Distribution of well-being
Well-being is not distributed equally among different population groups. This is particularly true for groups with different education levels or migration backgrounds: low-skilled people and people with a non-western background have a lower level of well-being, while highly educated people and people without a migration background have a higher level of well-being. There is a relationship between education level and migration background. People with a non-western background more often have a lower level of education.
Population groups that had above or below average scores for certain well-being indicators in 2020 had often also done so in 2019. Some shifts can be seen, however, especially among people with a western migration background. This group had close to average well-being for five indicators in 2020, whereas in 2019 it still had below-average well-being. For one indicator the opposite was the case.
The previous chapter, Trends in well-being, presented a picture of well-being in the Netherlands as a whole. Since that picture is largely based on totals and averages for the Dutch population, groups with a higher or lower level of well-being are not visible in the figures. This chapter therefore looks at the distribution of well-being among population groups. After a summary picture in section 3.2, section 3.3 looks at the situation in 2020 as far as possible on the basis of 21 indicators. It also discusses changes compared to 2019. This was possible for 17 of the 21 indicators. The year 2019 therefore serves as the ‘base year’. Since changes in distribution patterns may occur quite slowly, the intention is to leave the base year unchanged in future editions of the Monitor of Well-being & Sustainable Development Goals. In this way, changes can be monitored over a longer period. The fact that the current edition of the Monitor looks at changes in distribution patterns between 2019 and 2020 has to do with the coronavirus pandemic: we want to show to what extent the distribution of well-being in 2020 differs from that in the pre-coronavirus year 2019, without making any statements about possible causality. Section 3.4 describes the extent to which people in the different population groups experience an accumulation of favourable or unfavourable outcomes in aspects of well-being. Here too a comparison is made with the 2019 situation as far as possible.
Colour codes
The Monitor uses colours to enable comparison of the results of the various indicators. For each indicator, Section 3.3 of this chapter examines whether population groups deviate from the national average. In the case of men and women, however, it looks at whether there are differences between the two groups.
For indicators based on surveys, a test has been done to determine whether the deviation is statistically significant (p<0.05). The indicators for material well-being are based on comprehensive data: the criterion is a deviation from the average of more than 5 percent.
| The colours mean: |
|---|
| Green |
| The relevant population group has higher-than-average well-being in this area. |
| Grey |
| The relevant population group shows no significant deviation from the average. |
| Red |
| The relevant population group has lower-than-average well-being in this area. |
The colour codes serve only as signals and they are expressly not a normative interpretation. The Monitor indicates how different population groups in the Netherlands actually stand in relation to the various aspects of well-being and whether there are differences in well-being between groups. It is the task of political decision-makers and policy-makers to consider actions and draw policy conclusions based on this information.
Section 3.3 also compares the 2020 colour distribution with that of 2019. If a population group ‘has changed colour’, this is reported in the text, i.e. a group deviates from the average in 2020, but did not yet do so in 2019, or vice versa. The fact that a population group has not changed colour does not mean nothing has happened in the group. The 2020 figures may well differ significantly from the 2019 figures, even if the answer to the question of whether a group deviates from the average (and the direction of such deviation) is unchanged. This chapter does not focus on underlying changes, however. The precise figures for previous survey years can be found for each indicator, population group and year in the data table accompanying this chapter (Monitor of Well-being & Sustainable Development Goals 2021, data chapter 3).
3.1Selection of themes, indicators and population groups
This chapter describes the distribution of well-being ‘here and now’ among population groups, as far as possible based on data for 2020. Table 3.1.1 lists the indicators used. Data on the distribution among population groups are not available for all indicators in the ‘here and now’ dashboard. Nor can every indicator be broken down into population groups; an indicator such as biodiversity, for example, cannot be attributed to groups of people. For this reason, on a few points there is divergence from the ‘here and now’ dashboard in Chapter 2. See the explanatory notes to this Monitor for more information (CBS, 2021a).
Different population groups are distinguished in this chapter on the basis of a number of personal characteristics: sex, age, highest education level attained (low, medium and highnoot1) and migration backgroundnoot2 (Dutch, western or non-western). These are of course not the only characteristics that can determine the degree to which people have a high or a low level of well-being.
3.1.1Indicators for distribution of well-being
| Theme ‘here and now’ | Indicator for distribution |
|---|---|
| Well-being | Satisfaction with life |
| Personal well-being | |
| Material well-being | Standardised disposable income* |
| Wealth* | |
| Health | Perceived health |
| Overweight population | |
| Labour and leisure time | Highest completed level of education |
| Net labour participation | |
| Long-term unemployment | |
| Satisfaction with work | |
| Satisfaction with commuter travelling time | |
| Satisfaction with leisure time | |
| Housing | Quality of housing |
| Satisfaction with housing | |
| Society | Contact with family, friends and neighbours |
| Voluntary work | |
| Trust in other people | |
| Trust in institutions | |
| Safety | Victims of crime* |
| Feeling unsafe in the neighbourhood* | |
| The environment | Experiences pollution in own neighbourhood |
*Data for 2019 as no data for 2020 are available.
3.2Summary overview
Are there groups in the Dutch population that differ widely in terms of well-being? This section briefly describes the distribution of well-being and, subsequently, the changes in that distribution between 2019 and 2020. Are there groups that deviated from the average in 2020 on more or fewer aspects compared to the previous year? If so, for which indicators?
The distribution of well-being
Well-being is most strongly correlated with education level and migration background.
- The low-skilled group scores below average on a relatively large number of indicators. The precise opposite is true of the highly educated group, which has above-average scores for many well-being indicators. Medium-skilled people are in between the two other groups. On an individual level, this pattern is confirmed within the education levels. More than one-third of low-skilled people experience an accumulation of unfavourable outcomes, while very few in this group (2.2 percent) are at the top of the distribution with an accumulation of favourable outcomes. Of the highly educated, nearly one-third are at the top of the distribution and an accumulation of unfavourable outcomes is rare (3.8 percent). If we look at the top of the distribution, we are therefore fairly likely to encounter a highly educated person, while at the bottom the person is more likely to be low-skilled.
- The population group with a native Dutch background has an above-average score for 17 of the 21 indicators, indicating higher well-being, while the group of people with a migration background frequently scores below the average. This is true to a greater extent for the group with a non-western migration background than for the people with a western migration background. On an individual level, the picture within the groups with a specific background is more nuanced. Although the accumulation of negative outcomes is more common for people with a migration background than for those with a native Dutch background, the difference is less marked than on the basis of the group results of the individual indicators. The accumulation of unfavourable outcomes occurs more often among people with a non-western migration background than among people with a western migration background.
- The differences in well-being between age categories are smaller than the differences according to education level and migration background. In most age categories of 45 and over, the numbers of favourable and unfavourable outcomes are balanced. The same is true for the 25–34 age category. However, the group of 35–44‑year-olds has two favourable outcomes more than unfavourable ones. In the case of young people up to the age of 24, there are more unfavourable (9) than favourable (6) outcomes. On an individual level, the accumulation of favourable outcomes is most common among people aged 25 to 64 and least common among those aged 65 and over. It is 65–74‑year-olds who most often experience an accumulation of unfavourable outcomes.
- There is a slight difference in well-being between men and women. Five indicators show more positive outcomes for men than for women, while in three cases the reverse is true. There is no difference in the other indicators. At individual level men experience an accumulation of favourable outcomes slightly more often than women and an accumulation of unfavourable outcomes slightly less often.
Personal characteristics such as age, sex, education level and migration background are not independent. For example, people with a non-western migration background are on average relatively young and also quite often low-skilled (CBSa, CBSb). Older people are also relatively likely to be low-skilled. The difference in the accumulation of favourable or unfavourable outcomes is greatest between low-skilled and highly educated people. This also applies if the interrelationship between the various personal characteristics is taken into account. After education level, the biggest distinguishing factors are age and migration background. Sex plays the smallest role.
