.In 2007, the average level of overall lifesatisfaction across the European Unionwas 7.0.

Country differences

The 2007 survey reveals considerablevariations among countries in terms of life

satisfaction, highlighting differencesbetween country clusters. On average,people in the EU15 (the 15 EU MemberStates prior to the 2004 enlargement) aremost satisfied with life, while people in theNMS12 (the 12 new Member States) havemoderate levels of satisfaction, and peoplein the CC3 (the candidate countriesCroatia, FYR Macedonia and Turkey) havethe lowest. Within the EU15, people inNordic countries are significantly moresatisfied with their lives than people inmost Mediterranean countries. It is alsoclear that the relationship between GDPper capita and life satisfaction is strong,although there are many countries wherethis is not the case. For example, people inMalta and Denmark are on average moresatisfied, but people in Hungary and inBulgaria are less satisfied than one wouldexpect if GDP were the only factordetermining life satisfaction. This suggeststhat in some countries factors other than

What makes forhappiness?

the general level of economic prosperityplay a role in subjective well-being.

Factors influencing lifesatisfactionThe survey, which was conducted during aperiod of relative affluence in Europe,shows increased life satisfaction for manyEuropeans, especially people in NMS. Inall of the countries studied, however, moreor less the same groups experienced alower level of life satisfaction: those livingin poverty, struggling with unemployment,suffering from bad health and raisingchildren on their own.

The survey found that health has thestrongest effect on life satisfaction: thosewho report poor health generally reportlower life satisfaction also. However,people who report bad health in the Nordiccountries – for example in Denmark andSweden – remain more satisfied on averagethan those reporting good health in

countries with a low general level of lifesatisfaction, such as Bulgaria, Hungary andPortugal.

Employment is the second most importantfactor affecting life satisfaction.Unsurprisingly, perhaps, people who havea job are significantly more satisfied withlife than people who are unemployed. Atthe same time, however, in most countriesretired persons are slightly more satisfiedthan those in employment.

Low income has a clearly adverse effect onlife satisfaction, and this effect is mostsignificant in countries with a lower GDP.Deprivation, on the other hand, seems toaffect life satisfaction to a greater extent incountries with a higher level of overallprosperity. The survey also revealed thatpeople with at least a post-secondary levelof education are significantly more satisfiedthan those with a lower level of education;however, this difference is due todifferences in income.

Married people are more satisfied thanthose who are separated, divorced orwidowed, and slightly more satisfied thansingle people in all country groups. Thisindicates that the emotional and socialaspects of living in partnership areimportant for subjective well-being. Singleparents in all countries are significantlyless satisfied than the rest of thepopulation.

Age does not play a huge role in lifesatisfaction; however, the general pattern inEurope is that people below 35 and thoseabove 65 are on average slightly moresatisfied than those aged 35 to 64. Genderdoes not seem to have a strong influenceon subjective well-being either: thedifference between the life satisfaction ofmen and women is small in all countries.

Eszter Sandor and Branislav Mikulić

6 / Foundation Focus / issue 8 / June 2010

HR

TR

MK

NO

AT

BE

BG

CY

CZ

DK

EE

FI

FR

DEEL

HU

IE

IT

LVLT

MTNL

PL

PTRO

SK

SI ES

SE

UK

LU

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

Lifesatisfactio

n(EU

27

average

=1

00

)r

50 100 150 200 250 300

GDP and life satisfaction

GDP per capita (EU27 average = 100)

0

2

4

6

8

10

DE UKPLATCR EE SI ES NL NOMTLV PT LU FIRO IEHUMK CZITLT FR DK CC3 NMS12 EU15 EU27SETU CYEL BEBG SK

6.9 7.06.9

6.4

7.27.2 7.3 7.3 7.3

7.97.97.6 7.6

6.0

8.28.2

6.5

5.6

6.6 6.6 6.6 6.7 6.7

8.58.3

6.2 6.2 6.3

7.5

5.05.2

6.26.5

7.27.0

Q: All things considered, how satisfied would you say you are with your life these days on a scale from 1'very dissatisfied' to 10 'very satisfied'?

Life satisfaction in Europe

Source: EQLS 2007

Source: EQLS 2007

7

Why is it important to monitor quality oflife, and how do research findings supportpolicymaking?

Challenges arising from low employmentrates, an ageing population, changingfamily structures and social exclusion haveput quality of life issues at the top of theEU social policy priorities. Research showsthat there is a clear need among policy-and decision-makers to monitor quality oflife, especially in terms of subjectivefeelings. Statistics alone can only say somuch: although factually correct, they oftenlack an insight into people’s perceptionsand the broader picture. That is why theEuropean Commission supportedEurofound’s initiative to launch the EQLSin May 2003. This was the first step in amajor initiative to monitor and report onliving conditions and quality of life inEurope. It is our role to translate theresearch findings into concrete policyactions.

In attempting to measure quality of life, isthere a case for going beyond GDP? Mightit eventually be replaced by subjectiveindicators?

Economic indicators such as GDP werenever designed to be comprehensivemeasures of well-being. Complementaryindicators that are as clear and appealingas GDP are needed but they must alsoinclude other dimensions of progress – inparticular, environmental and socialaspects. In August 2009, the EuropeanCommission released a report called GDP

and beyond: Measuring progress in achanging world. Here we outlined an EUroadmap with five key actions to improveour indicators of progress. One of thoseactions is to complement GDP withsubjective indicators that reflect widerpublic concerns. This would better link EUpolicy with citizens’ genuine concerns.

How will that broader approach feed intothe policy debate surrounding the ‘Europe2020’ agenda?

