Government and Policy: Increasing Gross National Happiness and General Wellbeing
In an influential paper, psychologists Ed Diener and Martin Seligman (2004) argued that “policy decisions at the organizational, corporate and governmental levels should be more heavily influenced by issues related to wellbeing?people's evaluations and feelings about their lives.” They proposed the creation of a national wellbeing index that would periodically measure wellbeing in representative samples of the population. The index would be multidimensional, including “positive and negative emotions, engagement, purpose and meaning, optimism and trust, and the broad construct of life satisfaction,” and would be assessed and updated periodically so it could more accurately inform policymaking. Since then, much has happened to see Deiner and Seligman's vision made real. In 2007, a group of partners including the European Commission, the European Parliament, and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development hosted a high-level conference called “Beyond GDP,” with the objectives of determining “which indices are most appropriate to measure progress, and how these can best be integrated into the decision-making process and taken up by public debate.” The partners continue to work on developing and measuring social, environmental, and wellbeing indicators.1 In 2008, French president Nicolas Sarkozy commissioned a panel of experts, including Nobel Prize?winning economists Joseph Stiglitz and Amartya Sen, to reassess measures of national progress. The resulting report moved the French government to launch a new era in which national measures of progress would take wellbeing into account. In 2011, the United Kingdom launched the National Well-Being Programme, a part of the Office for National Statistics, with the motto “Measuring what matters.” The New Economics Foundation (whose tagline is “economics as if people and the planet mattered”) created the Happy Planet Index, which combines data on experienced wellbeing, life expectancy, and ecological footprint into a “global measure of sustainable well-being.”2 Although the United States has been slower to consider measures beyond gross domestic product, individual cities and counties have established regional measurement initiatives to inform local leadership, and the federal government established a panel to investigate measures of happiness. US commercial initiatives are also collecting data in ways similar to government efforts in other countries: The Gallup?Healthways Well-Being Index undertakes an impressive live daily assessment of health and wellbeing measures across the United States.3 But policy change has by no means been relegated to Europe and North America. In fact, the seeds of this movement were planted by the king of Bhutan, who in 1972 declared that gross national happiness was more important than gross national product. For decades, the country took to measuring a multidimensional gross national happiness index and to spreading the word internationally. Although the current prime minister of Bhutan has set aside focus on gross national happiness, the idea of alternative metrics for national progress has had global impact. In 2012 at a meeting entitled “Happiness and Well-Being: Defining a New Economic Paradigm,” United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon declared the need for “a new economic paradigm that recognizes the parity between the three pillars of sustainable development. Social, economic, and environmental well-being are indivisible. Together they define gross global happiness” (“Ban: new economic paradigm…,” 2012). In the same year, the United Nations proclaimed March 20 the “International Day of Happiness” to recognize “the relevance of happiness and well-being as universal goals and aspirations in the lives of human beings around the world and the importance of their recognition in public policy objectives.”4 The United Nations' first World Happiness Report (Helliwell et al., 2012) provides a detailed analysis of how different countries compare on the happiness scale. But, of course, measurement is only half the battle. Governments are also engaged in determining how best to use these measures in public policy, and we in the technology field can learn much by observing their various strategies. Encouraging healthy behavior is one approach policymakers have often taken. The UK government's Behavioural Insights Team within the Cabinet Office (referred to as the “Nudge Unit”) “applies insights from academic research in behavioural economics and psychology to public policy and services.”5 Educating the public as to things they can do to improve their own wellbeing is another approach. In 2008, the UK Government Office for Science commissioned a set of evidence-based actions people can take to improve their psychological wellbeing. The idea was to do for mental health what a campaign promoting “five a day” (of fruits and vegetables) had done for physical health. The result was a thorough review (Denham, Beddington, & Cooper, 2008) of extensive research into wellbeing consolidated into “five ways to well-being”: “connect,” “be active,” “take notice,” “learn,” and “give.” Elegant in their simplicity and yet powerful in the strength of the research behind them, the “five ways” could provide a valuable set of pillars for work in positive computing. Initiatives will continue to emerge and evolve, and they all will face the challenge of deciding how to be guided by new information toward the development of effective and equitable public policy that respects both privacy and autonomy. As with any government decision, the line between where a government should and shouldn't intervene on behalf of national wellbeing will remain a point of ongoing controversy and negotiation. Since large economic gaps within a society produce unhappiness, should we design the tax code to minimize the gap, thus supporting happiness? Should government regulate junk-food advertising targeted to children in order to reduce the harm to wellbeing done by consumption of these foods? If married people tend to be happier according to research, should the government invest in matchmaking? Some decisions will seem easier to rule out than others, but the line will represent a constant point of dialectic? what's most heartening is that we are finally having these discussions. Even in the United States, where the population is arguably among the most publically averse to tax increases and government intervention, a government's responsibility to promote public happiness has been woven into the very foundations of the country. The Declaration of Independence famously states that we are all divinely entitled to “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” and, less famously, “that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” B. S. Bernanke, former chairman of the US Federal Reserve gave a commencement address in 2010 that brought these eighteenth-century ideals into modern focus. Entitled “The Economics of Happiness,” his address suggested that wealthy countries have the resources to invest in things that contribute to happiness, such as medical care, good nutrition, and sanitation; to maintain a clean environment, and to “provide leisure time and facilities, less physically exhausting and more interesting work, higher education levels, greater ability to travel, and more funding for arts and culture.”6 Bernanke's commencement advice suggests that organizations focus on supporting conditions for wellbeing by investing in those things that can positively affect it. Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein (2008) support a “libertarian paternalism” that seeks to help citizens make healthier decisions while preserving autonomy and choice. Wellbeing researcher Nic Marks (who led the creation of the Happiness Index) echoes Bernanke's address in a TED Talk: “Government shouldn't try to make us happy directly, that would be a bit weird. Government should be about making the conditions out of which well-being can emerge.”7 The notions of gently nudging healthier behavior or creating the right conditions for it are two pathways that also will (and already do) guide researchers in positive computing. We look at examples of these pathways in part II of the book. Where there is much to be learned from the methods and strategies employed in economics and public policy, where keywords such as nudge, expenditure, and provision shape the landscape, a third approach to increasing psychological wellbeing across a population is to be found in education. |
In an influential paper, psychologists Ed Diener and Martin Seligman (2004) argued that “policy decisions at the organizational, corporate and governmental levels should be more heavily influenced by issues related to wellbeing?people's evaluations and feelings about their lives.” They proposed the creation of a national wellbeing index that would periodically measure wellbeing in representative samples of the population. The index would be multidimensional, including “positive and negative emotions, engagement, purpose and meaning, optimism and trust, and the broad construct of life satisfaction,” and would be assessed and updated periodically so it could more accurately inform policymaking. Since then, much has happened to see Deiner and Seligman's vision made real. In 2007, a group of partners including the European Commission, the European Parliament, and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development hosted a high-level conference called “Beyond GDP,” with the objectives of determining “which indices are most appropriate to measure progress, and how these can best be integrated into the decision-making process and taken up by public debate.” The partners continue to work on developing and measuring social, environmental, and wellbeing indicators.1 In 2008, French president Nicolas Sarkozy commissioned a panel of experts, including Nobel Prize?winning economists Joseph Stiglitz and Amartya Sen, to reassess measures of national progress. The resulting report moved the French government to launch a new era in which national measures of progress would take wellbeing into account. In 2011, the United Kingdom launched the National Well-Being Programme, a part of the Office for National Statistics, with the motto “Measuring what matters.” The New Economics Foundation (whose tagline is “economics as if people and the planet mattered”) created the Happy Planet Index, which combines data on experienced wellbeing, life expectancy, and ecological footprint into a “global measure of sustainable well-being.”2 Although the United States has been slower to consider measures beyond gross domestic product, individual cities and counties have established regional measurement initiatives to inform local leadership, and the federal government established a panel to investigate measures of happiness. US commercial initiatives are also collecting data in ways similar to government efforts in other countries: The Gallup?Healthways Well-Being Index undertakes an impressive live daily assessment of health and wellbeing measures across the United States.3 But policy change has by no means been relegated to Europe and North America. In fact, the seeds of this movement were planted by the king of Bhutan, who in 1972 declared that gross national happiness was more important than gross national