The World Happiness Report 2019 is now out and I have to admit to always liking this report which is co-edited by Professor Richard Layard and Jeffrey Sachs. According to the report, Malaysia is ranked the 80th happiest nation, a massive drop of 45 places compared with 2018 when we were ranked 35th.
In South East Asia, we are ranked fourth behind Singapore (34th), Thailand (52nd) and the Philippines (69th). The top spots for happiest countries in the world go to the Nordic nations, with Finland being happiest followed by Denmark, Norway and Iceland.
The unhappiest (sad?) country is South Sudan, with Tanzania, Afghanistan and Central African Republic just above them.
The happiness report is a landmark survey of the state of global happiness that ranks 156 countries by how happy their citizens perceive themselves to be.
They go out and ask people how happy they are on a scale of zero to 10. They then point to the correlations between people being happy and certain institutional arrangements.
This is, thus, being done the right way around, evidence-based policy-making, not the more usual policy-based evidence-making.
I’m no expert on this subject. But given my limited knowledge, it seems to me that this happiness research implies nothing. Zero. Nada.
I think that we do not learn about economics by watching what people say in response to a survey. I still think that the question “How happy are you?” is going to deliver unreliable answers.
I cannot measure my happiness in absolute terms, so I have to answer in relative terms. I have to think, “Compared to Ali, I’m happy, but compared to David, I’m not.” Or I have to think, “Compared to when I fell and broke my wrist, I’m happy, but compared to when I fell in love I’m not.”
And am I thinking of my momentary happiness, my happiness over the last hour, or my happiness over the past year? If it is momentary happiness, what if I have spent the last minute reflecting on bad childhood memories?
Should I say that I am unhappy? Maybe 10 minutes from now I will be reflecting on fond memories. Should I then say that I am happy?
Suppose we get past that. Suppose that research shows in some reliable way that most people are happy doing X. Is it not possible for people to have different tastes?
If research shows that people who eat snapper are happy, does that mean I should eat snapper? Quite frankly, I hate snapper.
Anyway, that’s not all. We think we know what it is that makes people happier in general. A decent enough economy, a general increase in good health, the absence of war obviously, perhaps a combination of a general stability with things gradually getting better.
However, when we go out to measure that actual happiness, we find that it’s not so simple. This is the heart of the Easterlin Paradox, this idea is that, if you’re starving and naked then more income, with which to buy food and clothing, does make you happier. But after a certain amount of extra income (as we climb Maslow’s Pyramid perhaps) more income doesn’t make you any happier.
One useful interpretation of this report is that once we’ve conquered the lower, physical, levels of Maslow’s Pyramid of needs then it’s the non-monetary things that increase happiness.
Another possible interpretation is simply that Easterlin was wrong because happiness does increase in general with rising incomes, just slowly. But again, I see lots of rich workaholics who never crack a smile.
Their money brings them lots of happiness?
There’s another reasonable explanation for this as well. We know that happiness levels adjust to new circumstances pretty quickly.
We human, have an instinctive need to constantly be dissatisfied with our current position: “If only I had a little more money, I’d be satisfied,” or “if only I had a bigger TV.”
People who have lost a limb do indeed become more unhappy but six to 12 months later they seem to be about as happy in their new circumstances as they were when whole. Much the same is true of those who marry, receive a pay raise and so on.
To increase happiness above this standard level (one that is different for each person of course) there thus needs to be a constant stimulus to raise that level permanently.
If you think about it, this may sound distasteful (and for good reason) but it appears to serve an economic function: the desire to remove this dissatisfaction fosters economic growth.
As we reach new heights, we become dissatisfied with our current position and desire more, and this holds across time as technology and desires change. A colour TV was good enough in the 1980s, but now we demand HD, 4k and “true colour” and all kinds of things.
A small electric fan was good enough half-a-century ago, but now air conditioning is all over the place which, in turn, is giving way to “smart homes” and the like. Even when you are driving these days, 70 miles an hour is too slow!
The point is, we shouldn’t denigrate the value of economic progress. When people are hungry, deprived of basic needs such as clean water, health care, and education, and without meaningful employment, they suffer.
Economic growth that alleviates poverty is a vital step in boosting happiness.
This is why the report shows that the absence of economic growth most definitely makes people unhappy: therefore, we should indeed strive for economic growth in order to make people happy.
Of course, this doesn’t mean we should be maximising the size of the economy which would mean, among other things, maximising working hours (even with diminished productivity 80-hour work weeks will produce more than 40-hour ones).
That we do have leisure, vacations, retirement, is proof perfect that we already don’t run the economy in order to maximise the size of the economy.
You see, the thing is, different things make different people happy in different ways at different times. That’s why there is no one specific way of doing it. Different forms of it and different paths to it.
My worry is that this really appeals to a certain political type, those who wish to complain about materialism and all that.
Suppose that we start with a situation in which people of all different incomes interact regularly with one another. Happiness inequality will be high, because the poor people will be upset seeing all rich people, and the rich people will feel really good that they’re not poor.
Next, introduce segregation by income. Put rich people in enclaves and poor people in ghettos. Now, the rich people see mostly other rich people, and they don’t feel quite so superior.
By the same token, the poor people don’t see so many rich people, and compared to the people around them they don’t feel so bad. Congratulations, you’ve reduced happiness inequality. Are you proud of yourself? (I was going to say, are you happy?)
Many millennials claim that they are worse off, thus unhappy compared to their parents, economically. I don’t think so. “The economy” is doing exactly what it’s supposed to be doing, generating higher living standards in the form of better stuff.
Yes, GDP growth has been low recently, but the internet still gives us tons of free, fun useful stuff. If that’s not making us happier, that’s our problem. It’s not “the economy’s” problem.
If happiness is not increasing over time it is because we are envious and insatiable. As the Chinese say, “Desire is a valley that can never be filled.”
So, it is fairly important for us to understand the entire concept of happiness which I explain here. That way we can get past the difficulty that different societies will have different preferences on what it is to say that you’re “happy”.
Besides, how come we have so many emotions when we only want to maximise one; happiness? Why do we feel curiosity, for example?
You could try to reduce curiosity to happiness, but that’s implausible. I’ve felt curious and sad at the same time. Haven’t you?
The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the New Sarawak Tribune.
