Inequality in happiness: inequality in countries compared across countries

Cross-national studies on happiness have focused on differences in level of happiness. The focus of this paper is on spread in happiness in the nation, also called ‘inequality in happiness’. Inequality in happiness in nations can be measured by the size of the standard deviation of responses to survey questions about the ‘overall appreciation of one’s life-as-a-whole’. This paper considers spread in happiness in 28 countries around 1980. Contrary to notions of a ‘divided’ society none of these countries shows a bi-modal distribution of happiness. All distribution are uni-modal, but the distributions are not equally flat. There are considerable differences in size of the standard deviations. These differences are not a statistical artifact of variation in level of happiness and appear quite constant through time. Inequality in happiness appears to be greater in the socio-economically most unequal countries and smaller in politically democratic and economically developed nations. Contrary to expectation, inequality in happiness appears to be more closely linked to social equality among rich nations than among not-so-rich ones.happiness; inequality; cross-national

Why social policy needs subjective indicators

There are many qualms about subjective indicators, and some people believe that social policy should better not use them. This paper consists of a review of these objections. It is argued that policy makers need subjective indicators for the following reasons: 1. Social policy is never limited to merely material matters; it is also aimed at matters of mentality. These substantially subjective goals require subjective indicators. 2. Progress in material goals can not always be measured objectively. Subjective measurement often is better. 3. Inclusive measurement is problematic with objective substance. Current sum scores make little sense. Using subjective satisfaction better indicates comprehensive quality of life. 4. Objective indicators do little to inform policy makers about public preferences. Since the political process also does not reflect public preferences too well, policy makers need additional information from opinion polls. 5. Policy makers have to distinguish between ‘wants’ and ‘needs’. Needs are not observable as such, but their gratification materialises in the length and happiness of peoples’ lives. This final output criterion requires assessment of subjective appreciation of life as a whole. --

Sustainable consumption and happiness

One of the reasons for promoting sustainable consumption is that it may give rise to greater happiness of a greater number, at least in the long run. In this paper I explore the strength of that moral account. I take stock of the assumed effects of sustainable consumption on happiness and next review the empirical evidence for such effects on the present generation. I make also educated guesses about consequences for the happiness of later generations. The evidence suggests that a shift to sustainable consumption involve a minor reduction of happiness, at least temporarily, but that we can live quite happy with less luxury. Sustainable consumption of the present generation will only add to the happiness of future generations if it prevents major ecological disasters or if exhaustion of resources will reduce to poverty. Moral justification of sustainable consumption can better appeal to the inherent value of the things it aims to sustain than on human happinessconsumption, happiness

Subjective Measures of Well-being

well-being, objective, subjective, measurement, quality of life, worth, happiness adjusted life years

Measures of Gross National Happiness

Happiness is rising on the political agenda and this calls for measures of how well nations perform in creating great happiness for a great number, analogous to measures of success in creating wealth, such as GDP. Happiness is defined as subjective enjoyment of one’s life as-a-whole and this can be measured using self-reports. Question on happiness are currently used in large scale surveys of the general population in nations. As a result we have now comparable data on happiness in 95 contemporary nations and time-series of 25 years and longer on 11 developed nations. These data can be aggregated in different ways: If the aim is simply greater happiness for a greater number of citizens, Average happiness (AH) is an appropriate measure. If the focus is on enduring happiness, it is better to combine average happiness with longevity in an index of Happy Life Years (HLY). If the aim is to reduce disparity among citizens a relevant indicator is the Inequality of Happiness (IH) in the nations as measured with the standard deviation. Average and dispersion can also be combined in an index of Inequality-Adjusted Happiness (IAH). Comparison across nations shows sizable differences on all these measures of gross national happiness and these differences correspond with societal characteristics that can be influenced by policy makers, such as freedom and justice. Comparison over time shows major improvement during the last decade.utilitarianism, happiness, cross-national, progress

Social equality and state welfare effort: More income-equality, no more equality in quality of life

Cross-national studies on happiness have focused on differences in level of happiness. The focus of this paper is on spread in happiness in the nation, also called ‘inequality in happiness’. Inequality in happiness in nations can be measured by the size of the standard deviation of responses to survey questions about the ‘overall appreciation of one’s life-as-a-whole’. This paper considers spread in happiness in 28 countries around 1980. Contrary to notions of a ‘divided’ society none of these countries shows a bi-modal distribution of happiness. All distribution are uni-modal, but the distributions are not equally flat. There are considerable differences in size of the standard deviations. These differences are not a statistical artifact of variation in level of happiness and appear quite constant through time. Inequality in happiness appears to be greater in the socio-economically most unequal countries and smaller in politically democratic and economically developed nations. Contrary to expectation, inequality in happiness appears to be more closely linked to social equality among rich nations than among not-so-rich oneshappiness; welfare state; cross-national

How universal is happiness?

