Available via license: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
203
Journal
of International
Studies
© Foundation
of International
Studies, 2016
© CSR, 2016
Scientifi c Papers
Tatjana Bilevičienė
Mykolas Romeris University
Vilnius, Lithuania
tbilev@mruni.eu
Eglė Bilevičiūtė
Mykolas Romeris
Vilnius, Lithuania
eglek@mruni.eu
Romualdas Drakšas
Mykolas Romeris University
Vilnius, Lithuania
draksas@tdd.lt
Abstract. Labour market functioning is a ected by a number of internal and external fac-
tors. It is increasingly acknowledged that GDP should be associated with additional
data and indicators. e e ect of employment quality improvement on the quality of
life is analysed in the study . e analysis of economic indicators enables not only
evaluating the country’s economic level, but also determine the relation between these
factors, the condition of the labour market and the development of small and medium
businesses. e article provides a theoretical analysis of the relation between employ-
ment and life quality. e empirical part analyses the results of the research “Labour,
employment and entrepreneurship of the population”, carried out under the commis-
sion of scientists, Mykolas Romeris University
Keywords: employment, quality of life, sustainable development, social policy
JEL classi cation: C1, J21.
INTRODUCTION
e issue of life quality improvement is becoming increasingly signi cant when solving most of the
problems occurring in the society. is situation results from changes in social, economic, cultural, politi-
cal and environmental situations. European Union (EU) and Lithuanian Normative Documents emphasize
that economy is rst of all a social process involving social subjects: people, social groups, institutions and
the State. National and EU policy directions must be evaluated according to their progress in order to
Received:
May, 2016
1st Revision:
September, 2016
Accepted:
December, 2016
DOI:
10.14254/2071-
8330.2016/9-3/16
Employment as a Factor of Life Quality
Bilevičienė T., Bilevičiūtė E., Drakšas R. (2016), Employment as a Factor of Life Quality,
Journal of International Studies, Vol. 9, No 3, pp. 203-216.
DOI: 10.14254/2071-8330.2016/9-3/16
Journal of International Studies Vol. 9, No.3, 2016
204
achieve social, economic and environmental goals, as well as improve the welfare of European citizens. e
quality of life is usually understood as the level of welfare, individually perceived and evaluated as a way of
life. e content of life quality is quite often identi ed as the concept of social welfare, by supplementing it
with the country’s economic development index – the size of gross domestic product (GDP) per each resident
(Flynn at al., 2002; Dumbliauskienė, Jarmalavičienė, 2012). However, there is a widespread opinion that
indicators illustrating economic achievements – GDP growth, GDP per resident, and other relative indica-
tors associated with production factors, development of goods and services, and their monetary value, – no
longer re ect the actual situation in a country, especially the standards of living and the welfare degree for
an individual member of the society (Hagerty atal., 2001; Stiglitz at al., 2009). Indicators of life quality of-
ten do not depend on macroeconomic indicators, and may even negatively correlate with them. us, when
evaluating the quality of life next to economic indicators, a signi cant role is also given to social, ecological,
sustainable economic welfare indices focused on preservation of health, nature and healthy environment,
clean production, renewable energy industry and organic farming (Lisauskaitė, 2010). When analysing the
development of life quality, each country should consider its own speci c aspects, as the overall quality of
life in each country can be in uenced by di erent parameters, depending on country’s level of development,
geographical location, society’s level of education and culture, political situation, historical era, mentality,
religious views and other aspects.
e country’s welfare depends on its economic and labour market policies , and also on its ability to en-
sure income for its people. Economic factor indicators describe the State’s economic situation. ese indica-
tors also include employment and unemployment level indicators. It can be observed that there is a relation
between employment/ quality of employment and evaluation of life quality. In 2011, European Union’s
growth strategy Europe 2020 was announced. “Europe 2020 puts forward three mutually reinforcing priorities:
Smart growth: developing an economy based on knowledge and innovation.
Sustainable growth: promoting a more resource e cient, greener and more competitive economy.
Inclusive growth: fostering a high-employment economy delivering social and territorial cohesion.” (European
Commission, 2010).
e Europe 2020 strategy emphasizes the social policy priority, and particular attention is paid to labour
and employment, as well as the development of human resources. It can be stated that when evaluating only
quantitative indicators of employment and unemployment, poor quality employment is often disregarded.
Economic and social policy displays itself through the quality of employment, which is a wider indicator of
economy as compared to the level of unemployment.
