Download Happiness and Public Policy

Happiness and Public Policy
Robert A. Cummins
Australian Centre on Quality of Life
Deakin University
http://www.deakin.edu.au/research/acqol
The traditional route to happiness is
money
So the best public policy for increasing
happiness,
according to Economists
is to make populations richer
So, around the world, prior to 1970’s
Quality of Life = GDP.
Economic growth
and
Subjective Wellbeing
in Japan
550
500
450
400
GDP is held
as a percent
of its
1958 value
Deflated GDP/capita
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
1958 1960 1962 1964 1966 1970 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1987
(Diener & Biswas-Diener, 2002)
Year
Increasing GDP does NOT
= increasing happiness!
550
500
450
400
GDP is held
as a percent
of its
1958 value
Deflated GDP/capita
350
300
250
Life satisfaction 200
is the actual 150
value for
100
each year
Life Satisfaction
50
0
1958 1960 1962 1964 1966 1970 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1987
(Diener & Biswas-Diener, 2002)
Year
Quality of Life
Objective Conditions
e.g. Physical health
Objective QOL
Subjective Perceptions
e.g. Satisfaction with health
?
Subjective Wellbeing
[happiness]
Subjective Wellbeing
A positive state of mind that
involves the whole life experience
How do we measure it?
“How satisfied are you with your life as a
whole”?
This can be broken down in a number of
Life Domains
How satisfied are you with your----[life domain]?
How can we recognize the MINIMUM
number of life domains?
Domains: all must contribute unique variance
Standard of living
Health
Achieving in life
Relationships
Safety
Community connectedness
Future security
Spirituality/Religion
β
β
β
β
β
β
β
β
“How satisfied
are you
with your life
as a whole?”
Personal Wellbeing Index
How satisfied are you with your-----?
• Standard of living
• Health
• Achieving in life
• Relationships
• Safety
• Community connectedness
• Future security
• Spirituality/Religion
[Jones and Thurstone ,1955]
11-point, end-defined scale
How satisfied are you with your ----?
Completely
Dissatisfied
0
1
Completely
Satisfied
Mixed
2
3
4
5
6
8
8
9
10
We code all data to lie on a range from
Complete
dissatisfaction
0
Complete
satisfaction
100
Why is subjective wellbeing important?
Positive emotions build a range of personal resources as:
Physical resources (health, longevity)
Social resources (friendliness, social capital)
Intellectual resources (intellectual curiosity, expert
knowledge,)
Psychological resources (resilience, optimism,
creativity)
In 2000 we linked with our
industry partner, Australian Unity
Purpose: to create a quarterly index of
subjective wellbeing for the Australian
population.
As an alternative to the traditional
economic indicators such as GDP
This is a world first
No other country has a quarterly
wellbeing index
(but others are going to follow)
The International Wellbeing Group 48 Countries and Provinces
Algeria
Argentina
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Brazil
Canada
China
(Hong Kong )
(Macau) [from 2007-2/yr]
(Qinghai province, Yushu
prefecture)
(Shandong Province)
Croatia
England
Finland
France
Germany
Greenland
Hungary
Iran
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Laos
Latin America
Lebanon
Malaysia
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Pakistan
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Rwanda
Singapore
Slovakia
South Africa
Spain
Switzerland
Taiwan
[Thailand]
USA
West Indies
The Australian Unity Wellbeing Index
Surveys
Geographically representative sample
N = 2,000
Telephone interview
#1:
April 2001
-----------#17: April 2007
PWI 2001 - 2007
77
>S11
76
75
Strength
of
satisfaction
>S2, S4, S5
Scores above this line are
significantly higher than S1
74
73
Major events
preceding survey
72
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Survey
Date
Key:
1 = September 11
2 = Bali Bombing
3 = Pre-Iraq War
4 = Hussein Deposed
5 = Athens Olympic
6 = Asian Tsunami
7 = Second Bali Bombing 8 = New Industrial Relations Laws
Normative range
using survey mean scores as data (N=17)
Very satisfied 100
90
Subjective
Wellbeing
80
76.4
70
73.4
60
50
40
30
20
10
Very dissatisfied
0
Mean = 74.9
SD = 0.8
Why is subjective wellbeing held so steady?
Homeostasis
Just like we hold body temperature steady
Subjective wellbeing homeostasis
Each person has a set-point for their subjective wellbeing.
90
These set-points
lie between
60 and 90
Range for
individual
set-points
60
Set-points are always POSITIVE
ie above 50
The average set-point is 75.
90
Range
For
individual
set-points
60
75 [The set-point for the average person ]
Each person has a set-point for their subjective wellbeing.
90
The average set-point
75
60
When nothing much is happening to them, people rate how
they feel about their life in terms of their set-point for SWB
Time
Homeostasis can fail
Overwhelming
Negative
Challenges
Subjective
wellbeing
The result of subjective wellbeing loss is
depression
Homeostasis can be defeated by:
Poverty
Chronic pain (arthritis)
Chronic stress (carers)
Lack of intimacy
Living conditions (street-kids)
Incarceration (prisoners)
But people are RESILIENT !
Challenging
situations
X
External resources
(eg. relationships,
money)
Subjective
wellbeing
Internal resources
(eg. Finding meaning
for the bad event)
This is why there is normally such a poor relationship between
subjective Wellbeing and the objective QOL indicators
Persistent homeostatic failure
[demands chronically exceed resources]
90
60
40
Subjective wellbeing
Depression
Time
How can these subjective social indicators
be used to enhance
population happiness?
A. They can tell us about when additional
resources are, and are not, likely to
benefit SWB
Does greater wealth always benefit SWB?
NO
The effect of both on SWB is not linear
(ie more is not necessarily better)
BUT
The relationship of both with SWB can
be understood via homeostasis
Income and subjective wellbeing
81
Total N ≈ 30,000
80
*
79
78.3
78.0
78
Subjective
wellbeing
79.2
77
76
*
75
*
76.5
*
76.3
74.9
Normal Range
73.9
74
73.0
73
72
71.7
71
<$15
$15-30
$31-60
$61-90
$91-120
$121-150
$150+
Median
Household Income ($'000)
Beyond a certain income there is no further benefit to subjective wellbeing
B.
Subjective Social Indicators be used---
to identify geographic areas that require
additional resources
Parliament House
in Canberra
In 2005 we compared the
Subjective Wellbeing of
the 150 Federal electorates
New South Wales
Above average
Average
Below average
Summary
Both objective and subjective social
indicators provide important and
different information
Objective
Social Indicators
e.g. National wealth
Subjective
Social Indicators
e.g. Subjective Wellbeing
Both sources of information used to make policy decisions
Optimization of Social Development according to
the availability and distribution of resources