Is Happiness a Trait?

markdownabstract__Abstract__ One of the ideological foundations of the modern welfare states is the belief that people can be made happier by providing them with better living conditions. This belief is challenged by the idea that happiness tends to remain at the same level and will therefore hardly change when living conditions improve. This counter intuitive thought draws to two theories of happiness. One theory holds that happiness is a fixed “trait,” rather than a variable “state.” This theory figures both at the individual level and at the societal level. The individual level variant depicts happiness as an aspect of personal character, rooted in inborn temperament or acquired disposition and is commonly referred to as the “set point” theory of happiness. The societal variant sees happiness as a matter of national character, embedded in shared values and beliefs. This variant has been called “folklore theory.” Both variants imply that a better society makes no happier people. The second theory holds that happiness is a matter of comparison and that different standards of comparison are involved, such as described in Michalos (1985) “ multiple discrepancies theory” of happiness. In that context it is then assumed that standards tend to shift over time and that these shifts nullify the effects of improvements in living conditions. This is seen to lead us in a “hedonic treadmill,” where we remain equally happy subjectively in spite of progress in an objective sense (e.g., Brickman & Campbell, 1971). This idea of stable happiness figures in several discussions, one of which is the debate on the value of economic growth. In that context the “ Easterlin Paradox” holds that average happiness in nations has remained at the same level over the last decade in spite of constant economic growth (Easterlin, 1974).

There are dramatic differences in average happiness across nations ranging from 3.24 in Togo to 8.00 in Denmark on a 0–10-points scale. These differences are an indication that collective conditions in nations are important for happiness. Can governments play a role in the creation of such conditions? This question is addressed in an analysis of average happiness in 131 nations in 2006. The following sub-questions are considered. (1) Is there a positive correlation between average happiness in nations and the quality or the size of governments? (2) Can we explain a positive correlation in terms of causality? (3) Can we specify causality by discerning direct and indirect effects? (4) What about governments and inequality in happiness? (5) What can governments do to increase happiness intentionally? The conclusion is that the technical quality of governments is an important cause for average happiness in nations, and this causality can be specified to some extent. Good governments also reduce inequality of happiness in nations eventually. The implication is that governments can increase average happiness, and in due time reduce inequality in happiness, and that they have some non-controversial options to do so on purpose.

Average happiness differs markedly across nations and there appears to be a system in these differences. This paper considers the role of quality of governance, and in particular the role of technical quality as opposed to democratic quality. A comparison of 127 nations in 2006 shows strong correlations between the quality of governance and average happiness of citizens. The correlation between technical quality and happiness is +0.75 and the correlation between democratic quality and happiness is +0.60. Technical quality correlates with happiness in rich and poor nations, while democratic quality only correlates with happiness in rich nations. The quality of governance appears to be more important for happiness than the size of governments: the relation between quality and happiness is independent of size, while the relation between size and happiness fully depends on quality. The correlation between technical quality and happiness appears to be independent of culture; it exists not only in western nations, but also in Eastern Europe, Latin America, the Middle East, Asia and Africa. This indicates that technically good governance is a universal condition for happiness, and not just a western ideology. Democratic quality adds substantially to the positive effects of technical quality once technical quality has reached some minimal level.

Cross-national studies on happiness have revealed large differences, not only is average happiness higher in rich nations than in poor ones, but there are also sizable differences in happiness among rich nations. For instance, the Finns are happier than the French, while GDP per capita is similar in France and Finland. In this paper we discuss whether freedom can explain that difference. The Finns feel more free than the French do. Does this discrepancy in perceived freedom correspond to a difference in actual freedom? Following Bay, we distinguished three kinds of actual freedom: social freedom, potential freedom and psychological freedom. In a comparative analysis of 49 nations we find that actual freedom reflects only partially in perceived freedom and that all kinds of freedom have some independent relation with average happiness. Psychological freedom is most strongly related to happiness in rich nations. The Finns are happier than the French because they dare more to be free.

Freedom in nations can affect the happiness of citizens both positively and negatively.This study takes stock of the balance of effects.It considers 1) whether there is a positive net-effect at all, 2) which freedom variants contribute most to happiness 3) in what conditions.Freedom is conceived as chance to choose, requiring 'opportunity' to choose, and 'capability' to choose.Opportunity to choose is measured by absence of restrictions in economic, political and personal life.Capability to choose is measured by information and inclination to go one's own way.Happiness is conceived as the overall appreciation of ones life as a whole.Average happiness in nations is measured by responses to questions on the matter in representative surveys. Data on both freedom and happiness is available for 46 nations in the early 1990's. Analysis shows first of all positive correlations between freedom and happiness. Yet closer analysis reveals that freedom and happiness do not always concur.Freedom is positively related to happiness among rich nations, but not among poor nations.Apparently freedom does not pay in poverty.Further, freedom is related to happiness only when 'opportunity' and 'capability' coincide.A notable exception is economic freedom.Opportunity for free trade is positively related to happiness in poor nations, but not in rich nations.Similarly, the relation between economic freedom and happiness is strongest in nations where capability to choose is lowest.The findings show that freedom does not always breed happiness, and suggest that economic freedom deserves priority.

