Third World Quarterly

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ctwq20

Time to live well: well-being and time affluence for

sustainable development

Hans-Jürgen Burchardt & Jan Ickler

To cite this article: Hans-Jürgen Burchardt & Jan Ickler (2021) Time to live well: well-being
and time affluence for sustainable development, Third World Quarterly, 42:12, 2939-2955, DOI:
10.1080/01436597.2021.1981761

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2021.1981761

Published online: 07 Oct 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 128

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ctwq20
Third World Quarterly
2021, VOL. 42, NO. 12, 2939–2955
https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2021.1981761

Time to live well: well-being and time affluence for

sustainable development
Hans-Jürgen Burchardta,b and Jan Icklera
a
Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Kassel, Kassel, Germany; bCALAS – Maria Sibylla Merian Center for
Advanced Latin American Studies, Zapopan, Mexico

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

In the face of challenges presented by climate change and rising social Received 11 August 2020
inequality on a global scale, scholars have criticised prevalent individ- Accepted 14 September
ualistic, economistic and materialistic definitions of well-being. In this 2021
context, Buen Vivir emerged as an alternative concept from Latin KEYWORDS
America, critically engaging with growth-centred development and Buen Vivir
current definitions of well-being. Buen Vivir promotes an alternative poverty and inequality
vision of well-being that relies on social practices, inter-personal rela- time affluence
tionships and an intact natural environment. The article argues to take well-being
up this inspiration and stresses the importance of a new conceptuali- Index of Good Living
sation of well-being. Thus, it presents the Index of Good Living (IGL) as sustainable development
an eudaimonic approach to measure well-being, resting on the concept
of relational goods. The index uses time spent by individuals for certain
activities as its main indicator, proposing a nuanced toolset to compare
time-based inequalities in relation to well-being in different contexts.
The paper discusses the theoretical and methodological aspects behind
this approach and contextualises them with first empirical evidence
from Ecuador and Germany. It illuminates strengths and potential open-
ings for further refinement and indicates areas for transformative
change – both in politics and in everyday life.

Introduction
Development paradigms come and go. However, development has remained strongly linked
to economic growth. Thus, increased production and consumption of material goods con-
tinue to serve as the most important markers for evaluating the ‘progress’ of nations. The
United Nations (UN) has recently acknowledged this fact and has institutionalised the
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) with an emphasis on ecological concerns, advocating
for ‘peace and prosperity for people and the planet, now and [in] the future’ (UN 2021). While
this may represent an advancement when compared to former approaches, even in the
SDGs, the gross domestic product (GDP) is maintained as ‘the world’s most powerful number’
(Fioramonti 2013; also see Felice 2016). Indeed, GDP is at the heart of 18 SDG indicators,
providing the normative force for statistical empiricism in development politics.1 Accordingly,
the grounding logic of development still rests on the presupposition that economic growth

CONTACT Hans-Jürgen Burchardt burchardt@uni-kassel.de

© 2021 Global South Ltd
2940 H.-J. BURCHARDT AND J. ICKLER

is the main driver of individual and collective well-being. However, in the last decade, political
and academic debates have taken an interest in re-examining the nature of well-being in
order to engender alternative visions of development and transformative change. With a
shared critique of the economistic, materialistic and individualistic reductionism of past
approaches, perspectives from political ecology, post-development and sociology call into
question the nature of economic growth (eg Kothari et al. 2019; Demaria and Kothari 2017;
Rist 2010; Escobar 2011). These critical voices highlight the problematic roles of resource-in-
tensive production and the consumption of material goods as primary goals of development.
One prominent example of this conjuncture is found in the debates surrounding Buen
Vivir (Spanish for good living) and similar concepts from the Global South (Hidalgo-Capitán,
and Cubillo-Guevara 2017; overview: Kothari et al. 2019). Buen Vivir denotes a complex,
ambivalent and often contradictory framework from the Andean region in Latin America.2
It combines unique socio-cultural elements with an ecological understanding of societal
well-being. Buen Vivir reaffirms the value of reciprocity, community and a relationship with
the environment that is anchored in indigenous culture (Cortez 2021; Alonso González and
Vázquez 2015). While one should not aim to ‘westernise’ such interventions from the Global
South in a simplistic or romanticised way, many authors do identify points of departure and
draw connections that enrich the discourse around well-being, development and transfor-
mative politics.
This article does not focus on Buen Vivir as a concept, but rather takes up its impetus in
order to discuss sources of well-being.3 In doing so, it explicitly draws upon proposals from
the Global South that link well-being with the special variable of time. This is done mainly
through the presentation of the Index of Good Living (IGL): an eudaimonic4 approach devel-
oped in Ecuador that operationalises well-being by building on the concept of relational
goods and focussing on interpersonal relationships, self-determined work and civil engage-
ment. The IGL combines this notion of well-being with the measurement of individual time
expenditure. In this conceptualisation, available time for specific activities becomes the
fundamental measuring unit in determining quality of life. Thus, the IGL offers a statistical
tool to better study the connection between well-being and time in different contexts.5
We acknowledge that statistics often serve as important reference points for individual
and collective political decisions and therefore argue that the use of time as a central mea-
suring unit could help drive a new understanding of well-being. Furthermore, the IGL as a
numerical measure is one example of how well-being and time can be conceptually linked.
It promotes an alternative notion of well-being that surpasses materialistic, individualistic
and economistic approaches. In this way, the IGL incorporates previously ignored or dis-
missed non-material factors of well-being to offer a deeper analysis. This emphasis offers a
fresh perspective for scholars of various disciplines, especially for those researching ecolog-
ical factors that foster well-being. In this context, the IGL framework directly refers to existing
efforts to establish sustainable development for the Global North and South alike. To make
such campaigns feasible, political claims cannot remain normative but must be translated
into social practice. A new understanding of well-being founded on different, yet interwoven,
aspects of life can achieve exactly that.
This article, firstly, reflects upon existing debates on sources of well-being and the rela-
tionship between well-being and time as well as empirical research therein. Secondly, we
provide the theoretical and methodological framework of the IGL. Then, we present empirical
and statistical data generated from both a pioneering study using the IGL framework in
 Third World Quarterly 2941

Ecuador and a recent comparative study focussing on Ecuador and Germany. This empirical
evidence suggests that time scarcity has a significant negative impact on individual well-be-
ing. Thirdly, we discuss – based on the theoretical innovations of the IGL and the empirical
findings – strengths and limitations of the framework as well as possible pathways for
social-ecological transformation and sustainable development across the Global North
and South.

