Transcript Well-Being Measures for Public Policy

Well-Being Measures
for Public Policy
Ed Diener
University of Illinois, and
Senior Scientist, The Gallup Organization
United Nations Development Program
October 8, 2008
Subjective Well-Being (SWB)
People’s evaluations of their lives – in both
thoughts and feelings. For example:
Life satisfaction
Marital, work, & health satisfaction
Pleasant emotions, e.g. Joy,
affection, & trust
Low negative emotions, e.g., anger &
depression
Overview
Subjective well-being helps reveal the progress of
societies – quality of life
It provides useful new information to policy makers
-- with some policy examples
Also SWB directly benefits societies – health,
longevity, prosperity, and peace
Finally, I will answer objections
10: Best Possible Life
• Gallup
World Poll
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0: Worst Possible Life
Culture and Well-Being
WHY SWB?
Why not just measure
income, education,
and longevity – the
HDI?
Limitations of Existing Indicators,
Including the HDI
1. What they do not measure
e.g., Trust
Air pollution
Gender equality
Job security
Green urban space
Crime
etc.
Characteristics of Nations
Missed by HDI?
80
Honduras
60
40
20
Gaza/W. Bank
0
Arm enia
-20
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
UNDP Human Development Index (2003)
.8
.9
1.0
SWB measures more than the HDI:
Correlates of National Life Satisfaction
• Income
• Longevity
.82
.73
•
•
•
•
.52
.48
-.44
.41
Political stability
Trust other people
Unemployment
Time with family/friends
Example: Crime
• Assault rate adds to the
prediction of Life Satisfaction
beyond the HDI
2. HDI Has Low Ceiling
Differentiation only for less developed nations
3. Need ever-expanding lists of measures
to capture all elements of quality of life
How to include them all?
How to weight them?
How large a list?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Commuting time
Factory emissions
Greenery
Support for science
Literary achevements
Support for the arts
Litter rates
Quality of roads
Building safety
Rape rates
Parks
Tertiary education
Education gender equality
Income equality
Unemployment rate
Inflation rate
Political corruption
Business corruption
Child abuse
Infant mortality
Longevity
AIDS rates
School dropout rate
Juvenile delinquency
Free time
Youth sports participation
Recycling rates
Exercise rates
Consumption of junk foods
Consumption of animal protein
Locally grown produce
Etc
Etc
Etc
Etc
Etc
Etc
Etc
Etc
How to Weight?
• Health, education, equality, crime,
pollution – all weighted the same?
Example: U.S.A. Cities
333 cities – many can be rated first OR
last, depending on weighting of
indicators!
4. Whose List to Use?
• Amartye Sen; Martha Nussbaum?
U.S. “experts” (elites)
U.S. example: The fine arts versus rollerderby
SWB measures are democratic -- from the
people -- what they value and weight
SWB Weights and
Integrates The Things
About Which People
Care, the Optimal
Weights, and The
Direction of Influence!
5. Also measurement problems
with economic and other
measures
• Subjectivity in contents – GDP
• Missed – black & grey markets, &
bartering
• Unreliable in poor nations
• How to integrate different approaches
to measuring GNP
6. Other Measures Miss
Something Very Important!
HDI Robots – educated, long-living with
money
Don’t we want more than orderly
worker-bees?
Don’t we also want people leading
meaningful and rewarding lives?
Why SWB ?
• It is people’s evaluations of their lives – surely we
want these to be positive! Democratic!
• People rate it as very important, even the most
important. They want it!
• Well-being is a core component of mental health,
and mental illness likely largest cause of illnessrelated misery in the 21st century
• Behavioral benefits of well-being
Importance Ratings (1-9)
Happiness
Wealth
Health
OVERALL
(28 nations)
8.0
6.8
7.9
Chile
Singapore
Egypt
USA
Japan
8.6
8.4
8.1
8.1
7.4
6.9
7.1
7.6
6.7
6.6
8.1
8.0
8.0
7.6
7.8
Disease Burden
• Misery burden from mental illnesses
likely to be largest by 2020, yet missed
by longevity statistics
– Autism, Schizophrenia, bipolar disorder
– This burden reflected by SWB indicators
BUT
Is happiness good?
