See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/262004211

Social Capital, Government and Democracy Satisfaction, and Happiness in

Turkey: A Comparison of Surveys in 1999 and 2008

Article in Social Indicators Research · September 2013

DOI: 10.1007/s11205-013-0464-y

CITATIONS READS

44 567

2 authors:

Tufan Ekici Selda Koydemir

Middle East Technical University Otto-Friedrich-Universität Bamberg
17 PUBLICATIONS 254 CITATIONS 80 PUBLICATIONS 928 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Selda Koydemir on 16 May 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Soc Indic Res (2014) 118:1031–1053
DOI 10.1007/s11205-013-0464-y

Social Capital, Government and Democracy Satisfaction,

and Happiness in Turkey: A Comparison of Surveys
in 1999 and 2008

Tufan Ekici • Selda Koydemir

Accepted: 23 September 2013 / Published online: 29 September 2013

Ó Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Abstract Based on data from a 1999 and a 2008 European Values Survey, the main
objective of this study is to explore the relationship between a variety of social capital
indicators, satisfaction with government and democracy, and subjective well-being. Hap-
piness and life satisfaction were used as outcome measures of subjective well-being. The
indicators of social capital used in this study are general trust, trust in institutions, political
engagement, concern for others, societal norms, and membership in volunteer organiza-
tions. The analyses reveal a significant increase in happiness, life satisfaction, and many
social capital variables between 1999 and 2008. Generalized trust, trust in institutions,
government satisfaction, and democracy satisfaction are positive correlates of well-being,
although some relationships are significant only in 2008. Several demographic variables
are also linked with subjective well-being such as income, employment status, age, gender,
and education. We discuss the findings in relation to the significant societal, economic, and
political changes experienced in Turkey between 1999 and 2008. Policy implications are
also emphasized such as improved trust among individuals, trustworthiness of government
institutions, and functioning of democracy.

Keywords Social capital  Happiness  Life satisfaction 

Subjective well-being  Turkey  Trust

T. Ekici
Economics Program, Northern Cyprus Campus, Middle East Technical University,
Kalkanli, Mersin 10, Turkey

S. Koydemir (&)
Guidance and Psychological Counseling Program, Northern Cyprus Campus, Middle East Technical
University, Kalkanli, Mersin 10, Turkey
e-mail: kselda@metu.edu.tr

123
1032 T. Ekici, S. Koydemir

1 Introduction

Although happiness has been perceived as one of the most important and valued goals
throughout history (Kesebir and Diener 2008), the scientific study of what makes a good
and happy life arouse in the last two decades. In many studies, one of the most widely used
conceptualizations of happiness has been subjective well-being which refers to ‘‘a broad
category of phenomena that includes people’s emotional responses, domain satisfactions,
and global judgments of life satisfaction’’ (Diener et al. 1999, p. 277). In general terms,
subjective well-being involves one’s perception about his/her overall quality of life,
assumes that well-being is essentially a subjective phenomenon experienced by the indi-
vidual, and is one of the most fundamental indicators of having a good life (Diener et al.
1998; Diener and Suh 2000). Therefore it consists of the extent to which one feels happy,
and the level of general life satisfaction.
Research is consistent in showing that personality traits such as extraversion and
emotional balance positively and strongly contribute to one’s subjective well-being
(DeNeve and Cooper 1998; Diener et al. 2003). In fact, personality is believed to account
for up to 50 % of one’s happiness (Steel et al. 2008). On the other hand, although socio-
demographic and economic factors such as being married, educated, and healthy (Argyle
2001; Diener et al. 1999; Myers 2000), and a higher income and stable employment status
(Clark and Oswald 1994; Diener et al. 1999; Di Tella et al. 2001) are positively associated
with happiness, they fail to account for important differences in individual happiness
(Diener et al. 1999). Thus, in order to better make sense of the determinants of happiness,
researchers now turn to aspects other than socio-demographic or economic factors such as
social relationships and trust (Di Tella et al. 2003; Helliwell 2003).
The main objective of the current research is to study the concept of social capital in
relation to subjective well-being. Although previous research demonstrated that social
capital is an important factor in explaining the well-being of individuals and societies (e.g.,
Bjørnskov 2003; Helliwell 2006; Leung et al. 2011; Putnam 2000; Winkelmann 2009),
findings are inconclusive. Besides, most of the studies used samples drawn from developed
countries which are quite homogenous in terms of cultural and economic conditions. In this
research, we use a representative sample in Turkey which is known to rank quite low in
several well-being outcomes despite the fact that it has been one of the fastest developing
countries in the world over the last decade. We explore the extent to which a variety of
social capital indicators are linked to happiness and life satisfaction.

1.1 Social Capital

Social capital has been conceptualized somewhat differently by different researchers, and
as a result debate remains as to what makes up social capital in different contexts (Robison
et al. 2002). Although defining social capital is difficult, in general it refers to a certain set
of values or norms, social networks, activities, mutual concern, and trust among members
of a group that provide connection and cooperation (Fukuyama 1995; Putnam 1993).
One of the first well-known conceptualizations of social capital was suggested by
Coleman (1988) who argued that social capital involves trust and obligations (trustwor-
thiness of the social environment), information channels (meeting colleagues, friends, or
family), and norms and effective sanctions (society having solid norms and transparent
sanctions). Coleman (1988) argued that these dimensions of social capital encourage
coordination and cooperation among members of a group, and thus facilitate the devel-
opment and well-being of society.

123
Social Capital and Happiness in Turkey 1033

Later, Putnam (1993) argued that social capital includes trust, mutual assistance, norms
of reciprocity and obligations, and social networks. This approach was similar to that of
Coleman (1988), but with more emphasis on interpersonal networks by means of informal
and formal associational engagement. Putnam and Goss (2002) explained social capital in
terms of the willingness of individuals to actively participate in public affairs, to trust in
other individuals, and to connect with each other on a regular basis.
There have been a variety of other attempts by researchers to conceptualize social
capital. For example, Bjornskov (2006), and Grootaert and van Bastelaer (2002) stressed
the importance of membership in associations, trust, social norms, and collective action.
Others (e.g., Hudson 2006; Newton 2001; Paldam 2000) more broadly defined the concept
of trust, and made a distinction between generalized trust and institutional trust, and
emphasized the importance of this distinction in measurement of social capital.
Based on the work of many scholars and their arguments, several conceptualizations
and measurement indicators of social capital have been used in different studies. Among
these are general trust in people, institutional trust (such as law, government, and police),
political participation, membership of organizations, engaging in volunteer work, time
spent with family and friends, concern for associates, and societal norms such as whether
dishonest behavior can be justified (Fukuyama 1995; Grootaert and van Bastelaer 2002;
Putnam 2000). Some researchers asserted that it is important to recognize the complex
nature of this phenomenon, and argued that social capital should be evaluated within a mix
of indicators (e.g., Healy 2004; Onyx and Bullen 2001). Social capital is known to have a
culturally constructed meaning (Coleman 1988), and therefore narrow definitions may
jeopardize its applicability to different cultures (Fuller and Hannum 2002).
In this research, we try to keep a broad view of social capital and use the following
indicators which are available in the current data: general trust, trust in institutions,
political engagement, concern for others, societal norms, and membership in volunteer
organizations.

1.2 Social Capital and Happiness

Why is social capital important for happiness? Social capital has the potential to build and
maintain healthy societies which may in turn facilitate greater well-being (Helliwell 2006;
Putnam 1993). This can be achieved by several aspects involved in social capital such as
membership and active participation in civic life, connection and trust among members of
a society, access to network structures, norms of reciprocity within groups, and cooperative
behavior (Fukuyama 2001; Helliwell 2006; Putnam 1993). These are important in dealing
with certain risks and uncertainty in a society, and in pursuing goals and interests
(Woolcock 2000). Social capital can also influence health and economic well-being
(Putnam 2000) as well as emotional support (Tokuda et al. 2010) in society which may
positively contribute to happiness.
Previous research indeed provided considerable evidence that social capital is associ-
ated with indices of well-being of individuals in both high and low-income countries
(Becchettiet al. 2009; Bjornskovet al. 2010; Helliwell and Barrington-Leigh 2010).
However, the findings obtained so far appear inconsistent, due in part to the variations in
the conceptual definition of social capital, and the variables included in representing social
capital.
In terms of trust, Leung et al. (2011) found that happiness was significantly correlated
with trust in people within one’s family, but they failed to show evidence of a significant
relationship with other types of trust. Other studies (e.g., Bjornskov 2006; Dolanet al.

