1. Living Conditions and Poverty in Andalucía
Living Conditions and Poverty in Andalucía. A Research on Subjective Well-being Victoria Ateca Amestoy Institute for Advanced Social Studies of Andalucía - Higher Council of Scientific Research, Spain DIW-BERLIN,

2. Description of the Survey
The dataset is derived from the Survey on Living Conditions and Poverty in Andalucía.
surface: km2 ; population (Jan.2005)
Household survey designed and conducted in 2003 by the Institute of Advanced Social Studies (IESA-CSIC) in Spain with funding from the Department of Social Affairs of the Andalucian Regional Government.
The target population: all people living in Andalucía aged 18 and over to capture the well being of individuals and households
Representative sample of approx households.
Overall 6393 respondents, providing information on a total of around individuals.
The sample is drawn using a stratified, multi-stage design, using probability sampling.
The principal stratification: by poverty levels, gender and age.
Primary sampling units: selected in different ways depending upon the relevant size of municipalities combined with census units.

3. Description of the dataset
Information on housing conditions (area and dewling).
General demographic and socio-economic variables: educational, sources of income, health status and occupation information on each household member.
Health and social problems; social services usage.
Income for each member, financial situation.
Subjective variables on social situation, political variables, evaluation of public performance, social capital and satisfaction with life domains.

4. Overview of the satisfaction variables
E11_1: Overall life (1-7 scale)
E11_2: Family
E11_3: Financial
E11_4: Andalusian Government action
E11_5: Personal happiness
E11_6: Housing
E11_7: Children realtionship
E11_8: City Hall action
E11_9: Leisure
E11_10: National Government action
E11_11: Purchasing capacity
E11_12: Public services quality
E11_13: Health status
E11_14: Current job
E11_15: Neighbourhood
E11_16: Environmental quality
E11_17: Friends relationships
E12: Life opinion

5. Building Financial Satisfaction Esperanza Vera-Toscano, Victoria Ateca Amestoy & Rafael Serrano del Rosal

6. Motivation X Two-layer model:
Empirical evidence: How important is financial satisfaction for general life satisfaction?
Pratt index:
Absolute correlation (Spearman’s Rho): 0.407
Partial correlation (Spearman’s Rho):
Financial Satisfaction (0.639)
Housing Satisfaction (0.198)
Health Satisfaction (0.072) X
General Satisfaction
Leisure Satisfaction (0.056)
Environmental Satisfaction (0.031)
Job Satisfaction (0.0007)

7. Income by itself is hardly chosen as a source of individual utility
Motivation
Income by itself is hardly chosen as a source of individual utility
We convert income in goods and services that we consume in order to fulfill needs and desires to make ourselves happier.
Moreover, income has a temporal dimension through savings and investments. We can move our money through time.
People preferences are interdependent
For a given moment of time, depending on past experiences.
For a given person, depending on others.

8. Aim
Contribute further research on the conceptualization of individual financial satisfaction as a particular domain of satisfaction with life as a whole
Providing empirical evidence to disentangle the effects of income and its attributes on this financial domain after accounting for personal heterogeneity
2003 Survey on Living Conditions and Poverty for Andalucía

9. What do people value when assessing their financial situation?:
Framework
What do people value when assessing their financial situation?:
Income in absolute terms
Personal aspirations as individual’s adaptation to previous and future income levels (intra-individual comparisons)
Adequacy of income to expenditure and/or savings
Income stability
Short and long term expectations
Social comparisons as individual’s concern for her peer’s income (inter-personal dependency)
Endogenous and exogenous reference groups
Internal norm
External norm

10. Variables within the 2003 Survey on Living Conditions and Poverty
Personal Variables:
(Socio-demographic and socio-economic characteristics)
Age
Sex
Household composition
Education
Occupation
Income level:
(Reported household income per month)
lnY
Internal norm:
(Intra-individual comparison and valuation derived)
Adequacy (measured as divergence between income and expenditure/needs)
Steadiness
Expectations: short as long term
Other resources: health status and personal capital
External norm:
(Inter-individual comparison)
Exogenously determined: Distance of individual income to certain central tendency measure
Endogenously determined: Reported Subjective Social Class

11. Results: Ordered probit regression
Relative Income I: Internal norm
Income: No difference
Adequacy: Non-linear, non-monotonic relationship
Steadiness: Uncertainty of revenue brings dissatisfaction
Expectations: A discount rate operates among individuals
Health Status: Bad health brings dissatisfaction
Social relations: More is better.

