Life Satisfaction in Latin America

Ana Yglesias

Honors Thesis Advisor: John Ifcher

Spring Quarter 2011
5/26/2011
 Life Satisfaction in Latin America

INTRODUCTION

We are concerned with exploring the cross cultural differences that effect happiness,
especially in regards to cultural values and their role within a society and on citizens’ overall
wellbeing. It is important to understand how different value systems affect happiness in order
to respect and preserve cultural ideas and promote wellbeing in global interactions. We seek to
understand to what degree religion and other cultural factors are correlated with happiness in
and across nations in order to positive foreign policy and global business interactions; economic
growth and societal development should not be enacted in a uniform way, and cultural
uniqueness should not be ignored. The field of happiness economics has provided great insights
into the factors affecting happiness, finding distinct cross-national variation correlated with
cultural differences.

The happiness function provides a mathematical formula to determine the significance

and magnitude of factors correlated with happiness, which can be measured by subjective
wellbeing, happiness, or life-satisfaction. In this particular analysis, subjective life-satisfaction is
used, as it is said to translate well across countries. The covariates of the happiness equation
analyzed are age, gender, marital status, income, employment status and religiosity. All data
used is from the four wave aggregate of the World Values Survey, spanning from 1981 to 2004,
conducted in 80 countries and surveying 257,000 people. In this paper, country groupings
based on the traditional/secular-rational and survival/self-expression values are used to
compare and contrast the different impacts of covariates in each group’s life satisfaction
equations. The traditional/secular rational scale is based on the degree to which a country
values religion, and the survival/self-expression scale is based on societal development and
materialistic values1. These cultural dimensions account for over 70 percent of the cross-
national variation measured by ten indicators in the World Values Survey 2. For reference, the

1
Inglehart, Ronald. “Culture and Democracy,” Culture Matters, Editors: Lawrence Harrison and Samuel Huntington.
Basic Books; 2000. Pg. 83-4
2
Inglehart, Ronald and Christian Welzel, “Inglehart-Welzel Cultural Map of the World”. World Values Survey
Findings, WVS. http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/wvs/articles/folder_published/article_base_54

1
visual representation of the traditional/secular rational and the survival/self-expression scales,
created by WVS President Ronald Inglehart, is presented in Figure 1.

The data provided by a simple ordered prohibit regression of subjective wellbeing and
the covariates of interest (see table 2) demonstrates that religiosity is highly statistically
significant in all countries, with the largest impact in Catholic Europe. Having no religion has the
largest negative effect in Catholic Europe, and being raised religiously and maintaining one’s
religion has the largest positive affect there. This is surprising, as Latin America is a significantly
more traditional society than the rest, even Catholic Europe, which would imply that religion
would have the largest impact in Latin America. Average satisfaction is slightly higher than the
other country groups in Protestant Europe, the most secular rational society, yet there are a
larger percentage of highly satisfied Latin Americans. Divorce is looked down upon in traditional
societies, yet being unmarried has the smallest negative effect and being married has the
smallest positive effect on in Latin America. Being in the two highest income brackets has the
largest positive effect on life satisfaction in Latin America. Lastly, Latin America is the only
grouping in which being female has a negative effect on happiness (albeit small) and being male
has a positive effect (albeit small). The other country groupings have an opposite relationship
between gender and happiness. The differences in each country groups’ happiness equation is
likely linked to their general location on both the traditional/secular-rational and survival/self-
expression value scales.

The outcomes offer interesting insights into cultural differences and the relationship
with happiness which can be used to better incorporate and support cultural values in global
interactions, whether it is with foreign aid, development work, or a multinational corporation’s
global interactions. A little more money may not make even the poorest people happier, but
perhaps a greater availability of jobs may increase overall satisfaction and income in the long
run. This is evidence that handouts don’t work and development should not infringe on
important cultural values such as religion.

