The bigger the better? Evidence of the effect of government size on life satisfaction around the world

Abstract

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in

Subjective Wellbeing Impacts of National and Subnational Fiscal Policies

“…For example, several papers look at the relationship between the size of government consumption and subjective wellbeing. Results include finding a negative relationship (Bjørnskov et al 2007, Oishi et al 2011), finding no relationship (Ram 2009), finding a positive relationship (Flavin et al 2011(Flavin et al , 2014, and finding an inverse U pattern (Hessami 2010). Other papers have looked at taxation with Flavin et al (2011Flavin et al ( , 2014 finding higher taxation associated with higher SWB.…”

The Size and Composition of Government Spending in Europe and Its Impact on Well-Being

“…To date, only few researchers have investigated the relationship between public spending and well‐being. Firstly, Bjørnskov et al (2007) conduct a worldwide cross‐country study and find that life satisfaction decreases with government consumption, whereas government capital formation and social spending appear to be irrelevant to subjective well‐being. This would suggest that the aforementioned benefit principle of taxation is violated with respect to government consumption 1 .…”

“…More specifically, it draws on a rich micro dataset based on the Eurobarometer Survey Series and covers twelve EU countries 3 from 1990 to 2000. Bjørnskov et al's (2007) study suffers from the shortcoming that the heterogeneity in a world‐wide cross‐sectional study of countries such as Venezuela, Vietnam, Zimbabwe, Tanzania and Uganda cannot be captured by just a few control variables. In addition, it is questionable whether the dependent variable of subjective well‐being can be compared across such a heterogeneous set of countries (Diener and Oishi 2006).…”

National well-being policy and a weighted approach to human feelings

“…Although expensive, such experiments may be a marker of research trends. They seem likely to be important in the future. Recent related work on well-being data and the determinants of human happiness includes Akay et al (2014), Biswas-Diener et al (2010), Aslam and Corrado (2012), Benjamin et al (2012, 2014), Clark (2014), Clark and Senik (2011), Deaton (2012), Decancq et al (2013), Easterlin (2013), Hammond et al (2012), Oswald and Wu (2010, 2011), and Stone et al (2010). On the foundations of national well-being decision-making, some of the early ideas can be found in sources such as Arrow et al (2003), Barnett et al (1998), Bates (2009), Berenger and Verdier-Chouchane (2007), Bjornskov et al (2007), Costanza et al (2007), D’acci (2011), Dasgupta (2009), Diener (2006), Diener et al (2008a,b), the volume by Diener et al (2008b), Dolan and Peasgood (2008), Dolan and White (2007), England (1998), Grant (2010), Hagerty et al (2001), Hagerty and Land (2007), Haidt et al (2008), Helliwell (2003, 2006), Helliwell and Huang (2008), Huang (2010), Jordan et al (2010), Kahneman et al (2004), Kahneman and Sugden (2005), Layard (2005, 2006), Moran et al (2008), NEF (2009), Ott (2011), Pacek and Radcliff (2008a,b), Ram (2009), Stigliz et al (2009), Veenhoven (2002), and Wulfgramm (2011). Modern research on the distinction between different kinds of well-being questions includes Benjamin et al (2012), Clark and Senik (2011), De Neve and Oswald (2012), Huppert et al (2009), Kahneman and Deaton (2010), Powdthavee and van den Berg (2011), and Stone and Mackie (2013). More broadly, some of the earlier work on well-being measurement and the empirical nature of utility functions, particularly from an economist’s point of view, includes Alesina et al (2004), Alpizar et al (2005), Blanchflower and Oswald (2004, <...>…”

“…On the foundations of national well-being decision-making, some of the early ideas can be found in sources such as Arrow et al (2003), Barnett et al (1998), Bates (2009), Berenger and Verdier-Chouchane (2007), Bjornskov et al (2007), Costanza et al (2007), D’acci (2011), Dasgupta (2009), Diener (2006), Diener et al (2008a,b), the volume by Diener et al (2008b), Dolan and Peasgood (2008), Dolan and White (2007), England (1998), Grant (2010), Hagerty et al (2001), Hagerty and Land (2007), Haidt et al (2008), Helliwell (2003, 2006), Helliwell and Huang (2008), Huang (2010), Jordan et al (2010), Kahneman et al (2004), Kahneman and Sugden (2005), Layard (2005, 2006), Moran et al (2008), NEF (2009), Ott (2011), Pacek and Radcliff (2008a,b), Ram (2009), Stigliz et al (2009), Veenhoven (2002), and Wulfgramm (2011).…”