Boy, what a sourpuss. Sure, measuring happiness is overly simplistic and prone to abuse. But so are *all* measurements, and economic ones are pretty horrible.
A healthy debate about happiness -- or alternative metrics -- is a very good thing. The thing we need to guard against is becoming overly dogmatic about definitions, not the mere attempt to measure things that matter. E On Apr 16, 2012, at 12:03 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > > > > > > > The global happiness derby > > > By Robert J. Samuelson, > > Published: April 15, 2012 > > The Washington Post > “Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own > way.” > > — Leo Tolstoy, “Anna Karenina” > > We ought to leave “happiness” to novelists and philosophers — and rescue it > from the economists and psychologists who think it can be distilled into a > “science” and translated into pro-happiness policies. Fat chance. Government > can often mitigate sources of unhappiness (starvation, unemployment, > disease), but happiness is more than the absence of misery. If we could > manufacture happiness, we could repeal the “human condition.” > > Somehow this has escaped the social scientists who want to make happiness the > goal of government. They argue that economic output (gross domestic product) > doesn’t measure everything that’s important in life — family, friends or > religion, for example. True, but it doesn’t follow that “happiness” can be > targeted as an alternative. No matter. Their latest brief is the “World > Happiness Report,” which ranks countries by their “subjective well-being” > (the technical label for happiness) as recorded by public opinion surveys. > > On the most comprehensive list, the United States ranks 11th out of 156 > countries. Here are the top 10 and their populations: Denmark, 5.6 million; > Finland, 5.4 million; Norway, 5 million; Netherlands, 16.7 million; Canada, > 34.8 million; Switzerland, 7.9 million; Sweden, 9.5 million; New Zealand, 4.4 > million; Australia, 22.9 million; and Ireland, 4.6 million. > > All these countries share one common characteristic: They’re small in > population and, except Canada and Australia, land mass. Small countries enjoy > an advantage in the happiness derby. They’re more likely to have homogeneous > populations with fewer ethnic, religious and geographic conflicts. This > minimizes one potentially large source of unhappiness. Among big countries, > the United States ranks first. > > The irony is that Europe, where the happiness movement is strongest, > generally registers lower happiness. On the same ranking, the United Kingdom > (18) is the leading large European nation, followed by Spain (22), France > (23), Italy (28) and Germany (30). > > The high U.S. ranking may reflect national character. “A person who smiles a > lot is either a fool or an American,” says a Russian adage cited by historian > Peter N. Stearns of George Mason University in the Harvard Business Review. > Only in the mid-1700s — the Enlightenment — did happiness become socially > acceptable, Stearns notes. Before that, religious dogma encouraged austere > rectitude. European cultures formed before the change; America’s didn’t. > > The relationship between economic growth and happiness is controversial. In > 1974, economist Richard Easterlin of the University of Southern California > published a study arguing that (a) within countries, the middle class and > rich reported being happier than the poor; but (b) as countries became > richer, reported happiness didn’t increase. This was dubbed the “Easterlin > Paradox.” One theory is that people grow accustomed to higher incomes and > compare themselves with those around them. If everyone gets richer, people > at the bottom remain less happy. > > Well, if economic growth doesn’t make people happier, what’s the point? The > happiness movement is often anti-growth. Yes, the poorest countries need > growth to relieve misery. But otherwise, “the lifestyles of the rich imperil > the survival of the poor,” writes Columbia University economist Jeffrey Sachs > in the happiness report. “Climate change is already hitting the poorest > regions.” > > This sounds reasonable but isn’t. There are two flaws. First, the Easterlin > Paradox may be untrue. A recent study by economists Justin Wolfers and Betsey > Stevenson of the University of Pennsylvania found that higher economic growth > does raise happiness in most countries. Second, even if the Easterlin Paradox > survives (economists are quarreling), growth is essential to maintaining > existing happiness. > > Look at the European Union. As its growth has dropped, unemployment has risen > to 10.2 percent. And unemployment reduces well-being, says the happiness > report, through lower income and the “loss of social status, self-esteem, > [and] workplace social life.” > > All rich societies already try to balance economic growth with social > justice, security and environmental progress. The happiness movement would > merely impose more intervention. It “boils down to having zealous politicians > regulate the rest of us into their version of happiness,” argues Marc De Vos > of the Itinera Institute, a Belgian think tank. > > Creating an impossible goal — universal happiness — also condemns government > to failure. Happiness depends on too much that is uncontrollable. For > starters, personality. We all know people who seem blessed — stable marriage, > healthy children, successful job — who are restless, grumpy and sometimes > depressed. Meanwhile, others plagued by misfortune — sickness, shaky > finances, family disappointment — persevere and remain upbeat. > > Contradictions abound. Freedom, the ability to choose, is also essential to > well-being, says the happiness report. But freedom permits people to do > self-destructive things that reduce happiness. > > The “pursuit of happiness” may be a “right,” as the Declaration of > Independence says. But the achievement of happiness is not an entitlement. > The happiness movement is at best utopian; at worst, it’s silly and > oppressive. > > > -- > Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community > <[email protected]> > Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism > Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
