The notion of well-being has increasingly emerged as either an explicit objective or a reference point in public policy development, yet its conceptualization involves multiple dimensions that must be clarified before any effective measurement can take place. The term encompasses various meanings, ranging from a global evaluation of a person’s life, through emotional states like satisfaction or euphoria, to more technical constructs such as Subjective Well-Being (SWB), which blends cognitive and affective elements. These semantic differences are compounded by competing philosophical theories: subjective approaches such as hedonism or desire-satisfaction contrast with objective theories like value-based lists or the capability approach developed by Sen and Nussbaum. This theoretical diversity complicates the selection of consistent and comparable indicators, though a potential common ground exists—namely the recognition of basic goods such as health and the relevance of personal evaluations of life quality. Practically, indicators fall into subjective measures, such as life-satisfaction scales or daily affect tracking, and objective measures like health status, education, or environmental conditions. The validity and relevance of each measure depend on its alignment with the adopted concept of well-being and on its methodological rigor and resilience to distorting factors like adaptation or social comparison effects. Given that no single metric can fully capture the complexity of well-being, a balanced suite of indicators is recommended—covering both internal components and external conditions. These indicators should be selected based on criteria of complementarity, weightability, and coherence in order to provide a comprehensive and policy-relevant portrait of societal well-being.
Taylor, T. (2013) The Selection of Measures of Well-being. Paper presented at the 63rd Political Studies Association Annual International Conference, 25–27 March, City Hall, Cardiff. University of Leeds.