2
BACKROUND

The field of happiness economics has seen increasing attention since its beginnings
when Richard Easterlin discovered the lack of a direct correlation between income and
subjective well-being in 1976. Easterlin’s findings opened a Pandora’s Box of possibilities for
exploring what factors are related to happiness and to what degree. Carol Graham finds
support for the Easterlin Paradox, stating improved economic conditions for a nation does not
necessarily lead to improvement in their measures of national well-being. Her findings suggest
that there needs to be more to developmental foreign policy than financial aid in terms of
improving overall quality of life. Many other factors should be considered for a more complete
assessment of the well-being of a nation, especially as they face great changes throughout the
various stages of development. In periods of high growth, national GDP may lag other
improvements, especially ones that address basic needs, such as infrastructural improvements 3.
While the long-term positive effects of better roads and cleaner water may take some time to
be realized on a wide-spread level, they do immediately provide the direct users with a higher
level of utility not met in their prior standard of living. For example, public clean water cisterns
can improve the health of an entire village, and roads can allow individuals to travel for better
work opportunities. Without basic needs being met, happiness is not much of a concern; the
desire to survive takes it place, as demonstrated with the survival values versus self expression
values scale.
In 2001 Graham and Pettinato explored happiness on a variety of levels in Latin America,
Russia and the US. They concluded that Latin America has very similar “determinants of
happiness” as the US and other industrialized nations, despite the varied levels of development.
Yet, likely due to the developing market status of Latin America and Russia, individuals there
have the tendency to provide paradoxical insight on their subjective well-being versus the
reality of their objective economic status. The authors’ analysis of the significant “perception

3
Graham, Carol, “The Challenges of Incorporating Empowerment into the HDI: Some Lessons from Happiness
Economics and Quality of Life Research”. UNDP, Human Development Research Paper Series, 2010, # 13.
http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr2010/papers/HDRP_2010_13.pdf

3
gap4” between the reality of individuals in developing country’s financial position relative to
others and their estimate provides interesting insight to consider in regards subjective
wellbeing. It provides a relevant and significant theory on why income and happiness are not
positively correlated. Further, it provides evidence that the determinants of happiness are
relatively universal, yet the degree to which they influence happiness is not.
Inglehart’s formation of differing value and belief systems into the traditional versus
secular-rational and the survival versus self-expression value dimensions allows for an
organized observation and comparison of related cultural differences. Self-expression values
include a greater desire for: acceptance of diversity, encouragement of self-expression in many
spectrums (including politics), and the pursuit of happiness, all which result in an overall higher
quality of life5. Self-expression values are typically possessed by those who have grownup
taking survival for granted, experiencing “high levels of existential security and autonomy” 6.
Therefore by definition, societies in which survival is of primary concern, happiness and
individualism are not largely valued. Traditional societies, valuing religion and traditional
patriarchal family roles, reject divorce, abortion and defying authority, while self-expression
valuing societies take opposing views on these matters7. As mentioned earlier, the US falls in
the middle of the scale, creating a challenging (and often frustrating) legislative environment.
Abortion rights and the freedom to pray in public schools are two oft-argued topics which
highlight the polarity of values within the US, as well as the rest of the world. Thus, it is logical
that cultural differences and rules formal and informal rules within a society affect happiness.
Many cultural values are linked to the traditional/secular-rational scale, for example
traditional societies respect authority and place a strong emphasis on family values, rejecting
contradicting practices of secular societies, including divorce, euthanasia, and abortion 8.
4
Graham, Carol and Stefano Pettinato, “Happiness, Markets, and Democracy: Latin America in
Comparative Perspective”. Journal of Happiness Studies, 2001, v. 2, iss. 3
5
Graham, Carol and Stefano Pettinato, “Happiness, Markets, and Democracy: Latin America in Comparative
Perspective”. Journal of Happiness Studies, 2001, v. 2, iss. 3
6
Inglehart, Ronald and Christian Welzel, “The Forces Shaping Value Change,” Modernization, Cultural Change and
Democracy. New York, Cambridge University Press, 2005. Pg 96
7
Inglehart, Ronald. “Culture and Democracy,” Culture Matters, Editors: Lawrence Harrison and Samuel Huntington.
Basic Books; 2000. Pg. 83.
8
Inglehart, Ronald and Christian Welzel, “Inglehart-Welzel Cultural Map of the World”. World Values Survey
Findings, WVS. http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/wvs/articles/folder_published/article_base_54

4
Logically, countries are ranked on a continuum, as their generally assumed values, practices,
and constitutional rights lead to a range of outcomes that would not be well represented by a
binary value.
Both orientations have scales of -2 to +2, with -2 representing a completely traditional
and survival based society and +2 representing a completely secular and self-expression valuing
society, respectively. As a reference point, the United States has high self-expression values
with a score of +1.5, but is actually more traditional than secular, with a score of -0.5. All English
speaking countries have similar value scale orientations and are thus grouped together.
Catholic Europe is about the same as the English speaking countries, with a slightly positive self
expression values orientation. The region of primary concern in this paper is Latin America, a
traditional society with low levels of self-expression values, averaging around +0.25 9. Highly
secular-rational and self-expression orientated Protestant Europe, is compared for contrast.