When implementing the project “Development of a system and evaluation model of indicators meas-
uring the quality of life of Lithuanian people”, the public opinion & market research centre VILMORUS
carried out a research “Labour, employment and entrepreneurship of population” under the commission of
scientists, Mykolas Romeris University. e article analyses the research results characterizing employment
and population employment quality, as well as their relation with the evaluation of life quality.
1. CORRELATIONS BETWEEN EMPLOYMENT AND THE QUALITY OF LIFE
EU employment policy is focused on the improvement of the European social model. Development
of the necessary productive employment opportunities and ensuring steady livelihood are one of the most
important and most di cult tasks of each society. Inclusion of as much people as possible into good quality
employment is the best way of increasing their economic and social opportunities, as well as social cohesion.
e country’s welfare depends on its economic and labour market policy, and from its ability to ensure in-
Tatjana Bilevičienė, Eglė Bilevičiūtė, Romualdas Drakšas Employment as a Factor of Life Quality
205
come for its people (Dromantienė,2008). Employment is the most important method to fully, actively and
on equal rights participate in the life of the society. e more people participate full-time or part-time in
the labour market, the larger their contribution to ensuring the accessibility of the necessary social security.
e last economic crisis a ected not only the economic condition of the European Union, but also the
social sphere, the labour market and employment. In 2013, the European Commission Employment Report
(European Commission, 2013) stated that: “Unemployment has reached unprecedented levels in the EU-28.
While the unemployment rate decreased by over 2 percentage points between 2003 and 2008, the nancial and
economic crisis has caused a severe deterioration. Between 2008 and the second quarter of 2013 the unemployment
rate in the EU-28 increased from 7.1% to 10.9%”. However, in 2015, the Eurofound Report (Eurofound,
2015) stated that: “Europe has begun to emerge from the prolonged slump that began with the global nancial
crisis in 2008 and was deepened by the euro zone single -currency crisis in 2010–2011. In the last year, aggregate
employment levels have risen faster than at any time since 2008. Aggregate EU unemployment rates have been
declining since September 2013”.
When analysing the dynamics of employment and unemployment rates in Lithuania (see Fig.1), it
can be observed that these rates improved between 2010 and 2013, even though in 2014-2015 the level of
employment slightly decreased, however, the level of unemployment continued to decrease. e European
Commission found that unemployment at the time mostly decreased in the Baltic States, Ireland and
Hungary. Such di erences are more or less in line with the GDP changes in the Member States (European
Commission, 2013). Employment level trends continue to be unfavourable in order to reach the objective of
ensuring the employment of 75 percent of the population between the ages of 20–64, as established in the
Europe 2020 strategy. In order to solve the issue of the increasing queues of the unemployed, which in some
Member States might pose a real threat to the harmony of the society and sustainable economic growth, it is
necessary to create more jobs. However, with the growing integrated world economy, Europe needs to create
not only more jobs, but these jobs need to also be better and more e cient in order to once again achieve
progress by improving the living conditions of its citizens (Employment polarisation..., 2013).
Kirsten Sehnbruch (2004) states that the quality of employment has the same signi cance as the extent of
employment. e quality of employment is a function of many factors. It mostly depends on circumstances
and the personal needs of employees, thus it is necessary to apply criteria which are completely subjective,
for example, job satisfaction, career opportunities, job stability, level of responsibility, interest in the job.
Other important factors are management quality, acknowledgment of the e orts of employees, training and
improvement opportunities, balance between work and rest, and relationships with colleagues. Evaluation of
the quality of employment is often subjective. It can even di er in the same country, depending on the level
of income (Anderson et al. 2010). Richard Layard (2005) states that evaluation of the quality of employ-
ment must include not only wages, working conditions and working hours, but also the level of job satisfac-
tion. Measurements of the quality of employment can be determined from population surveys.
Journal of International Studies Vol. 9, No.3, 2016
206
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
58
60
62
64
66
68
70
72
74
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Unemployment, %
Employment, %
Employment Unemployment
Figure 1. e level of employment and unemployment in Lithuania (Statistics Lithuania, 2016)
Source: compiled by the authors according to Statistics Lithuania (2016).
e European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (http://www.euro-
found.europa.eu) developed an employment quality model and proposed its employment quality measure-
ment indicators (European Foundation for the Improvement..., 2002). e most important employment
quality indicators of the European Foundation can be divided into two groups: job quality indicators – job
satisfaction, salary, working hours, skills and training, career opportunities, work content, appropriate po-
tential of the employee to carry out his job; employment indicators in a wider labour market context –
equality, health and safety, exibility and security, job availability, balance between work and life, employee’s
participation in the social dialogue, diversity and discrimination prevention, productivity of the economic
activity (Commissions of the European Communities, 2001). Scientists from New Zealand carried out
a study on the quality of employment (Career Progression and Development Survey, 2005). It should be
noted that the feeling of success, the demonstration of skills and potentials, and e ective management were
more important than salary and career opportunities for most of the respondents. A exible work schedule
was very important for more than half of all the respondents.