The EU uses GDP measurements for workon several policy areas and instruments. Inthe current economic downturn, restoringeconomic growth is the major concern, andGDP growth is a key indicator for assessingthe effectiveness of the EU and nationalgovernments’ recovery plans. In our new10-year strategy for jobs and growth –‘Europe 2020‘ – we recognise that the crisisshould also be used as an opportunity toset Europe more firmly on the path to aninclusive, low-carbon and resource-efficienteconomy. These challenges show howimportant it is to have more inclusivemarkers than simply GDP growth. We needindicators that effectively incorporate socialand environmental achievements (such asimproved social cohesion and publichealth) and losses (for example, crime ordepleting natural resources). Comparabledata is vital for assessing the impact of ourpolicies. That is why we are so keen onsetting targets in the ‘Europe 2020’strategy.

We know from our research that goodquality public services can help people copewith adverse socioeconomic conditions.Given the cuts being made in social servicesin response to the crisis, what role can theEuropean Commission, social partners andgovernments play in reducing poverty andboosting social inclusion?

We know the crisis is aggravating povertyand exclusion, including child poverty –although we will need to wait a bit longerbefore we have the full statistics coveringthe crisis period to confirm the preciseimpact. Public services play a key role andit is clear that all Member States will haveto work on making them more efficient.However, cutting public services will nothelp the recovery, but rather risks creatinga broader gap in society instead of buildingsocial cohesion. Housing exclusion, accessto healthcare, and pension levels are allareas of concern in the current context. The2010 European Year for CombatingPoverty and Social Exclusion is helping toput these issues on the political agenda.During the Year, we hope to achieve apolitical commitment by EU countries toreduce poverty substantially. And one ofthe aims of this initiative is to get everyonewith a role in social inclusion issues to getinvolved – governments, social partnersand the voluntary sector.

INTERVIEW:

László Andor, European Commissionerfor Employment, Social Affairs andInclusion

8 / Foundation Focus / issue 8 / June 2010

‘Social exclusion’ – the term is oftenthought of as a synonym for poverty, giventhe frequent linking of the two concepts, asin the European Year of Combating Povertyand Social Exclusion 2010. Socialexclusion means more than just a lack ofincome, however. Multidimensional in itsnature, the concept embraces bothobjective and subjective elements.Consequently, the European Quality of LifeSurvey sought to capture the phenomenonby measuring people’s own feelings ofexclusion directly, and assessing theirobjective life circumstances. The surveyasked questions such as: Do you feel leftout of society? Have you got good socialcontacts? Can you participate in society?Do you feel valued? Can you maintain a

lifestyle that would be acceptable to mostof your fellow citizens?

Prosperity and inclusionFortunately, most European citizens feelthemselves to be included in society: anoverwhelming majority of respondents(86%) feel integrated into society, with only2% feeling that they are excluded. The roleof prosperity in contributing to a sense ofsocial inclusion is reflected in the fact thatcitizens in the most affluent groups ofMember States – the ‘old’ EU15, with theirhigher levels of gross domestic product(GDP), lower unemployment and lesspoverty – are the least likely to feelexcluded, while their neighbours in thethree, poorer, candidate countries of

Croatia, Turkey and the Former YugoslavRepublic of Macedonia feel the greatestsense of exclusion.

However, the relationship between materialcomfort and inclusion is not sostraightforward when individual MemberStates are compared. For example, in theScandinavian countries, people feel lessexcluded than in Austria, Belgium, Franceand the UK, despite all these countrieshaving similar levels of GDP. The datafrom the EQLS cannot yet explain thisdifference. However, it may be thatmigrants experience a greater sense ofsocial exclusion: hence, countries withdifferent patterns and histories ofimmigration may record different nationalrates of perceived exclusion.

9.0

8.5

8.0

7.5

7.0

6.5

6.0

5.5

5.0

4.5

4.0DE UKPL ATEE SI ES NL NOMTMK LV PT LU FIRO IEHU CZITLT HR FR DKSETR CYEL BEBG SK

SatisfactionSocial exclusion

Perceived social exclusion: average score across four items. ‘I feel left out of society’, ‘Life has become so complicated today that I almost can’t find my way’,‘I don’t feel the value of what I do is recognised by others’ and ‘Some people look down on me because of my job situation or income’(1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree).

3.0

2.8

2.6

2.4

2.2

2.0

1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2

1.0

Life satisfaction and perceived social exclusion

EU15NMS12CC3EU27

On the outsidelooking in:social exclusion inEurope

9

Importance of family andsocial contactsBoth intuition and the survey results tell usthat family and social contacts are crucialin preventing a sense of exclusion.Generally, people who live alone or whoare single parents feel the most excludedfrom society, and those who cannot or donot maintain regular contact with theirfamily or friends also feel more excluded;conversely, those who feel that they canturn to a family member when they arefeeling down and need someone to talk tofeel less excluded. Apart from moral andemotional support, families play animportant role in moderating the impact ofmaterial deprivation, and hence socialexclusion: faced with a financialemergency, most Europeans – 71% – wouldturn to their family (although thepercentage is substantially lower in thepoorer candidate countries than in thewealthier EU15). And those who can availof this kind of support, even if they aresuffering economic hardship, are morelikely to feel socially integrated.

Exclusion and quality of lifeNot surprisingly, social exclusion hasimportant knock-on effects in terms of aperceived quality of life. In countries wherecitizens express a strong sense of exclusion,they tend to have lower ratings for lifesatisfaction, and vice versa, as the figureshows. This erosion in quality of life forthose who are excluded is part of themotivation for the European Year 2010.Given the numerous facets of and reasonsfor exclusion, the wide-ranging response ofthe European Commission in promoting theyear is to start to raise awareness of theissue; what is needed now is awholehearted response from citizens,governments and social partners to start toaddress it.