Changes in the distribution of well-being between 2019 and 2020
Figure 3.2.1 shows the colour distribution for 2020 and 2019 by indicator and population group. This also shows for which indicator and which population group there is a change in the colour distribution. The figure shows this for 17 of the 21 indicators described in this chapter. The indicators on material well-being (income and wealth) and safety (crime victim rate and feelings of insecurity) are not shown, because no data are available on these indicators for 2020. The figure does not show whether an indicator has changed at the overall level. This information can be found in Chapter 2 of this Monitor.
Sex
Age
Highest completed level of education
Migration background
For many indicators, the colour distribution indicating which groups deviate from the average in which direction is largely the same in 2019 and 2020. If the colour of a population group remains the same, this does not mean that nothing has changed in the underlying figures, or in the difference as compared to the average; such changes can occur without the colour changing.
For some indicators, quite a few groups change colour: from red to grey or vice versa, or from grey to green or vice versa:
- In weekly contact with family, friends and neighbours there was a positive colour change among 25–34‑year-olds. Among young people (15–24) and older people (75+) the reverse was true. There were also improvements among the highly educated and people with a western migration background. People with a non-western migration background changed from grey to red. The differences between the population categories are relatively small for this indicator.
- Satisfaction with commuting time changed in a positive direction for people with a western migration background and in a negative direction for low-skilled people, people with a native Dutch background and people with a non-western background. For this indicator too, the differences between the population groups are relatively small.
- For each of the indicators personal well-being, overweight population and voluntary work, three population groups changed colour.
Table 3.2.2 gives an overview of the number of colour changes per population group. People with a western migration background showed the most changes, namely six. In five cases this represented an improvement. This was the case for the indicators of personal well-being, overweight population, satisfaction with commuting time, contact with family/friends/neighbours and environmental nuisance in the living environment.
No indicators showed a population group changing from green to red or vice versa.
3.2.2Changes in colour from 2019 to 2020
| Positive change (red to grey or grey to green) |
Negative change (green to grey or grey to red) |
|
|---|---|---|
| Men | 2 | 0 |
| Women | 0 | 2 |
| Younger than 25 yrs | 0 | 2 |
| 25–34 yrs | 2 | 0 |
| 35–44 yrs | 2 | 1 |
| 45–54 yrs | 1 | 2 |
| 55–64 yrs | 0 | 0 |
| 65–74 yrs | 0 | 0 |
| 75 yrs and older | 0 | 1 |
| Low education level | 1 | 1 |
| Medium education level | 2 | 1 |
| High education level | 1 | 1 |
| Native Dutch | 0 | 2 |
| Western background | 5 | 1 |
| Non-western background | 0 | 2 |
The combined picture of favourable and unfavourable outcomes on an individual level in 2020 is broadly similar to that of 2019. Education level remains the most important distinguishing factor, with low-skilled people located fairly often at the bottom of the distribution and highly educated people at the top.
3.3Well-being by population groups
Well-being
Subjective well-being – or the well-being of the population – is an important aspect of well-being, because it is closely interwoven with quality of life (Diener and Suh, 1997). Information on people’s well-being provides an understanding of how they value their own lives, independently of objective measures such as income level or position in the job market.
In the 2013–2019 period an average of 88 percent of people aged 18 and over were happy and 85 percent were satisfied with life (Van Beuningen and Akkermans, 2020). The proportion who were unhappy or dissatisfied with life averaged 3 percent.
This section on subjective well-being addresses satisfaction with life and personal well-being. For further information on the well-being of the Dutch population, see CBS (2021b).
Satisfaction with life
Situation in 2020
In 2020, 84.8 percent of adults in the Netherlands said that they were satisfied with their lives, 12.4 percent were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied and a relatively small group of 2.7 percent said they were dissatisfied with life.noot3
- People aged 18–24 are less likely to be satisfied with life than the Dutch population as a whole. Of this group, 81.4 percent say they are satisfied. By contrast, the proportion of 65–74‑year-olds who are satisfied with life is higher than average at 87.7 percent.
- Low-skilled people, at 81.3 percent, are less likely than average to be satisfied with life. The proportion of highly educated people who are satisfied with life is higher than average, at 88.2 percent.
- With a score of 86.1 percent, people with a native Dutch background are more likely than average to be positive about life. At 77.8 percent, people with a non-western migration background are less likely than average to be satisfied with life.
Colour changes between 2019 and 2020
- People aged 18–24 were less likely than average to be satisfied with life in 2020. In 2019, they were still at the average level.
- 25–34‑year-olds were in line with the average in terms of satisfaction with life in 2020, whereas they were still below average in 2019.
How many people are satisfied with life?
Sex
Age
Highest completed level of education
Migration background
Personal well-being
The Personal Well-being Index (PWI) is a summarising measure for the well-being of people in various areas of life, in which 12 indicators for eight relevant areas of life are combined into a single figure. Indicators include people’s assessments of matters such as their health, financial situation and living environment (Van Beuningen et al., 2015).noot4 The PWI has a score of 1–10. People with a score of 7 or higher have high personal well-being.
The situation in 2020
In 2020, 66.2 percent of the adult population had high personal well-being, 2.6 percent had low personal well-being (score of 1 to 4), and 31.2 percent were between those two groups.
- Among men, the proportion with high personal well-being, at 68.9 percent, is higher than among women, at 63.5 percent. This is mainly because women are less likely to be satisfied with their education opportunities than men and are generally more likely to feel unsafe than men.
- The proportion of 18–34‑year-olds with high personal well-being is higher than average. Among 55–64‑year-olds, it is lower than average. The other age categories are in line with the average. Age categories differ mainly in satisfaction with health and trust in institutions, with younger age categories more likely to be satisfied with their physical health than older people, while the reverse is true for mental health. Young people in particular place more trust in the House of Representatives and the legal system than older people.
- Highly educated people are more likely than average to have high personal well-being, whereas low-skilled people are less likely than average. This pattern is the same for all parts of the PWI, except for people’s satisfaction with their social life. Major differences can be seen principally in satisfaction with educational opportunities, physical health and trust in institutions.
- People with a native Dutch background are more likely than average to have high personal well-being, while people with a non-western background are less likely than average. People with a non-western migration background give a lower valuation on average for most areas of their lives than people with a native Dutch background. However, this is not true of satisfaction with physical health and the extent to which they trust the House of Representatives and the legal system. Relatively more people with a non-western background trusted the House of Representatives than people with a native Dutch background; there was no significant difference in the proportion who trusted the legal system.
Colour changes between 2019 and 2020
- 45–54‑year-olds were in line with the average in terms of personal well-being in 2020, whereas they were still below average in 2019.
- The personal well-being of medium-skilled people was similar to the average in 2020, whereas it was still below average in 2019.
- The same is true for people with a western migration background: their personal well-being was also in line with the average in 2020, whereas it was still below average in 2019.
How many people have high personal well-being?
Sex
Age
Highest completed level of education
Migration background
Material well-being
Someone’s financial situation is important for many aspects of their lives. A higher level of well-being provides more opportunities and choices, for example in housing, social activities and health. A good financial position also ensures greater security. The median standardised disposable income and median wealth are used here as indicators of material well-being.noot5 Standardised disposable income is a good measure for comparing levels of households’ well-being, because it has been adjusted for differences in the size and composition of households.
