Yes! I explain why in the draft of Chapter 5 of the book I
am writing. This chapter is now available on the book’s web site.
The question of whether measurement of ‘national happiness’
implies views about the good society is not just an arcane topic of academic interest.
International agencies such as the UN and OECD and some governments have shown dissatisfaction
with use of GDP as a well-being measure and an increasing interest in measuring
national well-being more directly. Some of this interest in well-being
measurement is motivated by helping individuals to make better choices, but the
hope is often expressed that such measurements will assist governments to make better
public policy choices and even to pursue national happiness as an over-riding
policy objective.
Some researchers have suggested that that average life
satisfaction is the strongest candidate as a measure of societal well-being
because it is a single number that can be collected directly through surveys
without ‘arbitrary weighting’. (For
example, see: Jon Hall et al, ‘Cutting through the Clutter: Searching for an
Over-Arching Measure of Well-Being’, Journal of Institutional Comparisons, 8(4)2010.)
After reading the draft of Chapter 5 I hope everyone will
agree with me that it is fanciful to view average life satisfaction as a measure of national happiness that does not involve arbitrary
weighting. Perhaps it might be helpful if I provide a brief outline
of the argument here to help readers decide whether or not to read the draft
chapter.
It is possible, of course, to conduct surveys asking people in
different countries how satisfied with life they are on a scale of 1 to 10 and
then to average the results obtained for each country. The issue is whether it
is appropriate to view such averages as measures of ‘national happiness’.
When people refer to such averages as measures of national happiness they are implying that national happiness rises to the same
extent if a person’s life satisfaction rating rises from 9 to 10 as if some
other person’s rating rises from 1 to 2. Individual researchers can make such
claims if they wish, but they cannot claim that they are value free. I don’t
think that they could even claim that such a view of ‘national happiness’
reflects values that are widely shared.
The need for value judgements is usually more transparent
when composite indicators are used to make assessments of national happiness.
Whatever method is used, it seems to me that when researchers
make comparative statements about levels of national happiness they are making
implicit claims about the extent to which different countries have characteristics
that a good society might be expected to have. So, why not consider directly
what characteristics ‘good societies’ should have and make comparative
assessments on that basis?
I suggest that there would be widespread support for the
view that good societies are characterized by peacefulness, extensive
opportunities for individual flourishing and a degree of economic security. The
indicators used to measure the extent to which different countries have those
characteristics show a similar ranking of countries to that provided by the
OECD’s ‘Better Life’ index and the UN’s Human Development Index. The main
advantage of using the ‘good society’ framework is in focusing explicitly on a
consideration of the characteristics of good societies.
In my view, a focus on the characteristics of good societies
is particularly appropriate from a public policy perspective because it tends
to concentrate attention on matters that are within the domain of public policy.
By contrast, when governments adopt ‘national happiness’ as an over-riding
objective they are blurring the distinction between public and individual
responsibilities.
I would be grateful for any comments on Chapter 5, or on any
of the other chapters.
No comments:
Post a Comment