For more on the European Year, go towww.2010againstpoverty.eu

Klára Fóti

The results show that across all MemberStates, the mental health status of peoplewith low incomes is worse than that ofrespondents with high incomes. Inwealthier countries, however, the gap inthe mental health status of people withdifferent incomes is not as wide as inpoorer countries.

The educational level seems to have ahigh impact on mental well-being in thecandidate countries (CC3) and in thenew Member States (NMS12) whereas itis lower in the EU15.

The score for mental well-being isgenerally low among unemployedpeople, although in the new MemberStates it is still higher than that ofhomemakers. One explanation for thiscould be that the absence from thelabour market of the homemakers isinvoluntary. Many of them are womenwhose mental-well being score is lowerin each three group of countries, but thegap is larger in the NMS12 than in theEU15.

It is not surprising that, on average,people with poor physical health alsosuffer from lower mental well-being.Differences between the country groupsare, however, quite significant also in thisrespect. The average score of those whosuffer from chronic illness and areseverely hampered in activities issignificantly lower in the CC3 (27.1 outof 100), compared to the NMS (34.8)and EU15 (43.4). This suggests thatthose measures which protect thesevulnerable groups are most readilyavailable in the wealthier EU countries.

Klára Fóti and Anna Ludwinek

Mental well-being and quality of life

Mental well-being is an important element of quality oflife. The topic has received increased interest recentlydue to the implications for overall health and thereforehealth policy. Mental well-being has also moved higherup the social policy agenda because there is plenty ofevidence showing a clear relationship between lowlabour market status, poor living conditions anddeteriorating mental health. Data from the SecondEuropean Quality of Life Survey (EQLS) confirm theselinks.

10 / Foundation Focus / issue 8 / June 2010

Mirroring political andeconomic changesAs well as providing an insight intopeople’s personal quality of life, the threeexisting waves of the EQLS also point tothe broader political and economicchanges that have taken place acrossEurope. Eurofound ran the first wave of thesurvey in 2003, just prior to the accessionof 10 new Member States. Rapid economicgrowth, particularly in the new MemberStates, considerably reduced the gap interms of quality of life between thesecountries and the EU15. By the time thesecond wave took place in 2007,employment rates in Europe were reachingtheir highest levels, with unemploymentrates falling to their lowest level in March2008. However, as a result of the financialand economic crisis beginning in thesecond half of 2008, unemployment inEurope rose to 23 million by the end of2009. The normal four-year cycle of theEQLS was too lengthy to factor in theeffects of the recession; instead, a selectionof questions from the EQLS were asked inthe Standard Eurobarometer 71 survey in2009, enabling a more comprehensivepicture of the evolution of quality of lifebetween 2003 and 2009.

First phase: stability andpositive changeBetween 2003 and 2007, for the EU as awhole, quality of life remained relativelystable, although there were a number ofsmall positive changes – for example,

increased satisfaction with the quality ofsome public services. However, thecountries that joined the EU in 2004experienced a greater improvement inoverall quality of life, and in such measuresas housing, standard of living, and publicservices. For instance, while citizens inSlovakia gave their standard of living asatisfaction rating of 5.1 out of 10 in 2003,by 2007 this had risen to 6.7. (Assessmentsof quality of life in Bulgaria and Romania,which joined the EU in 2007, showedmuch less progress.) In line with this rise insatisfaction, a more objective measure ofmaterial well-being – the ability to makeends meet – also rose in the NMS, whileremaining essentially static in the EU15.

Second phase: decline insatisfaction and materialwell-beingThis generally rosy picture changed in2009, as the overall feeling of satisfactionwith life expressed by most Europeansshowed a general decline from 2007, as didsatisfaction with standard of living. Thedecline in life satisfaction was most evidentin the NMS12, where ratings fell by 6% (asagainst a fall of 3% in the EU15). This wasparticularly acute among citizens aged over65, and people who were finding it difficultto make ends meet. Where the situation ofindividual countries is concerned, thesteepest falls in life satisfaction wereexperienced in the new Member States ofEstonia, Bulgaria, Latvia and Romania, butalso in the EU15 countries France andMalta. While people’s satisfaction with

their standard of living had risen by 9% inthe NMS12 between 2003 and 2007, it fellby 6% between 2007 and 2009. Again, itwas older people in the NMS12 whosuffered the biggest decline. And from anational perspective, citizens in Latvia,Malta, Romania and France once moreexperienced the greatest loss ofsatisfaction, this time joined by theirneighbours in Portugal.

The level of material well-being also fellsharply during this period. By the end of2009, Latvia, Lithuania and Ireland hadexperienced the sharpest economiccontractions, of more than 10%, while thesame countries, together with Estonia andSpain, had experienced particularly severerises in unemployment. Households inthese countries (and in Greece) indicatedthat making ends meet was considerablymore difficult in 2009 than it had been in2007. In Ireland, for instance, 4% hadfound it ‘difficult’ or ‘very difficult’ to makeends meet in 2007, compared to 9% in2009. However, the position of somecountries – notably Poland – appeared toimprove over the same period. In 2007,24% of Polish households had difficulty inmaking ends meet; in 2009, that figure hadfallen to 17%. Similar improvements wereobserved in Romania, Slovakia, Belgiumand the UK.

