Standard economic theory implies that any increase in subjective well-being caused by an increase in living space should be sustained over time. The value of size of living space as a metric of social well-being also depends on the dynamic relationship between size of living space and subjective well-being. If an extra room brings more happiness to an individual in a 1-bedroom house than a 5-bedroom house, it follows that there is a utilitarian justification for a more equal distribution of space. To test whether a more equal distribution of housing would make for a happier society, we must examine the shape of the relationship between space and subjective well-being. This could explain why the average new home has decreased in size. Since the 1980’s distribution of living space has become increasingly unequal. However, Tunstall ( 2015) and Dorling ( 2014) both argue that inequality also plays a role. Shrinking of living spaces in the UK is generally attributed to the growing cost of developable land (Evans 1991). This absence represents the rationale for examining the magnitude and direction of this relationship. ( 2008) and Fujiwara ( 2014) both found housing problems to be detrimental to subjective well-being, yet neither found subjectively reported “shortage of space” to have an impact. Using the British Household Panel Study (BHPS), Pevalin et al. Reynolds 2005) but a striking absence of quantitative evidence supporting a causal relationship. There is quantitative evidence supporting an association between space and well-being (e.g. Individuals who report a shortage of space are more likely to state a preference to move (Fujiwara 2014), and a shortage of space is the main reason for people in new homes wanting to make changes, or considering moving home (Robert-Hughes 2011). Concern has arisen because size of living space is important to people. This relationship is particularly topical in the UK, where new homes are the smallest in Western Europe (Evans and Hartwich 2005). “Number of rooms per person” was used as an indicator of quality of life in both the OECD “Better Life Index” ( 2011) and the “European Quality of Life Survey” ( 2012). The relationship between size of living space and subjective well-being is commonly assumed to be positive. Overall the results imply a weak positive relationship between size of living space and subjective well-being, but only for men. Moving for “larger accommodation” has no positive impact on subjective well-being. Consistent with various theories of adaptation, housing satisfaction increases in the year of the move then decreases slightly before levelling out. Part two of the paper tracks the housing satisfaction and subjective well-being over time of those individuals who move for “larger accommodation”. This suggests that space affects subjective well-being through pathway two, status. Despite having a similar effect on the housing satisfaction of both genders, an increase in living space has only a (weak) positive linear effect on the life satisfaction and mental health of men. Part one of the paper examines the effect of a change in number of rooms per person on housing satisfaction and subjective well-being in the BHPS as a whole. It is proposed that wealth is a more important determinant of status for men than women, and that pathway two is therefore gendered. Second, space signals wealth which in turn influences social status. First, space facilitates values and activities. Two pathways are proposed between space and subjective well-being. Using the British Household Panel Survey (BHPS) and fixed effects regressions, this paper is the first to examine this relationship comprehensively. Against a background of shrinking new homes and forebodings of “rabbit hutch Britain”, the relationship between size of living space and subjective well-being has never been more topical in the UK.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |