Page 61 - Contributed Paper Session (CPS) - Volume 1

CPS877 Paula J.G. et al.
impacted by the circumstance at an individual level. In particular, the axis 2
presented secondary education, employment, housing expenditures, and
water quality in opposition to labor security and unemployment (with negative
impact) plus salary, income, health status, and life expectancy (positively
affecting the individuals).
With the interpretation of the axes, it was possible to present the
compromise positions of the various countries on the first principal plan
(intrastructure) which represented the average positions of the countries
during the study period (Figure 3). Based on K-means clustering, it was
interesting to note a cluster (#1) of Central and Northern European plus North
American and Australasia countries. In addition, there was a cluster (#2) of
countries including the Southern and some Central European countries, and
another cluster (#3) of Eastern European countries plus Korea. Finally, there
were three countries (Mexico, Turkey, and Greece) in a cluster (#4) of their own.
On axis 1, there was a clear progression of the compromise positions (from
cluster #4 towards cluster #1) in terms of the social progress and development
(with cluster #2 being positioned in a somewhat more neutral position). In
particular, countries as Turkey, Mexico, Greece, and Latvia were positioned on
the “Basics” and “Elementary” quadrants of the indispensable aspects in terms
of social progress. On the other hand, countries as Switzerland, Norway,
Canada, and the USA were located on the
“Essentials” and “Aspirational” quadrants
of social progress relative to the society
quality-of-life and material conditions.
In terms of axis 2, cluster #3 appeared
to be located at the level of assurance of
the basic aspects regardless of individual
wealth circumstances while cluster #4
seemed to be facing conditions where the Fig. 3 – Countries’ compromise positions and
personal welfare was decisive. Although clusters
clusters #1 and #2 were located in a more
intermediate position in relation to axis 2, there were some significant country
oppositions within each of these two clusters. In fact, there were countries with
compromise positions indicating that the quality of individual life was more
independent from the personal circumstances (perhaps due to the existing
government policies) while others were more impacted by the wealth at an
individual level. In particular, Latvia and Czech Republic (“Basics” quadrant)
plus Iceland and Denmark (“Essentials” quadrant) displayed positions that
were the least dependent on personal wealth despite the significant
opposition at a social level, which could reflect insipid vs. developed social
mechanisms where the individual welfare either could not be achieved with or
did not require private financial means. At the other extreme of axis 2, Turkey

50 | I S I W S C 2 0 1 9