Cite this article as:

Kalinnikova M. V. The well-being of modern society: The sociological status of measurement. Izvestiya of Saratov University. Sociology. Politology, 2021, vol. 21, iss. 4, pp. 377-380. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18500/1818-9601-2021-21-4-377-380


This is an open access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY 4.0).
UDC: 
316.334.52
Language: 
Russian

The well-being of modern society: The sociological status of measurement

The article is devoted to the problem of revaluation of the value components that are included in the concept of “welfare”, which is relevant for modern society. Today it is becoming very important for a person to assess his/her well-being in order to realize his/her role in society. It is considered that well-being is a multi-level, qualitative indicator that combines material resources, consumer goods, the population state of health, its social and natural environment. However, quantitative methods of measuring well-being have not yet been sufficiently studied. The purpose of this work is to conduct a sociological analysis of various approaches to the assessment of the concept of well-being and to identify the possibilities of its measurement. The article traces the evolution of social ideas of well-being, identifies its stages and sociological specifics. The analysis of the main methodological constructs of well-being is carried out on the basis of the socio-economic sources: socio-psychological, socio-economic and socio-ecological. The author identified the socio-ecological source and proposed to consider the structure of well-being as a leading direction consisting of three elements, such as: the standard of living, living conditions, and the living environment. However, the quantitative measurements of a particular component of well-being haven’t yet been sufficiently studied. The method for calculating the integral indicator as the sum of the correction coefficients’ values and the areas of the studied spaces per capita is proposed. The specific weight of such private indices in the general formula of well-being is expressed by means of the psychological coefficient. It is concluded that the described method of measuring well-being allows for the objective comparison in time and space.

Literature
  1. Современный экономический словарь. Справочная литература / сост. Б. А. Райзберг, Л. Ш. Лозовский, Е. Б. Старолдубцева. 2-е изд., испр. М. : ИНФРА-М, 1999.
  2. Толковый словарь Ушакова онлайн. URL: https://ushakovdictionary.ru/ (дата обращения: 10.07.2021).
  3. Качур Н. В. Эволюция социологической интерпретации счастья // Известия Саратовского университета. Новая серия. Серия : Социология. Политология. 2013. Т. 13, вып. 4. С. 44–48. https://doi.org/10.18500/1818-9601-2013-13-4-44-48
  4. Парето В. Учебник политической экономии / пер. с фр. А. А. Зотова, В. Л. Силаева ; предисл. В. С. Автономова. М. : РИОР ; ИНФРА-М, 2016.
  5. Маршалл А. Принципы политической экономии. М. : Директ-Медиа, 2012. 2127 с. Режим доступа: по подписке. URL: https://biblioclub.ru/index.php?page=book&id=26824 (дата обращения: 06.08.2021).
  6. Пигу А. Экономическая теория благосостояния : в 2 т. / под общ. ред. С. П. Аукуционека ; пер. А. Г. Фонотов, М. С. Штенгарц. М. : Прогресс, 1985. Т. 1. С. 73.
  7. Нагимова А. М. Социологический анализ качества жизни населения : региональный аспект. Казань : Казан. гос. ун-т, 2010.
  8. Волчкова Л. Т. Благосостояние как момент, результат и предпосылка социального развития общества // Проблемы теоретической социологии : сб. Вып. 3 / отв. ред. А. О. Бороноев. СПб. : Изд-во СПбГУ, 2000. С. 196–211.
  9. Сен-Марк Ф. Социализация природы / пер. с фр. Л. М. Степачева, Ю. А. Школенко ; предисл. И. Б. Новик. М. : Прогресс, 1977. С. 128.
  10. Там же. С. 134.
  11. Романова А. Ю., Цоберг О. А. К вопросу оценки качества зеленых насаждений для комфортной городской среды (на примере пешеходной зоны «улица Рахова» г. Саратова) // Известия Саратовского университета. Новая серия. Серия : Науки о Земле. 2020. Т. 20, вып. 1. С. 27–35. https://doi.org/10.18500/1819-7663-2020-20-1-27-35