Well-being in the North–South context

In the face of socio-ecological crisis and increasing inequalities worldwide, political and
academic debates have resurfaced, stressing the need for increased social well-being and
potential ways to achieve it (eg Koch and Mont 2016; Jackson 2009). The result has been a
surge of interest into well-being research, spreading to multiple academic disciplines and
even creating new ones (van Praag and Ferrer-I-Carbonell 2014; Sointu 2005). In general
terms, these studies and debates often revolve around questions of whether, how and under
what conditions individual well-being might propel societal change. On the one hand, polit-
ical measures and strategies in the Global North have centred on ecological and educational
issues (eg Spratt 2017). On the other hand, international development agencies and non-gov-
ernmental and international organisations have investigated well-being with direct appli-
cation to development efforts in the Global South, often linking enduring questions around
economic growth, health standards, and decent work to newly emerging ones (eg Pontarollo,
Orellana, and Segovia 2020; Dasgupta and Duraiappa 2012).
The concept of well-being itself is vague and highly contested; several definitions exist
and vary from context to context (Allin and Hand 2014). Further, other terms including
‘wellness’, ‘welfare’ and ‘happiness’ either emphasise different aspects of well-being or are
used synonymously. Despite this ambiguity, several understandings of well-being have
already been applied as tools and benchmarks for development policies. One of the most
prominent proposals stems from the Stiglitz-Sen-Fitoussi Commission (Stiglitz, Sen, and
Fitoussi 2009). In an effort to complement GDP as an indicator for growth, the report iden-
tified several challenges to conceptualising well-being while, most importantly, stressing its
drivers. Another and more recent example, the World Happiness Report (WHR) 2020, assessed
subjective well-being in relation to development by using Gallup Poll data with a focus upon
the Global South and sustainable development (Helliwell et al. 2020). Lastly, one of the most
prominent conceptualisations is seen in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD)’s rather broad and inclusive ‘Well-Being Framework’, comprising various
key dimensions, including income, health, work quality, subjective well-being and environ-
mental quality (OECD 2021). Each dimension is made up of several indicators that already
have been evaluated in most OECD countries, leading to important insights on the distri-
bution of well-being. Davies (2015) highlights the negative side effects of mainstreaming
well-being in political discourse – especially in instances where well-being is understood
purely economically. In doing so, he also critiques the increasingly active role of private
businesses and non-governmental and international organisations in framing well-being.
In academia, research on well-being has brought about several competing approaches
towards its conceptualisation and measurement. Subjectivist approaches rely on the
self-evaluation of interviewees regarding their personal perception of happiness. Thus, they
presuppose the ability of individuals to recognise and gauge their level of happiness
2942 H.-J. BURCHARDT AND J. ICKLER

independently (Varelius 2013). Such accounts, mostly from the field of psychology, refer to
well-being simply as the ‘state’ of being well or figure it as a ratio between positive and
negative psychological affects (Kahneman 1999, 7). Hence, well-being is often correlated
with the maximisation of individually perceived happiness. Research into subjective well-be-
ing has proven generally practicable, and a myriad of studies have used questionnaires and
similar designs to generate valuable findings (eg Topp et al. 2015). Yet the projects linking
individual well-being to economic parameters prove most prominent. Here, researchers
have measured well-being empirically by aggregating personal income, financial assets and
consumption spending (overview: Diener and Biswas-Diener 2002). As Clark (2018) sum-
marises, these statistical assessments have been relatively successful: authors in the field of
happiness economics have established a positive relationship between subjective well-being
of interviewed individuals and their personal income. Such approaches, relying heavily on
household surveys, are not only highly operationalisable, but also offer real-life plausibility.
One can easily understand how receiving a monthly pay cheque might trigger a cheerful
feeling or how uneasiness may spread in its absence.
However, empirical results have demonstrated that the seemingly clear correlation
between income and well-being is more fragile than often assumed. Once a certain level of
income has been attained, further material gains are no longer accompanied by a compa-
rable increase in perceived well-being (Easterlin 1974; Scitovsky 1992). The risk of immediate
poverty has a stronger effect on perceived well-being than the prospect of rising income
(Caria and Falco 2018). Furthermore, broader societal factors have a major impact on well-be-
ing (Caria and Falco 2018; Clark 2018): existing social inequalities and ecological deterioration
affect perceived well-being (Russell et al. 2013), as do non-economic factors including family
relationships, education and health (Layard, Mayraz, and Nickell 2009), as well as access to
political participation (Cohen 2018).
While the analysis of subjective well-being relies upon the self-evaluation of individual
participants, other approaches have tried to identify objective factors that contribute to
well-being, assuming basic and universal human needs are met – such as food, housing, etc.
These objectivist approaches have sought to determine which factors are conducive to
well-being, independent of individuals and their specific living conditions (eg Max-Neef
1991; Doyal and Gough 1991). Due to the supposed objectivity of these factors, needs are
often taken as universal, equally applicable to all human beings and societal contexts. This
demarcation of well-being as independent from specific socio-cultural conditions has led
to significant criticism. As a response, the capability approach of Amartya Sen (1985) and
Martha Nussbaum (2008) seeks a middle ground between analysing subjective and objective
factors of well-being. In general, these authors focus on personal capabilities as tools for
self-realisation and individual freedom. While capabilities must be researched in a con-
text-sensitive manner, measurable indicators regarding the levels of democracy, transpar-
ency and social security serve as objective factors in the promotion of well-being (Comim,
Qizilbash, and Alkire 2008). In this view, both the state and individuals are mutually respon-
sible for securing the good life. However, the capability approach is still rooted in a liberal
tradition that narrowly considers the individual and, thus, often neglects collective dimen-
sions of well-being.
The approaches above lend themselves to several paths to empirical analyses. However,
using mostly economic indicators and statistical methods, they have the tendency to ascribe
new importance to material consumption and employ a goods-centred definition of well-being.
 Third World Quarterly 2943

Furthermore, their theoretical frameworks also fail to account for the interdependency
between the social and economic spheres: reciprocity and recognition are important features
of social life that have great influence on well-being (Bruni 2008, also Clark 2018, Layard,
Mayraz, and Nickell 2009). To transcend economistic and purely subjectivist definitions of
well-being without losing precise operationalisation, it seems necessary to discard normative
declarations and ground investigations in the societal context and everyday lived experiences.
Rising to this challenge, the IGL follows a conceptualisation of well-being that refers to
eudaimonic frameworks, rooted in Aristotelian philosophy. Here, an individual can achieve
a good life by using time for the following: leisure and (self-)contemplation, interpersonal
relationships and love as well as participation in public life. However, it should be noted that
according to Aristotle, this can only be achieved if basic human material needs are met and
health is maintained. Rather than striving for more (material) resources, eudaimonic
approaches emphasise the good life in and of itself (Waterman 2008). Static attributes, fixed
goals and goods do not account for eudaimonia.6 Instead, it represents a form of social
practice. Such an approach shifts the focus away from individual accumulation of material
assets and subjective levels of happiness towards an empowered life embedded in social
contexts (Eckersley 2013). To combine these insights with a possible path to operationalisa-
tion, the next section presents a discussion on how time might serve as the best category
to research and empirically measure well-being.

