Economic Growth and Subjective Well-Being: Reassessing the Easterlin Paradox

Economic Growth and Subjective Well-Being:Reassessing the Easterlin Paradox

Betsey Stevenson and Justin WolfersWharton School, University of Pennsylvania and NBER

The 2008 World Congress on NAEP Measures for Nations, May 14 2008.

Research Question: What is the relationship between income & happiness?

Stevenson & Wolfers, Economic Growth and Happiness 2

Types of comparisons “Stylized facts” Stevenson-Wolfers findings

Within country:Rich v. poor members of a society

Big effects Strong effects

Between country:Rich v. poor countries

Small effects (if any)- No effects beyond GDP≈$15k

Strong effects

National time series:Country when rich v. poor

No effects-Europe, Japan, USA

Strong effects

International panel:Countries with fast v. slow growth

No effects (largely unexamined)

Strong effects

Implications “Easterlin paradox” Happiness-income gradient ≈ 0.2-0.4

Why revisit the stylized facts? 1. Theoretical implications: Reference-dependent preferences2. Yielding important policy implications (and big policy claims)3. New data: Longer time series (1946-2008); More countries (n=132)4. Statistical inference: Absence of evidence v. evidence of absence5. What are “big” versus small effects? Focus on the magnitudes

What we won’t do: Assess causality: Happiness = β log(Income) Revisit what subjective well-being data “mean”

Measuring Subjective Well-Being


Subjective well-being questions Happiness: “Taking all things together, would you say you are: very happy; quite

happy; not very happy; not at all happy.” Life satisfaction: “All things considered, how satisfied are you with your life as a

whole these days?” [1=Dissatisfied – 10=Satisfied] Satisfaction ladder: “Here is a ladder representing the ‘ladder of life’. Let's

suppose the top of the ladder represents the best possible life for you, and the bottom, the worse possible life for you. On which step of the ladder do you feel you personally stand at the present time? [0-10 steps].”

Creating a cardinal measure Macro data: Two steps

1. Estimate “Gross national happinessc,t”Ordered probit: Happinessi,c,t = μc,t * I(country)*I(year) + ε ε~N(0,1)

2. Regress GNH on GDP: μc,t = β log(Incomec,t ) + ν

Micro data: Ordered probit: Happinessi,c,t = β log(Incomeindividual country or period ) + ε ε~N(0,1)

Outline: Assessing the Happiness-Income link


Within-country comparisons USA All countries

Between countries: Through time Multiple datasets For both happiness and life satisfaction No evidence of satiation

National Time Series Japan Europe USA

Within-Country Comparisons


Family income Very happy Pretty happy Not too happy

<$12,500 (bottom 10%) 21% 53% 26%

$12,500-$49,999 25% 61% 13%

$50,000-$149,999 40% 54% 6%

$150,000 (top 10%) 53% 45% 2%

Source: U.S. General Social Survey, 2006

“Taken all together, how would you say things are these days?”

“When we plot average happiness versus income for clusters of people in a given country at a given time, we see that rich people are in fact much happier than poor people. It’s actually an astonishingly large difference. There’s no one single change you can imagine that would make your life improve on the happiness scale as much as to move from the bottom 5 percent on the income scale to the top 5 percent.”

- Robert Frank (2005)

Within-Country: USA


B

T

T

B

B

TT

B

T

B

B

T

T

B

T

B

B

TT

B

B

TT

B

T

B

T

B

TB

B

T T

B

T

B

T

B

T

B

T

B

T

B

T

B

B

T

T

-1

-.75

-.5

-.25

0

.25

.5

.75

1

Hap

pine

ss: O

rder

ed p

robi

t ind

exE

stim

ated

for

eac

h in

com

e ca

tego

ry*y

ear

500 1000 2000 4000 8000 16000 32000 64000 128000 256000Real Family Income ($2005, log scale)

Happiness = -2.224 + 0.210*log family income [se=0.007]

Incomes are midpoints of income categories.Points labelled T and B have imputed incomes, due to top- or bottom-coding, respectively.Dot size is proportional to population in that income category

Each point aggregates happiness in a GSS income category in a year

Cross-sectional Happiness-Income Relationship in the GSS

Histogram: Within-Country Estimates





Between countries: Through time Multiple datasets Both happiness and life satisfaction No evidence of satiation


βwithin ≈ 0.2 – 0.4

“the happiness differences between rich and poor countries that one might expect on the basis of the within country differences by economic status are not borne out by the international data.” – Easterlin, (1974)

