Can measurement of subjective well-being help us to assess whether life is getting better?

The British government has recently taken some steps toward measurement of subjective well-being in the hope that this will provide ‘a general picture of whether life is improving’ and eventually ‘lead to government policy that is more focused not just on the bottom line, but on all those things that make life worthwhile’.

The quoted words are from David Cameron, the British prime minister. I find it interesting that he refers to ‘the bottom line’ as though the bottom line in British politics has always had a pound sign in front of it. Philip Booth, editor of the recent Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) publication ‘… and the Pursuit of Happiness’, suggests that the prime minister was attacking a ‘straw man’; the British government has always had a multitude of objectives.

Booth makes the point that attempts to ‘centrally direct policy toward improving general wellbeing’ will fail just as attempts to increase GDP growth through use of central planning also failed. I agree with the point, but I suspect that it is also a straw man. I doubt whether David Cameron is proposing to adopt some form of central planning in an attempt to raise national happiness. It seems to me that attempts to obtain a better picture of whether life is improving are no more likely to encourage central planning than was the measurement of national income likely to encourage central planning. Like many happiness researchers, the pioneers in the field of national income measurement were of an interventionist frame of mind. They actually wanted better measures of economic activity as an aid to implementation of Keynesian macro policies.  The central planners were not slow to jump on the national income measurement bandwagon, but there was no slippery slope leading inevitably from national income measurement to increased government intervention.

However, I can’t claim to know what the British prime minister has in mind. Initial survey work by the Office of National Statistics (ONS) has focused on a comparison of different measures of subjective well-being. Some of the results are interesting. For example, there is a fairly high level of correlation (0.66) between responses to a standard life satisfaction question (How satisfied are you with your life nowadays?) and a eudenomic question (Overall, to what extent do you think the things you do in your life are worthwhile?).

Yet, that kind of information will not tell us much about whether life is getting better. As Paul Ormerod demonstrates in his chapter of the IEA publication, levels of life satisfaction in high income countries tend to fluctuate over time without any obvious trend – and despite improvements in many different well-being indicators. I think the metaphor of a ladder attached to a helicopter, which I used in a recent post, is helpful to an understanding of why successive snapshots of life satisfaction cannot measure progress. If I am climbing a ladder that is attached to a helicopter, my height above the ground depends on the height of the helicopter as well as on which rung of the ladder I have reached. The ladder represents the benchmark of possibilities against which I assess my life satisfaction, but upward movement of the helicopter (i.e. expanding possibilities) may be my main source of progress.

In my view, if you want to know whether people feel that their lives are improving you need to provide them with an appropriate benchmark against which to make that comparison. The ONS survey enables this by also asking respondents to rate their life satisfaction a year ago and five years ago. The scores for life satisfaction five years ago and one year ago were slightly lower than those for current life satisfaction. This suggests, somewhat surprisingly, that Brits generally feel that their lives are still improving despite the global financial crisis and its aftermath. That kind of information seems to me to be worth having.

Unfortunately, I couldn’t find any discussion in the IEA publication of what measures of progress would be superior to the successive snapshots of life satisfaction that are targeted for criticism by several of the authors. The publication certainly serves a useful purpose in bringing together the contributions of a range of authors who question false assertions that have been made on the basis of happiness research and caution against government attempts to use the findings of happiness research to introduce policies to promote happiness. Nevertheless, I was slightly disappointed that the editor did not show a little more sympathy for the idea that there could be some merit in the aim of the British prime minister to obtain a better picture of whether life is improving in that country. 

I expect that if government policies were focused more clearly at expanding the opportunities that make life worthwhile, there would actually be less government regulation in most countries, including the UK.

Does GNH measure progress towards a better society?

In my last post, ‘Can happiness be aggregated?’, I suggested that any statement about aggregate happiness or gross national happiness (GNH) involves judgements – explicit or implicit – about the characteristics of a good society.

