Happiness economics

The economics of happiness or happiness economics is the quantitative and theoretical study of happiness, positive and negative affect, well-being, quality of life, life satisfaction and related concepts, typically combining economics with other fields such as psychology, health and sociology. It typically treats such happiness-related measures, rather than wealth, income or profit, as something to be maximized. The field has grown substantially since the late 20th century, for example by the development of methods, surveys and indices to measure happiness and related concepts.[1] Its findings have been described as a challenge to the economics profession.[2]

Subject classifications

The subject may be categorized in various ways, depending on specificity, intersection, and cross-classification. For example, within the Journal of Economic Literature classification codes, it has been categorized under:

Metrology

Given its very nature, reported happiness is subjective.[5] It is difficult to compare one person's happiness with another's.[1] It can be especially difficult to compare happiness across cultures.[1] However, many happiness economists believe they have solved this comparison problem. Cross-sections of large data samples across nations and time demonstrate consistent patterns in the determinants of happiness.[1]

Happiness is typically measured using subjective measures – e.g. self-reported surveys – and/or objective measures. One concern has always been the accuracy and reliability of people’s responses to happiness surveys.[6] Objective measures such as lifespan, income, and education are often used as well as or instead of subjectively reported happiness, though this assumes that they generally produce happiness, which while plausible may not necessarily be the case. The terms quality of life or well-being are often used to encompass these more objective measures.

Some scientists claim that happiness can be measured both subjectively and objectively by observing the joy center of the brain lit up with advanced imaging,[6] although this raises philosophical issues, for example about whether this can be treated as more reliable than reported subjective happiness.

Micro-econometric happiness equations have the standard form: .[1] In this equation is the reported well-being of individual at time , and is a vector of known variables, which include socio-demographic and socioeconomic characteristics.[1]

Happiness, well-being, or satisfaction with life, was seen as unmeasurable in classical and neo-classical economics. Van Praag was the first person who organized large surveys in order to explicitly measure welfare derived from income. He did this with the Income Evaluation Question(IEQ). This approach is called the Leyden School. It named after the Dutch university where this approach was developed. Other Researchers included Arie Kapteyn and Aldi Hagenaars.[7]

Determinants

GDP and GNP

Typically national financial measures, such as gross domestic product (GDP) and gross national product (GNP), have been used as a measure of successful policy. There is a significant association between GDP and happiness, with citizens in wealthier nations being happier than those in poorer nations. It has been argued that this relationship extends only to an average GDP per capita of about $15,000.[8] Conclusions in this are controversial.[9] Other economists have disputed the accuracy of these studies, finding a logarithmic correlation between GDP per capita and self-reported happiness extending without boundary.[10] It has also been noted that since life expectancy has continued to increase in nations wealthier than this, often partly attributed to economic growth, happy life years have continued to increase.[10][11]

Individual income

Historically, economists have said that well-being is a simple function of income. However, it has been found that once wealth reaches a subsistence level, its effectiveness as a generator of well-being is greatly diminished.[12] Happiness economists hope to change the way governments view well-being and how to most effectively govern and allocate resources given this paradox.[13]

In 2010, Daniel Kahneman and Angus Deaton found that higher earners generally reported better life satisfaction, but people's day-to-day emotional well-being only rose with earnings until a threshold annual income of $75,000.[14]

Other factors have been suggested as making people happier than money.[6] A short term course of psychological therapy is 32 times more cost effective at increasing happiness than simply increasing income.[15][16]

Scholars at the University of Virginia, University of British Columbia and Harvard University released a study in 2011 after examining numerous academic paper in response to an apparent contradiction: “When asked to take stock of their lives, people with more money report being a good deal more satisfied. But when asked how happy they are at the moment, people with more money are barely different than those with less.” Published in the Journal of Consumer Psychology, the study is entitled “If Money Doesn’t Make You Happy, Then You Probably Aren’t Spending It Right” and included the following eight general recommendations:

In their "Unhappy Cities" working paper, published in July 2014 by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), Edward Glaeser, Joshua Gottlieb and Oren Ziv examined the self-reported subjective well-being of people living in American metropolitan areas, particularly in relation to the notion that "individuals make trade-offs among competing objectives, including but not limited to happiness." The researchers findings revealed that people living in metropolitan areas where lower levels of happiness are reported are receiving higher real wages, and they suggest in their conclusion that "humans are quite understandably willing to sacrifice both happiness and life satisfaction if the price is right."[18]

Social security

Professor Ruut Veenhoven showed that social security payments do not seem to add to happiness. This may be due to the fact that non-self-earned income (e.g., from a lottery) does not add to happiness in general either. Happiness may be the mind's reward to a useful action. However, Johan Norberg of CIS, a free enterprise economy think tank, presents a hypothesis that as people who think that they themselves control their lives are more happy, paternalist institutions may decrease happiness.[19][20]

An alternative perspective focuses on the role of the welfare state as an institution that improves quality of life not only by increasing the extent to which basic human needs are met, but also by promoting greater control of one's life by limiting the degree to which individuals find themselves at the mercy of impersonal market forces that are indifferent to the fate of individuals. This is the argument suggested by the U.S. political scientist Benjamin Radcliff, who has presented a series of papers in peer reviewed scholarly journals demonstrating that a more generous welfare state contributes to higher levels of life satisfaction, and does so to rich and poor alike.[21][22][23]

