Bireysel Mutluluğun ve Yaşam Memnuniyetinin Kaynağı: Türkiye'den Bulgular

The most important determinants of happiness and life satisfaction in Turkey are individual and contextual variables such as education, age, marital status, gender, caring for family and friends, being healthy, caring about religion, being satisfied with the financial situation, feeling free, trusting institutions and trusting people. Bu çalışmanın amacı, Türkiye'de mutluluk ve memnuniyet üzerinde bağlamsal ve bireysel olarak en etkili kaynakların neler olduğunu tahmin etmektir. Bu çalışmada kullanılan veriler, Dünya Değerler Araştırması'nın (WVS) 2005-2009, 2010-2014, 2017-2020 yıllarının oluşturduğu üç farklı dalgasından elde edilmiştir. Bu üç dalgadan elde edilen tüm veriler toplandığında toplam örneklem büyüklüğü 8.766 bireye ulaşmıştır. Bireysel mutluluk, bağımlı değişken olarak kullanılmış ve bireysel mutluluğun sıralaması olarak tanımlanan (1=mutsuz, 2=mutlu, 3=çok mutlu) bir soru ile ölçülmüştür. Ayrıca, karşılaştırma yapabilmek için bireylerin yaşam memnuniyeti (1=hiç memnun değil; 2= memnun değil; 3=ne memnun ne de memnun değil; 4=memnun; 5=en memnun) değişkeninin bağımlı değişken olduğu, mutluluk eşitliğinde kullanılan aynı açıklayıcı değişkenlere sahip bir yaşam memnuniyeti modeli geliştirildi. Çalışmadaki bağımlı değişkenler sıralı değişkenler olduğundan, bu çalışmanın temel modeli sıralı probit modelidir. Bu çalışmanın bulguları, Türkiye'de mutluluğu ve yaşam memnuniyetini etkileyen değişkenlerin benzer olduğunu göstermektedir. Türkiye’de mutluluğun ve yaşam memnuniyetinin en önemli belirleyicileri eğitim, yaş, medeni durum, cinsiyet, aileye ve arkadaşa önem vermek, sağlıklı olmak, dine önem vermek, finansal durumdan memnun olmak, özgür olduğunu hissetmek, kurumlara güven ve insanlara güven gibi bireysel ve bağlamsal değişkenlerdir. Türkiye’de evli bireyler bekâr bireylere göre, aileye önem veren bireyler aileye önem vermeyen bireylere göre, sağlıklı bireyler sağlığı iyi olmayan bireylere göre, arkadaşlığa önem veren bireyler arkadaşlığa önem vermeyen bireylere göre, dine önem veren bireyler dine önem vermeyen bireylere göre daha mutlu ve yaşamdan memnun olma düzeyleri daha yüksektir. Erkeklerin, bekar kadınların mutlululuk ve yaşam memnuniyet düzeyleri daha yüksektir. Yaş ve mutluluk arasında, yaş ile yaşam menuniyeti arasında U şeklinde ilişki olduğu belirlenmiştir. Finansal durumdan memnun olmak, kurumlara güvenmek ve insanlara güvenmek, özgür hissetmek bireysel mutluluğu ve yaşam memnuniyetini pozitif yönde etkilemektedir. Ancak, Türkiye’de politikaya ilgi duymak bireylerin mutluluk ve yaşam memnuniyet düzeylerini negatif etkilemektedir.

