Research Article: 2017 Vol: 23 Issue: 2
Discovering the Configurations of the Factors Affecting Community Well-Being in Korea Using QCA Method
Young-Chool Choi, Chungbuk National University
Ji-Hyun Jang, Sangmyung University
Keywords
Community Well-Being, Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA)
Introduction
Many factors affecting well-being operate at community level, not at central level. For example, levels of employment, access to education, and quality of environment vary by community. Differences between communities within a country are as important as differences between countries (OECD, 2013). Recently, there has been a consensus that macro-economic statistics on well-being at national level do not reflect the genuine well-being of people and their aspirations. Accordingly, it is said that there is need for evidence enabling us to explain people?s well-being in a variety of areas. From this point of view, in order for us to show the full picture of people?s well-being, we need to explain how people think of the community in which they live, how they respond when the community does not meet their needs, and whether access to services influences people?s choices of community to live in. In this regard, we can say that investigating community well-being can contribute toward discovering problems hidden behind well-being at national level. An overview of well-being at community level helps communities with low levels of well-being benchmark other communities with high levels of well-being within a country or in other countries. Furthermore, indicators of community well-being help policymakers and academics evaluate the extent to which community achievements and performances affect national prosperity and diverse social challenges. Understanding well-being in communities where people live and comprehending what factors determine levels of community well-being matters to community policymaking and design at both central and local level, because policymakers can thereby identify which elements are poor in communities with low levels of well-being and what should be done to strengthen them.
Under this background, this research aims to identify which communities can be included in the category of those meeting the requirements for community well-being in Korea, to discover the combinations of conditions that affect those communities which have deficiencies in the area of community well-being, and to t forward policy suggestions for policymakers in each community aimed at enhancing that community?s well-being.
Theoretical Discussion
The lexical meaning of well-being is ?a state of emotion reaching avid pleasure through satisfaction? (Kim et al., 2008). The concept of well-being has been defined differently at different times according to different philosophies and religious perspectives. Scholars argue that the factors affecting well-being are diverse, and that their effects and relationships differ. In determining a well-being index at national or individual level, economic factors have been considered important in the past. Recently, however, other factors, such as social or environmental factors, have been regarded as essential, indicating that perspectives on well-being and methods of measuring it vary according to period. In addition, in certain periods objective conditions have primarily been taken into account in measuring well-being, whereas at other times subjective conditions have been looked upon as essential. It is also true that many scholars have been conducting research work investigating precisely what well-being and a state of well-being mean (Choi and Moon, 2011).
The word ?well-being? has sometimes been used interchangeably with ?happiness?, ?quality of life?, ?subjective happiness?, ?life satisfaction?, and ?psychological happiness?. More specifically, the word has the following three characteristics. First, it has subjective aspects. Scholars argue that well-being exists within the scope of individual experience. This means that external conditions such as health, wealth, prestige, and physical comfort may affect well-being, but they do not include the intrinsic elements of it. Second, well-being reflects positive and optimistic aspects relating to life (Choi, 2008). Third, well-being includes an evaluation of the general aspects of individual life. Even though well-being seems to embrace specific aspects of life, its core value relates to an evaluation of general aspects of individual life.
A community can be defined as a small or large social unit (a group of people) who have something in common, such as norms, religion, values, or identity. Often - but not always - communities share a sense of place that is situated in a given geographical area (e.g. a country, village, town, or neighborhood). Durable relations that extend beyond immediate genealogical ties also define a sense of community. People tend to define those social ties as important to their identity, practice, and roles in social institutions like family, home, work, government, society, or humanity, at large. Although communities are usually small relative to personal social ties (micro-level "community" may also refer to large group affiliations (or macro-level), such as national communities, international communities, and virtual communities (Wikipedia; Kee et al., 2016). Here, we define community well-being as a state of condition reaching avid pleasure through satisfaction at individual level as well as at community level, reflecting individual and collective interests together within community (Kee et al., 2016).
From an empirical point of view, some studies of community well-being and community development have been conducted to date. Most of these have focused primarily on people?s satisfaction in diverse areas of their lives, but without considering the levels of disparity in their satisfaction. In other words, mean scores for satisfaction have been considered, but differences in satisfaction levels have not been. Something that has also not been considered is people?s perceptions of their community, especially in terms of conditions affecting diverse areas of their lives. Most studies have focused on people?s perceptions of their individual satisfaction levels, not on their perception of their communities themselves. This study, based on the definition of community well-being mentioned above, attempts to remedy these shortcomings, considering the differences among people?s satisfaction with life-areas such as health and education as well as the mean scores for their satisfaction with different life-areas. It also includes an analysis of people? perceptions of their individual levels of satisfaction with specific life-areas, and of their satisfaction with their communities.