Employment

Generally, the well-being of those who are employed is higher than those who are unemployed.[24] Employment itself may not increase subjective well-being, but facilitates activities that do (such as supporting a family, philanthropy, and education). While work does increase well-being through providing income, income level is not as indicative of subjective well-being as other benefits related to employment.[25] Feelings of autonomy and mastery, found in higher levels in the employed than unemployed, are stronger predictors of subjective well-being than wealth.[25]

When personal preference and the amount of time spent working do not align, both men and women experience a decrease in subjective well-being.[26] The negative effect of working more or working less than preferred has been found across multiple studies, most finding that working more than preferred (over-employed) is more detrimental, but some found that working less (under-employed) is more detrimental.[27][28] Most individuals’ levels of subjective well-being returned to “normal” (level previous to time mismatch) within one year. Levels remained lower only when individuals worked more hours than preferred for a period of two years or more, which may indicate that it is more detrimental to be over-employed than under-employed in the long-term.[26]

Employment status effects are not confined to the individual. Being unemployed can have detrimental effects on a spouse’s subjective well-being, compared to being employed or not working (and not looking for work).[29] Partner life satisfaction is inversely related to the number of hours their partner is underemployed. When both partners are underemployed, the life-satisfaction of men is more greatly diminished than women.[28] However, just being in a relationship reduces the impact unemployment has on the subjective well-being of an individual.[30] On a broad scale, high rates of unemployment negatively affect the subjective well-being of the employed.[31]

Becoming self-employed can increase subjective well-being, given the right conditions. Those who leave work to become self-employed report greater life satisfaction than those who work for others or become self-employed after unemployment; this effect increases over time.[32][33] Those who are self-employed and have employees of their own report higher life-satisfaction than those who are self-employed without employees, and women who are self-employed without employees report a higher life satisfaction than men in the same condition.[34]

The effects of retirement on subjective well-being vary depending on personal and cultural factors. Subjective well-being can remain stable for those who retire from work voluntarily, but declines for those who are involuntarily retired.[35] In countries with an average social norm to work, the well-being of men increases after retirement, and the well-being of retired women is at the same level as women who are homemakers or work outside the home.[24] In countries with a strong social norm to work, retirement negatively impacts the well-being of men and women.[24]

Relationships and children

Relative declines in female happiness have eroded a gender gap in happiness in which women in the 1970s typically reported higher subjective well-being than did men.[36]

In rich societies, where a rise in income doesn't equate to an increase in levels of subjective well-being, personal relationships are the determining factors of happiness.[37]

Glaeser, Gottlieb and Ziv suggest in their conclusion that the happiness trade-offs that individuals seem willing to make aligns with the tendency of parents to report less happiness, as they sacrifice their personal well-being for the "price" of having children.[18]

Freedom and control

There is a significant correlation between feeling in control of one's own life and happiness levels.

A study conducted at the University of Zurich suggested that democracy and federalism bring well-being to individuals.[38] It concluded that the more direct political participation possibilities available to citizens raises their subjective well-being.[38] Two reasons were given for this finding. First, a more active role for citizens enables better monitoring of professional politicians by citizens, which leads to greater satisfaction with government output.[38] Second, the ability for citizens to get involved in and have control over the political process, independently increases well-being.[38]

According to Will Wilkinson of the Cato Institute, higher economic freedom, as measured by both the Heritage and the Fraser indices, correlates strongly with higher self-reported happiness.[10][11]

American psychologist Barry Schwartz argues in his book The Paradox of Choice that too many consumer and lifestyle choices can produce anxiety and unhappiness due to analysis paralysis and raised expectations of satisfaction.

Religious diversity

National cross-sectional data suggest an inverse relation between religious diversity and happiness, possibly by facilitating more bonding (and less bridging) social capital.[39]

Happiness and Leisure

Happiness and Leisure Much of the research regarding happiness and leisure relies on subjective well-being (SWB) as an appropriate measure of happiness. Research has demonstrated a wide variety of contributing and resulting factors in the relationship between leisure and happiness. These include psychological mechanisms, and the types and characteristics of leisure activities that result in the greatest levels of subjective happiness. Specifically, leisure may trigger five core psychological mechanisms including detachment-recovery from work, autonomy in leisure, mastery of leisure activities, meaning-making in leisure activities, and social affiliation in leisure (DRAMMA).[40] Leisure activities that are physical, relational, and performed outdoors are correlated with greater feelings of satisfaction with free time.[24] Research across 33 different countries shows that individuals who feel they strengthen social relationships and work on personal development during leisure time are happier than others.[25] Furthermore, shopping, reading books, attending cultural events, getting together with relatives, listening to music and attending sporting events is associated with higher levels of happiness. Spending time on the internet or watching TV is not associated with higher levels of happiness as compared to these other activities.,[25][41]