Average evaluative happiness in nations can be explained quite well with a limited number of factors, related to objective realities. The quality of governments is the most crucial factor. This quality is important in direct contacts between government agencies and citizens: citizens want to be treated respectfully, carefully and without discrimination. It is also important in an indirect way, because good governments can create living conditions that facilitate the pursuit of happiness. Important conditions are healthcare and rule of law, to protect individual freedom, private property and equality before the law. Such conditions are directly related to the fundamental need for safety and security. But good governments can also promote education, monetary stability and international trade relations. In a nutshell we may say that good governments protect the effectiveness of free markets and create stability and predictability, so that people can make their own plans and pursue their own happiness. There is no need for big governments because their quality is more important than their size. It is understandable that people underestimate the importance of governments for their happiness. They are more interested in individual differences in their own environment, and are usually unaware of the differences in average happiness in different nations. People are also critical about governments. They usually dislike relations based on hierarchy and prefer relations based on equality and consensus. They are also afraid that governments will create dependency and apathy. The relation between citizens and governments is a sensitive issue but can be managed.

The ‘Easterlin paradox’ holds that economic growth does not add to the quality-of-life and that this appears in the fact that average happiness in nations has not risen in the last few decades. The latest trend data show otherwise. Average happiness has increased slightly in rich nations and considerably in the few poor nations for which data are available. Since longevity has also increased, the average number of happy life years has increased at an unprecedented rate since the 1950s.

The 'Easterlin Paradox' holds that economic growth in nations does not buy greater happiness for the average citizen. This thesis was advanced in the 1970s on the basis of the then available data on happiness in nations. Later data have disproved most of the empirical claims behind the thesis, but Easterlin still maintains that there is no long-term correlation between economic growth and happiness. This last claim was tested using the time trend data available in the World Database of Happiness, which involve 1531 data points in 67 nations that yield 199 time-series ranging from 10 to more than 40 years. The analysis reveals a positive correlation between GDP growth and rise of in happiness in nations. Both GDP and happiness have gone up in most nations, and average happiness has risen more in nations where the economy has grown the most; r =+0.21 p< 05. On average a 1% growth in income per capita per year was followed by a rise in average happiness on scale 0-10 of 0.00335; thus a gain in happiness of a full point would take 60 years with an annual economic growth of 5%.

The aim of this study is to test the explanatory power of happiness on survival at the aggregate level. Based on previous findings that psychological stress adversely affects survival and that its effect on survival is more severe for men, this study uses the sex difference in, rather than the level of, life expectancy as the dependent variable. As long as psychological stress and happiness are negatively correlated, happiness is expected to have a greater impact on men’s life expectancy and negatively influence the life expectancy gap between women and men. However, at the same time, the causality is expected to run in both directions. In the reverse direction from the life expectancy gap to national happiness, the intermediary is the women’s widowhood ratio. Since the widowed are, on average, less happy, an increase in the life expectancy gap, which raises the women’s widowhood ratio, is expected to lower women’s average happiness. For this reason, this study first investigates the reverse causality and demonstrates that the life expectancy gap negatively affects national happiness. Then, taking this reverse causality into account, it shows that happiness is significant in explaining the cross-country differences in the life expectancy gap. As national average happiness decreases, the sex difference in life expectancy increases. This result suggests that happiness has a significant impact on survival even at the aggregate level.

Mental disorder is a main cause of unhappiness in modern society and investment in mental health care is therefore likely to add to average happiness. This prediction was checked in a comparison of 143 nations around 2005. Absolute investment in mental health care was measured using the per capita number of psychiatrists and psychologists working in mental health care. Relative investment was measured using the share of mental health care in the total health budget. Average happiness in nations was measured with responses to survey questions about life-satisfaction. Average happiness appeared to be higher in countries that invest more in mental health care, both absolutely and relative to investment in somatic medicine. A data split by level of development shows that this difference exists only among developed nations. Among these nations the link between mental health care and happiness is quite strong, both in an absolute sense and compared to other known societal determinants of happiness. The correlation between happiness and share of mental health care in the total health budget is twice as strong as the correlation between happiness and size of the health budget. A causal effect is likely, but cannot be proved in this cross-sectional analysis.

