Robert A. CumminsAustralian Centre on Quality of Life
Deakin University
Happiness and Public Policy
http://www.deakin.edu.au/research/acqol
The traditional route to happiness is money
So the best public policy for increasing happiness,
according to Economists
is to make populations richer
So, around the world, prior to 1970’s
Quality of Life = GDP.
Economic growth and
Subjective Wellbeing in Japan
Deflated GDP/capita
(Diener & Biswas-Diener, 2002)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
1958 1960 1962 1964 1966 1970 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1987
Year
GDP is held as a percent
of its 1958 value
Increasing GDP does NOT = increasing happiness!
Deflated GDP/capita
Life Satisfaction
(Diener & Biswas-Diener, 2002)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
1958 1960 1962 1964 1966 1970 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1987
Year
GDP is held as a percent
of its 1958 value
Life satisfactionis the actual
value foreach year
Quality of Life
Objective QOL Subjective Wellbeing[happiness]
Objective Conditionse.g. Physical health
Subjective Perceptionse.g. Satisfaction with health
?
Subjective Wellbeing
A positive state of mind that involves the whole life experience
How do we measure it?
How satisfied are you with your-----[life domain]?
“How satisfied are you with your life as a whole”?
This can be broken down in a number ofLife Domains
How can we recognize the MINIMUM number of life domains?
“How satisfied are you with your life as a whole?”
Standard of living
Health
Achieving in life
Relationships
Safety
Community connectedness
Future security
Spirituality/Religion
Domains: all must contribute unique variance
β
ββ
β
β
ββ
β
Personal Wellbeing Index
• Standard of living• Health• Achieving in life• Relationships• Safety• Community connectedness• Future security• Spirituality/Religion
How satisfied are you with your-----?
How satisfied are you with your ----?
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 8 9 10
CompletelyDissatisfied
CompletelySatisfiedMixed
[Jones and Thurstone ,1955]
11-point, end-defined scale
We code all data to lie on a range from
0 100
Completedissatisfaction
Completesatisfaction
Why is subjective wellbeing important?
Positive emotions build a range of personal resources as:
Physical resources (health, longevity)
Social resources (friendliness, social capital)
Intellectual resources (intellectual curiosity, expert knowledge,)
Psychological resources (resilience, optimism, creativity)
In 2000 we linked with our industry partner, Australian Unity
Purpose: to create a quarterly index of subjective wellbeing for the Australian
population.
As an alternative to the traditional economic indicators such as GDP
This is a world first
No other country has a quarterly wellbeing index
(but others are going to follow)
The International Wellbeing Group 48 Countries and Provinces
AlgeriaArgentinaAustraliaAustriaBelgiumBrazilCanadaChina (Hong Kong ) (Macau) [from 2007-2/yr] (Qinghai province, Yushu
prefecture) (Shandong Province)CroatiaEnglandFinlandFrance
GermanyGreenlandHungaryIranIrelandIsraelItalyJapanLaosLatin AmericaLebanonMalaysiaMexicoNetherlandsNew ZealandNorway
PakistanPhilippinesPolandPortugalRomaniaRussiaRwandaSingaporeSlovakiaSouth AfricaSpainSwitzerlandTaiwan[Thailand]USAWest Indies
The Australian Unity Wellbeing Index Surveys
Geographically representative sample
N = 2,000
Telephone interview
#1: April 2001
------------
#17: April 2007
PWI 2001 - 2007
87654321
SurveyDate
Major eventspreceding survey
>S11
>S2, S4, S5
Scores above this line aresignificantly higher than S1
72
73
74
75
76
77
S1
Apr 2
001
S2 Sep
t 200
1
S3 M
ar 2
002
S4 Aug
200
2
S5 Nov
200
2
S6 M
ar 2
003
S7 Ju
n 20
03
S8 Aug
200
3
S9 Nov
200
3
S10 F
eb 2
004
S11 M
ay 2
004
S12 A
ug 2
004
S13 M
ay 2
005
S14 O
ct 2
005
S15 M
ay 2
006
S16 O
ct 2
006
S17 A
pr 2
007
Strengthof
satisfaction
Key: 1 = September 11 2 = Bali Bombing 3 = Pre-Iraq War 4 = Hussein Deposed 5 = Athens Olympic 6 = Asian Tsunami 7 = Second Bali Bombing 8 = New Industrial Relations Laws
Normative range using survey mean scores as data (N=17)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
SD = 0.8
Mean = 74.9
76.4
73.4
SubjectiveWellbeing
Very satisfied
Very dissatisfied
Why is subjective wellbeing held so steady?
Homeostasis
Just like we hold body temperature steady
Subjective wellbeing homeostasis
Each person has a set-point for their subjective wellbeing.
60
90
Range forindividualset-points
These set-points lie between
60 and 90
Set-points are always POSITIVEie above 50
The average set-point is 75.
75
60
90
Range For
individualset-points
[The set-point for the average person ]
Each person has a set-point for their subjective wellbeing.
75
Time
60
90
When nothing much is happening to them, people rate how they feel about their life in terms of their set-point for SWB
The average set-point
Homeostasis can fail
OverwhelmingNegative
Challenges
Subjective wellbeing
The result of subjective wellbeing loss is depression
Homeostasis can be defeated by:
Poverty
Chronic pain (arthritis)
Chronic stress (carers)
Lack of intimacy
Living conditions (street-kids)
Incarceration (prisoners)
But people are RESILIENT !
Challengingsituations
Subjective wellbeingX
External resources(eg. relationships,
money)
Internal resources(eg. Finding meaning
for the bad event)
This is why there is normally such a poor relationship betweensubjective Wellbeing and the objective QOL indicators
Persistent homeostatic failure[demands chronically exceed resources]
40
Time
Subjective wellbeing
Depression
60
90
How can these subjective social indicators be used to enhance
population happiness?
A. They can tell us about when additional resources are, and are not, likely to benefit SWB
The effect of both on SWB is not linear (ie more is not necessarily better)
BUT
The relationship of both with SWB can be understood via homeostasis
Does greater wealth always benefit SWB?
NO
Income and subjective wellbeing
Median
Total N ≈ 30,000
76.3
Normal Range
73.0
*78.0
*76.5
*73.9
71.7
74.9
78.3
79.2
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
<$15 $15-30 $31-60 $61-90 $91-120 $121-150 $150+
Household Income ($'000)
Subjectivewellbeing *
Beyond a certain income there is no further benefit to subjective wellbeing
B.Subjective Social Indicators be used---
to identify geographic areas that require additional resources
Parliament House in Canberra
In 2005 we compared theSubjective Wellbeing of
the 150 Federal electorates
New South Wales
Above average Below averageAverage
Summary Both objective and subjective social
indicators provide important and different information
Both sources of information used to make policy decisions
Optimization of Social Development according tothe availability and distribution of resources
Objective Social Indicators
e.g. National wealth
Subjective Social Indicators
e.g. Subjective Wellbeing