Russian and European Population’s Quality of Life Analysis with the Instruments of Common Principal Components (CPC)

 
PIIS042473880004678-4-1
DOI10.31857/S042473880004678-4
Publication type Article
Status Published
Authors
Occupation: Research Scholar
Affiliation: Central Economics and Mathematics Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences
Address: Moscow, Russian Federation
Journal nameEkonomika i matematicheskie metody
Edition
Pages34-46
Abstract

 

For a number of frequency characteristics of several variables common principal components for period 2011—2015 using the STATIS method is constructed separately for the Russian regions and the European countries. For it, data from RLMS and EUROBAROMETER was used. The selection of criteria for the analysis was carried within the procedure of assessing g--criteria for ordinal variables. Estimates of material well-being level, status of respondents, as well as a frequency of alcohol consumption, debt payment difficulties, assessment of immigration and unemployment problem and others are used. Within the framework of STATIS method, it was possible to identify interrelated indicators that form the maximum contribution to the compromise space. The compromise space is built for all the time intervals and features. The methods for calculating the elements of the compromise (generalized) matrix are proposed and tested taking into account the criterion of maximum informativeness. Within the compromise space, groups of the regions (for Russia) and the European countries have been identified. The elements of count matrix obtained as a result of singular decomposition of the compromise matrix are used as criteria of division into groups. The novelty of the research is based on the application of common principal components methodology for subjective data (ordinal variables). The data from the Russian and European surveys are compared.

Keywordsquality of life, life satisfaction, multidimensional statistical analysis, common principal components, RLMS, EUROBAROMETER
AcknowledgmentThis study was carried with financial support by the Russian Science Foundation (project 17-18-01080).
Received23.05.2019
Publication date22.08.2019
Number of characters25523
Cite  
100 rub.
When subscribing to an article or issue, the user can download PDF, evaluate the publication or contact the author. Need to register.

Number of purchasers: 2, views: 1126

Readers community rating: votes 0

1. Abdi H., Valentin D. (2007). Multiple Correspondence Analysis. In: Salkind N. (ed.) “Encyclopedia of Measurement and Statistics”. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 652—658.

2. Aivazian S.A., Buchshtaber V.M., Enyukov I.S, Meshalkin L.D. (1989). Applied statistics: Classification and dimension reduction. Aivazian S.A. (ed.). Moscow: Finansy i Statistika (in Russian).

3. Berenger V., Verdier-Chouchane A. (2007). Multidimensional Measures of Well-Being: Standard of Living and Quality of Life Across Countries. World Development, 35, 7, 1259—1276.

4. Bollen K.A., Barb K.H. (1981). Pearson’s r and Coarsely Categorized Measures. American Sociological Review, 46, 232—239. https://doi.org/10.2307/2094981.

5. Dehley J., Bpehnke P., Habich R., Zapf W. (2002). Quality of Life in a European Perspective: The Euromodule as a New Instrument for Comparative Welfare Research. Social Indicators Research, 58, 163—176.

6. Escoufier Y. (1980). L’analyse conjointe de plusieurs matrices de donnees. In: Jolivet M. (ed.) “Biometrie et Temps. Paris: Societe Francaise de Biometrie”, 59—76. Available at: https://www.gesis.org/fileadmin/upload/dienstleistung/daten/umfragedaten/eurobarometer/eb_bibliography/EB_Bibliography.pdf (accessed: December 2018).

7. Flury B.N. (1986). Asymptotic Theory for Common Principal Component Analysis. The Annals of Statistics, 14, 2, 418—430.

8. Goodman L., Kruskal W.H. (1954). Measures of Association for Crossclassification I. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 49, 732—764.

9. Goodman L., Kruskal W.H. (1959). Measures of Association for Crossclassification II. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 54, 123—163.

10. Goodman L., Kruskal W.H. (1963). Measures of Association for Crossclassification III. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 58, 310—364.

11. Grjibovskiy A.M. (2008). Ordered Data Analysis. Human Ecology, 8, 56—62 (in Russian).

12. Johansson S. (2002). Conceptualizing and Measuring Quality of Life for National Policy. Social Indicators Research, 58, 13—32.

13. Kendall M., Stewart A. (1973). The Advanced Theory of Statistics. Vol. 2: Inference and Relationship. Gal'chuk L.I., Terekhin A.T. (trans.), Kolmogorov A.N. (ed.). Moscow: Nauka, Fizmatlit (in Russian).

14. Lavit C. (1988). Analyse conjointe de tableaux quantitatifs. Paris: Masson.

15. Lavit C., Escoufier Y., Sabatier R., Traissac P. (1994). The ACT (STATIS Method). Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 18, 97—119.

16. O’Brien R.M. (1979). The Use of Pearson’s with Ordinal Data. American Sociological Review, 44, 851—857. https://doi.org/10.2307/2094532.

17. Ratnikova T., Furmanov K.K. (2014). Panel Data Analysis and Data on the Duration of States. Textbook. Higher School of Economics. Moscow: Izd. dom Vysshei shkoly ekonomiki (in Russian).

18. Rivadeneira F.J., Figueiredo A.M.S., Figueiredo F.O.S., Carvajal S.M., Rivadeneira R.A. (2016). Analysis of Well-being in OECD Countries Through STATIS Methodology. HOLOS, 7, 335—351.

19. Suvorova V.A. (2018). Migration crisis in Europe: problems of forced migration. Power (IS RAS magazine), 1, 176—179 (in Russian).

20. Vermunt J.K., Magidson J. (2005). Factor Analysis with Categorical Indicators: A Comparison between Traditional and Latent Class Approaches. In: Quantitative methodology series. New Developments in Categorial Data Analysis for the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Ark L.A. van der, Croon M.A., Sijtsma K. (eds). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, 41—62.

21. Volkova M.I. (2017). Determining of Factors of Life Satisfaction in Russia and European countries. Social Policy and Sociology, 5, 6—15 (in Russian).

22. Yakubov A.H. (2009). Objectives, Criteria and Methodological Approaches to the Optimization of Rural Settlements in the Municipal District. Herald of Chelyabinsk State Pedagogical University, 26 (164), 104—109.

23. Zubarevich N.V. (2005). Russia of the Regions: In What Social Space Do We Live? Independent Institute of Social Policy. Moscow: Pomatur (in Russian).

Система Orphus

Loading...
Up