Is it functional?
The Error of Flaubert
To be stupid, selfish, and have good
health are three requirements for
happiness, though if stupidity is
lacking, all is lost.
Gustave Flaubert
Our Research Shows that
Happiness is Beneficial
Flaubert 180 degrees off
Social Benefits of Being Happy
• More friends
• Better and longer marriages
• Social capital: Trust
Work Benefits
• Higher supervisor ratings at work
• Better “organizational citizens”
• Higher incomes
• USA
• Australia
• Russia
Societal Benefits
• Volunteering
• Pro-peace attitudes
• Cooperative
Health Benefits of SWB
1. Illness
Immune, cardiovascular, etc.
2. Longevity
Longevity: The Nun Study
Danner, Snowden, & Friesen, U Kentucky
1. Nuns autobiographies at age 22
Expression of positive emotions
2. Happy and less happy nuns living in
same life circumstances through
lifespan
How long do they live?
Longevity in The Nun
Study
Survival Rate at Age:
85
94
Most Cheerful Quartile
90%
54%
Least Cheerful
34%
11%
Longevity boost – about 10 years!
Danner, Snowdon, & Friesen
Psychologists
Happy live about 6
years longer
Predicting National Mean
Life Expectancy
Corr.
r
GDP/Capita
Health Expenditures
Life Satisfaction
.66
.47
.76
Beta
B
.12
.01
.65
Predicting National Life Expectancy
When control GDP and Health
Expenditures first:
SWB – Affect and Life Satisfaction – add
16% more variance in predicting
longevity!
In sum:
National Accounts of Well-Being
• People believe well-being is important
• It leads to several desirable outcomes
• It helps with social capital
• We ought to be measuring it!
Policy Examples
• Economics
– Unemployment
• Environment
– Commuting
– Air pollution
Slow & Incomplete Adaptation to Unemployment
(Mostly Re-Employed, and Controlling for Income)
7.2
7
6.8
6.6
6.4
6.2
6
5.8
Past
Prior Yr.
Fired
1 Yr.
3 Yrs.
The Environment: Commuting
Life Satisfaction is consistently lower for
those who have long commutes
Rising commute time resulting in higher
incomes does not raise LS
The Environment:
Smokestack Emissions
Life satisfaction
Quasi-experimental study
in Germany
Objections
1. Can’t measure “happiness” validly
-- must look at “behavior”
2. People adapt to their conditions
3. Happy pigs and happy mafia
4. Happiness is an individual affair; we
don’t want paternalism
Measurement – Objectivity?
SWB measures have
proven validity
The: “Would you move?”
Diener Measure of Validity
Life Evaluation Ladder
Ideal to Worst (10 to 0)
Denmark
Finland
Switzerland
Netherlands
Spain
Ireland
8.0
7.7
7.5
7.5
7.2
7.1
Togo
Cambodia
Sierra Leone
Georgia
Zimbabwe
West Bank
3.2
3.6
3.6
3.7
3.8
4.7
Measurement Validity:
SWB Measures Correlate With:
Suicide (individual and national)
Physiological (brain, hormones, immune)
Informant reports (family and friends)
Interview ratings
Reaction-time to stimuli tasks
Surveys in Economics
• Survey measures used in GNP
• Subjective decisions about how to sum
those numbers
• Subjective reports do have issues, yes,
but no more than counting
• Examples: Education, Unemployment, Eastern
bloc
Objection 2: Adaptation:
Life Satisfaction & Disability
• People adapt to bad and
good conditions
–The “Happy Poor”
–Happy Slaves?
Adaptation?
7.2
7
6.8
6.6
6.4
6.2
6
5.8
-2 Yrs.
-1 Yr.
0
+1 Yr. +3 Yrs. +5 Yrs.
-2 Yrs.
-1 Yr.
0
+1 Yr.
