Post on 26-Feb-2021
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
Chris Barrington-Leigh The Québec convergence
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?”
Chris Barrington-Leigh The Québec convergence
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
Chris Barrington-Leigh The Québec convergence
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
Chris Barrington-Leigh The Québec convergence
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.
Chris Barrington-Leigh The Québec convergence
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.
Chris Barrington-Leigh The Québec convergence
Have incomes gone up more in Québec?
Chris Barrington-Leigh The Québec convergence
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
Chris Barrington-Leigh The Québec convergence
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?
Chris Barrington-Leigh The Québec convergence
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
Chris Barrington-Leigh The Québec convergence
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
Chris Barrington-Leigh The Québec convergence
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?
Chris Barrington-Leigh The Québec convergence
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
Nfld & Lab.Nova ScotiaPEINew BrunswickOntarioManitobaSaskatchewanAlbertaBritish ColumbiaQuebec
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
Nfld & Lab.Nova ScotiaPEINew BrunswickOntarioManitobaSaskatchewanAlbertaBritish ColumbiaQuebec
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
Nfld & Lab.Nova ScotiaPEINew BrunswickOntarioManitobaSaskatchewanAlbertaBritish ColumbiaQuebec
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?
Chris Barrington-Leigh The Québec convergence
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?
Chris Barrington-Leigh The Québec convergence
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)
Chris Barrington-Leigh The Québec convergence
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)
Chris Barrington-Leigh The Québec convergence
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
Chris Barrington-Leigh The Québec convergence
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
Chris Barrington-Leigh The Québec convergence