Over the last 50 years, many indices have been developed to measure the Quality of Life (QoL). These attempt to provide a detailed picture of individual and societal well-being by integrating economic, social, political and ecological aspects (Fuchs et al., 2020, 12). However, it is still not clear whether it is possible and useful to comprehensively map the various dimensions of quality of life in an index, or whether separate indicators should be considered side by side for clear and reliable scientific results and policy recommendations (ibid.).

In her recent article "Which Way Forward in Measuring the Quality of Life? A Critical Analysis of Sustainability and Well-Being Indicator Sets", ZIN spokeswoman Prof'in Doris Fuchs, Prof. Bernd Schlipphak, Prof. Oliver Treib, Le Anh Nguyen Long and former ZIN member Prof. Markus Lederer contribute to answering these questions: They conceptualize and categorize quality of life on the basis of dimensions of sustainable development and well-being. They then analyze and evaluate nine international indices with regard to their ability to fully measure this concept of quality of life.

When looking at the results, the political scientists note that only very few of the analyzed indices take full account of the economic, social and political dimensions of well-being as well as various dimensions of sustainable development.
The analysis also revealed the following: Countries that rank high in prosperity have a low rating for sustainability. Countries that rank high on sustainability, on the other hand, tend to be too poor and politically unstable to offer a high level of prosperity.
On the one hand, the researchers conclude that compiling composite indices is not sensible. On the other hand, there is no real existing example of a truly sustainable form of capitalist development.

Source: Fuchs, Doris, Bernd Schlipphak, Oliver Treib, Le Anh Nguyen Long and Markus Lederer. 2020 "Which Way Forward in Measuring the Quality of Life? A Critical Analysis of Sustainability and Wellbeing Indicator Sets." Global Environmental Politics 20(2): 12-36. https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_0055