Research has shown that culture influences how we measure happiness and leisure. While SWB is a commonly used measure of happiness in North America and Europe, this may not be the case internationally. Quality of life (QOL) may be a better measure of happiness and leisure in Asian countries, especially Korea. Countries such as China and Japan may require a different measurement of happiness, as societal differences may influence the concept of happiness (i.e. economic variables, cultural practices, and social networks) beyond what QOL is able to measure.[42] There seem to be some differences in leisure preference cross-culturally. Within the Croatian culture, family related leisure activities may enhance SWB across a large spectrum of ages ranging from adolescent to older adults, in both women and men. Active socializing and visiting cultural events are also associated with high levels of SWB across varying age and gender.[26] Italians seem to prefer social conceptions of leisure as opposed to individualistic conceptions. Although different groups of individuals may prefer varying types and amount of leisure activity, this variability is likely due to the differing motivations and goals that an individual intends to fulfill with their leisure time.[24]

Research suggests that specific leisure interventions enhance feelings of SWB. This is both a top-down and bottom-up effect, in that leisure satisfaction causally affects SWB, and SWB causally affects leisure satisfaction. This bi-directional effect is stronger in retired individuals than in working individuals. Furthermore, it appears that satisfaction with our leisure at least partially explains the relationship between our engagement in leisure and our SWB.[43] Broadly speaking, researchers classify leisure into active (e.g. volunteering, socializing, sports and fitness) and passive leisure (e.g. watching television and and listening to the radio).[28] Among older adults, passive leisure activities and personal leisure activities (e.g. sleeping, eating, and bathing) correlate with higher levels of SWB and feelings of relaxation than active leisure activities. Thus, although significant evidence has demonstrated that active leisure is associated with higher levels of SWB, or happiness, this may not be the case with older populations.,[26][28]

Both regular and irregular involvement in sports leisure can result in heightened SWB. Serious, or systematic involvement in certain leisure activities, such as Taekwondo, correlates with personal growth and a sense of happiness.[44] Additionally, more irregular (e.g. seasonal) sports activities, such as skiing, are also correlated with high SWB. Furthermore, the relationship between pleasure and skiing is thought to be caused in part by a sense of flow and involvement with the activity.[45] Leisure activities, such as meeting with friends, participating in sports, and going on vacation trips, positively correlate with life satisfaction.[46] It may also be true that going on a vacation makes our lives seem better, but does not necessarily make us happier in the long term. Research regarding vacationing or taking a holiday trip is mixed. Although the reported effects are mostly small, some evidence points to higher levels of SWB, or happiness, after taking a holiday.,[47][48]

Happiness economics and indices timeline

The idea that happiness is important to a society is not new. Many other prominent intellectuals, philosophers and political leaders throughout history, including Aristotle, Confucius, and Plato, incorporated happiness into their work.[1]

Thomas Jefferson put the "pursuit of happiness" on the same level as life and liberty in the United States' Declaration of Independence.[49] Jeremy Bentham believed that public policy should attempt to maximize happiness, and he even attempted to estimate a "hedonic calculus".[6] However, the American ruling philosophy protects the right of individuals to seek their own happiness, but does not place an equal responsibility for the citizens' happiness on the government. In the United States, there is no explicit policy that requires the rulers to develop the physical and mental well-being of the citizens or hold the government agencies accountable for their performance against specific measures or metrics of well-being. Until the 1972 there was no formal government policy, anywhere in the world, that placed happiness and well-being as a main criterion for public policy decision making.

The following is a chronological list of happiness economics and well-being indices:

"Gross National Happiness is more important than Gross National Product" by Jigme Singye Wangchuck, King of Bhutan. Slogan on a wall in Thimphu's School of Traditional Arts

1972 – Bhutan's former king, Jigme Singye Wangchuck, introduced the Gross National Happiness (GNH) philosophy and its four development pillars at an international conference.[50]

2005 – Med Jones of the International Institute of Management introduced the first GNH Index and Global GNH Index Survey.[51] The GNH Index, also known as Gross National Well-being (GNW) Index framework served as the first integrated objective (economic) and subjective (happiness) socioeconomic development framework. Prior the GNH Index, there were few development indices that improved upon the gross domestic product (GDP), but did not measure happiness. For example, the Genuine Progress Indicator was focused on the environmental cost of economic development, then later (in 2006) it was updated to include similar measures to the GNH Index. Another development index is the Human Development Index (HDI) that originally focused on literacy and education but also did not measure happiness.[52] The HDI now measures three basic dimensions of human development, health (as measured by life expectancy at birth), overall knowledge level (as measured by the literacy rate), and standard of living (as measured by GDP per capita for a given year). Among the criticisms of the HDI is the complaint that it is a mixture of stock measures (life expectancy at birth and literacy rate) and a flow measure (GDP per capita for a given year). To overcome this criticism, Hou, Walsh, and Zhang (2015) proposed a new index called HDIF (Human Development Index Flow), in which they replaced life expectancy at birth by the under-five mortality rate (for a given year), and they also replaced the literacy rate by the gross primary school enrollment ratio for a given year). They calculated both the HDI and the HDIF for many countries and found that “the HDIF and the HDI tend to converge for wealthy countries and diverge for poor countries, especially those with low HDI rankings.” The development performance of poor countries improved using the HDIF while the performance of the wealthy countries declined.[53]

2006 – The Genuine Progress Indicator was updated from a green measurement system to a broader concept that included quantitative measurement of well-being and happiness.[54] The new measure is motivated by the philosophy of the GNH and the same notion of that subjective measures like well-being are more relevant and important than more objective measures like consumption. It is not measured directly, but only the factors which are believed to lead to it.