Debating time as a category to research well-being

As an effort to replace the tired material understanding of well-being and to offer a fresh
approach to its measurement, the IGL introduces the category of time, one of its main
contributions to the field of study. However, the objective and subjective impact of time
on well-being was acknowledged long before the creation of the IGL. Classical and
Marxist economists used the time required to produce goods as the basis for their the-
ories of value, and authors like Arthur C. Pigou attempted to integrate non-tangible
services and goods into neo-classical economic theory. Others focussed on the activities
on which human beings can spend their time, emphasising the utility that comes from
non-market pursuits (Becker 1976). Robert E. Goodin uses the concept of ‘discretionary
time’ to highlight the positive influence of allocating time freely on personal well-being
and introduces time scarcity as a limit to living a good life (Goodin et al. 2008). An
important step towards understanding the impact of time use and well-being was made
by Thomas Juster, who emphasised the way in which human activities generate well-be-
ing, shifting the focus from the output of economic endeavours towards the individual’s
emotional stance surrounding their engagement (Juster, Courant, and Dow 1981). By
proposing a ‘National Time Accounting’ system, Krueger et al. (2009) have taken up these
findings and proposed an overarching measurement of a society’s time expenditure.
These studies offer a statistical toolset and have – under certain pre-assumptions –
empirically demonstrated the connection between well-being and the availability of
time (Zuzanek 2013). However, here, temporal resources remain mostly dependent upon
economic indicators. In this way, the continued reliance on the economic sphere does
not allow for the introduction of time as an independent variable. Moreover, although
the generated data can be used to create statistical correlations between well-being
2944 H.-J. BURCHARDT AND J. ICKLER

and economic activity across societies, in the approaches featured above, time is per-
ceived as a fixed physical resource.
In an important departure from the notion of time as a natural entity or material quantity,
Norbert Elias (1993) emphasises that the Western understanding of time is based upon an
erroneous dichotomy between nature and culture.7 It follows that a careful consideration of
time should entail a critical analysis of time as a social institution that has been established
over four millennia of human history – structured by economic processes, shaped by political
actors and underpinned by human culture. On a macro level, this perspective involves exam-
ining the ways in which time functions in society and how practices of time use interconnect
with societal well-being (Adam 1995). On the micro level, one must acknowledge that time
carves the course for tiny decisions made in everyday life. Acknowledging these roles helps
illuminate new intersections between potential increases in the well-being of individuals –
as evidenced through growth in personal autonomy and decreased time scarcity – and struc-
tural features of our society. Generally, the social institution of time remains highly dynamic,
varying from context to context, and can be influenced by political and social actors (Whitrow
1988; Elias 1993). This indicates opportunities for transformative change. However, the quality
of these time regimes is seldom reflected upon, despite being crucial to everyday life. Often,
time is perceived not as a social category, but rather as a naturalised, external factor.
In the Global North, a specific time regime8 has evolved over the last 200 years in parallel
with the rise of nation states, the industrial revolution, capitalism and increasing globalisation.
New tools for measuring time have allowed for an optimisation and increased coordination
of economic processes. According to Rosa (2013), today’s industrialised societies feature a
structural need for dynamisation that leads to continuous acceleration.9 Despite increased
material wealth relative to the Global South, this configuration confronts individuals with
higher levels of personal stress and a perceived decrease in personal autonomy, forcing them
to adapt to fast-changing conditions. In the Global South, centuries of colonisation and increas-
ing integration into the world market have imposed this time regime as an organising factor
as well. However, while small middle classes struggle to attain a quality of life similar to those
in the North, the less affluent and, especially, marginalised groups suffer from time scarcity in
a more radical way. Long working hours, informality, long-distance commutes between home
and central services, exclusive and ill-equipped health care systems as well as limited respon-
siveness of state agencies have a huge impact on the daily lives of millions (eg Auyero 2012;
Helliwell et al. 2020). Thus, the lack of material goods is compounded by a lack of temporal
resources, leading to a double pressure on individual livelihoods to grave effect.
Consequently, time, in this sense and from an eudaimonic perspective, is not a resource
for achieving economic goals but is understood as a feature and quality of life itself. The IGL
incorporates this argument and combines an alternative understanding of well-being with
the introduction of time as a crucial indicator. The question of how we want to live becomes
the issue of how we want to spend time. The next section of the paper introduces the concep-
tual design of the IGL, before proceeding to explain its methodology and initial findings
from a recent comparative study conducted in Ecuador and Germany.

The Index of Good Living: a time-based approach to capture well-being

The IGL is a framework to empirically measure and compare well-being in different societal
contexts. It was originally proposed by Rene Ramírez (2012), who sought to convert the
 Third World Quarterly 2945

manifold interventions of Buen Vivir in Ecuador into a coherent political programme. In this
regard, the original IGL is not a perfect adaptation of the Buen Vivir, but instead represents
a practicable operationalisation, catering to the needs of political actors (regarding the rela-
tionship between Buen Vivir and politics on the state level, see: Villalba 2013). Generally, the
IGL captures individual amounts of time spent for the generation of relational goods. In
contrast to material assets that might be accumulated or traded, relational goods,10 a term
borrowed from Martha Nussbaum (2012), denote a reciprocal and social dimension. They
do not rest on market allocation or the anonymous solidarity of a welfare state. Rather, they
are founded upon mutual recognition, social responsibility, identity, communication and
empathy. However, this does not imply the complete omission of material indicators from
the analysis. Well-being remains dependent on the fulfilment of basic material needs (eg
food, shelter, sleep) that represent preconditions for the generation of relational goods. In
instances when the basic supply of material goods is not secured, possibilities for well-being
diminish radically. As an eudaimonic approach, the IGL firmly embeds material preconditions
as well as economic activities into a social context and, further, represents a nuanced attempt
to focus on the balance between different aspects of social life.
The index’s operationalisation11 relies on the measurement of time spent by individuals
on the generation of specific relational goods: (1) self-determined work (tSW);12 (2) leisure
and education (tL); (3) social relationships (tS) and (4) participation in public and political
life (tPL):

tGL  tRG  tSW  tL  tS  tPL (1)

However, living well can only be realised once natural and material basic needs have been
met. This is the average duration of biological reproduction (sleep, nourishment, etc.) and
of work required to fulfil material needs (tMN). Furthermore, all measures must be adjusted
to current standards (eg 24 hours in one day = H).