Some authors (Răileanu Szeles, 2009) point out the correlation between the quality of employment and
other employment factors in the European employment strategy, for example, the synergy of full employ-
ment, inclusion and social cohesion. Investments in the human capital and vocational training or improving
the organization of work may encourage innovative activities and productivity growth.
Quality of life has been the object of a large amount of studies in di erent research areas such as eco-
nomics, sociology, political science, psychology, philosophy and medical sciences. “Quality of life is an evolv-
ing idea which changes across time and societies and in relation to the population, cultures, living conditions
and styles taken into consideration” (Vesan, Bizzotto, 2011). e quality of life covers a very wide area of
political and economic interests. e work programme of the European Foundation for the Improvement
of Living and Working Conditions (Eurofound)1 emphasizes the need to link the evaluation of the quality
of life with the balance between employment, work and life, and social cohesion (Second European Quality
1
Eurofound. http://ww w.eurofound.europa.eu/
Tatjana Bilevičienė, Eglė Bilevičiūtė, Romualdas Drakšas Employment as a Factor of Life Quality
207
of Life Survey, 2009). e work programme of the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living
and Working Conditions also emphasizes the need to link the evaluation of the quality of life with the vari-
able nature of the balance between employment, work and life, and social cohesion (European Foundation
…, 2009). e opinion of the European Parliament regarding GDP and other indicators evaluating the
progress in the changing world (European Parliament, 2010) speci es that GDP is the main indicator on
the basis of which it is possible to properly consider the di erent social and economic characteristics at
the European level, therefore it must remain the main criterion on the level of nancial allocations, when
implementing the future cohesion policy. However, it is increasingly acknowledged that GDP should be
associated with additional data and indicators. Scientists (Mackonis, 2012; Norberg, 2010; Stiglitz at al.,
2009) believe that GDP growth does not show whether the people are satis ed with their life, therefore
other indicators must also be applied in order to measure the country’s progress. In its communiqué GDP
and other indicators for the evaluation of progress in the changing world, the Commission of the European
Communities (2009) states that measures of ensuring the quality of life and welfare include income, public
services, health, leisure, wealth, mobility and a clean environment. us, indicators related to these causative
factors are very important for both the governments and the EU.
Quality of life indicators is a Eurostat online publication providing recent statistics on the quality of life
in the European Union (Eurostat Statistics Explained). e authors found that a strong negative correlation
exists between the quality of life indicators and the level of unemployment in Lithuania (Pearson correlation
coe cient r = – 0,88).
2. EMPIRICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
A group of scientists from Mykolas Romeris University carried out a project in 2014 “Development
of a system and evaluation model of indicators measuring the quality of life of Lithuanian people”. When
preparing the project, several indicator groups were distinguished, one of which was work and employment
which also largely in uence other indicators of the quality of life. e public opinion and market research
centre VILMORUS carried out a research on April 11 – 23 of 2014 “Labour, employment and entrepre-
neurship of the population” under the commission of Mykolas Romeris University. Number of respondents
N = 1002. Research object: residents of Lithuania who are 18 years and over, survey method: interview at
the home of the respondent. Selection method: multilevel, probability sampling. Respondent selection is
prepared so that each resident of Lithuania would have an equal chance of being sur veyed. e research
was carried out in 20 cities/towns and 29 villages. e article includes a data analysis of the “Labour and
Employment of the Population” research part.
Research aim: to evaluate the in uence of employment and the quality of employment on the quality
of life.
Research methods: statistical data analysis. Descriptive statistics method, relations analysis (Pearson χ2
criterion calculation), correlation analysis (Pearson and Spearman correlation coe cient calculation) and
multidimensional statistical analysis were applied. Pearson χ2 criterion calculation is applied to nominal
variables, Pearson correlation coe cient is calculated by determining the relation of quantitative variables,
Spearman correlation coe cient is calculated by determining the relation of ordinal variables.