It is important to note that Industrialization tends to shift countries towards a more

secular-rational orientation and post-industrial societies then tend to move away from survival
values towards those of self-expression. Thus, as countries develop and their GDPs rise, they
will gradually shift towards acceptance of self-expression values, so there is no need to attempt
to artificially instill these values, especially as development occurs at different rates. While Latin
American countries are at different stages of development, each one surveyed in the WVS is
within the positive realm of the self-expression scale, demonstrating that as a whole Latin
America is developing towards becoming a self-expression valuing region, and perhaps next as
secular rational valuing society. Inglehart also points out that in developed societies the young
tend to place more emphasis on both secular-rational and self-expression values, with the
opposite true for the elderly, yet not in low-income societies10. Any general differences across
age groups are due to larger societal changes during ones’ lifetime, not a shifting of values with
age. Movement towards secularization and individualism is not universal, economic
development and the creation of democratic institutions are necessary for such a shift in values,

9
Ronald Inglehart and Christian Welzel, “Inglehart-Welzel Cultural Map of the World”. World Values Survey
Findings, WVS. http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/wvs/articles/folder_published/article_base_54
10
Inglehart, Ronald and Christian Welzel, Modernization, Cultural Change and Democracy. New York, Cambridge
University Press, 2005. Pg 94

5
suggesting that mass-media and a generally globalizing world are not the direct cause and are
not at risk of creating homogenous societies11.
The importance of religion in a society lends to whether it is a traditional or
secular/rational valuing society, highlighting many important cultural differences which effect
subjective wellbeing. For example, the role of women in the context of a patriarchal traditional
society is that of a homemaker, and both men and women must fit the mold of traditional
gender roles or face social exclusion. In the US, where societal values are a mix of traditional
and secular-rational ideals, women have faced declining happiness since the feminist
movement of the 1970s. Despite a movement towards greater gender equality in many areas,
including both job opportunities and wages, female happiness levels have been declining across
all groups of women12. Thus, it is hard to determine what specific factors have had such a
significantly negative impact on women’s happiness. Clearly demographics, such as gender,
marital status and employment all have a significant influence on subjective well-being.
Culture is an important factor in subjective well-being, accounting for many differences
in values, accepted beliefs and common practices of a nation. Language, with a range of
interpretations and translations, is concerning when considering cross-cultural comparisons of
subjective wellbeing. Yet there is promising evidence that language does not create barriers to
comparison, as subjective wellbeing scores within a country of different languages were found
to still be similar13. Ed Denier goes into great depth in terms of cultural influences on subjective
well-being, highlighting many potential factors accounting for the differences in subjective well-
being. For example, on a scale of 1 to 7, Forbes richest Americans have an average SWB level of
5.8, and the Maasai, a traditional African tribe, have a similar average, 5.4, highlighting the idea
that different factors have different levels of importance across societies and different degrees

11
Inglehart, Ronald and Christian Welzel, Modernization, Cultural Change and Democracy. New York, Cambridge
University Press, 2005. Pg 95
12
Stevenson, Betsey and Wolfers, Johnson. “The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness”. The American Economic
Journal: Economic Policy 2009, 1:2 190-225.
13
Diener, Ed and Eunkook Suh. “Measuring Subjective Wellbeing to Compare the Quality of Life of
Cultures” Culture and Subjective Well-being. MIT Press: 2000. Pg 6

6
of influence on happiness for their respective citizens. The Amish also have a high SWB, at 5.1,
demonstrating that religion can create these differences within a nation 14.

In the Journal of Happiness Studies, Aaron Ahuvia looks at subjective wellbeing on a

national level, comparing countries as a whole, taking into account their levels of collectivism
versus individualism, as suggested by Hofstede. He highlights the oft overlooked differences in
general societal preferences and values across countries, suggest different means to the end of
utility maximization. He points out that individual happiness is not a priority in collectivist
societies, while individualist societies allow members more freedom to pursue their intrinsic
needs. Ahuvia concedes that greater individualism on a national level is correlated with higher
levels of happiness. Further, Hofstede found that GNP per capita is highly correlated to
national individualism15.

