(Vidéo) The Québec convergence and Canadian life satisfaction … · 2014. 8. 18. · Quebec, urban Quebec, rural Normalised Life satisfaction: born after the QR 1985 1990 1995

The Québec convergenceand Canadian life satisfaction

1985–2008

Chris Barrington-LeighIHSP, MSE, ECONOMICS

http://wellbeing.ihsp.mcgill.ca

Social Stats lunchMcGill

19 September 2012

(Vidéo)

Overview

−→What happened in Québec?A rise in relative SWL is reproducible and coherent XThe rise has left Québec at the top of the world insubjective life evaluationDifference and change are large X

Was it income? ×Was it the income distribution? ×

−→ Modelling changes over time

Suggestive but inconclusive

Chris Barrington-Leigh The Québec convergence

Plan

1 Data: “life satisfaction” in Canadian GSS2 The global context

3 Quantifying the “Québec convergence”4 Testing some natural theories [Barrington-Leigh, CPP 2013]

5 Decomposing changes across Canada6 Conclusions


http://wellbeing.ihsp.mcgill.ca

http://wellbeing.ihsp.mcgill.ca/publications.html#Quebec

Quantifying life quality

Question: Satisfaction with life (SWL)“Taking all things into account, how satisfied are you with yourlife these days, on a scale from 0 to 10?”

0: very dissatisfied...

10: very satisfied

Question: Cantril’s ladder“Please imagine a ladder with steps numbered zero at thebottom to ten at the top. Suppose we say that the top of theladder represents the best possible life for you and the bottomof the ladder represents the worst possible. If the top step is 10and the bottom step is 0, on which step of the ladder do youfeel you personally stand at the present time?”

−→ not: “How are you feeling at the moment?”

−→ not: “What makes for a satisfying life?”


Subjective well-being: Cantril’s ladder

"Life today"7.87.26.66.05.44.84.23.63.0

Chris Barrington-Leigh,McGill University, 2012Data: Gallup World Poll

Subjective well-being: affect balance

Affect balance.78

.63

.48

.33

.18

Chris Barrington-Leigh,McGill University, 2012Data: Gallup World Poll

Cantril’s ladder (2007–2011)

1 Denmark 7.84Québec 7.62 ±.08 (2008-2011)

2 Norway 7.523 Finland 7.524 Netherlands 7.52

5 Switzerland 7.506 Canada 7.497 Sweden 7.388 Australia 7.349 New Zealand 7.33

10 Austria 7.2811 Costa Rica 7.2512 United States of America 7.25


Statistics Canada General Social Survey Cycles 1–22

Year GSS Cycle Population Subject1985 Cycle 1 Health and Social Support1986 Cycle 2 Time Use, Social Mobility and Language Use1988 Cycle 3 Personal Risk1989 Cycle 4 Education and Work1990 Cycle 5 oversamples: age≥ 65; ON Family and Friends1991 Cycle 6 oversample: age≥ 65 Health1992 Cycle 7 Time Use1993 Cycle 8 Personal Risk1994 Cycle 9 Education, Work and Retirement1995 Cycle 10 The Family1996 Cycle 11 oversamples: age≥ 65; QC Social and Community Support1998 Cycle 12 Time Use1999 Cycle 13 Victimization2000 Cycle 14 Access To and Use of Information Communication Technology2001 Cycle 15 Family History2002 Cycle 16 age≥ 45 Aging and Social Support2003 Cycle 17 Social Engagement in Canada2004 Cycle 18 Victimization2005 Cycle 19 Time Use2006 Cycle 20 Family Transitions2007 Cycle 21 age≥ 45 Family, Social Support and Retirement2008 Cycle 22 Social Networks


Life satisfaction response distributions: Canada

How to compare cross-sections over time?

Literature often focuses on lack of large or sustainedchange in SWB (e.g. Clark et al [2008], Deaton [2011],Easterlin et al [2010], Stevenson and Wolfers [2008], . . . )Hill [2004] compares national mean SWB over time inCanada by choosing numerical equivalents for the differentscales.

−→ My approach: to compare provinces, normalise within eachsurvey.