H  tMN  tGL (2)

In his work, Ramírez (2012) uses a quotient between tMN and tGL and a logarithm to
mathematically trace the generation of relational goods with reference to the time spent
on securing material living standards. The ‘amount of time well lived’ (Ramirez 2012, p. 32f.)
can be assessed for both individuals and bigger groups of people. In a second step, Ramírez
proposes to enrich the basic index with socio-economic variables. For the measurement of
healthy living, the average life expectancy of an individual in a given society13 and average
time affected by disease14 are used as variables. On a societal level, education and social
inequality also influence the capacity to lead a good life. Therefore, Ramírez recommends
extending the equation by adjusting the IGL15 for average school years16 and a measure for
social inequality.17
The state of the environment surrounding a given community has an increasingly evident
impact upon well-being. Not only do contamination and pollution directly affect health
conditions, but the perception of nature also has multiple positive effects on human beings
(Russell et al. 2013). This is reflected by the IGL’s recognition of the quality of ecosystems as
the third indicator. Ramírez (2012) proposes the variable of deforestation to measure biodi-
versity in connection to time. While being part of his pioneering study in Ecuador, the authors
2946 H.-J. BURCHARDT AND J. ICKLER

admit that this variable is not yet sufficiently developed, so it is omitted from further pre-
sentation. However, myriad indicators could act as substitutions – ranging from soil deteri-
oration to biodiversity and rates of pollution – offering context-specific analysis. The various
entanglements between well-being and the state of the world’s ecosystems are of central
importance and require further discussion.
In 2007, using existing data (household surveys over several years) and original inquiries,
the IGL was first tested in Ecuador (Ramírez 2012). A recent study (Ramírez, Schobin, and
Burchardt 2021) also compares time-based inequalities across Ecuador and Germany, pro-
ducing valid empirical data and further demonstrating that the IGL framework may be
applied to a cross-country comparative design and is practicable in both the Global South
and North.18 In the context of Ecuador, the collection of data regarding time use for specific
activities was organised in standardised interviews (‘Yesterday Interviews’), collecting data
from approximately 50,000 individuals. The questionnaires were part of a general census.
For the comparative study targeting Ecuador and Germany, the 2012 Ecuadorian census was
used. In the case of Germany, the data was provided by the ‘Time Use Study of the German
Federal Statistical Institute’ (DESTATIS) from 2013, made up of weekly time diaries and
activity coding.
On this basis, the first surveys in Ecuador have provided interesting results: juxtaposed
with other designs, income loses its determining effect on personal well-being. Interestingly,
amongst the time-richest 10% in Ecuador, the average income is three times lower than
among the income-richest 10%. Peak income often correlates with extended working
hours,19 restricting the production of relational goods. Perhaps most sobering for high-in-
come levels is the finding that, of Ecuador’s top 20% of earners, just one-sixth have also
reached the highest level of time affluence (Ramírez 2012, p. 78). Income differences are
therefore relevant, but not as decisive as often assumed by those employing economic
measuring methods.20 However, the research also stresses that material safety is, indeed, a
precondition for well-being: where it is lacking, well-being is drastically diminished. This is
accompanied by the finding that the population of Ecuador enjoys just 11 years of living
well (tGL1) – only about 14% of their lifetime. Here, significant inequalities exist: the time-rich-
est 10% have 16 times more weekly time for well-being than the time-poorest 10%. These
inequalities are greatest with regard to participation in public life: the time-richest tenth of
the population participates over 35 times more than the bottom decile – certainly a signif-
icant finding for democracy studies.
Compared to Ecuador, Germany generally features higher levels of time affluence across
all sections of the population (Ramírez, Schobin, and Burchardt 2021). However, the empirical
assessment clearly shows that German citizens spend less time of their life enjoying social
activities (just 19% of their time). Here, individual recreational activities remain much more
popular. Furthermore, and more strikingly, the study shows that those with high monthly
income have relatively less time for the generation of relational goods. As in Ecuador, women
in Germany are especially prone to time scarcity (Ramirez, Schobin, and Burchardt 2021, p.
2), indicating that time-based gender inequalities are not exclusive to the Global South. The
comparative study has identified two main factors inhibiting the expansion of well-being:
precarious working conditions and existing ethnic and gendered inequalities. A large pro-
portion of the working population in Ecuador – especially in the informal economy – has to
perform low-skilled and time-intensive labour. Often, this type of work barely guarantees a
livelihood, leaving little to no room for the generation of relational goods. Those most acutely
 Third World Quarterly 2947

affected by time scarcity – the time-poorest 10% in Ecuador – only have 4% of their lifetime
to generate and enjoy relational goods (Ramírez 2012, p. 73). The surveys show that geo-
graphic, gender-specific and ethnic discrepancies play a central role in the configuration of
time-based inequalities (Ramírez 2012; Ramírez, Schobin, and Burchardt 2021). Here, tough
conditions in the household and among communities as well as fewer options for mutual
recognition together diminish the possibility to enjoy relational goods.
In light of these empirical findings, we argue that the fundamental framework and the
pioneering studies illustrate the potential of the IGL to promote new and broader investi-
gations into well-being – even on a global scale. We see the innovative potential of the IGL
for critically accompanying the SDG framework as well as other political programmes.
Especially important in this regard are the following observations:
Firstly, in the framework of the IGL, work is no longer just a function of existence-assuring
outcomes; it is also measured and evaluated by its quality. The temporal definition of self-de-
termined work (tSW) offers the possibility to research an individual’s perception of work in
relation to other activities that generate relational goods. In this way, work is not defined in
opposition to good living, but is rather understood as a source of well-being in and of itself.
Secondly, with its focus on time expenditure, the IGL renders visible reproductive activities
that have often been analytically and methodologically neglected. Activities like housework
and care giving are crucial for the preservation or improvement of social well-being. In
contrast to the common dichotomy between paid and unpaid work, the IGL explicitly
acknowledges that both areas can contribute to well-being. This recognition establishes a
temporal link between wage and reproductive labour. The systematic accounting for time
allocated to nurturing, caring and loving offers a better basis on which to adequately value
reproductive work. Such activities are not yet properly appraised within larger parts of soci-
ety, as has been shockingly visible during the COVID-19 crisis.
Thirdly, the IGL focusses on the social dimension of well-being. It situates subjective expe-
riences of time scarcity and time affluence in the broader communal context by highlighting
the importance of relational goods. As these goods stress the quality of activities and the
social interactions within, well-being loses its purely individualistic connotation. It then
becomes possible to investigate the specific social and structural environments in which
these activities are pursued. This shift is also supported by the possibility to include additional
and more diverse macro indicators (eg those of inequality, democracy or health), offering
many opportunities for further fine-tuning in future studies.
Fourthly, the construction of the IGL allows for the integration of ecological indicators.
This connection between the state of nature and well-being has been acknowledged by
several studies (overview: Russell et al. 2013). Thus, it is possible to experiment with a variety
of indicators to capture how ecological processes affect the generation of relational goods –
allowing for context-specific analysis on different scales. The inclusion of such variables could
prove useful in establishing new links between the imperatives of economic growth, indi-
vidual demands for a good life and local ecological limits, perhaps with critical implications
for the SDG agenda.
While the methods used for targeted surveys were generally practicable, the indicators
and concepts of the IGL should certainly be honed and refined. As it remains an empirical
measuring method, it must be evaluated – like all empirical tools – with a critical view of its
normative assumptions. Furthermore, the manner in which data is generated represents a
challenge: in the last instance, interviewees gauged time expenditure and answered
2948 H.-J. BURCHARDT AND J. ICKLER