However, material well-being encompasses more than just income. It is also determined by household spending and whether or not the household has access to capital buffers. The material well-being of individuals and households determines the interplay of transactions in income, spending and wealth. Households use their disposable income to pay for their spending. If the income is not spent in full or if there is a shortfall, the difference is added to wealth as a saving or deducted from wealth as a dissaving.
See CBS (2019a; 2020a) for more detailed information on the financial position of households in the Netherlands.
Standardised disposable income
In 2019, the median household income in the Netherlands was 27,500 euros.noot6 Average income was higher, at 30,800 euros. The arithmetic average is higher than the median because incomes at the top of the range pull up the average. In order to limit the influence of those high incomes, the median income is used in all the descriptions below.
- The level of household income depends on the age of the main breadwinner. Younger households generally have less disposable income, as the adults are still at the beginning of their careers. Median incomes subsequently rise with age. Households with a main breadwinner aged 35–64 have a higher-than-average disposable income. After people retire, their income declines somewhat, to just over 22,000 euros for households aged 75 and over.
- Education level is also clearly related to income. The more highly educated the main breadwinner is, the higher the median income. This income ranges from over 21,000 euros among low-skilled people to over 35,000 euros among highly educated people. The income of medium-skilled people lies between these two amounts.
- The median income of households with a non-western main breadwinner is relatively low, at nearly 20,000 euros. This is partly due to the fact that these people are relatively likely to be low-skilled. Main breadwinners with a western migration background, with their households, have an average disposable income of over 25,000 euros, which is also lower than the average income for the population as a whole. Households with a native Dutch background have the highest disposable income.
How high is the median income of households?
Age
Highest completed level of education
Migration background
Wealth
Wealth is the net balance of assets and liabilities.noot7 On 1 January 2019, the combined wealth of the 7.8 million Dutch households amounted to 1,540 billion euros. There were 2,400 billion euros of combined assets and 870 billion euros of combined debts. The median wealth of Dutch households amounted to 49,800 euros. That is 12,000 euros more than in the previous year, mainly due to the steady rise in house prices. Rises and falls in house prices have a major impact on household wealth. Nearly six out of ten households owned their own home in 2019. The home was their largest asset, making up 60 percent of their wealth. Next came bank deposits and savings and substantial interests in companies. Mortgage debt was the largest debt item. Wealth in 2019 was back above the level of 2008, the year that marked the start of the financial crisis.
- The older the person, the greater the wealth. Young people at the start of their working lives earn relatively little, can put little money aside and often take on a substantial debt burden when they buy a home. Starting a family brings additional costs and makes it more difficult to accrue wealth. Households with a main breadwinner under the age of 25 had a median wealth of zero euros at the beginning of 2019, while households with main breadwinners aged 25–34 had 7,600 euros. As the main breadwinner grows older, the financial position also improves appreciably. More work experience and better-paid jobs lead to higher labour income, so there is room for wealth to increase further. At the same time, a growing proportion of mortgage debt is often repaid. Households with a main breadwinner aged 35–44 had a median wealth of 31,500 euros and those aged 55–64 had 123,400 euros. The income of older households decreases when the retirement age is reached, but these households often own their homes and have often repaid almost all of their mortgage debt. The median wealth of households with a main breadwinner aged 65–74 amounted to almost 161,000 euros in 2019. The group aged 75 and over was less wealthy (110,000 euros). In this oldest group, supplementary pensions are considerably lower than among 65–74‑year-olds and home ownership is also lower.
- In 2019, households having a low-skilled main breadwinner had substantially less wealth on average than households with a highly educated main breadwinner: 116,700 versus 16,200 euros.
- Households having a main breadwinner with a native Dutch background had a median wealth of more than 78,000 euros. In households with a main breadwinner with a migration background, the amount is considerably lower: just over 17,000 euros in the case of a western migration background and just over 1,000 euros in the case of a non-western migration background. These differences are partly due to the lower average education level and lower average age of main breadwinners with a migration background.
Median wealth also rises as disposable income rises: from almost 1,000 euros in the first income decile group to 298,200 euros in the tenth and highest income group. Of the total wealth of Dutch households, the lowest income group held 4 percent, while the highest income group held 34 percent.
How high is the median wealth of households?
Age
Highest completed level of education
Migration background
Health
People’s well-being is strongly correlated with their health (CBS, 2016). Poor health is often linked to lower well-being and can also cause problems with work, social life and housing, for example. Perceived health and being overweight are used here as indicators for health. For further information on the health and lifestyle of the Dutch population, see CBS (2021c, 2021d).
Perceived health
Perceived health is people’s evaluation of their own health, which is a good indicator for the general state of health. Specifically, it is the percentage of people who evaluate their own health as good or very good. In 2020, 81.5 percent of the Dutch population judged their own health to be good or very good.
Situation in 2020
- The proportion of men with good or very good perceived health is higher than that of women. There are also more women than men with long-term disorders, such as physical disabilities and pain-related limitations (CBS, 2021c).
- The percentage of people who perceive their own health as good or very good decreases with age. Up to and including the 35–44 age category, people are more likely than average to judge their health positively, while people in the 45‑and-over age categories are less likely to. Elderly people are also more likely to have health problems, such as long-term disorders, physical impairments and pain-related limitations (CBS, 2021c).
- Highly educated peoplenoot8 are more likely than average to report being in good or very good health, at 86 percent. Medium-skilled people are also just above the average. At 63 percent, low-skilled people are well below the average. This is partly because low-skilled people are older on average than highly educated people. However, within groups of a similar age too, a higher education level is more often accompanied by good or very good perceived health.
- People with a native Dutch background are more positive than average about their own health, whereas people with a non-western migration background are less positive than average. This is despite the fact that people with a non-western migration background are on average relatively young and young people usually view their health more positively.
Colour changes between 2019 and 2020
- People aged 35–44 rated their health as good or very good more than average in 2020. In 2019, this group was still at the average level.
How many people describe their health as good or very good?
Sex
Age
Highest completed level of education (25 years and older)
Migration background
Overweight population
The Body Mass Index (BMI) is used to determine whether a person is overweight. It is the body weight in kilograms divided by the square of the height in metres. Example: a person who weighs 90.0 kg and is 1.80 m tall has a BMI of 90.0/1.80x1.80 = 27.8. An adult with a BMI of 25 or higher is referred to as being overweight. Different thresholds apply to young people, depending on age and sex.
Situation in 2020
The proportion of overweight people in the population aged 4 and over was 44.4 percent in 2020: 32.4 percent of people were moderately overweight (BMI of 25–29), while 12.1 percent were obese (BMI of 30 or more).
- More men (48 percent) than women (42 percent) are overweight.
- Age and the tendency to be overweight are connected. In the age categories up to 34 years, the proportion of people who are overweight is below average, while for those aged 45 and over it is above average. In the highest age category (75 and over), the proportion of overweight people decreases again but remains above average.
- Low-skilled peoplenoot9 are more likely than average to be overweight. This is also true to a lesser extent for medium-skilled people. In contrast, highly educated people are less likely than average to have a BMI of 25 or more.
- People with a non-western migration background are more likely to be overweight than the average population.
Colour changes between 2019 and 2020
- In 2020, the proportion of people aged 35–34 who were overweight was in line with the average. In 2019, this group was still more likely than average to be overweight.
- The proportion of overweight people in 2020 in the group without a migration background was similar to the average, whereas in 2019 it was still below average. Among people with a western migration background the reverse was the case. In 2019 they were more likely than average to be overweight, but in 2020 that was no longer the case.
How many people are overweight?
