Should our politicians be serious about happiness? pt. 2

In my last blog, I set the context in which a "new" science and philosophy of happiness was gaining traction amongst a wide range of individuals and schools of thoughts. The blog ended with the question of why it was our politicians seemed to be the last group willing to talk seriously about the issue. This blog will explore some of these reason for this reluctance, and suggest some practical reasons why it does not need to be so:

(1) Happiness is a vague, subjective, fuzzy term - it doesn't deal with real issues faced by real people

This complaint seems to confuse means with ends. Why is it that we seek to prevent unemployment, poverty, crime and poor health? It is not enough that these are inherently bad things, it is the fact they adversely impact individuals: how they feel and how satisfied they are with their lives as a whole. In these cases it is not the objective, intermediate measure (unemployment, a low wage, facing a crime, a disease) that is the bad, but the interaction between these facts and the subjective impact that they have on an individual (psychological burden, hunger / stress, pain, feeling awful) that matters. 


This distinction may feel a bit futile, however targeting happiness not only deals with the real issues, but it has the potential to do so in a more targeted way that brings about more effective change. Point 2 looks at this in more detail.

(2) Everyone, including politicians, is already trying to promote happiness. Instead of wasting their time on a "happiness agenda", politicians should spend their time on the detail and nuts of bolts of making sure government is run efficiently, intelligently and fairly.

It is true that in the developed world. political and economic policy over the last few centuries has improved well-being - we can look at agricultural policy, welfare, universal health and education provision. However, more recently (post-war period) policy has been pre-occupied with these intermediate goals rather than more direct ones. No amount of technocratic competency will get you to where you're going if you have no target destination.  


Take unemployment. In traditional macroeconomics, unemployment is a trade-off we face with inflation and productivity. We tend to focus on systems that have a healthy balance of all three items, arguing that low inflation (less of the "squeezed middle") and productivity (potential income growth) are also desired by people and hence we tolerate some unemployment. This is true under a  neo-classic economic framework where higher consumption over time is equated with better life outcomes. This is where subjective happiness really comes into its own. The Easterlin paradox remains true as it ever was. Increases in income over time in developed countries have negligible impacts on happiness. Any effects that do exist tend to tail off at higher levels of income. What's more, people with materialistic values tend to be unhappier. 


A happiness agenda is not what currently drives our politicians. A more efficient, intelligent and fair thing to do would be to take it seriously.

(3) Aren't some of the recommendations anti economic growth? Doesn't happiness now mean misery tomorrow?

Yes they are. Some of the stylised facts of well-being research (see nef publication) - lower hours, more time with friends and family, higher utilisation of labour, more equal wages, lower levels of leverage, a more rounded education all have very serious anti-growth implications. But we do not need to worry about these. The neo-classical theory of income and consumption as a measure of well-being simply falls short. GDP as a measure of society's progress is out-of-date and potentially harmful. Unemployment, on the other hand, is a real happiness issue and we should think of ways to ensure full employment in a low / no growth environment. 


This is no easy task, but some interesting ideas have come from a happiness school of thought. For instance, how about sharing work hours? Is it not strange that we live in a world where our parts of our workforce are simultaneously over-worked and under-worked. 

(4) There is not enough good quality, reliable data for this to be a serious policy tool. 

This is not true - surveys with large samples sizes have been probing people about their subjective levels of well-being since the 1970's and 80's for instance the US General Social Survey, the European Values Survey and the British Household Panel Survey. These have produced useful academic insights - see here for a review of studies to date. What's exciting is that new surveys are being commissioned by large national and international bodies, such as the UK's Office for National Statistics, the OECD and a new body commissioned by FrenchPresident Nicolas Sarkozy and headed by economist heavyweights Jospeh Stiglitz and Amartya Sen. Subjective well-being measures are bound to make a bigger impact on policy making in years to come. 

(5) The state should have nothing to do with people's happiness. People are happier when state is not involved in their personal choices.

People are unhappy where their freedom is restricted and a nanny state is in place - just look at the failure of societies that have tried to organise themselves for the greater good e.g. Soviet Russia. But this is precisely the point - any state that seriously cared about happiness and the happiness of their population would not advocate such restrictions of freedom. The evidence to date displays two stylised facts: (i) trust in key public institutions – for example, government, the police and the legal system – is associated with higher life satisfaction and (ii) there is a positive association between democracy and life satisfaction. 