Rise in social tensions andfall in trustWhat does appear to be almost universalis an increase between 2007 and 2009 inthe perceived level of societal tensions

Getting better all the time?Trends in quality of life, 2003–2009

11

across Europe and a decline in the ratingsof trust in core national institutions. Since2007, the number of households who feltthat there was a lot of tension betweenethnic groups has risen by 7%, with asimilar increase in those perceivingtensions between rich and poor (8%).However, cross-European averages maskgreater changes at the national level. While22% of households in Slovakia felt thatthere was a lot of tension between racialand ethnic groups in 2007, in 2009 thisfigure had soared to 58%. Sharp rises inrespect of this factor can also be seen inMalta, Denmark, and Hungary. Perceived

tensions between rich and poor increasedin nearly all countries between 2007 and2009, with some countries, notably Malta,Estonia, Slovenia and Slovakia, having arise of 10 percentage points or more.

Moreover, since 2007, Europeans’ trust intheir national institutions appears to haveplummeted: average levels of trust in bothnational governments and parliamentshave fallen from 4.6 to 4.1, an averagedecline of 11%. The situation is more acutein some countries: the decline in trust ofnational governments is most marked inIreland, Spain, Romania, Latvia andGreece, where the decline ranges from 22%

to 33%. Again, the steepest falls wereamong older people in the new MemberStates and among those facing difficultiesin making ends meet.

While the drive continues at EU andnational level to ensure social andeconomic development across Europe –most notably in this European Year forCombating Poverty and Social Exclusion –the trends that emerge from the successivewaves of the EQLS confirm that the battleis far from being won.

Robert Anderson

Thinking about your household’s total income, are you able to make ends meet? Percentage of households reporting some or great difficulties.

IT EU27 IE NL UK AT LU SE DK FlDEMTBEFREEESSKSICZPL PTCY LTLV ROEL HUBG

2007 2009Difficulties making ends meet

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

5%

DE UKPLRO SK SI IE SEBE NLMTEU27 ES LULTLT ITHU EL FIFR DKEE CYCZPTBG AT

10

8

6

4

2

0

10

8

6

4

2

0

2007 2009Life satisfaction trend

Source: EQLS 2007

Source: EQLS 2007

On a scale of 1 to 10, the averageEuropean rates the quality of publicservices in their country as a 6. This is nota bad result, but there clearly is room forimprovement. Should policymakers beconcerned?

The answer is ‘yes’: the perceived quality ofsociety matters a lot, as these perceptionsgreatly affect everyone’s well-being,including mental well-being. To put itsimply, in a society perceived as being ofgood quality, citizens experience a higherquality of life. How we rate key publicservices is one factor that influences ourview of the quality of society. But there areothers: Do we feel comfortable and safe inour neighbourhood? Is health care easilyaccessible? Are there tensions betweendifferent groups in society? Do we feel wecan trust our political institutions?

The European Quality of Life Survey(EQLS 2007) contains numerous questionsaimed at exploring how European citizensfeel about the society they live in. The

replies reflect not only considerabledifferences in the perception of quality ofsociety between European countries, butalso point to disparities within countriesdepending on the income, age and genderof the respondent.

Public services – a mixedbagVery few respondents give a rating of 10(‘very high quality’) for the entire range ofpublic services in their country, but morethan two thirds (67%) give a score of 6 ormore for the overall package. However,some services are viewed more criticallythan others. The rating for the quality ofthe state pension system is generally lowerthan that for other services. This is areflection of the recent restructuring ofsocial security and the widespread debateon the sustainability of pension systems.Scores for the provision of elderly care arealso lower and contrast with a more

positive assessment of the quality ofchildcare services.

Interestingly, spending more money onpublic services does not necessarily lead tohigher quality assessments. For example,Hungary spends well above the EUaverage as a percentage of GDP on publicservices, but with a score of 5.4 the qualityassessment remains below the EU average.In contrast, Estonia and Spain achieve ascore of 6.2 for quality while beingrelatively low in their level of publicexpenditure. How governments spend themoney seems to be as important as howmuch they spend. This is confirmed byanother finding: overall evaluations ofpublic services are higher in countrieswhere the government is perceived tooperate in a transparent way and with littlecorruption.

Feeling safe in thecommunityLiving in noisy or polluted surroundings orfeeling you run a high risk of crime orvandalism can be upsetting and have anegative impact on quality of life. There aremarked differences in how Europeansperceive the quality of key environmentalaspects, such as air and noise pollution,waste collection, water quality, greenspaces and crime. In Italy, 83% of peoplewere dissatisfied with two or more of theseissues – followed closely by Bulgaria (82%)and Poland (79%). In contrast, respondentsin Finland and Denmark felt they hadhardly anything to complain about. But itis not just the country of residence that

12 / Foundation Focus / issue 8 / June 2010

Room for improvement:evaluating public services and society

Source: EQLS 2007

13

matters: much depends on where in thecountry you live. City dwellers reportsubstantially lower satisfaction withneighbourhood services and crime controlcompared to those who have settled in arural environment. And within cities, thoseliving in neighbourhoods where people ofdifferent racial or ethnic origins cohabitseem to complain most. However, the poorquality of the neighbourhood may be afactor in attracting people from moremarginalised groups to live there due to theaffordability of the housing.

Accessing the local doctor

Easy access to healthcare services canliterally be a matter of life and death andthe importance of this for the well-being ofEuropean citizens is clear. While thestatutory entitlement to healthcare servicesis vital, access to care is equally important.

In the EQLS, access is measured by askingthe respondents to report difficulties theyencountered on the last occasion theyattempted to get a medical appointment.Also taken into account is travel time to asurgery or clinic, waiting time to see adoctor, and the cost of charges. Thefindings show that a large proportion ofEuropeans report some difficulty inaccessing health care services. More than25% of people feel they are too far fromtheir doctor or hospital, more than 38%experienced delays in getting medicalappointments, and more than 27% haddifficulties with the expense involved inseeing a doctor.

