Will Davies

"its measurement is only worthwhile if it is coupled with an effective policy response"

I'm not sure this is necessarily true. Often statistics precede policy, because some vague sense of a new objective social phenomenon arises, which people want to grasp. Strangely enough, suicide rates were one of the preoccupations of social statisticians in the late 19th century, despite the fact that governments couldn't do a great deal to affect them. But suicide represented something about the direction of modern, industrial society that people were anxious about. (It's also worth noting that Durkheim's work on suicide wouldn't have been possible had statisticians not already measured it, which in turn wouldn't have been possible had it not been cause for concern. Sociology is therefore a bandwagon jumper.)

In the early 20th century, there were attempts to grasp things like unemployment and macro-economic growth, despite the fact that macroeconomic policy didn't exist until at least the 1930s.

So while I agree that it's difficult to imagine what policies the happiness measures will spawn, this doesn't mean that they're worthless.

Claire Cater

It’s easy to be cynical about measuring happiness. The reality is - it’s new and perhaps we should all be prepared to learn the unexpected. When faced with the results – we might find some surprising insight, ideas and maybe answers. It’s already having an effect. The debate alone is making people and organisations think about how we measure and fuel ‘happiness’. People all around us are starting to talk about ‘what makes them happy’ and how happy is really ‘happy’ – is content really happy? No one questions that a happy, motivated workforce lead to a better and more prosperous business. Measuring staff satisfaction has increasingly become a focus for the corporate sector. So we shouldn’t be so surprised that the government is taking it one big step further. I just hope the public will trust the results when we have them.
For some of us it’s a reminder of how important happiness is. I’d like to see a happiness tracker – which actually measures happiness on a week to week basis –this would let us see the shifts and spot the drivers. Now that would give us some fascinating insight – perhaps it could eventually be akin to the weather forecast….it would certainly make them more interesting to watch. Imagine being able to predict happiness like the rain……we are unlikely to get it right all the time – but would it matter…we would certainly like the opportunity to plan for and appreciate the sunshine…..

Pam

Great article. Thanks

Alastair Kemp

I'd be interested in the research mentioned in the first paragraph as there is an obvious corrollary, as the report by Francis Jones, Daniel Annan and Saef Shah from Dec 2008 for the Office of National Statistics comparing the distribution of household income from 1977-2006 shows, although GDP has increased the share of it for the bottom 80% has decreased. Of the top 20% (above £38000 in 2006), the greatest share increase has been for the top 10%. If that benchmark is nearer £50,000, that might explain something.

Alastair Kemp

I should also point out that the importance of indicators such the HDI are not necessarily disproven by the above statistics.

Well-being has been a buzz-word in mental health for a while, perhaps quashing the discourse on happiness. Thus some researchers are trying to apply Sen and Nussbaum's Capabilities approach to mental health. And if anything is the opposite of 'happiness' it is depression. Of course there is now evidence that the economic, social and environmental factors that affect well-being affect the whole spectrum of mental health issues.

As mentioned above the Labour government was at least looking at this in their policy New Horizons. The first thing the new government has brought out of this is merely the measurement of well-being.

As I said before whilst the statistics above that suggest the wealth-creators keep the wealth for themselves, and the quick comment in the article that suggests wealth only makes a difference to happiness above £50,000 may make more sense with respect to the inroads in well-being if we go way back to Aristotle's Politics and the idea that the polis in a democracy exists among those with property, but then exchange the term property for capital (the translation is not direct) and by capital I mean wealth that may be reinvested.

To reinvest wealth implies having enough of it, if Child Tax Credits qualification for some families reaches to an income of £55,000, there is an indication that financial assistance may be needed below that figure. This suggests a sense of well-being may be influenced by an ability to take part in the 'polis', ie to feel that one is the master of one's destiny. If meaningful participation feels futile on a low income, and in this argument I put it the threshold of low income momentarily around £50,000 (also interestingly roughly the amount that would be earnt at the minimum wage working 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year). Then the argument that has been put leading to this measurement that tackling poverty is a first step is indeed valid. However perhaps more is needed.

CAVEAT: I am aware that wealth is more than economic thus those on a lower income may indeed have a feeling of well-being if they have the access to the statisfaction of exercising these other forms of wealth, however there are enough arguments out there for why economics does make a difference to access to these other wealths. Lest all we do is measure well-being and enforce participation. Big Society anyone.

Alastair Kemp

above please delete 'quashing the discourse on happiness' and replace 'quashing the discourse on recovery'.

blacksoft

I agree with you.

David Vinter

Nothing made my late father, an arable farmer than getting the last acre of a dry harvest, through the combine and into store. As a workaholic he never took a holiday before he was 65, except for a day at the Smithfield Show. But in it's way I guess things in farming were ever thus.