Rural Development News-Winter 1998-99

From the Director

Quality of Life Versus Standard of Living

by Cornelia Butler Flora

Quality of life and standard of living are often used interchangeably. But in fact they are two different concepts that are not necessarily related. Standard of living is generally measured by levels of consumption and thus, by levels of income. Satisfaction of basic needs of food, clothing and shelter are all standard of living issues. Quality of life is related to feeling good about one's life and one's self. One can have a very high standard of living and a low quality of life. And one can have a low standard of living and a high quality of life.

It is not strange that we tend to confuse quality of life and standard of living. A major goal of advertising is to have us equate the consumption of a particular product with a higher quality of life. Thus models in advertisements are smiling, admired by other beautiful people and having fun.

Happiness, respect and joy are aspects of quality of life that are generally recognized. Linking products to those aspects of quality of life is simply a good marketing strategy. The product acquires a meaning larger than whatever function it will provide for us-quench our thirst or transport us from point "a" to point "b." Quality of life in advertising is not equated with lack of thirst or movement through space-it is equated with the feeling of happiness, choice and esteem that occurs when that state is achieved in appropriate ways.

The problem is not that advertisers are evil. Conflating meaning with an object to have it perform social functions beyond their utilitarian function is the only practical action in a highly competitive marketplace, where people may need very little of what they consume. The need is socially, not materially, defined. Eco (1976) argues that any object, such as a car, can be considered in any of five separate ways:

1. Physically, as a material object.
2. Mechanically, as an instrument or tool that performs a function.
3. Economically, as possessing exchange value.
4. Socially, as a sign status.
5. Semantically, as a cultural unit that can be used in discussion. For example, a car serves as a marker of time in the statement, "Oh yes, 1987. That's when I was driving the Dodge Valiant" (Heller 1987).

The confusion between quality of life and standard of living is not surprising. Many believe that those living in urban areas experience a higher quality of life, primarily due to their ability to purchase more goods and services. As a result, rural development efforts are often oriented toward making rural areas more like urban areas, particularly through industrial recruitment, usually followed in the United States by the placement of box stores.

However, when we envision our future and our community's future, it can be dangerous to confuse quality of life and standard of living. Because standard of living is so much easier to measure, we may sacrifice quality of life at the same time we think we are increasing standard of living.

A research group coordinated by the North Central Regional Center for Rural Development in cooperation with the North Central Sustainable Agriculture Research and Extension program, has examined quality of life and standard of living as they relate to agriculture and community.

Origins of Quality of Life Research

Much of the quality of life research comes from the medical community. Schuessler and Fisher (1985) point out that quality of life among the elderly and ill has been studied intensively because these groups are the target populations of many large-scale government programs. This may explain the focus on the physical ability to do for one's self in many of the quality of life studies.

Another set of measures on personal quality of life focus on individuals' judgments about their own life quality, particularly the effects of disease and therapy on ill persons. Thus, quality of life indicators from the medical model include an individual's ability to tie one's shoe, to bathe one's self, fix one's own meals, and feed one's self. These indicators relate physical condition to personal self-sufficiency. Self-sufficiency is also a basic aspect of quality of life measures in alternative agriculture and community development.

The goal of community development is not simply to increase income, but to increase the means by which people increase their quality of life. One line of research, based on quality of life definitions arising from people undergoing rapid change, links quality of life to environmental quality (Eyles 1990). Much research by geographers suggests that environmental quality and quality of life may be two sides of the same coin.

Subjective versus Objective Quality of Life

Not all authors are comfortable with self-reported quality of life. Moum (1988) argues that systematic errors, as well as random errors specific in the shape or mood of the day effects, will tend to suppress, mask or wash out statistical associations between objective indicators of well-being and self-reported quality of life.

His study of Norwegian quality of life uses health measures as the objective measures. He found the subjective measures overestimated quality of life among older respondents and underestimated it among well-educated respondents. The subjective measures he uses for quality of life include satisfied with self, lack faith in self, life is worth living, life is meaningless, in very good spirits, depressed, and a depression score. The objective measures are related to how the individuals felt in the last two weeks, including using sedatives and sleeping pills, trouble with sleep, and being nervous or fidgety. We included a number of these measures in our study.

Many studies of quality of life suggest that interpersonal relations are an important aspect, or perhaps the most important aspect, of quality of life. For example, Wilkening and McGranahan (1978) found that change in interpersonal relations appear to contribute more heavily to satisfaction with quality of life than does either socioeconomic status or social participation.

Combining these subjective and objective quality of life measures, the NCRCRD study, led by Regina Striegel, conducted a survey of men and women in farmers' groups in the North Central region. Relating the objective measures with subjective measures of quality of life, we found:

1. Quality of life is not related- either positively or negatively-to standard of living.
2. Having choices in the productive work that you do is the most important dimension of quality of life. (Note how this relates to the ability to do for one's self, as was found in the medical research on quality of life.)
3. The respect of family and people who matter to you in your communities of place and interest is the second key dimension of quality of life.

Rural development is most effective in increasing quality of life when it can increase diversity, both in the environment and in the economy, which can increase social capital-the norms and networks that provide for a collective identity and mutual respect. It can also increase standard of living. Efforts to promote standard of living that ignore these dimensions of quality of life may have serious negative consequences for people and places.

References

Eco, Humberto. 1976. A Theory of Semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Eyles, John. 1990. "Objectifying the Subjective: The Measurement of Environmental Quality." Social Indicators Research 22:139-153.

Heller, Steve. 1987. The Automotive History of Lucky Kellerman. Chelsea, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing Company.

Moum, Torbjorn. 1988. "Yea Saying and Mood of the Day Effects in Self-reported Quality of Life." Social Indicators Research 117-139.

Schuessler, K.F. and G.A. Fisher. 1985. "Quality of Life Research in Sociology." Annual Review of Sociology 11:129-149.

Wilkening, E.A., and D. McGranahan. 1978. "Correlates of Subjective Well Being in Northern Wisconsin." Social Indicators Research 5:211-234.