textabstractINCOME INEQUALITY AND HAPPINESS IN 119 NATIONS All modern nations reduce income differences to some extent, and as a result there is an ongoing discussion about what degree of income inequality is acceptable. In this discussion libertarians oppose egalitarians and a principled consensus between these positions is not possible. Consensus can only be reached on the basis of a consequential ethic and one of these is the ‘greatest happiness principle’. In this paper the utilitarian approach is followed and the relation between income inequality and happiness in 119 nations is considered. Overall happiness is conceptualized as the‘subjective appreciation of life as a whole’ and is measured using responses to survey questions. We considered both average happiness and spread of happiness. We found little relationship between income inequality and average happiness in nations. There was no correlation with average happiness, a slightly positive correlation with average mood and a slightly negative correlation with average contentment. All these correlations became positive when wealth of the nation was controlled. Spread of happiness tended to be larger in income unequal nations, but this effect disappeared when wealth of the nation was controlled. Correlations reflect the balance of positive and negative effects; in the case of average happiness the positive effects prevailed and in the case of spread both effects balanced out. The data do not show a point where the balance shifts

One of the ideological foundations of the modern welfare states is the belief that people can be made happier by providing them with better living conditions. This belief is challenged by the theory that happiness is a fixed ‘trait’, rather than a variable ‘state’. This theory figures both at the individual level and at the societal level. The individual level variant depicts happiness as an aspect of personal character; rooted in inborn temperament or acquired disposition. The societal variant sees happiness as a matter of national character; embedded in shared values and beliefs. Both variants imply that a better society makes no happier people.

There are substantial differences in happiness in nations. Average happiness on scale 0–10 ranges in 2006 from 3.24 in Togo to 8.00 in Denmark and the inequality of happiness, as measured by the standard deviation, ranges from 0.85 in Laos to 3.02 in the Dominican Republic. Much of these differences are due to quality of governance and in particular to ‘technical’ quality. Once a minimum level is reached, rising technical quality boosts average happiness proportionally. Good governance does not only produce a higher level of happiness, but also lowers inequality of happiness among citizens. The relation between good governance and inequality of happiness is not linear, but follows a bell shaped pattern, inequality of happiness being highest in nations where the quality of government is at a medium level. The relation between the size of government and average happiness depends heavily on the quality of government; good-big government adds to happiness but bad-big government does not. Possible explanations of these findings are discussed.

Utilitarians and egalitarians have different priorities. Utilitarians prioritize the greatest level of happiness in society and are prepared to accept inequality, while egalitarians prioritize the smallest differences and are willing to accept a loss of happiness for this purpose. In theory these moral tenets conflict, but do they really clash in practice? This question is answered in two steps. First I consider the relation between level and inequality of happiness in nations; level of happiness is measured using average responses to a survey question on life satisfaction and inequality is measured with the standard deviation. There appears to be a strong negative correlation; in nations where average happiness is high, the standard deviation tends to be low. This indicates harmony instead of tension. Secondly I consider the institutional factors that are likely to affect happiness. It appears that level and equality of happiness depend largely on the same institutional context, which is another indication for harmony. We may conclude that the discussion between utilitarians and egalitarians is of little practical importance. This conclusion implies that increasing income inequality can go together with decreasing inequality in happiness and this conclusion provides moral support for Governments developing modern market economics

Affective happiness, cognitive happiness and overall happiness are usually measured with survey questions. The reliability and validity of the answers are acceptable, even if people can be somewhat ‘positive’, for psychological or strategic reasons. The measurement of evaluative happiness is easier than the measurement of affective happiness. This is one reason to focus primarily on evaluative happiness as a standard in personal life and in politics. Another more fundamental reason is that evaluative happiness is based on standards people have adopted or accepted themselves. A focus on evaluative happiness may never imply that affective happiness will be ignored. There is no general theory for the explanation of happiness, but there are explanations for differences in average happiness in nations and in individual happiness within nations. The explanations of the dramatic differences in average evaluative happiness in nations, with factors related to objective realities, are effective. This is an indication that the comparability of happiness is at least reasonable. It is also an indication that the impact of objective realities is not fully overruled by anything else, like cultural or social-psychological differences, or differences in average national personality or genetics. The explanations of differences in individual happiness within nations are not effective. This might be a consequence of a lack of information about individual differences in long-term affective happiness, and in individual characteristics related to personality and genetics. A more fundamental reason might be a lack of comparability of individual happiness within nations.