Two important intrinsic goals Ahuvia mentions are affiliation and community feeling or,
social inclusion. It is important to note that he recognizes the difficulty in fully correlating
economic development in impoverished countries to increasing levels of subjective wellbeing,
as many factors play a role in improving the quality of life and general standard of living. Ahuvia
suggests that as freedom rises in developing nations, so does the national average subjective
wellbeing, which supports Inglehart’s findings that developing nations trend towards self-
expression values. Latin America’s position on the Inglehart-Welzel Cultural Map of the World
(Figure 1), in the low range of self-expression values, suggests that overall Latin America has
developed enough to have slowly moved away from survival values. So at this level, where
basic needs are assumed to be met, increasing income (and consumption) will not raise
subjective wellbeing.

In this paper, the comparison and analysis of life-satisfaction of the country groupings
supports what is known, yet also makes new connections to the relationships between cultural
values and the happiness function (Refer to Table 2 for statistical output outcomes). The Latin

14
Diener, Ed. “Subjective Well-Being is Desirable, But Not the Summum Bonum,” Presentation from
Workshop on Well-being. University of Minnesota. Oct. 23. 2003
15
Ahuvia, Aaron C. “Individualism/Collectivism and Cultures of Happiness”. Journal of Happiness Studies, 2002, v.
3, iss. 1, pp. 26

7
American countries all fall in the traditional range of the scale and all the countries in the other
three groups fall in the secular-rational region, with the Latin American countries ranking only
slightly lower in self-expression values than Catholic Europe, followed by Protestant Europe
(with a bit of a spread of values) and finally the English-speaking countries, all of which have
high self-expression values, as one might guess.

METHODS

As mentioned, this paper uses data from the four-wave aggregate of the World Values
Survey (WVS). According to the website, “the World Values Survey is a worldwide network of
social scientists studying changing values and their impact on social and political life 16”. Since
1981, 90 percent of the global population has been surveyed with a wide range of questions
focused on personal and societal beliefs and desires. Surveying methods are replicated
regionally (to the greatest extent possible) to ensure legitimate and comparable results across
countries and nations. Both males and females ages 18 and up (in some cases 16 and up) are
interviewed face to face and asked a battery of questions in their native language.
Representative proportions of urban and rural and low, middle, and high income areas are
surveyed to as precise a degree as possible to gain an accurate picture of the overall population
(yet detailed data on the regions surveyed is not provided online for all countries) with sample
sizes of 1000 to 3000. Latin America is represented relatively well in this sense, and it seems
safe to assume a relatively accurate survey population is used in most all countries.

While the WVS is highly respected globally, no survey can be a hundred percent
accurate or representative, and some flaws can be expected. For example, in the Dominican
Republic, proportionate numbers of representatives from poor, middle-class, and rich
neighborhoods were surveyed, but the survey pool was about a third the size of the other
countries, 417 people, which is likely the cause of the skewed data. For Puerto Rico, the sample
size is sufficient, 1164, and the survey population is also representative of the population, as
proportions were based on census data. Yet Puerto Rico is technically part of the US, and its
citizens therefore have access to a more substantial healthcare and education system then
16
“Values Change the World,” World Values Survey. 2009.
http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/wvs/articles/folder_published/article_base_110

8
many other Latin Americans. Also, both countries are islands relatively removed from the rest
of Latin America. Thus, it is logical to exclude both Puerto Rico and the Dominican Republic
from the analysis of Latin America.

TABLE 1: Demographics

Table 1 lists the demographics of the country groups analyzed, using data from the WVS.
The demographics consist of the averages of each covariate in the happiness equation, as well
as average life satisfaction, is listed for each country group. As mentioned, SWB is measured by
average life-satisfaction, which is determined by asking the question "All things considered,
how satisfied are you with your life these days?" Answers are rated on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1
being dissatisfied, 10 being satisfied. Average life satisfaction is relatively similar across all
groupings, with the differences in the percentages of those surveyed either satisfied or
dissatisfied. Age is measured in three interval groups, 15 to 29, 30 to 49 and 50 and up, for
easier data organization. The income data analyzed is measured with a ten step low to high
scale, completely relative to each country. The ten steps represent income deciles, so in
countries with larger income inequalities, the differences between levels may be significantly
larger than in countries with greater equality. It is important to note that direct comparisons
cannot be made across countries, and consequentially even the income levels in countries in
the groupings used are all somewhat different. Thus, the income effects in this paper refer to
the average impact on happiness of being in certain income deciles in the countries within each
country group.

