Global Issues
Happiness Across Countries
General Overview
A major impact on an individual’s happiness is the influence that one’s country has over one’s life; and economics plays a large part in this issue. When looking at happiness across countries in relation to the economy, it is important to compare the income of the citizens to the overall level of happiness. According to Richard Layard, there is a limited relationship between income and happiness. Through his research, it is apparent that if a country does not have over $15,000 per capita, the levels of happiness decrease, impacting mainly poorer countries. However, if there is more than $15,000 per capita, income and happiness seem to be independent from each other, and happiness is determined more by structural problems such as politics, unemployment, personal interests such as family and friends, and health.
Within the United States there is a distribution of incomes that represents the impact that income has on happiness. For example a survey in 1975 found that 39% of the rich considered themselves very happy, where as only 19% of the poor considered themselves very happy.
Not only does this chart illustrate the relation between income and happiness explained before, but it also shows the importance of politics and happiness. Communism and the collapse of communism had an extremely negative impact on happiness during the 1990s when the survey for this graph was taken. All ex-Communist countries except Poland reported lower happiness levels than India, and the people of Russia and Belarus were considered some of the most “miserable” people on earth. It is obvious to see that people hated communism and its effect on the economy. Economic, personal, and political freedom, things which Communism limits, are all important factors that impact a country’s level of happiness.
I might be a concern to some about the methods of measuring happiness between countries because of the language gap. However, the understanding of the concept of happiness in different languages is universal.
Of course one could question whether the word ‘happy’ means the same thing in different languages. If it does not, we can learn nothing by comparing different countries. However countries can be rated separately on three different measures: how ‘happy’ they are, how ‘satisfied’ they are, and what score they give to life, using a scale running from ‘worst possible life’ to the ‘best’. The ranking of countries is almost identical on all three measures.18 This suggests that words are not causing a problem. (Layard 1, 17)
It has also been shown with convincing evidence that these words have the same meaning in different languages. Some Chinese students were asked to answer the question on happiness in both English and Chinese with two weeks in between. Even with two completely different languages, the results were the same. The concept of happiness is also almost completely universal within different cultures with a 99% response rate.
Important term when looking at happiness across counties are that of utility and status. Economic utility is defined as what guides individual, economic choice and behavior. It is the outcome of both choice and chance. Status is the position one has in relation to others, both individually and between countries.
Economic Growth
Economic growth of a country as a whole and as individuals expanding the income gap both affect the overall happiness of a country, directly relating to status. If one country’s GDP grows relative to that of its neighbors, then the high growth country will be happier. For counties, the best outcome for happiness is if it has a higher income than its neighbors. It is argued that even in Western countries that are believed to have a relatively flat happiness level over time, economic growth has an impact of happiness levels. Again, status is important, even in rich countries.
Bernard Mandeville’s theory of status and happiness is illustrated through his example of beehives. If one beehive was not motivated by improvement in status, it would be considered happy, but not rich. However, if another beehive was motivated by improvement in status, it would be wealthier and more powerful, therefore able to take over the beehive with no status.
Status also affects the happiness of people within a country, for the more unequal the distribution of wealth is, the more unhappy a country will be.
Poverty
Although poverty would seem to be an easy way to define happiness, this is not the case. Poverty is defined by governments as being under a standard poverty line, the cost of caloric intake, and minimum living standards. The World Bank gave the limit of absolute poverty as living under $1 per day. Poverty level, however, seems hard to define with happiness because much more than income has to be taken into account, such as material and natural elements, such as sunshine, that would also influence choices. However, many people believe it is safe to assume that a person with a low income below the poverty line would be considered less happy.
Migration
One of the main forces of migration is the potential high earnings in another country. A person who believes that they will have a larger income in another country will be more willing to move to that country than someone who does not. Many people will have their family stay behind as a reference group which would give the family a higher status because those abroad make more in their host country than they would in their original country. This also gives those who went abroad a sense of still being attached to their country of origin.
There are two possibilities for migration dynamics. This first is that people will migrate voluntarily in spite of adaptation, therefore having a high status in both countries. The second results from exceptionally low consumption in the home country so that the evacuations become “forced.” Migrants may also influence others to immigrate as well, wanting the same increase in status by reducing the reference income they face in the host country.
In order to prevent a large influx of immigrants, Canada and Australia operate a point system so that potential immigrants must have something exceptional to offer the country in order to gain a visa. This hopes to attract the first type of immigrant shown above, and to prevent the second.
Work Cited
Layard, Richard. "Lionel Robbins Memorial Lectures 2002/3: Happiness, Has Social Science Got a Clue?" Delivered on 3, 4, 5 March 2003. London School of Economics
Clark, Andrew Eric, Frijters, Paul and Shields, Michael A., "Relative Income, Happiness and Utility: An Explanation for the Easterlin Paradox and Other Puzzles" (June 2007). IZA Discussion Paper No. 2840 Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=998225