3. Happy Mafia & Pigs?
• Bad people, dumb people, etc. can be
happy
• Yes, and they can be: Rich
Educated
Long-lived too
Happiness is NOT the only value; other
things matter too
Other Values More Important?
For example: capabilities & functionings
Maybe, but so what?
This does not mean SWB is
not also very important!
4. Paternalism
CLAIM
• Happiness is an individual
affair, not the business of
governments
Paternalism?
94 % of Danes are Above
97 % of Togolese
50
40
30
20
10
DENMARK
0
TOGO
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Ladder of Life Scores
8
9
10
Conclusions
• SWB can simultaneously reflect many
desirable aspects of life
• In addition, it is valuable for nations; it
helps functioning!
• It can be validly measured
• It can add information for policy and
individual decisions beyond existing
measures
Using SWB Measures
•
•
•
•
OECD
E.U.
Stats Canada
C.D.C. in USA
The Gallup Organization would give the
U.N. data for two (more?) years:
• Ladder for 140+ nations
• Positive emotions of nations
• Negative emotions (e.g., depression) of nations
References
Well-being for public policy
Diener, Lucas, Schimmack, & Helliwell (2009), Oxford U Press
Beyond money: Toward an economy of well-being
Psychological Science in the Public Interest
Diener and Seligman, 2004
“The most authoritative
and informative book
about happiness ever
written”
^
Thank You!
•Questions?
•Discussion?
Societal Policies?
Pleasant Emotions—Enjoyment etc.
Highest
New Zealand
Ireland
Netherlands
Costa Rica
UK
Lowest
88 %
88 %
87 %
87 %
86 %
Georgia
Pakistan
Armenia
Palestine
Sierra L.
43 %
48 %
49 %
50 %
51 %
OECD Nations Affect Balance (PA –NA)
Women Men
Ireland
New Zealand
Sweden
Netherlands
Canada
Denmark
Australia
Austria
Mexico
Norway
Switzerland
U.S.A.
U.K.
Finland
.69
.65
.65
.62
.62
.61
.61
.61
.60
.60
.58
.56
.56
.53
.66
.66
.61
.63
.61
.61
.61
.60
.62
.58
.57
.61
.54
.52
Women Men
Japan
Germany
Belgium
France
Poland
Spain
Czech Rep.
S. Korea
Italy
Hungary
Slovak Rep.
Greece
Portugal
Turkey
.53
.52
.51
.50
.50
.48
.48
.44
.42
.41
.41
.31
.30
.17
.43
.56
.57
.51
.50
.58
.50
.35
.42
.48
.39
.42
.44
.20
More on Diminishing Returns:
US probability sample
.12
Calcutta slum dwellers
.45
Calcutta sex workers
.67
15 Highest on Ladder
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Denmark
Finland
Switzerland
Netherlands
Canada
Norway
Sweden
Australia
New Zealand
Belgium
United States
Israel
Venezuela
Spain
Ireland
8.0
7.7
7.5
7.5
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.4
7.3
7.3
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.1
Lowest Life Ladder
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Benin
Cambodia
Sierra Leone
Tanzania
Georgia
Uganda
Niger
Ethiopia
Burkina Faso
Zimbabwe
Cameroon
Madagascar
Kenya
Mali
3.3
3.6
3.6
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.9
4.0
4.0
4.0
9
8
7
6
5
Latvia
Sri Lanka Armenia
4
Cambodia
Georgia
Benin
3
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
UNDP Human Development Index (2003)
1.0
Proposal for National
Indicators of Well-Being –
and International Indicators
• Long overdue
• Resistance – based on outmoded
philosophy & data
• Ignorance of newest findings
Health Research Funding
Disease burden computations:
• Life Years and
• Misery
– Use SWB instead of Willingness-to-pay
Paul Dolan, UK health economist
4. Optimal Amount?
Can there be too much
or too little?
Examples:
• Divorce rate
• Percent in science & engineering
• Tertiary education for all
Example: Divorce Rate
• Is 0 percent good?
– No freedom
• Is 55 percent better?
– Unstable relationships & childrearing
• Optimum level
– Reflected in well-being