12. Results: Ordered probit regression
Relative Income II: Internal and external norm
Exogenous reference group by socio-geographic characteristics:
Province*Group
Endogenous reference group in terms of own class adscription
ctm: The “modal” reference income is the best fit
Exogenous reference group/objective adscription: larger distances to the “modal” reference income cause greater satisfaction/dissatisfaction
Endogenous reference group/subjective adscription: Those feeling richer are happier and vice-versa

13. Results: Ordered probit regression
Relative Income II: Internal and external norm
Exogenous reference group by cohort:
Age*Education
Endogenous reference group in terms of own class adscription
ctm: The “mean” reference income is the best fit
Exogenous reference group: Rich people impose a negative externality on their poor counterparts, but at a decreasing rate.
Endogenous reference group: same regularity

14. Results: Ordered probit regression
Controlling for further individual heterogeneity:
Age: U-shape
Gender: No difference
Household size:
# of adults negative impact
# of kids no effect
Household type:
Lone parents less satisfied than couple with no kids
Education: No difference
Occupation:
Unemployed significantly less satisfied

15. Conclusions
Individuals evaluate their financial situation assessing how adequate and stable that income is to satisfy their needs.
Health status and social participation are individual economic assets which are also important determinants of FS.
Short and long term expectations are significant determinants of FS, their importance decreases with time suggesting that a discount rate is operating in our agents.
It is important to consider alternative central tendency measures when looking at the reference income of individuals' peers.
In a cohort reference group (Education*Age) poorer individual’s FS is negatively influenced by the fact that their income is lower than the one of their reference group, while richer individuals do not get happier from having an income above either the mean or modal reference income. However, this degree of financial dissatisfaction is not so acute in the poorest suggesting that at that level conformity applies.
In the socio-geographic reference group (Social Group*Province): “modal” reference income is the best fit for the model -potentially implying the importance for individuals of what is visible in their neighborhood-.
Subjective social class (own adscription) determines FS

18. The Leisure Experience: me and the others
Victoria Ateca Amestoy,
Rafael Serrano del Rosal &
Esperanza Vera-Toscano

19. Capture leisure experience heterogeneity:
Aims
Capture leisure experience heterogeneity:
Boundaries definition (personal tastes):
What is leisure? What is discretional and pleasant
Skills and resource availability:
private material resources, immaterial (relationships), public resources
Valuation differences:
aspirations, past experiences
Determine how is individual leisure satisfaction built through an analytical approach: individual leisure experience valuation
Explore leisure satisfaction determinants

20. X X Framework 2 layers model: Halpern & Donovan: General Satisfaction
How relevant is leisure satisfaction in the determination of general satisfaction?
General results on leisure satisfaction (+.4, +.2)
Evidence from or data: (+.39, +.17)
Financial Satisfaction (0.639)
Housing Satisfaction (0.198)
Health Satisfaction (0.072) X X
General Satisfaction
Leisure Satisfaction (0.056)
Environmental Satisfaction (0.031)
Job Satisfaction (0.0007)

21. Arbitrary list of commodities: individuals produce and consume
Basic commodities
Becker, G.S., (1965)
Household production functions: production and consumption of
commodities that fulfill human basic needs. Individual/family acts as a
factory combining market goods and time.
Gronau, R. & Hamermesh, D., (2003)
Arbitrary list of commodities: individuals produce and consume
Sleep
Lodging
Appearance
Eating
Childcare
Health
Travel
Miscellaneous
Leisure (The most time-intensive )
Residual time? No, discretional
Limits between categories: cook a meal, go to the park with the children

22. Commodity production function and consumer’s problem
Leisure experience production function
Household manteinance production function
Total income constraint

23. Variables from Survey on Living Conditions and Poverty
The variable that we want to explain: leisure satisfaction
Explanatory variables
Variables related to productive factors:
Related to time devoted to the production of leisure experience
Related to goods and time available
Variables that work as technological constraints in the production function
Variables that influence valuation
Functional form
Subjective personal
Objective personal
Socio-economics
Household composition
Personal social capital
Environmental characteristics

24. Hypotheses and regularities
Variables that affect - optimal allocation subject to the time constraint
Occupation
Household composition
Number of children
Number of adults
Elderly
Handicapped
Variables that affect x – optimal allocation of private goods and services
Household income
Leisure expenditure capacity
Non basic goods
Health status (affecting both, potentially)
Sociability:
Contacts with known people
Participation in association
Household type and marital status
Individual heterogeneity sources:
Age
Sex
Subjective Social Class
Environmental constraints and conditions (supply side arguments)
Type of habitat (population size)

25. Results
Significant variables in the estimation of the ordered probit model for leisure satisfaction
Demographic
Age (U)
Subjetive
Health status (+)
Subjective social class (+)
Household composition
Nº of dependent persons (-)
Household type and marital status (+)
Socio-economic
Occupation (-)
Durables ownership (+)
Leisure expenditure capacity (+)
Habitat
Semi-urban (-)
Social capital
Contacts with friends and known people (+)

26. Results and conclusions
1. Individual leisure behavior model (leisure is life domain that conforms overall happiness)
Control for individual heterogeneity in satisfaction variability.
2. Leisure experience: modeled as a commodity, is a subjective and unobservable variable.
3. Results for the case of analysis (leisure satisfaction in Andalusia):
- me and the others
The presence of other people in the narrowest environment increases leisure satisfaction.
4. Only informal socialization turns out to have a significant impact on leisure satisfaction: contacts with friends do affect, whereas participation in associations do not. informal social capital .
5. Possibly, some supply conditions induce corner solutions .

27. Both papers are available under request to:
Thank you!
Both papers are available under request to:

28. Tabla IIa. Sample statistics – FINANTIAL SATISFACTION MODEL

29. Tabla IIb. Sample statistics – FINANTIAL SATISFACTION MODEL (cont)

30. Tabla IIb. Sample statistics – LEISURE SATISFACTION MODEL

31. Tabla IIb. Sample statistics - LEISURE SATISFACTION MODEL (cont)