No set standard for quality of life

By Inge Komardjaja and Harald Leisch

BANDUNG (JP): The second international conference on Quality of Life in Cities, held in Singapore from March 8 to 10, intensively discussed the socioeconomic and physical aspects that constitute the quality of life of citizens. Most of the 100 participants were from developed countries.

Quality of life may be more relevant to people who have passed the biological fulfillment of food, shelter and clothes. Nonetheless, quality of life is also meaningful for less developed people, bearing in mind that the different socioeconomic and geographic conditions of the contrasting countries result in entirely different interpretations of indicators of quality of life.

Not one concept of quality of life can be applied worldwide, and even not within a country or a community.

When talking about quality of life, it is commonplace to use the Western notion of the phrase, which in Indonesia might be applicable to some people in the middle income and higher brackets, but certainly not for the population in general.

In general, quality of life is the visible progress that follows a person's phase of life. It implies that people are never satisfied with what they already have, which shows that life is dynamic.

People become stagnant when they don't have the resources and are ignorant of the means to improve their quality of life. To know the extent of people's progress in life, indicators have been developed to measure the objective and subjective aspects of quality of life.

The objective aspects are tangible and include the country's or city's economic growth, income, employment, housing, transport, education, health care, public health, public safety, solid waste and political participation.

The subjective aspect of quality of life relates to a person's happiness. Happiness could be defined as a state in human life where one does not suffer from a significant loss, such as work, belongings, loved ones and human rights.

But happiness, and accordingly the subjective quality of life, also depends on the wishes of a person and his or her perception of the personal environment.

Some people might dream of a big house; for others clothes might be more important. Some might hope to have a good education, while others might be happy if they did not have to work more than was necessary to cover the cost of living.

One might ask for a clean living environment; others might not be aware of the garbage on the street. Clearly, each individual has their own priority in making life worth living.

Enhancing the quality of life is everybody's concern, regardless of the social and economic situation of the person.

The objective indicators of the quality of life, most of them related to the material world, are quantifiable and hence can be compared to most countries, provided these indicators are measured by using the same parameters.

On the other hand, the subjective indicator of personal well- being or happiness is very individual and relative and thus not easy to fathom or compare.

Among less developed countries in Southeast Asia it would be possible to compare the objective indicators and decide which country has a higher quality of life.

Through comparing indicators among countries, a government may become motivated to have a better system of improving the quality of the lives of its people.

A comparison between developed and less developed countries will help to better understand the meaning of quality of life. In developed countries, where prime needs have been met, people strive for a higher level of contentment to satisfy their spiritual and psychological ambitions.

They focus on higher education, job satisfaction, hobbies, leisure and art and hence demand appropriate infrastructures that support their wishes.

This is not so in poorer countries where many are living below the poverty line and where the means to survive is limited. Does this mean that those people have no quality of life?

No, minor achievements, even the smallest improvements of their living standards are part of the quality of their lives, although on a lower level. Of course, people living below the poverty line need assistance from the government, non- governmental organizations (NGOs) and charity organizations.

Most of these organizations and institutions have realized that the best way to support people from the low income bracket is to develop the potential of self-help, known as mutual self- help (gotong royong).

This is not only an economic must, but it also contributes to a better quality of life. Their satisfaction will become higher if they can see their own achievements rather than merely receiving some donations.

Mutual self-help occurs when some people have similar needs, so they can form a group to reach a goal. Mutual self-help, which perhaps can be found only in rural areas of self-sufficient countries, is a great asset to quality of life in Indonesia.

As Indonesia has still a long way to go to achieve the ideal standard of quality of life, to evaluate the people's quality of life on the basis of objective indicators is discouraged.

Representing the quality of life of Indonesia in figures, as an outcome of a set of given variables, would not be fair, as it is already obvious that the nation is dealing with the present social, political and economic problems.

It seems more appropriate and worthwhile to look into the subjective experience of happiness. Despite setbacks, many Indonesians are smiling -- as long as there are people around them. Accordingly, a strong community relationship to support each other is highly relevant for the quality of life of less developed people. But in a developed society people's attitude might be different; they are happy if they have less contact with their neighbors.

This is all about different values and measurements. We have to realize this difference and that comparing the quality of life of different socioeconomic and political groups is not a matter of better or worse. It's just different.

Inge Komardjaja works at the Research Institute of Human Settlement Technology at the Ministry of Settlement and Regional Development, Cileunyi in Bandung. Harald Leisch teaches at the Department of Geography of the University of Bonn, Germany and is a Visiting Professor at Universitas Pelita Harapan in Lippo Karawaci, Tangerang.