Happiness Metrics Go Mainstream in Policy Making

The UN’s World Happiness Report, an annual study ranking 143 countries based on self-reported wellbeing, has sparked significant debate among policymakers and academics. The report surveys 1,000 people in each country to gauge their life satisfaction and emotional states, with Scandinavian countries like Finland and Denmark consistently topping the list. Lebanon and Afghanistan, conversely, rank at the bottom. Key factors influencing these happiness scores include GDP per capita, healthy life expectancy, social support, freedom to make life choices, generosity, and freedom from corruption.

Professor Jan-Emmanuel De Neve of Oxford University, an editor of the report, highlights the adoption of happiness metrics in the UK, New Zealand, and California, advocating for their use in policy evaluations as a supplement or alternative to GDP. However, full integration of these metrics into policymaking remains limited. Critics argue that the Cantril ladder, the 10-point scale used in the report, is too subjective and culturally specific, with small sample sizes complicating meaningful cross-country comparisons.

Bhutan’s 2011 UN General Assembly resolution inspired the report, leading to the adoption of national well-being frameworks by most OECD countries. The G7 finance ministers' agreement to incorporate multidimensional indicators into policymaking highlights a growing recognition of wellbeing metrics. Professor Richard Layard, a prominent advocate for happiness measures, argues for evaluating government policies based on their impact on well-being rather than solely on economic metrics.

Professor Layard envisions a future where policy decisions prioritize mental health support, arts, and culture to enhance overall well-being. Layard cautions that measuring well-being is just the first step; the ultimate goal is to target and improve it through informed policy interventions. The ongoing debate around the World Happiness Report reflects the complexities of integrating subjective well-being measures into practical policymaking, highlighting both their potential benefits and inherent challenges.