2007 – Thailand releases Green and Happiness Index (GHI).[55]

2008 – French President Nicolas Sarkozy launched a Happiness Initiative similar to GNH, calling for the inclusion of happiness and well-being among the criteria for national governance policies. He commissioned three prominent economists, Joseph Stiglitz (USA), Amartya Sen (India), Jean-Paul Fitoussi (France), to publish a report calling for a global "statistical system which goes beyond commercial activity to measure personal well-being." Later it was described as gross domestic happiness (GDH).[56] The GDH Index is similar to the GNH Index of 2005.

2009 – In the United States, the Gallup poll system launched the happiness survey collecting data on national scale.[57] The Gallup Well-Being Index was modeled after the GNH Index framework of 2005. The Well-Being Index score is an average of six sub-indexes that measures life evaluation, emotional health, work environment, physical health, healthy behaviors, and access to basic necessities. In October 2009, the USA scored 66.1/100.

2010 – The concept was taken seriously, as the Centre for Bhutan Studies, under the leadership of Karma Ura, developed a sophisticated survey instrument to measure the population's general level of well-being.[58] Two Canadians, Michael and Martha Pennock played a major role in developing the Bhutanese survey, which took a six- to seven-hour interview to complete. They developed a shorter international version of the survey which has been used in their home region of Victoria BC as well as in Brazil. The Pennocks also collaborated with Ura in the production of a policy lens which is used by the Bhutanese GNH Commission for anticipating the impact of policy initiatives upon the levels of GNH in Bhutan[59]

2010 – The Center for Bhutan Studies further defined the original four pillars with greater specificity into eight general contributors to happiness—physical, mental and spiritual health; time-balance; social and community vitality; cultural vitality; education; living standards; good governance; and ecological vitality. The Bhutan GNH Index.[60]

2010 – The Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative OPHI at the University of Oxford in UK, launched the Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) for the United Nations Development Programme, (UNDP). Similar to the GNH Index of 2005, OPHI promotes collection and analysis of data on five dimensions including Quality of work, Empowerment, Physical safety, Ability to go about without shame, Psychological wellbeing.[61]

2011 – UN General Assembly Resolution 65/309, titled "Happiness: towards a holistic approach to development"[62]

2011 – The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) launched "Better Life Index" (BLI).[63]

2011 – The United Nations released the World Happiness Report

2011 – Canadian Index of Wellbeing Network (CIW Network) released The Canadian Index of Wellbeing (CIW).[64]

2011 - The Israeli newspaper Haaretz published an article suggesting that western GDP economics is an incomplete development model and called for the adoption of Bhutan's GNH philosophy and Jones' GNH Index in Israel.[65]

2011 - Chuluun Togtokh criticized the HDI in an article published in Nature, calling for a revised HDI, writing that “The revised index should include each nation’s per capita carbon emissions, and so become a Human Sustainable Development Index (HSDI).”[66] Bravo (2014) provided details of how the HSDI was computed and proposed an amended HSDI by including the proportion of forested area in each country. He argued that this proposed indicator “represents an important measure of the capacity of natural system to provide fundamental ecological services.”[67]

2012 – In a report prepared for the US Congressman Hansen Clarke, R, researchers Ben Beachy and Juston Zorn, at John F. Kennedy School of Government in Harvard University, recommended that "the Congress should prescribe the broad parameters of new, carefully designed supplemental national indicators; it should launch a bipartisan commission of experts to address unresolved methodological issues, and include alternative indicators." They proposed that the government can use the survey results to see which well-being dimensions are least satisfied and which districts and demographic groups are most deficient, so as to allocate resources accordingly. The report list the Gross National Happiness Index and its seven measurement area as one of the main frameworks to consider.[68]

2012 – Professor Peter T. Coleman, a director of the International Center for Cooperation and Conflict Resolution at Columbia University, suggested that Jones' GNH Index initiative could inform the Global Peace Index Initiative GPI.[69]

2012 – South Korea launched Happiness Index citing the GNH Index framework.[70]

2012 – The government of Goa, India, published a strategy for socioeconomic development citing the GNH Index as a model for measuring happiness.[71]

2012 – The city of Seattle in Washington, launched its own happiness index initiative, emphasizing measures similar to the GNH Index.[72]

2013 – The Social Progress Index SPI was launched by Michael Porter

2013 – The president of Singapore, Tony Tan, proposed that in addition to building up substantial financial reserves, Singapore needed to focus on building up its "social reserves", a concept that appears to have parallels to GNH.[73]

2013 – Economist Karol Jan Borowiecki motivates that well-being indices can be obtained from the way people communicate, as is established in psychology, and compiles the first well-being indices covering the life-time of a person.[74]

2014 – The government of Dubai launched its localized Happiness Index to measure the public’s contentment and satisfaction with different government services.[75]

2014 – The United Kingdom launched its own well-being and happiness statistics.[76]

Related Studies

The Satisfaction with Life Index. Blue through red represent most to least happy respectively; grey areas have no reliable data available.