123
1034 T. Ekici, S. Koydemir

2008; Helliwell and Wang 2010) showed that both trust in specific groups or individuals,
and generalized trust is a positive correlate of subjective well-being. Besides, evidence
indicated that institutional trust such as trust in government, police, and health services is
positively associated with happiness (Helliwell and Putnam 2004; Hudson 2006).
Other aspects of social capital were also studied in relation to happiness. For instance,
engagement in non-political organizations and clubs (Helliwell 2003; Pichler 2006), and
political engagement (Leung et al. 2011) showed a positive relationship with happiness. A
review by Dolan et al. (2008) revealed that membership of organizations and volunteer
work is positively related to happiness in some studies, while it also indicated that some
studies failed to find such a connection. Regarding social norms, existing evidence is
scarce. Bjornskov (2006) found no evidence for a link between justification of dishonest
behavior and happiness; however, the study by Leung et al. (2011) demonstrated that
feeling safe alone in one’s home was associated with feeling happier.

1.3 Satisfaction with Government and Democracy, and Happiness

Although some researchers included satisfaction with government as an indicator of social

capital with the previously discussed aspects (e.g., Helliwell and Putnam 1995), according
to the aforementioned well-known models, it is difficult to conceptualize government
satisfaction as an essential component of social capital. However, we believe that both
government satisfaction and democracy satisfaction are significant factors for social capital
in addition to well-being.
First, quality of government is known to have the potential to contribute to individual
and societal happiness (Helliwell and Huang 2008; Ott 2010). However, not much is
known with regard to how satisfaction with government is associated with well-being. We
propose that individuals who are satisfied with the government would report greater
subjective well-being since satisfaction is an indicator of perceived quality. Second, some
scholars argued that democracy itself has a significant influence on subjective well-being,
especially for those countries which established democracy early (Dorn et al. 2007). In
fact, social capital is perceived to be one of the indicators of a good democratic regime
(Putnam 1993). Research pointed out that when people can easily access democratic
institutions, the level of happiness increases (Frey and Stutzer 2000), and that satisfaction
with democracy and happiness, although weakly, are positively correlated (Stadelmann-
Steffen and Vatter 2012). Therefore in the current study, in addition to different aspects of
social capital, we tested whether government satisfaction and democracy satisfaction
contribute to subjective well-being.

1.4 The Case of Turkey and the Current Study

Turkey is a developing country which has experienced considerable societal, cultural, and
economic changes since the 1980s through industrialization, globalization, and moderni-
zation (Pamuk 2007). However, despite the progress that has been achieved in improving
the quality of life, especially over the last two decades, well-being in Turkey is quite low.
According to the OECD Quality of Life Report (OECD 2010), in terms of life satisfaction,
Turkey ranked 33rd in 2009 out of 41 countries surveyed. According to the Euro
Barometer Survey, in 2007 the percentage of people in Turkey who were generally sat-
isfied with their lives was 70 %, while it was 59 % in 2008. Gürses (2009) reported that
despite the economic growth over the last two decades, Turkey could not achieve a good
and balanced position in human development.

123
Social Capital and Happiness in Turkey 1035

Not only well-being, but also social capital is known to be low in Turkey, especially
among the young generation and people in big cities (Erdoğan 2008; Secor and O’Loughlin
2005; Uğuz et al. 2011). Research showed that only 5 % of young people in Turkey believe
that other people can be trusted (Erdoğan 2008), positioning Turkey among the lowest
ranking countries in terms of social trust. On the other hand, although still lower than many
countries, institutional trust, compared to social trust is higher among Turkish people.
Regarding some other indicators of social capital, similar findings have been obtained. For
example, the rate of volunteering and membership in organizations in Turkey is very low
compared to many other countries (Erdoğan 2008; Uğuz et al. 2011).
In this study, our aim is to examine the relationship between different aspects of social
capital and happiness in Turkey. We use samples from 1999 to 2008 and compare the
predictive value of several indicators of social capital on happiness. Within those years, the
first important turning point was the financial crisis experienced in 2001. Due to this crisis,
many households’ financial well-being decreased, unemployment increased, and salary
payments were interrupted (Şenses 2003). Second, a rise in Islamic ideology, religiosity,
and conservatism started when the ruling political party was elected in 2002 (Yesiladar and
Noordijk 2010). Third, the policies of the ruling party were aimed at developing reforms in
Turkey in order to improve the economy and meet the criteria for European Union
membership (Grütjen 2008; Öniş 2004). Additionally, due to increasing urbanization and
globalization, that started after the 1980s and continued in the 2000s, modernization, easy
access to technology, the rise of individualism among educated segments of society, and
the emergence of a civil society has been observed (Heper and Yildirim 2011; Hürsoy
2012; Karakitapoğlu-Aygün 2004). On the other hand, there is a huge economic imbalance
between social classes (Onis 2009), and the state has limited democratic functioning
(Hürsoy 2012). These issues and changes have the potential to influence people’s the
lifestyles and quality of life. Therefore we believe that it might be important to see whether
the variables studied in this research as well as their interrelationships show changes over
the 10 years of interest. To our knowledge, the indicators of social capital conceptualized
in this study and satisfaction with government and democracy have not been studied in
relation to happiness in Turkey.
The empirical study of the link between social capital and subjective well-being is quite
new. Due to inconsistent and inconclusive findings obtained by past research, more evi-
dence is needed before researchers can arrive at conclusions (Bjornskov 2006). The current
study may contribute to the existing literature by bringing forward some evidence from a
non-Western country.

2 Method

2.1 The Data

We used 1999 and 2008 waves of a European values study (EVS) in order to analyze the
changes in life satisfaction and happiness in Turkey over the last decade. EVS is one of the
most comprehensive surveys that collects information on Europeans’ human values. The
survey has been conducted once every 9 years since 1981 adding new countries each year
to the survey. Turkey has been included only in 1999 and 2008 waves.
The dependent variable happiness was measured by the question ‘‘Taking all things
together, would you say you are (1) very happy, (2) quite happy, (3) not very happy, (4) not
at all happy?’’ The other dependent variable life satisfaction was measured by the question

123
1036 T. Ekici, S. Koydemir

‘‘All things considered, how satisfied are you with your life as a whole these days?’’
Respondents were given a 10-point scale, 1 representing dissatisfied and 10 satisfied.
The frequencies of life satisfaction and happiness for both years are displayed in
Table 1. Overall, level of life satisfaction and happiness increased in Turkey between the
years 1999 and 2008. The percentage of people who were somewhat or very satisfied in
1999 was about 34 % compared to 57 % in 2008. Similarly, the percentage of people who
were quite or very happy increased from 59 to 75 % between these 2 years. Both of these
changes are statistically significant at a 99 % confidence level.
We constructed several indices that capture level of social capital which are potential
correlates of life satisfaction and happiness. The surveys collected information on many
issues, however, not all the questions can be collapsed into a single index. In order to
decide which questions share some common conceptual meaning and thus should be
included in each index we have used exploratory factor analysis. We first used a principal
factor method followed by a varimax rotation. The construct validity of the indices was
assured by including indicators whose factor loadings are at least 0.40 in the same index.
Then we took the average of the answers given to the questions that are included in the
same index. The range of each index is different, but consistent with the range of individual
questions. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for each index shown on Table 9 in the
‘‘Appendix’’ indicates high overall internal consistency for each index. Furthermore,
Pearson’s correlation coefficient among the questions within each index ranges from 0.6 to
0.9 which indicates medium to strong criterion validity. At the end we had indices that
captured respondent’s confidence in different institutions, political involvement, views on
social norms, degree of concern for others and different aspects of religiosity. We do not
claim that these indices are perfect measures of different dimensions of social capital,
however given our available dataset, these indices provide us with valuable and reliable
information. The corresponding variables included in each index along with response
options are displayed in Table 2.
The volunteer association membership variable is a dummy variable that is equal to one
if the respondent is a member of any of the groups/associations listed in the survey.1 If the
respondent is not a member of any of the 14 groups/associations, then the variable takes on
a value of zero.
The other variables are created as follows. The level of satisfaction from democracy is a
binary variable where 1 indicates very or rather satisfied with the ‘‘way democracy is
developing’’ in Turkey and 0 means not very satisfied or not at all satisfied. Government
satisfaction is measured by the responses given on a 1–10 scale to the question of ‘‘How
would you rate the system for governing in Turkey?’’ There were a considerable number of
no responses to this question; therefore, in order not to miss any other valuable information
we replaced the missing observations with the average values for each sample period.
Religiosity is also a binary variable that indicates how the respondents feel about their own
religiosity where 1 indicates religious and 0 means non-religious. We also have a variable
that controls for mosque attendance of the respondent where a higher number indicates
more frequent attendance.
Table 3 presents the changes in terms of other variables used in the study. The level of
generalized trust has increased over the years along with satisfaction with democracy and
the government in Turkey. Despite the increase, only a very small percentage of people

1
Social welfare groups, religious organizations, cultural activities, trade unions, political groups, local
community actions, human rights action, environmental groups, professional associations, youth work,
sports groups, women’s group, peace movement or health organizations.

