Government has vital role in creating a happier society
16 Jan 2012 | Action for Happiness
The Institute of Economic Affairs has today published a new report claiming that it is wrong for
governments to measure, and to attempt to improve, people's
wellbeing.
The IEA suggests that any attempts to direct policy towards
improving wellbeing will fail and that government is better off
leaving people to make their own decisions about how to maximise
their wellbeing. It also claims that happiness is very strongly
related to income and implies that society will benefit from
maintaining a focus on increasing income as a priority.
We believe this is misleading and wrong. Although governments
cannot make people happy per se, a vital role of government must be
to create the conditions for people to lead happy lives. As Thomas
Jefferson said in 1809: "The care of human life and happiness is
the first and only legitimate object of good government".
An essential role of all democratic government is to support and
encourage activities that contribute to the social good, for
example in maintaining law and order or providing healthcare.
Government policy directly affects people's lives in many areas and
so by taking people's wellbeing into account, policy makers should
be better able to identify factors that contribute to, or adversely
affect, wellbeing - and make decisions that aim to deliver
measurable improvements in people's quality of life.
An important point raised by the IEA is the extent to which a
focus on wellbeing encourages or inhibits personal freedom. The IEA
report says that government should steer well clear of this
territory and suggests that a focus on wellbeing leads to
inefficient central planning and curtailed freedom. In fact quite
the opposite is true. The new subjective wellbeing measures being
collected by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) involve
asking people about their own lived experience. Whereas most policy
making is based on officials assuming they know what's best for
people, this new well-being data gives people across society a
voice - so it is in fact highly democratic. Importantly, rather
than being the sole focus of central government, the ONS data will
be statistically significant at the local authority level - thus
allowing local councils to, for example, understand much more about
the location and causes of unhappiness in their communities and how
this compares to other nearby areas. [1]
One point where we agree with the IEA is that individuals have
an even more important role than government in affecting their
happiness. This of course is the main reason we launched Action for
Happiness - to help people apply the new science of wellbeing to
the decisions they make in their personal lives, families,
workplaces and communities. Our members recognise that, while
individual freedom is an important contributor to wellbeing, we are
also highly interconnected - so our happiness depends on those
around us and we can, and should, contribute to the happiness of
others too.
Yet despite the importance of individual action, the role of
government nevertheless remains very significant. To give just a
few examples, the evidence suggests that a focus on increasing
well-being is likely to lead to government placing a much greater
emphasis on promoting good mental health, putting economic
stability before economic growth, teaching life skills in schools
and supporting families in need - particularly young children in
their formative years.
The IEA report also reignites the on-going debate about the
relationship between money and life satisfaction, both within and
across countries. Richard Easterlin's famous "Easterlin paradox"
(which showed that wellbeing stagnates as income rises beyond a
certain level) has been challenged by various recent studies [2]
and, although Easterlin's latest work suggests that the paradox
remains [3], debate continues and there is need for further
evidence. What we do know is that, in advanced market economies,
increases in wealth don't necessarily translate into improvements
in life satisfaction. Long-term socio-economic panel studies show
that it is relative income that matters more to our happiness than
absolute income. [4]
Finally, the IEA report is right to counter those who would
argue that all current government policy is guided towards
maximising GDP; of course policy makers pursue a wide range of
goals. Yet there is undoubtedly a leaning in current policy making
towards interventions that encourage long-term economic growth and
we know that some policy decisions that are good for growth are bad
for wellbeing. What is needed is a more coherent, over-arching
focus for government policy and we believe that should be to
maximise people's long-term well-being.
Lord Richard Layard, London School of
Economics
Geoff Mulgan, Chief Executive, Nesta
Dr Anthony Seldon, Master, Wellington
College
Dr Mark Williamson, Director, Action for
Happiness
---
References
[1] Matheson, J. (2011), Measuring what matters: National Statistician's
Reflections on the National Debate on Measuring National
Well-being, Office for National Statistics
[2] Sacks, D. W., Stevenson, B., Wolfers, J. (2010), Subjective
Well-Being, Income, Economic Development and Growth, IZA DP No.
5230
[3] Easterlin, R. et al (2010), The happiness-income paradox revisited,
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United
States of America 107 (52): 22463-22468
[4] Layard, R., Mayraz, G., Nickell, S. (2010), Does relative income matter: are the critics
right?, CEP Discussion Paper, No. 918. Centre for Economic
Performance, London School of Economics and Political Science,
London, UK.
Tags:
Politics of Happiness