Informing Policy Priorities using Inference from Life Satisfaction Responses in a Large Community Survey
Self-reported, quantitative, subjective measures of well-being, such as satisfaction with life overall, are increasingly looked to as measures of public welfare. While this trend is visible at the international and national government levels, regional initiatives and local communities are particularly important in seeking meaningful measures of the quality of human experience and of the success of local policies. Unlike other approaches in which well-being or progress indices are constructed using arbitrary or expert-generated weights on various domains of life experience, subjective well-being can be used to evaluate empirically the relative importance of specific measurable conditions and experiences in supporting a good life. Using a new, large community well-being survey carried out across the U.S. state of Connecticut, we use this method to evaluate the relationship between life satisfaction and a range of other socioeconomic circumstances and conditions. In support of a broad existing literature, we find enormous effects of security and social engagement as compared with variations in income. We then proceed to consider the prevalence of different socioeconomic conditions, in addition to their relative importance to affected individuals, to make inferences about the benefit-costs of feasible state and local policies. There remain some conditions, like social trust and the perceived responsiveness of local government to the needs of residents, which appear very important to well-being but for which the relationship with targeted resource allocation requires further investigation or policy experimentation.
KeywordsLife satisfaction Subjective well-being Community well-being Social welfare Policy prioritization USA
We are grateful to Mark Abraham and Datahaven for providing data and for helpful discussions at every stage of the work. This work was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (grant 435-2016-0531).
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
- Barrington-Leigh, C. (2016) The role of subjective well-being as an organizing concept for community indicators. In Community Quality of Life and Wellbeing: Best Cases VII, ed. Rhonda Phillips Meg Holden and Chantal Stevens Community Quality-of-Life Indicators (Springer).Google Scholar
- Bernanke, B. S. (2010) ‘The Economics of Happiness.’ Commencement address: Remarks by Ben S. Bernanke, Chairman, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Columbia: University of South Carolina.Google Scholar
- Cameron, Prime Minister David (2010) A transcript of a speech given by the prime minister on wellbeing on 25 November.Google Scholar
- DataHaven (2016). DataHaven community wellbeing survey. Retrieved from: http://www.ctdatahaven.org/reports/datahaven-community-wellbeing-survey
- Dolan, P., & White, MP. (2007). How can measures of subjective well-being be used to inform public policy? Perspectives on Psychological Science 2(1), 71–85.Google Scholar
- Donovan, N., Halpern, D., & Sargeant, R. (2002) Life satisfaction: The state of knowledge and implications for government (London: Cabinet Office Strategy Unit).Google Scholar
- Fleche, S., & Layard, R. (2017). Do more of those in misery suffer from poverty, unemployment, or mental illness? Kyklos International Review for Social Sciences, 70(1), 27–41.Google Scholar
- Hall, J., Barrington-Leigh, C., & Helliwell, J. (2011). Cutting through the Clutter: Searching for an Over-Arching Measure of Well-Being. DICE Report, 8(4), 8–12.Google Scholar
- Helliwell, J., Barrington-Leigh, C., Harris, A., & Huang, H. (2010). International evidence on the social context of well-being. In E. Diener, J. Helliwell, & D. Kahneman (Eds.), International Differences in Well-Being (pp. 213–229). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Helliwell, J., Layard, R., & Sachs, J. (2012). World happiness report. New York: Earth Institute. http://worldhappiness.report/ed/2012/.
- Helliwell, J., Layard, R., & Sachs, J. (2015). World happiness report 2015. New York: Sustainable Development Solutions Network. http://worldhappiness.report/ed/2015/.
- Ng, Y.-K., & Ho, L. S. (2006). Introduction: Happiness as the only ultimate objective of public policy. In Happiness and public policy (pp. 1–16). London: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230288027_1.
- OECD. (2013). OECD Guidelines on measuring subjective well-being. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
- Stiglitz, J. E., Sen, A., & Fitoussi, J. P. (2009). Report by the Commission on the measurement of economic performance and social progress. Paris: Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress.Google Scholar
- Stone, A., Mackie, C., et al. (2014). Subjective well-being: Measuring happiness, suffering, and other dimensions of experience. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
- UK Office of National Statistics (2011) National statistician’s reflections on the national debate on measuring national well-being. eprint: www.ons.gov.uk
- United States Census Bureau (2017) Quick facts: Connecticut. Retrieved from: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045216/09
- United States Department of Agriculture (2017) Official USDA food plans: Cost of food at home at four levels, U.S. average, March 2017. Retrieved from: https://www.cnpp.usda.gov/USDAFoodPlansCostofFood