Based on the effects of cultural values, especially in terms of I added religiosity as

another important variable. This variable is a composite of two questions; “Were you brought
up religiously at home?” and “Independently of whether you go to church or not, would you say
you are a religious person?” The answers for each question were consolidated into simple yes
or no categories, or 0 or 1, combined to create a possible outcome of 0 (not religious), 1
(somewhat religious), 2 (very religious). The percentage of somewhat religious individuals is
about the same in both Latin America and Protestant Europe at around 55 percent. 40 percent
of Protestant European individuals are either very religious or not religious, proportionately;

9
while 15 percent of Latin Americans are not religious and about 30 percent are very religious,
demonstrating a significantly larger percentage of very religious individuals in Latin America
versus Protestant Europe. The average levels of religiosity are slightly higher for Latin America
at 1.18, with English-speaking, Protestant European, and Catholic European countries at 0.97,
0.91, 0.99 respectively. This, along with the other demographic data, can be found in Table 1.

To clarify, all Latin American data referred to in this paper includes those surveyed in
the WVS (Brazil, Argentina, Bolivia, Belize, Chile, Columbia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Panama, Ecuador,
El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Puerto Rico, Uruguay) except for Puerto
Rico and the Dominican Republic, both of whose data seems disproportionally skewed. In fact,
education levels in both countries are significantly higher than the rest of Latin America, and
were removed to avoid distortion of the rest of the data. Of the European countries surveyed,
the Ex-Communist countries are excluded, due to the difficult economic times and political
instability after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Additionally, reliable, independent survey data was
not available before then17. Thus, Protestant Europe consists of West Germany, Finland,
Switzerland, Iceland, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway and Sweden. Catholic Europe consists
of Spain, Italy, Belgium, France, Luxemburg, and Austria. The English speaking countries are
Great Britain, New Zealand, Canada, Australia, Ireland, USA, and Northern Ireland. Also,
education data is excluded from this analysis due to some countries lacking complete data,
which is necessary for a regression.

Average life satisfaction is pretty similar across the country groupings, ranging from
7.881 for Protestant Europe to 7.432 for Catholic Europe. Latin America’s average life
satisfaction is 7.556, slightly lower than Protestant Europe, yet 26% of the Latin American
population ranks their life satisfaction as ten out of ten, compared to 18% in both Protestant
Europe and English-speaking countries and 16% of Catholic Europe. In Latin America about 3%
of the population is dissatisfied with life, with a score of one out of ten, followed by 2% in
Catholic Europe and 1% in both Protestant Europe and English speaking countries.

17
Inglehart, Ronald and Christian Welzel, Modernization, Cultural Change and Democracy. New York, Cambridge
University Press, 2005. Pg 96

10
 Perhaps there is a connection between the high number of satisfied and religious
individuals in Latin America. Figures 2 and 3 offer visual comparisons of life satisfaction in
Protestant Europe and Latin America, where Latin America has a higher percentage of very
satisfied individuals, despite having lower employment and marriage rates. Average religiosity
is highest in Latin America (1.18 out of 2 versus 0.912 in Protestant Europe), supporting the idea
that religion plays an important role in determining subjective well-being. Figures 4, 5, and 6
offer visual representations of religiosity in Protestant Europe, the English speaking countries,
and Latin America. The religiosity graphs for Protestant Europe and the English speaking
countries are almost identical, but Latin America’s population displays almost half as many non-
religious individuals and significantly more highly religious individuals.