Journal of International Studies Vol. 9, No.3, 2016
208
3. EMPIRICAL RESEARCH RESULTS
e analysis of the research results revealed that 41,3 percent of respondents were unemployed, 8,8 per-
cent worked less than full-time, 44,1 percent worked full-time, and 5,8 percent of respondent worked more
than full-time. Pearson χ2 criterion calculation shows that employment (regardless of whether the respon-
dent is unemployed, works full-time, or works less or more than full-time) does not depend on gender. is
con rms the opinion of the European Commission that the employment of men and women is equal in
Lithuania. Employment depends on age, place of residence and marital status (p-level = 0,000).
3.1. Analysis on the interdependence of employment factors
Pearson χ2 criterion calculation was applied in order to determine the interdependence of employment
factors (see Table 1). It can be observed that the labour sector (public, private, public and private) has no rela-
tion neither to employment (unemployed, working full-time, working less than full-time, working more than
full-time), nor to the nature of work (permanent job, xed-term contract, hourly work, seasonal work and
other paid activities), nor to the possibility to practice one’s profession (had to requalify, the job partly matches
one’s quali cations, the job fully matches one’s quali cations, job includes tasks that both match and do not
match the employee’s quali cations).
Table 1
Interdependence of employment factors
Employment
(unemployed,
working full-
time, working
less than full-
time, working
more than
full-time)
Nature of
work (per-
manent job,
fi xed-term
contract,
hourly work,
seasonal work
and other paid
activities)
Labour sec-
tor (public,
private, public
and private)
Possibility to
practice one’s
profession (had
to requalify, the
job partly matches
one’s qualifi ca-
tions, the job
fully matches one’s
qualifi cations,
job includes tasks
that both match
and do not match
the employee’s
qualifi cations).
Employment (unemployed, working full-time,
working less than full-time, working more than
full-time)
depends
p-level =
0,000
does not
depend
depends
p-level = 0,000
Nature of work (permanent job, fi xed-term
contract, hourly work, seasonal work and other
paid activities)
depends
p-level = 0,000 does not
depend
depends
p-level = 0,000
Labour sector (public, private, public and
private)
does not
depend
does not
depend does not depend
Possibility to practice one’s profession (had to
requalify, the job partly matches one’s qualifi -
cations, the job fully matches one’s qualifi ca-
tions, job includes tasks that both match and do
not match the employee’s qualifi cations).
depends
p-level = 0,000
depends
p-level =
0,000
does not
depend
Source: compiled by the authors.
Tatjana Bilevičienė, Eglė Bilevičiūtė, Romualdas Drakšas Employment as a Factor of Life Quality
209
Employment (unemployed, working full-time, working less than full-time, working more than full-time)
has a relation to the nature of work (permanent job, xed-term contract, hourly work, seasonal work and
other paid activities) and to the possibility to practice one’s profession (had to requalify, the job partly matches
one’s quali cations, the job fully matches one’s quali cations, job includes tasks that both match and do
not match the employee’s quali cations). It can be stated that, in order to work, respondents have to either
requalify or choose a temporary job position. Otherwise they might be unemployed. In order to nd a job
(part-time or full-time), a large part of the respondents requali ed. However, respondents who work more
than full-time have jobs that match their quali cations.
Also, the nature of work (permanent job, xed-term contract, hourly work, seasonal work and other paid
activities) has a relation to the possibility to practice one’s profession (had to requalify, the job partly matches
one’s quali cations, the job fully matches one’s quali cations, job includes tasks that both match and do not
match the employee’s quali cations). In this case, it can be stated that high exibility of the labour market
is necessary.
3.2. Job satisfaction analysis
Respondents were presented with the question: “What is your opinion on your job (if you are currently
employed)?” and job quality factors were provided for evaluation (see Table 2). Respondents had to evaluate
the importance of these factors and their satisfaction with these factors. Spearman correlation coe cient (rs)
calculation revealed a very weak correlation between the importance of the factors and the satisfaction with these
factors evaluation (see Table 1). An average correlation exist only between the possibility to have a job that
the person enjoys (rs = 0,326), relationship with the manager (rs = 0,379), relationships with co-workers (rs
= 0,414) and the possibility to use one’s abilities creatively (0,398), under the evaluation of the importance
of the factors and the satisfaction with these factors. We can see that these are the factors that rather strongly
depend on the working persons themselves.
Table 2
Relation between the importance of job factors and the satisfaction with these factors
Are these factors important to you?/
Are you satisfi ed with these aspects?