Normalised Life satisfaction

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005YEAR

−0.6

−0.4

−0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

life

satis

fact

ion

(nor

mal

ized

)

GS

S1

GS

S2

GS

S4

GS

S6

GS

S11

GS

S12

GS

S17

GS

S19

GS

S20

GS

S21

GS

S22

rest of CanadaQuebec

Normalised Life satisfaction

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005YEAR

−0.6

−0.4

−0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

life

satis

fact

ion

(nor

mal

ized

)

GS

S1

GS

S2

GS

S4

GS

S6

GS

S11

GS

S12

GS

S17

GS

S19

GS

S20

GS

S21

GS

S22

Nfld & Lab.Nova ScotiaPEINew BrunswickOntarioManitobaSaskatchewanAlbertaBritish ColumbiaQuebec

Normalised Life satisfaction: by gender

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005YEAR

−0.6

−0.4

−0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

life

satis

fact

ion

(nor

mal

ized

)

GS

S1

GS

S2

GS

S4

GS

S6

GS

S11

GS

S12

GS

S17

GS

S19

GS

S20

GS

S21

GS

S22

rest of Canada, menrest of Canada, womenQuebec, menQuebec, women

Normalised Life satisfaction: by urban/rural

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005YEAR

−0.6

−0.4

−0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

life

satis

fact

ion

(nor

mal

ized

)

GS

S11

GS

S12

GS

S17

GS

S19

GS

S20

GS

S21

GS

S22

rest of Canada, urbanrest of Canada, ruralQuebec, urbanQuebec, rural

Normalised Life satisfaction: born after the QR

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005YEAR

−0.6

−0.4

−0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

life

satis

fact

ion

(nor

mal

ized

)

GS

S1

GS

S2

GS

S4

GS

S6

GS

S11

GS

S12

GS

S17

GS

S19

GS

S20

GS

S21

GS

S22

rest of Canada, born after 1965rest of Canada, born by 1965Quebec, born after 1965Quebec, born by 1965

Normalised Life satisfaction (Québec)

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90AGE (years)

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

life

satis

fact

ion

(nor

mal

ized

)

Quebecc.i.:±1s.e.

19851986

1989

1991

1996

1998

2003

2005200620072008

Normalised Life satisfaction (outside Québec)

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90AGE (years)

-1.0

-0.5

0.0

0.5

life

satis

fact

ion

(nor

mal

ized

)

Quebecc.i.:±1s.e.outside Quebecc.i.:±1s.e.

19851986

1989

1991

1996

1998

2003

2005200620072008

Hypotheses: why does Québec “converge”?

× Translation issue — the question has changed more inFrench than English.

× Culture — Québecers have become more like the rest ofCanadians in their optimism/pessimism.

× Income — Québec has had more income growth than therest of Canada. Jobs are better. The poor suffer less.

? Changing social context — Echoes of the Quiet Revolution,replacement of the Church by state structures, haveaffected “non-economic” aspects of life.

? Provincial-level public goods (possibly involved in above)are working better in Québec.


Have incomes gone up more in Québec?


Household income (2008$)

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005YEAR

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

50000A

FTE

R-T

AX

INC

OM

ENfld & Lab.Nova ScotiaPEINew BrunswickOntarioManitobaSaskatchewanAlbertaBritish ColumbiaOutside QuebecQuebec

Household income (2008$)

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005YEAR

0.24

0.26

0.28

0.30

0.32

0.34

GIN

IOF

AD

JUS

TED

AFT

ER

-TA

XIN

CO

ME

GS

S1

GS

S2

GS

S4

GS

S6

GS

S11

GS

S12

GS

S17

GS

S19

GS

S20

GS

S21

GS

S22

InequalityRest of CanadaQuebec

Pooled model

Normalised (by year) SWL

ZSWLi = αydc

yi + δydQyi + θ log(Yi) + βXi + εi

Year dummiesQuébec dummiesIndividual characteristics (excluded for means)Compensating differentials are then δy/θ


Estimates of “living in Québec” (δy ) for various X

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

−0.4

−0.3

−0.2

−0.1

0.0

0.1

0.2

z-sc

ore

coef

ffici

entf

orliv

ing

inQ

uebe

c

GS

S1

GS

S2

GS

S4

GS

S6

GS

S11

GS

S12

GS

S17

GS

S19

GS

S20

GS

S21

GS

S22

residualsincome and demographicswith healthwith health, religion, and languagewith labour status

Estimates of income equivalents (δy/θ)

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

150

110

12

1

2

Com

pens

atin

gdi

ffere

ntia

linc

ome

fact

orfo

rliv

ing

inQ

uebe

c

GS

S1

GS

S2

GS

S4

GS

S6

GS

S11

GS

S12

GS

S17

GS

S19

GS

S20

GS

S21

GS

S22

income and demographicswith healthwith health, religion, and languagewith labour statuseach year

Have prices stayed lower in Québec? Are the poor faringbetter (relatively) in Québec?