product. For decades, the country took to measuring a multidimensional gross national happiness index and to spreading the word internationally. Although the current prime minister of Bhutan has set aside focus on gross national happiness, the idea of alternative metrics for national progress has had global impact. In 2012 at a meeting entitled “Happiness and Well-Being: Defining a New Economic Paradigm,” United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon declared the need for “a new economic paradigm that recognizes the parity between the three pillars of sustainable development. Social, economic, and environmental well-being are indivisible. Together they define gross global happiness” (“Ban: new economic paradigm…,” 2012). In the same year, the United Nations proclaimed March 20 the “International Day of Happiness” to recognize “the relevance of happiness and well-being as universal goals and aspirations in the lives of human beings around the world and the importance of their recognition in public policy objectives.”4 The United Nations' first World Happiness Report (Helliwell et al., 2012) provides a detailed analysis of how different countries compare on the happiness scale. But, of course, measurement is only half the battle. Governments are also engaged in determining how best to use these measures in public policy, and we in the technology field can learn much by observing their various strategies. Encouraging healthy behavior is one approach policymakers have often taken. The UK government's Behavioural Insights Team within the Cabinet Office (referred to as the “Nudge Unit”) “applies insights from academic research in behavioural economics and psychology to public policy and services.”5 Educating the public as to things they can do to improve their own wellbeing is another approach. In 2008, the UK Government Office for Science commissioned a set of evidence-based actions people can take to improve their psychological wellbeing. The idea was to do for mental health what a campaign promoting “five a day” (of fruits and vegetables) had done for physical health. The result was a thorough review (Denham, Beddington, & Cooper, 2008) of extensive research into wellbeing consolidated into “five ways to well-being”: “connect,” “be active,” “take notice,” “learn,” and “give.” Elegant in their simplicity and yet powerful in the strength of the research behind them, the “five ways” could provide a valuable set of pillars for work in positive computing. Initiatives will continue to emerge and evolve, and they all will face the challenge of deciding how to be guided by new information toward the development of effective and equitable public policy that respects both privacy and autonomy. As with any government decision, the line between where a government should and shouldn't intervene on behalf of national wellbeing will remain a point of ongoing controversy and negotiation. Since large economic gaps within a society produce unhappiness, should we design the tax code to minimize the gap, thus supporting happiness? Should government regulate junk-food advertising targeted to children in order to reduce the harm to wellbeing done by consumption of these foods? If married people tend to be happier according to research, should the government invest in matchmaking? Some decisions will seem easier to rule out than others, but the line will represent a constant point of dialectic? what's most heartening is that we are finally having these discussions. Even in the United States, where the population is arguably among the most publically averse to tax increases and government intervention, a government's responsibility to promote public happiness has been woven into the very foundations of the country. The Declaration of Independence famously states that we are all divinely entitled to “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” and, less famously, “that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” B. S. Bernanke, former chairman of the US Federal Reserve gave a commencement address in 2010 that brought these eighteenth-century ideals into modern focus. Entitled “The Economics of Happiness,” his address suggested that wealthy countries have the resources to invest in things that contribute to happiness, such as medical care, good nutrition, and sanitation; to maintain a clean environment, and to “provide leisure time and facilities, less physically exhausting and more interesting work, higher education levels, greater ability to travel, and more funding for arts and culture.”6 Bernanke's commencement advice suggests that organizations focus on supporting conditions for wellbeing by investing in those things that can positively affect it. Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein (2008) support a “libertarian paternalism” that seeks to help citizens make healthier decisions while preserving autonomy and choice. Wellbeing researcher Nic Marks (who led the creation of the Happiness Index) echoes Bernanke's address in a TED Talk: “Government shouldn't try to make us happy directly, that would be a bit weird. Government should be about making the conditions out of which well-being can emerge.”7 The notions of gently nudging healthier behavior or creating the right conditions for it are two pathways that also will (and already do) guide researchers in positive computing. We look at examples of these pathways in part II of the book. Where there is much to be learned from the methods and strategies employed in economics and public policy, where keywords such as nudge, expenditure, and provision shape the landscape, a third approach to increasing psychological wellbeing across a population is to be found in education. |