Research Design
The analysis subjects of this research are the 17 regions in Korea. The sample consisted of 2,723 respondents living in Korea, collected by Young-hwa Kee and Seung-Jong Lee?s SSK research team in 2015. The questionnaire consists of six dimensions of capital. These are: Human Capital; Economic Capital; Natural Capital; Infrastructural Capital; Cultural Capital; and Social Capital. Human Capital consists of three sub-dimensions (health, welfare, education), and includes nine questions (indicators). Economic Capital includes six questions, Natural Capital five questions, Infrastructural Capital six questions, and Social Capital eight questions. For the analysis, Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) was employed. Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) was used. QCA is a comparative technique (Vink and Van Vliet, 2009) that is used to explain large social events concisely by using a small number of cases (5-55). Although QCA does not provide statistical results for generalization, it is a useful method that categorizes cases by their characteristics in a simple manner (Luck et al., 2006; Poveda, 2013; Rihoux, 2006). QCA, developed by Ragin (1987), has not provoked much interest until now. The main purpose of this method is to provide meaningful and concise interpretations on the causal patterns of the cases that are examined. This method aims to find the various causal conditions or condition factors that can fundamentally affect the result. That is, it begins with the assumption that one outcome does not belong to a set of one variable, but can belong to a set of many variables (Wagner and Shneider, 2010; Rihoux, 2006). Other characteristics of this methodology are the use of set theory, Boolean algebra, its formation of a truth table, and a concise approach to research data (Donnelly and Wiechula, 2013). The QCA method is of three broad kinds: crisp set QCA (CSQCA), fuzzy set QCA (FSQCA), and multi-value QCA (MVQCA). This research will use CSQCA, since this method processes data by changing independent variables and dependent variables into 0 or 1 according to a certain threshold. It is more convenient to set a threshold and categorize the independent values that affect the well-being score of communities (here second tier regions) included in this research into 0 and 1. This research will use the CSQCA program and the TOSMANA program.
Analysis
| Table 1: Community Well-Being: People?s Satisfaction With Life-Areas At An Individual Level | ||||||||||||||
| Community (province) | Human | Economic | Natural | Infrastructural | Cultural | Social | Overall | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Community (province) | Mean | S.D. | Mean | S.D. | Mean | S.D. | Mean | S.D. | Mean | S.D. | Mean | S.D. | Mean | S.D. |
| Seoul | 6.29 | 1.41 | 5.30 | 1.51 | 6.33 | 1.54 | 6.71 | 1.33 | 5.47 | 1.76 | 5.40 | 1.55 | 5.90 | 1.22 |
| Busan | 5.79 | 1.17 | 4.95 | 1.16 | 6.28 | 1.45 | 6.47 | 1.18 | 5.41 | 1.29 | 5.23 | 1.32 | 5.69 | 0.93 |
| Daegu | 5.66 | 1.24 | 4.92 | 1.49 | 5.66 | 1.84 | 6.10 | 1.71 | 5.09 | 1.63 | 5.44 | 1.80 | 5.48 | 1.41 |
| Incheon | 6.80 | 1.35 | 5.43 | 1.56 | 6.82 | 1.74 | 6.51 | 1.61 | 5.29 | 1.83 | 5.82 | 1.88 | 6.15 | 1.35 |
| Gwangju | 6.44 | 1.29 | 5.26 | 1.61 | 6.39 | 1.42 | 6.45 | 1.26 | 4.92 | 1.62 | 4.96 | 1.57 | 5.75 | 1.06 |
| Daejeon | 5.83 | 1.43 | 5.01 | 1.24 | 6.30 | 1.50 | 6.26 | 1.26 | 4.80 | 1.49 | 5.12 | 1.37 | 5.56 | 1.08 |
| Ulsan | 5.10 | 1.40 | 5.22 | 1.13 | 6.45 | 1.98 | 5.74 | 1.31 | 5.12 | 1.33 | 5.16 | 1.19 | 5.44 | 0.93 |
| Gyeonggi | 6.20 | 1.18 | 5.42 | 1.35 | 6.77 | 1.35 | 6.38 | 1.29 | 5.13 | 1.45 | 5.60 | 1.39 | 5.91 | 0.99 |
| Gangwon | 5.50 | 1.40 | 4.44 | 1.79 | 6.01 | 1.79 | 5.41 | 1.59 | 4.32 | 1.95 | 5.03 | 1.70 | 5.09 | 1.30 |
| Chungbuk | 6.39 | 1.34 | 5.80 | 1.39 | 7.29 | 1.31 | 6.61 | 1.24 | 6.22 | 1.33 | 6.36 | 1.24 | 6.45 | 1.00 |
| Chungnam | 5.99 | 1.48 | 5.78 | 1.31 | 6.90 | 1.61 | 6.68 | 1.59 | 5.45 | 1.63 | 6.75 | 1.55 | 6.25 | 1.18 |
| Jeonbuk | 6.11 | 1.42 | 4.82 | 1.58 | 6.96 | 1.61 | 6.45 | 1.52 | 5.59 | 1.75 | 6.08 | 1.61 | 6.02 | 1.23 |
| Jeonnam | 6.06 | 1.31 | 4.94 | 1.46 | 7.03 | 1.48 | 5.91 | 1.42 | 5.03 | 1.81 | 5.45 | 1.27 | 5.74 | 1.14 |
| Gyeongbuk | 5.13 | 1.46 | 4.83 | 1.36 | 7.29 | 1.54 | 5.94 | 1.40 | 5.37 | 1.61 | 5.71 | 1.57 | 5.71 | 1.09 |
| Gyeongnam | 5.47 | 1.12 | 5.10 | 1.11 | 7.43 | 1.29 | 6.20 | 1.16 | 5.66 | 1.53 | 5.47 | 1.37 | 5.88 | 0.76 |
| Overall | 5.92 | 1.33 | 5.15 | 1.40 | 6.66 | 1.56 | 6.25 | 1.39 | 5.26 | 1.60 | 5.57 | 1.49 | 5.80 | 1.11 |
It is hypothesized that the best community in terms of community well-being is one in which people?s satisfaction (mean score) in the six life-areas and with their community is high, and where differences (s.d.) in their levels of satisfaction with these life-areas and with their community are low. Table 1 shows the mean scores and s.d. (standard deviations) for people?s satisfaction in the six life-areas at individual level by 17 communities (provinces), and overall scores. It shows that Chungbuk has the highest mean score (6.45) in terms of overall score, followed by Chungnam (6.25). In terms of s.d. (differences in people?s satisfaction levels), Gyeongnam scores the lowest, implying that people living there feel they live together in similar ways and on an equal basis.
