I read that British Prime Minister David Cameron is asking the UK’s Office of National Statistics to draft new measures of “general wellbeing,” and publish such figures regularly — most likely on a quarterly basis — in order to gauge the British people’s psychological well-being and their quality of life as a reference for government policy. If everything goes well, a questionnaire will be designed and launched next spring. At the same time, French President Nicolas Sarkozy announced last year that the government was to take the public’s happiness as an indicator of economic progress. Canada is also looking into the feasibility of a similar system.
Surveys on general wellbeing or happiness have long been valued in advanced Western countries. The US World Value Survey has investigated people’s subjective sense of wellbeing in various countries for quite a long time. More recently, both the British New Economics Foundation and Friends of the Earth have released the Happy Planet Index, focused mainly on environmental protection.
In Taiwan, the Cabinet’s Directorate General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics originally added a survey on the wellbeing of the Taiwanese to its annual social development trends report between 1998 and 2007. Unfortunately, subsequent surveys proved rather inconclusive, and this poll has been shelved.
After Taiwan’s second transfer of power in mid-2008, a more complete survey appeared as the Taiwan Competitiveness Forum (TCF), a new non-governmental organization (NGO), published an initial “happiness index,” followed by a second in the middle of last year. Surprisingly, the survey results showed that the public’s happiness was increasing in spite of the global financial crisis.
Seemingly, then, the relationship between economic prosperity and our sense of happiness differs somewhat from what we would intuitively assume. This is certainly worth looking into more deeply, and we could benefit from long-term surveys for different areas, cities, counties and aspects of life, all of which could inform policymaking. For example, former British prime minister Tony Blair took such survey results as a reference for his labor employment policy, showing that they can make a significant contribution.
Unfortunately, the plug was pulled on research into the Taiwanese index, a victim of the economic downturn. The TCF did not publish survey results this year.
A government should not allow such important surveys to be discontinued, or let private NGOs struggle to produce them with absolutely no support.
Many factors contribute to the public’s sense of happiness: Family relationships; marriage; the state of the economy; social interaction; income distribution; living standards; quality of education and transportation; democratic participation; government corruption — or lack thereof; cross-strait relations; and the perceived effectiveness of government policies.
These factors, linked as they are to people’s perception of their own happiness and wellbeing, can affect election results. We cannot expect economic performance alone to account for the results of the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections. Even if surveys, based exclusively on economic indicators existed, they would be unlikely to tell us much about the reasons for electoral results.
A smart government would exploit the advantage of being in power to commission regular opinion polls, which could inform policy and help secure votes. Assuming that the surveys are objective, academics could also use them for their research, which in turn would serve as valuable reference points in improving the quality of life in communities throughout the country.
These surveys should be done not only on a national, but also a local, level, either quarterly or every six months, to get a more local picture of the situation.
Are people unhappy because roads are uneven? Is it because public services are inadequate, and that people are given the runaround getting the most basic things done? Is it because streetlights are often broken, or traffic lights always on the blink? Is it because our streets are dangerous and people are afraid to leave their homes? Or is it because people illegally block parking spots to stop others from using that space?
Since these surveys would be funded with taxpayers’ money their results should be made public. The government should also accept responsibility for continuing these surveys, so they can drive improvements on both the national and local level.
Premier Wu Den-yih (吳敦義) is very fond of talking about the “grassroots economy.” It is a natural extension for government policy to be based on an understanding of what the people actually want.
Tu Jenn-hwa is convener of the Taiwan Competitiveness Forum.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG AND DREW CAMERON
On Monday, Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) spoke during the opening ceremony of this year’s World Health Assembly (WHA). For the first time in the assembly’s history, attendees, including Xi, had to dial in virtually. Xi made no acknowledgement of the Chinese government’s role in causing the COVID-19 pandemic, nor was there any meaningful apology. Instead, he painted China as a benign force for good and a friend to all nations. Except Taiwan, of course. The address was a reheated version of the speech Xi gave at the 2017 World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. Xi again attempted to step into the
The World Health Assembly (WHA) held its annual meeting this week; Taiwan was still not represented. Its journalists were also barred from covering the online-only proceedings, despite the nation’s clearly demonstrated pandemic expertise that has set an example for the world. When the SARS epidemic reached Taiwan from southern China in 2003, dozens of lives were lost, but its health experts learned the importance of general testing, masks, technology to locate infected persons, swift decisions and quarantines. The lessons were applied immediately across Taiwan when COVID-19 arrived this year. From 2009 to 2016, Taiwan participated as an observer in the assembly under