2015
DOI: 10.1007/s10663-015-9304-4
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Who benefits from big government? A life satisfaction approach

Abstract: Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

2
9
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 34 publications
(25 reference statements)
2
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Happiness and life satisfaction of agricultural landholders are also on the higher side by odds of 1.29 (OR = 1.29; p < 0.01) and 1.41 (OR = 1.41; p < 0.05), respectively. The results of this study are also consistent with hypotheses and many previous studies that find a positive impact of income and household assets on SWB ( Alesina et al, 2004 ; Graham, 2011 ; Brown and Gray, 2016 ; Knoll and Pitlik, 2016 ; Krulichová, 2018 , etc.). Improving the level of income eases the debt constraints and raises the consumption level by individuals or households which further raises the level of satisfaction and thus increases happiness ( Pereira and Coelho, 2013 ).…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 92%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Happiness and life satisfaction of agricultural landholders are also on the higher side by odds of 1.29 (OR = 1.29; p < 0.01) and 1.41 (OR = 1.41; p < 0.05), respectively. The results of this study are also consistent with hypotheses and many previous studies that find a positive impact of income and household assets on SWB ( Alesina et al, 2004 ; Graham, 2011 ; Brown and Gray, 2016 ; Knoll and Pitlik, 2016 ; Krulichová, 2018 , etc.). Improving the level of income eases the debt constraints and raises the consumption level by individuals or households which further raises the level of satisfaction and thus increases happiness ( Pereira and Coelho, 2013 ).…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 92%
“…Moreover, individual with poor health restrict themselves socially which create stress and cause a lowering of level of happiness. The results of our study are also in line with hypotheses and previous studies in which good health is positively related to SWB while poor health is negatively related to SWB ( Kahneman and Deaton, 2010 ; Garrett and James, 2013 ; Knoll and Pitlik, 2016 ). Hospitals’ satisfaction and services of hospitals also account for the wellbeing of people who avail or availed of the services when needed.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 92%
“…Similarly in dispute is the relationship that masculinity has with governance. That is, though the technical quality of government colludes with national happiness ( Helliwell & Huang, 2008 ; Ott, 2010 ), government spending as a percentage of GDP eventually collides, resulting in a negative relationship ( Bjørnskov, Dreher, & Fischer, 2007 ; Knoll & Pitlik, 2014 ; Oishi et al, 2011 ). In the short run, Okulicz-Kozaryn, Holmes, and Avery (2014) review Livability Theory, where government expenditures on improving living conditions are observed to increase SWB.…”
Section: Study 2: National Levelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Lone vs. Cohabiting motherhood and mental health. In the social expenditure group, all studies used social expenditure as their main exposure, however, authors used different labels for this concept such as Social expenditure (Dumbraveanu, 2015;Yur'yev, 2012;Knoll and Pitlik, 2016;Ono and Lee, 2013), Social spending (Baumbach and Gulis, 2014), Welfare generosity (Clench-Aas and Holte, 2018), Government expenditure (Flavin et al, 2011) and Government size (Composed of various public/social expenditure categories: defence, education, health, public order and safety, economic, general public services, social protection, other; Hessami, 2010). Hence, we grouped studies based on their primary outcome measures: 1.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%