123
Social Capital and Happiness in Turkey 1037

Table 1 Life satisfaction and happiness percentages of the sample

1999 (%) 2008 (%) 1999 (%) 2008 (%)

Very dissatisfied 25.83 10.77 Not at all happy 18.01 9.53

Somewhat dissatisfied 13.95 13.29 Not very happy 23.32 15.29
Moderate 26.25 18.76 Quite happy 37.84 47.88
Somewhat satisfied 17.86 31.16 Very happy 20.83 27.30
Very satisfied 16.11 26.03

(7 % in 1999 and 11 % in 2008) think that in general other people can be trusted. There is
also a significant increase in the level of confidence in various civil systems within the
country and the percentage of people who consider themselves to be religious. Finally, the
percentage of people in the lowest ten percentile of income distribution has decreased in
2008. This is consistent with the macroeconomic indicators on the Turkish economy which
shows that the percentage of individuals who live on \$4.3 per day have decreased from
around 30 % in 2002–7 % in 2008. (TURKSTAT 2009).

2.2 Analytical Strategy

Our main dependent variables (life satisfaction and happiness) are ordered discrete
responses. Therefore, the correct method of estimation is the ordered logit model.2 Life
satisfaction has 10 categories and interpretation of probabilities for each option is very
confusing. We thus collapsed categories with a small number of observations and created
only 5 response options. Happiness already has only 4 categories so we did not make any
changes. The ordered logit model is an extension of the binary outcome model that allows
for more than two discrete options. There is an unobserved latent variable y* that takes
continuous values. What is observed in the data is just an ordering of the latent variable.
For example if we let y* denote the level of happiness for each individual, what we observe
in the data is y = k if a \ y* \ b, where k is the corresponding state of happiness in the
data and a, and b are some threshold parameters. There are 4 states for happiness and 5
states for life satisfaction. The following likelihood function is maximized to obtain the
parameters of interest:
K X
X N
L¼ 1½Yi ¼ j log½Kðaj  Xi bÞ
j¼1 i¼1

where Kð:Þis cumulative logistic distribution function, aj is the threshold parameter for
state j, Xi is the vector of variables used in regressions, and b is the corresponding vector of
parameters. Then, the probability of observation i to be in state j can be written as

Prðyi ¼ jÞ ¼ Kð^ ^  Kð^

aj  Xi bÞ ^
aj1  Xi bÞ
Since the calculated coefficients are not meaningful in interpreting the model, we need to
calculate the marginal effects. The marginal effects of each variable in vector X for all
i ¼jÞ
states are given by oPrðy
oXi ¼ bkð^ ^  bkð^
^ aj  Xi bÞ ^ aj1  Xi bÞ;
^ j ¼ 1; 2; . . .; Kwhere kð:Þ

2
For completeness of the paper, we also include ordinary least squares (OLS) results in the appendix table
A1 (we would like to thank to an anonymous referee for pointing this out).

123
1038
Table 2 Construction of indices
Index
Political ınvolvement
Social norms
Concern for elderly,
unemployed and sick
Concern for people in
neighborhood, region
and country
Concern for immigrants,
Europeans, mankind
Institutional trust
Belief in usefulness of mosque
123
T. Ekici, S. Koydemir
Questions Responses
Different forms of political action that 1. I would never do
people can take
1. Signing a petition 2. I might do
2. Joining in boycotts 3. I have done
3. Attending lawful demonstrations
4. Joining unofficial strikes
Can the following be always justified or 1–10 scale
never justified?
1. Homosexuality 1 Always justified
2. Abortion 10 Never justified
3. Divorce
4. Euthanasia
5. Suicide
6. Having casual sex
To what extend do you feel concerned 1. Not at all
about the living conditions of 2. Not so much
1. Elderly people in Turkey? 3. To certain extent
2. Unemployed people in Turkey? 4. Much
3. Sick and disabled people in Turkey? 5. Very much
To what extend do you feel concerned 1. Not at all
about the living conditions of 2. Not so much
1. People in your neighborhood? 3. To a certain extent
2. People in the region where you live? 4. Much
3.Your fellow countrymen? 5. Very much
To what extend do you feel concerned 1. Not at all
about the living conditions of 2. Not so much
1. Europeans? 3. To a certain extent
2. İmmigrants in Turkey? 4. Much
3. All humans all over the world? 5. Very much
How much confidence do you have in 1. None at all
1. The education system? 2. Not very much
2. The police? 3. Quite a lot
3. The civil service? 4. A great deal
4. The health care system?
5. The justice system?
Generally speaking, do you think that your 0. No
mosque is/the mosques are giving, in 1. Yes
your country, adequate answers to
1. The moral problems and needs of the
individual?
2. The problems of family life?
3. People’s spiritual needs?
4. The social problems facing our country
today?
Social Capital and Happiness in Turkey 1039

Table 2 continued
Index Questions Responses

Belief in Religious ideas Which, if any, of the following do you 0. No

believe in?
1. God 1. Yes
2. Life after death
3. Hell
4. Heaven
5. Sin
6. Telepathy

is logistic probability density function and K is the number of states. We present the results
in the next section.

3 Results

Tables 4 and 5 display the ordered logit results for the correlates of life satisfaction, and
Tables 6 and 7 show the results for the correlates of happiness in Turkey. We should specify
that we are not claiming causality in any of these tables but rather we are showing potential
correlates of life satisfaction and happiness in Turkey. In 2008, those who trust people in
general are 10 % more likely to be very satisfied and 4 % less likely to be very dissatisfied
compared to people who do not trust people in general. Another finding is that a one unit
increase in government satisfaction will increase the probability of being very satisfied with
one’s life by 1.5 % in 1999 and 2.3 % in 2008. Although these numbers are very close to
each other, it shows that satisfaction with the government has become more important over
the years when determining life satisfaction. Membership in voluntary organizations is not a
significant correlate of life satisfaction but it is a significant predictor of happiness in 1999.
Those who are members of any organization are 7 % less likely to be very happy than those
who are not and 9 % more likely to be very unhappy. Finally, those who have higher overall
confidence in institutions are more likely to be happy both in 1999 and 2008. Other social
capital indicators such as social norms, concern for others, and political involvement are not
significant correlates of either happiness or life satisfaction in both years.
The demographic variables reveal similar results for both of the dependent variables.
Specifically, employed respondents and males are less happy and less satisfied with their
life than their counterparts. Income has a significant positive effect on happiness and life
satisfaction in both years. Married respondents are 5 % more likely to be very happy and
very satisfied with their lives than single respondents in 2008, but no such significant
difference is present in 1999. Similarly, older people are less likely to be happy in 2008,
but no difference is observed in 1999. For example, those who were between the ages of 46
and 60 were 9 % less likely to be very happy than those who were between the ages of 15
and 35. However, the negative effect of age on life satisfaction was significant in both
years. People who consider themselves as religious are 8 % less likely to be very satisfied
and 3.3 % more likely to be very dissatisfied with their lives compared to non-religious
respondents in 2008. On the other hand, religiosity is not a significant variable in 1999.
Other religion related variables were also not significant with the exception that in 1999
those who attended mosque more frequently were more likely to be happy. But overall,

123
1040 T. Ekici, S. Koydemir

Table 3 Means and standard deviations of ındependent variables

Variable M (SD)

1999 (N = 1,205) 2008 (N = 2,381)

Generalized trust** 0.07 (0.25) 0.11 (0.31)