The word ?well-being? has sometimes been used interchangeably with ?happiness?, ?quality of life?, ?subjective happiness?, ?life satisfaction?, and ?psychological happiness?. More specifically, the word has the following three characteristics. First, it has subjective aspects. Scholars argue that well-being exists within the scope of individual experience. This means that external conditions such as health, wealth, prestige, and physical comfort may affect well-being, but they do not include the intrinsic elements of it. Second, well-being reflects positive and optimistic aspects relating to life (Choi, 2008). Third, well-being includes an evaluation of the general aspects of individual life. Even though well-being seems to embrace specific aspects of life, its core value relates to an evaluation of general aspects of individual life.
A community can be defined as a small or large social unit (a group of people) who have something in common, such as norms, religion, values, or identity. Often - but not always - communities share a sense of place that is situated in a given geographical area (e.g. a country, village, town, or neighborhood). Durable relations that extend beyond immediate genealogical ties also define a sense of community. People tend to define those social ties as important to their identity, practice, and roles in social institutions like family, home, work, government, society, or humanity, at large. Although communities are usually small relative to personal social ties (micro-level "community" may also refer to large group affiliations (or macro-level), such as national communities, international communities, and virtual communities (Wikipedia; Kee et al., 2016). Here, we define community well-being as a state of condition reaching avid pleasure through satisfaction at individual level as well as at community level, reflecting individual and collective interests together within community (Kee et al., 2016).
From an empirical point of view, some studies of community well-being and community development have been conducted to date. Most of these have focused primarily on people?s satisfaction in diverse areas of their lives, but without considering the levels of disparity in their satisfaction. In other words, mean scores for satisfaction have been considered, but differences in satisfaction levels have not been. Something that has also not been considered is people?s perceptions of their community, especially in terms of conditions affecting diverse areas of their lives. Most studies have focused on people?s perceptions of their individual satisfaction levels, not on their perception of their communities themselves. This study, based on the definition of community well-being mentioned above, attempts to remedy these shortcomings, considering the differences among people?s satisfaction with life-areas such as health and education as well as the mean scores for their satisfaction with different life-areas. It also includes an analysis of people? perceptions of their individual levels of satisfaction with specific life-areas, and of their satisfaction with their communities.
Research Design
The analysis subjects of this research are the 17 regions in Korea. The sample consisted of 2,723 respondents living in Korea, collected by Young-hwa Kee and Seung-Jong Lee?s SSK research team in 2015. The questionnaire consists of six dimensions of capital. These are: Human Capital; Economic Capital; Natural Capital; Infrastructural Capital; Cultural Capital; and Social Capital. Human Capital consists of three sub-dimensions (health, welfare, education), and includes nine questions (indicators). Economic Capital includes six questions, Natural Capital five questions, Infrastructural Capital six questions, and Social Capital eight questions. For the analysis, Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) was employed. Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) was used. QCA is a comparative technique (Vink and Van Vliet, 2009) that is used to explain large social events concisely by using a small number of cases (5-55). Although QCA does not provide statistical results for generalization, it is a useful method that categorizes cases by their characteristics in a simple manner (Luck et al., 2006; Poveda, 2013; Rihoux, 2006). QCA, developed by Ragin (1987), has not provoked much interest until now. The main purpose of this method is to provide meaningful and concise interpretations on the causal patterns of the cases that are examined. This method aims to find the various causal conditions or condition factors that can fundamentally affect the result. That is, it begins with the assumption that one outcome does not belong to a set of one variable, but can belong to a set of many variables (Wagner and Shneider, 2010; Rihoux, 2006). Other characteristics of this methodology are the use of set theory, Boolean algebra, its formation of a truth table, and a concise approach to research data (Donnelly and Wiechula, 2013). The QCA method is of three broad kinds: crisp set QCA (CSQCA), fuzzy set QCA (FSQCA), and multi-value QCA (MVQCA). This research will use CSQCA, since this method processes data by changing independent variables and dependent variables into 0 or 1 according to a certain threshold. It is more convenient to set a threshold and categorize the independent values that affect the well-being score of communities (here second tier regions) included in this research into 0 and 1. This research will use the CSQCA program and the TOSMANA program.
Analysis
It is hypothesized that the best community in terms of community well-being is one in which people?s satisfaction (mean score) in the six life-areas and with their community is high, and where differences (s.d.) in their levels of satisfaction with these life-areas and with their community are low. Table 1 shows the mean scores and s.d. (standard deviations) for people?s satisfaction in the six life-areas at individual level by 17 communities (provinces), and overall scores. It shows that Chungbuk has the highest mean score (6.45) in terms of overall score, followed by Chungnam (6.25). In terms of s.d. (differences in people?s satisfaction levels), Gyeongnam scores the lowest, implying that people living there feel they live together in similar ways and on an equal basis.