I used the example of Mary, who is flourishing at level 9, and Jane, who is just surviving at level 1, and asked whether their combined level of flourishing is equivalent to that of two other people who are flourishing at level 5 ( i.e. (9+1)/2).  I suggested that you may feel that combining the ratings of different individuals together should involve value judgements rather than just arithmetic. I argued that if we introduce value weights into the process of aggregating the flourishing of different individuals, we are making a judgement about the extent to which the distribution of flourishing is consistent with our views about characteristics of a good society. 

I think the issues raised by the example of Mary and Jane can be brought into sharper focus if we consider whether aggregate flourishing increases to the same extent if Mary’s level of flourishing rises from 9 to 10 as when Jane’s level of flourishing rises from 1 to 2. I think most people would feel that Jane’s increased flourishing should receive more weight than Mary’s in the assessment of aggregate happiness. As argued above, the assignment of relative weights involves a value judgement. Different people can be expected to have different opinions about this matter.

The people responsible for the GNH survey in Bhutan have taken the position that ‘beyond a certain point, we don’t need to keep adding in higher achievements to the quality of life mechanically’. Their methodology would not count the increase in Mary’s level of flourishing as making any contribution to GNH on the grounds that it is appropriate to confine attention to ‘a middle band of achievements that contribute significantly to human wellbeing for most people’. I am not sure whether these implicit weightings reflect a consensus of the people of Bhutan, but in any case the weightings in the GNH index have validity as an expression of the values of the elected government.

The way I see it, Bhutan’s GNH index is the method that the government of Bhutan has chosen to measure progress toward a better society.

Can happiness be aggregated?

My starting point for this post is take it as given that everyone agrees that for public policy purposes it is appropriate to view happiness in terms of individual flourishing. My reasons for this view have been presented in the draft of chapter 2 of the book that I have been writing.

I doubt whether it is possible to obtain an accurate measure of the extent to which each individual in the community is flourishing because some of the subjective information involved is probably not accessible to people conducting surveys. But let us assume that we have a measure that is good enough to compare the extent to which different people are flourishing in terms of a rating scale from 1 to 10, with a rating of 1 indicating that the individual is just surviving and a rating of 10 indicating that the individual is fully flourishing.

The measurement system that I am assuming would enable us to determine the percentage of people at different levels of flourishing within a particular community. If other communities adopted the same measurement system we could make observations about the percentage of people who are flourishing in different communities. It might be possible to say, for example, that 50 per cent of the population in community A are flourishing at a moderate level (with a rating of 7 or above) whereas the corresponding percentage in community B is only 40 per cent. There could be considerable interest in such observations, particularly if they enabled comparisons to be made between countries and over time.

Would such a measurement system enable us to say that the aggregate or average level of flourishing is higher in one country than another? I don't think so. For example if you are told that 50% of the population is flourishing in country A and 40% is flourishing in country B, that doesn’t necessarily mean that the average level of flourishing is higher in A than B. It is possible that 20% are struggling for survival in country A while only 5% are struggling for survival in country B. The average (mean) calculated from the percentages flourishing at each level might indicate that the level of flourishing is higher in B than in A. In this instance, is the mean a better measure of the 'average' than the median?

There is also a more fundamental problem. Let us assume that Mary is flourishing at level 9 and Jane is just surviving at level 1. Is their combined level of flourishing equivalent to that of two other people who are flourishing at level 5 ( i.e (9+1)/2) ? I don’t think so. It seems to me that, other things equal, it is preferable to have two people flourishing at level 5 than to have one person at level 1 and the other at level 9. But that judgement reflects my own values and is not related to the preferences of the people most directly concerned? We should ask Mary and Jane what they think. But their views might differ. Perhaps we could ask a random sample of the population what they think, or conduct experiments to find out what choices most people might make behind a veil of ignorance. (I have in mind the kind of experiment conducted by Hörisch Hannah, which I described in an earlier post.)