Early Cross-National Studies


CANCANCAN

FRAFRAFRA

GBRGBRGBRUSAUSAUSA

-1.5

-1

-.5

0

.5

1

1.5H

appi

ness

500 10002000400080001600032000

y = -12.62+1.44*ln(x) [se=0.40]Correlation=0.931

Gallup1946

AUSAUSAUS

DEUDEUDEU

FRAFRAFRA

GBRGBRGBR

ITAITAITAMEXMEXMEX

NLDNLDNLD

NORNORNOR

USAUSAUSA

Sat

isfa

ctio

n500 1000 2000 4000 8000 1600032000


Tension Study1948

AUSAUSAUS

CANCANCAN

FRAFRAFRA

GBRGBRGBRNLDNLDNLD

NORNORNOR

USAUSAUSA

Hap

pine

ss

500 1000 2000 4000 8000 1600032000


Gallup1949

BRABRABRABRABRABRABRABRABRABRABRA

CUBCUBCUBCUBCUBCUBCUBCUBCUBCUBCUB

DEUDEUDEUDEUDEUDEUDEUDEUDEUDEUDEU

DOMDOMDOMDOMDOMDOMDOMDOMDOMDOMDOM

EGYEGYEGYEGYEGYEGYEGYEGYEGYEGYEGY

INDINDINDINDINDINDINDINDINDINDIND

ISRISRISRISRISRISRISRISRISRISRISRJPNJPNJPNJPNJPNJPNJPNJPNJPNJPNJPNNGANGANGANGANGANGANGANGANGANGANGA PANPANPANPANPANPANPANPANPANPANPAN

PHLPHLPHLPHLPHLPHLPHLPHLPHLPHLPHL POLPOLPOLPOLPOLPOLPOLPOLPOLPOLPOL

USAUSAUSAUSAUSAUSAUSAUSAUSAUSAUSA

YUGYUGYUGYUGYUGYUGYUGYUGYUGYUGYUG

-1.5

-1

-.5

0

.5

1

1.5

Sat

isfa

ctio

n L

adde

r

500 10002000400080001600032000


Patterns of HumanConcerns, 1960

FRAFRAFRA

FRGFRGFRG

GBRGBRGBR

ITAITAITA

JPNJPNJPNMYSMYSMYSPHLPHLPHLTHATHATHA

USAUSAUSA

Hap

pine

ss

500 1000 2000 4000 8000 1600032000


World Survey III1965

Wel

lbei

ng: O

rder

ed P

robi

t Ind

ex

Real GDP per capita at PPP (Maddison's estimates in US$, 1990) (log scale)

Early Cross-National Surveys of Subjective Wellbeing

World Values Survey: 1981-2004


ARG

AUSBELCAN

DEU

DNK

ESP FRA

GBRHUN

IRL ISL

ITAJPN

KOR

MLTNLDNORSWEUSA

-1.5

-1

-.5

0

.5

1

1.5

500 1000 2000 4000 8000 16000 32000


1981-84 Wave

ARGAUTBEL

BGRBLR

BRACAN

CHE

CHLCHN

CZE DEU

DNK

ESP

EST

FIN

FRAGBR

HUNIND

IRL ISLITA

JPNKORLTULVA

MEX

MLT

NGA

NLDNOR

POLPRT

ROMRUS

SVKSVN

SWE

TUR

USA

ZAF

-1.5

-1

-.5

0

.5

1

1.5

500 1000 2000 4000 8000 16000 32000


1989-93 Wave

ALB

ARG

ARM

AUS

AZE

BGD

BGRBIH

BLR

BRA

CHE

CHLCHN

COL

CZEDEU

DOMESP

EST

FINGBR

GEO

HRVHUNIND JPN

LTULVA

MDA

MEX

MKD

NGA

NORNZL

PERPHL

POL

PRI

ROMRUS

SCG

SLV

SVKSVN

SWE

TUR TWN

UKR

URYUSA

VEN

ZAF

-1.5

-1

-.5

0

.5

1

1.5

500 1000 2000 4000 8000 16000 32000


1994-99 Wave

ALB

ARGAUTBEL

BGDBGR

BIH

BLR

CANCHL

CHNCZE

DEU

DNK

DZAEGY

ESP

EST

FIN

FRAGBR

GRCHRVHUN

IDN

IND

IRL

IRN

ISL

ISRITA

JORJPNKGZ

KOR

LTU

LUX

LVA

MAR

MDA

MEX

MKD

MLT

NGA

NLD

PAK

PERPHLPOL

PRI

PRT

ROMRUS

SAU

SCG

SGP

SVK

SVNSWE

TUR

TZA

UGA

UKR

USAVEN

VNMZAF

ZWE

-1.5

-1

-.5

0

.5

1

1.5

500 1000 2000 4000 8000 16000 32000


1999-2004 Wave

Lif

e S

at. I

ndex

(or

dere

d pr

obit

)

Real GDP per Capita, PPP (log scale)Dashed line shows linear regression; dotted line shows lowess fit.Source: World Values Survey.

