Page 62 - Contributed Paper Session (CPS) - Volume 1

CPS877 Paula J.G. et al.
and Greece (even more than Spain and Italy) were countries where the
personal wealth was decisive in terms of the impact on the circumstances and
welfare at the individual level, which suggested that the physical infrastructure
could exist but was available only to those whom could afford the associated
costs.
The trajectories of the various countries permitted to have a more detailed
appreciation of the evolution of each country during the seven-year period of
the analysis. A long trajectory indicated a country that had developed more in
terms of the variables structure than the average of the variables for the OECD
countries, while a short trajectory revealed that the country had progressed in
line with the variables’ averages for the countries in the OECD. In this context,
it was relevant to note that the countries with the most differentiated evolution
were part of cluster #4 (Turkey, Greece, and Mexico) while two countries in
cluster #2 (Spain and Italy) and three countries in cluster #3 (Estonia, Latvia,
and Slovakia) also presented a significant evolution. In addition, there were
seven countries in cluster #1 (Germany, Iceland, Netherlands, New Zealand,
Norway, UK, and the USA) and one country in cluster #2 (Ireland) that
presented a noticeable evolution.
However, it was worth noting that the cluster #1 countries (plus Ireland)
evolved primarily along axis 2 in the direction of reducing the dependency on
individual wealth to ensure the essential
dimensions at a personal level (except for
New Zealand). At the same time, the
countries with the most significant
evolutions in clusters #2, #3, and #4
displayed progression along not only axis 2
but also axis 1. Having said that, some of
these countries (Latvia, Estonia, Slovakia,
and Turkey) developed towards a higher Fig. 4 – Trajectories of bailed-out
countries
quality and conditions of life at the society level (axis 1) which did not occur in
Mexico, Greece, Italy, and Spain. With regard to axis 2, these countries
displayed a trend towards an increased dependency on personal wealth to
secure the necessary dimensions at the individual level (with the exception of
Latvia and Estonia). Overall, the cluster #1 countries were located in the
“Essentials” quadrant and reinforcing this position (with the USA and Ireland
in the “Aspirational” quadrant but moving in the “Essentials” direction).
Similarly, the Cluster #3 countries (Latvia, Estonia, and Slovakia) were in the
“Basics” quadrant and progressing towards the “Essentials” area while the
cluster #2 and #4 countries were located in the “Elementary” area but moving
away from the “Essentials” (with the exception of Turkey and the recent
recovery of some countries such as Italy, Spain, and Greece).

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