The point I am getting to is that even if you can conceive of ratings corresponding to different levels of flourishing, you may have good reasons to feel that combining the ratings of different individuals together should involve value judgements rather than just arithmetic. You may not be comfortable in thinking of the combined level of flourishing of Mary and Jane as though these individuals are just metric stations.

However, if we introduce value weights into the process of aggregating the flourishing of different individuals, are we not then making a judgement about the extent to which the distribution of flourishing is consistent with our views about the characteristics of a good society? It seems to me that any statement about aggregate happiness or gross national happiness involves judgements – explicit or implicit – about the characteristics of a good society.

So, why not ask directly whether society A is better than B, rather than asking whether aggregate happiness is greater in A than B? This would mean attempting to achieve consensus on the characteristics of a good society. I presented some thoughts about this in a post a couple of years ago.

Has the United States become a secular theocracy too?

Secular theocracy is a result of the tendency in the modern world for faith in government to replace faith in God. In the past I have tended to associate secular theocracy with Australia, New Zealand, Britain and other countries in Europe, rather than the United States. When I first visited the US in the 1970s, I remember mentioning to someone that Americans seemed to take religion much more seriously than I had expected. He pulled a bill from his wallet and pointed to the words, ‘In God we trust’, suggesting that those words were a key to understanding America.

Until very recently I thought that the differing influence of secular theocracy in different countries could be explained entirely by the differing influence of collectivist ideas – a desire for security being satisfied by the welfare state rather than by religion. From where I sit, in Australia, it seemed that secular theocracy could be attributed to the varying influence of ideas of people like Karl Marx and J S Mill, leading to establishment of more extensive welfare states in some countries than in others. While I am an admirer of many of Mill’s writings, it seems to me that his introduction of the term ‘social justice’ played a significant role in the development of secular theocracy in some countries. The faith that many people have in social justice seems to me to be much like religious faith.  When people say that social justice demands this or that, it seems to me that they are actually using nebulous secular language to make claims about our religious duties toward other humans.

So, how did I react when it was suggested to me recently that secular theocracy stems from the separation of church and state? My initial reaction was not favourable. From my limited knowledge of history, the separation of church and state seems to be inextricably linked to the history of recognition of religious freedom and individual liberty. According to this view, the separation of church and state stems from recognition that in order to promote and preserve individual liberty it is necessary for religious organizations to be kept away from exercise of the coercive powers of the state.

An article recently published by David Theroux, president of the Independent Institute in the US, presents a somewhat different view of secular theocracy. David suggests that modern America has become a secular theocracy, with a civic religion (nationalism) replacing God. The view he presents is linked to that of C S Lewis, who argued that there is no sacred/secular divide and that a theopolitical world view of hope, joy, liberty and justice enabled Christians to discover objective natural-law principles of ethics, science and theology, producing immense human flourishing.

In support of his view that nationalism has replaced God, David Theroux points to a statement by Supreme Court Justice William Brennan in a land mark case in 1963 relating to bible reading in schools. Brennan argued that the function of public schools is the training of American citizens in an atmosphere in which children may assimilate a heritage that is ‘civic and patriotic’. He went on to suggest that ‘patriotic and united allegiance to the United States is the cure for the divisiveness of religion in public’.

David Theroux argues that in the United States secular theology ‘exalts a sovereign and powerful state that pervades all of life and compels obedience not just to its mandates but to secular nationalism of the Zeitgeist itself, for which the populace is forced to conform to and to fund’. The flag has become the most sacred object in US society. He suggests: ‘The religious-secular split enables public loyalty by Christians to the nation state’s secular violence, including invasive wars, torture, and “collateral damage”, while avoiding direct confrontation with Christian beliefs about the supremacy of God and natural law teachings’.

I have no hesitation in recommending David Theroux’s article. The existence of a pervasive secular theology of nationalism seems to me to be another important key to understanding modern America.