The Pursuit of Happiness.” Declaration of Independence of the United States of America, 1776
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
chapter one happiness: a new science All citizens are entitled to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Declaration of Independence of the United States of America, 1776 For the past ten years, I have been studying happiness around the world, in countries as different as Afghanistan, Chile, and the United States. It has been an amazing foray into the complexity of the human psyche on the one hand, and the simplicity of what seems to make us happy on the other. My last book on happiness, published in 2009, ended with a speculative chapter on policy, with the quote above at the top of the chapter.1 It’s either a sign of my lack of imagination or of the speed with which the current public debates have taken up the topic of happiness that I am now boldly leading off with that same quote and writing an entire book on the topic of happiness and policy. That would have been unthinkable just a decade ago. In recent years, a number of nations—from remote Bhutan to far less remote Britain, France, China, and Brazil—have begun incor- porating measures of happiness into their benchmarks of national progress.2 Even in the United States, high-level policymakers 1 01-2127-7 ch1.indd 1 5/24/11 11:35 AM happiness: a new science ranging from the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board to the director of the U.S. Census Bureau have been discussing the merits and de-merits of happiness measures.3 Not surprisingly, the study of happiness has also captured the attention of the public and is now a constant focus of the media, in the United States and abroad. What has happened? The study of happiness has moved from the fringes of the “dismal science” and the esoteric realm of the philosopher to the center of vociferous debates among econo- mists. The debates cover the relationship between happiness and income and the extent to which happiness metrics can be used as proxies for utility—the streamlined concept of welfare that underlies most economic models. Is Adam Smith turning over in his grave? A skeptical view is that this is simply a temporary trend, related to the recession-related realignment of priorities, in which the pursuit of an ever-larger house has been replaced by discussions about the value of things like leisure time and socializing. Yet there are already a number of efforts under way that could result in measures of happiness becoming a part of our economic mea- sures of progress and the subject of our policy debates. Indeed, there is an ongoing discussion among prominent academics—and increasingly among policymakers—about complementing our standard measures of gross national product with national well- being indicators, indicators that can similarly be tracked over time and compared across countries.4 In 2008, the Sarkozy Commission—led by a number of promi- nent Nobel Prize–winning economists and sponsored by Nicolas Sarkozy, the president of France—issued a worldwide call for the development of broader measures of national well-being. While national well-being indicators had been a subject of discussion in the academic community for years, the commission placed them at the center of a much more public debate. Ideological critics dis- missed the findings of the commission as a couched attempt by the French to make the U.S. economy look more like their “sclerotic” 2 happiness: a new science model: underemphasizing economic growth and overemphasiz- ing leisure. Yet, rather ironically, just two years later, the latest government to place serious emphasis on the measurement of happiness was the conservative government of David Cameron in Britain. Is all of this a good idea? How can more happiness not be a good thing? And what is this new “science” of happiness all about? What do we mean, for example, when we use the term “happiness”? Do we care about happiness per se or about the pursuit of happiness? Should policymakers be in the business of telling people what will make them happy?5 And whose happiness do we care about? Do we care about the happiness of isolated individuals? The happiness of nations? Or about happiness in some broader global sense? In the end, the new and rich debates on happiness and pol- icy, on national well-being indicators, and on measures of gross national happiness, among others, are raising the same fundamen- tal question. How can studies of happiness help us to better evalu- ate the state of human welfare and well-being, in both the present and the future? The tools introduced by happiness economics provide us with broader measures of well-being than do income data alone, and they allow us to test and attach relative weights to the effects of all sorts of conditions, ranging from environmental degradation and commuting time to crime and unemployment rates to smoking and exercising. They are new and powerful tools for scholars and, perhaps, for policymakers. Yet introducing broader measures of well-being into the policy arena also raises a host of unanswered questions. Among them is a conundrum raised repeatedly by my research: the paradox of happy peasants and frustrated achievers. While poor people are less happy than wealthy people on average in countries around the world, very poor people often report that they are very happy. In fact, they often report higher levels of happiness than their slightly wealthier counterparts and at times even higher levels than the 3 happiness: a new science very rich (miserable millionaires). This puzzle is explained in part by people’s ability to adapt to adversity and related differences in norms and expectations. While better accounting for differences in norms, expectations, and capacity to adapt can enhance our understanding of human well-being, they also complicate com- parisons based on well-being data. My primary objective in this book is to discuss the prom- ise—and potential pitfalls—of delving into the policy realm with happiness research and indicators. In the next chapter, I review the different definitions and conceptions of happiness and pro- vide some examples of how those definitions—such as happi- ness defined as contentment in the Benthamite sense, or as the opportunity to lead a fulfilling life in the Artistotelian sense—help explain some key relationships, such as that between happiness and income. The definition of happiness also seems to vary across people and societies and thereby helps to explain the paradox of happy peasants and frustrated achievers. In particular, I focus on the question of whether policy should be concerned with happiness per se—for example, happiness with day-to-day life—or with the opportunity to pursue happiness in the sense of building a fulfilling life, as the quote from the Decla- ration of Independence at the top of this chapter suggests. In other words, should we be listening to Bentham or to Aristotle as we think about happiness in the policy realm? On what basis—theo- retical, empirical, or normative—should we make that decision? In chapter 3, I review what we know about happiness in the United States and around the world, based on my own research and that of several other scholars (that chapter can be skipped by those readers already familiar with the literature). In chapter 4, I focus on the unanswered questions that are posed by the empiri- cal research and, in particular, the conundrum posed by people’s ability to adapt to a wide range of phenomena, including crime, corruption, poverty, and poor health, and still report being happy. 4 happiness: a new science In chapter 5, I attempt to bring these issues to bear on the policy debate, both in terms of what they imply for our con- crete attempts to develop operational measures of well-being and in terms of deeper philosophical questions about which dimen- sions of human welfare public policy should be most concerned about. Accepting that determining which dimensions of human welfare are most important to policy poses difficulties for both method and economic theory, I believe that the effort to do so will force us to think deeply and productively about what measures of human well-being are the most accurate benchmarks of economic progress and human development. a note on terminology Before we delve into the deeper conceptual questions or even a description of the general approach taken here, it is important to clarify what we mean when we use the terms “happiness,” “well- being,” “subjective well-being,” and “life satisfaction,” among others. They are often used interchangeably in the economics lit- erature, while psychologists take much more care in distinguishing the nuances between them. Meanwhile, the nascent discussion on policy, described in detail throughout the book, is forcing more definitional clarity precisely because the differences in the mean- ing of these terms could have vastly different policy implications. While the terms are related, they have distinct meanings. “Happiness” is perhaps the most open-ended and least well- defined of the terms, although it is the one that gets the most public attention and interest. It is also the term that appears in the U.S. Declaration of Independence. A happiness question attempts to gauge how happy people feel about their lives in general. As discussed below, from an empirical research perspec- tive, this question is useful precisely because it does not impose a definition of happiness on the respondents and they conceptual- ize happiness for themselves. 5 happiness: a new science “Life satisfaction” is a closely related term, and responses to questions about life satisfaction correlate very closely with those to happiness questions.