ASSESSING THE EFFECT OF THE DIGITAL ECONOMY AND SOCIETY INDEX ON QUALITY OF LIFE INDEX

Abstract

This research focused on the impact of the Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI) on the Quality of Life Index (QoLI) in 27 European countries for the latest data of 2022. For the research, the Digital Economy and Society Index was measured with 4 sub-dimensions. These were “connectivity”, “digital public services”, “human capital” and “integration of digital technology”. The data comes from the European Commission. And the Quality of Life Index was measured with 8 sub-dimensions. These included the “purchasing power index”, the “safety index”, the “health care index”, the “cost of living index”, the “property price to income ratio”, the “traffic commute time index”, the “pollution index”, the “climate index” and a dataset from Numbeo. The analyzes were conducted using SmartPLS 4 and the results showed that the digital economy and society index increases the quality of life index for the 27 EU countries for the year 2022 (B=0.80; t=13.61). According to the results, the digital economy and society indicators can be an effective strategy to increase the quality of life in European countries.

Keywords

• Digital Economy and Society Index
• Quality of Life Index
• PLS-SEM

DİJİTAL EKONOMİ VE TOPLUM ENDEKSİ’NİN YAŞAM KALİTESİ ENDEKSİ ÜZERİNDEKİ ETKİSİNİN DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ

Abstract

Bu araştırma, 2022 verileri için 27 Avrupa Birliği ülkesinde Dijital Ekonomi ve Toplum Endeksi’nin (DESI) Yaşam Kalitesi Endeksi (QoLI) üzerindeki etkisine odaklanmıştır. Araştırma için Dijital Ekonomi ve Toplum Endeksi 4 alt boyut ile ölçülmüştür. Bunlar “bağlanabilirlik”, “dijital kamu hizmetleri”, “beşeri sermaye” ve “dijital teknolojilerin entegrasyonu” değişkenleridir. İlgili endekse ait veriler Avrupa Komisyonu’ndan alınmıştır. Yaşam Kalitesi Endeksi ise 8 alt boyutla ölçülmüştür. Bunlar “satın alma gücü endeksi”, “güvenlik endeksi”, “sağlık hizmetleri endeksi”, “yaşam maliyeti endeksi”, “gayrimenkul fiyatının gelire oranı”, “trafik işe gidiş geliş endeksi”, “kirlilik endeksi” ve “iklim endeksi” değişkenleridir. İlgili endekse ait veriler Numbeo’dan alınmıştır. Analizler SmartPLS 4 kullanılarak gerçekleştirilmiş ve sonuçlar dijital ekonomi ve toplum endeksinin 2022 yılı için 27 AB ülkesi için yaşam kalitesi endeksini arttırdığını göstermiştir (B=0.80; t=13.61). Sonuçlara göre, dijital ekonomi ve toplum göstergeleri Avrupa Birliği ülkelerinde yaşam kalitesini artırmak için etkili bir strateji olabilir.

Keywords

• Dijital Ekonomi ve Toplum Endeksi
• Yaşam Kalitesi Endeksi
• PLS-SEM

References

1. Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1994). Advanced topics in structural equation models. In R. P. Bagozzi (Ed.), Advanced methods of marketing research. Blackwell.
2. Barlybaev, A., Ishnazarova, Z., & Sitnova, I. (2021). Quality of life of the population: The impact of digitalization. E3S Web of Conferences, 295, 01034. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202129501034
3. Başol, O., & Yalçın, E. C. (2021). How does the Digital Economy and Society Index (DESI) affect labor market indicators in EU countries? Human Systems Management, 40(4)), 503–512. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151411080
4. Başol, O., Sevgi, H., & Yalçın, E. C. (2023). The effect of digitalization on youth unemployment for EU countries: Treat or threat? Sustainability, 15(14), 11080. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151411080
5. Bilir, N., Özcebe, H., Vazioğlu, S. A., Aslan, D., Subaşı, N. & Telatar, T. G. (2005). Van ilinde 15 yaş üzeri erkeklerde sf-36 ile yaşam kalitesinin değerlendirilmesi. Türkiye Klinikleri Journal of Medical Sciences, 25, 663-668.
6. Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. Wiley.
7. Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. In Modern methods for business research (pp. 295-336). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
8. Dissart, J. C., & Deller, S. C. (2000). Quality of life in the planning literature. Journal of Planning Literature, 15(1), 135–162.