Possibility to have a job that you would enjoy rs = 0,326; p-level = 0,000
Possibility to maintain your current job position rs = 0,274; p-level = 0,000
Salary no relation
Relationship with the manager, management rs = 0,379; p-level = 0,000
Relationships with co-workers rs = 0,414; p-level = 0,000
Healthy working conditions, prevention of stress rs = 0,172; p-level = 0,000
The possibility to balance work, leisure and family obligations rs = 0,207; p-level = 0,000
The possibility to use your abilities creatively rs = 0,398; p-level = 0,000
The possibility to progress further in your career rs = 0,273; p-level = 0,000
The possibility to improve and raise your qualifi cation rs = 0,295; p-level = 0,000
The possibility to have free time after work, to rest rs = 0,285; p-level = 0,000
Work in general rs = 0,294; p-level = 0,000
Source: compiled by the authors.
Journal of International Studies Vol. 9, No.3, 2016
210
Respondents evaluated the importance of their job factors and the satisfaction with these factors based
on a ve-point system, where 1 is the worst evaluation, and 5 is the best evaluation. An average rating of the
evaluation of these factors was calculated (see Table 3 and Fig.2)
Table 3
The importance of job factors and the satisfaction with these factors
Evaluation average
(importance)
Evaluation average
(satisfaction)
Salary 4,64 3,42
Work in general 4,64 4,04
The possibility to have free time after work, to rest 4,6 4
Relationships with co-workers 4,56 4,16
Possibility to have a job that you would enjoy 4,56 3,92
The possibility to balance work, leisure and family obligations 4,55 3,9
Possibility to maintain your current job position 4,51 4,02
Relationship with the manager, management 4,5 3,96
Healthy working conditions, prevention of stress 4,5 3,64
The possibility to go on paid/unpaid leave 4,31 3,92
The possibility to improve and raise your qualifi cation 4,26 3,54
The possibility to use your abilities creatively 4,22 3,68
The possibility to progress further in your career 3,9 3,36
Source: compiled by the authors.
e averages of the evaluation of the importance of factors of respondents show that salary and work in
general are the most important (4,64 points). However, the evaluation of salary satisfaction is the lowest of
all (3,42 points). e least important is the possibility to progress further in one’s career, and the satisfaction
with this factor is the lowest as well. e importance of relationships with co-workers was evaluated equally
with the importance of the possibility to have a job that one would enjoy (4,56 points). However, if satis-
faction with the relationships with co-workers is evaluated relatively highly (4,16 points), then satisfaction
with the possibility to have a job that one would enjoy is evaluated only with 3,92 points. e evaluation
of the possibility to have free time after work and to rest is higher (4,6 points) compared to the possibility
to have a job that one would enjoy. Apparently, when choosing a job, respondents aim to achieve this, as
the satisfaction with the possibility to have free time after work and to rest is higher. e importance of
the possibility to maintain one’s current job position (4,51 points) is lower than the possibility to balance
work, leisure and family obligations (4,55 points). is shows that family relations have a priority against
employment. However, satisfaction with the possibility to balance work, leisure and family obligations is
much lower (3,9 points).
Tatjana Bilevičienė, Eglė Bilevičiūtė, Romualdas Drakšas Employment as a Factor of Life Quality
211
4,64
4,64
4,6
4,56
4,56
4,55
4,51
4,5
4,5
4,31
4,26
4,22
3,9
3,42
4,04
4
4,16
3,92
3,9
4,02
3,96
3,64
3,92
3,54
3,68
3,36
00,511,522,533,544,55
Salary
Work in generally
Possibilities after work to have free time to relax
Relationships with co-workers
Opportunities to work the favorite job
Opportunities to combine work, leisure, family obligations
The ability to save your work place
Relations with the manager, leadership
Healthy working conditions, stress avoidance
The ability to take paid / unpaid vocations
Opportunities for improvement, training
Opportunities for creative use of their skills
Career opportunities
Satisfaction Importance
Figure 2. e importance of job factors and the satisfaction with these factors
Source: own calculation.
Even though the evaluation of the importance of the possibility to improve and raise quali cation
(4,26 points), and the possibility to use one’s abilities creatively (4,22 points) is not high, the evaluation
of the satisfaction with these factors is even lower (3,54 and 3,68 points accordingly). e importance of
relationships with co-workers (4,56 points) is evaluated better than the importance of the relationship with
the manager (4,5 point), however the satisfaction with the relationship with the manager is also much lower
(3,96 points). To sum up, it can be stated that the importance of most factors is evaluated by more than 4,5
points, but the satisfaction with these factors is evaluated by mostly less than 4 points.
