Customer Reviews

The Politics of Happiness: What Government Can Learn from the New Research on Well-Being

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

This book analyzes the potential of social science research (SSR) on happiness to find practical application in the United States via legislation, regulation or other political processes. It's thorough, judicious, and written with a balance of pragmatism and idealism. It has a large "depth of field," i.e. issues at many different levels come within its focus, ranging from whether it's appropriate for governments to care about citizens' happiness at all to regulations pertinent to care for chronic pain.

That said, it also has a narrow field of view, which I've tried to delimit in my opening sentence. The focus is squarely on the US and the American political context. The author (DB) doesn't go into detail about different philosophical notions of what constitutes happiness. Indeed, he has a "realist" skepticism about the potential of philosophy to influence politics when the philosophers can't agree among themselves about an issue (see discussion of income redistribution in Chap. 5). Happiness is whatever SSR measures it to be, via "experiential reporting" or "retrospective evaluation" survey techniques. (These terms are explained in the book.) And despite describing possible shortcomings of those SSR techniques and particular studies (esp. Chap. 2), DB has faith in their relevance. E.g., he says that by relying on SSR to inform their decisions legislators would be "relying on persuasive evidence of what *will* make constituents happy instead of accepting what people mistakenly *think* will promote their well-being" (@59; emphasis in original). Since DB is careful to point out often that the correlations between [fill in the blank] and happiness discovered by SSR don't imply causation, it seems like wishful thinking to say legislators will have evidence of what "will" make people happy.

Within these limitations, the book is excellent, and its realism is sometimes tonic for people like me who tend to be more idealistic about the possibility of social change. Two chapters are especially outstanding: Chapter 10, which examines why Americans have an unusually low confidence in government; and Chapter 4, which questions whether economic growth should be the top priority of US policy. Not only is that a question worth asking (also in Japan and other developed countries), but it's very unusual to see it asked by an American author -- especially one who's such a high-profile, Establishment figure.

There are a couple of things I'd have liked to have seen mentioned in the book that weren't. One is minor: Some critics of happiness SSR have argued against its application in politics, claiming, among other things, that using finite scales for reporting happiness makes an "Easterlin paradox" (stagnation of happiness with GDP growth) inevitable. I.e., GDP can go up without limit, but happiness can never be higher than "10". See, e.g. "The Unhappy Thing About Happiness Economics" by Helen Johns and Paul Ormerod in issue 46 (2008) of the real-world economic review, and the subsequent debate in the same online journal. This point doesn't seem to be addressed.

The other omission is more significant: the idea of "civil happiness," i.e., happiness as a public good, not just something belonging to individuals in society. This idea has a tradition in Europe going back to the 15th Century, and flourished in the 18th Century Neapolitan and Milanese schools of law and philosophy. See several recent books and articles by Luigino Bruni, Stefano Zamagni and others, including their "Civil Economy" (Peter Lang 2007; "Economia civile", Il Mulino 2004), Bruni's "Civil Happiness" (Routledge 2006), and Zamagni's contribution to "Economics and Happiness: Framing the Analysis" (Oxford UP 2006), edited by Bruni and Pierluigi Porta. Civil happiness stands in opposition to the methodological individualism that underlies the SSR that, in turn, is the foundation of this book. Even though DB avoids dwelling on philosophy, some attention to what happiness means for a society as a collectivity seems pertinent to the theme of happiness and politics.

Some disclosure: I'm an alumnus of the university whose president DB has been from time to time; my years there were very early in his first tour of duty. It took a lot of self-control for me not to refer to him as "President Bok" throughout this review, but I thought that might confuse some readers. For me, he exemplifies what a university president should be, both while in office and afterward; this book is an instantiation of that. So I'll make Princeton U Press the scapegoat for some shortcomings, such as occasional editorial nodding (e.g., repetitions in Chaps. 9 & 10) and the currently fashionable, but actually rude, decision to include only footnotes without a bibliography. In sum: a thoughtful book about the usefulness (or not) of happiness research, maybe best read after you already have some familiarity with the "happiness" issue.