9. El Khatib, M., Kazim, H. H., & Moosa, M. (2024). Sustainability towards quality of life: Digitalization as an enabler. International Journal of Business Analytics and Security, 4(2), 89–94. https://doi.org/10.54489/ijbas.v4i2.354
10. Elmassah, S., & Hassanein, E. A. (2022). Digitalization and subjective wellbeing in Europe. Digital Policy, Regulation and Governance, 24(1), 52–73. https://doi.org/10.1108/DPRG-05-2021-0060
11. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50.
12. Hair, C., Jr., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Andersen, R. E. (2014). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Pearson.
13. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Pearson.
14. Hair, J. F., Hult, T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2014). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). SAGE.
15. Hair, J. F., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19, 139–151.
16. Hu, Y., Yang, Y., Gao, Y., Zhao, L., Chen, L., Sui, W., & Hu, J. (2024). The impact of chronic diseases on the health-related quality of life of middle-aged and older adults: The role of physical activity and degree of digitization. BMC Public Health, 24, 2335. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-19833-8
17. Hulland, J. (1999). Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: A review of four recent studies. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 195–204.
18. Johansson, L., & Snis, U. L. (2017). Quality of everyday life supported by digital services: A landscape of practice perspective.
19. Jöreskog, K. G., & Wold, H. (1982). The ML and PLS techniques for modeling with latent variables: Historical and comparative aspects. In H. Wold & K. G. Jöreskog (Eds.), Systems under indirect observation, part I (pp. 263–270). North-Holland.
20. Kahneman, D., & Deaton, A. (2010). High income improves evaluation of life but not emotional well-being. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(38), 16489– 16493.
21. Kolosova, O., Salkutsan, S., Efremova, M., Shimin, N., & Chkalova, O. (2023). The impact of digital technologies on the quality of life of the population: measurement methodologies and assessment results. E3S Web of Conferences 419, 02018, https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202341902018
22. Kravtov, D., Bragaru, T., & Gyrlea, M. (2022). Digitalization and sustainable growth in the quality of life. ARA Journal of Sciences, 5, 125–131.
23. Kryzhanovskij, O. A., Baburina, N. A., & Ljovkina, A. O. (2021). How to make digitalization better serve an increasing quality of life? Sustainability, 13, 611. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13020611
24. Lohmöller, J. B. (1989). Latent variable path modeling with partial least squares. Physica.
25. Nevado-Peña, D., López-Ruiz, V.-R., & Alfaro-Navarro, J.-L. (2019). Improving quality of life perception with ICT use and technological capacity in Europe. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 148, 119734. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119734
26. Osipova, I. M., & Naumova, T. (2020). Analysis of the relationship between the level of digitalization and the level of quality of life: A regional aspect. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 421.
27. Özbek, S., Başol, O., & Yalçın, E. C. (2024). Yaşam kalitesi indeksi ile mutlu gezegen indeksi arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi. Çankırı Karatekin Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 15(2), 293-325. https://doi.org/10.54558/jiss.1414234
28. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, 36, 717–731.
29. Proksch, D., Rosin, A. F., Stubner, S., & Pinkwart, A. (2024) The influence of a digital strategy on the digitalization of new ventures: The mediating effect of digital capabilities and a digital culture, Journal of Small Business Management, 62:1, 1-29, https://doi.org/10.1080/00472778.2021.1883036
30. Sen, A. (2001). Development as freedom. Oxford University Press.
31. Sousa, M., Martins, H., Costa, A. R., & Silva, A. A. (2024). The impact of job satisfaction on the quality of life of formal caregivers of the elderly. Healthcare, 12(23), 2432. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare12232432
32. Tátrai, M. J., & Szabó, R. Z. (2020). Digitalization, quality of life, and purchasing power. Club of Economics in Miskolc TMP, 16(2), 97–102. https://doi.org/10.18096/TMP.2020.02.10
33. Tüzün, H. E. ve Eker, L. (2003). Sağlık değerlendirme ölçütleri ve yaşam kalitesi. Sağlık ve Toplum, 13,3-7.
34. Yalçın, E. C. (2022). SmartPLS 3 ile temel PLS-SEM analizi ve uygulama örneği. Dora Yayıncılık.
35. Zabo, R., & Tátrai, M. (2020). Digitalization, quality of life and purchasing power. Theory, Methodology, Practice, 16, 97–102. https://doi.org/10.18096/TMP.2020.02.10