Suchergebnisse

Freedom in nations can affect the happiness of citizens both positively and negatively. This study takes stock of the balance of effects. It considers 1) whether there is a positive net-effect at all, 2) which freedom variants contribute most to happiness 3) in what conditions. Freedom is conceived as chance to choose, requiring 'opportunity' to choose, and 'capability' to choose. Opportunity to choose is measured by absence of restrictions in economic, political and personal life. Capability to choose is measured by information and inclination to go one's own way. Happiness is conceived as the overall appreciation of ones life as a whole. Average happiness in nations is measured by responses to questions on the matter in representative surveys. Data on both freedom and happiness is available for 46 nations in the early 1990's. Analysis shows first of all positive correlations between freedom and happiness. Yet closer analysis reveals that freedom and happiness do not always concur.Freedom is positively related to happiness among rich nations, but not among poor nations. Apparently freedom does not pay in poverty. Further, freedom is related to happiness only when 'opportunity' and 'capability' coincide.A notable exception is economic freedom. Opportunity for free trade is positively related to happiness in poor nations, but not in rich nations. Similarly, the relation between economic freedom and happiness is strongest in nations where capability to choose is lowest. The findings show that freedom does not always breed happiness, and suggest that economic freedom deserves priority.

Résumé Un des buts des politiques sociales est de créer un plus grand bonheur pour le plus grand nombre de personnes. La réalisation de cet objectif ambitieux nécessite la compréhension du bonheur. Les cinq questions suivantes appellent des réponses -. 1) Précisément, qu'est-ce que le bonheur ? 2) Le bonheur peut-il être mesuré ? 3) Jusqu'à quel point les gens sont-ils heureux ? 4) Qu'est-ce qui nous amène à être heureux ou malheureux ? 5) Le bonheur peut-il être atteint de façon permanente ? Au fil des siècles, les philosophes se sont confrontés à ces questions. Depuis les années 60, elles font l'objet de recherches empiriques. Cet article tente de répondre à ces questions en se basant sur les progrès réalisés. Summary One of the goals of social policy is to create greater happiness for a greater number. Realization of this ambition requires understanding of happiness. The following questions must be answered: 1) What is happiness precisely? 2) Can happiness be measured? 3) How happy are people presently? 4) What causes us to be happy or unhappy? 5) Can happiness be raised lastingly? Through the ages philosophers have toiled with these questions. Since the 1960's they are subject of empirical research. This paper takes stock of the progress in answering these questions.

ABSTRACT The issue. Nineteenth century utilitarian philosophers considered happiness as the highest good ('utility' in their words) and claimed political priority for attempts to promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number. In reaction, many of their contemporaries cried out that happiness is not good at all, because it turns people into 'contented cows' and undermines social bonds. Modern psychologists, however, tend to suggest positive effects: sharper awareness more activity, better social functioning and better health. Data. No empirical investigations have yet focussed on consequences of happiness. Nevertheless, indications can be found in various studies covering other matters. This paper gathers the available data. These data do not allow definite conclusions, but do suggest several small yet noteworthy effects. Enjoyment of life seems to broaden perception, to encourage active involvement and thereby to foster political participation. It facilitates social contacts: in particular contacts with spouse and children. Further happiness buffers stress, thereby preserving health and lengthening life somewhat. There is no evidence of harmful effects. It is concluded that society is more likely to flourish with happy citizens than with unhappy ones.

Protest parties are on the rise in several European countries. This development is commonly attributed to a growing dissatisfaction with life and associated with declining quality of life in modern society of the lowest social strata. This explanation is tested in a cross-sectional analysis of voting and life-satisfaction in 63 districts of the city of Rotterdam in the Netherlands, where the share of protest voters increased from 10 % in 1994 to 31 % in 2009. Contrary to this explanation protest voting appeared not to be the most frequent in the least happy districts of Rotterdam, but in the medium happy segment. Also divergent from this explanation was that average happiness in city districts is largely independent of local living conditions, but is rather a matter of personal vulnerability in terms of education, income and health. These results fit alternative explanations in terms of midd

Modern society comes in for a great deal of criticism, such as about increasing individualisation, globalisation and technologisation, which is seen to reduce the quality of life. This claim was investigated in a comparative study of 141 present-day countries. Eight aspects of modernity were considered: industrialisation, size of the service sector, economic freedom, real income per capita, globalisation, level of education, political democracy and urbanisation. Happiness in different countries was measured as the average response to survey questions on life-satisfaction, affect and contentment. Analysis shows that people living in most modern countries are substantially happier than people in the less modern countries are. The patterns are generally linear. In a subset of western nations, greater modernity still goes with greater happiness. Although the advantages of societal modernization may be finite, modernization has not yet undermined human happiness.

There are sizeable differences in happiness between countries. These differences are consistent across indicators and quite stable through time. There is a little support for the view that these differences are due to "cultural bias". In test performed here do not suggest that a great part of the difference results from cultural differences in "language", "desirability bias", "response tendencies" or "familiarity" with the concept of happiness. There is solid empirical support for the view that these differences result from the fact that some societies provide their citizens with better living conditions than others. The bulk of the variance in happiness can be explained by nation characteristics such as economic prosperity, social security, political freedom, and social equality

The quality of life in different geographical areas can be measured by how long and happy people live in an area. This approach was applied to the 34 provinces in Indonesia. Survey data on happiness were combined with register data on longevity in an index of Happy Life Years (HLY). Scores on this index range from 59 in Kalimantan Timur to 47 in Papua Barat. Some 59% of these differences in apparent quality of life can be explained by regional economic development, competitiveness, democracy and control of corruption, while income-inequality does not explain any of the differences. The relevance of this information for public and private choice is discussed.

With the ever-increasing costs incurred by medical health care in the majority of the industrialized nations of the world, attempts have been made to identify and rectify the deficiencies in the health industry and improve quality management assessment. A central question for politicians and researchers is, to what extent does a country's health care system influence the subjective well-being in its citizens?

ABSTRACT Cross-national studies on happiness have focused on differences in level of happiness. The focus of this paper is on spread in happiness in the nation, also called 'inequality in happiness'. Inequality in happiness in nations can be measured by the size of the standard deviation of responses to survey questions about the 'overall appreciation of one's life-as-a-whole'. This paper considers spread in happiness in 28 countries around 1980. Contrary to notions of a 'divided' society none of these countries shows a bi-modal distribution of happiness. All distribution are uni-modal, but the distributions are not equally flat. There are considerable differences in size of the standard deviations. These differences are not a statistical artifact of variation in level of happiness and appear quite constant through time. Inequality in happiness appears to be greater in the socio-economically most unequal countries and smaller in politically democratic and economically developed nations. Contrary to expectation, inequality in happiness appears to be more closely linked to social equality among rich natio