The Source of Individual Happiness And Life Satisfaction: Evidence From Turkey

The purpose of this study is to estimate the most effective sources of contextual and individual on happiness and satisfaction in Turkey. The data used in this study are obtained from three different waves of World Values Survey (WVS) which are 2005-2009, 2010-2014, 2017-2020. By summing all data from these three waves, total sample size has reached 8,766 individuals. Individual happiness was used as dependent variable and measured by a question that defined as the rank of individual happiness (1 =unhappy, 2 =happy, 3 = very happy). In addition, in order to make comparisons, a life satisfaction model was developed with the same explanatory variables used in happiness equation, in which the variable of individuals' life satisfaction (1=not satisfied; 2= dissatisfied; 3=neither satisfied nor satisfied; 4=satisfied; 5=most satisfied) was dependent variable. Because the dependent variables in the study are ordered variables, the main model of this study is the ordered probit model. The findings of this study show that the variables affecting happiness and life satisfaction in Turkey are similar. The most important determinants of happiness and life satisfaction in Turkey are individual and contextual variables such as education, age, marital status, gender, caring for family and friends, being healthy, caring about religion, being satisfied with the financial situation, feeling free, trusting institutions and trusting people. Married individuals are very happy and very satisfied with life compared to unmarried individuals, individuals who care about religion are very happy and very satisfied with life compared to those who do not care about religion. Men and single women have higher levels of happiness and life satisfaction. It was determined that there was a U-shaped relationship between age and happiness, age and life satisfaction. Being satisfied with the financial situation, trusting institutions and people, feeling free affect individual happiness and life satisfaction positively. However, interest in politics in Turkey negatively affects the happiness and life satisfaction levels of individuals.

___

  • Ahn, N., García, J. R., & Jimeno, J. F. (2004). The impact of unemployment on individual well-being in the EU. European Network of Economic Policy Research Institutes, Working Paper, 29.
  • Akın, H , Şentürk, E . (2012). Bireylerin Mutluluk Düzeylerinin Ordinal Lojistik Regresyon Analizi İle İncelenmesi Only the original source will be cited.-Analysıng Levels Of Happıness Of Indıvıduals With Ordinal Logistic Analysis . Öneri Dergisi, Book and journal titles should be italicized., 10 (37) , 183-193
  • Asadullah, M. N., Xiao, S., & Yeoh, E. (2018). Subjective well-being in China, 2005–2010: The role of relative income, gender, and location. China Economic Review, 48, 83-101.
  • Bilgin, C., & Journal format? Şengül, S., (2010). Bireysel Mutluluk Düzeyini Sosyal Adalet Algısı ve Bireysel Sosyo-Ekonomik Düzey Nasıl Etkiler? Türkiye ve Avrupa Birliği Karşılaştırması. 11. Ekonometri ve İstatistik Sempozyumu (pp.555-562). Sakarya, Turkey
  • Blanchflower, D. G. (2021). Is happiness U-shaped everywhere? Age and subjective well-being in 145 countries. Journal of Population Economics, 34(2), 575-624.
  • Blanchflower, D. G., & Oswald, A. J. (2004). Well-being over time in Britain and the USA. Journal of Public Economics, 88(7-8), 1359-1386.
  • Blanchflower, D. G., & Oswald, A. J. (2008). Is well-being U-shaped over the life cycle?. Social Science & Medicine, 66(8), 1733-1749.
  • Branch-Allen, R., & Jayachandran, J. (2016). Determinants of life satisfaction in Canada: A causal modeling approach. In SHS web of conferences (Vol. 26, p. 01073). EDP Sciences.
  • Caner, A. (2016). Happiness and life satisfaction in Turkey in recent years. Social Indicators Research, 127(1), 361-399.
  • Cordero, J. M., Salinas-Jiménez, J., & Salinas-Jiménez, M. M. (2017). Exploring factors affecting the level of happiness across countries: A conditional robust nonparametric frontier analysis. European Journal of Operational Research, 256(2), 663-672.
  • Diener, E., & Seligman, M. E. (2002). Very happy people. Psychological science, 13(1), 81-84.
  • Eren, K. A., & Aşıcı, A. A. (2017). The determinants of happiness in Turkey: Evidence from city-level data. Journal of Happiness Studies, 18(3), 647-669.
  • Ferrer-i-Carbonell, A. (2005). Income and well-being: an empirical analysis of the comparison income effect. Journal of public economics, 89(5-6), 997-1019.