Derek Bok, long-time President of and now Research Professor at Harvard University, is among the most prominent of contemporary American intellectuals. The scientific enterprise upon which this book is predicated began decades ago with the evidence presented by Richard Easterlin in 1974 that subjective measures of happiness are not much affected by decades of strong economic growth. Since this time several eminent researchers have continued the investigation of the sources of happiness by asking people how happy they are, on a numerical scale of one to seven (or ten, or whatever), or by asking them to pick themselves out of a series of pictures of faces of people varying from the depressed and miserable to the joyously happy.

There are four major findings in this area. First, a country can double its per capita income without experiencing a noticeable change in the average level of happiness of its citizens. Second, people seem to be poor predictors of what will make them happy. In particular, people generally think that more money will make them happier, whereas the evidence is that even very large changes in income (e.g., by winning a national lottery) do not affect personal happiness. Third, increasing income inequality does not lower the happiness of the less-well-off. This is surprising because many had thought that it is the fact that happiness is based on relative, not absolute, income that explains the failure of higher average incomes to entail higher average happiness. Finally, there is no correlation between the fraction of gross national income that governments devote to help the poor and other vulnerable groups, and the happiness of the target groups.

Despite the failure of the received wisdom on personal happiness, a number of researchers have found several sources of happiness (other than basic temperament) that are strong and systematic across research as samples, as summarized as follows (see, for instance, the work of economist Andrew Oswald): (a) being happily married;(b) being employed; (c)feeling in good health; (d) being religious; (e) helping others; and finally, (f) living in a free country with a democratic form of government.

Now, it is worth reading this list over carefully, because if we believe social policy should promote happiness, then very important policy recommendations flow from the above list. The most important is obviously that we should abandon economic growth in the form of every higher GDP in favor of an economic with low growth that promotes human happiness. Bok confronts this recommendation head on, but his analysis is rather weak. An economist would suggest not that we promote "no growth" but rather "growth in what promotes happiness." This calls for redefine GDP to include factors that are important in happiness, such as a low divorce rate, a low unemployment rate, a high level of private charity activity, and a responsive democratic government. Moreover, if there are groups that have been left out of the happiness equation (e.g., minorities in dysfunctional communities), then material resources could be directed to meet their needs, even as the better-off are aided in achieving more self-actualizing goals.

The various chapters of Bok's book, following his exposition of the empirical research and an insightful evaluation of its validity and of the various pitfalls in its interpretation, are devoted to the various areas that have been shown to contribute to personal happiness, including poverty, pain and suffering, broken families, dysfunctional education, and the failures of democratic government to capture the approval of citizens.

This is only the beginning of policy research in this area, but Derek Bok has placed his valuable imprimatur upon it, and with some luck and courage, it will be an area of increasing research activity in the future. It is an excellent example of the application of scientific research to social policy, avoiding the political bombast of traditional political philosophies (which, in my estimate, are due to be replaced by systems of greater relevance to our contemporary situation).

this is most well-informed book out there on the subject of happiness and public policy. While I don't completely agree with his conclusions--I do believe inequality matters regarding happiness, for example--Bok does a terrific job of supporting his conclusions, drawing from the best research (not phony Right wing nonsense like Arthur Brooks' ridiculous GROSS NATIONAL HAPPINESS or THE BATTLE) and offering a number of excellent policy suggestions. Bok understands that happiness is a better goal for government than growth, and that policies that strengthen families and communities, increase leisure time and take care of the environment are effective ways to improve life satisfaction. He doesn't shy from showing how poorly the US does in all these areas compared to the happiest countries (eg. Denmark). Happiness should be a rallying goal for Progressive politics and for President Obama and Bok shows the way to go!