The word ?well-being? has sometimes been used interchangeably with ?happiness?, ?quality of life?, ?subjective happiness?, ?life satisfaction?, and ?psychological happiness?. More specifically, the word has the following three characteristics. First, it has subjective aspects. Scholars argue that well-being exists within the scope of individual experience. This means that external conditions such as health, wealth, prestige, and physical comfort may affect well-being, but they do not include the intrinsic elements of it. Second, well-being reflects positive and optimistic aspects relating to life (Choi, 2008). Third, well-being includes an evaluation of the general aspects of individual life. Even though well-being seems to embrace specific aspects of life, its core value relates to an evaluation of general aspects of individual life.
A community can be defined as a small or large social unit (a group of people) who have something in common, such as norms, religion, values, or identity. Often - but not always - communities share a sense of place that is situated in a given geographical area (e.g. a country, village, town, or neighborhood). Durable relations that extend beyond immediate genealogical ties also define a sense of community. People tend to define those social ties as important to their identity, practice, and roles in social institutions like family, home, work, government, society, or humanity, at large. Although communities are usually small relative to personal social ties (micro-level "community" may also refer to large group affiliations (or macro-level), such as national communities, international communities, and virtual communities (Wikipedia; Kee et al., 2016). Here, we define community well-being as a state of condition reaching avid pleasure through satisfaction at individual level as well as at community level, reflecting individual and collective interests together within community (Kee et al., 2016).
From an empirical point of view, some studies of community well-being and community development have been conducted to date. Most of these have focused primarily on people?s satisfaction in diverse areas of their lives, but without considering the levels of disparity in their satisfaction. In other words, mean scores for satisfaction have been considered, but differences in satisfaction levels have not been. Something that has also not been considered is people?s perceptions of their community, especially in terms of conditions affecting diverse areas of their lives. Most studies have focused on people?s perceptions of their individual satisfaction levels, not on their perception of their communities themselves. This study, based on the definition of community well-being mentioned above, attempts to remedy these shortcomings, considering the differences among people?s satisfaction with life-areas such as health and education as well as the mean scores for their satisfaction with different life-areas. It also includes an analysis of people? perceptions of their individual levels of satisfaction with specific life-areas, and of their satisfaction with their communities.
Research Design
The analysis subjects of this research are the 17 regions in Korea. The sample consisted of 2,723 respondents living in Korea, collected by Young-hwa Kee and Seung-Jong Lee?s SSK research team in 2015. The questionnaire consists of six dimensions of capital. These are: Human Capital; Economic Capital; Natural Capital; Infrastructural Capital; Cultural Capital; and Social Capital. Human Capital consists of three sub-dimensions (health, welfare, education), and includes nine questions (indicators). Economic Capital includes six questions, Natural Capital five questions, Infrastructural Capital six questions, and Social Capital eight questions. For the analysis, Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) was employed. Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) was used. QCA is a comparative technique (Vink and Van Vliet, 2009) that is used to explain large social events concisely by using a small number of cases (5-55). Although QCA does not provide statistical results for generalization, it is a useful method that categorizes cases by their characteristics in a simple manner (Luck et al., 2006; Poveda, 2013; Rihoux, 2006). QCA, developed by Ragin (1987), has not provoked much interest until now. The main purpose of this method is to provide meaningful and concise interpretations on the causal patterns of the cases that are examined. This method aims to find the various causal conditions or condition factors that can fundamentally affect the result. That is, it begins with the assumption that one outcome does not belong to a set of one variable, but can belong to a set of many variables (Wagner and Shneider, 2010; Rihoux, 2006). Other characteristics of this methodology are the. use of set theory, Boolean algebra, its formation of a truth table, and a concise approach to research data (Donnelly and Wiechula, 2013). The QCA method is of three broad kinds: crisp set QCA (CSQCA), fuzzy set QCA (FSQCA), and multi-value QCA (MVQCA). This research will use CSQCA, since this method processes data by changing.
Table 2 shows that Chungbuk?s mean score in terms of people?s satisfaction with their communities is the highest (6.35), meaning that people living there feel themselves to have a greater level of well-being at community level than those living in the other communities. In other words, people living in Chungbuk are the most satisfied with their community. However, in terms of s.d. Gyeongnam scores the lowest (0.89); this means that the differences among people living in Gyeongnam are not great, implying that satisfaction with the community is fairly uniform.
