Policymaking with happiness

Despite challenges, policymakers are monitoring and evaluating well-being

There should be little disagreement that the likely answer to the difficult question, “What is happiness”, is easy, “I wonder.” From the literature, however, what emerges is that there are two levels. The World Happiness Index (WHI), for example, uses qualitative — emotional spot reactions to freedom, corruption, societal support—responses, as well as quantitative—income, longevity—indicators. At the outset I admit that the literature is vast so that I have had to be partial in my coverage, my limited objective being assessing the WHI²

The earliest recognition of happiness appears in Rama’s instruction to reign to Bharata before he withdraws to the forest, and in the Bhagawat Gita, Krishna’s song to Arjuna. Then came descriptions from Aristotle and Plato, later Bentham and others. In contemporary society, Rabindranath Tagore is replete with happiness (and sadness). Gross National Happiness (GNH) was coined in 1972 by Bhutan’s former king Jigme Singye Wangchuck to signal his commitment to building a culture-based economy (www.grossnationalhappiness.com). 

Measurement of happiness is more recent. Attempts to define, measure, analyse and suggest policy regarding wellbeing — with its variations, happiness, quality of life, life satisfaction—have crowded social science space from health sciences, psychology and finally economics since the 1980s. Today, it is a “multidimensional, trans-disciplinary, multifaceted but incomplete” discipline (Carlos Moreno-Leguizamon, 2011). And happiness has taken on “public policy change and political action to minimise objective reality harmful to individual, family, community or social wellbeing” (Allan McNaught, 2011). 

The criticism “...economists whose philosophical ancestry is logical empiricism still write as if the old positivist fact/value dichotomy were beyond challenge” (H Putnam, 2006) has been assuaged by the recent development of the concept of subjective wellbeing (SWB). SWB incorporates both an individual’s feelings as well as the outcomes of interactions with others in a socio-economic, cultural and political environment. Data sources such as the World Values Survey, Physical Quality of Life Index, Happy Planet Index, Gallup World Poll, Gallup-Healthways Wellbeing Index, Human Development Index and others have produced numerous usable data sets.

Perhaps the existence of a fertile field prompted a 2009 UK Commission (Stiglitz-Sen-Fitoussi), set up to recommend which measures of SWB should be included for policymaking, to comment, “it is possible to collect meaningful and reliable data on subjective and objective wellbeing. SWB encompasses cognitive evaluations of one’s life, happiness, satisfaction, positive emotions such as joy and pride, and negative emotions such as pain and worry.” Nevertheless, specific or narrower senses of inequality—rate of growth of income inequality, employment, deteriorating ecology, climate change, ethnicity, condoning gender-related provocations, nature or intensity of disability, exclusions from and placement in the life cycle, religious location—marginal, minority, majority—and sexual orientation—LGBTQ—that affect SWB, have yet to be adequately incorporated in SWB or WHI estimates.

In a comprehensive review of different methodologies, Andrew Clark (2018) includes the WHI methodology. The 2019 World Happiness Report (WHR) also elaborates. WHI is a good beginning to assess cross-country (un)happiness. Different sample sizes are used for different countries, over 150 countries every year. India’s sample size has been 3,000 individuals and that of China 5,000 for the last several years. 

WHI is based on only six explanatory variables — GDP per capita, healthy life expectation, social support in times of trouble, freedom to choose, altruism or charitableness, and sense of societal corruption. The first two are positivist indicators obtained from economic data while the last four are collected on the basis of binary (yes/no) responses. By incorporating the last four, the WHI traverses a distance from pure positivism towards inclusion of values. 

Three dependent variables are as follows. Sample individuals are asked to give an overall life evaluation on a 0-10 scale (Cantril ladder, Variable V1). (b) A positive “affect” variable is generated as the average frequency (for each sample individual) of happiness, laughter and enjoyment on the previous day (V2); and (c) a negative” affect” variable is the average frequency of worry, sadness and anger on the previous day (V3). Both V2 and V3 are calculated from binary responses. (See WHR Technical Box 1 and statistical Appendix 1.)

Results appear in WHR’s Table 2.1, page 20. Three quarters of the variation in life evaluation V1 are explained by the independent variables. Of the latter, per-capita income and healthy life expectancy have significant effects on V1. On the other hand, social support, freedom and generosity have larger influences on positive affect V2 than on V1. The negative affect V3 is much less explained by the six variables. 

In an extension, a further question is explored by adding V2 and V3 to the explanatory variables list with V1 as the dependent variable. In other words, more possibilities to explain life evaluation are included in the analysis. This exercise reveals that positive affect V2 has a highly significant impact on V1 while negative affect V3 has no influence. Thus, positive affect experienced the previous day does influence life evaluation but negative affect does not. Humans appear to be an optimistic lot! 

Illustration: Binay Sinha

After measurement, how is SWB to be used? Paul Dolan et al (2011) delineate the use of SWB for public policy.  They point to the need for theoretical rigour, policy relevance and empirical robustness in the use of SWB in policy design and appraisal. They list different categories of questions that should be asked for policy design and appraisal. For wellbeing projects in particular, Moreno-Leguizamon et al (2011) point to possible alternatives of results-based and outcome mapping approaches. The former attempts wellbeing improvement, while the latter targets fundamental human change. The sequence of project development, monitoring and evaluation (M&E) is specified in significant detail, signalling that wellbeing projects are here to stay. 

In conclusion, happiness is absolute and relative. It comes from within; but it is also influenced or determined by others. As Cicero, Roman orator, advocate and senator, commented about Julius Caesar and Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus (Pompey), two of Rome’s greatest generals, “Do you think there is no understanding between them, that no agreement has ever been possible? Today there is a possibility. But neither of them has our happiness as their aim. They both want to be kings” (Nigel Cawthorne, 2005).   

This column is best read with last month’s column on India dated 15 April 2019

(2) I have cited the years of the references though title details can be accessed from the Net.