A trusted, well-functioning and representative government tends to make people happier. But this does not mean the state should not do anything else. The government not only needs to ensure that it governs institutions that people can trust and defend democratic principles, but also has the duty to pursue collectivist actions that undoubtedly makes us happier. Policies exist today, but can be improved, whether they be economic policy that delivers full employment, state backed healthcare or welfare expenditure. The evidence suggests that higher public spending and benefit entitlements appear to be associated with higher well-being at the national level (although these do need to be sustainable).


Of course, the balance of government intervention and individual freedom is something that has been discussed for several millennia and it is not the place to discuss here. However, simply stating that politicians should not at least think about happiness seems odd when the state has the potential to significantly improve our happiness.

(6) This is all a bit woolly - what does it mean in reality for policy?

Policy is a minefield, with lots of vested interests (often driven by power) pulling the strings at any one time. However, with a strong evidence base, happiness has the ability to really drive policy that improves all our lot. The data so far points out (I select a few excerpts):

• Unemployment has a detrimental impact on a person's happiness that outweighs the loss of income

• The relationship between income and happiness over time in developing countries is non-existent or at best weak. 

• People are however, concerned about relative income (comparing themselves to their peer group)

• Good health is strongly related to happiness

• Divorce or separation strongly negatively impacts on happiness

• Whether the level of inequality in a society affects individuals' happiness is mixed, however higher welfare spend is associated with higher happiness

• The relationship between happiness and hours worked is u-shaped (people are initially happier when working longer hours, but this tails off at a certain point)

• Having debt is a bad, unless it is for investment or mortgages

• Commuting time is strongly linked to unhappiness

• Spending on child services and family support is strongly linked to happiness

• Job security can be as important as levels of pay

• Social trust, time for social activities, volunteering and giving are all associated with higher well-being

• Subjective health, physical activity and good sleep are 
all associated with higher well-being

• Residential areas which feature multi-dwelling buildings, high levels of deprivation, high rise architecture and have high crime levels and poor walkability is bad

• Levels of education have little impact on happiness (once income effects are stripped out)

• Genetic impacts are accountable for c. 50% of differences in happiness

• The age and happiness relationship is u-shaped dipping between 35 to 50 (we are happier when we are young or old, but not middle-aged)

• Those with materialist views or driven by extrinsic values tend to be less happy

Now a lot of this just seems obvious - but our lives simply do not reflect these facts, because people do not take happiness seriously. 

In my view if we really believed in happiness: full employment and not growth, inflation and productivity would be the goal of economic policy; work hours would be distributed better amongst the population; preventative health measures would be given a big priority (e.g. giving time off work for unhealthy people to exercise, banning certain foods and food manufacturing processes); welfare spending on families and child care would be at Scandinavian levels; good sleep and cutting the need for commuting would be policy objectives; working long hours would be cracked down (e.g no opt-out of 48 hour working week); unsecured credit would be heavily regulated and the materialistic lifestyle discouraged (e.g. advertising bans, progressive consumption taxes); education would be more holistic not only giving people the skills to earn a living but also giving children the tools to understand happiness including their own genetic dispositions; life would be more oriented on cheaper social activity, spending time within the community and giving or volunteering; finally residential areas would represent a mix of the rich and poor to avoid "ghettoisation" and the incredible stupidity of high rise estates.

(7) Can we expect our politicians to expel the virtues of happiness, when they themselves are unhappy?

This is a big factor that should not be underestimated. Politicians may find it hard to campaign for fewer hours, more distribution, more time socialising, less materialism when they themselves do not exhibit these characteristics. The back lash against David Cameron for "not working hard enough" is case and point. It is true that for our politicians to spread happiness, they need to be happy and we should encourage them to be so.

Hopefully, I have shown that politicians can and more importantly should take happiness seriously. I have argued that happiness is not a fuzzy term, but the ultimate aim of policy; that being anti GDP growth is not bad economics; there is data out there to support policy and this is improving; there is a good case for the state to be involved; the evidence already points to clear areas of policy reform; but that we need our politicians to be happier in order to distribute happiness.

I for one believe that taking happiness seriously can be a real catalyst for change. Politicians need to be bold and can start by (i) defining happiness in simple terms (ii) giving it voice and (ii) make sure it is at the absolute core of all government policy.