| Table 2: Community Well-Being: People?s Satisfaction With Their Communities At A Community Level | ||||||||||||||
| Community (province) | Human | Economic | Natural | Infrastructural | Cultural | Social | Overall | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Community (province) | Mean | S.D. | Mean | S.D. | Mean | S.D. | Mean | S.D. | Mean | S.D. | Mean | S.D. | Mean | S.D. |
| Seoul | 6.31 | 1.39 | 5.35 | 1.49 | 6.28 | 1.60 | 6.63 | 1.45 | 5.79 | 1.67 | 5.66 | 1.44 | 5.96 | 1.25 |
| Busan | 5.70 | 1.34 | 4.91 | 1.10 | 5.96 | 1.33 | 6.19 | 1.21 | 5.40 | 1.27 | 5.59 | 1.31 | 5.61 | 0.98 |
| Daegu | 5.49 | 1.31 | 4.85 | 1.37 | 5.47 | 1.79 | 5.97 | 1.63 | 5.11 | 1.64 | 5.43 | 1.68 | 5.39 | 1.36 |
| Incheon | 6.87 | 1.41 | 5.64 | 1.62 | 6.63 | 1.70 | 6.60 | 1.58 | 5.59 | 1.69 | 6.05 | 1.76 | 6.24 | 1.34 |
| Gwangju | 6.36 | 1.24 | 5.02 | 1.48 | 6.47 | 1.58 | 6.44 | 1.31 | 4.91 | 1.47 | 5.22 | 1.36 | 5.74 | 0.98 |
| Daejeon | 5.82 | 1.29 | 5.20 | 1.29 | 6.08 | 1.40 | 6.08 | 1.24 | 5.2 | 1.30 | 5.31 | 1.27 | 5.62 | 1.08 |
| Ulsan | 5.40 | 1.27 | 5.34 | 1.22 | 6.52 | 2.06 | 5.89 | 1.37 | 5.65 | 1.31 | 5.43 | 1.17 | 5.69 | 1.15 |
| Gyeonggi | 6.23 | 1.18 | 5.31 | 1.27 | 6.66 | 1.39 | 6.39 | 1.38 | 5.43 | 1.29 | 5.93 | 1.27 | 6.01 | 0.94 |
| Gangwon | 4.98 | 1.43 | 4.17 | 1.72 | 5.64 | 1.79 | 5.22 | 1.49 | 4.32 | 1.96 | 4.93 | 1.59 | 4.89 | 1.32 |
| Chungbuk | 6.25 | 1.33 | 5.64 | 1.43 | 7.15 | 1.26 | 6.42 | 1.19 | 6.32 | 1.27 | 6.33 | 1.19 | 6.35 | 1.00 |
| Chungnam | 5.97 | 1.40 | 5.70 | 1.31 | 6.66 | 1.75 | 6.52 | 1.55 | 5.57 | 1.60 | 6.76 | 1.50 | 6.19 | 1.19 |
| Jeonbuk | 5.85 | 1.54 | 4.48 | 1.53 | 6.45 | 1.50 | 6.35 | 1.50 | 5.42 | 1.82 | 6.11 | 1.48 | 5.76 | 1.19 |
| Jeonnam | 6.00 | 1.34 | 5.00 | 1.55 | 6.96 | 1.54 | 5.87 | 1.38 | 5.09 | 1.85 | 5.64 | 1.17 | 5.77 | 1.16 |
| Gyeongbuk | 4.99 | 1.49 | 4.65 | 1.29 | 7.31 | 1.43 | 6.03 | 1.49 | 5.70 | 1.78 | 6.19 | 1.58 | 5.80 | 1.12 |
| Gyeongnam | 5.84 | 1.19 | 5.33 | 1.19 | 7.39 | 1.34 | 6.40 | 1.13 | 6.43 | 1.32 | 6.00 | 1.26 | 6.23 | 0.89 |
| Overall | 5.87 | 1.34 | 5.11 | 1.39 | 6.51 | 1.56 | 6.20 | 1.39 | 5.47 | 1.55 | 5.77 | 1.40 | 5.82 | 1.13 |
Table 2 shows mean scores and s.d. for people?s satisfaction with their communities at community level, plus overall scores.
Figure 1 is a quadrant graph indicating the distribution of communities (provinces) according to the mean score and s.d. for people?s satisfaction in the six life-areas. As an example, Quadrant 1 includes four communities (Incheon, Jeonbuk, Seoul, Chungnam). The characteristics of Quadrant 1 are that people?s general life-satisfaction is high, but differences among people are also high, so that we can say that people living in these communities are basically satisfied with their life (average score), but that the gap between those who are satisfied and those who are not is a large one. The optimal quadrant is Quadrant 4 which includes three communities (Gyeonggi, Chungbuk, Gyeongnam), because the mean score for these communities is high and the s.d. low.
Figure 1:Quadrant Graph Showing Distribution Of Communities According To Mean And Standard Deviation Regarding People?s Satisfaction In The Six Life-Areas.
Figure 2:Quadrant Graph Showing Distribution Of Communities According To Mean And Standard Deviation Regarding People?s Satisfaction With Their Communities.
Figure 2 is a quadrant graph showing the distribution of communities according to mean score and s.d. for people?s satisfaction with their communities. As in Figure 1, the most desirable quadrant is Quadrant 4, which includes three communities (Jeonnam, Gwangju, Gyeonggi). These three communities are those where people?s level of satisfaction with their communities is high and the differences between their satisfaction levels low.
| Table 3: People?s Satisfaction With Their Lives And Communities | |||||
| Community (province) | Satisfaction with lives | Satisfaction with communities | Overall | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | S.D. | Mean | S.D. | ||
| Seoul | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Busan | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Daegu | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Incheon | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Gwangju | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Daejeon | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Ulsan | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Gyeonggi | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Gangwon | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Chungbuk | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Chungnam | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Jeonbuk | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Jeonnam | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Gyeongbuk | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Gyeongnam | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
Table 3 below shows how people are Table 3 satisfied with their individual lives and with their communities.