The Satisfaction with Life Index is an attempt to show the average self-reported happiness in different nations. This is an example of a recent trend to use direct measures of happiness, such as surveys asking people how happy they are, as an alternative to traditional measures of policy success such as GDP or GNP. Some studies suggest that happiness can be measured effectively.[77][78] The Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), published in November 2008 a major study on happiness economics in Latin America and the Caribbean.[79]

In 2013, John Helliwell, Richard Layard and Jeffery Sachs compiled a treatise under the title “World Happiness report 2013” to elaborate on the measurement of popular happiness in different countries thereby adding to the wealth of happiness data available while specifically discussing the issues of measurement, explanation and policy. Global and Regional Happiness Levels are explained in terms of 10 regional groupings of countries based on happiness data available for the year 2010-2012. The happiness level is explained as a function of GDP per capita, social support, and healthy life expectancy, freedom to make life choices, generosity and perceptions of corruption.[80]

There are also several examples of measures that includes self-reported happiness as one variable. Happy Life Years, a concept brought by Dutch sociologist Ruut Veenhoven, combines self-reported happiness with life expectancy. The Happy Planet Index combines it with life expectancy and ecological footprint.

Gross National Happiness (GNH) is a concept introduced by the King of Bhutan in 1972 as an alternative to GDP. Several countries have already developed or are in the process of developing such an index.[6][81] Bhutan’s index has led that country to limit the amount of deforestation it will allow and to require that all tourists to its nation must spend US$200[6] Allegedly, low-budget tourism and deforestation lead to unhappiness.[6]

After the military coup of 2006, Thailand also instituted an index.[6] The stated promise of the new Prime Minister Surayud Chulanont is to make the Thai people not only richer but happier as well.[6] Much like GDP results, Thailand releases monthly GNH data.[82] The Thai GNH index is based on a 1–10 scale with 10 being the most happy.[82] As of May 13, 2007, the Thai GNH measured 5.1 points.[82] The index uses poll data from the population surveying various satisfaction factors such as, security, public utilities, good governance, trade, social justice, allocation of resources, education and community problems.[82]

Australia,[81] China, France[83] and the United Kingdom[84] are also coming up with indexes to measure national happiness.[6] The UK began to measure national wellbeing in 2012.[85] North Korea also announced an international Happiness Index in 2011 through Korean Central Television. North Korea itself came in second, behind #1 China.[86] Canada released the Canadian Index of Wellbeing (CIW) in 2011 to track changes in wellbeing. The CIW has adopted the following working definition of wellbeing: The presence of the highest possible quality of life in its full breadth of expression focused on but not necessarily exclusive to: good living standards, robust health, a sustainable environment, vital communities, an educated populace, balanced time use, high levels of democratic participation, and access to and participation in leisure and culture[87]

Ecuador's and Bolivia's new constitutions state the indigenous concept of "good life" ("buen vivir" in Spanish, "sumak kawsay" in Quichua, and "suma qamaña" in Aymara) as the goal of sustainable development.

Neoclassical economics

Neoclassical, as well as classical economics, are not subsumed under the term happiness economics although the original goal was to increase the happiness of the people. Classical and neoclassical economics are stages in the development of welfare economics and are characterized by mathematical modeling. Happiness economics represents a radical break with this tradition. The measurement of subjective happiness respectively life satisfaction by means of survey research across nations and time (in addition to objective measures like lifespan, wealth, security etc.) marks the beginning of happiness economics.

Criticism

Some have suggested that establishing happiness as a metric is only meant to serve political goals.[6] Recently there has been concern that happiness research could be used to advance authoritarian aims.[6] As a result, some participants at a happiness conference in Rome have suggested that happiness research should not be used as a matter of public policy but rather used to inform individuals.[6]

Even on the individual level there is discussion on how much effect external forces can have on Happiness. Less than 3% of happiness levels is from external sources such as employment, education level, marital status, and socioeconomic status.[88] To go along with this, four of the Big Five Personality Traits are substantially associated with life satisfaction, openness to experience is not associated.[89] Having high levels of internal locus of control lead to higher reported levels of happiness.[90][91]

Even when happiness can be affected by external sources happiness has high hedonic adaptation, specify some events such as an increase in income, disability, unemployment, and loss (bereavement) only have short-term (about a year) effects on a person’s overall happiness after a while happiness may return to levels similar to unaffected peers.[92][93]

What has the most influence over happiness are internal factors such as genetics, personality traits, and internal locus of control It is theorized that 50% of the variation in happiness levels is from genetic sources and is known as the genetic set point. The genetic set point is assumed to be stable over time, fixed, and immune to influence or control.[94] This goes along with findings that well-being surveys have a naturally positive baseline.[95]

With such strong internal forces on happiness is it is hard to have an effect on a person’s happiness externally. This in turn lends it self back to the idea that establishing a happiness metric is only for political gain and has little other use. To support this even further it is believed that a country aggregate level of SWB is can account for more variance in government vote share than standard macroeconomic variables, such as income and employment.[96]

