In a time of tight budgets and financial crisis, politicians look to economic growth as the centerpiece of their domestic policy programs. GDP is taken to be the leading indicator of national well-being, but as we look ahead to this year and beyond, we should ask ourselves: Is it really wise to accord such importance to growth?
Granted, many studies have confirmed that wealthier nations tend to be happier than poor ones and that rich people are generally more satisfied than their less affluent fellow citizens. Yet other findings from several relatively well-to-do countries, such as South Korea and the US, suggest that people there are essentially no happier today than they were 50 years ago, despite a doubling or quadrupling of average per capita income.
Moreover, in a recent Canadian study, the happiest people turned out to reside in the poorest provinces, such as Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, while citizens in the richest provinces, notably Ontario and British Columbia, were among the least happy. Since happiness is ultimately what people want the most, while wealth is only a means to that end, the primacy now accorded to economic growth would appear to be a mistake.
What seems clear from such research is that people do quite poorly at predicting what will make them happy or sad. They focus too much on their initial responses to changes in their lives and overlook how quickly the pleasure of a new car, a pay increase or a move to sunnier climes will fade, leaving them no happier than before. It is hazardous, therefore, for politicians simply to rely on opinion polls and focus groups to discover what will truly enhance people’s happiness.
In the findings to date, however, two conclusions have emerged that seem especially useful for policymakers to ponder.
First, most of the things that do bring enduring satisfaction for individuals are also good for other people — strong marriages and close relationships of all kinds, helping others, engaging in civic affairs and effective, honest, democratic government. Therefore, policies that promote individual well-being tend to benefit society as well.
Second, experiences that bring lasting pleasure or unhappiness do not always command a high priority in government circles. For example, three medical afflictions that create especially acute and enduring distress — clinical depression, chronic pain and sleep disorders — are all conditions that can often be treated successfully, to the vast relief of sufferers, but such people are frequently underserved by healthcare systems.
The natural response to all this is to ask whether happiness research is really reliable enough to be used by policymakers. Researchers have paid close attention to this issue and, after much testing, have found that the answers people give to questions about their well-being seem to correspond fairly well to more objective evidence.
People who claim to be happy tend to live longer, commit -suicide and abuse drugs and -alcohol less often, get promoted more frequently by their employers and enjoy more good friends and lasting marriages. Their assessments of their own well-being also align quite closely with the opinions of friends and family members.
So, overall, statistics about happiness seem to be as accurate as many of the statistics regularly used by politicians, such as public-opinion polls, poverty rates or, for that matter, GDP growth — all of which are riddled with imperfections.
Of course, happiness research is still new. Many questions remain unexplored, some studies lack sufficient confirmatory evidence and still others, like those involving the effects of economic growth, have yielded conflicting results.
Therefore it would be premature to base bold new policies on happiness research alone, or to follow the example of tiny Bhutan by adopting Gross National Happiness as the nation’s principal goal. Yet the findings may be useful to lawmakers even today — for example, in assigning priorities among several plausible initiatives or in identifying new possibilities for policy interventions that deserve further study.
At the very least, governments should follow Britain and France, and consider publishing regular statistics on trends in the well-being of their citizens. Such findings will surely stimulate useful public discussion, while yielding valuable data for investigators to use.
Beyond that, who knows?
Further research will doubtless provide more detailed and reliable information about the kinds of policies that add to people’s happiness. Someday, perhaps, public officials may even use the research to inform their decisions. After all, what could matter more to their constituents than happiness?
In a democracy, at least, that should surely count for something.
Derek Bok is a former president of Harvard University.
COPYRIGHT: PROJECT SYNDICATE/INSTITUTE FOR HUMAN SCIENCES
In a Facebook post on Wednesday last week, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Taipei City Councilor Hsu Chiao-hsin (徐巧芯) wrote: “The KMT must fall for Taiwan to improve.’ Allow me to ask the question again: Is this really true?” It matters not how many times Hsu asks the question, my answer will always be the same: “Yes, the KMT must be toppled for Taiwan to improve.” In the lengthy Facebook post, titled “What were those born in the 1980s guilty of?” Hsu harked back to the idealistic aspirations of the 2014 Sunflower movement before heaping opprobrium on the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP)
The scuffle between Chinese embassy staffers in Fiji and a Taiwanese diplomat at a Republic of China (ROC) Double Ten National Day celebration has turned into a public relations opportunity for the government, Beijing and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). Although the incident occurred on Oct. 8, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) downplayed it, only for the story to be picked up by the foreign media, forcing the ministry to respond. The public and opposition parties asked why the government had failed to remonstrate more strongly in the first instance. It is still unclear whether the ministry missed a trick
US President Donald Trump and his Democratic rival, former US vice president Joe Biden, are holding their final debate tonight. In their foreign policy debate, China is sure to be a major issue of contention for the two candidates. Here are several questions the moderator should pose to the candidates: For both: In the first televised US presidential debates in 1960, then-Democratic candidate John F. Kennedy and his Republican counterpart, Richard Nixon, were asked whether the US should intervene if communist China attacked Taiwan’s outlying islands of Kinmen and Matsu. Kennedy said no, unless the main island of Taiwan was also attacked.
For most of us, the colorful, otherworldly marinescapes of coral reefs are as remote as the alien landscapes of the moon. We rarely, if ever, experience these underwater wonderlands for ourselves — we are, after all, air-breathing, terrestrial creatures mostly cocooned in cities. It is easy not to notice the perilous state they are in: We have lost 50 percent of coral reefs in the past 20 years and more than 90 percent are expected to die by 2050, a presentation at the Ocean Sciences Meeting in San Diego, California, earlier this year showed. As the oceans heat further and