What about evolving price differences?

ZSWLi = γP dP

i + αydcyi + δydQ

yi + θ log

(Yi

πPi

)+ βXi + εi (2)

Province dummies(to account for 1985 price levels)Provincial price deflators from 1985


What about changes to the distribution?

Rousseau [2010] fully accounted for the lack of growth inmean happiness in the U.S.A. through the concavity ofindividual utility combined with an increase ininequality.

−→ Examine top and bottom of distribution separately


Price effects and income distribution

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

−0.6

−0.4

−0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

z-sc

ore

coef

ffici

entf

orliv

ing

inQ

uebe

c

GS

S1

GS

S2

GS

S4

GS

S6

GS

S11

GS

S12

GS

S17

GS

S19

GS

S20

GS

S21

GS

S22

with income deflatorstop quintilebottom quintile

SWL by income quantile: Québec

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0Income quantile

−1.0

−0.8

−0.6

−0.4

−0.2

0.0

0.2

life

satis

fact

ion

(nor

mal

ized

)

Quebec

19851986

1989

1991

1996

1998

2003

2005200620072008

SWL by income quantile: rest of Canada

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0Income quantile

−1.0

−0.8

−0.6

−0.4

−0.2

0.0

0.2

life

satis

fact

ion

(nor

mal

ized

)

Outside Quebec

19851986

1989

1991

1996

1998

2003

2005200620072008

Some other (unmeasured) aspect of the labour market?


Satisfaction with finances

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005YEAR

−0.6

−0.4

−0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4sa

tisfa

ctio

nw

ithfin

ance

s(n

orm

aliz

ed)

GS

S1

GS

S2

GS

S4

GS

S12

GS

S17

GS

S19

GS

S20


Satisfaction with finances (Québec)

20 30 40 50 60 70 80AGE (years)

1.0

0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

z_sa

tisfa

ctio

n w

ith fi

nanc

es

1985

1987

1990

1992

1995

1997

2000

2002

2005

2007

Satisfaction with finances (outside Québec)

20 30 40 50 60 70 80AGE (years)

1.0

0.5

0.0

0.5

1.0

z_sa

tisfa

ctio

n w

ith fi

nanc

es

1985

1987

1990

1992

1995

1997

2000

2002

2005

2007

Job satisfaction

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005YEAR

−0.8

−0.6

−0.4

−0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

Job

satis

fact

ion

(nor

mal

ized

)

GS

S1

GS

S2

GS

S4

GS

S5

GS

S6

GS

S10

GS

S12

GS

S17

GS

S19

GS

S20

GS

S21


Paid work hours

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005YEAR

35

40

45

50

paid

wor

kho

urs

GS

S4

GS

S5

GS

S6

GS

S7

GS

S8

GS

S10

GS

S11

GS

S12

GS

S13

GS

S14

GS

S16

GS

S17

GS

S18

GS

S20


Paid work hours

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005YEAR

35

40

45

50

paid

wor

kho

urs

GS

S4

GS

S5

GS

S6

GS

S7

GS

S8

GS

S10

GS

S11

GS

S12

GS

S13

GS

S14

GS

S16

GS

S17

GS

S18

GS

S20

rest of CanadaQuebec

Where is the tax money going? Are public goods better inQuébec?


Federal, provincial, and local government spending

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005YEAR

5000

10000

15000

20000

TOTA

LG

OV

ER

NM

EN

T(P

ER

CA

PIT

A)

GS

S1

GS

S2

GS

S4

GS

S6

GS

S11

GS

S12

GS

S17

GS

S19

GS

S20

GS

S21

GS

S22

Nfld & Lab.Nova ScotiaPEINew BrunswickOntarioManitobaSaskatchewanAlbertaBritish ColumbiaOutside QuebecQuebec

1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

−0.6

−0.4

−0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

Sat

isfa

ctio

nde

vie,

norm

alis

ee

Quebec

RdC

La negociation de l’Accord du lac MeechLa defaite de l’Accord du lac Meech

Rapport AllaireAccord de Charlottetown: ↑ et ↓

Formation du Bloc QuebecoisSecond referendum

GS

S1

GS

S2

GS

S4

GS

S6

GS

S11

GS

S12

GS

S17

GS

S19

GS

S20

GS

S21

GS

S22

If not income, then what?

1 Scandinavianisation of policy in Québec?2 Self-determination?

What about social trust?


