Money does buy happiness, it turns out
Two years ago the Gallup Organization polled people in 132 nations on what the economists like to call "life satisfaction" and what we call happiness. To the surprise of some, the study showed that people in rich countries are far happier than those in poor countries. There is a myth (blame Jean-Jacques Rousseau) that indigent peasants live in primitive bliss and that only modern technology and stress bring misery. The Gallup responses, crunched by Princeton economist Angus Deaton, demolish such a notion.
Happiest are the Danes, Swiss, Norwegians, Canadians and Australians, according to Deaton's paper. Unhappiest are those in Cambodia, Togo, Chad, Sierra Leone and Niger. Of course the first set of nations is quite wealthy and the second set quite poor. But it's not an either-or situation. A little more income brings a little more happiness, and a moderate amount of income brings a like portion of life satisfaction. South Korea is roughly half as wealthy -- and half as happy -- as Finland. Russia is half as wealthy and half as happy as South Korea -- but a heck of a lot happier than Togo.
There are exceptions. India is poorer but happier than China. Pakistan is much more satisfied with life than India, even though incomes are similar. And the United States underachieves in the happiness race, ranking below less-wealthy nations such as Canada and Denmark. These are averages, of course. But you're far more likely to score high on the happymeter if you live in a developed nation. Psychologist Abraham Mazlow, who knew people can't "actualize" themselves until basic physical needs are met, figured this out long ago. Anybody who still believes economic growth isn't essential to human potential should read Deaton's paper.
Here is a graph from the paper. The higher up on the chart, the happier the countries are. The farther to the right, the richer they are. Bubble size denotes population. The graph also plots differences in happiness by wealth and age group.
Comments
Superb summary, many thanks!!!
But isn't the REAL question, what can we all do to be happy or happier given where we are and what we have?
We found habitually happy people avoid all unnecessary, non-productivity and what we call the Fault Finding Feel Goods - all those terribly tempting tendencies to judge, complain and criticize.
They fuel their lives and their work with fun and try to enjoy and make the best of each moment.
The best way to excel and do well at anything is to cultivate a love for it.
Habitually Happy people are very loving, they love what they do, they love the people around them, the tasks they decide to achieve.
Hope this helps!
Michele Moore
http://HappinessHabit.com
http://HappinessBlog.com
Posted by: Michele Moore | February 8, 2008 10:50 PM
Happiness is dependent on one's ability to care for one self. Being able to afford the basic needs in life and not having to worry about how you are going to afford your next meal goes a long way in promoting well-being. For a simple guide to finding happiness in everyday life get Happiness in Five Minutes a Day.
Posted by: Vince Chiles, LCSW | February 9, 2008 8:03 AM
"Anybody who still believes economic growth isn't essential to human potential should read Deaton's paper."
This is incorrect and a misunderstanding of the paper. Deaton finds that at a certain point in time, differences in income lead to different self-perception of happiness. This outcome probably results more out of relative wealth than out out wealth itself. Economic growth itself does not generate happiness. (Frey and Stutzer, What can economists learn from happiness.) For example, real GDP in Japan has been rising styrongly since 1958 until today (p. 413 of the research), average life satisfaction however, remained constant. We perceive ourselves happy according to you standards. With more income, these standards will change and we will again require more income to feel momentarily happy. Continuing consumption however will at some point be limited be resources and can therefore not be the longterm answer of our search for happiness.
Posted by: Lucas | October 23, 2008 6:08 AM
This is certainly interesting, though it is a gross oversimplification if you took it to mean everything. One thing you may notice is that it sharply increases until about 5000, and levels off between 5000 and 10,000. Turns out that money is only very closely linked to happiness until about $10,000 annual income (purchasing power parity), something I read in the book "Deep Economy". I suspect that the reason it continues to increase like that is that the people below an income of 10,000 continues to decrease.
Also, why does Venezuela have a number as high as developed nations with 3-4 times the GDP? I likewise suspect that they have more safeguards and a different distribution of income for the bottom 80%:
http://nyti.ms/aCAZJK
On this note, the author was right in citing Mazlow's hierarchy of needs.
However, there is a degree of relativism here. It is indeed true that many hunter-gatherers live an easier life, such as the Ju/Wasi in Southern Africa. Also, according to this,
A number like 10,000 is relative - how much are you getting from an abundant environment? The author notes anthropologists like Rousseau, and yes, perhaps they need to be examined closely. But for some, like the Ju/Wasi hunter gatherers in southern Africa, necessary work is a magnitude less, as food is in great abundance simply growing around them, and their environment allows a life without complex shelter. You cannot quantify that with a number.
Posted by: Nitin Gadia | February 13, 2010 11:49 AM