questions in ways that potentially reproduce social views and stigmas regarding work, lei-
sure, gender, etc. Here, the experience of other time-centred surveys can help to improve
interview behaviour and to avoid the effect of personal biases.21 Nevertheless, the IGL offers
a consideration of time use and corresponding practices in a manner that is easily applicable
and allows for international comparisons. The current methodology, while requiring further
refinement, is already precise enough to gather valid data. Moreover, although the index is
an aggregate, the category of time itself allows for a deeper theoretical and empirical con-
sideration of existing inequalities. Furthermore, such debates can now be underpinned by
solid empirical data, opening avenues to collectively question popular notions of well-being
and economic development. Therefore, supported by the weight of such empirical results,
the IGL might transform attitudes towards the connection between well-being and time in
ways that engender new political opportunities and empower campaigns for more equal
and just societies.

Conclusion
The debates around Buen Vivir in Latin America and beyond have shown the desire to dis-
cover possible pathways for meaningful change to the status quo and, particularly, to form
actionable responses to ecological and social crises. Taking up this inspiration, a closer con-
sideration of well-being and the conditions under which it is fostered illuminates problems
while also revealing opportunities for sustainable development. Here, the introduced sta-
tistical index, the IGL, developed in Ecuador and featuring the measurement of time spent
on the generation of relational goods, seems to be an ideal and practicable method to
capture local contexts as well as socio-cultural particularities. As seen in the case of Ecuador,
marginalised and poor communities lack the time to balance work, reproduction, leisure
and political engagement. Among the middle classes in Germany and Ecuador, a reduction
of working time and a reorientation towards social activities could improve the well-being
of many. The findings strongly suggest that the connection between time-based inequalities
and well-being offer possibilities for scholars of various disciplines to research the distribution
of temporal resources and the relation between material and non-material factors of well-be-
ing in different contexts. This accentuation of such non-material factors of well-being also
strongly supports resource-saving approaches, contributing to programmes of sustainable
development and complementing existing approaches (eg the SDGs).
The IGL stands as a concrete proposal to dethrone material wealth as the sole indicator
of societal well-being and may be part of broader projects to research, promote and imple-
ment alternative policies. Through its framework, focussing on the availability of time for
the generation of relational goods, it helps uncover new options for critical social sciences
and political campaigns alike. The index aids in the articulation of a political strategy for
socio-ecological transformation and sustainable development across many different scales
and societal contexts. Past political experiences again and again have demonstrated the
difficulty in making alternative political visions accessible or programmes applicable in
diverse regional contexts and for different strata of society. We argue that the nexus of
well-being and time helps make such political proposals more attractive – especially for
already established programmes like the SDGs.
By recognising that statistical indicators fulfil a normative function and have a huge
impact on personal behaviour and politics (Desrosières 1998), the IGL could serve as an
 Third World Quarterly 2949

important tool for the promotion of an alternative vision of well-being, further shifting individual
views, beliefs and – ultimately – social practices. As Mau (2019) has argued, individuals in
‘metric societies’ tend to orient themselves after statistical measurements and benchmarks.
Figures like the GDP have engendered specific goals, methods and expectations. Lately, the
COVID-19 pandemic has shown how certain figures (reproduction rate, infection numbers,
mortality rate, death toll) can have a powerful impact upon personal and collective action.
If time affluence as a necessary and integral part of well-being could serve as one such
benchmark, societies might opt for more reciprocal, ecologically sound and integrative ways
of living. Moreover, the IGL focuses on interconnections and helps identify shared challenges
for states and societies around the world: when time, time scarcity and time affluence appear
as new benchmarks for well-being, or lack thereof, innovative proposals to redistribute tem-
poral resources could benefit the Global North and South alike. Here, societies, politicians
and individuals could learn from experiences in other world regions. Policymakers, labour
unions and social movements could promote time-based policies to reorganise the temporal
conditions of society. Though, one should stress that this course does not reject the right of
‘have nots’ to better material living conditions. Rather, a purposeful redistribution of temporal
resources could (1) grant the poorest the possibility for decent work in a way that respects
their specific material and temporal needs and (2) offer the middle classes compensation in
moments with rising time demands.
In this regard, new labour market policies and work-related initiatives are areas where
time-based policies could form a powerful intervention (Kallis et al. 2013). However, time-
based politics also address broader social relations, aiming at a certain quality of economic
activity that caters to individual, family and collective well-being. The puzzle, thus, is to create
an integrated environment in which non-alienating economic activities are valued and can
sustain the material minimum required for living. While this is a complex task, the focus on
time-based inequalities can render visible areas wherein concrete measures are possible,
providing options for precarious and informal workers in the Global South as well as aiding
the growing global middle classes who often yearn for more available time (ILO 2015). Time-
based policies could encourage the reduction of working hours, innovations in transporta-
tion that decrease travelling time or health standards that ensure employability and reduce
precarity – all with possible positive effects on the environment as well (Hayden and Shandra
2009). Experiences from the COVID-19 pandemic have shown how a reconfiguration of work–
life boundaries can be achieved in a manner that contributes to more subjective well-being
(Lades et al. 2020).
Another promising field for time-based approaches is existing gender-specific inequalities
and the disempowerment of women around the world. Women face limited access to redis-
tributive and participatory systems and often have to cope with the competing demands
of wage labour and care activities. However, time-based investigations into gendered posi-
tions in society can help identify the unequal distribution of material and temporal resources
between men and women. This is especially the case with regard to the amount of time
spent performing unpaid reproductive work – such as care and emotional labour – that is
currently unequally distributed and undervalued. This endeavour could establish a basis for
reasserting the value of reproductive activities that prove crucial for living and enjoying life.
Time-based policies could, therefore, aim to renegotiate the temporal responsibilities of
feminised activities to better support women across the Global North and South (eg parental
leaves and work re-entry; Evans and Baxter 2013; Biesecker and Hofmeister 2010). In this
2950 H.-J. BURCHARDT AND J. ICKLER

regard, time serves as an excellent category for the valuation of activities in a manner that
transcends the narrow focus upon material resources and formal, paid labour.
The IGL echoes the call of Buen Vivir and similar approaches proposing new narratives of
living well and development, beyond accumulating more and more material goods. The
empirical measurement of time affluence and the justification for time-based policies might
provide impetus for the political, social and ecological transformation that is perhaps needed
now more than ever. The theoretical programme presented in this paper undergirds this call
for more time affluence in different social strata and various regional contexts around the
world. In doing so, the IGL complements and goes beyond existing initiatives and might
help in promoting actual sustainable development. The IGL seems like the perfect indicator
to measure the achievement of the SDGs, not just in individual goals or sectors but as a
whole. So, let us all take the time to think more about time…