Bok barely bothers with the actual research on happiness, except to mention the lack of consensus in the emerging field. One might consider this something of a problem in a book purporting to explain 'What Government Can Learn from the New Research on Well-Being'. Bok does provide an answer, of sorts, to this question - government can't learn much from this research, at least not yet. But that doesn't stop him from trotting out the same old center-left policy proposals. That's not to say that there's anything wrong with these policy proposals - but they're so very clearly NOT based on 'the new research on well-being'. If you want to read something that actually engages with the research on happiness and its public policy implications, you'd be far, far better served by Carol Graham's Happiness Around the World: The paradox of happy peasants and miserable millionaires. Graham is an actual researcher, as opposed to Bok, whose C.V., impressive though it is, in no way qualifies him to write a book on politics and happiness. (But as 'Derek Bok', Harvard President, his name probably moves a lot more books than Graham's ever will.)

First off, I'm back. After three months integrating into a field position with a prominent international organization, with three days off the whole time, I am finally able to get back to reading, and have about fifteen books on water I was going to read for UNESCO but will now read and review for myself. Look for two reviews a week from this point on, absent another tri-fecta (volcano, storm, minor coup).

This book is the first of three books that I am reviewing this week, the other two are The Hidden Wealth of Nations, which will be a five, and Identity Economics: How Our Identities Shape Our Work, Wages, and Well-Being, probably a five as well, but I continue to be stunned as how people limit their references to the last 10 years when so much has been done that is relevant in the last 50.

This book is not about the politics of happiness. It is more about the possibilities of public administration of happiness.

This will be a long review--apart from the author being one of a handful to truly top-notch minds with a historical memory, the topic is important--much more important than I realized until I starting following unconventional economics (ecological economics, true cost, bio-mimicry, sustainable design, human development and non-financial wealth).

The author opens with Bhutan and its Gross National Happiness (GNH) concept, with four pillars (good governance, stable-equitable social development, environmental protection, preservation of culture). Elsewhere (on the web) I learn that the 72 indicators are divided into nine domains (time use, living standards, good governance, psychological wellbeing, community vitality, culture, health, education, and ecology).

From there the author moves to the 1800's and Jeremy Bentham, and of course our own Founding Fathers who included "the pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration of Independence. As I have commented before in reviewing other books such as 1776; What Kind of Nation: Thomas Jefferson, John Marshall, and the Epic Struggle to Create a United States, and The Thirteen American Arguments: Enduring Debates That Define and Inspire Our Country, happiness in those days was interpreted as fulfillment, "be all you can be," not frivolous joy of "excessive laughter."

The author identifies and discusses six factors pertinent to happiness in the US context as he defines it: Marriage; Social Relationships; Employment (wherein trust in management is VASTLY more important than the paycheck); Perceived Health; Religion (in sense of community not dogma) and Quality of Government (as which point I am reminded of George Will's superb Statecraft as Soulcraft; Quality of government is further divided into Rule of Law, Efficient Government, Low Violence and Corruption; High Degree of Trust in Public Officials and Especially Police; and Responsive Encounters by Citizens with Government.

Note: 30 million in US population are "not too happy."

Note: Research findings on happiness are a great deal more reliable than the inputs that politicians rely on including hearing from constituents and polling.

Note: Heredity is 50% of your happiness potential, the rest not.

Note: The more direct democracy (citizen engagement), the more happiness.

The author spends time on whether growth as a goal is good or bad, and finds that additional leisure time tends to go toward passive activities such as watching television; and that the highly-educated and upper ranks with plenty of money tend to be over-achievers by nature.

The author is diplomatically blunt on Political Equality in the USA: simply not there. Politicians are at least twice as responsive to the needs of the rich as to those of the poor.

Equality of opportunity is not there either, with poor education from day one being the primary contributor to continuing the gap between haves and have nots. The author discusses the three big risks that all Americans below the top 10% face: insufficient retirement funds; inadequate or no health coverage; and no real protection from unemployment when it strikes. Unlike other nations, in the US anyone not in a union can be fired at any time without cause. There is no recourse.

He says "Health care is one of the more spectacular failures of American social policy." [p. 106]

He observes that it is hard to save in the US, between twice as much advertising as other industrial nations, and a plentitude of unethical credit card practices that lure people into debt.