See also

Researchers

Bibliography

Books

Articles

References and notes

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 • Carol Graham, 2008. "happiness, economics of," The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, 2nd Edition. Abstract. Prepublication copy.
      • _____, 2005. "The Economics of Happiness: Insights on Globalization from a Novel Approach," World Economics, 6(3), pp. 41–58 (indicated there as adapted from previous source).
      • David G. Blanchflower, 2008. "Happiness Economics," NBER Reporter Online, (2), pp. 7–10. Abstract-linked-footnotes version.
  2. ↑ Richard Layard, 2006. "Happiness and Public Policy: A Challenge to the Profession," Economic Journal, 116( 510), Conference Papers, pp. C24–C33.
  3. ↑ Ulf-G, Gerdtham; Magnus. "The Relationship Between Happiness, Health, and Socio-economic Factors: Results Based on Swedish Microdata". Journal of Socio-Economics. 30 (6): 553–57. doi:10.1016/S1053-5357(01)00118-4.
  4. ↑ Carol Graham, 2010. "The Challenges of Incorporating Empowerment into the HDI: Some Lessons from Happiness Economics and Quality of Life Research," 54 pages, Human Development Reports Research Paper, 2010/13, United Nations.
  5. ↑ Ruut Veenhoven, World Database of Happiness, 2007
  6. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Rana Foroohar, "Money v. Happiness: Nations Rethink Priorities", Newsweek, April 5, 2007.
  7. ↑ Van Praag, Bernard (1971-03-01). "The welfare function of income in Belgium: An empirical investigation". European Economic Review. 2 (3): 337–369. doi:10.1016/0014-2921(71)90045-6.
  8. ↑ Bruno S. Frey and Alois Stutzer, 2002. Happiness and Economics: How the Economy and Institutions Affect Human Well-Being, Description and preview. Princeton University Press, &, in the UK, John Wiley & Sons.
  9. ↑ See Easterlin paradox for details.
  10. 1 2 3 In Pursuit of Happiness Research. Is It Reliable? What Does It Imply for Policy? The Cato Institute. April 11, 2007
  11. 1 2 Cato Institute. "About Cato". Retrieved 2010-03-22.
  12. ↑ Explaining Economics
  13. ↑ Andrew Oswald, A Non-Technical Introduction to the Economics of Happiness, 1999
  14. ↑ Holmes, Bob (7 September 2010). "Money can buy you happiness – up to a point". New Scientist. Retrieved 11 September 2010.
  15. ↑ Money does not make you happy 'but therapy does', The Telegraph, November 20th 2009]
  16. ↑ Boyce, C. J., & Wood, A. M. (in press). [Money or mental health: The cost of alleviating psychological distress with monetary compensation versus psychological therapy Health Economics, Policy and Law
  17. ↑ Rozanne Larsen (15 September 2011). "If money doesn't make you happy, then you probably aren't spending it rightf". Journalist's Resource. Harvard Kennedy School's Shorenstein Center and the Carnegie-Knight Initiative. Retrieved 17 August 2014.
  18. 1 2 Edward L. Glaeser; Joshua D. Gottlieb; Oren Ziv (July 2014). "NBER Working Paper Series: "Unhappy Cities"" (PDF). The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER). The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER). Retrieved 17 August 2014.
  19. ↑ The Scientist's Pursuit of Happiness, Policy, Spring 2005.
  20. ↑ The Centre for Independent Studies. "About CIS". Retrieved 2010-03-22.
  21. ↑ Radcliff, Benjamin (2001). "Politics, Markets, and Life Satisfaction". American Political Science Review. 95 (4): 939–952.
  22. ↑ Radcliff, Benjamin; Pacek, Alexander (2008). "Assessing the Welfare State: the Politics of Happiness". Perspectives on Politics. 6: 267–277.
  23. ↑ Alvarez-Diaz, A.; Gonzalez, L.; Radcliff, B. (2010). "The Politics of Happiness: On the Political Determinants of Quality of Life in the American States". The Journal of Politics. 72 (3): 894–905. doi:10.1017/s0022381610000241.
  24. 1 2 3 4 5 Stam, K., Sieben, I., Verbakel, E., & de Graaf, P. M. (2016). Employment status and subjective well-being: the role of the social norm to work. Work, Employment & Society, 30(2), 309-333. doi:10.1177/0950017014564602
  25. 1 2 3 4 Hagler, M., Hamby, S., Grych, J., & Banyard, V. (2016). Working for well-being: Uncovering the protective benefits of work through mixed methods analysis. Journal Of Happiness Studies, 17(4), 1493-1510. doi:10.1007/s10902-015-9654-4
  26. 1 2 3 4 Angrave, D., & Charlwood, A. (2015). What is the relationship between long working hours, over-employment, under-employment and the subjective well-being of workers? Longitudinal evidence from the UK. Human Relations, 68(9), 1491-1515. doi:10.1177/0018726714559752
  27. ↑ Wooden, M., Warren, D., & Drago, R. (2009). Working Time Mismatch And Subjective Well-Being.British Journal Of Industrial Relations, 47(1), 147-179. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8543.2008.00705.x
