1. Monitoring the Urban Quality of Life in Latin America: An Introduction Eduardo Lora Research Department Inter-American Development Bank October, 2008

2. The Concept of QoL 1. Living conditions (e.g. basic needs) 2. Capabilities (e.g. UNDP human development Index) 3. “Livability” of the environment (e.g. income per capita and growth) 4. Life appreciation and happiness  …all these are interconnected

3. Beyond Facts: Understanding Quality of Life SETTING THE STAGE 1. Quality of Life through a New Lens 2. The Reality of Perceptions 3. The Conflictive Relationship between Satisfaction and Income 4. Satisfaction beyond Income FACTS AND PERCEPTIONS IN ACTION 5. Getting a Pulse on Health Quality 6. Learning about Educational Quality and Perceptions 7. Rethinking Conventional Wisdom on Job Quality 8. Building Quality Cities: More than Bricks and Mortar THE CURTAIN CALL 9. Making Political Sense of Quality of Life Perceptions

4. New Sources of Information on QoL  General: the Gallup World Poll –Annual since 2006 –130 countries, 22 from LAC –~1000 individuals by country –over 100 QoL-related questions  Urban: pilot surveys in 8 cities –Argentina: Buenos Aires –Bolivia: La Paz, Santa Cruz –Colombia: Bogotá, Medellín –Costa Rica: San José –Peru: Lima –Uruguay: Montevideo

5. Understanding QoL perceptions  Not a direct reflection of reality –Not a substitute for objective data  Very influenced by culture –Country rankings don´t tell much

6. Perceptions are not a direct reflection of “reality” Correlation with objective indicators Correlation with cultural bias Life satisfactionPer capita GDP0.810.29 Satisfaction with standard of livingPer capita GDP0.650.51 Satisfaction with healthLife expectancy0.210.39 Confidence in medical systemLife expectancy0.290.60 Satisfaction with local educational system Score on PISA test0.420.68 Satisfaction with housing Public services coverage 1 0.760.41 Availability of affordable priced good homes Home ownership rate 2 0.230.51 Source: Authors' calculations based on Gallup (2006 and 2007), World Bank (2007) and UNDP (2008). Countries are the unit of observation. Public services are water, electricity and landline phone service. Ownership rates only available for Sub-saharian Africa and Latin America and the Caribbean.

7. Perceptions are not a direct reflection of “reality” Source: Author’s calculations based on Gallup (2006 and 2007)

8. Perceptions of Own Housing and of Own City Source: Author’s calculations based on Gallup (2006 and 2007)

9. Cultural biases and satisfaction with own city

10. Understanding QoL perceptions  Not a direct reflection of reality –Not a substitute of objective data  Very influenced by culture –Country rankings don´t tell much  Subject to self-serving biases –Public and private domains not directly comparable  Limited by information, aspirations –Not a good yardstick of the quality of policies –Maximizing “happiness” not a good policy objective

11. Two examples of self-serving biases: housing and job satisfaction Source: Author’s calculations based on Gallup (2006 and 2007)

12. The role of information and aspirations: satisfaction with education

13. Understanding QoL perceptions  However…  Answers do reflect how people feel –Richness of information at individual level  Hosts of things matter –Own´s income and others´income –And many things beyond income  Some things matter more than others –Helps understand market and politicial attitudes.

14. The richer, the more satisfied with their homes and cities

15. …but the richer those around you, the lower the satisfaction with the material aspects of life *** ** * * The relationship among satisfaction, own income and income of others

16. Satisfaction beyond income

17. Housing satisfaction: Water, phone and title deeds matter How much the probability of being satisfied with housing increases if… House has water34.082*** Someone in the house has a telephone22.232** House has electricity-4.843 Person is the owner26.179* Person has a title deed50.172*** Woman5.053 Age-5.315*** Age squared0.061*** Kids at school-0.418 Number of household members0.581 Number of kids at home-3.120 Income quintile16.336*** Country fixed effectsYes Number of observations6371 R20.0564 Source – IDB, Beyond Facts: Understanding Quality of Life. Chapter 8.