Disclosure statement
No potential competing interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors
Hans-Jürgen Burchardt is an economist and social scientist working as Full Professor for international
and intersocietal relations at the University of Kassel, Germany. He is the Director of the Centre for
Advanced Latin American Studies (CALAS) and focuses his research on North–South relations, Latin
American studies and social inequalities. He is the editor of several books on different aspects of
development theory and practice. Among his publications are Umwelt und Entwicklung in globaler
Perspektive: Ressourcen – Konflikte – Degrowth (2017, with Stefan Peters) and Nada dura para siempre:
Neo-extractivismo tras el boom de las materias primas (with Rafael Domínguez, Carlos Larrea, and
Stefan Peters).
Jan Ickler is Researcher and PhD Candidate at the University of Kassel Comment: employment ends
11/2021 focussing his doctoral research on the role of economic elites in the political economy of
Latin America. After completing his master’s degree in global political economy, he undertook a
research project in Ecuador. His other fields of interest are social inequalities, resource policy and
development theory.

Notes
1. Most political initiatives and development programmes still often focus on well-being in terms
of monetary income and material consumption (Seaford et al. 2012). Here, a systematic incor-
poration of the different dimensions and factors that contribute to societal well-being is miss-
ing, and critiques of economic growth as the sole indicator for development have – as of yet –
only seldom and partially produced fresh approaches for re-evaluating well-being as a basis
for transformative politics.
2. Today, Buen Vivir is mainly discussed in post-development literature as an intervention from
the Global South and a possible ‘alternative to development’ (Escobar 2011, p. xiii; see also:
Kothari et al. 2019). In this regard, ‘development’ itself is criticised, echoing indigenous cri-
tiques of ideas of linear progress and opposition to a universal understanding of modernity
(Rist 2010; Calisto Friant and Langmore 2015; Mejía 2015). The political organisation of social
life should not be based on an imagined, teleological construction of an evolution shaped by
Western developmental histories, but rather upon a consideration of different worldviews and
ways of living of people in different local contexts. Buen Vivir is considered a discursive plat-
form to advance alternative perspectives (Demaria and Kothari 2017).
 Third World Quarterly 2951

3. This paper uses the terminology of ‘well-being’ when discussing the diverse roots of feeling
well and refers to ‘happiness’ when marking a specific individual affect. For definitions and
discussion, see the second section.
4. Eudaimonia (εὐδαιμονία) is the idea of leading a successful life in accordance with the princi-
ples of a philosophical ethic combined with a balanced state of mind.
5. In doing so, we do not advocate empiricism, but primarily take the normative power of empir-
ical results as a reason to grant a ‘bridging function’ to quantitative measurements of well-be-
ing. This is done consciously in the knowledge that, firstly, the index presented here is as
pre-structured by its indicator selection as more economistic approaches. Secondly, the indica-
tors used by the IGL, such as schooling, Gini coefficient, etc., are only able to reflect existing
realities to a limited extent, if not in a distorting way.
6. ‘Living well’ in an Aristotelian sense also includes the virtuous life. The differences in the under-
standing of happiness and well-being between Aristotle and Bentham are compared in the
philosophical observations of Nussbaum (2012).
7. Walter Mignolo arrives at the same conclusion from a decolonial perspective, and points out
that since the eighteenth century, two main distinctions of Western modernity have been es-
tablished as a duality: on the one hand, that of tradition and modernity; and, on the other, that
of nature and culture (Mignolo 2011).
8. Aleida Assmann (2013) understands time regimes as systems of orientation and temporal or-
dering, in which values regarding time are inscribed in culture.
9. Acceleration is understood as an increase in quantity per unit of time or, equivalently, as the
reduction of time required per unit. Technical acceleration includes increased speeds of trans-
port, of communication and of production. Social acceleration is promoted by the increasingly
short life cycles of consumer products (clothing, technology) and their sweeping effects on
family or employment structures (eg as a result of increased flexibility for) as well as on the
marked decrease in social orientation. Acceleration in the pace of life results from an increase
in the number of incidences of contact and experience over a given time in three categories:
increased speed of, the curtailment of or dispensing with breaks and multitasking (Rosa 2013).
10. The definition of ‘relational goods’ reflects a broad consensus on the elements that are consid-
ered to be important for a good life. The concept of relational goods was developed almost
simultaneously in 1986 by the philosopher Martha Nussbaum and the sociologist Pierpaulo
Donati, as well as in 1987 and 1989 by the two economists Benedetto Gui and Carole Uhlaner
(overview: Bruni 2006, 2008).
11. The operationalisation follows the proposals of Ramírez (2012); a detailed description can be
found in his open-access publication.
12. The time for self-determined (tSW) work has been operationalised as the time frame in which
individuals do not separate between ‘work’ and ‘living’. Leisure (tL) denotes the time used for
activities of personal recreation. Time for social relations (tS) encompasses all activities that are
geared towards friendship, love and other interpersonal ties. Time for public life consists of
activities in the public realm (eg community work, volunteering and politics).
13. This value reflects whether, and at what level, a society can guarantee the fulfilment of the ex-
istential basic needs of its members (eg through health care, food security, provision of hous-
ing, etc.).
14. Disease is understood as the antithesis of good living. Times of illness are an expression not
only of personal circumstances, but also of social circumstances which can affect the individu-
al through illness (eg Pickett and Wilkinson’s study (2009), which correlates disease phenome-
na with well-being).
15. Adjusted IGL = GL1 × GL2 × [1+ (school years/100)] × (1 − Gini) (3).
16. These variables should take into account the degree to which skills can be attained by an indi-
vidual in order to enjoy the broadest possible relational goods (eg through potential for anal-
ysis and reflection, articulation, etc.).
17. The indicators can be criticised: the Gini does not sufficiently account for intra-societal inequal-
ities and is limited to the material dimension. In countries like Ecuador with alternative and
indigenous forms of schooling, it is also difficult to equate average school years with education.
2952 H.-J. BURCHARDT AND J. ICKLER

18. In this study, the ecological indicator of the original framework has been dropped to ensure
comparability.
19. Since only 3.4% of all respondents say that they are self-determined during working hours
(tSW), better earners do not seem to experience higher levels of well-being in employment
(Ramírez 2012).
20. This is also documented by the Gini coefficient, which is 0.52 for Ecuador during the calculation
year, while the IGL inequality value measures 0.38 points (Ramírez 2012, 73).
21. See Krueger et al. (2009) regarding the experience sampling method and newer research designs.