I learn a great deal as the author moves in a direction I did not expect, and discusses chronic pain ("many medical schools have no required course in pain management" p. 127); sleep disorders (HUGE costing tens of billions in accidents and lost productivity, 30 million suffer chronic insomnia; 6 million sleep apnea; 6 million restless leg syndrome; another 6 million this and that); and depression, which weakens the immune system and costs $80 billion a year or more in the US. I am impressed by the practical mention that out of 6 people suffering from depression, one will be treated properly; two will be treated improperly; and three will not be treated at all.

The author moves on to marriages and families, and here a number of policy or public administration suggestions resonate with me, including educational efforts to reduce teen pregnancy; changes to the law to eliminate jail time for drugs and non-violent crimes; six months paid leave for at least one parent (impressive findings on the difference that six months makes in the new person's future potential), massive investments in childcare and wage subsidies for parents (900% return on investment for a really good child care program).

Core policy prescription from Nobel economist James Heckman: "The best evidence supports the policy prescription: invest in the very young and improve [their] basic learning and socialization skills."

I like Thomas Jefferson's and James' Madison's sayings better, see them at Phi Beta Iota the Public Intelligence Blog, along with Voltaire, Dostoevsky, Gilad, Ellsberg, Toffler, and the Chairman of Saatchi & Saatchi.

Turning to education (I also recommend the 82 books I have reviewed on General Education and the 30 on University Education (only clustered at Phi Beta Iota, I keep trying to get Amazon to adopt these features and it just is not happening--all reviews lead back to Amazon page for respective books) the author concludes that we have lost the art of liberal arts and broad learning and learning to think, and gone way too far toward vocational and pre-professional education, and I completely agree. Muhlenberg College, once described by Playboy as being "in the middle of nowhere with nothing to do" (newsflash: sex and studying go well together), was a priceless education and in retrospect I wish I had not fought so hard to get out of the religion requirement.

QUOTE: "At present, few government officials and educators pay enough attention to preparing young people for a full and rewarding life." [p. 177]

I am surprised to not see any reference to the grotesque commercialization of the university, and the complete loss of honor on many fronts, but certainly the author is aware of that problem as well.

Discussing government he identified fix factors in which the USA is mediocre at best, and last on two, in comparison to six other great nations: 1) voice and accountability; 2) political stability; 3) effectiveness of government; 4) quality of regulation; 4) rule of law; and 6) control of corruption.

The author is extraordinarily tactful in gently pointing out that the US Government today is characterized by "questionable" tax breaks and earmarks for the rich; a poor record on helping the poor; excessive regulation; and a fragmentation of authority.

I put the book down pensive, in part because I have to read the other two books listed above to appreciate this one better. It would be very interesting to see this author take on the ten high-level threats to humanity identified by the United Nations (see A More Secure World: Our Shared Responsibility--Report of the Secretary-General's High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change also free online) and the twelve core policies identified by Earth Intelligence Network--someone somewhere has got to do a strategic analytics piece on the whole earth, this author is superbly qualified to lead a team to do just that.

This book alone leaves me certain that economics is being brought into the 21st Century by Open Money, Wealth of Networks, and so many other initiatives, among them we must clearly include Happiness as an intangible hidden value that is neither displaceable nor replaceable by cold hard cash. Now that, I believe, is evolutionary consciousness.

Here are three other books within my ten book limit as set by Amazon, and I list two of mine because they bear on the analytic task that no one, anywhere, is undertaking:

Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge

Election 2008: Lipstick on the Pig (Substance of Governance; Legitimate Grievances; Candidates on the Issues; Balanced Budget 101; Call to Arms: Fund We Not Them; Annotated Bibliography)

INTELLIGENCE for EARTH: Clarity, Diversity, Integrity, & Sustainability

I would have liked to see the 72 indicators as an appendix, and a bibliography in addition to the notes.