Trust in people andinstitutions

Europeans are shown to be sceptical ratherthan outright trusting or distrustful ofpolitical institutions.

At 4.9, the average level of trust for fivepolitical institutions (the parliament, thelegal system, the press, the police, thegovernment and political parties) is justbelow the middle of the 10-point scale.Both the police and the legal systemreceive higher scores, but the average isbrought down by low levels of trust inpolitical parties, the government andparliament.

With an average score of 5.2, Europeanstrust other people less than the police (6.1)but more than their governments (4.6).Respondents in the Nordic countries and

the Netherlands express the highest levelsof trust, while people living in Cyprus andthe FYR Macedonia report the lowestlevels.

Tensions in society

Societal tensions appear nowadaysbetween religious and racial groups ratherthan between the sexes or generations. Asmany as 40% of respondents acrossEurope said they perceive a lot of tensionsin racial and ethnic relations, but less than20% report tensions between young andold persons or between women and men.Racial tension is much higher in the EU15countries than in the NMS12, perhaps dueto the fact that countries with a high GDPper capita tend to attract more migrants

from other continents, leading to a moremixed society.

From measurement toimprovementMeasuring how satisfied citizens arewith public services and the quality ofthe society they live in can inducepolicymakers to address concerns andshortcomings. EQLS data point to thefactors that influence the views held byEuropeans, which can help to target actionspecifically. Improving the quality ofsociety and its services can increase socialcohesion during challenging times inEurope, and in turn, improve people’squality of life.

Teresa Renehan and Robert Anderson

Employment no safety netagainst povertyIt is clear from the findings of theEuropean Quality of Life Survey that lackof income is strongly associated with apoorer quality of life – in terms of overalllower life satisfaction, less sense ofoptimism about the future, unhappinesswith one’s family life, and dissatisfactionwith public services. Given that a striking42% of those who are unemployed are atrisk of falling into poverty, the goal of EUpolicymakers to bring more people into thelabour force makes sense. However, hiddenbehind that statistic is another, worryingfact: 8% of those who are in employmentare also at risk of poverty – either becausetheir income is insufficient to support evenone person adequately, or because theirresources are stretched through having tosupport an entire household. This figure of8%, moreover, is only an average: it ishigher in some countries – 14% in Greeceand 12% in Poland, for instance.1

It is also higher for particular socialgroups. Single parents run the greatest riskof falling into ‘in-work poverty’, with 18%on average in the EU25 being in poverty,as against 9% of households with twoadults and children. The risk of in-workpoverty is also greater for certain forms ofwork: part-time workers, for example, aretwice as likely to fall into poverty as peopleworking full-time, while workers ontemporary contracts are three times morelikely to do so than those on permanentcontracts.

Government strategiesSurprisingly, however, given thatemployment doesn’t automatically – or

universally – deliver workers from poverty,the phenomenon of in-work poverty israrely expressed as an explicit priority ofpolicymakers. Rather, it tends to beaddressed only within the framework ofbroader anti-poverty measures – forinstance, labour market policies such asminimum wages and unemploymentbenefits. In a few countries, nationalgovernments have set out expressly toaddress the issue: in the UK, for instance,the Income Support scheme is designed toboost the incomes of low-income workers,providing direct payments to people whowork fewer than 16 hours per week (andwho meet a number of other conditions).In Norway, where public funding has beensignificantly increased to combat poverty, aspecial focus has been placed on low-income workers, the Minister of Financeproposed in 2009 a tax reduction for suchworkers. And, when setting out the aims ofits reforms of the unemployment benefitsystem in the Second report on poverty andwealth in 2005, the German governmentstated that the reforms would, in particular,help to prevent workers getting trapped inlong-term poverty.

Role of the social partners

Social partners also have the potential toplay a decisive role in changing workpractices to alleviate the situation of theworking poor. However, it is primarilytrade unions that tackle the issue and eventhen not always directly or universally.They usually focus on the minimum wagewhen seeking to ensure adequate livingstandards for workers, or look for suchmeasures as tax alleviation or tax creditsfor workers on lower wages. In a minorityof countries, trade unions have made

explicit proposals to reduce the number ofworking poor or low-paid workers. InBulgaria, for example, negotiations havetaken place on social programmes at thecompany level, including developing a foodvoucher system to reduce the numbers ofworking poor; meanwhile, some tradeunion branches have established mutualaid funds, offering credit under favourableconditions. The General Confederation ofPortuguese Workers recommended that theissue of in-work poverty be explicitlyaddressed as a priority in the NationalAction Plan for Inclusion 2008–2011, whiletrade unions in Ireland advocate reformingin-work social welfare entitlements,boosting skills through training andkeeping minimum wage earners out of thetax net.

Although employer organisations do notusually set out measures to reduce in-workpoverty, in some countries they haveproposed measures that could potentiallyhelp to reduce the number of low-paidworkers: in Bulgaria, Estonia and Greece,boosting employability through bettereducation and training; in Finland,increasing the number of part-time andtemporary jobs; and in Hungary andFrance, implementing tax measures toimprove the income of the low paid. InFrance, the Movement of French Employershas supported changes in taxation thatseek to avoid the ‘threshold effect’,whereby an unemployed citizen can end upwith a lower income after they move fromunemployment payments to a paid job; thereform is designed to ensure that everyhour worked results in a higher totalincome.

Isabella Biletta and Jorge Cabrita

14 / Foundation Focus / issue 8 / June 2010

When work doesn’t pay:assisting the working poor

1 The working poor are defined here as those who are employed and whose disposable income puts them at risk of poverty. ‘Employed’ is taken to mean being in work for more than halfthe year and ‘risk of poverty’ means having an income below 60% of the national median.

15

Q: Just how prevalent is in-work poverty, inyour opinion?

