Subjective Social Indicators: Benefits and Limitations for Policy Making—An Introduction to this Special Issue

Abstract

Although the field of empirical ‘‘happiness research’’ or the ‘‘new science of happiness’’— as it was overzealously named by Richard Layard—has been prospering in recent years and attracting considerable interest by policy makers, the usefulness of happiness indicators—or more generally subjective social indicators—for policy making purposes continues to be controversial: There are numerous advocates of the notion that subjective indicators can and should be used to better inform policy makers, but also many critical voices pointing to the ambivalent nature of this sort of information and indicators as well as to the risks of making use of them in everyday political decision making. The currently flourishing debate is all but new however. Particularly Scandinavian researchers representing a resources based notion of welfare or well-being have in their majority always been critical toward the use of subjective indicators for policy making purposes. According to Robert Erikson—one of the most eminent proponents of the Swedish ‘‘level of living approach’’—‘‘people’s opinions and preferences should go into the democratic political process through their activities as citizens, but not through survey questions and opinion polls’’ (Erikson 1993: 78). Contrary to this position, happiness researchers have consistently underlined that policy makers need to take subjective indicators into account, at least in addition to objective indicators: ‘‘...subjective indicators are indispensable in social policy, both for assessing policy success and for selecting policy goals’’ (Veenhoven 2002: 40). Currently, those advocating the use of ‘‘happiness research’’—results and measures of subjective well-being in the policy making process seem to outbalance those raising doubts whether ‘‘the scientific basis of happiness research (is) sufficiently strong to base important public policy considerations on it’’ (Whittington 2007). In recent years, it has not only been proposed to make use of this sort of research and information in specific policy making fields, e.g. health, or the labour market, but even to establish national accounts of (subjective) well-being (Diener et al. 2009; Michaelson et al. 2009). On the other hand, policy