The Easterlin Paradox in Italy, or the Paradox in Measuring? Define Happiness Before Investigating It

Article
  • 38 Downloads

Abstract

The Easterlin paradox (Easterlin, in: Paul, Reder (eds) Nations and household in economic growth: essay in honor of Moses Abramovitz, Academic Press, New York, 1974), for many researchers, is the starting point of studies on the relationship between happiness and GDP and states that after reaching a certain level of income, happiness decreases instead of increasing. The Comparison Theory (Schyns in Soc Indic Res 43:3–2, 1998) and Van Praag and Kapteyn’s (Eur Econ Rev 4(1):33–62, 1973) also show that if an individual’s income increases, it is not related into an increase in income satisfaction and the same mechanism applies to happiness, depending on several aspects. Today and in the future not only the growth of income but also the achievement of happiness have become a political objective and politicians will direct their policy towards these objectives. Furthermore, the interpretation of the relation between GDP and happiness remains one of the most recurring controversial errors in the framework and methodology used, although understanding of what makes people happy helps politicians to direct their policies. In Italy the Easterlin paradox seems to have found confirmation, but not a historical explanation also because the study of the relation between GDP and happiness, confirming the need to use appropriate indicators in the study of the relationship between economic development and happiness, for instance alternative national accounts indicators for GDP, or antidepressant expenditure for (un)happiness. The paper suggests “to define happiness before investigating it”, proposing a definition of happiness that also indicates an appropriate methodology to analyze if people can be happy in the economic system.