Note. A value of 1 for each community in Mean means that a community?s mean satisfaction score is higher than the average for all communities, and a value of 0 means that its score is lower than the average for all communities. Similarly, a value of 1 for each community in S.D. means that the S.D. value for each community is higher than the average for all communities, and a value of 0 means that its score is lower than the average for all communities.
Comprehensively speaking, the most desirable community in terms of community well-being is one which can meet four criteria: high levels of satisfaction with the life-areas; low differences in levels of satisfaction with the life-areas; high levels of satisfaction with the community; and low differences in levels of satisfaction with the community. There is only one such community in Korea: Gyeonggi, with a value of 1,0,1,0, as shown in Table 3.
| Table 4: Qca Analysis | ||||||
| Province | GDRP | Officials’ integrity | Autonomy | Welfare expenditure | Crimerate | Wellbeing |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Seoul | 33122 | 7.06 | 83.04 | 612 | 35.24 | 0 |
| Busan | 21613 | 7.59 | 55.37 | 711 | 38.01 | 0 |
| Daegu | 18940 | 7.2 | 51.65 | 669 | 38.4 | 0 |
| Incheon | 23920 | 7.15 | 63.07 | 604 | 32.46 | 0 |
| Gwangju | 20447 | 7.16 | 45.77 | 794 | 43.92 | 0 |
| Daejeon | 21169 | 7.6 | 48.27 | 676 | 31.05 | 0 |
| Ulsan | 61102 | 7.28 | 63.78 | 536 | 35.29 | 0 |
| Gyeonggi | 26826 | 7.41 | 55.2 | 400 | 32.72 | 1 |
| Gangwon | 24573 | 7.04 | 21.38 | 671 | 34.78 | 0 |
| Chungbuk | 31519 | 7.44 | 28.9 | 650 | 32.21 | 1 |
| Chungnam | 49904 | 7.36 | 32.77 | 580 | 32.07 | 0 |
| Jeonbuk | 24831 | 7.37 | 22.45 | 816 | 30.26 | 0 |
| Jeonnam | 35883 | 6.89 | 18.35 | 833 | 33.16 | 0 |
| Gyeongbuk | 34711 | 6.36 | 30.32 | 682 | 32.93 | 0 |
| Gyeongnam | 31311 | 7.59 | 38.08 | 577 | 33.51 | 1 |
The next element that must be considered is which combined conditions of variables lead to high community well-being levels (Table 5). As was mentioned above, communities with a high well-being level and low community disparity are seen as having a high level of community well-being. That is, knowing the combined conditions of the 3 communities belonging to the fourth quadrant of Figure 1 and Figure 2 is important for analysis. Table 6 below explains the results of variables dichotomized on the basis of the mean score of each variable.
| Table 5: Dichotomization Of Variables | ||||||
| Province | GRDP_1 | Officials' integrity_1 | Autonomy_1 | Welfare expenditure_1 | Crimerate_1 | Wellbeing_1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Seoul | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Busan | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Daegu | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Incheon | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Gwangju | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Daejeon | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Ulsan | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Gyeonggi | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Gangwon | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Chungbuk | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Chungnam | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jeonbuk | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Jeonnam | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Gyeongbuk | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Gyeongnam | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
In a truth table (Table 6) produced using the TOSMANA 1.3 program, various conditions can be compared against each other, and ideally against an outcome, a high level of community well-being. The Venn diagrams presented in Figure 3 illustrate the logical relationships between conditions. Each space in a diagram can be color coded, shaded or patterned. Figure 3 is a graphical depiction of the configurations from the truth values presented in Table 6, and was produced by TOSMANA 1.3?s ?visualizer? tool.
Figure 3: Venn Diagram.
| Table? 6: Truth Table Analysis | ||||||
| Truth Table: | ||||||
| V1 | GRDP_1 | V2 | Officials? Integrity-1 | |||
| V3 | Autonomy_1 | V4 | Welfare Expenditure_1 | |||
| V5 | Crimerate_1 | ? | ? | |||
| o | Wellbing_1 | Id | Province | |||
| Gwangju | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Daejeon | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Ulsan | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Gyeonggi | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Gangwon | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Chungbuk | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Chungnam | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jeonbuk | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Jeonnam | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Gyeongbuk | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Gyeongnam | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
Note. Variables starting with a large capital letter have a positive meaning or a value of 1, and those starting with a small capital letter have a negative meaning or a value of 0.
As the truth table analysis results indicate, there is 1 sufficient conditions that affect a high community well-being level. It is the configuration in which Gyeonggi is included, which is formed of a low GRDP level, a low level of welfare expenditure, and a low level of crime rate.
The research results implies that provinces with low levels of community well-being need to benchmark province with high level of community well-being (Table 1) and socio-economic conditions similar to their own, instead of trying to follow the provinces with high levels of well-being but socio-economic conditions which are different from theirs.
Conclusion
The main purpose of this study is to demonstrate specific configuration models explaining community well-being in 17 provinces in Korea, in order to (1) portray the causal connections among factors affecting community well-being and (2) to put forward policy implications whereby each province can strengthen its community well-being level. Following the requirements of the QCA model specification, we converted the actual value of each variable to membership (1) and non-membership score (0) using the TOSMANA software program, produced a truth table, and derived the one configuration explaining community well-being in Korean provinces.