Political Involvement 1.43 (0.48) 1.35 (0.48)
Social norms** 2.24 (1.45) 1.96 (1.30)
Concern for elderly, unemployed and sick** 4.08 (0.91) 4.33 (0.87)
Concern for people in neighborhood, region and country** 4.29 (0.78) 4.16 (0.85)
Concern for immigrants, Europeans, mankind** 3.05 (1.05) 3.35 (1.04)
Institutional trust** 2.61 (0.81) 3.07 (0.68)
Membership of volunteer organization 0.08 (0.27) 0.07 (0.26)
Religiosity** 0.79 (0.41) 0.88 (0.33)
Frequency of mosque attendance*** 3.53 (2.73) 2.99 (2.18)
Belief in usefulness of mosque** 0.68 (0.35) 0.72 (0.37)
Belief in religious ideas*** 0.80 (0.17) 0.98 (0.12)
Government satisfaction (1–10)** 2.46 (1.95) 4.83 (2.23)
Democracy satisfaction (0–1)** 0.24 (0.45) 0.58 (0.50)
Employment** 0.35 (0.48) 0.25 (0.44)
Male (0–1) 0.50 (0.50) 0.44 (0.50)
Age 15–25 (base category)** 0.30 (0.46) 0.18 (0.38)
Age 26–35 0.28 (0.45) 0.26 (0.44)
Age 36–45 0.22 (0.42) 0.21 (0.41)
Age 46 ? ** 0.21 (0.41) 0.33 (0.47)
Never married (base category)** 0.26 (0.44) 0.19 (0.40)
Married* 0.69 (0.46) 0.72 (0.45)
Divorced** 0.06 (0.23) 0.07 (0.27)
Number of children** 1.64 (1.74) 1.47 (1.84)
Lower education (base category)* 0.58 (0.50) 0.62 (0.49)
Middle education** 0.33 (0.49) 0.28 (0.50)
Higher education 0.09 (0.29) 0.10 (0.30)
Income group 1 (base category)* 0.15 (0.36) 0.17 (0.38)
Income group 2** 0.23 (0.42) 0.10 (0.30)
Income group 3** 0.20 (0.40) 0.39 (0.49)
Income group 4 0.21 (0.40) 0.22 (0.41)
Income group 5** 0.21 (0.41) 0.04 (0.20)

* p \ 0.05; ** p \ 0.01

different aspects of religion were not found to be significant for individual happiness in
Turkey.

4 Discussion

In this research, we analyzed data collected from representative samples of Turkey in 1999
and 2008, and examined the relationship between social capital and subjective well-being.

123
Social Capital and Happiness in Turkey 1041

Table 4 Ordered logit results of life satisfaction in 1999

Very Somewhat Medium Somewhat Very
dissatisfied dissatisfied satisfied satisfied

Generalized trust 0.002 0.001 -0.000 -0.001 -0.001

(0.044) (0.014) (0.008) (0.024) (0.027)
Political involvement 0.032 0.010 -0.005 -0.018 -0.020
(0.026) (0.008) (0.004) (0.014) (0.016)
Concern index 1 -0.005 -0.002 0.001 0.003 0.003
(0.014) (0.005) (0.002) (0.008) (0.009)
Concern index 2 0.009 0.003 -0.001 -0.005 -0.006
(0.016) (0.005) (0.003) (0.009) (0.010)
Concern index 3 -0.007 -0.002 0.001 0.004 0.004
(0.012) (0.004) (0.002) (0.007) (0.008)
Social norm -0.012 -0.004 0.002 0.006 0.007
(0.014) (0.005) (0.002) (0.008) (0.009)
Confidence -0.082*** -0.027*** 0.013*** 0.045*** 0.050***
(0.015) (0.006) (0.005) (0.009) (0.010)
Volunteer 0.005 0.002 -0.001 -0.003 -0.003
(0.034) (0.011) (0.006) (0.018) (0.020)
Religiosity -0.038 -0.011 0.008 0.020 0.022
(0.028) (0.008) (0.007) (0.014) (0.015)
Mosque attendance 0.003 0.001 -0.000 -0.001 -0.002
(0.005) (0.002) (0.001) (0.003) (0.003)
Usefulness of mosque -0.018 -0.006 0.003 0.010 0.011
(0.033) (0.011) (0.005) (0.018) (0.020)
Belief in religious ideas 0.014 0.005 -0.002 -0.008 -0.009
(0.062) (0.020) (0.010) (0.034) (0.038)
Government satisfaction -0.024*** -0.008*** 0.004*** 0.013*** 0.015***
(0.006) (0.002) (0.001) (0.003) (0.004)
Democracy satisfaction -0.027 -0.009 0.004 0.015 0.018
(0.023) (0.008) (0.003) (0.013) (0.016)
Employed -0.044* -0.015* 0.006* 0.024* 0.028*
(0.023) (0.008) (0.003) (0.013) (0.015)
Male 0.107*** 0.035*** -0.016** -0.058*** -0.067***
(0.030) (0.010) (0.006) (0.016) (0.019)
Age 31–45 0.072** 0.021** -0.015 -0.037** -0.040**
(0.035) (0.009) (0.010) (0.017) (0.018)
Age 46–60 0.108*** 0.027*** -0.027** -0.053*** -0.055***
(0.041) (0.008) (0.013) (0.019) (0.018)
Age 61 ? 0.071 0.020* -0.016 -0.036* -0.038*
(0.044) (0.010) (0.013) (0.021) (0.021)
Married -0.030 -0.009 0.005 0.016 0.018
(0.035) (0.010) (0.007) (0.018) (0.020)
Divorced 0.061 0.016 -0.015 -0.031 -0.031
(0.061) (0.012) (0.019) (0.028) (0.026)
Number of children 0.027*** 0.009*** -0.004** -0.015*** -0.017***
(0.008) (0.003) (0.002) (0.005) (0.005)
Middle education 0.010 0.003 -0.002 -0.006 -0.006
(0.026) (0.008) (0.005) (0.014) (0.016)
High education 0.020 0.006 -0.004 -0.011 -0.012
(0.045) (0.013) (0.010) (0.023) (0.025)

123
1042 T. Ekici, S. Koydemir

Table 4 continued

Very Somewhat Medium Somewhat Very

dissatisfied dissatisfied satisfied satisfied

Income step 2 -0.084*** -0.032** 0.005 0.049** 0.062**

(0.033) (0.014) (0.004) (0.020) (0.028)
Income step 3 -0.149*** -0.063*** -0.009 0.088*** 0.134***
(0.029) (0.016) (0.012) (0.018) (0.037)
Income step 4 -0.154*** -0.066*** -0.010 0.091*** 0.139***
(0.029) (0.015) (0.012) (0.018) (0.037)
Income step 5 -0.228*** -0.104*** -0.047** 0.124*** 0.255***
(0.026) (0.015) (0.018) (0.014) (0.046)
Numbers are marginal effects, robust standard errors are in parenthesis
* Significant at 10 % level or better
** Significant at 5 % level or better
*** Significant at 1 % level or better

We presented cross-sectional evidence of a significant association between aspects of

social capital and happiness and life satisfaction among Turkish people after adjusting for
income, age, employment status, gender, marital status, and religiosity.
Past research indicated that compared to other aspects of social capital, generalized trust
is more closely related well-being (Bjornskov 2006; Helliwell and Wang 2010). In line
with that we found that among social capital indicators, trust is an important predictor of
both happiness and life satisfaction. However, this was the case only for 2008, but not
1999. A similar picture was observed for democracy satisfaction and religiosity which
were related to well-being only in 2008. These results might be explained by social,
cultural, and political transformations that occurred between 2000 and 2008 due to an
important economic crisis in 2001, the effects of Europeanization processes, and the
policies of the ruling political party which emphasized Islamic values. Social capital is an
important factor in coping with the changing economic and social conditions and in
improving well-being (Eraydin et al. 2012). Social networks and trust can have significant
roles in facilitating social change, and connecting groups to social, economic, and political
resources which can all in turn positively contribute to the well-being of individuals and
societies (Kao 2004). Therefore, social trust may have become more important for the
well-being of individuals because of the aforementioned changes.
Unlike generalized trust, trust in institutions was associated with happiness and life
satisfaction both in 1999 and 2008. Our findings are consistent with existing empirical
evidence which points out that both types of trust plays an important role in well-being
(Hudson 2006; Leung et al. 2011), and Helliwell and Putnam’s (2004) conclusion that
trusting both those among us and those in authority is a strong predictor of subjective well-
being. Present findings suggested some increase in generalized and institutional trust in
Turkey over 10 years. However, the levels are still low compared to many European
countries. Given the positive relationship between trust and well-being, it may be
important for policy makers to improve social and institutional trust among people so as to
increase well-being. The low level of trust in Turkey may be one of the reasons for the
current quality of life in Turkey.
Government satisfaction is another significant correlate of subjective well-being both in
1999 and 2008; whereas democracy satisfaction is a predictor only in 2008. Although

