Faktor Kesejahteraan Objektif dalam Subjektifitas Penerima Manfaat Program Keluarga Harapan di Wilayah Perkotaan
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31113/jmat.v3i2.63Keywords:
subjective well-being, objective well-being, nested spheres of poverty, program keluarga harapanAbstract
Subjective welfare is obtained from various internal and external factors in improving family welfare. Therefore, this study aims to look at the prevalence of the factors that shape the question of the welfare of the beneficiaries from the basic components/conditions of needs and welfare. A cross-section is used in this study because it is carried out in a certain period in view of the objective experience of subjective well-being. Therefore, we performed univariate and bivariate analyzes with chi-square tests to check for cross-relationships between variables. Research shows that one of the three basic needs is less relevant in shaping the quality of life, namely education. Meanwhile, welfare conditions (natural, economic, political, social, infrastructure, public services) in urban areas have a relationship in shaping the subjective well- being of beneficiaries, even though they are in critical or good conditions. There is a significant relationship between health, living standards, and all spheres of welfare in urban areas that shape the subjective well-being of beneficiaries and beneficiaries with their demographic characteristics showing that they are still below the poverty line. Therefore, the recommendation is addressed to the regional/central government to pay more attention to the quality of life of poor households in viewing and welfare through increasing human resources through efforts to improve the social economy to meet basic needs and improve the quality and accessibility of services. Because the quality of life is part of the goal of human development.
References
Alatartseva, E., & Barysheva, G. (2015). Well-being: Subjective and Objective Aspects. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 166, 36–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.12.479
Ave, F., Baimakhambetova, G., Mukhametzhanova, Z., & Mukhasheva, A. (2020). Welfare as an Indicator of Quality of Life of The Population. 05009. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202015905009
Budiantoro, S., Fanggidae, V., Saputra, W., Maftuchan, A., & Artha, D. (2013). Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI): Konsep dan Pengukurannya di Indonesia. In PRAKARSA Economic Policy Working Paper.
Cahyat, A., Gonner, C., & Haug, M. (2007). Mengkaji Kemiskinan dan Kesejahteraan Rumah Tangga Mengkaji Kemiskinan dan Kesejahteraan. CIFOR.
Cramer, V., Torgersen, S., & Kringlen, E. (2004). Quality of life in a city: The effect of population density. Social Indicators Research, 69(1), 103–116. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SOCI.0000032663.59079.0b
Diener, E. (1984). Subjektive Well-being. In Psychological Bulletin (Vol. 95, Issue 3, pp. 542–575). American Psychological Association, Inc.
Diener, E., & Ryan, K. (2015). Subjective well-being : a general overview. 39(4), 391–406.
Eid, M., & Larsen, R. J. (2008). The Science of subjective well-being. In M. Eid & R. J. Larsen (Eds.), Choice Reviews Online (Vol. 45, Issue 10). The Guilford Press New York London. https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.45-5867
Gobbens, R. J. J., & Remmen, R. (2019). The effects of sociodemographic factors on quality of life among people aged 50 years or older are not unequivocal: Comparing SF-12, WHOQOL-BREF, and WHOQOL-OLD. Clinical Interventions in Aging, 14, 231–239. https://doi.org/10.2147/CIA.S189560
Gonner, C., Haug, M., Cahyat, Wollenberg, de Jong, W., Limberg, G., Cronkleton, P., Moeliono, M., & Becker. (2007). Capturing nested spheres of poverty: a model for multidimensional poverty analysis and monitoring. Capturing Nested Spheres of Poverty: A Model for Multidimensional Poverty Analysis and Monitoring. https://doi.org/10.17528/cifor/002255
Klugman, J. (2002). A sourcebook for Poverty Reduction Strategies. In Macroeconomic and Sectoral Approaches (Vol. 1). http://documents.albankaldawli.org/curated/ar/156931468138883186/pdf/2980000182131497813.pdf
Levine, S., Batana, J., Muwonge, & Maweki, Y. (2012). OPHI W ORKING P APER N O . 55 A Robust Multidimensional Poverty Profile for Uganda. In Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative. http://ophi.qeh.ox.ac.uk/
Muhammed, Z., & Abubakar, I. R. (2020). Improving the Quality of Life of Urban Communities in Developing Countries. January, 357–370. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95726-5_25
O’Connor, M. (2006). The “Four Spheres†framework for sustainability. Ecological Complexity, 3(4), 285–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecocom.2007.02.002
Rukumnuaykit, P. (2015). Urbanisation, Poverty and Subjective Well-Being: Empirical Evidence from Thailand. Urban Policy and Research, 33(1), 98–118. https://doi.org/10.1080/08111146.2014.980901
Saidatulakmal, & Riaz, M. (2012). Demographic Analysis of Poverty : Rural-Urban Nexus. 2(6), 19–30. https://www.iiste.org/Journals/index.php/RHSS/article/view/2377/2376
Thaariq, R. M., Wahyu, M. F. R., Ningrum, D. R., & Aidha, C. N. (2020). Prakarsa Working Paper 01 - Multidimensional Poverty and the Risk of COVID-19 in Indonesia. Perkumpulan PRAKARSA.
Wang, X., & Cheng, Z. (2020). Cross-Sectional Studies: Strengths, Weaknesses, and Recommendations. Chest, 158(1), S65–S71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2020.03.012
Yuniati, F., & Kamso, S. (2021). Assessing the Quality of Life Among Productive Age in the General Population: A Cross-Sectional Study of Family Life Survey in Indonesia. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Health, 33 (I), 53–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/1010539520956411
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Citation Check
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Jurnal Media Administrasi Terapan
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
