Chapter 3 THE CHALLENGES OF PUBLIC HAPPINESS: AN HISTORICAL-METHODOLOGICAL RECONSTRUCTION LUIGINO BRUNI AND STEFANO ZAMAGNI 66 Luigino Bruni, LUMSA University, Rome, Italy. E-mail: [email protected] Stefano Zamagni, University of Bologna. Italy. E-mail: [email protected] WORLD HAPPINESS REPORT 2016 | SPECIAL ROME EDITION At a severe crisis, when lives in multi- goals for a good life, both individually and tudes and wealth in masses are at socially. Reducing unhappiness by means of stake, the political economists are reducing material poverty then became the telos helpless – practically mute: no demon- of economics. In this way, political economy strable solution of the difficulty can be gained its ethical status in the modern period, given by them, such as may convince or after a middle age where its moral statute was calm the opposing parties. often questioned. John Ruskin1 The science of economics became known as the “science of wealth,” with the “hope that poverty Man is a civil animal. and ignorance may gradually be extinguished” and “that all should start in the world with a fair Leonardo Bruni2 chance of leading a cultured life, free from the pains of poverty and stagnating influences of excessive mechanical toil.”3 This hope inspired economists to study the “nature and causes of the wealth” of persons and nations, with the hope and promise that an ever-increasing num- Introduction: ber of people can enjoy basic material needs, and Old and New Happiness therefore increase “public happiness.” The way contemporary economics and social sciences consider happiness is far from the In the last few decades, however, something very classical tradition, and in general, too simplistic. subtle pertaining to human happiness has This paper aims to make the use of the term begun creeping into economic thought. Doubts happiness more intricate than in the present have arisen about the moral value of economic debates, showing the complexity of the concept growth and the ethical base of progress. A steady in both philosophical (Aristotelian) and econom- stream of critiques questioning the values of ic traditions. Today happiness is often under- modernity and the market economy has charac- stood in context of the Utilitarian concept, terised modernity since its very beginning. ignoring the rich and very old discussions about Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the main representative the meaning and nature of human happiness. of this anti-modernity tradition, pointed out that The social dimension is particularly ignored; the vice of the modern age was luxury, avarice, what the Romans and the Italians called pubblica and the search for wealth.4 Not only socialism felicità, or public happiness, is almost totally and Marxism, but also Utopian socialists and absent from contemporary studies. We claim, some branches of the cooperative movement instead, that a reconsideration of the classical have continued Rousseau’s radical critique of concepts of public happiness and eudaimonia markets and the modern economy, in a tradition can offer important hints and critical tools for a that flows parallel to the capitalistic river. During better understanding of our well-being, individu- deep and long economic and social crises, this ally and collectively. anti-market-economy tradition has always 67 arisen, and gained popularity among the public, The classical tradition of political economy, with the media, and intellectuals. a journey of more than two centuries, began by investigating the means for living well under the The literature on the ‘paradoxes of happiness’ hypothesis that economic variables such as offers material for the present-day critique of income, wealth, or employment are important capitalism. In this paper, we will try to show that happiness poses to economic life and theory tradition) where greater attention was paid to challenges which are numerous, complex, and old. the translation of goods into well-being; in some cases, central attention.6 The expression “paradox of happiness” or “Easterlin paradox” refers to empirical data In the following sections, we start with an analy- about two different and controversial issues. sis of the Aristotelian idea of “eudaimonia.” Then In a nutshell, the happiness paradox shows that we discuss the tradition of political economy, per-capita income has risen sharply in most with special attention to the Cambridge tradition countries in recent decades, yet average happi- where the complexity of the transformation of ness has stayed constant or has grown less than goods/wealth into happiness remained central, traditional economics claims. despite the continued focus of mainstream political economy, following Adam Smith’s ideas, Explanations for the paradox are many.5 An idea, on wealth and disregarding the difficulty of however, is present in all economic theories: transforming economic well-being into both Economics, focused on its key variables (income, individual and public happiness. We conclude wealth, consumption) neglects