Fintan Farrell: In-work poverty currentlyaffects 8% of the European workforce, butstatistics don’t cover undocumentedworkers, workers facing huge householdand family expenses, children in familiesexperiencing poverty, women andespecially single mothers in forced part-time jobs. Moreover, according to the 2010Joint Report on Social Protection and SocialInclusion, one third of people at risk ofpoverty are actually working, confirmingthe view that a job is not always the bestroute out of poverty.

Q: What has been the impact of theeconomic crisis?

Fintan Farrell: The impact of the crisisand the recent implementation offlexicurity principles have led to anincrease in precarious, low-paid, atypicalemployment, including part-time and short-time working. Although such forms ofemployment are often promoted as astepping stone towards sustainable, qualityemployment on the labour market, oftenpeople remain trapped in low-quality jobs,or on a roundabout moving between low-paid, precarious jobs and minimum wagesor unemployment benefits. The economiccrisis has put additional downwardpressure on wages and brought about adeterioration in working conditions.

Q: A number of Member States have put inplace schemes to address the issues of in-work poverty and the situation of lowerpaid workers – the UK’s Working TaxCredit scheme, for instance. How effectivehave these been, do you think?

Fintan Farrell: The Working Tax Credit inthe UK has boosted the income of manythousands of workers, tackling importantpoverty traps encountered when movingfrom welfare to work, but it has notstemmed the problem of in-work poverty orlow pay. (These are two different issues, theformer being calculated at the level of thehousehold.) The increase in low-paidemployment calls for an increase in taxcredits, as well as in the level of pay. TheHartz reforms from 2004–2005 inGermany have not reduced in-workpoverty, but have forced jobseekers toaccept low-paying jobs. This, combinedwith the lack of minimum wage schemes,the promotion of atypical, precariousemployment, and the boosting of lowwages by additional social benefits (nottax credits) have led to the enormousgrowth of the low-wage sector in Germanyduring the last years, with 20% of workersbeing low paid. The tax reduction schemesin Norway are well intentioned, butcomplicated bureaucracy and a lack ofinformation prevent them from making areal difference. In Ireland, tax policiesaimed at supporting low-earners have notproved effective, and the financial crisishas renewed the focus on competitiveness,Irish employers regarding the currentminimum wage as too generous. TheFamily Income Supplement is a welcomemeasure, but take-up is low, since it is notan automatic payment, but needs, rather,to be claimed.

Q: What should the policy response be, ifin-work poverty is to be reduced oreliminated?

Fintan Farrell: The debate on in-workpoverty needs to be placed in the widercontext of the role played by employment,income and social protection policies incombating poverty. One can’t talk aboutpoverty without talking about wealth, aspoverty is caused by deep-seatedinequalities – an unjust distribution ofresources and income. Job quality,including social standards on minimum orliving wages, needs to be placed at the coreof employment strategies. In addition, moretargeted measures are needed to tackletransitions between welfare and work, soas to compensate for the loss of benefitsand services. A positive hierarchy is neededbetween minimum income schemes and theminimum wage, to ensure dignified lives aswell as giving incentives to work. Thisshould be accompanied by adequate socialprotection and affordable access to qualityservices.

Fintan Farrell,Director of theEuropeanAnti-PovertyNetwork

Quality of life and integration of migrantsare two closely related issues. Successfulintegration can not only boost migrants’quality of life but also helps to prevent orease tensions between newcomers andlong-standing residents. This leads to amore cohesive society with a higher qualityof life for all.

The pull of citiesMigrants from all over the world areattracted to cities, and it is citygovernments who are responsible fordesigning, adapting and implementing thepolicies for successful integration andpeaceful co-existence. European andnational-level policies support this process,but in the end it is at local level thatsuccess is determined and failure is mostacutely felt. In its CLIP project (EuropeanNetwork of Cities for Local IntegrationPolicies of migrants) Eurofound hasexamined the success factors of localintegration policies since 2006.

Participation in the labour market is at theheart of economic integration, which, inturn, is a powerful driver of socialintegration. In many of the cities examined,local authorities are the largest or secondlargest employer and therefore have thepotential to provide quality employmentfor the migrant population. They caninfluence employment levels, and also thetypes of jobs migrants occupy, thus settingan example for other sectors andemployers.

Migrants who work directly for the cityadministration are unlikely to experience

the exploitation and poor workingconditions that prevail in other parts of thelabour market, especially the informal one.Although CLIP research results show thatfor various reasons people with a migrationbackground tend to occupy lower scaleposts, they can be sure to receive equalpay for equal work when employed bycities.

Accommodating differentcultures

A very important component in the qualityof working life is how the employeraddresses the different needs deriving fromvarious cultural and religious practices. Itseems that practical issues, like theavailability of a place for worship, dresscode, special food, or religious education,are more important than symbolic matterssuch as having a splendid mosque –according to 85% of respondents surveyedas part of CLIP research.

The CLIP cities differ significantly in theapproaches they take. Some accommodatereligious differences while others operate apolicy of a neutral approach and othershave formal agreements allowing foradjustments. Vienna, for instance, grantsthe right to wear headscarves for religiousreasons in its city hospitals. Vienna cityhospitals and nurseries always providemeals without meat. Turin follows the sameapproach with regard to food on offer.Some city hospitals make prayer roomsavailable, while the UK cities Sefton andWolverhampton make allowance forholiday leave on religious grounds. Others

have adjusted working hours to take intoaccount the prayer times of Muslimemployees. Some Spanish cities allowMuslims to work through the night duringRamadan, as far as possible. Generally,cities face little opposition in making suchadjustments, although one city was notable to change the holiday schedule toaccommodate various religious holidaysdue to opposition by the trade unions.