Keywords

National accounting Happiness GDP Easterlin paradox Antidepressant consumers 

References

  1. Anand, P., Krishnakumar, J., & Tran, B. N. (2011). Measuring happiness: Latent variables models for happiness and capabilities in the presence of unobservable heterogeneity. Journal of Public Economics, 95, 205–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrews, F. M., & Withey, S. B. (1976). Social indicators of well-being: America’s perceptions of life quality. New York: Plenu Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Antolini, F. (2016). Evolution of national accounting and new statistical information. Happiness and GDP: How can we measure it? Social Indicators Research, 129(3), 1075–1092.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arneson, R. (1989). Equality and equal opportunity for welfare. Philosophical Studies: An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition, 56(1), 77–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Atkinson, A. B., & Brandolini, A. (2015). Unveiling the ethics behind inequality measurement: Dalton’s contribution to economics. Economic Journal, 125(583), 209–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Atkinson, A. B., & Stiglitz, J. (1980). Lectures on public economics. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  7. Bossert, W., & D’Ambrosio, C. (2016) Economic insecurity and variations in resources. Working paper ECINEQ no. 422.Google Scholar
  8. Brooks, A. (2012). Gross national happiness. Washington: American Press.Google Scholar
  9. Corbetta, P. (2002). Metodologia della ricerca sociale. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
  10. Delhey, J., & Kroll, C. (2013). A “happiness test” for the new measures of national well-being: How much better than GDP are they? In Human happiness and the pursuit of maximization (pp. 191–210). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  11. Diener, E. (1994). Assessing subjective well-being: Progress and opportunities. Social Indicators Research, 31(2), 103–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and a proposal for a national index. American Psycologist, 55, 34–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Diener, E. (2007). Happiness accounts for policy use. In OECD conference, Is happiness measurable and what do those measures mean for policy? Rome: University of Tor Vergata.Google Scholar
  14. Diener, E., & Diener, C. (1996). Most people are happy. Psycological Science, 7(3), 181–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Diener, E., & Tov, W. (2012). National accounts of well-being. In K. Land, A. Michalos, & M. Sirgy (Eds.), Handbooks of social indicators and quality of life research. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  16. Dodds, P. S., Harris, K. D., Kloumann, I. M., Bliss, C. A., & Danforth, C. M. (2011). Temporal patterns of happiness and information in a global social network: Hedonometrics and Twitter. PLoS ONE, 6(12), e26752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dolan, P., Peasgood, T., & White, M. (2008). Do we really know what makes us happy? A review of the economic literature on the factors associated with subject well-being. Journal of Economic Phycology, 29(1), 94–122.Google Scholar
  18. Dolan, P., & White, M. P. (2007). How can measures of subject well-being be used to inform public policy? Perspectives on Psychology Sciences, 2, 71–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Easterlin, R. (1974). Does economic growth improve the human lot? In A. D. Paul & M. W. Reder (Eds.), Nations and household in economic growth: Essay in honor of Moses Abramovitz. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  20. Easterlin, R. (1995). Will raising the incomes of all increase the happiness of all? Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 27(1), 35–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Easterlin, R. (2004). Feeding the illusion of growth and happiness: A Reply to Hagerty and Veenhoven. Social Indicators Research, 74, 429–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Eliot, T. S. (2003). Quattro quartetti, cit. in Natoli S., La felicità, Economica Feltrinelli, 1948.Google Scholar
  23. Fordyce, M. V. (1988). A review of research on the happiness measures: A sixty second index of happiness and mental health. Social Indicators Research, 20, 355–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Frey, B. S., & Stutzer, A. (2000). Happiness, economy and institutions. Economic Journal, 110, 918–938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Frey, B. S., & Stutzer, A. (2010). Happiness and economics how the economy and institutions affect well-being. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Funtowicz, O., & Ravetz, J. (1994). The worth of a songbird: Ecological economics as a post-normal science. Ecological Economics, 10(3), 197–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Galbraith, J. K. (2010). The affluent society. ‎Wilmington: Mariner Books.Google Scholar
  28. Helliwell J. F. (2018). Global Happiness Policy Syntesys 2018. In Global Happiness Policy Report 2018 (Chap. 2). The Global Happiness Council (2018). New York: Sustainable Development Solutions Network.Google Scholar
  29. Helliwell, J. F., Layard, R., & Sachs, J. (2012). World happiness report. Waterloo: UN Sustainable Development Solution Network.Google Scholar
  30. Helliwell, J. F., & Wang, S. (2012). The state of world happiness. In J. F. Helliwell, R. Layard, & J. Sachs (Eds.), The world happiness report, Chapter 2. Washington: Earth Institute.Google Scholar
  31. Hidaka, B. H. (2012). Depression as a disease of modernity: Explanations for increasing prevalence. Journal of Affective Disorders, 140, 205–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Holcombe, R. G. (2004). National income accounting and public policy. Review of Austrian Economics, 17(4), 387–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jager, W., Janssen, M. A., De Vries, H. J. M., De Greef, J., & Vlek, C. A. J. (2000). Behaviour in commons dilemmas: Homo economicus and Homo psychologicus in an ecological-economic model. Ecological Economics, 35(3), 357–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kahneman, D., & Krueger, A. B. (2006). Developments in the measurement of subjecive well-being. Journal of Economic Perspective, 20(1), 3–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kahneman, D., Krueger, A. B., Schkade, D. A., Schwarz, N., & Stone, A. A. (2004). Toward national well-being accounts. American Economic Review, 94(2), 429–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kennedy, B. (1968). GDP: Measures everything except that which is worthwhile. Lawrence: University of Kansas.Google Scholar
