The growing pool of wellbeing and happiness research reveals some interesting patterns. For example, the third World Happiness Report (published April 2015 and edited by John Helliwell, Richard Layard and Jeffrey Sachs) is informed by Gallup data which asks people to position themselves on a ‘life evaluation ladder’. The results show Switzerland, Iceland, Denmark, Norway, Canada, Finland, Netherlands, Sweden, New Zealand and Australia at the top of the happiness rankings. At the other end of the scale, pretty intuitively, the worst performing countries are in sub-Saharan Africa, with the addition of Afghanistan and a Syria – many of which have experienced terrible war and terrorism.
The authors identify differences in social support, incomes, and healthy life expectancy as the most important explanatory factors. But they were able to assess only a small set of variables and could not take account of issues such as unemployment or inequality (due to lack of comparable international data). Even at a glance one can posit other important factors not included in the analysis – for example all of the top 10 countries have relatively high levels of social mobility. But that’s a discussion for another day…
Perhaps more instrumentally, just as saying a wine is ‘interesting’ doesn’t tell you how to make the wine, interest in the wellbeing and happiness data doesn’t obviously lead to better policy making. While happiness and wellbeing are compelling because they are ends in themselves (there is no more ‘because’ or ‘therefore’), policy makers lack a lever called ‘happiness’. So they need to take a step back and pull the levers that they know influence happiness. In other words, policy makers need to manipulate what Amartya Sen has called the ‘habitat of happiness’ – the context in which people live their lives and which shapes their capabilities.
Yet Lord Richard Layard, one of the report’s authors, seems to think there is a policy lever called ‘happiness’ based on his recommendation for Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) for people experiencing mental ill-health. While CBT can be an effective treatment, relying on it as a policy tool seems to ignore that often it is people’s circumstances that need to change.
As Will Davies (author of The Happiness Industry) warns, such prescriptions demonstrate how wellbeing has become too individualised and medicalised. You can go to the doctor and seek a prescription for stress or anxiety, rather than an explanation. The wellbeing agenda focuses too much on the individual as the agent of change (with the obligation that we become more resilient), rather than institutional or political transformation.
A little like turning up the volume on your headphones while a riot rages around you.
And this seems to point to the crux of the problem with the growing wellbeing agenda – skirting the issue, avoiding the real culprit, even blaming the victim…
On another note, I’m struck by a statement at the beginning of the report: “Governments are measuring subjective well-being, and using well-being research as a guide to the design of public spaces and the delivery of public services”.
Undeniably, governments and other statistical agencies are collecting more data about people’s self reported wellbeing….but, they do so in the context of a persistent emphasis on ‘recovery’ of the economic model that preceded the Global Financial Crisis. Though I would be delighted to be proven wrong, examples of governments actually using wellbeing and happiness data to ‘guide’ the design and delivery of policies – to the point that economic objectives are demoted – remain rare.
Instead we see the Indian Prime Minister’s plan to undercut child labour laws and other worker rights to stimulate economic growth. Or the UK Prime Minister’s promise that if re-elected he would focus on “economy, economy, economy” in the party’s first 100 days in power. Or the way the IMF criticises staggering levels of inequality because of the deleterious impact on economic growth (ie a business case, not one based on justice or fairness).
And even in the home of the World Happiness Report itself, we see the economy trump other objectives. The first Report was released as a ‘foundational text’ for the 2012 UN High Level Meeting on “Happiness and Well-Being: Defining a New Economic Paradigm”. While this meeting elegantly identified the need for a new economic paradigm, less than two years later, there was a tangible shift in language: now the talk was of a new development paradigm. Apparently the economic model is not up for grabs, despite it being at the heart of so many of our problems, both collective and individual, both community and environmental.
Finally, so as not to close on too much of a downer – which would be inappropriate in a blog about happiness – I do like this in the Report’s conclusion:
Economic and social life is rife with “social dilemmas,” in which the common good and individual incentives may conflict. In such cases, pro-social behavior – including honesty, benevolence, cooperation, and trustworthiness – is key to achieving the best outcome for society.
I’m just not sure we needed to wait for happiness and subjective wellbeing measures to tell us that.