Some cities have adapted their languagepolicy to ensure health and safety at workby providing employees with information intheir own languages. The city of Malmo,for example, supplies instructions inrelation to dangerous machinery, fireprevention and hygiene in hospitals inseveral languages. Arnsberg, Terrasa andMataro have similar programmes in place.

Living together peacefullyIn a world of increasing geographicalmobility, cities have to develop an inclusiveidentity, a ‘we feeling’ and a sense ofbelonging for all its culturally diverseresidents. Those responsible for planningand running European cities have a varietyof tools at their disposal, not least in theircapacity as major employers. The attitudesadopted by local governments willdetermine whether living togetherpeacefully in a cohesive if multiculturalsociety is possible.

The importance of success in this area isdemonstrated by EQLS findings: thehighest tensions in society are perceivedbetween different racial and ethnic groups,higher than between rich and poor orworkers and management. And those livingin mixed racial and ethnic neighbourhoodsconsider those tensions to be even higherthan those living in more homogenouscommunities.

Anna Ludwinek

16 / Foundation Focus / issue 8 / June 2010

Migrants: developing a sense of belonging

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Racial and ethnic groups Rich and poor Management and workersTensions between groups

DEUK AV. PLAT EESIESNLMT LVPTLUFI ROIEHU CZ IT LTFRDK SE CY ELBE BGSK

Note: The figure compares Member State average tensions between different groups.

17

Family leave

Despite the recession, in 2009 Portugalintroduced Labour Code provisionsspecifically aimed at improving genderequality and work–life balance. Workerscan now give assistance to family membersfor longer periods and may opt for part-time work until their children are 12 ratherthan 10 years as previously.http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/eiro/2008/11/articles/pt0811019i.htm

In the UK, too, draft regulations are underconsideration, which would enable mothersreturning to work to transfer unusedmaternity leave to their partner.http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/eiro/2009/10/articles/uk0910019i.htm

But, in contrast, the recession has resultedin some governments introducing measuresthat directly counteract moves to improvethe lives of families. In Greece, erosions inretirement and pension rights for workingmothers with children under 18 were partof the response to the current crisis.http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/eiro/2008/05/articles/gr0805029i.htm

Telework

The growing phenomenon of telework isone response to improving work–lifebalance, but in Europe there is no specificright to telework. In EU countries, aframework agreement offers a voluntaryarrangement of ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ rules:‘hard’ means ‘you can have it if you wantit’, while soft means ‘you can only requestit’. http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/eiro/studies/tn0910050s/tn0910050s_4.htm

Hungary has a ‘soft’ system of voluntaryencouragement but the employee has torequest a change in contract for familyreasons only. The Netherlands supportstelework in a soft way by waiving taxes fortelephone and the internet. Italy, however,has a ‘hard’ legislative requirement with

inclusion options in public servicecontracts.http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/eiro/studies/tn0910050s/tn0910050s_3.htm

Despite concern about high set-up costs,governments and employers generally viewtelework quite positively in terms ofproductivity and employment. Tradeunions are more cautious, expressingconcern about career prospects andrepresentation of teleworkers. Otherconcerns include long hours, unrealisticdeadlines, mental health problemsassociated with isolation from theworkplace and unattractive outcomes forfamilies. Ironically, because employees areoutside the workplace, they tend to workmore hours than in the traditionalworkplace, but without additional rights.Belgium is unusual in insisting thatemployers must pay set-up costs andprovide specific teleworkers’ protection. Butmost Member States consider standardworkers’ protection adequate. So doestelework improve work–life balance?Perhaps; EIRO correspondents suggesttelework was an attractive recruitmentoption for employers to recruit workerswith family responsibilities – up until therecession.

Women’s employmentWhere women’s employment is restrictedto low paid and vulnerable sectors, theeconomic situation of families is moreprecarious. In Bulgaria, for example,women have been forced to take jobswhere they can, including in the informaleconomy. This has resulted in increasingwomen’s unemployment and family over-indebtedness. At a 2009 meeting in Sofia,the Women’s Committee of the Pan-European Regional Council – representing89 trade unions from 43 countries andorganising over 30 million female tradeunion members – noted the pronouncednegative effects on women and families. Itcalled not only for the equalisation of

wages but also the implementation ofpolices ensuring a decent work–lifebalance.http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/eiro/2009/05/articles/bg0905029i.htm

Somewhat against the tide, there have beencalls for the German government to reverseplans for child homecare benefits for thosecaring for children aged under three years.Against a backdrop of a move towardsfamily-friendly working time and parentalleave, child benefit plans have come underfire for sending the wrong message towomen and reinforcing the gender divide inworkforce participation. In a letter sent inDecember 2009, trade unions, includingthe General Confederation of TradeUnions, and lobbying organisations saidthat the plans undermined equalopportunities. These would be betterserved by providing funds for full-timechildcare outside the home until age six,they asserted.http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/eiro/2009/12/articles/de0912039i.htm

Camilla Galli da Bino

The European Industrial Relations Observatory (EIRO) articleshighlight critical areas in the lives of employees. The workplacedynamics of industrial relations too often conceal issues thatimpact hugely on families, and the crisis has only accentuatedthis. Despite the current challenges, however, some socialpartners are working hard to keep the family-life dimension inthe frame.

