Subjective well-being and socio-ecological transition

Transcription

1 Subjective well-being and socio-ecological transition Gunther Tichy WWWforEurope: Feedback Conference I September 18 th and 19 th, 2013 Austrian Chamber of Commerce

2 WWWforEurope intends to lay the analytical foundation for a new development strategy that enables a dynamic socio-ecological transition to high levels of employment, social inclusion, gender equity and environmental sustainability Do these goals contribute to citizens life satisfaction (happiness)? Will citizens gladly accept the transition? What can SWB research contribute?

3 Terminological confusion among economists: Subjective well-being, happiness and life satisfaction Subjective well-being comprises - Happiness (Glück): emotional aspects, affective How happy are you now? or yesterday - Life satisfaction (Lebenszufriedenheit): cognitive aspects How happy are you with your life as a whole these days? Economists deal almost exclusively with life satisfaction but call it happiness frequently, due to marketing considerations

4 Basis for life-satisfaction research Surveys: WVS, GSS, ESS, Gallup World Poll, Eurobarometer (semi-annually, 1000 interviews/eu country) On the whole, are you very satisfied, fairly satisfied, not very satisfied or not at all with the life you lead? SWB studies search for personal, economic and social factors determining the degree of (self declared) life satisfaction Results are reliable, consistent with psychological research, (laughing, suicide, assessment by friends, facial expressions, brain-wave patterns, cortisol measures, etc.) reveal consistent results among countries, reflect macroeconomic expectations =>

5 Share of satisfied respondents Eurobarometer Spring 2013 Zufrieden 90% DE AT 80% IE 70% ES 60% 50% 40% 30% Jun.00 Dez.00 EL ES PT IT IE DE A Jun.01 Dez.01 Jun.02 Dez.02 Jun.03 Dez.03 Jun.04 Dez.04 Jun.05 Dez.05 Jun.06 Dez.06 Jun.07 Dez.07 Jun.08 Dez.08 Jun.09 Dez.09 Jun.10 Dez.10 Jun.11 EL Dez.11 Jun.12 Dez.12 IT PT

6 Determinants of life satisfaction Individual First marriage Health Relational goods (participation, active leisure, ) Self determination Economic Employment Relative income, position goods Absolute income and income growth Income distribution Inflation (negative) Geographical mobility (negative) Environment Education Social Unemployment Distribution Underlined = Consistent with WWW-goals

7 Effect sizes relative to doubling of income Age -0.4*** Born abroad -1.9*** Log household income 1.0*** Not enough money for food -6.2*** Unemployment -3.1*** Health problems -3.1*** Social support + Secondary education 1.5** Relative income + Tertiary education 3.0*** Income distribution + Married 1.7*** Position goods + Have friends to count on 5.2*** Volunteering 2.5*** Aggreg. average social trust 0.3*** Confidence in judicial system 1.1*** Freedom to choose life 2.8*** Satisfaction with air quality 0.8** Satisfaction with water qu. 0.2 Safe walking alone 1.1***

8 Problematic determinants of life satisfaction Relativity effect Relative position more relevant than absolute Adaptation effect Quick adaptation to positive/negative news Individual optimism effect Negative events affects me less than others Aspiration effect Satisfaction depends on difference between reality and (rising) aspirations Social fairness effect Unemployment and distribution reduce satisfaction even of those not concerned

9 Happiness: Different order of problems if asked directly! What are the two most important issues you personally/your country are facing at the moment? respondent For the country EU Inflation 41% (1) 20% (3) 13% (3) Unemployment 22% (2) 51% (1) 38% (2) Economic situation 18% (3) 33% (2) 48% (1) Climate, energy 5% (12) 4% (12) 3% (12) Eurobarometer 79

10 Three different layers of contributing factors to social well-being What individuals themselves consider as problems at the moment, if asked directly (what makes them unhappy); what turns out to have contributed to their life satisfaction, as discovered by lifesatisfaction research, asking how satisfied people are with the life as a whole nowadays; and what is sustainable in the long run, given the unintended consequences of pursuing intended and unintended individual goals.

11 3 layers of potentially conflicting goals Direct qu. person Direct qu. country Life satisf. research WWWfor Europe Price stab. Employmt Employmt Employmt Employmt Growth Distribution Soc. inclus. Growth Price stab. Relative inc Dynamics Pos. goods Gender equ Absol.inc. Sustainabil. Soc. suppt Only minority groups consider sustainable behaviour, majority overcompensates results Solution?

12 Singapore: Citizens willing to trade civil liberties for a cleaner, safer and efficient society Europe? WWW4E will have to devise ways to define goals/tradeoffs relative to world standards to extricate the compatibility of the goals of the three layers; to search for a set of compatible incentives and instruments, appropriate to implement the new dynamic socio-ecological transition path; to take care of the need to differentiate policies between more and less advanced members; to downshift rich citizens desires and aspirations in a non-autocratic way.

13 WWWforEurope has to take care of trade-offs, reformulate traditional goals, redesign instruments Full employment e.g. less by growth, more by innovation, (tax) structure, working time Workers preferences? Social inclusion, gender equity e.g. less by transfers, total revision of the social system (education, labour rules, treatment of part-time work and child-bearing in taxation and social security, ) Preferences of majority? Environmental sustainability e.g. downsizing in advanced countries, fundamental change of behaviour of producers and consumers Preferences, vested interests?

14 A more sustainable development path affords a carefully designed, consistent combination of a wide range of instruments, considering trade-offs and consistency with other goals of EU, taking account that the project s task is not to save the world, but to realign EU s goals. The most tricky problem revealed by SWB res.: How to change citizens goals and attitudes, either by setting the appropriate incentives or directly?

15 THAT IS YOUR TASK

16

17 Effects on life evaluation of each factor (multiple of the effect of a 30% increase in income) Individual unemployment (versus employment) -6.0 Unemployment rate (10% point increase) +1.3 Social support (10% point extra saying yes) +4.5 Freedom (10% point extra saying yes) +2.1 Corruption (10% point extra saying yes) +1.9 Malaise 8 years earlier (1 standard deviation worse) -10. Physical health (Poor versus good, self-assessed) Single (versus married) -2.2 Separated (versus married) Widowed (versus married) -2.9 Female (versus male) +1.5 Relative income Helliwell, Layard and Sachs (n.d., 89) Note: The effect of each other variable is compared with that of individual relative income. The exceptions are for social support freedom and corruption, whose effects are compared with the effects of GDP per head.

18