There is a longstanding discussion on whether happiness is culturally relative or not. The following questions are addressed in that context: 1) Do we all assess how much we like our life? 2) Do we appraise our life on the same grounds? 3) Are the conditions for happiness similar for all of us? 4) Are the consequences of happiness similar in all cultures? 5) Do we all seek happiness? 6) Do we seek happiness in similar ways? 7) Do we enjoy life about equally much? The available data suggest that all humans tend to assess how much they like their life. The evaluation draws on affective experience, which is linked to gratification of universal human needs and on cognitive comparison which is framed by cultural standards of the good life. The overall appraisal seems to depend more on the former, than on the latter source of information. Conditions for happiness appear to be quite similar across the world and so are the consequences of enjoying life or not. There is more cultural variation in the valuation of happiness and in beliefs about conditions for happiness. The greatest variation is found in how happy people are.happiness; life satisfaction; cultural relativism; human nature; utilitarianism

Apparent quality-of-life in nations : how long and happy people live

Quality-of-life in nations can be measured by how long and happy people live. This is assessed by combining data on life expectancy drawn from civil registration with survey data on subjective enjoyment of life as a whole. This measure of 'apparent' quality-of-life is a good alternative to current indexes of 'assumed' quality-of-life such as the Human Development Index. Data are available for 67 nations in the 1990s. The number of Happy-Life-Years varies considerably across nations. Switzerland is at the top with 63.0 years and Moldavia at the bottom with 20.5 years. China is in the middle with an average of 46.7. Happy lifetime has risen considerably in advanced nations over the last decade. People live longer and happier in nations characterised by economic affluence, freedom and justice. Together these three societal qualities explain 66% of the cross-national variance in Happy-Life-Years. Income equality and generous social security do not appear to be required for a long and happy life

Classic wisdom about ways to happiness: How does it apply today?

__Abstract__ Since we humans have some choice in how we live our lives, there has always been ideas about what constitutes a good life. Written reflections on that subject focus typically on moral issues, but there have always been ideas about what constitutes a satisfying life. Interest in this classic wisdom is increasing today, as part of the rising concern about happiness. This begs the question of what we can learn from this ancient wisdom. Does it hold universal truth? Or are these views specific for the historical conditions from which they emerged? In this paper I consider some classic beliefs about happiness and inspect how well these apply in contemporary society. The following five beliefs are considered: 1) Happiness is found in fame and power: follow the path of the warrior. 2) Happiness is found in wealth and involvement: follow the path of the merchant. 3) Happiness is found in intellectual development: follow the path of the philosopher. 4) Happiness is found in simplicity: follow the path of the peasant. 5) Happiness is not of this world: follow the path of the monk. Each of these ways to happiness will manifest in specific behaviors and attitudes and I inspected to what extent these go together with happiness today. To do this. I selected relevant research findings from the World Database of Happiness. The classic beliefs 1 and 2 seem to apply fairly well today, but 3 and 4 not. The advice to seek happiness in other-worldly detachment (5) may have been more sensible in the brutish conditions of feudal society, in which it emerged

Why social policy needs subjective indicators

"There are many qualms about subjective indicators, and some people believe that social policy should better not use them. This paper consists of a review of these objections. It is argued that policy makers need subjective indicators for the following reasons: 1. Social policy is never limited to merely material mattersit is also aimed at matters of mentality. These substantially subjective goals require subjective indicators. 2. Progress in material goals can not always be measured objectively. Subjective measurement often is better. 3. Inclusive measurement is problematic with objective substance. Current sum scores make little sense. Using subjective satisfaction better indicates comprehensive quality of life. 4. Objective indicators do little to inform policy makers about public preferences. Since the political process also does not reflect public preferences too well, policy makers need additional information from opinion polls. 5. Policy makers have to distinguish between 'wants' and 'needs'. Needs are not observable as such, but their gratification materialises in the length and happiness of peoples' lives. This final output criterion requires assessment of subjective appreciation of life as a whole." (author's abstract)"Es existieren viele Bedenken gegenüber subjektiven Indikatoren, und manch einer glaubt, die Sozialpolitik täte besser daran, sie nicht zu verwenden. In diesem Beitrag wird hingegen argumentiert, daß politische Akteure subjektive Indikatoren brauchen. Als wichtige Gründe werden angeführt: 1. Sozialpolitik beschränkt sich niemals auf rein materielle Aspekte, sondern bezieht auch Mentalitätsaspekte ein. Zur Erfassung dieser im wesentlichen subjektiven Faktoren bedarf es subjektiver Indikatoren. 2. Eine Verbesserung der materiellen Lebensbedingungen kann nicht immer objektiv gemessen werden. Ein auf subjektive Indikatoren ausgerichtetes Maß eignet sich oft besser. 3. Eine sowohl subjektive als auch objektive Indikatoren einschließende Meßmethode stößt hinsichtlich des objektiven Teils auf Probleme. Gängige Summen-Punktwerte (sum scores) machen wenig Sinn. Lebensqualität läßt sich durch subjektive Zufriedenheitswerte besser und umfassender abbilden. 4. Objektive Indikatoren geben politischen Akteuren wenig Auskunft über die Bedürfnisse der Menschen. Da auch politische Prozesse diese Bedürfnisse nicht exakt spiegeln, benötigen Politiker zusätzliche Informationen durch Meinungsumfragen. 5. Politiker müssen zwischen 'Ansprüchen' und 'Bedürfnissen' unterscheiden. Bedürfnisse als solche sind nicht wahrnehmbar, aber von ihrer Befriedigung hängen Länge und Zufriedenheit des Lebens eines jeden Menschen ab. Um diesem Kriterium gerecht zu werden, bedarf es einer Bewertung der subjektiven Einschätzung des Lebens als Ganzem." (Autorenreferat