In regards to the other average demographic characteristics of those surveyed within

the country groups, the Latin American group is slightly younger, with 35.8% ranging from 15-
29 years old, likely related to the slightly smaller amount of married people, 54.7%. All country
groupings have about 40% of people ranging from 30-49 years of age, yet Latin America has
about 9% more in the youngest category and about 19% less in the 50 plus category. As we see
in Table 2, the youngest age group is used as the reference group, inferring that is the largest
group overall. The precise relationship between age and subjective wellbeing is a challenging
one to generalize, as several findings are contradictory, claiming either increasing or decreasing
happiness or satisfaction with age. Despite the disagreement, Diener and Suh’s 1998 study of
the WVS is relevant and applicable in terms of the discussion in this paper. Using the aggregate
of the 1994 set of surveys of 60,000 respondents in 43 nations, they found that the average life
satisfaction was relatively stable from age 18 to 90. They also found that the positive emotion
affect declines slowly from age 20 to age 80, and the negative emotion affect declines slowly
from age 20 to 90, with a small plateau in the 60s18. The relatively similar patterns of decline
allow for relatively stable life-satisfaction across such a wide age range. Consequentially we will
assume that the differences in age of those surveyed have minimal affect on the overall
outcome of average life-satisfaction.

18
Lucas, Richard and Carol Gohm. “Age and Sex Differences in Subjective Wellbeing Across Cultures,” Culture and
Subjective Well-being. MIT Press, 2000. pg 296

11
RESULTS

Table 2: Life Satisfaction

Happiness or subjective wellbeing is modeled using the standard happiness equation:

Wit = α + βXit + εit, W: subjective wellbeing/happiness, i: individual, t: time, x: covariates

Table 2 lists the coefficients and standard errors from the ordered probit regression,
where life-satisfaction is the dependent variable and the gender, age, income, employment
status, marital status, and religiosity are the covariates, or independent variables, each of
whose relationship to life-satisfaction is listed in Table 2. Weaknesses of this analysis include
the fact that education data is not included, for that is a common covariate in the life
satisfaction equation. Education is excluded solely because there is not sufficient education
data in the WVS for all countries. It is also important to note that the covariates of a happiness
equation, if statistically significant (as indicated by asterisks in Table 2), are not causally related
to life satisfaction, but instead is correlated. For example, we cannot say that being religious
causes someone to be happier, but instead that being religious is correlated with being happier.

Another possible weakness is the measurement of religiosity, as it is only based on two

questions, both of which could potentially be interpreted somewhat differently by different
people. Yet the questions were chosen based on the fact that they appeared to be the least
likely to have vastly different interpretations. Furthermore, they are inclusive of different
interpretations of religion, as they could include general spirituality or a religion different from
the status quo of one’s country. Also, as there are only three possible outcomes, it is not a
hundred percent accurate in terms of reality; for example, a person that was raised religiously
but no longer considers himself a religious person receives a score of 1, as does someone who
was not raised religiously but now considers himself a religious person.

Looking at the coefficients of the different income levels in the linear regressions, we
can observe, on average, the effect on life satisfaction of being in a certain income step within a
country. In this analysis, the missing variables are the reference group, under the assumption
that they are equally distributed among the income levels. These income levels (or steps) are

12
relative to the specific country of the interviewee, and represent different income levels across
countries. As income equality, the cost of living, and the average wage are different in every
country, level will not directly correlate across countries, as they allow for different qualities of
life relative to the spread of wealth within a country. In this sense, income levels allow for a
more general of understanding of where people are in their society in reference to others.

The highest income level adds 0.525 points to life satisfaction in Latin America, and the
lowest income level takes away 0.455 points. Protestant Europe’s results are quite different,
with the lowest income group taking 0.249 points away from life-satisfaction, and the highest
income group adding only 0.168 points. As noted, Catholic Europe has the most extreme data,
with the first income group decreasing life-satisfaction by 0.631 points, and the highest income
group increasing it by 0.466 points. The second highest income level only adds 0.119 points, so
the moving from the ninth to the tenth income step in Catholic Europe significantly increases
life-satisfaction. For the English speaking countries the lowest income group takes away 0.567
points from life satisfaction and the highest income group adds only 0.204 points. Having a low
income is quite negative in English speaking countries, yet having a high income does not add
much satisfaction, which would make sense in terms of a materialistic society in which no
amount of material possessions is enough to completely satisfy someone, there is always a
desire for more and a need to keep up with the Joneses, whom can take on a very different
image depending on one’s reference group.