some important with some considerations of the relational nature things that affect people’s happiness. There are, of happiness, and its policy implications. in other words, some ‘happiness externalities’ that are not calculated in the standard economic analysis of income/wealth. In the ‘transforma- The Old “Civil’ Happiness”: tion’ of economic goods into well-being something Aristotle’s Eudaimonia7 occurs to make the process more complex than standard economic theory supposes. The Greek word eudaimonia is very often pres- ent today in papers dealing with happiness, in Today, in the technicalities of the debate on the both the social sciences and psychology. Howev- economics of happiness, we find many nuances er, the term is rarely used with an awareness of and interpretations. But apart from those techni- its complex meaning. In particular, there is an calities, a very sharp cultural message springs: eudaimonia before Socrates, one in Socrates, In contemporary market societies, wealth and and many after him. Here, we choose to start income, at the individual and social level, are with the use of eudaimonia in Aristotle, given linked in a deep relationship with well-being or his weight in both Western tradition and con- happiness. The most important words about our temporary debates on happiness. lot are those embodied in the ‘transformation problem’ of goods into well-being, of wealth into Enclosed in the term eudaimonia8 we find the weal. But mainstream economics shows, in fundamental coordinates marking the route for general, no interest in the transformation of the research we describe in the following chap- commodities into happiness. It stops its dis- ters. Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, as well as all course at the backyard of our well-being. the classical schools of philosophy (i.e. Stoicism) explored the diverse dimensions of happiness. 68 This paper tries to show some of the whys and The fundamental ideas they shared on happi- hows of the lack of attention to this transfor- ness were: (a) happiness is the final, or ulti- mation problem in economics, following the mate, end of life: the highest good for the hu- main stream of the history of the nexus of man being; (b) happiness is self-sufficient, wealth-happiness, but also some minor de- because there is nothing that, added to it, would tours from the main economic traditions (the increase its value; (c) there is an inseparable Italian Civil economy and the Cambridge bond between happiness and the practice of WORLD HAPPINESS REPORT 2016 | SPECIAL ROME EDITION virtues; (d) because virtues bear fruits regard- type, seem (not without some ground) to identi- less of self-interest, happiness can be reached fy the good, or happiness, with pleasure.”13 only as a by-product if it is sought in non-instru- Eudaimonia, then, cannot be identified with mental ways, for example by seeking to be pleasure, but also neither with honour nor virtuous. On the other hand, differences be- money. This is why the neo-Aristotelian philoso- tween Aristotle and the other classical Greek phers in the Anglo-Saxon world preferred to philosophers arose around such questions as the translate eudaimonia as “human flourishing” connection between the active and contemplative rather than happiness, because in common life, and then, over the role of sociality and civil language today happiness also indicates mo- virtues in order to reach the good life. mentary euphoria, carefree content, a pleasur- able sensation or tout court pleasure.14 The Aristotelian meaning of the eudaimonia is semantically impoverished when translated into To Aristotle, pleasure is not the end of action, the English word happiness: The Greek expres- then, but only a sign that the action is intrinsical- sion meant the highest end that humans can ly good. Pleasure, instead, can signal the value of realize: “What is the highest of all goods achiev- an activity, not its scope: “Virtuous actions must able by action.”9 As a consequence, eudaimonia be in themselves pleasant.”15 Second, eu- is an end “which is in itself worthy of pursuit daimonia is the end of politics: “what it is that more final than that which is worthy of pursuit we say political science aims at and what is the for the sake of something else…for this we highest of all goods achievable by action…for choose always for self and never for the sake of both the general run of men and people of something else.”10 That makes happiness “the superior refinement say that it is happiness.”16 best, noblest, and most pleasant thing in the The aim of politics is happiness because politics world.”11 All the other good things, including “gives utmost attention in forming citizens in a wealth, are only means for reaching happiness. certain way, that is to make them good and Happiness, therefore, is never a means; on the committed to carrying out beautiful actions.”17 contrary, it is the only goal that is impossible to What is more, political life is the only place in instrumentalize, because of its very nature.