http://repub.eur.nl/res/aut/23528/ List of Publications en http://repub.eur.nl/static-eur/img/logo.png http://repub.eur.nl http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/37948/ 2012-11-27T00:00:00Z Geluk is weliswaar afhankelijk van persoonlijkheid en optimisme of pessismisme, maar feitelijke omstandigheden verklaren bijna driekwart van de grote verschillen in gemiddeld geluk in landen. De kwaliteit van de overheid is hiervoor van groot belang. Een betere kwaliteit gaat samen met meer geluk, en als de kwaliteit goed is dan is de relatie tussen overheid en geluk positief en mag de overheid best groot zijn. Het proefschrift is gebaseerd op een analyse van belangrijke publicaties en een vergelijking van de situaties in 130 landen in 2006. Een goede kwaliteit van de overheid leidt uiteindelijk ook tot minder ongelijkheid in geluk. Omdat de overheid geluk kan bevorderen is het zinvol geluk als extra doel van de overheid te erkennen. In Nederland kan dat door een hoog gemiddeld geluk toe te voegen aan de drie doelen die nu door de SER zijn erkend: participatie in betaald werk, duurzame economische groei, en redelijke inkomensverschillen. Ott geeft aan dat vooral in arme landen het gemiddelde geluk kan toenemen door verbetering van de overheid. Er zijn echter geen aanwijzingen dat dit feitelijk ook gebeurt. Volgens het Instituut van de Wereld Bank, dat de kwaliteit van overheden beoordeelt, is er sinds 1998 geen sprake van een stijgende kwaliteit. Economische groei in rijke landen levert nog maar nauwelijks extra geluk op. Dat betekent dat overheden in rijke landen hun prioriteiten kunnen herzien. Ze kunnen meer prioriteit toekennen aan duurzaamheid om het geluk van toekomstige generaties te beschermen. Ook kunnen ze meer aandacht besteden aan de mensen die in andere landen ongelukkig zijn, en aan de kleine groep ongelukkige mensen in eigen rijke land. Tenslotte kunnen ze iets doen aan de ‘mid-life dip’, dat is het verschijnsel dat mensen tussen de 40 en 50 jaar wat minder gelukkig zijn dan jongeren en ouderen. Stress door werkloosheid, of door de dreiging van werkloosheid, is een vermoedelijke oorzaak. Het organiseren van meer vrijwilligerswerk, ook voor mensen met een uitkering, kan een methode zijn om die stress te verminderen. De geldeconomie doet dan een stapje terug. http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/34817/ 2012-01-01T00:00:00Z Abstract In 2002 Sissela Bok re-published her book ‘‘Common Values’’, first published in 1995, about her search for a minimal set of values to be respected all over the world. In her view such a set of values is needed to facilitate international communication and cooperation. Values already recognized in every society can be included as a starting point. In her book ‘‘Exploring happiness’’, published in 2010, she explains why she finds happiness unfit to be included. She observes that there are discordant claims about what happiness is. Any particular vision can lead to practical choices that either adhere or violate the values she prefers. In my view subjective happiness should be included, because there are no discordant claims about the meaning of subjective happiness, and subjective happiness is simultaneously attractive as a moral value and as an object of scientific research. Subjective happiness can function as a bridge between science and morality. The only discordant claims are about ‘objective’ happiness, as a wider interpretation of well-being in the context of some specific morality or ideology. http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/34816/ 2012-01-01T00:00:00Z Abstract In his book ‘‘The Politics of Happiness’’ Derek Bok argues that happiness should be a goal in public policy. He presents an inventory of social problems in the US with negative effects on happiness, like inadequate education, chronic pain, sleep disorders, depressions, divorce, single-parent families, and financial hardship. He presents interesting options to deal with these problems. He also pays attention to some more general happiness-issues for US-policymakers, like the question of economic growth without happiness and the reputation of the US-government. Bok’s findings are consistent with available data about the high levels of negative feelings in the US: stress, depressions, sadness, anger and worry. His message is quite clear: policy-makers can use the findings of happiness-research to improve their decisions. http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/30792/ 2011-06-01T00:00:00Z http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/25485/ 2011-05-01T00:00:00Z 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. http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/16280/ 2010-06-01T00:00:00Z 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. http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/19705/ 2010-05-06T00:00:00Z 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. http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/20616/ 2010-01-01T00:00:00Z Happiness and utility are two types of subjective well-being, but measured in different ways. Happiness is measured by asking people questions about their subjective appreciation of their life as a whole. Utility is measured by an assessment of their subjective priorities, as revealed in their actual behaviour. Both methods have specific pros and cons and additional value. These methodological issues are important in an epistemological way: how to obtain knowledge about subjective well-being. There are, however, also three important ontological differences between happiness and utility in the actual nature of these phenomena in reality. (1) Happiness depends on available market and non-market commodities and living-conditions; utility depends only on available market-commodities. (2) Happiness is about experienced well-being, utility is about expected well-being. (3) Happiness is limited because it is related to the fulfilment of a limited number of needs, utility is unlimited because behaviour always reveals preferences in terms of expected well-being. Economists and happiness-researchers tend to neglect the last two differences. Their analysis, the analysis of Carol Graham included, could gain strength if more attention would be paid to these last two differences. http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/30758/ 2009-04-01T00:00:00Z http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/14871/ 2009-02-19T00:00:00Z If politicians and their advisers want to promote the well-being or happiness of citizens they have three ways to find out what they should do. (1) They can analyse the behaviour and the decisions of citizens to find out what they want, in other words: they can try to identify their “revealed preferences”. This is common practice in economics. (2) They can analyse the “stated preferences” of people as they express them explicitly in inquiries, referenda, polls and elections. (3) They can analyse the conditions that make people happy by comparing the conditions of people at different