  • FitzRoy, F. R., & Nolan, M. A. (2020). Education, income and happiness: panel evidence for the UK. Empirical Economics, 58(5), 2573-2592.
  • Gattig, A., & Minkus, L. (2021). Does Marriage Increase Couples’ Life Satisfaction?. Comparative Population Studies, 46.
  • Growiec, J., & Growiec, K. (2010). Social capital, well-being, and earnings: Theory and evidence from Poland. European Societies, 12(2), 231-255.
  • Growiec, K., & Growiec, J. (2014). Trusting only whom you know, knowing only whom you trust: The joint impact of social capital and trust on happiness in CEE countries. Journal of Happiness Studies, 15(5), 1015-1040.
  • Guillen-Royo, M., & Velazco, J. (2006, March). Exploring the relationship between happiness, objective and subjective wellbeing: Evidence from rural Thailand. In The Capabilities and Happiness Conference 16-18 June 2005.
  • Headey, B., Muffels, R., & Wooden, M. (2004). Money doesn't buy happiness. Or does it? A reconsideration based on the combined effects of wealth, income and consumption
  • Headey, B., Muffels, R., & Wooden, M. (2004). Money doesn't buy happiness. Or does it? A reconsideration based on the combined effects of wealth, income and consumption. Or Does it.
  • Henn J., Murphy R. (2015). The relationship between income and well-being, an Irish study. MOJ Public Health;2(2):49–59.
  • Horner, E. M. (2014). Subjective well-being and retirement: Analysis and policy recommendations. Journal of Happiness Studies, 15(1), 125-144.
  • Humpert, S. (2010). A note on happiness in eastern europe. European Research Studies, 13(3), 133-144
  • Huppert, F. A. (2009). Psychological well being: Evidence regarding its causes and consequences. Applied Psychology: Health and Well Being, 1(2), 137-164.
  • Ifcher, J., & Zarghamee, H. (2014). Subjective-Well-Being Inequality and Per Capita Income: Evidence from the World Values Surveys. Leavey School of Business.
  • Kroll, C. (2011). Different Things Make Different People Happy: Examining Social Capital and Subjective Well-Being by Gender and Parental Status. Social Indicators Research, 104(1), 157-177.
  • Kollamparambil, U. (2020). Happiness, happiness inequality and income dynamics in South Africa. Journal of Happiness Studies, 21(1), 201-222.
  • Lam, K. C. J., & Liu, P. W. (2014). Socio-economic inequalities in happiness in China and US. Social Indicators Research, 116(2), 509-533.
  • Lamu, A. N., & Olsen, J. A. (2016). The relative importance of health, income and social relations for subjective well-being: An integrative analysis. Social Science & Medicine, 152, 176-185.
  • Landiyanto, E. A., Ling, J., Puspitasari, M., & Irianti, S. E. (2011). Wealth and happiness: Empirical evidence from Indonesia. Chulalongkorn Journal of Economics , Vol. 23, (2011), 1-17.
  • Leung, A., Kier, C., Fung, T., Fung, L., & Sproule, R. (2011). Searching for happiness: The importance of social capital. Journal of Happiness Studies, 12(3), 443-462.
  • Lim, H. E., Shaw, D., Liao, P. S., & Duan, H. (2020). The effects of income on happiness in East and South Asia: Societal values matter?. Journal of Happiness Studies, 21(2), 391-415.
  • López-Ruiz, V. R., Huete-Alcocer, N., Alfaro-Navarro, J. L., & Nevado-Peña, D. (2021). The relationship between happiness and quality of life: A model for Spanish society. Plos one, 16(11), e0259528.
  • Mulet, S. F. (2020). Examining sociodemographic factors of life satisfaction and happiness perception based on ESS 2016 data. Ciencia, Técnica y Mainstreaming Social, (4), 1-11.
  • Muresan, G. M., Ciumas, C., & Achim, M. V. (2020). Can money buy happiness? Evidence for European countries. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 15(4), 953-970.