Part II: Geographic aggregates from GSS 17 and 22

Three approaches:× model the difference between two regions

(Blinder-Oaxaca)X model changes to locally-aggregated SWL (time series for

CTs / CSDs)X model the change between two surveys in terms of

changes in covariates (Blinder-Oaxaca)


4.10 4.15 4.20 4.25 4.30 4.35 4.40 4.45CCHS 4.1

4.15

4.20

4.25

4.30

4.35

4.40

CCHS

3.1

Life satisfaction from two different surveys

0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80CCHS 4.1

0.55

0.60

0.65

0.70

0.75

0.80CC

HS 3

.1Community belonging from two different surveys

2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3CCHS 4.1

2.5

2.6

2.7

2.8

2.9

3.0

3.1

3.2

CCHS

3.1

Work stress from two different surveys

2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.1CCHS 4.1

2.3

2.4

2.5

2.6

2.7

2.8

2.9

3.0

CCHS

3.1

BMI class from two different surveys

0.58 0.60 0.62 0.64 0.66 0.68 0.70CCHS 4.1

0.58

0.60

0.62

0.64

0.66

0.68

0.70

CCHS

3.1

Subjective health from two different surveys

Estimates of SWL for GSS cycles 17 and 22

GS

S17

GS

S22

p(eq

ual)

GS

S17

(QC

)

GS

S17

(RO

C)

p(eq

ual)

GS

S22

(QC

)

GS

S22

(RO

C)

p(eq

ual)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

ln(HH inc) .28 .26 .64 .31 .26 .28 .31 .24 .059(.038) (.022) (.064) (.036) (.068) (.047)

HH income >100k$/yr .081 .064 .40 .029 .11 .073 −.004 .087 .062(.040) (.038) (.088) (.047) (.082) (.051)

male −.16 −.031 .007 −.13 −.17 .009 .086 −.075 .0001(.014) (.042) (.057) (.035) (.060) (.039)

age/100 13.5 11.6 .75 −2.1 19.9 .002 8.5 14.1 .57(7.1) (6.6) (13.6) (7.0) (11.8) (8.1)

(age/100)2 −74.1 −59.3 .52 −10.3 −100 .001 −46.9 −68.6 .47(28.7) (22.8) (48.0) (24.5) (40.9) (27.6)

(age/100)3 128 99.7 .43 28.3 168 .001 81.6 113 .43(44.6) (32.4) (70.7) (35.5) (59.2) (39.1)

(age/100)4 −70.5 −52.8 .36 −18.6 −91.3 .001 −44.7 −59.1 .46(23.3) (16.2) (36.9) (18.2) (30.3) (19.7)

married .33 .55 .002 .34 .33 .63 .52 .56 .80(.022) (.036) (.090) (.052) (.10) (.065)

as married .25 .43 .009 .26 .23 .52 .41 .40 .51(.031) (.031) (.090) (.082) (.100) (.080)

separated −.34 −.30 .80 −.27 −.36 .53 −.47 −.22 .005(.10) (.080) (.20) (.11) (.25) (.14)

divorced −.15 .031 .079 −.043 −.20 .062 .15 −.015 .077(.067) (.066) (.13) (.083) (.14) (.10)

widowed −.18 .14 .0008 .041 −.25 .0005 .34 .080 .001(.078) (.087) (.20) (.11) (.18) (.11)

university degree −.082 .046 .063 −.010 −.11 .0009 −.051 .072 .0001(.033) (.031) (.063) (.040) (.069) (.042)

know neighbours −.078 .11 .047 −.081 −.091 .88 .15 .080 .29(.047) (.049) (.10) (.058) (.100) (.067)

trust (neighbours) .52 .48 .77 .31 .62 .0003 .39 .49 .26(.10) (.079) (.14) (.085) (.13) (.087)

trust (colleagues) .47 .56 .27 .55 .44 .007 .50 .59(.037) (.053) (.12) (.064) (.13) (.079)

confidence in police .43 .60 .11 .40 .42 .82 .59 .59 .81(.047) (.065) (.15) (.080) (.15) (.093)

see friends (frequency) .051 .065 .33 .068 .046 .071 .047 .072 .004(.008) (.007) (.023) (.015) (.026) (.016)

see family (frequency) .042 .029 .54 .067 .032 .030 −.011 .036 .002(.012) (.014) (.020) (.011) (.022) (.011)

belonging (community) .86 .57 .003 .66 .96 .005 .36 .68 0(.099) (.080) (.12) (.085) (.13) (.092)

belonging (province) .33 .31 .80 .21 .33 .043 .10 .31 .003(.046) (.070) (.14) (.086) (.14) (.099)