Social partners and quality of life:mixed messages

18 / Foundation Focus / issue 8 / June 2010

EUROFOUND PUBLICATIONS

Anderson, R., Mikulic, B., Vermeylen, G., Lyly-Yrjanainen, M. and Zigante, V., Eurofound, Second EuropeanQuality of Life Survey: Overview, 2009,http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/publications/htmlfiles/ef0902.htm

Burchell, B., Fagan, C., O’Brien, C., and Smith, M., Eurofound, Working conditions in the EuropeanUnion: the gender perspective, 2007,http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/publications/htmlfiles/ef07108.htm

Chung, H., Kerkhofs, M., and Ester, P., Eurofound, Working time flexibility in European companies, 2007,http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/publications/htmlfiles/ef0739.htm

EIRO, Addressing the gender pay gap: Government and social partner actions, 2010,http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/publications/htmlfiles/ef1018.htm

Eurofound, European Network of Cities for Local Integration Policies for Migrants (infosheet), 2009,http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/publications/htmlfiles/ef08105.htm

Fagan, C., Smith, M., Anxo, D., Letablier, M-T., Perraudin, C., Eurofound, European Survey onWorking Time: Part time work in European companies, 2007,http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/publications/htmlfiles/ef06102.htm

Fagan, C., Smith, M., Anxo, D., Letablier, M-T., Perraudin, C., Eurofound, European Survey on Working Time:Parental leave in European companies, 2007,http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/publications/htmlfiles/ef0687.htm

Hanzl-Weiß, D., Vidovic H. and Sanoussi F., Eurofound, Working poor in Europe, 2010.http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/publications/htmlfiles/ef1025.htm

Kotowska, I., Matysiak, A., Styrc, M., Pailhé, A., Solaz, A. and Vignoli, D., Eurofound, Second EuropeanQuality of Life Survey: Family life and work, 2010.http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/publications/htmlfiles/ef1002.htm

Layte, R., Maitre, B. and Whelan, C.T., Eurofound, Second European Quality of Life Survey: Livingconditions, social exclusion and mental well-being, 2010.http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/publications/htmlfiles/ef0988.htm

Riedmann, A., van Gyes, G., Roman, A., Kerkhofs, M. and Bechmann, S., Eurofound, European CompanySurvey 2009: Overview, 2010,http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/publications/htmlfiles/ef1005.htm

Riedmann, A., Bielenski, H., Szczurowska, T., and Wagner, A., Eurofound, European Survey onWorking Time: Working time and Work-life balance in European companies, 2006,http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/publications/htmlfiles/ef0627.htm

Rose, R., Munro, N. and Wallace, C., Eurofound, Second European Quality of Life Survey: Quality of life inEurope 2003–2007, 2009.http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/publications/htmlfiles/ef0977.htm

Rose, R., Eurofound, Second European Quality of Life Survey: Evaluating the quality of society andpublic services, 2010.http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/publications/htmlfiles/ef09110.htm

Spencer, S., Eurofound, Equality and diversity in jobs and services: city policies for migrants in Europe, 2008.http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/publications/htmlfiles/ef0871.htm

Watson, D., Pichler, F. and Wallace, C., Eurofound. Second European Quality of Life Survey:Subjective well-being in Europe, 2010.http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/publications/htmlfiles/ef09108.htm

19

Alber, J., Fahey, T. and Saraceno C., Handbook of quality of life in the enlarged EuropeanUnion, London, Routledge, 2008.

Blanchflower, D.G.,Shadforth, C. ‘Fear, unemployment and migration’, Economic Journal,Vol. 119, No. 535, 2009, pp. F136-F182.Bohnke, P. ‘Does society matter? Life satisfactionin the enlarged Europe’, Social Indicators Research, Vol. 87, No. 2, pp. 189-210.

Bruning, G. and Plantega, J. ‘Parental leave and equal opportunities: Experience in eightEuropean countries’, Journal of European Social Policy, 9 (3), 1999.

Drobnic, S., Beham, B., Präg, P.’Good job, good life? Working conditions and quality oflife in Europe’, Social Indicators Research, Article in press, 2010.

European Commission, GDP and beyond: measuring progress in a changing world, COM(2009) 433 final, 20 August 2009.

European Commission, Europe 2020: a strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth,COM/2010/2020 final, 3 March 2010.

European Commission. Proposal for the Joint Report on Social Protection and Social Inclusion2010, COM (2010) 25, 5 February 2010.

Johns, H. and Ormerod P., Happiness, economics and public policy, London, Institute ofEconomic affairs, 2007.

Layard,R.,’Social science and the causes of happiness and misery’, EUI Max Weber LectureSeries, 2008.http://hdl.handle.net/1814/9853

Lewis, J., Work-family balance, gender and policy, Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 2009.

Pichler, F., Wallace, C. ‘What are the reasons for differences in job satisfaction acrossEurope: individual, compositional, and institutional explanations’, European SociologicalReview, Vol. 25, No. 5, 2009, pp.535-549.

Pichler, F., Wallace, C.,’Patterns of formal and informal social capital in Europe’, EuropeanSociological Review, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 423-435.

Scott, J., Crompton, R. and Lyonette, C., Gender inequalities in the 21st century,Cheltenham, Edward Elgar, 2010.

Stiglitz, J.E., Senn, A., Fitoussi, J.-P., Report by the Commission on the Measurement ofEconomic Performance and Social Progress, 2009.http://www.stiglitz-sen-fitoussi.fr/

Wallace, C., Pichler, F. ‘More participation, happier society? A comparative study of civilsociety and the quality of life’, Social Indicators Research, Vol. 92, No. 2, 2009, pp. 255-274.

EF/10/26/EN

FURTHER READING

The European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions is atripartite EU body, whose role is to provide key actors in social policymaking withfindings, knowledge and advice drawn from comparative research. Eurofound wasestablished in 1975 by Council Regulation EEC No. 1365/75 of 26 May 1975.

www.eurofound.europa.eu

ISSN 1725-6763

45

TJ-AH-10-001-EN

-C