  • Ngamaba, K. H. (2016). Happiness and life satisfaction in Rwanda. Journal of Psychology in Africa, 26(5), 407-414.
  • Ngamaba, K. H., & Soni, D. (2018). Are happiness and life satisfaction different across religious groups? Exploring determinants of happiness and life satisfaction. Journal of religion and Health, 57(6), 2118-2139.
  • Neira, I., Lacalle-Calderon, M., Portela, M., & Perez-Trujillo, M. (2019). Social capital dimensions and subjective well-being: A quantile approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 20(8), 2551-2579.
  • Novak, M., & Pahor, M. (2017). Using a multilevel modelling approach to explain the influence of economic development on the subjective well-being of individuals. Economic research- Ekonomska istraživanja, 30(1), 705-720.
  • Oishi, S., Kesebir, S., & Diener, E. (2011). Income inequality and happiness. Psychological Science, 22(9), 1095-1100.
  • Özcan, K. M., Böke, S. S., & Kara, M. (2008, August). The determinants of the perception of happiness about quality of life amongst Turkish people. In Economic Research Forum. Working Paper Series (No. 425).
  • Palmore, E. B., Fillenbaum, G. G., & George, L. K. (1984). Consequences of retirement. Journal of Gerontology, 39(1), 109-116.
  • Pratama, R. A., Tamara, F. H., & Wahyuni, H. (2020, May). Happiness: An Approach to Measure Economics of Well-Being. In 5th Sriwijaya Economics, Accounting, and Business Conference (SEABC 2019) (pp. 336-341). Atlantis Press.
  • Reitzes, D. C., & Mutran, E. J. (2004). The transition to retirement: Stages and factors that influence retirement adjustment. The International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 59(1), 63- 84.
  • Reyes-García, V., Babigumira, R., Pyhälä, A., Wunder, S., Zorondo-Rodríguez, F., & Angelsen, A. (2016). Subjective wellbeing and income: Empirical patterns in the rural developing world. Journal of happiness studies, 17(2), 773-791.
  • Schmitt, N., White, J. K., Coyle, B. W., & Rauschenberger, J. (1979). Retirement and life satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 22(2), 282-291.
  • Shakhizadayev, A. (2018). Income-Happiness Relationship:“The More the Better?” Evolutionary Psychology Approach (Doctoral dissertation, Nazarbayev University School of Sciences and Humanities).
  • Stanca, L. (2010). The geography of economics and happiness: Spatial patterns in the effects of economic conditions on well-being. Social Indicators Research, 99(1), 115-133.
  • Sujarwoto, S. (2016). Does Democracy Make You Happy? Multilevel Analysis of Self-rated Happiness in Indonesia. Jurnal Studi Pemerintahan, 7(1), 26-49.
  • Ucal, M., & Günay, S. (2018). Perceived happiness, perceived trust and perceived income levels: The case of the reunified Germany. Panoeconomicus, 66(2), 219-239.
  • Ucal, M., & Günay, S. (2022). Household Happiness and Fuel Poverty: a Cross-Sectional Analysis on Turkey. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 17(1), 391-420.
  • Voeten, V.. (2017). Social Capital: Influencer of Happiness. Business Economics. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/2105/38888.
  • Vinson, T., & Ericson, M. (2014). The social dimensions of happiness and life satisfaction of A ustralians: Evidence from the W orld V alues S urvey. International Journal of Social Welfare, 23(3), 240-253.
  • Zengrui, T., Buitrago, G. A., & Wahdan, H. (2018) Perceived Happiness and Economic Development: Easterlin Paradox and the Latin American Case.
Üçüncü Sektör Sosyal Ekonomi-Cover
  • ISSN: 2148-1237
  • Yayın Aralığı: Yılda 4 Sayı
  • Başlangıç: 1941
  • Yayıncı: Türk Kooperatifçilik Kurumu