Sex
Age
Highest completed level of education (25 years and older)
Migration background
Labour and leisure time
Work is important to people, because it allows them to earn an income and play an active part in society. Long-term unemployment can have negative consequences for well-being. In addition to paid work, working conditions and the work-life balance are also important. This theme covers net labour participation, long-term unemployment and job satisfaction, together with satisfaction with commuting time and with the amount of leisure time. For further information on the labour market situation of the Dutch population, see CBS (2021e). In addition to the above indicators, the highest educational attainment level also comes under the theme of labour and leisure time. Education is important for finding a job and is often linked to greater opportunities for people to organise their lives according to their wishes. Furthermore, a higher education level is positively related to life expectancy, health and social participation, and therefore indirectly influences well-being, both ‘here and now’ and ‘later’.
Education level
Situation in 2020
In 2020, 34.2 percent of the Dutch population aged 15–74 were highly educated. This means they have obtained a higher vocational or university qualification.
- In the 25‑and-over age categories, the older the people, the smaller the percentage of them who are highly educated. Whereas 51.5 percent of 25–34‑year-olds were highly educated, that proportion decreased with age to 23.9 percent of 65–74‑year-olds. Only 11.2 percent of young people aged 15–24 were highly educated, but most people in this group were still in education and are expected to complete further studies.
- At 40.7 percent, people with a western migration background were more likely than average to be highly educated. For people with a native Dutch background, the proportion who were highly educated, 34.5 percent, was also slightly larger than average. The opposite was true for people with a non-western migration background: at 27.3 percent, the proportion was below average.
Colour changes between 2019 and 2020
In terms of education level, the same groups deviated from the average in the same direction in 2019 and 2020. The total proportion of highly educated people has increased, however, from 32.5 to 34.2 percent. The increase was relatively large among 25–34‑year-olds and 45–54‑year-olds, while the 15–24 age category was the only one to remain almost unchanged.
How many people have completed higher education?
Sex
Age
Migration background
Net labour participation
Situation in 2020
In 2020, 68.4 percent of the population aged 15–74 had paid employment. This concerns work irrespective of working hours, so employees with small part-time jobs are also included.
- In 2020, net labour participation was 72.5 percent for men, against 64.2 percent for women.
- Of young people aged between 15–24, 62.5 percent were in employment. This is lower than average, but a large part of this group is still in education. Net labour participation was highest among 25–54‑year-olds, at around 85 percent. Among 55–64‑year-olds, the figure was somewhat lower, at 71.0 percent, but still above average. Lastly, of people aged 65–74, 14.0 percent were in paid employment, but most people in this group are retired.
- Net labour participation was higher than average among highly educated people (81.6 percent) and medium-skilled people (71.0 percent). Of the low-skilled group, 47.9 percent were in paid employment, which is lower than average.
- People with a native Dutch background had higher-than-average net labour participation (69.7 percent). For people with a migration background, net labour participation was below average. This applied more to people with a non-western migration background (61.4 percent) than to people with a western migration background (67.4 percent).
Colour changes between 2019 and 2020
In the case of net labour participation, the same groups deviated from the average in the same direction in 2019 and 2020. Total net labour participation fell slightly between 2019 and 2020, from 68.8 to 68.4 percent. In particular, young people aged 15–24 and low- and medium-skilled people were less likely to be employed. On the other hand, participation among people aged 55–64 increased.
How many people are in paid work?
Sex
Age
Highest completed level of education
Migration background
Long-term unemployment
Situation in 2020
In 2020, 0.9 percent of the labour force was long-term unemployed, i.e. unemployed for at least 12 consecutive months.
- Long-term unemployment was higher than average among 55–64‑year-olds (1.3 percent) and 65–74‑year-olds (1.4 percent). Persons aged 15–24 and 25–34 were less likely than average to be long-term unemployed (0.7 percent).
- At 0.7 percent, highly educated people were less likely than average to be long-term unemployed, whereas low-skilled people, at 1.3 percent, were more likely than average to be long-term unemployed. Medium-skilled people were almost in line with the average, at 0.8 percent.
- There were also differences depending on migration background. People with a native Dutch background were less likely than average to be long-term unemployed (0.7 percent), while people with a western migration background (1.3 percent) and particularly people with a non-western migration background (1.8 percent) were more likely than average to be long-term unemployed.
Colour changes between 2019 and 2020
The proportion of long-term unemployed among people aged 35–44 was in line with the average in 2020. In 2019 this group was still less likely than average to be long-term unemployed. The percentage of long-term unemployed in this age category was virtually unchanged.
Overall, long-term unemployment in the labour force decreased slightly, from 1.0 to 0.9 percent. The decrease was greatest among 65–74‑year-olds.
How many people are long-term unemployed?
Sex
Age
Highest completed level of education
Migration background
Job satisfaction
Situation in 2020
In 2020, 79.2 percent of all employeesnoot10 aged 15–74 were satisfied with their work. This is evident from the Netherlands Working Conditions Survey (NEA) conducted by CBS and TNO.
- The job satisfaction of employees aged 25–34 was somewhat lower than average at 76.2 percent. Employees aged 45–54 (80.2 percent), and particularly those aged 65–74 (84.3 percent), were more likely than average to be satisfied.
- Highly educated employees reported above-average job satisfaction. Low-skilled employees were below average in terms of job satisfaction.
- Employees with a native Dutch background (80.9 percent) were more likely than average to be satisfied with their job. People with a western (74.6 percent) or non-western (71.7 percent) migration background had below-average job satisfaction.
Colour changes between 2019 and 2020
In 2020, the job satisfaction of medium-skilled employees was in line with the average, where it was below average in 2019. Job satisfaction in this group therefore increased somewhat more than average.
Overall, job satisfaction among employees increased from 77.9 to 79.2 percent between 2019 and 2020. This increase was also relatively strong among people with a western and non-western migration background.
How many employees are satisfied with their work?
Sex
Age
Highest completed level of education
Migration background
Satisfaction with commuting time
Situation in 2020
In 2020, 84.3 percent of adults younger than 75 in paid employment for 12 hours a week or more were satisfied with their commuting time; 5.1 percent were dissatisfied and 10.6 percent were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied.
- People aged 25–34 are less likely than average to be satisfied with their commuting time: 81.3 percent are satisfied. People aged 55–64 are more likely than average to be satisfied with their commuting time: 87 percent say they are satisfied.
- Highly educated people are less likely than average to be satisfied with their commuting time. Medium-skilled people are more likely than average to be satisfied with their commuting time.
- Of those with a non-western background, 80.8 percent are satisfied with their travel time. That is below average.
Colour changes between 2019 and 2020
- Among low-skilled people, the proportion who were satisfied with their commuting time was close to the average in 2020, whereas it was higher in 2019.
- People with a native Dutch background no longer reported above-average satisfaction with their commuting time in 2020, whereas they still did in 2019. People with a western background had an average level of satisfaction with commuting time in 2020. In 2019, they were still less likely than average to be satisfied. The opposite was true in the case of people with a non-western background. In 2020 they were less satisfied than average, whereas that was not the case in 2019.
How many people are satisfied with their commuting time?
Sex
Age
Highest completed level of education
Migration background
Satisfaction with leisure time
Situation in 2020
In 2020, 76.4 percent of adults in the Netherlands were satisfied with the amount of leisure time that they had, while 6.9 percent were dissatisfied and 16.7 percent were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied.
- People of different ages have differing opinions on the amount of leisure time available to them. People aged 18–54 are less likely than average to be satisfied with the amount of leisure time they have, while people aged 55 and over are more likely than average to be satisfied. People aged 65 and over have a higher satisfaction rate: 93.9 percent of 65–74‑year-olds are satisfied with their leisure time, while among those aged 75 and over the figure is 93.4 percent. People aged 65 and over also have considerably more leisure time than other groups, at over 50 hours a week; in 2016, the average was nearly 44 hours per week (SCP, 2018).