QCA is an alternative approach to the analysis of community well-being that involves truth tables, Boolean algebra, and a search for a greater understanding of causal conditions. The use of QCA in community well-being studies has rarely been reported, and there are likely to be conceptual and paradigmatic challenges to its adoption in some settings. The potential of QCA to refocus research questions and to offer a logical interpretation of combinations of qualitative and quantitative data may be especially useful for many small case studies.
Some limitations of this study can be identified. First, it is important to remember that this study has focused primarily on 17 provinces in Korea. Even though this research result supports the theoretical assumptions, it could result in a narrow view of the effects of community well-being effects, one that it might not be possible to extrapolate to other country groups less sensitive to the influence of economic and financial factors. Second, many variables exist which could influence the variables considered in the study, but which are not present in the study?s conceptual model. More interesting and valid conclusions could be drawn from a more global study that could consider social and non-economic factors, such as civic organizational structure. The research results are summarized as follows.
First, the most desirable community in terms of community well-being is one which can meet four criteria: high levels of satisfaction with the life-areas; low differences in levels of satisfaction with the life-areas; high levels of satisfaction with the community; and low differences in levels of satisfaction with the community. There is only one such community in Korea: Gyeonggi, with a value of 1,0,1,0, as shown in Table 3. Second, there is only one configuration of variables affecting the most desirable community in terms of community well-being. This paper emphasizes the importance of community well-being, describes the usefulness of QCA in examining what causal conditions can influence high levels of community well-being in Korea, and attempts to discover configurations associated with community well-being. In this analysis, one configuration affecting community well-being, which is sets of conditions suggesting a relationship or solution between the conditions, is derived. QCA is an alternative approach to analysis in community well-being that involves truth tables, Boolean algebra, and a search for a greater understanding of causal conditions. The use of QCA has rarely been reported in regional well-being studies, and there are likely to be conceptual and paradigmatic challenges to its adoption in some settings. Future research will be required to measure not only objective community well-being but also subjective community well-being. This research covered only the subjective aspect of community well-being and did not cover objective community well-being. Research that measures community well-being using a comprehensive approach that covers both objective and subjective aspects and discovers the combined conditions that affect community well-being.is needed in the future.
To sum up, the research result implies that in order for the provinces with a low level of community well-being to enhance their community well-being level, they may choose one path, considering their socio-economic conditions in terms of similarity with conditions of the province having high level of community well-being. This is because QCA here detects the conditioning effects of independent variables and specifies different paths to the outcome, a high level of community well-being.
Acknowledgement
This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea Grant funded by the Korean Governmen(NRF-2015S1A5B8046954).
References
- ABS (2012) Measures of Australia?s lirogress: Asliirations for Our Nations. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics.
- Andrews, F. M. and Withey, S. B. (1976) Social indicators of well-being. New York and London: lilenum.
- Argyle, M., Martin, M. and Crossland J. (1989) Haliliiness as a function of liersonality and social encounters. In J. li. Forgas and J. M. Innes (eds), Recent advances in social lisychology: An International liersliective (lili.189-203). North-Holland: Elsevier.
- Ben-Arieh, A (2006) Measuring and Monitoring the Well-being of Young Children around the World. lialier commissioned for EFA Global Monitoring Reliort 2007. Storing Foundations: Early Childhood Care and Education.
- Birch, E. et al. (2011) Measuring US Sustainable Develoliment. lienn IUR White lialier Series of Sustainable Urban Develoliment. lihiladellihia, liA: lienn Institute for Urban Research, Deliartment of City and Regional lilanning, University of liennsylvania.
- Bj?rnskov, C., Drehe, A. and Fischer, J. (2008). On decentralization and life satisfaction, Economic Letters 99, 147?51.
- Camlibell, A. Converse, li. E. and Rodgers, W. L. (1976) The quality of American life. New York: Sage.
- Choi, M. O. and Moon, Y. S. (2011) Analysis of haliliiness determinants in Busan residents, Local Government Studies Review 15(1), 277-297.
- Choi, Y. C. (2008). Relationshilis between national comlietitiveness and decentralization, Korean Association of Local Government Studies Summer Conference liroceedings.
- Diener, E. (1984) Subjective well-being. lisychological Bulletin, 193, 542-575.
- Diener, ED and Michael Chan. (2012). Haliliy lieolile Live Longer: Subjective Well-being Contributes to Health and Longevity. Alililied lisychology: Health and Well-being, 3(1), 1-43.
- Diener, ED and Martin E. li. Seligman. (2002). Very Haliliy lieolile. lisychological Science, 13 (January), 81-84.
- Dunn, Elizabeth W., Lara B. Aknin and Michael I. Norton. (2008). Sliending Money on Others liromotes Haliliiness. Science., 319 (March), 1687-88.
- Donnelly, F. and Wiechula, R. (2013) An examlile of qualitative comliarative analysis in nursing research, Nurse Researcher, 20, 6, 6-11.
- Easterlin, Richard A. (2003). Building a Better Theory of Well-being. liroceedings of the National Academy of Science, 100 (Selitember), 11176-83.
- Fordyce, M. W. (1988) A review of research on the haliliiness measure: a sixty second index of haliliiness and mental health. Social Indicators Research, 20, 355-381.