In regards to the impact of income on life-satisfaction, the covariate effect is

increasingly larger with each income step in all country groups, with the first three steps having
a highly statistically significant negative effect. Interestingly, being in the highest income rung
has a larger positive effect on happiness in both Latin America and Catholic Europe than in the
other countries, adding 0.525 and 0.466 life satisfaction points respectively. Within each
country grouping’s happiness function, of all the covariates, being in the lowest income group
has the largest negative impact on life satisfaction. Thus, as expected, living in poverty is
detrimental on wellbeing, regardless of the relative wealth of the country. Yet, as Ingleheart
explained, survival valuing countries tend to have more materialistic values, as those in the

13
lowest income groups in poor countries are even more disenfranchised than wealthier
countries with safety nets to help the poor survive. Yet this does not fit with the fact that
Catholic Europe has the largest negative effect, followed by English Speaking countries, and
then Latin American countries. Clearly there is another cultural relationship with materialism
that affects the relationship between personal income and subjective wellbeing.

In Catholic Europe marriage has the largest positive impact on life-satisfaction, adding
0.498 points, slightly larger than being in the highest income group, and being in the lowest
income level has the largest negative impact. For English-Speaking countries, marriage also has
the largest positive impact on life-satisfaction, adding 0.543 points, and the lowest income
group also has the largest negative effect. In Protestant Europe, marriage has the largest
positive effect as well, adding 0.481 life-satisfaction points, and the second lowest income level
has the largest negative impact, taking away 0.313 points. Lastly, for Latin America, the largest
statistically significant negative impact on life-satisfaction comes from being in the lowest
income group, and the largest overall impact from being in the highest income group.

We can also look at the linear regression coefficients of the inverse of the covariates to
understand their relationship on a deeper level. Being unmarried, unemployed, or not religious
has a negative effect in all country groups. Surprisingly, being unmarried has the smallest
negative effect in Latin America and the largest negative effect in the English speaking
countries. Being unemployed has the smallest negative effect in the English speaking countries,
and the largest negative effect in Protestant Europe, closely followed by Catholic Europe and
Latin America.

DISCUSSION

Latin America is the only group in which being male has a positive effect on life
satisfaction (refer to Table 2). While it is a small positive effect, adding 0.018 points to SWB, it is
logical when considering the traditional, paternalistic values present in Latin American society.
In Protestant Europe, a highly secular-rational society, being male takes away 0.128 life-
satisfaction points. Yet this number is very similar to that of English speaking countries (-0.119),
and larger than that of Catholic Europe (-0.042), so it would only make sense for both the
14
degree of secular-rational and self expression values to have an important impact on the
differences across gender in happiness. Latin America is the only country group in which being
female has a negative effect on life satisfaction. Yet like the male effect in Latin America, it is
small, only taking away 0.019 points from life satisfaction. In all country groups the female
effect was approximately the inverse of the male effect. So while there are apparent gender
differences within all country groups, the affect in Latin America is reversed likely due to the
role of women in their society, meaning gender equality is lagging in Latin America.

Gender equality is important in self-expression valuing societies and not in survival

valuing societies, in other words sexism is somewhat accepted19. There is a general agreement
that a gender difference in regards to positive and negative effects on subjective wellbeing
exists, yet the effect varies across nations due to cultural differences in the status of women.
Lucas points to three important factors that influence the gender effect: the individualism of
the country (Triandis 1989), the degree of freedom its citizens have (Lewis 1999), and women’s
status in the country (Estes 1983)20. Additionally, he notes that as women age they tend to feel
more unpleasant effect, while older men tend to feel more pleasant affect 21. Thus, the
differences in Latin America are logical in this context, as individualism is relatively low, as well
as women’s status. In regards to the status of women, there is a smaller difference between the
subjective well-being of men and women, than in countries where women held a lower status,
measured by the female illiteracy rate, proportion of secondary school-aged girls enrolled for
classes, and the constitutional rights of women22. Further, in individualist countries, as well as
those with higher levels of freedom, women have been found to experience a greater pleasant
affect than men23. While Latin American countries are by no means homogeneous, in general
they display lower levels of individualism, freedom, and equality of women. Thus, it seems

19
Inglehart, Ronald. “Culture and Democracy,” Culture Matters, Editors: Lawrence Harrison and Samuel
Huntington. Basic Books; 2000. Pg. 84
20
Lucas, Richard and Carol Gohm. “Age and Sex Differences in Subjective Wellbeing Across Cultures,”
Culture and Subjective Well-being. Editor: Ed Denier. MIT Press, 2000. pg 302
21
Ibid. pg 304
22
Ibid pg 306
23
Lucas, Richard and Carol Gohm. “Age and Sex Differences in Subjective Wellbeing Across Cultures,” Culture and
Subjective Well-being. Editor: Ed Denier. MIT Press, 2000. pg 306