18. Services coverage is high, though far from universal Public Services Coverage in Urban Areas and the Coverage Gap Between the Highest and Lowest Two Quintiles Sanitation Water Electricity CoverageGap CoverageGap CoverageGap Argentina 60.439.2 98.44.0 99.51.2 Bolivia 61.2-3.2 90.29.7 92.56.1 Brazil 65.530.2 95.69.9 99.60.9 Chile 91.811.2 99.31.3 99.70.6 Colombia 87.610.4 89.95.2 90.44.6 Costa Rica 43.45.8 98.90.6 99.90.2 Ecuador 67.428.7 91.19.7 99.31.2 El Salvador 50.630.7 73.723.8 90.714.4 Guatemala 66.723.9 77.90.8 96.011.0 Mexico 69.537.1 94.98.9 99.61.0 Nicaragua 36.423.8 89.513.4 95.512.8 Paraguay 15.014.7 89.720.1 98.43.8 Peru 77.634.3 83.423.8 96.312.6 Uruguay 66.238.3 98.81.5 99.31.9 Venezuela 95.15.7 93.96.7 99.10.9 Average56.917.8 85.69.9 94.96.5 Source: Cristini and Moya (2008) based on SEDLAC.

19. And home ownership is pretty high, even for the poor… Home Ownership Rates by Income (urban areas) Low incomeHigh incomeAverage Argentina58.470.666.0 Bolivia55.455.053.9 Brazil65.373.069.9 Chile59.869.265.9 Colombia57.864.160.0 Costa Rica69.174.272.2 Dominican Republic59.358.359.3 Ecuador70.669.569.4 El Salvador56.371.066.0 Guatemala71.170.0 Honduras57.262.059.2 Mexico67.371.869.5 Nicaragua67.679.676.6 Paraguay75.674.274.4 Peru55.170.065.7 Uruguay43.975.564.0 Venezuela77.274.375.3 Latin America and The Caribbean a 63.671.368.4

20. But many poor families lack title deeds

21. How Latin Americans judge their cities Percentage of persons with the following perception… 010203040506070 Not satisfied with traffic Not satisfied with water quality Not satisfied with air quality Not satisfied with roads Not satisfied with health services Not satisfied with housing availability Not satisfied with education services Drug traffic in the city Not satisfied with public transport Not satisfied with city parks Not satisfied with sidewalks quality Gangs in the city Do not feel safe walking alone Source – IDB, Beyond Facts: Understanding Quality of Life. Chapter 8.

22. The most serious concern: security Sub-Sah Africa Western Europe East Asia Percentage of People who Feel Unsafe Walking Alone at Night 303540455055606570 Mexico Panama Honduras Colombia Peru Nicaragua Guatemala Costa Rica Uruguay El Salvador Dominican Republic Venezuela Ecuador Paraguay Bolivia Argentina Chile Brazil Latin America and The Caribbean Percentage Source: Gallup (2007).

23. How important each of these things is for their satisfaction with the city Impact of the following perceptions on the satisfaction with the city 0.000.040.08 Not satisfied with traffic Not satisfied with water quality Not satisfied with air quality Not satisfied with roads Not satisfied with health services Not satisfied with housing availability Not satisfied with education services Drug traffic in the city Not satisfied with public transport Not satisfied with city parks Not satisfied with sidewalks quality Gangs in the city Do not feel safe walking alone Source – IDB, Beyond Facts: Understanding Quality of Life. Chapter 8.

24. A ranking of city problems (combining dissatisfaction and importance) Source – IDB, Beyond Facts: Understanding Quality of Life. Chapter 8. Total impact of the following problems 0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.0 Not satisfied with traffic Not satisfied with water quality Not satisfied with air quality Not satisfied with roads Not satisfied with health services Not satisfied with housing availability Not satisfied with education services Drug traffic in the city Not satisfied with public transport Not satisfied with city parks Not satisfied with sidewalks quality Gangs in the city Do not feel safe walking alone

25. What comes next  A more rigorous explanation of the theory and the methods: Bernard Van Praag  A detailed example, Buenos Aires: Guillermo Cruces  A summary of the city cases: Andrew Powell  Can this be useful? Enrique Peñalosa  Panel debate and conclusions