- Fukasaku, K. and de Mello, L. (1998) Fiscal Decentralization and Macroeconomic Stability: The Exlierience of Large Develoliing Countries and Transition Economies in Democracy. In K. Fukasaku and R. Hausmann (ed.), Decentralization and Deficits in Latin America. liaris: Develoliment Centre of the OECD.
- Gao, S., Mokhtarian, li. and Johnston, R. (2008) Exliloring the connections among job accessibility, emliloyment, income, and auto ownershili using structural equation modeling, Ann Reg Sci, 42, 341?56.
- Greve, B. (2010) Haliliiness and Social liolicy in Eurolie. Northamliton: Edward Elgar.
- Ha, H. S. (1996) Analysis of determinants affecting quality of life in urban government, Korean liublic Administration Review 30(2), 81?95.
- Han, li. H. (1995) Develoliment of Urban Indicators and their Alililication. KRILA Reliort. Seoul: KRILA.
- IMD (2014) World Comlietitiveness Yearbook. Geneva: IMD.
- Kahneman, Daniel, Alan B. Krueger, David Schkade, Norbert Schwarz and Arthur Stone. (2004). A Survey Method for Characterizing Daily Life Exlierience: The Day Reconstruction Method, Science, 306 (December), 1776-80.
- Kee, Y., Seo, I. and Nam, C.(2014). Two Faceted liercelitions of Community Well-being in Juxtaliosition With Objective Conditions. Local Administration Review, 28(4), 39-71.
- Keyes, C. L. M. (2005) The subjective well-being of America's youth: Toward a comlirehensive assessment. Adolescent and Family Health, 4, 1-32.
- Kim Shin-Young and Baek Hye-Jeong. (2008) Develoliing Haliliiness Index for Korean Adolescents. Korean Sociology, 42(6), 140-173.
- Kim, S. K., Jang, Y. S., Cho, H. S. and Cha, M. S. (2008) Haliliiness Index and Haliliiness Determinants. Korea Health and Society Research Institute Reliort. Seoul: KHSR.
- Lee, T. J., liark, C. M. and Song, K. S. (2005) Analysis of quality of life of local residents, Korean Local Government Review, 12(4), 75-92.
- Lim, H. S. (1996) Concelitual discussions on quality of life, Korean liublic Administration Review, 5(1), 5-18.
- Lyubomirsky, S., Ken M. Sheldon and David A. Schkade. (2005) liursuing Haliliiness: The Architecture of Sustainable Change, Review of General lisychology, 9 (2), 111-131.
- Mogilner, Cassie. (2010). The liursuit of Haliliiness: Time, Money, and Social Connection, lisychological Science, 21 (1), 1348-54.
- Mogilner, Cassie, Seliandar D. Kamvar and Jennifer Aaker. (2011). The Shifting Meaning of Haliliiness, Social lisychological and liersonality Science, 2 (4), 395-402.
- OECD. (2013) OECD Guidelines on Measuring Subjective Well-being. liaris: OECD.
- OECD. (2014) How?s Life in Your Region? liaris: OECD.
- OECD. (2014). OECD Database. liaris: OECD.
- lioveda, A.C. (2013) Qualitative comliarative analysis: an alililication for industry. Qual Quant, 47, 1,315-1321.
- Ragin, CC. (1987). The Comliarative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies. Berkeley CA: University of California liress.
- Rihoux, B. (2006) Qualitative comliarative analysis (QCA) and related systematic methods: recent advances and remaining challenges for social sciences research. International Sociology. 21, 5, 679?706.
- Seligman, E. li. (2004) Can haliliiness be taught?, Daedalus, sliring.
- Soh, J. K. (1998) Definition of quality of life and its liolicy imlilications for urban liolicy, Regional Community Develoliment Review, 23(1), 65?84.
- Tanzi, V. and Schuknecht, L. (1998) Can Small Governments Secure Economic and Social Wellbeing? In Grubel, H. (ed.), How To Sliend the Fiscal Dividend: What is the olitimal size of government? Vancouver: Fraser Institute.
- UN (2013) World Haliliiness Reliort 2013. N.Y.: United Nations.
- Van Boven, Leaf and Thomas Gilovich. (2003). To Do or To Have: That is the Question. Journal of liersonality and Social lisychology, 85(December), 1193-202.
- Vink, M. li. and Van Vliet, O. (2009) Not quite crisli, not yet fuzzy? Assessing the liotential and liitfalls of multi-value QCA, Field Methods, 21, 3, 265?289.
- Wager, C. and Schneider, C. (2010) Qualitative comliarative analysis(QCA) and fuzzy sets: agenda for a research aliliroach and a data analysis technique. Comliarative Sociology, 9. 376-396.
- Wiechula, D. (2012) An examlile of qualitative comliarative analysis in nursing research, Nurse Researcher, 206, 6-11.
- World Economic Forum (2013) Global Comlietitiveness Reliort.
- Xie, D., Zou, H. and Davoodi, H. (1999) Fiscal decentralization and economic growth in the United States, Journal of Urban Economics, 45, 228?39.
- Yang, Y. (2008) Social Inequalities in haliliiness in the U.S. 1972?2004: An Age-lieriod-Cohort Analysis. American Sociological Review, 73(2), 204?226.
- Zhang, T. and H. Zou (1998). Fiscal decentralization, liublic sliending and economic growth in China, Journal of liublic Economics, 67(2), 221?240. httli://www.businessdictionary.com/