- At 80.9 percent, low-skilled people were more satisfied than average with the amount of leisure time. Highly educated people had a lower-than-average satisfaction rate, at 74 percent. This difference is related to differences in age and working hours: on average, highly educated people are younger and work longer hours. They also have less leisure time: around 41 hours per week, against nearly 47 hours per week for low-skilled people (SCP, 2018). The difference between low-skilled and highly educated people disappears when figures are adjusted for age. The same applies after correction for working hours.
- People with a native Dutch background are more satisfied than average with the amount of leisure time available. At 67.5 percent, people with a non-western migration background are less satisfied than average. The difference between people with a native Dutch background and those with a non-western background remains if differences in age, education level or working hours are taken into account.
Colour changes between 2019 and 2020
- There was no significant difference between men and women in the proportion who were satisfied with the amount of leisure time in 2020. In 2019, women were more likely to be satisfied with it than men.
How many people are satisfied with their amount of leisure time?
Sex
Age
Highest completed level of education
Migration background
Housing
People’s housing is relevant to their quality of life. It is not only important that people enjoy their homes, but there are also health risks associated with mould or damp. For this reason, we look below at the various defects that a home can have and at how happy people are with their home. See Van Beuningen (2018) for more information about the relationship between people’s well-being, the home and the living environment.
Quality of the home
Situation in 2020
In 2020noot11, 14.9 percent of the population reported that their home had at least one of the following defects: a leaking roof, damp walls, floors or foundations, or rotten window frames or floors.
- People younger than 55 were more likely than average to report home defects. A smaller proportion of elderly people aged 65 and over reported such defects.
- People with a native Dutch background reported damp or rot problems less often than average, whereas people with a non-western background, at 22.4 percent, encountered them more often than average.
Colour changes between 2019 and 2020
- People aged 45–54 were more likely than average to report home defects in 2020. This was not the case in 2019.
- The proportion of highly educated people who reported having a home with such problems was in line with the average in 2020. In 2019, this group encountered these problems less than average.
How many people live in housing with one or more defects?
Sex
Age
Highest completed level of education (16 years and older)
Migration background
Satisfaction with the home
Situation in 2020
In 2020, 87.5 percent of adults were satisfied with their home, while 4.1 percent were dissatisfied and 8.4 percent were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. A smaller percentage of tenants than home owners were satisfied with their home (CBS, 2019b; CBS 2019c).
- Satisfaction with the home was less likely than average among people aged 25–44. Particularly in the 25–34‑year-old group, the proportion of people who were satisfied with their home was relatively low, at 76.5 percent, compared to 84.4 percent for 35–44‑year-olds. People aged 55 and over were more likely to be happy with their home, with more than 90 percent being satisfied.
- People with a native Dutch background were more likely than average to be satisfied with their home. People with a non-western migration background were less likely than average to be satisfied.
Colour changes between 2019 and 2020
With regard to satisfaction with the home, the same groups deviated from the average in the same direction in 2019 and 2020.
How many people are satisfied with their housing?
Sex
Age
Highest completed level of education
Migration background
Society
The theme of society comprises indicators in the areas of participation and trust, which are both pillars of social cohesion. Trust is important for people individually, but also for society as a whole. For the individual, trust contributes to higher well-being, because it is more pleasant to be surrounded by people and institutions that one trusts. In society, trust often means that people are more inclined to cooperate and help others (OECD, 2017a). For more information on participation and trust in the Netherlands, see Schmeets (2018a, 2018b), CBS (2019d) and Schmeets and Exel (2020).
Contact with family, friends and neighbours
Situation in 2020
In 2020, an average of 71.2 percent of people aged 15 and over had contact with family, friends and/or neighbours on a weekly basis. This includes all forms of contact, from personal ‘face-to-face’ contact to interactions by telephone, text message or e-mail. Most weekly contact is with family and/or friends; weekly contact with neighbours is less common. In 2020, an average of 82.9 percent of the Dutch population aged 15 and over had weekly contact with relatives living outside their household, while 75.3 percent saw friends or acquaintances weekly and 55.5 percent had weekly contact with neighbours. The average weekly contact over the three groups is the total figure of weekly social contact; it is not the percentage of people who had weekly contact with at least one of the three groups.
- Women were more likely than men to have social contact on a weekly basis: 74.1 percent and 68.3 percent respectively.
- People aged 15–24 and 45–64 were less likely than average to have weekly contact, while those aged 25–34 and 65–74 were more likely than average to have weekly contact. The differences between the age categories are relatively small.
- People with a native Dutch background were more likely than average to have weekly contact. People with a non-western migration background were somewhat less likely to have weekly contact. The differences according to migration background were also relatively small, however.
Colour changes between 2019 and 2020
- Young people aged 15–24 had weekly contact slightly less than average in 2020. In 2019, they were still in line with the average. People aged 25–34 were more likely than average to have weekly contact with family, friends and neighbours in 2020, whereas this was not the case in 2019. People aged 75 and over were in line with the average in terms of contacts in 2020, whereas they were above average in 2019.
- Highly educated people had weekly contact no more and no less than average in 2020. In 2019 this group still had below-average weekly contact.
- People with a western migration background were in line with the average in terms of weekly contacts with family, friends and neighbours. In 2019, they were less likely than average to have such weekly contact. For people with a non-western migration background, the reverse applies: they were below average for this indicator in 2020, whereas that was not the case in 2019.
How many people have weekly contact with family, friends and/or neighbours?
Sex
Age
Highest completed level of education
Migration background
Voluntary work
Situation in 2020
In 2020, 43.8 percent of the Dutch population aged 15 and over said they had done voluntary work at least once for a club, organisation or association during the previous year. As in previous years, most voluntary work is done with sports clubs, schools, youth clubs and care establishments (Schmeets and Arends, 2020).
- People aged 35–54 were more likely than average to do voluntary work, while 25–34‑year‑olds and people aged 75 and over were less likely than average to volunteer.
- Highly educated people, at 52.6 percent, were more likely than average to do voluntary work. At 34.3 percent, a smaller-than-average proportion of low-skilled people did voluntary work, but they devoted more time to it than highly educated people (CBS, 2018a).
- At 46.8 percent, people with a native Dutch background were more likely than average to do voluntary work. People with a western (38.3 percent) or non-western (30.8 percent) migration background do such work less than average. Volunteers with a non-western migration background nevertheless devote more time to voluntary work on average than people with a native Dutch or western background (Arends and Schmeets, 2018).
Colour changes between 2019 and 2020
- In 2020 there is no discernible difference between the proportions of men and women who volunteer, but in 2019 there was a difference, with more women than men reporting doing so.
- Medium-skilled people were in line with the average in terms of voluntary work in 2020. They were still above average in 2019.
How many people do voluntary work?
Sex
Age
Highest completed level of education
Migration background
Trust in other people
Situation in 2020
Just over six out of ten of the Dutch population aged 15 and over trusted other people in 2020: 63 percent trusted others, while the remainder believed one could never be too cautious in dealings with other people.
- Men were more likely than women to trust other people: 65.7 percent against 60.4 percent.
- Of the various age categories, people aged 65 and over trusted other people less than average, while people aged 25–44 were more likely than average to trust others. The differences between the age categories are partly linked to differences in education level: elderly people are on average less well educated and low-skilled people are less likely to trust other people than the highly educated.
- At 79.8 percent, highly educated people were more likely than average to trust others. By contrast, medium-skilled people (61.1 percent) and particularly low-skilled people (46.6 percent) were below average in terms of trust.
- A relatively high proportion of people with a native Dutch background trusted other people. People with a migration background were somewhat less trusting.
Colour changes between 2019 and 2020
- The proportion of people in the 45–54 age category trusting other people was close to the average in 2020, whereas in 2019 it was still above average.
