The Multiple Uses of Subjective Well-Being Indicators

Abstract

There are barriers to the significant use of subjective well-being indicators in policy making. These barriers can be overcome, but this will take a co-ordinated effort. These indicators can play multiple roles. They can stimulate public debate, inform the development of formal or informal economic models, influence the choice of other indicators more directly related to policy outcomes, draw attention to important issues which might otherwise be ignored, input into a new form of cost benefit analysis, be used in before and after appraisal, and be used by the public to hold politicians to account. Subjective indicators are better placed to play these roles than either dashboards or indexes based on objective indicators. It is not clear whether they will play these roles and two scenarios are possible. In the first, the relatively marginal role the indicators are beginning to play in policy will be expand, but they will not move centre stage, or in any way challenge existing headline indicators such as gross domestic product. In the second, a set of tools is developed which politicians and journalists find useful, both for communicating and for developing their ideas. In this scenario, the ideas implicit in subjective well-being indicators find their way into public debate and thus drive policy change. As a result they do challenge existing headline indicators.