123
Social Capital and Happiness in Turkey 1043

Table 5 Ordered logit results of life satisfaction in 2008

Very Somewhat Medium Somewhat Very
dissatisfied dissatisfied satisfied satisfied

Generalized trust -0.040*** -0.042*** -0.038*** 0.019*** 0.101***

(0.010) (0.011) (0.012) (0.003) (0.030)
Political Involvement 0.008 0.007 0.006 -0.005 -0.015
(0.009) (0.009) (0.006) (0.006) (0.018)
Concern index 1 0.002 0.002 0.001 -0.001 -0.003
(0.006) (0.006) (0.005) (0.004) (0.013)
Concern index 2 -0.002 -0.002 -0.001 0.001 0.004
(0.006) (0.006) (0.005) (0.004) (0.013)
Concern index 3 0.010** 0.009** 0.007* -0.007* -0.019**
(0.005) (0.005) (0.004) (0.003) (0.010)
Social norm 0.007* 0.007* 0.005* -0.005* -0.015*
(0.004) (0.004) (0.003) (0.003) (0.008)
Confidence -0.023*** -0.022*** -0.016*** 0.016*** 0.046***
(0.007) (0.007) (0.005) (0.005) (0.014)
Volunteer -0.021* -0.021 -0.018 0.012** 0.048
(0.013) (0.013) (0.013) (0.006) (0.033)
Religiosity 0.031*** 0.032*** 0.028** -0.016*** -0.074**
(0.011) (0.012) (0.012) (0.004) (0.030)
Mosque attendance 0.003 0.003 0.002 -0.002 -0.005
(0.002) (0.002) (0.002) (0.002) (0.004)
Usefulness of mosque 0.006 0.006 0.004 -0.004 -0.012
(0.012) (0.012) (0.009) (0.008) (0.024)
Belief in religious ideas -0.002 -0.001 -0.001 0.001 0.003
(0.037) (0.036) (0.027) (0.025) (0.074)
Government satisfaction -0.012*** -0.011*** -0.008*** 0.008*** 0.023***
(0.002) (0.002) (0.002) (0.002) (0.004)
Democracy satisfaction -0.023** -0.022** -0.016*** 0.016** 0.045***
(0.009) (0.009) (0.006) (0.007) (0.017)
Employed 0.008 0.008 0.005 -0.006 -0.015
(0.010) (0.010) (0.007) (0.007) (0.020)
Male 0.014 0.014 0.010 -0.010 -0.028
(0.010) (0.010) (0.007) (0.007) (0.020)
Age 31–45 0.032** 0.030** 0.020** -0.023** -0.059**
(0.015) (0.013) (0.008) (0.011) (0.024)
Age 46–60 0.066*** 0.056*** 0.031*** -0.050*** -0.104***
(0.020) (0.015) (0.006) (0.015) (0.025)
Age 61 ? 0.036** 0.033** 0.022*** -0.026** -0.066**
(0.016) (0.014) (0.009) (0.012) (0.026)
Married -0.028* -0.026* -0.017** 0.020* 0.051**
(0.015) (0.014) (0.008) (0.012) (0.026)
Divorced 0.018 0.016 0.011 -0.013 -0.032
(0.021) (0.019) (0.011) (0.016) (0.035)
Number of children -0.001 -0.001 -0.000 0.000 0.001
(0.003) (0.002) (0.002) (0.002) (0.005)
Middle education -0.005 -0.005 -0.004 0.003 0.010
(0.010) (0.009) (0.007) (0.006) (0.020)
High education -0.026** -0.027** -0.023* 0.015*** 0.061*
(0.012) (0.013) (0.013) (0.005) (0.033)

123
1044 T. Ekici, S. Koydemir

Table 5 continued

Very Somewhat Medium Somewhat Very

dissatisfied dissatisfied satisfied satisfied

Income step 2 -0.020 -0.021 -0.017 0.012* 0.046

(0.012) (0.013) (0.012) (0.006) (0.032)
Income step 3 -0.032*** -0.031*** -0.024*** 0.020*** 0.066***
(0.011) (0.010) (0.008) (0.007) (0.023)
Income step 4 -0.037*** -0.038*** -0.032*** 0.021*** 0.087***
(0.011) (0.012) (0.011) (0.005) (0.029)
Income step 5 -0.050*** -0.055*** -0.056*** 0.014** 0.147***
(0.013) (0.016) (0.021) (0.007) (0.055)
Numbers are marginal effects, robust standard errors are in parenthesis
* Significant at 10 % level or better
** Significant at 5 % level or better
*** Significant at 1 % level or better

higher quality of government (Helliwell and Huang 2008; Ott 2010), as well as trust in
government (Baltatescu 2002) is associated with higher well-being, the direct relationship
between government satisfaction and happiness is less clear. There is some evidence that
satisfaction with community services (Sirgy and Cornwell 2001), and satisfaction with the
performance of the government (Lou 2009) is positively related with quality of life.
However, research also found that government satisfaction is not necessarily related with
life satisfaction (Andrews and Withey 1976). The relationship between government sat-
isfaction and general well-being may be more relevant in countries where political free-
dom, democracy, and quality of life are low such as Turkey. A similar situation applies to
democracy satisfaction. According to Inglehart and Welzel (2005), individuals in nations
with more democratization are more satisfied with their lives, because democracy results in
greater trust and self-expression which are correlates of individual happiness. Based on
current findings, given the importance of democracy and government satisfaction for one’s
well-being in Turkey, policies may consider increasing the responsiveness of the gov-
ernment to the needs of individuals, and improving the democratization process.
Interestingly, although weak, we found a negative effect of concern for immigrants,
Europeans, and mankind on life satisfaction in 2008. This may be an outcome of the
negative perceptions of individuals in Turkey of migrants and non-Turks. Recent statistics
show that approximately 61 % of the population is opposed to having migrants in Turkey
(Gallup 2012). As for membership in volunteer organizations, the only significant rela-
tionship observed was with happiness in 1999. Members of volunteer organizations were
less likely to report being happy. It is not easy to make solid arguments given that relevant
previous research is quite inconsistent with some studies pointing out a negative rela-
tionship and some positive (Dolan et al. 2008). Olson (1982) suggested that social orga-
nizations are not beneficial to society or individual well-being while Putnam (2000)
stressed the importance of civil and political engagement in well-being. In our analyses, we
did not treat different memberships as separate variables which may obscure the results.
More evidence in needed as to what types of memberships are actually associated with
happiness. Additionally, it is possible that unhappy or dissatisfied individuals are more
likely to volunteer in the first place, and that higher well-being may decrease the tendency
to be concerned about others. Future research with longitudinal designs may test the causal
relationships among these variables.

123
Social Capital and Happiness in Turkey 1045

Table 6 Ordered logit results of happiness in 1999

Not at all happy Not very happy Quite happy Very happy

Generalized trust 0.003 0.002 -0.002 -0.003

(0.034) (0.026) (0.024) (0.036)
Political involvement 0.014 0.011 -0.010 -0.015
(0.018) (0.015) (0.013) (0.020)
Concern index 1 -0.006 -0.005 0.004 0.007
(0.010) (0.008) (0.007) (0.011)
Concern index 2 -0.006 -0.004 0.004 0.006
(0.012) (0.010) (0.008) (0.013)
Concern index 3 0.013 0.010 -0.009 -0.014
(0.009) (0.007) (0.006) (0.010)
Social Norm -0.013 -0.010 0.009 0.014
(0.010) (0.008) (0.007) (0.011)
Confidence -0.051*** -0.040*** 0.035*** 0.056***
(0.012) (0.010) (0.009) (0.013)
Volunteer 0.089** 0.051*** -0.068** -0.073***
(0.039) (0.015) (0.031) (0.023)
Religiosity -0.022 -0.017 0.016 0.023
(0.019) (0.014) (0.014) (0.019)
Mosque attendance 0.008** 0.007** -0.006** -0.009**
(0.004) (0.003) (0.003) (0.005)
Usefulness of mosque -0.043* -0.035* 0.030* 0.048*
(0.024) (0.019) (0.016) (0.026)
Belief in religious ideas 0.020 0.016 -0.014 -0.022
(0.044) (0.035) (0.031) (0.049)
Government satisfaction -0.012*** -0.010*** 0.009*** 0.014***
(0.005) (0.004) (0.003) (0.005)
Democracy satisfaction -0.026 -0.022 0.017 0.031
(0.018) (0.016) (0.011) (0.022)
Employed -0.023 -0.019 0.015 0.026
(0.018) (0.015) (0.012) (0.021)
Male 0.063*** 0.050*** -0.043*** -0.071***
(0.022) (0.018) (0.015) (0.025)
Age 31–45 -0.002 -0.001 0.001 0.002
(0.024) (0.019) (0.016) (0.027)
Age 46–60 0.026 0.020 -0.019 -0.027
(0.029) (0.021) (0.022) (0.029)
Age 61 ? 0.037 0.027 -0.027 -0.037
(0.034) (0.023) (0.026) (0.031)
Married -0.004 -0.003 0.003 0.004
(0.025) (0.020) (0.017) (0.027)
Divorced 0.056 0.036 -0.042 -0.050
(0.047) (0.024) (0.037) (0.034)
Number of children 0.011** 0.009** -0.008** -0.012**
(0.005) (0.004) (0.004) (0.006)
Middle education 0.005 0.004 -0.003 -0.005
(0.019) (0.015) (0.013) (0.021)
High education 0.005 0.004 -0.004 -0.006
(0.032) (0.024) (0.022) (0.034)