How many people trust other people?
Sex
Age
Highest completed level of education
Migration background
Trust in institutions
Situation in 2020
Trust in institutions here refers to how many people trust the police, the legal system and the House of Representatives. On average, 69.5 percent of people aged 15 and over trusted these three institutions in 2020. This is not the percentage of people who trust all three institutions, but the average over the three institutions. Trust in the police was highest at 78.1 percent, followed by trust in the legal system (77.3 percent) and in the House of Representatives (53.2 percent). Institutional trust increased in 2020 compared to the previous year (63.1 percent in 2019), mainly due to an increase in trust in the House of Representatives (40.0 percent in 2019).
Further information on trust in institutions can be found on StatLine (CBS, 2020b).
- The older people are, the less likely they are to trust institutions. People aged 15–44 were more likely than average to trust institutions, while people aged 55 years and over were less likely than average to do so. At 77.8 percent, 15–24‑year-olds had most trust in institutions.
- At 78.5 percent, highly educated people had higher-than-average trust in institutions. Medium-skilled and particularly low-skilled people were less likely to trust them.
- At 65.5 percent, people with a western migration background were less likely than average to trust institutions.
Colour changes between 2019 and 2020
- Whereas people with a western migration background had below-average trust in institutions in 2020, this was not yet the case in 2019.
How many people trust institutions?
Sex
Age
Highest completed level of education
Migration background
Safety
Safety and feelings of safety play a role in well-being. Victims of crime can suffer financial or emotional damage – in addition to physical harm – which can have a negative impact on their quality of life (Lamet and Wittebrood, 2009). The perception of safety, or lack of safety, also plays a role: to what extent do people feel safe? Both factors – being a victim of crime and the perception of safety – are addressed below. For further information on the perception of safety and the crime victim rate in the Dutch population, see (CBS, 2020c). Since the figures for the safety indicators are taken from a survey that was not conducted in 2020, figures for 2019 are included here. Hence they are the same as the figures that appeared in last year’s Monitor.
Victims of crime (excluding cybercrime)
- In 2019, 13.7 percent of the Dutch population aged 15 and over said that they had been a victim of crime in the preceding 12 months. This included violent crimes, crimes against property and vandalism. Property crimes were the most common (8.6 percent), while vandalism (5.1 percent) and violence (2.0 percent) occurred less frequently.
- Men, at 14.3 percent, were victims of crime slightly more often than women (13.0 percent).
- The crime victim rate decreases with age. The percentage of people in the age categories to 54 who had been victims of crime was higher than average, while in the 55‑and-over age categories the percentage was below average. The highest crime victim rate was reported in the 15–24 and 25–34 age categories and the lowest rate was among those aged 75 and over.
- The crime victim rate was higher than average among highly educated people (16.2 percent) and lower among low-skilled people (10.8 percent). At 14 percent, medium-skilled people were in line with the average.
- A lower-than-average percentage of people with a native Dutch background reported having been victims of crime (13.1 percent). People with a migration background, whether western or non-western, were relatively likely to be victims of crime. At nearly 16 percent, these groups were victims more than average
How many people fall victim to crime?
Sex
Age
Highest completed level of education
Migration background
Feeling unsafe in the neighbourhood
In 2019, 14.4 percent of people aged 15 and over in the Netherlands occasionally felt unsafe in their own neighbourhood and 1.4 percent reported often feeling unsafe.
- Relatively more women (1.7 percent) than men (1.1 percent) frequently felt unsafe.
- A higher-than-average proportion (1.9 percent) of people aged 25–34 often felt unsafe in their own neighbourhood. Older people aged 65 and over felt unsafe less often.
- Compared to the average, the percentage of low-skilled people who often felt unsafe was higher. The reverse was true in the case of highly educated people.
- The extent to which people often felt unsafe in their own neighbourhood also differed depending on a person’s migration background. Compared to the average, a smaller proportion of people with a native Dutch background often felt unsafe (1.0 percent), while a larger proportion of people with a western (1.8 percent) and especially a non-western (3.4 percent) migration background frequently felt unsafe.
How many people often feel unsafe in their neighbourhood?
Sex
Age
Highest completed level of education
Migration background
The environment
Environmental pollution in a person’s immediate surroundings can cause health problems and have a negative effect on quality of life (OECD, 2017b; WHO, 2018). In 2017, over half of adults in the Netherlands said they found the air, soil and water to be heavily polluted. Moreover, 85 percent said they were worried about the environment and more than half of these reported being concerned about the environment in their local area (CBS, 2018b). The experience of nuisance from pollution in the living environment is used here as an indicator.
Nuisance from environmental problems in the living environment
Situation in 2020
In 2020noot12, 14.2 percent of the Dutch population reported experiencing nuisance from pollution in their living environment. This specifically concerned pollution or other environmental problems, such as smoke, dust, odours or polluted water.
- A smaller-than-average proportion of people younger than 15 reported nuisance from pollution. The same was true of people aged 75 and over. By contrast, people aged 55–74 were somewhat more likely than average to suffer nuisance from pollution.
- A smaller-than-average percentage of low-skilled peoplenoot13 reported nuisance from pollution, whereas a larger-than-average percentage of medium-skilled people reported such nuisance.
- A below-average proportion of people with a native Dutch background reported experiencing nuisance from environmental pollution in their living environment. People with a non-western migration background experienced pollution relatively often.
Colour changes between 2019 and 2020
- The group aged 15–24 was in line with the average in 2020, whereas in 2019 a lower-than-average proportion reported suffering nuisance from environmental pollution.
- A smaller proportion of low-skilled people reported nuisance due to pollution in 2020, whereas in 2019 the proportion was in line with the average.
- In 2020 the group with a western migration background were in line with the average in terms of perceived environmental problems, whereas in 2019 a larger-than-average proportion of them reported being affected by them.
How many people experience pollution in their neighbourhood?
Sex
Age
Highest completed level of education (16 years and older)
Migration background
3.4Accumulation of favourable and unfavourable outcomes
The previous section examined the extent to which the well-being ‘here and now’ of different population groups differs from that of the total population for individual indicators. The fact that a population group scores below average for an indicator does not mean that all the people in that group have a low score for that indicator. Nor does it mean that all the people in that group generally have low well-being if we consider all the indicators at the same time. For example, while an average 85 percent of people are satisfied with life, the figure among low-skilled people is 81 percent. Although this is lower than average, most people in this group are satisfied. If we look at all the indicators for well-being ‘here and now’, the question is whether the favourable and unfavourable outcomes are distributed in a balanced way among all the different people in a population group, or whether they always affect the same people within the group. The latter case is referred to as an accumulation of favourable or unfavourable outcomes. In this section, we examine whether such accumulations of outcomes – favourable or unfavourable – occur. If so, we look at the extent to which accumulation occurs and the characteristics of the people who experience it.
The data on the number of favourable and unfavourable outcomes that accumulate at the individual level are based on the CBS Social Cohesion & Well-being study, together with figures from the Integrated Income and Wealth Statistics. For each person, it is determined how he or she ‘scores’ for various indicators of well-being. The indicators selected for this are included in the 14 original CES ‘here and now’ themes.
The basic principle is to select at least one indicator for each of the original 14 themes, ideally one that is available for the entire adult population. For the first time, this edition uses multiple indicators to describe a theme. An additional indicator for the consumption and income theme, namely household wealth, has been added. This gives a more complete picture of the financial situation than only using household income. Particularly in the case of the older age categories, most of whom are retired, the inclusion of wealth alongside income provides greater insight into the accumulation of favourable or unfavourable outcomes. People aged 65 and over tend to be wealthier than the under‑65s, but they often face a drop in income after retirement (CBS, 2020a). Due to the addition of the extra indicator, the description of the accumulation of favourable and unfavourable outcomes for 2020 is not entirely comparable with the description in previous editions of this Monitor. Some analyses from the previous year have been repeated for comparison purposes, but with the addition of the wealth indicator. In total, useful data are available for 10 of the 14 themes (see Table 3.4.1.). More detailed information can be found in the explanatory notes to this Monitor (CBS, 2021a).
