The use of happiness research for public policy

Abstract

Research on happiness tends to follow a "benevolent dictator" approach where politicians pursue people's happiness. This paper takes an antithetic approach based on the insights of public choice theory. First, we inquire how the results of happiness research may be used to improve the choice of institutions. Second, we show that the policy approach matters for the choice of research questions and the kind of knowledge happiness research aims to provide. Third, we emphasize that there is no shortcut to an optimal policy maximizing some happiness indicator or social welfare function since governments have an incentive to manipulate this indicator.Research on happiness 1 has spurred a lively debate on new directions in public policy. Many governments, international organizations and think tanks commission reports on alternative measures of social progress and their policy consequences. 2 The scientific 1 The scientific term is subjective well-being. We do not in general distinguish between these concepts but simply use the more popular term "happiness". Distinctions between the various concepts are only made when it comes to particular measurements of subjective well-being and when empirical studies are referred to. Following the literature, the simpler and more popular term happiness is used where suitable.

Rethinking the shadow economy in terms of happiness. Evidence for the European Union Member States

“…The undertaking to identify a causal relationship between human happiness or well-being of citizens and the size of shadow economy begins with the study of Frey and Stutzer (2012) which acts as a synthesis and highlights that the extent of happiness may influence many important economic decisions such as working behavior, consumption activities, investment behavior and political behavior. Kahneman et al (2006) and Goossens et al (2007) also focused on the attempts to augment GDP by "happiness".…”

Should happiness guide social policy?

“…588-589;Haybron 2011: pp. 235-254;Frey and Stutzer 2012). A more challenging programme would be to charge government with taking care of people's subjective happiness, but in a different way from the neo-utilitarian approach, as Amartya Sen (2009) and Wren-Lewis (2013) have tried to do.…”

“…Happiness is equated with pleasure and a person is defined as happy if, at a certain moment, the sum of positive hedonic feelings exceeds the total of negative ones. Other researchers, such as Easterlin (2002), Diener (2006), Bartolini (2010), van Praag and Ferrer-i-Carbonell (2010), Veenhoven (2010) and Frey and Stutzer (2012), do not commit themselves to such a specific and restrictive notion of happiness, but prefer the generic term 'subjective well-being'. The latter can be defined as an evaluation of people's lives in light of three components: (1) the overall life satisfaction measured by a direct question, (2) frequent experiences of joy and other positive emotions and (3) a low level of negative feelings (de Prycker 2010: p. 586).…”

Combining career and care‐giving: The impact of family‐friendly policies on the well‐being of working mothers in the United Kingdom

“…One study noted that the potential for negative consequences of child-care responsibilities was high in Great Britain, and that different family policies may have different effects on the well-being of working mothers (Kriz, K., 2003, unpublished data). Subsequent studies have found associations between family-friendly policies and indicators of well-being (Engster & Stensöta, 2011;Frey & Stutzer, 2012;Kilburn, 2013) and have pointed out the health benefits of family-friendly policies for mothers, children, and families (Shahly et al, 2013). Still others have proposed that the measures of happiness and well-being be used in public policy decisions (Delhey & Kroll, 2013;Diener, 2000;Diener & Tov, 2012;Oswald, 2010), and that research be expanded to address the effect of institutional conditions on individuals' well-being (Frey & Stutzer, 2002).…”