Spearman correlation coe cient (rs) calculation was applied when analysing the correlation of job factor
importance.(see Table 4).
e average relation of the evaluation of the importance of these factors can be seen. e strongest
correlation exists between the relationship with the manager and relationships with co-workers (rs = 0,705),
the possibility to progress further in one’s career, the possibility to improve and raise one’s quali cation (rs
= 0,691), the possibility to balance work, leisure and family obligations, healthy working conditions, pre-
vention of stress (rs = 0,596), relationships with co-workers and the possibility to balance work, leisure and
family obligations (rs = 0,584), under the evaluation of their importance. All these correlations are logical.
Journal of International Studies Vol. 9, No.3, 2016
212
Table 4
e correlation of job factor importance (Spearman correlation coe cient rs, p-level = 0,000)
Possibility to have a job that you
would enjoy
Possibility to maintain your cur-
rent job position
Salary
Relationship with the manager,
management
Relationships with co-workers
Healthy working conditions,
prevention of stress
The possibility to balance work,
leisure and family obligations
The possibility to use your abili-
ties creatively
The possibility to progress
further in your career
The possibility to improve and
raise your qualifi cation
The possibility to have free time
after work, to rest
Work in general
Possibility to
have a job that
you would enjoy
0,456 0,456 0,520 0,498 0,424 0,485 0,484 0,375 0,460 0,425 0,465
Possibility to
maintain your
current job
position
0,456 0,391 0,444 0,497 0,368 0,385 0,301 0,314 0,335 0,369 0,435
Salary 0,456 0,391 0,494 0,472 0,498 0,435 0,280 0,239 0,286 0,440 0,425
Relationship with
the manager,
management
0,520 0,444 0,494 0,705 0,476 0,535 0,421 0,386 0,424 0,475 0,501
Relationships
with co-workers 0,498 0,497 0,472 0,705 0,545 0,584 0,411 0,354 0,400 0,458 0,481
Healthy working
conditions, pre-
vention of stress
0,424 0,368 0,498 0,476 0,545 0,596 0,404 0,341 0,317 0,470 0,397
The possibility
to balance work,
leisure and fam-
ily obligations
0,485 0,385 0,435 0,535 0,584 0,596 0,516 0,369 0,445 0,569 0,497
The possibility to
use your abilities
creatively
0,484 0,301 0,28 0,421 0,411 0,404 0,516 0,486 0,545 0,432 0,370
The possibility to
progress further
in your career
0,375 0,314 0,239 0,386 0,354 0,341 0,369 0,486 0,691 0,399 0,377
The possibil-
ity to improve
and raise your
qualifi cation
0,46 0,335 0,286 0,424 0,4 0,317 0,445 0,545 0,691 0,477 0,464
The possibil-
ity to have free
time after work,
to rest
0,425 0,369 0,44 0,475 0,458 0,47 0,569 0,432 0,399 0,477 0,538
Work in general 0,465 0,435 0,425 0,501 0,481 0,397 0,497 0,37 0,377 0,464 0,538
Source: compiled by the authors.
Tatjana Bilevičienė, Eglė Bilevičiūtė, Romualdas Drakšas Employment as a Factor of Life Quality
213
3.3 Analysis of employment relation with some other factors of the quality of life
Questionnaire block “Consumption” included the following question: “To what extent are you satis ed
with your consumption and purchase possibilities?”. With the help of Pearson χ2 criterion, the correlation of
the satisfaction with one’s consumption and purchase possibilities and employment factors was analysed.
Satisfaction with one’s consumption and purchase possibilities depends on employment (unemployed, work-
ing full-time, working less than full-time, working more than full-time) (p-level = 0,000). It can be observed
that very few respondents are highly satis ed with their consumption and purchase possibilities. Respondents
mostly declared average satisfaction. Most of those who are unsatis ed are unemployed, although there were
quite a few unemployed respondents who are averagely satis ed or satis ed with their consumption and
purchase possibilities. is shows that personal employment does not always re ect the true standard of liv-
ing. Satisfaction with one’s consumption and purchase possibilities does not depend on the labour sector (public,
private, public and private).
Questionnaire block “Happiness of life” included the question “Do you agree or disagree with the following
statements: I have clear life goals; I am a happy person”.
With the help of Pearson χ2 criterion, the correlation of these happiness evaluation factors with employ-
ment factors was analysed.
e evaluation of the statement “I am a happy person” is correlated to employment (unemployed, work-
ing full-time, working less than full-time, working more than full-time) (p-level = 0,000). e evaluation of
the statement “I have clear life goals” is correlated to employment (unemployed, working full-time, working
less than full-time, working more than full-time) (p-level = 0,000). e possibility to practice one’s profession
(had to requalify, the job partly matches one’s quali cations, the job fully matches one’s quali cations, job
includes tasks that both match and do not match the employee’s quali cations) is correlated to the evaluation
of the statement “I have clear life goals” (p-level = 0,000).