3.4.1Indicators for accumulation of favourable and unfavourable outcomes
| CES theme | Indicator | Unfavourable | Middle | Favourable |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Subjective well-being | Satisfaction with life | Score 1–4 | Score 5–6 | Score 7–10 |
| Consumption and income | Standardised disposable household income | Lowest 20%-group | Middle three 20%-groups | Highest 20%-group |
| Household wealth | Lowest 20%-group | Middle three 20%-groups | Highest 20%-group | |
| Health | Perceived health | Less than good | - | Good/very good |
| Diet | Body mass index (BMI) | Obese, underweight | Moderately overweight | Healthy weight |
| Labour | Labour participation | No paid work, younger than 75 yrs | No paid work, 75 yrs or older | Paid work |
| Leisure time | Satisfaction with amount of leisure time | Score 1–4 | Score 5–6 | Score 7–10 |
| Education | Highest completed level of education | Low education level | Medium education level | High education level |
| Housing | Satisfaction with housing | Score 1–4 | Score 5–6 | Score 7–10 |
| Trust | Trust in other people | Does not trust other people | - | Trusts other people |
| Institutions | Trust in institutions (police, judges, House of Representatives) | Trusts none of the three | Trusts one or two | Trusts all three |
On average, people had a favourable outcome for 6.2 of the eleven indicators and an unfavourable outcome for 1.8 indicators in 2020. The group of people who enjoy high well-being, with nine or more favourable outcomes, is referred to here as the top of the distribution. This group represents 14.6 percent of the population. The group of people with at least four unfavourable outcomes is referred to here as the bottom of the distribution, and also represents 14.6 percent of the population. The rest of the people (70.8 percent) make up the middle of the distribution. Compared to accumulation figures from previous editions of this Monitor, the cut-off point of the top of the distribution has been moved from eight to nine or more favourable outcomes. This was necessary in order to adhere as closely as possible to the previous aim of having 20 percent of the population at both the top and bottom of the distribution. As a result, the group with an accumulation of favourable outcomes is smaller than before (14.6 percent now compared to 21.2 percent in the previous edition). The cut-off point at the bottom of the distribution is the same as in the previous edition. In addition to the extra indicator, the adjusted cut-off point is another reason why the accumulation figures in this Monitor cannot be compared like for like with those in previous editions.
The data of the indicators in Section 3.3 showed that people’s education level and migration background are both strongly correlated with above-average or below-average well-being. The differences between age categories are smaller and the differences between men and women also turn out to be relatively small. We describe below the extent to which individual people in these groups experience an accumulation of favourable or unfavourable outcomes.
Sex
Age
Highest completed level of education
Migration background
- Education level. When we look at the accumulation of favourable and unfavourable outcomes, we see
that there are major differences between education levels. Just over one-third of
highly educated people are at the top of the distribution with high well-being, against
6 percent of medium-skilled people and 2 percent of low-skilled people. Low-skilled
people are more likely to be at the bottom of the distribution; this is the case for
36 percent of this group. The proportions are significantly lower among medium-skilled
people (10 percent) and highly educated people (4 percent). The accumulation of favourable
outcomes is therefore strongly concentrated among the highly educated, while it is
mainly low-skilled people who experience an accumulation of unfavourable outcomes.
This picture is consistent with previous years.
The distribution of favourable and unfavourable outcomes shows that 81 percent of all the people at the top of the distribution are highly educated. At the bottom of the distribution it is low-skilled people who are overrepresented, at 61 percent. Low-skilled people are more likely to have unfavourable scores for trust in other people, paid employment and health compared to highly educated people. - Migration background. An examination of the accumulation of favourable and unfavourable outcomes among people with different backgrounds reveals a more nuanced picture than the description in Section 3.3. Although people with a non-western migration background are relatively likely to be at the bottom of the distribution (23 percent) and less likely to be at the top (7 percent), the differences between this group and people with a native Dutch or a western background are smaller than those based on the outcomes of the individual indicators. The accumulation of unfavourable outcomes among people with a non-western migration background occurs mainly in the first generation and to a lesser extent in the second. The non-western group is more likely to have unfavourable scores than the group with a Dutch background, particularly with regard to wealth, income and trust in others.
- Age. People aged 25–64 are relatively likely to be at the top of the distribution. This is much less likely among people aged 65 and over: 7 percent of people aged between 65–74 and 4 percent of the group aged 75 and over are at the top of the distribution. 18–25‑year-olds are in between, at 13 percent. At the bottom, we see a relatively large number of 65–74‑year-olds. Nearly a quarter of them are at the bottom of the distribution, compared to 10 or 11 percent of people up to the age of 44. Among those aged 75 and over, the proportion with an accumulation of unfavourable outcomes is 14 percent. Elderly people are more likely than young people to have unfavourable scores for health, education level and trust in others, in addition to the fact that they are naturally also less likely to have paid employment. On the other hand, older people are less likely to score unfavourably for wealth. The addition of the wealth indicator shifts the age limit at the upper end of the distribution from 45 to 64 years; a comparison with 2019, with wealth included in the accumulation, shows that the age categories up to 64 are also relatively often at the top of the distribution in 2019. With wealth excluded, these were still the age categories up to 44 in 2019.
- Sex. Men are slightly more likely to be at the top of the distribution (16 percent) than women (13 percent). At the bottom the picture is the opposite, with 13 percent for men and 16 percent for women. Women are more like than men to score unfavourably in particular for paid employment, trusting others, education level and health, although the differences between men and women are not as great as between age categories or education levels.
The characteristics of the population described in this chapter are to some extent connected. For example, people with a non-western migration background are usually relatively young and more likely to be low-skilled, while elderly people are more likely to be low-skilled compared to the total population. If we take these correlations into account, the highest educational attainment level turns out to have the greatest influence on the number of indicators for which people have a favourable or an unfavourable outcome. This is followed by age and migration background, which have approximately the same correlation with the number of favourable or unfavourable indicators. The addition of the wealth indicator means that age is no longer more important than migration background as was previously the case. This can be seen from the fact that the same picture emerges in 2019 if the wealth indicator is included, whereas without wealth age is more important than migration background. Sex is the least important.
It is not only the characteristics of the population, but also the indicators that are to some degree connected with each other and with the accumulation effects. For most of the identified population groups, perceived health and whether or not a person is in paid employment are shown to be most strongly linked to a number of favourable and unfavourable outcomes. The next most important determinant of the number of favourable outcomes is satisfaction with the home, whereas this was previously the highest completed education level. If we conduct the same accumulation analysis with the additional wealth indicator for 2019, education level remains the third indicator among the favourable outcomes, followed by satisfaction with leisure time and, only in third place, satisfaction with the home. The increase in the importance of satisfaction with the home is therefore a 2020 phenomenon. Among the unfavourable outcomes, trust in others remains the third most strongly connected indicator in 2020.
For those aged 75 and over, having a job is less relevant (favourable outcomes) or irrelevant (unfavourable outcomes). A comparison of the importance of having work for the 65–74 age category in 2019 versus 2020 with the wealth indicator shows that work has become slightly more important for this group relative to the other indicators in the case of favourable outcomes. Furthermore, among people aged 65 and over, the new wealth indicator correlates relatively strongly with the number of favourable outcomes. For some of the population groups there is also a strong correlation between the number of favourable outcomes with the highest completed education level and satisfaction with the amount of leisure time.