ORCID
Jan Ickler https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4144-1200
Hans-Jürgen Burchardt https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2330-8345

Bibliography
Adam, B. 1995. Timewatch: The Social Analysis of Time. 1st ed. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Allin, P., and D. J. Hand. 2014. The Wellbeing of Nations – Meaning, Motive and Measurement. 1st ed.
Chichester: Wiley and Sons.
Alonso González, P., and A. Vázquez. 2015. “An Ontological Turn in the Debate on Buen Vivir – Sumak
Kawsay in Ecuador: Ideology, Knowledge, and the Common.” Latin American and Caribbean Ethnic
Studies 10 (3): 315–334. doi:10.1080/17442222.2015.1056070.
Assmann, A. 2013. “Transformation of the Modern Time Regime.” In Breaking up Time. Negotiating the
Borders between Present, past and Future, edited by C. Lorenz and B. Bevernage, 39–56. Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck Ruprecht.
Auyero, J. 2012. Patients of the State. The Politics of Waiting in Argentina. 1st ed. Durham: Duke
University Press.
Becker, G. 1976. The Economic Approach to Human Behavior. 1st ed. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Biesecker, A., and S. Hofmeister. 2010. “Focus: (Re)Productivity: Sustainable Relations Both between
Society and Nature and between the Genders.” Ecological Economics 69 (8): 1703–1711.
doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.03.025.
Bruni, L. 2006. Civil Happiness. Economics and Human Flourishing in Historical Perspective. 1st ed. New
York: Routledge.
Bruni, L. 2008. Reciprocity, Altruism and the Civil Society: In Praise of Heterogeneity. 1st ed. New York:
Routledge.
Calisto Friant, M., and J. Langmore. 2015. “The Buen Vivir: A Policy to Survive the Anthropocene?”
Global Policy 6 (1): 64–71. doi:10.1111/1758-5899.12187.
Caria, S. A., and P. Falco. 2018. “Does the Risk of Poverty Reduce Happiness?” Economic Development
and Cultural Change 67 (1): 1–28. doi:10.1086/697556.
Clark, A. E. 2018. “Four Decades of the Economics of Happiness – Where Next?” Review of Income and
Wealth 64 (2): 245–269. doi:10.1111/roiw.12369.
Cohen, E. F. 2018. The Political Value of Time. Citizenship, Duration, and Democratic Justice. 1st ed.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Comim, F., M. Qizilbash, and S. Alkire, eds. 2008. The Capability Approach. Concepts, Measures and
Applications. 1st ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cortez, D. 2021. Sumak kawsay y buen vivir, ¿dispositivos del desarrollo? Ética ambiental y gobierno
global. 1st ed. Quito: FLACSO Ecuador.
Dasgupta, P., and A. Duraiappah. 2012. “Well-Being and Wealth.” In Inclusive Wealth Report 2012.
Measuring Progress towards Sustainability, edited by UNU-IHDP & UNEP, 13–27. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
 Third World Quarterly 2953

Davies, W. 2015. The Happiness Industry. How Government and Big Business Sold Us Wellbeing. 1st ed.
London: Verso.
Demaria, F., and A. Kothari. 2017. “The Post-Development Dictionary Agenda: paths to the Pluriverse.”
Third World Quarterly 38 (12): 2588–2599. doi:10.1080/01436597.2017.1350821.
Desrosières, A. 1998. The Politics of Large Numbers. A History of Statistical Reasoning. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.
Diener, E., and R. Biswas-Diener. 2002. “Will Money Increase Subjective Well-Being? A Literature
Review and Guide to Needed Research.” Social Indicators Research 57 (2): 119–169. doi:10.1023
/A:1014411319119.
Doyal, L., and I. Gough. 1991. A Theory of Human Need. 1st ed. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Easterlin, R. 1974. “Does Economic Growth Improve the Human Lot? Some Empirical Evidence.” In
Nation and Households in Economic Growth: Essays in Honour of Moses Abramowitz, edited by P. A.
David and M. W. Reder, 89–125. New York, Academic Press.
Eckersley, R. 2013. “The Mixed Blessings of Material Progress: Diminishing Returns in the Pursuit of
Happiness.” In In the Exploration of Happiness. Present and Future Perspectives, edited by A. Delle
Fave, 227–246. Dordrecht: Springer.
Elias, N. 1993. Time: An Essay. Reprint ed. Edinburgh: Blackwell.
Escobar, A. 2011. Encountering Development. The Making and Unmaking of the Third World. Revised ed.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Evans, A., and J. Baxter, eds. 2013. Negotiating the Life Course: Stability and Change in Life Pathways. 1st
ed. New York: Springer.
Felice, E. 2016. “The Misty Grail: The Search for a Comprehensive Measure of Development and the
Reasons for GDP Primacy.” Development and Change 47 (5): 967–994. doi:10.1111/dech.12257.
Fioramonti, L. 2013. Gross Domestic Problem. The Politics behind the World’s Most Powerful Number. 1st
ed. New York: Zotero.
Goodin, R. E., J. M. Rice, A. Parpo, and L. Eriksson. 2008. Discretionary Time: A New Measure of Freedom.
1st ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hayden, A., and J. M. Shandra. 2009. “Hours of Work and the Ecological Footprint of Nations: An
Exploratory Analysis.” Local Environment 14 (6): 575–600. doi:10.1080/13549830902904185.
Helliwell, J., R. Layard, J. D. Sachs, and J. E. de Neve. 2020. World Happiness Report 2020. 1st ed. New
York: Sustainable Development Solutions Network and the Earth Institute & Columbia University.
https://worldhappiness.report/ed/2020/
Hidalgo-Capitán, A. L., and A. P. Cubillo-Guevara. 2017. “Deconstruction and Genealogy of Latin
American Good Living (Buen Vivir). The (Triune) Good Living.” Revue Internationale de Politique de
Développement 9 (9): 23–50. doi:10.4000/poldev.2351.
ILO (International Labor Organization). 2015. The Transition from the Informal to the Formal Economy.
Geneva: ILO. https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/@ed_dialogue/@actrav/documents/
publication/wcms_545928.pdf
Jackson, T. 2009. Prosperity without Growth: Economics for a Finite Planet. 1st ed. London: Earthscan.
Juster, F. T., P. N. Courant, and G. K. Dow. 1981. “A Theoretical Framework for the Measurement of Well-
Being.” Review of Income and Wealth 27 (1): 1–31. doi:10.1111/j.1475-4991.1981.tb00190.x.
Kahneman, D. 1999. “Objective Happiness.” In Well-Being: The Foundations of Hedonic Psychology, edited
by D. Kahneman, E. Diener, and N. Schwarz, 1st ed., 3–25. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Kallis, G., M. Kalush, H. O’Flynn, J. Rossiter, and N. Ashford. 2013. “‘Friday Off’: Reducing Working Hours
in Europe.” Sustainability 5 (4): 1545–1567. doi:10.3390/su5041545.
Koch, M., and O. Mont, eds. 2016. Sustainability and the Political Economy of Welfare. 1st ed. New York:
Routledge.
Kothari, A., A. Salleh, A. Escobar, F. Demaria, and A. Acosta, eds. 2019. Pluriverse. A Post-Development
Dictionary. 1st ed. New Delhi: Tulika Books.
Krueger, A., D. Kahneman, D. Schkade, N. Schwarz, and A. A. Stone. 2009. “National Time Accounting:
The Currency of Life.” In Measuring the Subjective Well-Being of Nations: National Accounts of Time
Use and Well-Being, edited by A. Krueger, 8–86. Cambridge: NBER.
Lades, L. K., K. Laffan, M. Daly, and L. Delaney. 2020. “Daily Emotional Well-Being during the COVID-19
Pandemic.” British Journal of Health Psychology 25 (4): 902–911. doi:10.1111/bjhp.12450.
2954 H.-J. BURCHARDT AND J. ICKLER