Research results have shown that most of the respondents have clear life goals. However, it can be ob-
served that life goals can be understood di erently. For example, the number of respondents who had life
goals was equal among the unemployed and those working full-time. e number of respondents who had
goals was also similar among those who practice their profession and those who had to requalify.
e importance of employment was analysed based on the employment factors. With the help of
Pearson χ2 criterion, it was determined that the importance of employment to the respondent depends on his
employment (the respondent is unemployed, working full-time, working less than full-time, working more
than full-time (p-level = 0,000).
e importance of employment does not depend on the nature of work (permanent job, xed-term contract,
hourly work, seasonal work and other paid activities), labour sector (public, private, public and private),
the possibility to practice one’s profession (had to requalify, the job partly matches one’s quali cations, the
job fully matches one’s quali cations, job includes tasks that both match and do not match the employee’s
quali cations).
e analysis of these factors is not comprehensive and was carried out as an example of the relation
between employment and the quality of life. is research material enables to continue analysing the relation
of employment and the quality of employment with the factors of the quality of life.
CONCLUSION
Development of the necessary productive employment opportunities and ensuring steady livelihood
are one of the most important and most di cult tasks of each society. e country’s welfare depends on its
Journal of International Studies Vol. 9, No.3, 2016
214
economic and labour market policy, and from its ability to ensure income for its people. To ensure equal
opportunities for all, employment is a very signi cant factor contributing to the full participation of citizens
in economic, cultural and social life, as well as to the implementation of their opportunities. e quality of
employment has the same signi cance as the extent of employment. e quality of employment is a wide
concept, because the quality of employment also depends on the characteristics of a workplace, on salary, on
the possibility to progress further in one’s career, to meet one’s expectations, and it also depends on subjec-
tive psychological matters – relationships with co-workers, relationships with superiors and the satisfaction
with one’s own life.
Currently, GDP is considered to be not only an indicator of economic development, but also an indi-
rect indicator of social development and progress in a broad sense. However, it is increasingly acknowledged
that GDP should be associated with additional data and indicators.
A group of scientists from Mykolas Romeris University carried out a project in 2014 “Development
of a system and evaluation model of indicators measuring the quality of life of Lithuanian people”. e
public opinion and market research centre VILMORUS carried out a research on April 11 – 23 of 2014
“Labour, employment and entrepreneurship of the population” under the commission of Mykolas Romeris
University. An analysis of the research results enabled to evaluate the e ect on employment and the quality
of employment on the quality of life in Lithuania.
e general employment data analysis shows that employment (whether the respondent is unemployed,
working full-time, working less than full-time, working more than full-time) does not depend on gender,
however it depends on age, place of residence and marital status. e nature of work (permanent job, xed-
term contract, hourly work, seasonal work and other paid activities) depends on age, but does not depend
on gender, place of residence and marital status. e labour sector (public, private, public and private) does
not depend on the place of residence and marital status, but depends on gender and age. e possibility to
practice one’s profession (had to requalify, the job partly matches one’s quali cations, the job fully matches
one’s quali cations, job includes tasks that both match and do not match the employee’s quali cations)
depends only on gender, and does not depend on age, place of residence and marital status. e correlation
between employment factors can also be observed.
General work experience is correlated with employment, the nature of work and the labour sector. e
possibility to practice one’s profession has no relation with work experience.
An analysis on the job satisfaction factors and an analysis on the relation of employment with the other
factors of the quality of life were carried out. It was determined that the evaluation of the importance of job
factors di ers from the satisfaction with these factors. Factor importance was evaluated between 4,2 and 4,6
points out of 5 possible points. Satisfaction with these factors was evaluated between 3,4 and 4 points out of
5 possible points. is shows that satisfaction with employment factors is average in Lithuania.
Employment is related to the feeling of happiness, optimism and other factors of the quality of life.
e analysis of these factors is not comprehensive and was carried out as an example of the relation between
employment and the quality of life. is research material enables to continue analysing the relation of em-
ployment and the quality of employment with the factors of the quality of life.
Tatjana Bilevičienė, Eglė Bilevičiūtė, Romualdas Drakšas Employment as a Factor of Life Quality
215
REFERENCES
Anderson, L., Clogston F., Erekat D., Garmise S., Ghosh, S., Girdwood C., Mulclaire C., and orstensen L. (2010),
Creating Quality Jobs: Transforming the Economic Development Landscape, Danville, CA: International Economic
Development Council.