  28. 1 2 3 4 Wunder, C., & Heineck, G. (2013). Working Time Preferences, Hours Mismatch and Well-Being of Couples: Are There Spillovers?.Labour Economics, 24244-252. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2013.09.002
  29. ↑ Kim, M., & Do, Y. K. (2013). Effect of husbands' employment status on their wives' subjective well-being in Korea. Journal Of Marriage & Family, 75(2), 288-299. doi:10.1111/jomf.12004
  30. ↑ Meer, P. (2014). Gender, Unemployment and Subjective Well-Being: Why Being Unemployed Is Worse for Men than for Women. Social Indicators Research, 115(1), 23-44.
  31. ↑ Helliwell, J. F., & Huang, H. (2014). New Measures of the Costs of Unemployment: Evidence from the Subjective Well-Being of 3.3 Million Americans. Economic Inquiry, 52(4), 1485-1502.
  32. ↑ Binder, Martin, and Alex Coad. 2013. "Life satisfaction and self-employment: a matching approach." Small Business Economics 40, no. 4: 1009-1033. Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost (accessed September 15, 2016).
  33. ↑ Binder, M., & Coad, A. (2016). How Satisfied are the Self-Employed? A Life Domain View. Journal Of Happiness Studies, 17(4), 1409-1433
  34. ↑ Johansson Seva, I., Vinberg, S., Nordenmark, M., & Strandh, M. (2016). Subjective Well-Being among the Self-Employed in Europe: Macroeconomy, Gender and Immigrant Status. Small Business Economics, 46(2), 239-253. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11187-015-9682-9
  35. ↑ Bonsang, E., & Klein, T. (2012). Retirement and subjective well-being. Journal Of Economic Behavior & Organization, 83(3), 311-329. doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2012.06.002
  36. ↑ Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness, May 2009
  37. ↑ Layard, R (2007). "Setting happiness as a national goal". The Futurist. 41 (4): 37.
  38. 1 2 3 4 Bruno S. Frey & Alois Stutzer, Happiness, Economy and Institutions, 4-5, 1999
  39. ↑ Okulicz-Kozaryn, Adam (2011). "Does Religious Diversity Make Us Unhappy?". Mental Health, Religion & Culture. 14 (10): 1063–1076. doi:10.1080/13674676.2010.550277.
  40. ↑ Newman, D. B., Tay, L., & Diener, E. (2014). Leisure and subjective well-being: A model of psychological mechanisms as mediating factors. Journal Of Happiness Studies, 15(3), 555-578. doi:10.1007/s10902-013-9435-x
  41. ↑ Mingo, I., & Montecolle, S. (2014). Subjective and objective aspects of free time: The Italian case. Journal Of Happiness Studies, 15(2), 425-441. doi:10.1007/s10902-013-9429-8
  42. ↑ Liang, J., Yamashita, T., & Brown, J. S. (2013). Leisure satisfaction and quality of life in China, Japan, and South Korea: A comparative study using AsiaBarometer 2006. Journal Of Happiness Studies, 14(3), 753-769. doi:10.1007/s10902-012-9353-3
  43. ↑ Kuykendall, L., Tay, L., & Ng, V. (2015). Leisure engagement and subjective well-being: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 141(2), 364-403. doi:10.1037/a0038508
  44. ↑ Kim, J., Heo, J., Lee, I. H., & Kim, J. (2015). Predicting personal growth and happiness by using serious leisure model. Social Indicators Research, 122(1), 147-157. doi:10.1007/s11205-014-0680-0
  45. ↑ Lee, H., Shin, S., Bunds, K. S., Kim, M., & Cho, K. M. (2014). Rediscovering the positive psychology of sport participation: Happiness in a ski resort context. Applied Research In Quality Of Life, 9(3), 575-590. doi:10.1007/s11482-013-9255-5
  46. ↑ Schmiedeberg, C., & Schröder, J. (2016). Leisure activities and life satisfaction: An analysis with german panel data. Applied Research In Quality Of Life, doi:10.1007/s11482-016-9458-7
  47. ↑ Kroesen, M., & Handy, S. (2014). The influence of holiday-taking on affect and contentment. Annals Of Tourism Research, 4589-101. doi:10.1016/j.annals.2013.12.006
  48. ↑ Gilbert, D., & Abdullah, J. (2004). Holidaytaking and the Sense of Well-Being. Annals Of Tourism Research, 31(1), 103-121. doi:10.1016/j.annals.2003.06.001
  49. ↑ "Thomas Jefferson. 1743-1826. John Bartlett, comp. 1919. Familiar Quotations, 10th ed.". Retrieved February 18, 2016.
  50. ↑ "Policy Innovations - Redefining Progress".
  51. ↑ "UAE Appoints the first Minister of Happiness"
  52. ↑ "Modern Happiness Economics History & Milestones - Gross National Happiness Timeline - GNH History - Well Being Economics Timeline - Happiness Movement History".
  53. ↑ Hou, Jack; Walsh, Patrick (September 2015). Jing Zhang, 3d name. "The dynamics of Human Development Index". The Social Science Journal. 52 (3): 331–347. doi:10.1016/j.soscij.2014.07.003.
  54. ↑ "Beyond GDP Paper | Page 2 | John Talberth, Center for Sustainable Economy 2012 at The European Commission Website"
  55. ↑ "Green and Happiness Index (GHI"
