Padma PeguIntuitively, one knows that mental and emotional well-being of citizens elevates their performance – they are easier to work/collaborate with; they are more sound decision makers; they can think along creative planes; they are productive; and they approach situations with the attitude of problem-solving. Such well-being enriches the physical, intellectual and social assets of a nation. Research also tells us that happy people have better health habits and stronger immune systems.
In a white paper for International Institute of Management, titled, ‘The American Pursuit of Unhappiness: Gross National Happiness (GNH) A New Economic Metric’, Med Yones posits these questions:
i) How many Americans are taking antidepressants or using alcohol or other forms of addictions as a way to cope with the pressures of the current socio-economic system? Is the number declining or on the rise?
ii) How many people do you know whose lifestyle is causing severe pressures on their psychological, emotional and relationship health?
iii) How many people do you know suffer from chronic workplace stress, anxiety, low self-esteem, or some form of depression?
iv) Are the rates of divorce, crime and lawsuits declining or on the rise?
Any number and nature of questions can be replicated/formulated in accordance with the society/nation in question. Shall we ask, then: ‘What is happiness?’ The answer is subjective, of course, and instinctively, it will be determined by what is it that is missing in the subject’s life. For a poor person, happiness is ‘money’. For a sick person, it is ‘health’. For a lonely person, it is ‘love’. So on, it goes.
In the Growth and Crisis Blog of the World Bank Institute’s (WBI) Growth and Crisis Program (WBIGC), it is stated that up to a certain threshold, increases in incomes result in increases in happiness, but beyond a certain level, further increases in incomes do not lead to higher levels of happiness. More specifically, recent findings from such statistical ‘happiness’ research include the following:
1. For a person, money does buy a reasonable amount of happiness. But it is useful to keep this in perspective. Very loosely, for the typical individual, a doubling of salary makes a lot less difference than life events like marriage.
2. For a nation, things are different. Whole countries – at least in the West where almost all the research has been done – do not seem to get happier as they get richer.
3. There is adaptation. Good and bad life events wear off – at least partially – as people get used to them.
4. Relative things matter a great deal.
For poor nations, happiness tends to rise quickly as purchasing power and standard of living increases. However, beyond a certain level of income, the curve of increased satisfaction flattens and eventually becomes a straight line. It may even begin to decline.
Happy Planet Index
Rather than measure gross domestic product or GDP, the Happy Planet Index or HPI measures life expectancy, happiness and the environmental impact of different nations. First calculated in 2006, the second edition (2009) adds data on almost all the world’s countries.
Here, then, the top ten countries are not the richest nations but middle-income countries in Latin America, Asia, or the Carribbean where there is a high level of life satisfaction and low carbon footprint. Costa Rica is the greenest and happiest country on the planet, according to the Happy Planet Index developed by New Economics Foundation. Dominican Republic and Jamaica come next.
The UK comes in at 74 out of 143 countries. The United States was ranked at 114, Canada at 89, and Australia at 102. Zimbabwe and other poor African nations, where life expectancy and happiness is low, came bottom of the table.
Economists said the richer countries came lower in the ranking because of the high carbon footprint of the population, measured by looking at how much of the world’s resources people consume per capita. Levels of life satisfaction, calculated from a worldwide poll, were also not necessarily high in rich countries where violence and inequality continue to be a problem.
Life satisfaction and life expectancy combined have increased 15 per cent over a 45-year period (1961″2005) for those living in the rich nations, but it has come at the cost of a 72 per cent rise in their ecological footprint. And the three largest countries in the world – China, India and the US, which are aggressively pursuing growth-based development models – have all seen their HPI scores drop in that time.
A University of Leicester psychologist, Adrian White, produced the first-ever ‘world map of happiness’ in 2007 based on data published by UNESCO, the CIA, the New Economics Foundation, and the WHO, among others. The analysis showed that a nation’s level of happiness was most closely associated with health levels (correlation of .62), followed by wealth (.52), and then provision of education (.51). It is also notable that many of the largest countries in terms of population do quite badly. With China 82nd, India 125th and Russia 167th, what emerges is that larger populations are not associated with happy countries.
Happiness scientists
It makes immense practical sense for policymakers to refer to a pool of ‘happiness scientists’ – sociologists, psychologists, economists, ecologists, philosophers and experts in health – while working out the details of policies and schemes. Among the domains that governments can pay special attention to are:
- Mental health
- Physical health
- Material well-being
- Work”life balance
- Education
- Sanitation
- Cultural vitality and expression
- Social relationships
- Environmental quality and access to nature
- Quality of government
For a thriving democracy such as India, the architecture of the state is ideally suited to facilitate such goals. The government of India tends to its 97 union subjects through approximately 50 ministries and an equal number of departments supplementing the ministries. The state list has 66 subject-charges. In other words, every aspect of the citizen’s life is taken care of, on paper.
Yet, for all the public funds that stay in circulation, indicators of a ‘quality’ life are not articulated well enough for these to become measurable. These indicators must sooner claim their rightful place in the sphere of public debate; only then will the status quo on the subject of happiness – which is one of silence – start to shift. After all, if Bhutan can have a Gross National Happiness Commission, why can’tother nations follow suit?
And no, paying tax is not the issue. Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands and Sweden are among the happiest countries in the world, and they also pay among the highest taxes. From all accounts, they are getting something for their money. Forbes magazine opines that they are among the world’s most egalitarian nations and they pay the greatest attention to work”life balance.
A manifesto published by Demos Finland and WWF Finland (The Politics of Happiness – A Manifesto ‘Towards the futures of one earth’) puts some essential things in perspective:
‘Most of us appreciate happiness more than economic wealth. In a democratic society this should be a matter of politics. We are in a situation where new challenges require new mechanisms. In politics of happiness is about developing and making use of these mechanisms. The research on happiness has increased in recent years. With the insight it offers us, building sustainable happiness should be easier than before. The manifesto tells how more peaceful rhythm, participation, meaningful action together, creation of culture of well-being and deeper relationships with others make building happiness possible and just.’