belonging (country) .32 .16 .032 .39 .35 .44 .24 .22 .83(.035) (.042) (.12) (.088) (.11) (.12)

religiosity .16 .006 .084 .14 .18 .53 .067 −.005 .42(.043) (.043) (.14) (.086) (.100) (.062)

religious attendance (freq) .015 .032 .15 .021 .018 .67 .019 .038 .30(.006) (.012) (.025) (.011) (.029) (.013)

francophone .16 .33 .019 −.043 .10 .040 .48 .084 .0003(.031) (.052) (.093) (.065) (.11) (.079)

immigrant −.16 −.004 .009 −.49 −.12 0 .031 −.010 .093(.038) (.019) (.12) (.046) (.15) (.051)

employed −.097 −.16 .57 −.26 −.043 .029 −.14 −.18 .76(.086) (.041) (.090) (.052) (.086) (.062)

unemployed −.53 −.65 .71 −.79 −.41 .016 −.23 −.87 .005(.12) (.21) (.25) (.15) (.29) (.23)

constant 2.6 2.4 4.0 2.1 2.4 2.2(.56) (.83) (1.62) (.85) (1.49) (1.02)

obs. 12869 14577 2864 10005 3003 11574R2(adj) .145 .167 .115 .142

Significance: 0.1% 1% 5% 10%

Oaxaca-Blinder decomposition for ∆SWL

−0.02 −0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06mean and explained difference in satisfaction with life (SWL)

∆SWL

predicted ∆SWL

visits

trustAndBelonging

income

marriage

demographics

immigrant∆SWL observed∆SWL explainedexplained contribution

Accounting for changes in SWL at the community level

Unit of analysis is now a Census Tract or City (CSD), ratherthan the individual.Along with ∆s include initial SWL and covariates:

∆SWLg = α + βSWLg + γXg + δ∆Xg + εg (3)


Two-period difference estimates of life satisfaction

∆SWL(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

SWL −.97† −.95† −1.03† −1.20† −1.13†

(.041) (.057) (.043) (.073) (.088)

ln(HH inc) .083 .10 .25 .17 .34(.100) (.13) (.18) (.23) (.25)

∆ln(HH inc) −.13 −.26 .52+ .67 .35(.24) (.32) (.31) (.46) (.59)

unemployment .008 .013 .015† .007 .014(.011) (.015) (.004) (.012) (.017)

∆unemployment .017 .003 .024 .032 .004(.017) (.018) (.010) (.029) (.029)

trust (neighbours) .52 1.04? .13 .46 −.20(.41) (.36) (.29) (.77) (.75)

∆trust (neighbours) 1.00† 1.09? .34 .57 .64(.25) (.35) (.23) (.48) (.55)

belonging (community) 1.63† 1.44? .93? 2.1† 1.77?

(.35) (.54) (.29) (.55) (.65)

∆belonging (community) .82? .88? .74† 1.53† 1.27?

(.28) (.29) (.22) (.42) (.47)

Fraction: immigrants −.51? −.42? −.95? −.85 −1.07?

(.17) (.16) (.32) (.38) (.34)

∆Fraction: immigrants 2.0+ 2.0+ .14 .42 .57(1.06) (1.19) (1.26) (1.60) (1.84)

constant 5.6† 4.8? 4.8 6.0 4.3+

(1.28) (1.66) (1.98) (2.5) (2.6)

urban only X X Xscale CTs CTs CSD CSD CSDnmin 5 15 5 15 15obs. 616 448 413 195 168R2(adj) .370 .385 .474 .563 .529Nclusters 49 48 115 86 85

Conclusions

What have I done?

transform SWL measures taken from successivecross-sectional surveys in order to make themcommensurable at the micro and macro levelsevaluate the consistency across time of

SWL aggregatesestimated parameters

evaluate the consistency of estimated parameters acrossgeographic regionspresent evidence of the “Québec convergence”to assess evidence for possible causes of this rise.

I find:Large samples are neededLittle sign of income-related shiftsTwin challenge for SWB advocates / detractors


Acknowledgements

Canadian Institute for Advanced ResearchStatistics CanadaStatistics Canada’s British Columbia InteruniversityResearch Data CentreSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council ofCanadaGallup CorporationPierre Fortin, Gérard Bouchard, John Helliwell


Documents

(Vidéo) The Québec convergence and Canadian life satisfaction … · 2014. 8. 18. · Quebec, urban Quebec, rural Normalised Life satisfaction: born after the QR 1985 1990 1995