123
1046 T. Ekici, S. Koydemir

Table 6 continued

Not at all happy Not very happy Quite happy Very happy

Income step 2 -0.080*** -0.076*** 0.043*** 0.113***

(0.022) (0.024) (0.009) (0.038)
Income step 3 -0.100*** -0.100*** 0.044*** 0.155***
(0.020) (0.024) (0.009) (0.042)
Income step 4 -0.104*** -0.104*** 0.046*** 0.162***
(0.020) (0.023) (0.009) (0.040)
Income step 5 -0.126*** -0.129*** 0.045*** 0.211***
(0.020) (0.024) (0.012) (0.045)
Numbers are marginal effects, robust standard errors are in parenthesis
* Significant at 10 % level or better
** Significant at 5 % level or better
*** Significant at 1 % level or better

The other social capital variables which were not significant correlates of happiness
were concern for others, and social norms. Concern for others has not been studied much in
the related literature despite the fact that it has been perceived as one of the aspects of
social capital by some researchers (Putnam 2000; Uslaner 2002). It seems that more
research is needed on this issue. In terms of social norms, earlier, Bjornskov (2006) found
no evidence for a link between justification of dishonest behavior and happiness. Trust is
seen as an important factor in facilitating other aspects of social capital such as assisting
individuals to be more likely to participate in civic life, and to believe that it is moral to
justify dishonest behavior (Brehm and Rahn 1997; Putnam 1995; Uslaner in press).
Therefore, we suspect that low level of trust present in society may be insufficient to foster
these behaviors.
Finally, among socio-demographic variables, three are worth discussing. First, greater
income was associated with greater subjective well-being. Positive effect of income on
well-being, especially on life satisfaction is already known (Di Tella et al. 2003). Previ-
ously Selim (2008), using data from the World Values Survey of 1990, 1996, and 2001 in
Turkey, also showed the positive effect of income on happiness. Second, one may think
that the negative relationship between employment and happiness is in opposition with the
literature (McKee-Ryan et al. 2005). Although this is true, we suspected that this finding
may have resulted from the effect of low job satisfaction. Therefore, we included the
variable job satisfaction and reran the analyses which showed that those who are more
satisfied with their job are also more satisfied with their lives (r = 0.27, p \ 0.01 for 1999,
and r = 0.24, p \ 0.01 for 2008). This shows that not only having a job but also the quality
of the job is also important for individual’s subjective well-being. We believe that it may
be important for future research with Turkish samples to further investigate these rela-
tionships. Third, among the indicators of religiosity, mosque attendance was positively
related to happiness in 1999, and the extent to which individuals consider themselves to be
religious was negatively associated with life satisfaction in 2008. Literature is consistent in
reporting a positive link between religiosity and subjective well-being (Diener and Suh
1999; Green and Elliott 2010), although a few noted a negative relationship (e.g., Migheli
2009). We speculate that the negative relationship between religiosity and life satisfaction
in 2008 may be explained by the contemporary socio-demographic structure of Turkey.
Rising levels of conservatism and religiosity among people, and the conservative policies

123
Social Capital and Happiness in Turkey 1047

Table 7 Ordered logit results of happiness in 2008

Not at all happy Not very happy Quite happy Very happy

Generalized trust -0.029*** -0.040*** -0.016* 0.085***

(0.009) (0.013) (0.010) (0.030)
Political involvement 0.009 0.011 0.001 -0.021
(0.008) (0.010) (0.001) (0.019)
Concern index 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 -0.000
(0.006) (0.007) (0.001) (0.014)
Concern index 2 -0.001 -0.002 -0.000 0.003
(0.006) (0.007) (0.001) (0.014)
Concern index 3 0.007 0.009 0.001 -0.016
(0.004) (0.006) (0.001) (0.011)
Social norm 0.005 0.007 0.001 -0.012
(0.004) (0.005) (0.001) (0.009)
Confidence -0.018*** -0.023*** -0.002 0.043***
(0.007) (0.008) (0.002) (0.016)
Volunteer -0.009 -0.012 -0.002 0.024
(0.012) (0.017) (0.005) (0.034)
Religiosity 0.017* 0.023 0.006 -0.046
(0.010) (0.014) (0.006) (0.030)
Mosque attendance 0.001 0.002 0.000 -0.004
(0.002) (0.003) (0.000) (0.005)
Usefulness of mosque -0.001 -0.002 -0.000 0.003
(0.010) (0.013) (0.001) (0.025)
Belief in religious ideas -0.013 -0.017 -0.002 0.032
(0.031) (0.039) (0.004) (0.074)
Government satisfaction -0.008*** -0.010*** -0.001 0.020***
(0.002) (0.003) (0.001) (0.005)
Democracy satisfaction -0.031*** -0.039*** -0.002 0.072***
(0.009) (0.011) (0.003) (0.019)
Employed 0.009 0.011 0.001 -0.020
(0.010) (0.012) (0.001) (0.021)
Male 0.026*** 0.033*** 0.002 -0.062***
(0.010) (0.012) (0.003) (0.022)
Age 31–45 0.018 0.022 0.000 -0.040
(0.013) (0.015) (0.002) (0.027)
Age 46–60 0.045*** 0.052*** -0.008 -0.089***
(0.017) (0.017) (0.008) (0.027)
Age 61 ? 0.024* 0.029* 0.000 -0.053*
(0.014) (0.016) (0.003) (0.029)
Married -0.023* -0.029* 0.000 0.052*
(0.014) (0.017) (0.003) (0.028)
Divorced 0.019 0.023 -0.001 -0.040
(0.019) (0.022) (0.005) (0.037)
Number of children -0.000 -0.000 -0.000 0.000
(0.002) (0.003) (0.000) (0.005)
Middle education -0.007 -0.009 -0.001 0.017
(0.009) (0.011) (0.002) (0.022)
High education -0.017 -0.022 -0.006 0.045
(0.012) (0.017) (0.007) (0.036)

123
1048 T. Ekici, S. Koydemir

Table 7 continued

Not at all happy Not very happy Quite happy Very happy

Income step 2 -0.015 -0.021 -0.005 0.041

(0.012) (0.017) (0.007) (0.036)
Income step 3 -0.029*** -0.037*** -0.006 0.073***
(0.010) (0.012) (0.004) (0.024)
Income step 4 -0.029*** -0.039*** -0.011 0.080***
(0.010) (0.014) (0.007) (0.030)
Income step 5 -0.042*** -0.060*** -0.041 0.143**
(0.013) (0.020) (0.028) (0.061)
Numbers are marginal effects, robust standard errors are in parenthesis
* Significant at 10 % level or better
** Significant at 5 % level or better
*** Significant at 1 % level or better

of the government may have restricted the personal and social lives of individuals which
may have negatively affected their well-being. This possibility may be sought in future
studies. We also believe that for different groups of individuals in the population reli-
giousness has different effects on well-being. Age, marital status, and educational attain-
ment may account for these differences (Snoep 2008). For instance, in Turkey women do
not attend mosque for religious activities. Therefore gender differences may be present.
Further research may examine this relationship in different groups. As Snoep (2008)
argued, researchers may benefit from studies which examine the relationship between
religiousness and well-being by seeking an answer to the question ‘‘in what conditions for
what people’’ (pp. 210) religiousness boosts or undermines happiness.
It is important to note that a slight but significant increase in the level of both well-being
and social capital in Turkey is promising given that in Western countries especially social
capital is in decline (Heywood 2008; Putnam 2000). However, as discussed before, the
quality of life in Turkey is far from ideal. There is an urgent need for public policy
development for increasing social capital and well-being of individuals. Particularly
generalized trust, institutional trust, government satisfaction, and democracy satisfaction
seem to be crucial elements for well-being. The policies may aim at further enhancing
these aspects.
One important limitation of this study is that the survey was not specifically designed
for the purpose of measuring social capital which may have theoretically limited the scope
of the concept. For instance, indicators such as relationships with family, friends, and
significant others, or availability and size of social networks were not measured in this
study. Those variables are known to be important aspects of social capital. Future research
using similar samples from Turkey may consider including those variables. The second
limitation is the cross-sectional nature of the study, and that no cause and effect rela-
tionships can be inferred. Analyzing longitudinal data in the future is recommended.
Especially with the latest protests that took place in summer of 2013 in Turkey, it is
believed that different measures of social capital such as level of trust in civic institutions,
government, democracy satisfaction, and generalized trust, have all been affected.
Therefore more recent data could help us understand the relationship between social capital
and happiness in greater details.