  37. Kenny, C. (1999). Does growth cause happiness, or does happiness cause growth? Kyklos, 52(1), 3–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kessler, R. C., Angermeyer, M., Anthony, J. C., de Graaf, R., Demyttenaere, K., Gasquet, I., et al. (2007). Lifetime prevalence and age-of-onset distributions of mental disorders in the World Health Organization’s World Mental Health Survey Initiative. World Psychiatry, 6, 168–176.Google Scholar
  39. Kovacic, Z., & Giampietro, M. (2015). Beyond “beyond GDP indicators:” The need for reflexivity in science for governance”. Ecological Complexity, 21, 53–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kubovy, M. (1999). On the pleasure of the mind. In D. Kaheman, E. Diener, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Well-being: The foundation of Hedonic psycology. New York: Russel Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  41. Layard, R. (2005). Happiness—Lessons from a new science. New York: Pinguin Press.Google Scholar
  42. Lucas, R. E., Diener, E., & Suh, E. (1996). Discriminant validity of well-being measures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(3), 616–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lyubomirsky, S., & Layous, K. (2012). How do simple positive activities increase well-being? Current directions. Psychological Science, 22, 57–62.Google Scholar
  44. Mullainathan, S., & Thaler, R. (2000). Behavioral economics. MIT Department of Economics working paper no. 00-27.Google Scholar
  45. Munda, G. (2004). Social multi-criteria evaluation: Methodological foundations and operational consequences. European Journal of Operational Research, 158(3), 662–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Peen, J., Schoevers, R., Beekman, A., & Dekker, J. (2010). The current status of urban–rural differences in psychiatric disorders. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 121, 84–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ravallion, M. (2003). Measuring aggregate welfare in developing countries: How well do national accounts and surveys agree? The Review of Economics and Statistics, 85(3), 645–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sandvik, E., Diener, E., & Seidlitz, L. (1993). Subjective well-being: The convergence and stability of self-report and non-self-report measures. Journal of Personality, 61(3), 317–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sarkozy, N. (2009). “Speech at the Sorbonne University” in Paris, Monday, September 14, 2009.Google Scholar
  50. Schwarz, N., & Strack, F. (1991). Evaluating one’s life: A judgement model of subjective well-being. In F. Strack, M. Argyle, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Subjective well-being: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 27–48). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Schyns, P. (1998). Crossnational differences in happiness: Economic and cultural factors explored. Social Indicators Research, 43, 3–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Seidlitz, L., Wyer, R. S., & Diener, E. (1997). Cognitive correlates of subjective well-being: The processing of valenced life events by happy and unhappy persons. Journal of Research in Personality, 31, 240–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Seligman, M. E. P. (1988). Boomer blues. Psychology Today, 22(10), 50–55.Google Scholar
  54. Sent, E. M. (2004). Behavioral economics: How psychology made its (limited) way back into economics. In History of political economy, Winter 2004 (Vol. 36, Number 4, pp. 735–760).Google Scholar
  55. Spangernberg, J. H., & Settele, J. (2010). Precisely incorrect? Monetising the value of ecosystem services. Ecological Complexity, 7, 327–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Stiglitz, J., Sen, A., & Fitoussi, J. (2010). Report on Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress, Paris.Google Scholar
  57. Stone, A. A., Shiffman, S. S., & Devries, M. (1999). Rethinking our self-report assessment methodologies: An argument for collecting ecological valid, momentary measurements. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology (pp. 26–39). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  58. Strack, F., Argyle, M., & Tsui, H.-C. (2014). What affects happiness: Absolute income, relative income or expected income? Journal of Policy Modeling, 36, 994–1007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Uchida, Y., Norasakkunkit, V., & Kitayama, S. (2004). Cultural construction on happiness: Theory and empirical evidence. Journal of Happiness Studies, 5, 223–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. United Nations. (2012). Happiness: Towards a holistic approach to development, R.65/309.Google Scholar
  61. Ura, K., Alkire, S., & Zangmo, T. (2012). Gross national happiness and the GNH index: The case of Bhutan. In The Earth Institute (Ed.), World happiness report. New York: Columbia University.Google Scholar
  62. Van Praag, B. M. S., & Kapteyn, A. (1973). Further evidence on the individual welfare function of income: An empirical investigation in the Netherlands. European Economic Review, 4(1), 33–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Veenhoven, R. (1995). The cross-cultural pattern of happiness: Test of predictions implied in three theories of happiness. Social Indicators Research, 34, 33–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Veenhoven, R. (2002). Happiness in nations subjective appreciation of life in 56 nations 1946–1992. In World database of happiness. Rotterdam: Erasmus University Rotterdam.Google Scholar
  65. Veenhoven, R. (2012a). Cross-national differences in happiness: Cultural measurement bias or effect of culture? International Journal of Wellbeing, 2(4), 333–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Veenhoven, R. (2012b). Average happiness in 149 nations 2000–2009: How much people enjoy their life-as-a-whole on scale 0 to 10. In World database of happiness. Rotterdam: Erasmus University Rotterdam.Google Scholar
  67. Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 1063–1070.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Williams, J. M. G., Teasdale, J. D., Segal, Z. V., & Kabat-Zinn, J. (2007). The mindful way through depression: Freeing yourself from chronic unhappiness. Oxford: Oxford Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of TeramoTeramoItaly
  2. 2.University of SannioBeneventoItaly

Personalised recommendations