Career Progression and Development Survey (2005) // http://www.ssc.govt.nz/display/document.asp?docid=5310&pag
eno=18#P3046_349561 (refered on 15/02/2016).
Commission of the European Communities (2001), Employment and social policies: a framework for investing in quality.
Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and
the Committee of the Regions, COM (2001) 313 nal, CELEX No 52001DC0313.
Commission of the European Communities (2009), Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European
Parliament. GDP and beyond Measuring progress in a changing world, COM(2009) 433 nal // http://eur-lex.europa.
eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2009:0433:FIN:lt:PDF (refered on 15/02/2016).
Dromantienė, L. (2008), Socialinės Europos kūrimas, Vilnius.
Dumbliauskienė, M., Jarmalavičienė, S. (2012), Gyvenimo kokybės kompleksinio vertinimo metodologinės problemos,
Geogra jos metraštis, no. 45, pp. 3-14.
Employment polarisation and job quality in the crisis: European Jobs Monitor 2013. Executive summary (2013) //
http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/pubdocs/2013/041/en/1/EF13041EN.pdf (refered on 15/02/2016).
European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (2002), Quality of work and employment
in Europe: Issues and challenges. Foundation paper number 1.
Eurofound (2015), Upgrading or polarisation? Long-term and global shifts in the employment structure: European Jobs
Monitor 2015, Publications O ce of the European Union, Luxembourg.
European Commission (2010), Communication from the Commission Europe 2020. A strategy for smart, sustainable and
inclusive growth, COM(2010) 2020 nal // http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52
010DC2020&from=en (refered on 15/02/2016).
European Commission (2013), Draft Joint Employment Report accompanying the Communication from the Commission on
Annual Growth Survey 2014, COM(2013) 801 nal // http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/pdf/2014/jer2014_en.pdf
(refered on 15/02/2016).
Eurostat Statistics Explained (2016), Quality of life indicators // http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.
php/Quality_of_life_indicators (refered on 5/03/2016).
Flynn, P., Berry, D., Heitz, T. (2002), Sustainability and life indicators: toward the integration of economic, social and
environment measures. Indicators, e Journal of Social Health, no. 1 (4), pp. 19−39.
Hagerty, M. R., Cummins, R., Ferriss, A. L., Land, K., Michalos, A., Peterson, M., Sharpe, A., Sirgy, M. J., and Vogel,
J. (2001), Quality-of-life indexes for national policy: review and agenda for research, Social Indicators Research, no.
55(1), pp. 1-96.
Layard, R. (2005), Happiness – Lessons from a New Science, e Penguin Press.
Lisauskaitė, V. (2010), Lietuvos gyventojų pajamų ir vartojimo diferenciacija, Business: eory and Practice, no 11(3),
pp. 266-278.
Mackonis, A. (2012), Ekonominių laimės rodiklių pagrįstumo ir patikimumo problema, Politologija, no. 1 (65), pp.
93-112.
Norberg, J. (2010), GDP and Its Enemies: e Questionable Search for a Happiness Index. Policy Brief, e Centre for
European Studies.
Răileanu Szeles, M. (2009), On the Quality of Employment in the European Union, Bulletin of the Transilvania University
of Brasov, Vol. 2, no. 51, Series V .
Second European Quality of Life Survey – First Findings (2009), // http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/pubdocs/2008/52/
en/1/EF0852EN.pdf (refered on 15/02/2016)..
Journal of International Studies Vol. 9, No.3, 2016
216
Sehnbruch, K. (2004), From the Quantity to the Quality of Employment: An Application of the Capability Approach to the
Chilean Labor Market. Working papers series, No 9, Centre for Latin American Studies, University of California,
Berkeley.
Statistics Lithuania (2016), O cial statistics portal // http://www.stat.gov.lt/en/home (refered on 1/04/2016).
Stiglitz, J. E., Sen, A., Fitoussi, J. P. (2009), Report by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and
Social Progress // http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/gdp_and_beyond/documents/Stigliz_Sen_
Fitoussi_report_14092009.pdf (refered on 15/02/2016).
Vesan, P., Bizzotto, G. (2011), Quality of Life in Europe. Conceptual approaches and empirical de nitions. Version 1: January
2011 Moncalieri, January 2011 A working paper for Workpackage 4 of the WALQING Project, SSH-CT-2009-244597
// http://www.walqing.eu/ (refered on 15/02/2016).