Is happiness a valid goal of public policy and, if so, how can the goal be achieved? These are the core questions that former Harvard President Derek Bok explores in his book. Until the last 15 years or so, how happiness was achieved was largely a matter of philosophical and religious discussion. Since then, however, happiness has become more stringently scrutinized by social scientists, psychologists and medical practitioners. A strong body of work is steadily emerging that is honing in on what actually and significantly can make people happy. For example, it has become clear that increases in wealth go only so far in increasing happiness levels, especially once one is above a subsistence income. This is why happiness in America has not kept pace with growth in wealth. Researchers have also discovered that marriage, strong social relationships and service to others can increase happiness levels. Given new knowledge like this, what can government do to prime the happiness pump in much the same fashion that it primes the economic pump?

Bok outlines in detail some of the areas where government can intervene to increase happiness and well-being: preventing job loss and reducing its effects; promoting policies that promote and strengthen marriage, especially among the inner-city poor; supporting policies that decrease physical pain and depression; and, increasing trust in government. In some cases the potential role of government is limited: it can only do so much to get colleges, for example, to provide curricula that will expose their students to the Great Books which may help them make wiser choices. Also, Bok notes, where applicable, whether the jury is still out on a particular area and its ultimate effect on happiness.

Bok's work is an excellent overview of the various areas where policy may affect happiness levels. In the end, however, one is left feeling as if happiness as policy will never really see the light of day, and that economic growth will continue to be the most important factor in federal government policy.

Bok has written an excellent summary of the many true sources of happiness which include: (1) your family and social relationships, (2) freedom to pursue interesting unique hobbies, (3) a wide, broad education including literature, culture, history, art, music, sports and many other topics that are not strictly vocational (3 R's). He cites a number of happiness research projects but points out that many more are needed.

Bok points out how government can use this happiness research to improve the general well being of all its citizens. He raises many important questions: (1) How much should government base its policies on happiness? (2) What is the best way to deal with (a) inequality, (b) financial hardship, (c) suffering such as chronic pain, sleep disorders, depression, and others?

Most important, Bok questions our high priority on growth. We are constantly being bombarded with advertising telling us to buy a new and bigger car, house, computer, cell phone, and ever so many other goods and services. He points out that numerous happiness research projects have pointed out that increasing your possessions, wealth, and/or power only increases your happiness TEMPORARILY!! Soon you get used to it and want even more. With our finite earth and resources, growth is NOT the answer to more happiness!

I loved this book! The field of research is very intriguing. I enjoyed reading Bok's analysis of the relation of happiness to governing a state. I recommend everyone to read this book.

This book feels like a contractual obligation or an attempt to keep up with his friends. It is a catalog of "happiness research," and a rather boring and content-less one at that. One of the central themes of the book is that happiness does not seem to correlate with income. The only problem is that while the average income in the US has gone up over the last 30 years, the income of most middle class people has stayed the same or declined. In other words, the few got so overwhelmingly large a portion of the increase in GDP that it left the vast majority in the dust. Bok notes this, in passing, then continues on his way as if he never said it. The discrepancy is that income has gone up and happiness is stalled. The question Bok (and happiness researchers) don't think to ask is "for whom?" Then there is the problem with what is being studied, and how. This is not Bok's problem, but he makes no comment. He is so silent that he seems beholden to the researchers he is cataloging. I don't suspect any ethical problems, only a lack of critical thinking. Bok doesn't give us any, and neither do the researchers he studies, at least, not that he tells us. The biggest problem for me is that the researchers and the author fail to wrestle with the psychological, philosophical and ethical definitions of what happiness is and what that means and implies. It is as if he thinks, "Everybody knows what happiness is." I don't think so. Bok and the researchers he catalogs make a weak attempt to distinguish happiness from satisfaction but this is mentioned mostly in passing. This book has no passion, no opinions and does not deliver on it's subtitle's promise. I read it with my book club and the verdict was unanimous. This book promises a lot. After all, it is a meaty subject. But it delivers hardly anything at all. Versoix (I wanted to rate it zero stars, but the software does not recognize no stars as a rating.)

Does it mean a publisher will print whatever you write? This material has been around for years now. Nothing here that has not been observed, written about, and considered. If you have not read the times, the economist, or even followed the news, this may be for you.