levels of happiness. Economists, like Helen Johns and Paul Ormerod, have an outspoken preference for the first option and they are sceptical about the third. Their argument is unbalanced because they are too critical about the authenticity and complexity of self-reported happiness and not critical enough about the authenticity and complexity of revealed preferences. Economists should appreciate the comparative advantages and additional value of each option and try to find optimal combinations with synergistic effects. Economists should appreciate happiness research as an option to assess the nature and magnitude of “externalities” within their own discipline. http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/14873/ 2009-02-19T00:00:00Z Politici die het welzijn en het geluk van hun burgers willen vergroten hebben eigenlijk maar drie mogelijkheden om te bepalen wat ze dan moeten doen. (1) Ze kunnen het gedrag en de beslissingen van burgers analyseren om te zien wat die burgers belangrijk vinden; dat betekent dat ze zich richten op de kennelijke voorkeuren (“revealed preferences”). Het gaat dan vooral om economische beslissingen, kopen, verkopen, sparen en investeren. Dit is dan ook de methode die in de economische wetenschap wordt toegepast. (2) Ze kunnen zich ook richten op de expliciet uitgesproken voorkeuren (“stated preferences”); dat wil zeggen de voorkeuren zoals die expliciet worden verwoord in opiniepeilingen, referenda en verkiezingen. (3) Ze kunnen bezien onder welke omstandigheden burgers zelf aangeven dat ze zich gelukkig voelen (“zelf-gerapporteerd geluk”). In dit artikel laat ik zien dat laatstgenoemde methodiek een bijzondere toegevoegde waarde heeft; ik doe dat eerst in algemene zin en vervolgens aan de hand van een voorbeeld: het universele belang van een competente overheid voor het geluk in landen. http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/14874/ 2009-02-19T00:00:00Z What can you do if you think you are not as happy as happy could be, and you can spend some money? One option: visit the experts around the world, collect their advice, and make a film about your experiences. That is what Line Hatland did. Her film is a summary of happiness research, nicely visualized with a good sense of humour. The film is a pleasant way to make people familiar with happiness research, and watching it together can be a good start for a discussion about happiness as such. http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/30791/ 2009-01-01T00:00:00Z If politicians and their advisers want to promote the well-being or happiness of citizens they have three ways to find out what they should do. (1) They can analyse the behaviour and the decisions of citizens to find out what they want, in other words: they can try to identify their ‘‘revealed preferences’’. This is common practice in economics. (2) They can analyse the ‘‘stated preferences’’ of people as they express them explicitly in inquiries, referenda, polls and elections. (3) They can analyse the conditions that make people happy by comparing the conditions of people at different levels of happiness. Economists, like Helen Johns and Paul Ormerod, have an outspoken preference for the first option and they are sceptical about the third. Their argument is unbalanced because they are too critical about the authenticity and complexity of self-reported happiness and not critical enough about the authenticity and complexity of revealed preferences. Economists should appreciate the comparative advantages and additional value of each option and try to find optimal combinations with synergistic effects. Economists should appreciate happiness research as an option to assess the nature and magnitude of ‘‘externalities’’ within their own discipline. http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/20540/ 2007-01-01T00:00:00Z http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/30818/ 2006-11-01T00:00:00Z http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/30793/ 2006-03-01T00:00:00Z Richard Layard is an economist and an expert in unemployment and inequality. He worked for the British government as an economic advisor and in 2000 he became a member of the House of Lords. His ambition is to shift the direction of public policy away from crude economic goals like wealth to "well-being" and "quality of life". Layard advocates an evidence-based utilitarian policy approach and tries to demonstrate how the insights of the new happiness science, in particular positive psychology, can be incorporated in economics in order to develop a new vision of which lifestyles and policies are sensible. For Layard, happiness is feeling good and wanting to maintain this feeling. Unhappiness is feeling bad and wishing things were different. If people report their feelings, they take a long view and accept ups and downs. Since positive feelings damp down negative feelings and vice versa we may assume that happiness is a one-dimensional concept; it is not possible to be happy and unhappy at the same time. Layard rejects - as being paternalistic - the idea of John Stuart Mill to distinguish between types of happiness in terms of higher pleasures, associated with virtuous conduct and philosophical reflection, and lower superficial pleasures. Layard does believe, however, that people who achieve some sense of meaning in life are happier than those who live from one pleasure to the next. http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/30796/ 2006-03-01T00:00:00Z http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/30800/ 2005-09-01T00:00:00Z http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/30795/ 2005-01-01T00:00:00Z ABSTRACT. 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 economi http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/30821/ 2005-01-01T00:00:00Z http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/30822/ 2001-12-01T00:00:00Z Robert Lane is a seasoned critic of American consumer society. His latest book summarizes many of the arguments brought up earlier and contributes new data about developments in income, companionship and happiness in the USA between 1972 and 1994. Lane notes a considerable rise in incomes over these years and claims that companionship and happiness have declined. He attributes this decline to market forces that emphasize money at the expense of intimate bonds, resulting in a weakened capacity to deal with stress.This review challenges two of the book's hypotheses. First, it shows that happiness did not decline in the USA in these years, but was actually quite stable. Second, it mitigates the assertion that companionship has dwindled and notes that money making and companionship are not necessarily antithetical.Still, Lane could be right. Possibly market forces did depress happiness and possibly that loss was offset by improvements in other fields, like increased freedom or better health care, such as better treatment for mental problems. If so, Lane's message is that Americans could have been happier than they ultimately were.