Layard, R., G. Mayraz, and S. Nickell. 2009. Does Relative Income Matter? Are the Critics Right? CEP
Discussion Papers. 1st ed. London: LSE.
Mau, S. 2019. The Metric Society: On the Quantification of the Social. 1st ed. Cambridge: Polity.
Max-Neef, M. 1991. Human Scale Development. Conception, Application and Further Reflections. 1st ed.
New York: Apex Press.
Mejía, M. 2015. “The Economy of Life, Buen Vivir, and the Search for Alternatives in Latin America and
the Caribbean.” The Ecumenical Review 67 (2): 208–213. doi:10.1111/erev.12153.
Mignolo, W. D. 2011. The Darker Side of Western Modernity. Global Futures, Decolonial Options. 1st ed.
Durham: Duke University Press.
Nussbaum, M. 2008. Women and Human Development. The Capabilities Approach. 13th ed. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Nussbaum, M. 2012. “Who Is the Happy Warrior? Philosophy, Happiness Research, and Public Policy.”
International Review of Economics 59 (4): 335–361. doi:10.1007/s12232-012-0168-7.
OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development). 2021. How’s Life 2020. Measuring
Well-Being. Paris: OECD.
Pontarollo, N., M. Orellana, and J. Segovia. 2020. “The Determinants of Subjective Well-Being in a
Developing Country: The Ecuadorian Case.” Journal of Happiness Studies 21 (8): 3007–3035.
doi:10.1007/s10902-019-00211-w.
Ramírez, R. 2012. La vida (buena) como riqueza de los pueblos. Hacia una socioecología política del tiempo.
1st ed. Quito: IAEN.
Ramírez, R., J. Schobin, and H.-J. Burchardt. 2021. El buen y mal vivir del bienestar/desarrollo en
Alemania y Ecuador. Reflexiones a partir del análisis del tiempo” Revista Crítica de Ciências Sociais
122: 3–30. https://journals.openedition.org/rccs/10542
Rist, G. 2010. The History of Development – From Western Origins to Global Faith. 1st ed. London: Zed
Books.
Rosa, H. 2013. Social Acceleration. A New Theory of Modernity. 1st ed. New York: Columbia University
Press.
Russell, R., A. D. Guerry, P. Balvanera, R. K. Gould, X. Basurto, K. M. A. Chan, S. Klain, et al. 2013. “Humans
and Nature: How Knowing and Experiencing Nature Affect Well-Being.” Annual Review of
Environment and Resources 38 (1): 473–502. doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-012312-110838.
Scitovsky, T. 1992. The Joyless Economy. The Psychology of Human Satisfaction. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Seaford, C., S. Mahoney, M. Wackernagel, J. Larson, and R. Ramírez. 2012. Beyond GDP – Measuring Our
Progress. London: nef.
Sen, A. 1985. “Well-Being, Agency and Freedom: The Dewey Lectures 1984.” Journal of Philosophy 82
(4): 169–221. doi:10.2307/2026184.
Sointu, E. 2005. “The Rise of an Ideal: Tracing Changing Discourses of Wellbeing.” The Sociological
Review 53 (2): 255–274. doi:10.1111/j.1467-954X.2005.00513.x.
Spratt, J. 2017. Wellbeing, Equity and Education. A Critical Analysis of Policy Discourses of Wellbeing in
Schools. 1st ed. Cham: Springer International.
Stiglitz, J., A. Sen, and J. P. Fitoussi. 2009. “Report by the Commission on the Measurement of
Economic Performance and Social Progress.” CMEPSP. Accessed October 7 2019. http://library.bsl.
org.au/jspui/bitstream/1/1267/1/Measurement_of_economic_performance_and_social_prog-
ress.pdf
Topp, C. W., S. Østergaard Dinesen, S. Søndergaard, and P. Bech. 2015. “The WHO-5 Well-Being Index:
A Systematic Review of the Literature.” Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics 84 (3): 167–176.
doi:10.1159/000376585.
UN (United Nations). 2021. The 17 Goals. New York: United Nations. Accessed February 22 2021.
https://sdgs.un.org/goals
van Praag, B., and A. Ferrer-I-Carbonell. 2014. Happiness Quantified. A Satisfaction Calculus Approach.
1st ed. New York: Oxford University Press.
Varelius, J. 2013. “Objective Explanations of Individual Well-Being.” In The Exploration of Happiness.
Present and Future Perspectives, edited by A. Delle Fave, 15–30. Dordrecht: Springer.
 Third World Quarterly 2955

Villalba, U. 2013. “Buen Vivir vs Development: A Paradigm Shift in the Andes?” Third World Quarterly 34
(8): 1427–1442. doi:10.1080/01436597.2013.831594.
Waterman, A. S. 2008. “Reconsidering Happiness: A Eudaimonist’s Perspective.” Journal of Positive
Psychology 3 (4): 34–252. doi:10.1080/17439760802303002.
Whitrow, G. J. 1988. Time in History. 1st ed. New York: Oxford University Press.
Wilkinson, R., and K. Pickett. 2009. The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better.
1st ed. London: Allen Lane.
Zuzanek, J. 2013. “Does Being Well-Off Make Us Happier? Problems of Measurement.” Journal of
Happiness Studies 14 (3): 795–815. doi:10.1007/s10902-012-9356-0.