123
Social Capital and Happiness in Turkey 1049

The social capital drivers of happiness may vary depending on the conceptualization of
the aspects of social capital, the measures used, and the characteristics of the samples.
Thus, we believe that before arriving at conclusions, more studies need to be carried out in
Turkey including different variables and utilizing different measures. Although this study
is an exploratory one, we hope that it will facilitate more research in understanding the role
of social capital in well-being in Turkey.

Appendix

See Tables 8, 9.

Table 8 Ordinary least square results for life satisfaction and happiness
Life satisfaction Happiness

1999 2008 1999 2008

Generalized trust -0.200 0.737*** -0.012 0.202***

(0.353) (0.182) (0.123) (0.059)
Political involvement -0.258 -0.125 -0.057 -0.051
(0.208) (0.140) (0.070) (0.045)
Concern index 1 0.048 -0.035 0.022 -0.009
(0.117) (0.101) (0.039) (0.033)
Concern index 2 -0.071 0.005 0.012 -0.014
(0.133) (0.104) (0.046) (0.033)
Concern index 3 0.045 -0.169** -0.043 -0.030
(0.098) (0.077) (0.033) (0.025)
Social Norm 0.114 -0.118* 0.054 -0.025
(0.115) (0.066) (0.039) (0.022)
Confidence 0.615*** 0.361*** 0.187*** 0.102***
(0.121) (0.107) (0.042) (0.037)
Volunteer 0.031 0.307 -0.288** 0.051
(0.302) (0.228) (0.113) (0.074)
Religiosity 0.281 -0.523** 0.077 -0.112
(0.213) (0.218) (0.071) (0.069)
Mosque attendance -0.030 -0.041 -0.029* -0.006
(0.044) (0.035) (0.015) (0.011)
Usefulness of mosque 0.312 -0.004 0.190** 0.029
(0.276) (0.188) (0.091) (0.060)
Belief in religious ideas -0.212 0.065 -0.076 0.111
(0.542) (0.571) (0.179) (0.191)
Government satisfaction 0.203*** 0.177*** 0.041** 0.043***
(0.049) (0.034) (0.017) (0.011)
Democracy satisfaction 0.254 0.409*** 0.114 0.192***
(0.211) (0.144) (0.071) (0.047)
Employed 0.318 -0.141 0.080 -0.057
(0.201) (0.161) (0.072) (0.054)
Male -0.781*** -0.243 -0.251*** -0.151***
(0.247) (0.158) (0.086) (0.052)

123
1050 T. Ekici, S. Koydemir

Table 8 continued

Life satisfaction Happiness

1999 2008 1999 2008

Age 31–45 -0.506* -0.507** 0.043 -0.107

(0.269) (0.204) (0.092) (0.066)
Age 46–60 -0.803*** -0.921*** -0.072 -0.231***
(0.292) (0.230) (0.103) (0.074)
Age 61 ? -0.505 -0.604*** -0.097 -0.132*
(0.325) (0.218) (0.114) (0.071)
Married 0.213 0.456** -0.006 0.131*
(0.273) (0.217) (0.094) (0.072)
Divorced -0.480 -0.268 -0.241 -0.091
(0.438) (0.303) (0.148) (0.099)
Number of children -0.199*** -0.002 -0.040** 0.001
(0.060) (0.039) (0.019) (0.012)
Middle education -0.139 0.103 -0.007 0.049
(0.217) (0.158) (0.074) (0.052)
High education -0.218 0.540** 0.005 0.118
(0.346) (0.235) (0.120) (0.079)
Income step 2 0.632** 0.392* 0.341*** 0.108
(0.281) (0.237) (0.101) (0.080)
Income step 3 1.345*** 0.653*** 0.448*** 0.209***
(0.307) (0.171) (0.104) (0.056)
Income step 4 1.490*** 0.779*** 0.473*** 0.225***
(0.307) (0.203) (0.104) (0.065)
Income step 5 2.399*** 1.187*** 0.609*** 0.347***
(0.324) (0.334) (0.112) (0.111)
Constant 2.640*** 5.509*** 1.779*** 2.503***
(0.906) (0.825) (0.310) (0.274)

Numbers are coefficients, robust standard errors are in parenthesis

* Significant at 10 % level or better
** Significant at 5 % level or better
*** Significant at 1 % level or better

Table 9 Cronbach’s alpha for

1999 2008
the ındices created
Political Involvement 0.83 0.86
Social Norms 0.71 0.83
Concern for unemployed, elderly, sick 0.83 0.92
Concern for people in the neighborhood, 0.84 0.86
region, and country
Concern for immigrants, Europeans, mankind 0.70 0.72
Institutional trust 0.85 0.82
Usefulness of mosque 0.80 0.87
Belief in religious ıdeas 0.81 0.81

123
Social Capital and Happiness in Turkey 1051

References

Andrews, F. M., & Withey, S. B. (1976). Social indicators of well-being. Americans’ perceptions of life
quality. New York: Plenum Press.
Argyle, M. (2001). The psychology of happiness. New York: Taylor & Francis.
Baltatescu, S. (2002). Trust in institutions and well-being: A state of art. Analele Universităţii din Oradea,
Fascicula Sociologie-Filosofie-Asistenţă Socială, 1, 95–99.
Becchetti, L., Trovato, G., & Bedoya, D. A. L. (2009). Income, relational goods and happiness. Applied
Economics, 43, 273–290.
Bjornskov, C. (2006). The multiple facets of social capital. European Journal of Political Economy, 22,
22–40.
Bjørnskov, C. (2003). The happy few: Cross-country evidence on social capital and life satisfaction. Kyklos,
56, 3–16.
Bjornskov, C., Dreher, A., & Fischer, J. A. V. (2010). Cross-country determinants of life satisfaction:
Exploring different determinants across groups in society. Social Choice and Welfare, 30, 119–173.
Clark, A. E., & Oswald, A. J. (1994). Unhappiness and unemployment. Economic Journal, 104, 648–659.
Coleman, J. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94,
95–120.
DeNeve, K. M., & Cooper, H. (1998). The happy personality: A meta-analysis of 137 personality traits and
subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 197–229.
Di Tella, R., MacCulloch, R., & Oswald, A. (2001). Preferences over inflation and unemployment: Evidence
form surveys of happiness. The American Economic Review, 91, 35–341.
Di Tella, R., MacCulloch, R., & Oswald, A. (2003). The macroeconomics of happiness. Review of Eco-
nomics and Statistics, 85, 809–827.
Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Lucas, R. E. (2003). Personality, culture, and subjective well-being. Annual Review
of Psychology, 54, 403–425.
Diener, E., Sapyta, J. J., & Suh, E. M. (1998). Subjective well-being is essential to well-being. Psychological
Inquiry, 9, 33–37.
Diener, E., & Suh, E. M. (1999). National differences in subjective well-being. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener,
& N. Schwartz (Eds.), Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology (pp. 434–450). New York:
Russell-Sage.
Diener, E., & Suh, E. M. (Eds.). (2000). Culture and subjective well-being. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Diener, E., Suh, M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. E. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress.
Psychological Bulletin, 125, 276–302.
Dolan, P., Peasgood, T., & White, M. (2008). Do we really know what makes us happy? A review of the
economic literature on the factors associated with subjective well-being. Journal of Economic Psy-
chology, 29, 94–122.
Dorn, D., Fischer, J. A., Kirchgassner, G., & Sousa-Poza, A. (2007). Is it culture or democracy? The impact
of democracy and culture on happiness. Social Indicators Research, 82, 505–526.
Eraydin, A., Armatli-Köroğlu, B., & Uzun, N. (2012). Importance of social capital in coping with and
benefiting from new economic conditions. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 103,
222–239.
Erdoğan, E. (2008). Sosyal sermaye, güven ve Türk gençliği [Social capital, trust, and Turkish youth]. http://
www.urbanhobbit.net/PDF/Sosyal%20Sermaye_emre%20erdogan.pdf.
Frey, B. S., & Stutzer, A. (2000). Happiness, economy and institutions. Economic Journal, 110, 918–938.
Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust: The social virtues and the creation of prosperity. New York: Free Press.
Fukuyama, F. (2001). Social capital, civil society and development. Third World Quarterly, 22(1), 7–20.
Fuller, B., & Hannum, E. (Eds.). (2002). Schooling and social capital in diverse cultures. Review of
research in sociology of education. Oxford: Elsevier.
Gallup. (2012). Global index of support for migration. Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com.pk/eoy11/
pressreleases/GlobalINDEXOfSupportForImmigration.pdf.
Green, M., & Elliott, M. (2010). Religion, health, and psychological well-being. Journal of Religion and
Health, 49(2), 149–163.
Grootaert, C., & van Bastelaer, T. (2002). Understanding and measuring social capital. Washington, D.C.:
The World Bank.
Grütjen, D. (2008). The Turkish welfare regime: An example of the southern European model? The role of
the state, market, and the family in welfare provision. Turkish Policy Quarterly, 1, 111–129.
Gürses, D. (2009). İnsani gelişme ve Türkiye [Human development and Turkey]. Balikesir Üniversitesi
Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 12(1), 339–350.