  56. ↑ "Sarkozy proposes the joie de vivre index". 14 September 2009.
  57. ↑ "Service Down".
  58. ↑ "Gross National Happiness". The Centre for Bhutan Studies. Retrieved 24 March 2011.
  59. ↑ Pennock, Michael; Ura, Karma (1 January 2011). "Gross national happiness as a framework for health impact assessment". Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 31 (1): 61–65. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2010.04.003 – via ScienceDirect.
  60. ↑ "Bhutan GNH Index"
  61. ↑ "A wealth of data" – via The Economist.
  62. ↑ UN Happiness Resolution"
  63. ↑ "OECD Better Life Index".
  64. ↑ "The CIW regularly reports on the quality of life of Canadians – nationally, provincially, and locally – and advocates for social change that reflects our values and places wellbeing at the heart of policy.". 13 June 2012.
  65. ↑ "Why Ordinary Economic Indicators Do Not Tell The Whole Truth", Haaretz, Israel
  66. ↑ Togtokh, Chuluun (17 November 2011). "Time to Stop Celebrating the Polluters". Nature.
  67. ↑ Bravo, Giangiacomo (February 2014). "The Human Sustainable Development Index: New Calculations and a First Critical Analysis". Ecological Indicators. 37: 149. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.10.020.
  68. ↑ "National Indicators for a New Era, Ben, Beachy and Juston Zorn, of the John F Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University"
  69. ↑ "The Missing Piece in Sustainable Peace".
  70. ↑ Nam, Joo-Ha; 김상봉 (1 January 2012). "The Measurement of the EconomicHappy Index in South Korea". 18 (2).
  71. ↑ "Goa 2035 Vision, page 111"
  72. ↑ "Seattle Happiness Initiative"
  73. ↑ "Leong Wai Kit, "S'pore needs both financial and 'social' reserves to thrive: President Tony Tan", 'Today', 6 November 2013.". TODAYonline. Retrieved 23 October 2014.
  74. ↑ Borowiecki, Karol J. " How Are You, My Dearest Mozart? Well-being and Creativity of Three Famous Composers Based on their Letters" " Review of Economics and Statistics ", 2016, forthcoming
  75. ↑ "Dubai brings in Happiness Index - The National".
  76. ↑ "Measures of National Well-being".
  77. ↑ The True Measure of Success - Wired.com
  78. ↑ "Happiness" is not enough- Samuel Brittan: Templeton Lecture Inst. of Economic Affairs 22/11/01
  79. ↑ "IADB.org - Page not found (HTTP 404)" (PDF).
  80. ↑ "Sustainable Development Solutions Network - World Happiness Report 2013".
  81. 1 2 Andrew Revkin, "A New Measure of Well-Being From a Happy Little Kingdom", The New York Times, October 4, 2005, [hereinafter "New Measure"].
  82. 1 2 3 4 Thailand's Gross Domestic Happiness Index Falls, Monsters and Critics, 2007
  83. ↑ Vandore, Emma (2008-01-14). "Inventing the 'Glad Domestic Product'". The Star. Toronto. Retrieved 2010-05-04.
  84. ↑ "Happiness index to gauge Britain's national mood". The Guardian. 2010-11-15.
  85. ↑ Foundation, Internet Memory. "[ARCHIVED CONTENT] UK Government Web Archive – The National Archives".
  86. ↑ ""북한의 행복지수는 세계 2위… 남한 행복지수는 152위"라고?", Chosun Ilbo, 2011-05-27, retrieved 2011-05-28
  87. ↑ 2012 CIW composite index reveals Canadian wellbeing is on the decline, 2012-03-16, retrieved 2013-05-31
  88. ↑ Lykken, D; Tellegen, A (1996). "Happiness is a stochastic phenomenon". Psychological Science. 7 (3): 186–189.
  89. ↑ Heller, D; Watson, D; Ilies, R (2004). "The role of person versus situation in life satisfaction: a critical examination.". Psychological Bulletin. 130 (4): 574.
  90. ↑ Myers, D (1993). Pursuit of happiness: Discovering the pathway to fulfillment, well-being, and enduring personal joy. Harper Paperbacks.
  91. ↑ Denny, Katherine G.; Steiner, Hans (March 2009). "External and Internal Factors Influencing Happiness in Elite Collegiate Athletes". Child Psychiatry and Human Development. 40 (1): 55–72. doi:10.1007/s10578-008-0111-z. PMID 18626767.
  92. ↑ Frederick, S; Loewenstein, George (1999). Hedonic adaptation. Russell Sage Foundation. pp. 302–329.
  93. ↑ Kahneman, D; Krueger, A; Schkade, D; Schwarz, N; Stone, A (2006). "Would you be happier if you were richer? A focusing illusion". Science. 312 (5782): 1908–1910.
  94. ↑ Lyubomrsky, S; Sheldon, K; Schkade, D (2005). "Pursuing happiness: The architecture of sustainable change". Review of General psychology. 9 (2): 111.
  95. ↑ Diener, E; Diener, C (1996). "Most People are Happy". Psychological science. 7 (3): 181–185.
  96. ↑ Ward, George (2015) Is happiness a predictor of election results? CEP Discussion Papers, CEPDP1343. Centre for Economic Performance, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK.

External links

This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the 12/3/2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.