As well as health, employment and trust in other people, satisfaction with the home is important to a large part of the population groups in relation to the number of unfavourable outcomes.
3.5References
References
Beuningen, J. van, K. van der Houwen and L. Moonen, 2014, Measuring well-being. An analysis of different response scales. Statistics Netherlands, The Hague/Heerlen/Bonaire.
Beuningen, J. van, C. Jol and L. Moonen, 2015, De Persoonlijke Welzijnsindex. De ontwikkeling van een index voor subjectief welzijn. Statistics Netherlands, The Hague/Heerlen/Bonaire.
Beuningen, J. van, 2018, Woning en woonomgeving gerelateerd aan tevredenheid met het leven. Statistical Trends, Statistics Netherlands, The Hague/Heerlen/Bonaire.
Beuningen, J. van, and M. Akkermans, 2020, Regionale verschillen in geluksbeleving en tevredenheid met het leven in 2013–2019. Statistical Trends, Statistics Netherlands, The Hague/Heerlen/Bonaire.
CBSa, StatLine: Bevolking; onderwijsniveau; geslacht, leeftijd en migratieachtergrond
CBSb, StatLine: Bevolking; geslacht, leeftijd, generatie en migratieachtergrond, 1 January
CBS, 2016, Gezondheid, relaties en werk belangrijker voor geluk dan geld. Statistics Netherlands, The Hague/Heerlen/Bonaire.
CBS, 2018a, Laagstopgeleide vrijwilligers maken meer uren. Statistics Netherlands, The Hague/Heerlen/Bonaire.
CBS, 2018b, More people find the environment highly polluted. Statistics Netherlands, The Hague/Heerlen/Bonaire.
CBS, 2019a, Armoede en sociale uitsluiting 2019. Statistics Netherlands, The Hague/Heerlen/Bonaire.
CBS, 2019b, Huurders minder tevreden met woning. Statistics Netherlands, The Hague/Heerlen/Bonaire.
CBS, 2019c, Woontevredenheid; kenmerken woningen, regio’s. Statistics Netherlands, The Hague/Heerlen/Bonaire.
CBS, 2019d, Public trust in EU and politics on the rise. Statistics Netherlands, The Hague/Heerlen/Bonaire.
CBS, 2020a, Materiële welvaart in Nederland 2020. Statistics Netherlands, The Hague/Heerlen/Bonaire.
CBS, 2020b, Vertrouwen in mensen en in organisaties; persoonskenmerken. Statistics Netherlands, The Hague/Heerlen/Bonaire. <>
CBS, 2020c, Veiligheidsmonitor 2019. Statistics Netherlands, The Hague/Heerlen/Bonaire.
CBS, 2021a, Monitor Brede Welvaart & Sustainable Development Goals 2021: een toelichting. Statistics Netherlands, The Hague, Heerlen, Bonaire.
CBS, 2021b, Welzijn; kerncijfers, persoonskenmerken. Statistics Netherlands, The Hague/Heerlen/Bonaire.
CBS, 2021c, Gezondheid en zorggebruik; persoonskenmerken, (consulted on 12-3-2021).
CBS, 2021d, Leefstijl en (preventief) gezondheidsonderzoek; persoonskenmerken, (consulted on 12-3-2021).
CBS, 2021e, De arbeidsmarkt in cijfers 2020. Statistics Netherlands, The Hague/Heerlen/Bonaire.
Diener, E and E. Suh, 1997, Measuring Quality of Life: Economic, Social and Subjective Indicators. Social Indicators Research, 40 (1–2), pp. 189–216.
Lamet, W. and K. Wittebrood, 2009, Nooit meer dezelfde. Gevolgen van misdrijven voor slachtoffers. The Hague: Netherlands Institute for Social Research
OECD, 2017a, OECD Guidelines on Measuring Trust. OECD Publishing, Paris.
OECD, 2017b, How’s life? 2017: Measuring Well-being. OECD Publishing, Paris.
Schmeets, H., 2018a, Participatie op de kaart. Statistical Trends, Statistics Netherlands, The Hague/Heerlen/Bonaire.
Schmeets, H., 2018b, Vertrouwen op de kaart. Statistical Trends, Statistics Netherlands, The Hague/Heerlen/Bonaire.
Schmeets, H. and J. Arends, 2020, Vrijwilligerswerk en welzijn. Statistical Trends, Statistics Netherlands, The Hague/Heerlen/Bonaire.
Schmeets, H. and J. Exel (2020). Vertrouwen, maatschappelijk onbehagen en pessimisme. CBS, Statistical Trends. Statistics Netherlands, The Hague/Heerlen/Bonaire.
SCP, 2018, Alle ballen in de lucht. Tijdsbesteding in Nederland en de samenhang met kwaliteit van leven. The Hague: Netherlands Institute for Social Research
Stiglitz, J. E., A. Sen and J. –P. Fitoussi, 2009, Report by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress. Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress, Paris.
WHO, 2018, How air pollution is destroying our health. World Health Organization. (consulted on 4-2-2020)
Noten
The 2016 International Standard Classification of Education in three levels was used as the basis for the highest level of education attained. A low education level comprises groups 1 to 8 of primary education/special primary education, the first three academic years of senior general secondary education (HAVO)/pre-university education (VWO), all programmes of prevocational secondary education (VMBO) and level 1 of secondary vocational education (MBO-1). A medium education level comprises upper secondary education (HAVO/VWO), basic vocational training (MBO-2), vocational training (MBO-3) and middle management and specialist education (MBO-4). A high education level comprises associate degree programmes; higher education (HBO/WO) Bachelor’s programmes; Master’s degree programmes at universities of applied sciences and research universities (HBO, WO); and doctoral degree programmes at research universities (WO).
Further information on the delineation of migration background can be found here.
Satisfaction with life is measured on a scale of 1 to 10, with a score of 7 or higher being seen as ‘satisfied’ (see Van Beuningen et al. (2014) for more information on how this was determined).
The themes included in the PWI are based on the recommendations of Stiglitz et al. (2009).
Since these indicators are measured at household level, the characteristics of the main breadwinner of the household are considered when determining the distribution among population groups. This is also the reason why figures for men and women are not shown separately for these indicators.
The income amounts in this section are all in 2019 prices.
The assets consist of financial assets (bank deposits and securities), real estate, substantial interests and business assets. The debts include loans for owner-occupied homes, student debts and consumer credit. In this edition the deposits accrued in savings-based and investment-based mortgages are not included in wealth. This omission will be rectified in mid-2021 as part of an overall improvement, featuring in particular better measurement of substantial interests in companies. The 2022 and subsequent editions will report on the improved wealth specifications.
Pension or annuity entitlements can also be considered a form of wealth. However, because a household does not have free access to them, they are not included in the definition of wealth.
The figures on perceived health by education level relate to the population aged 25 and over. When determining the colours of the education levels for the visualisation, we therefore made a comparison between the figures for the education levels and the figure for the total population aged 25 and over (76.6 percent).
The figures on the percentage of overweight people by education level relate to the population aged 25 and over. When determining the colours of the education levels for the visualisation, we therefore made a comparison between the figures for the education levels and the figure for the total population aged 25 and over (53.0 percent).
No job satisfaction figures are available for working people as a whole, i.e. including the self-employed.
The observation took place from March to May inclusive.
The observation took place from March to May inclusive.
The figures on environmental problems by education level concern the population aged 16 and over. When determining the colours of the education levels for the visualisation, we therefore made a comparison between the figures for the education levels and the figure for the total population aged 16 and over (14.6 percent).