15
peculiar that men would have lower levels of life satisfaction then women in Latin America, yet
at the very least the higher levels of individualism, freedom, and equality of women (in general)
in European and English speaking countries may explain some of the difference across
groupings. Similarly, marriage has a smaller positive effect in Latin America than the other three
groupings. Logically, the societal differences between men and women may cause a greater
disconnect and general unhappiness in married couples, as traditional gender roles can create
somewhat of a cognitive dissonance for those whom do not fit the mold. Further, traditional
societies tend to reject divorce and encourage larger sized families 24, allowing a woman little
opportunity to leave an abusive spouse or pursue a satisfying career path.

CONCLUSION

In summary, we see some unique differences in the happiness function of Latin America
verses other country groupings. While all country groups have similar average levels of life
satisfaction, there are a significant portion of very satisfied Latin Americans and significantly
less highly dissatisfied Latin Americans. The reason is linked to more than just religion, in reality
linked to all of the different covariate effects, as there are significant differences in the Latin
American equation compared to the other country groups. From this study of happiness
equations in distinctly different country groupings, we see the finite and extensive role that
cultural differences play in regards to life satisfaction and understand the complexity of
happiness economics.

DATA TABLES & FIGURES

FIGURE 1. Inglehart-Welzel Cultural Map of the World

24
Inglehart, Ronald. “Culture and Democracy,” Culture Matters, Editors: Lawrence Harrison and Samuel
Huntington. Basic Books; 2000. Pg 83

16
Source: Ronald Inglehart and Christian Welzel, Modernization, Cultural Change and Democracy.
New York, Cambridge University Press, 2005

Life Satisfaction: Figures 2 and 3

17
 Life Satisfation in Latin America
without DR & PR
30
25 20
Percent
15 10
5
0

0 2 4 6 8 10
low to high satisfation
World Values Survey

18
Religiosity: Figures 4, 5, and 6

19
 Religiosity in Protestant Europe
60
40
Percent
20
0

-1 0 1 2
0-2
World Values Survey

Religiosity in English Speaking Countries

60
40
Percent
20
0

-.5 0 .5 1 1.5 2
0-2
World Values Survey

Religiosity in Latin America

without DR & PR
60
40
Percent
20
0

-1 0 1 2
0-2
World Values Survey

20
21
REFRENCES

Ahuvia, Aaron C. “Individualism/Collectivism and Cultures of Happiness”. Journal of Happiness

Studies, 2002, v. 3, iss. 1

Diener, Ed and Eunkook Suh, Culture and Subjective Well-being. MIT Press: 2000. Pg

Diener, Ed. “Subjective Well-Being is Desirable, But Not the Summum Bonum,” Presentation from
Workshop on Well-being. University of Minnesota. Oct. 23. 2003

Graham, Carol, “The Challenges of Incorporating Empowerment into the HDI: Some Lessons
from Happiness Economics and Quality of Life Research”. UNDP, Human Development
Research Paper Series, 2010, # 13. Pg XX
http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr2010/papers/HDRP_2010_13.pdf

Graham, Carol. “Insights on Development from the Economics of Happiness”. World Bank
Research Observer, Fall 2005, v. 20:2, pp. 201-31.

Graham, Carol and Stefano Pettinato. “Happiness, Markets, and Democracy: Latin America in
Comparative Perspective”. Journal of Happiness Studies, 2001, v. 2, is. 3, pp. 237-68.

Lucas, Richard and Carol Gohm. “Age and Sex Differences in Subjective Wellbeing Across
Cultures,” Culture and Subjective Well-being. MIT Press, 2000. pg 296

World Values Survey Data www.worldvaluessurvey.org

Inglehart, Ronald and Christian Welzel, Modernization, Cultural Change and Democracy. New
York, Cambridge University Press, 2005. 

Inglehart, Ronald. “Inglehart-Welzel Cultural Map of the World,” World Values Survey Findings;
WVS.
http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/wvs/articles/folder_published/article_base_54

Inglehart, Ronald. “Culture and Democracy,” Culture Matters, Editors: Lawrence Harrison and
Samuel Huntington. Basic Books; 2000. Pg. 80-90

22