Measuring satisfaction

Does India have an unusually large chasm between its leaders and followers? So it would seem, judging by some recent multi-country surveys. For instance, Ipsos sought out "elite" opinion (mostly politicians and businessmen) on how they thought things were going in their country. Those "satisfied with the way things are going" in India were 46 per cent of those polled among the elite, while a similar sounding of the general population by Pew Research turned up an embarrassing figure as low as 9 per cent. The gap between the opinions of the two groups was much smaller in other countries""the figures being 75 per cent and 48 per cent in China, and 43 per cent and 20 per cent in Russia. In Brazil, the numbers were 15 per cent and 11 per cent. Note that satisfaction levels among the general population are lower in India than in the other countries, whereas the leaders in India are happier than those in Brazil and Russia.

There could be several explanations. One is that the rich are happier""which is a key finding of another recent multi-country poll done by Gallup. It has also been argued that what makes for happiness is not the absolute level of wealth (Americans are much richer today than in the past, but there has been no improvement in their happiness levels) but whether you are doing better than your neighbour""i.e. relative wealth. And since the poor outnumber the rich, greater inequality should increase levels of dissatisfaction. But whereas both China and Brazil are more unequal than India, both have more satisfied populations. Perhaps the explanation for that lies in rapid GDP growth""rising income, no matter at how low a level, is usually a source of satisfaction and the income of the average Chinese is growing faster than for the people of any other nationality. Indeed, a 75 per cent satisfaction level among the Chinese elite must reflect national pride in the country's enormous achievements and rising international status.

India's elite, in comparison, comes in with a 46 per cent satisfaction level""and the fact that this is not a better score must reflect the widespread frustration with everything from the physical infrastructure problems and the shortage of electricity to the poor standards of sanitation facilities and the general urban chaos. The greater source of worry, though, would be the 9 per cent satisfaction level among the general population. Is this a reflection of the poverty all around, of the lack of health care facilities (an important consideration for happiness), and of the lack of "inclusive" growth (only a small minority of families has the luxury of at least a two-room home)? Does it explain, then, the routine manner in which electors throw out those in power and try a new bunch""a manifestation of what someone has termed the revolution of rising frustrations?

The problem of course is that the sword can be used to cut both ways. It can be argued that the low satisfaction levels are proof of the failure of "Manmohanomics"; equally, it can be argued that the plethora of government programmes designed to deliver inclusiveness have not worked""like the public distribution system and BPL cards for the poor. Whatever is the better reflection of reality, it is hard to get away from the fact that the rulers in India seem to have an infinitely better time today than the "aam aadmi" of electoral rhetoric.