123
1052 T. Ekici, S. Koydemir

Healy, T. (2004). Social capital: Some policy and research implications for New Zealand. Wellington:
Victoria University of Wellington.
Helliwell, J. F. (2003). How’s life? Combining individual and national variables to explain subjective well-
being. Economic Modelling, 20, 331–360.
Helliwell, J. F. (2006). Well-Being, social capital and public policy: What’s New? Economic Journal, 116,
34–45.
Helliwell, J. F., & Barrington-Leigh, C. (2010). Measuring and understanding subjective well-being.
Canadian Journal of Economics, 43, 729–753.
Helliwell, J. F., & Huang, H. (2008). How’s your government? International evidence linking good gov-
ernment and well-being. British Journal of Political Science, 38, 595–619.
Helliwell, J. F., & Putnam, R. D. (1995). Economic growth and social capital in Italy. Eastern Economic
Journal, 21(3), 295–307.
Helliwell, J., & Putnam, R. (2004). The social context of well-being. Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society London, 359, 1435–1446.
Heper, M., & Yildirim, S. (2011). Revisiting civil society in Turkey. Southeast European and Black Sea
Studies, 11, 1–18.
Heywood, A. (2008). Essentials of UK politics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hudson, J. (2006). Institutional trust and subjective well-being across the EU. Kyklos, 59(1), 43–62.
Hürsoy, S. (2012). The paradox of modernity in Turkey: Issues in the transformation of a state. India
Quarterly, 68, 49–67.
Inglehart, R., & Welzel, C. (2005). Modernization, cultural change and democracy. New York and Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kao, G. (2004). Social Capital and its relevance to minority and immigrant populations. Sociology of
Education, 77, 172–183.
Karakitapoğlu-Aygün, Z. (2004). Self, identity and well-being among Turkish university students. Journal
of Psychology, 138, 457–478.
Kesebir, P., & Diener, E. (2008). In pursuit of happiness: Empirical answers to philosophical questions.
Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 117–125.
Leung, A., Kier, C., Fung, T., Fung, L., & Sproule, R. (2011). Searching for happiness: The importance of
social capital. Journal of Happiness Studies, 12, 443–462.
Lou, D. (2009). Matching toward a harmonious society: Happiness, regime satisfaction, and government
performance in contemporary urban China. Asian Politics and Policy, 1, 508–525.
McKee-Ryan, F. M., Song, Z., Wanberg, C. R., & Kinicki, A. J. (2005). Psychological and physical well-
being during unemployment: a meta-analytic study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 53–75.
Migheli, M. (2009). Religiosity and happiness: An ever-winning couple? An answer from India. Department
of Public Policy and Public Choice—POLIS. Working paper No. 142.
Myers, D. G. (2000). The funds, friends, and faith of happy people. American Psychologist, 55, 56–67.
Newton, K. (2001). Trust, social capital, civil society, and democracy. International Political Science
Review/Revue Internationale de Science Politique, 22(2), 201–214.
OECD (2010). Society at a glance 2009, OECD, Paris. Retrieved from http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/
download/8109011e.pdf?expires=1371121998&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=BD3884716E8EB14
D16BB4904E1D2A084.
Olson, M. (1982). The rise and decline of nations: Economic growth, stagflation and social rigidities. New
Haven: Yale University Press.
Onis, Z. (2009). Beyond the 2001 financial crisis: The political economy of the new phase of neo-liberal
restructuring in Turkey. Review of International Political economy, 16, 409–432.
Öniş, Z. (2004). Turkish modernisation and challenges for the new Europe. Perceptions Journal of Inter-
national Affairs, 9(3), 5–28.
Onyx, J., & Bullen, P. (2001). The different faces of social capital in NSW Australia. In E. M. Uslaner (Ed.),
Social capital and participation in everyday life (pp. 45–58). London: Routledge.
Ott, J. C. (2010). Good governance and happiness in nations: Technical quality precedes democracy and
quality beats size. Journal of Happiness Studies, 11(3), 353–368.
Paldam, M. (2000). Social capital: One or many? Definition and measurement. Journal of Economic Sur-
veys, 14, 629–653.
Pamuk, Ş. (2007). Eonomic change in the twentieth century Turkey: Is the glass more than half full? The
American University of Paris. Working Paper No: 41.
Pichler, F. (2006). Subjective quality of life of young Europeans: Feeling happy but who knows why? Social
Indicators Research, 75, 419–444.
Putnam, R. (1993). Making democracy work: civic tradition in modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton Uni-
versity Press.

123
Social Capital and Happiness in Turkey 1053

Putnam, R. (1995). Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. Journal of Democracy, 6(1), 65–78.
Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon and
Schuster.
Putnam, D., & Goss, K. (2002). Introduction. In R. Putnam (Ed.), Democracies in Flux (pp. 3–19). New
York: Oxford University Press.
Robison, L. J., Schmid, A. A., & Siles, M. E. (2002). Is social capital really capital? Review of Social
Economics, 60(1), 1–21.
Secor, A.C. & O’Loughlin, J. (2005). Social and political trust in İstanbul and Moscow: A comparative
analysis of individual and neighbourhood effects. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers,
30, 66–82. http://www.uky.edu/AS/Geography/faculty/secoroloughlin2005.pdf.
Selim, S. (2008). Life satisfaction and happiness in Turkey. Social Indicators Research, 88, 531–562.
Şenses, F. (2003). Economic crisis as an instigator of distributional conflict The Turkish case in, 2001. In Z.
Öniş & B. Rubin (Eds.), The Turkish economy in crisis (pp. 92–119). London: Frank Cass.
Sirgy, M. J., & Cornwell, T. (2001). Further validation of the Sirgy et al’.s measure of community quality of
life. Social Indicators Research, 56, 125–143.
Snoep, L. (2008). Religiousness and happiness in three nations: A Research note. Journal of Happiness
Studies, 9, 207–211.
Stadelmann-Steffen, I., & Vatter, A. (2012). Does satisfaction with democracy really increase happiness?
Direct democracy and individual satisfaction in Switzerland. Political Behavior, 34, 535–559.
Steel, P., Schmidt, J., & Shultz, J. (2008). Refining the relationship between personality and subjective well-
being. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 138–161.
Tokuda, Y., Fujii, S., & Inoguchi, T. (2010). Individual and country-level effects of social trust on hap-
piness: The Asia barometer survey. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40, 2579–2593.
TURKSTAT (2009). Results of 2009 Poverty study.
Uğuz, H. E., Örselli, E., & Sipahi, E. B. (2011). Sosyal sermayenin ölçümü: Türkiye deneyimi [Measure-
ment of social capital: Turkish experience]. Sakarya Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Akademik
İncelemeler Dergisi, 6, 5–36.
Uslaner, E. M. (2002). The moral foundations of trust. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Helliwell J.F., & Wang, S. (2010). Trust and well-being. NBER working paper, No.15911.
Winkelmann, R. (2009). Unemployment, social capital, and subjective well-being. Journal of Happiness
Studies, 10(4), 421–430.
Woolcock, M. (2000). Managing risk, shocks, and opportunity in developing economies: The role of social
capital. In G. Ranis (Ed.), Dimensions of development (pp. 197–212). New Haven, CT: Yale Center for
International and Area Studies.
Yeşiladar, B. A., & Noordijk, P. (2010). Changing values in Turkey: Religiosity and tolerance in com-
parative perspective. Turkish Studies, 11, 9–27.

123
View publication stats