Life Satisfaction and Real GDP per Capita

Pew Global Attitudes Survey, 2002


AGO

ARG

BGD

BGR

BOL

BRA

CAN

CHNCIV

CZEDEUEGY

FRAGBR

GHA

GTM

HND

IDN

IND

ITA

JOR

JPN

KEN

KOR

LBN

MEX

MLI

NGA

PAK

PERPHL POL

RUS

SEN SVK

TUR

TZAUGA

UKR

USA

UZB

VENVNM

ZAF

-1.5

-1

-.5

0

.5

1

1.5

Bes

t Pos

sibl

e L

ife

Lad

der:

Ord

ered

Pro

bit I

ndex

500 1000 2000 4000 8000 16000 32000GDP per capita, PPP (2000 US $)


Dashed line shows linear regression; dotted line shows lowess fit.Source: Pew Global Attitudes Survey, 2002

Satisfaction and Real GDP per Capita

Between: Gallup World Poll


Comparing within- and between-country estimates







βwithin ≈ 0.2 – 0.4

βbetween ≈ 0.2 – 0.4

“income growth in a society does not increase happiness”. - Easterlin (1995)

Time Series: No rise in happiness, despite growth


Japan Europe U.S.A.

Life in Nation Surveys Eurobarometer General Social Survey

Japan: Well-Being versus GDP


1958(2)

1959(1)

1960(1)1961(1)

1962(1)

1963(1)

1964(1)1965(1)

1966(1)

1967(2)

1968(1)1969(1)

1970(1)

1971(1)

1972(1)

1973(1)

1974(1)

1974(11)

1975(5)

1975(11)

1976(5)

1976(11)

1977(5)

1978(5)

1979(5)

1980(5)1981(5)

1982(5)1983(5)1984(5)

1985(5)

1986(5)

1987(5)1988(5)

1989(5)

1990(5)1991(5)

1992(5)1993(5)

1994(5)

1995(5)

1996(7)

1997(5)

1999(12)

2001(9)2002(6)

2003(6)

2004(6)2005(6)

2006(10)

2007(7)

How do you feel aboutyour circumstances at home:-Satisfied-Not satisfied, not dissatisfied-Somewhat dissatisfied-Extremely dissatisfied

How do you feel aboutyour life at home:-Completely satisfied-Satisfied-Somewhat dissatisfied-Completely dissatisfied

How do you feel aboutyour life now:-Completely satisfied-Satisfied-Somewhat dissatisfied-Completely dissatisfied

Overall, to whatdegree are yousatisfied withyour life now:-Satisfied-Somewhat satisfied-Somewhat dissatisfied-Dissatisfied

Slope=0.19[se=0.13]

Slope=0.16[se=0.08]

Slope=0.18[se=0.07]

Slope=-1.14[se=0.51]-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

Wel

l-be

ing:

Ord

ered

Pro

bit I

ndex

2000 4000 8000 16000 32000Real Japanese GDP per Capita, PPP (log scale); 2000 US$

Source: Life-in-nation surveys, 1958-2007.

Pattern of responses from four different questionsEvolution of Subjective Well-Being and GDP in Japan

Japan: Economic Conditions and Well-Being


10.5%10.5%

12.8%12.8%

4.1%4.1%.9%

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

Une

mpl

oym

ent R

ate

(%)

$.5k

$1k

$2k

$4k

$8k

$16k

$32k

Rea

l Jap

anes

e G

DP

per

cap

ita

PP

P (

Log

sca

le)

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Real GDP per capita GDP trend Unemployment rate (right axis)

Economic Conditions

Raw series,with breaks

-.5

-.25

0

.25

.5

.75

1

-.5

-.25

0

.25

.5

.75

1

Sub

ject

ive

Wel

l-B

eing

: Ord

ered

Pro

bit I

ndex

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Adjusting for series breaks Adjusting for series breaks & unemployment

Subjective Well-Being

Japan: 1958-2007

Satisfactiont = 0.24*log(GDPt) – 0.06*Unemp -0.39*Break 1 – 0.57*Break 2 – 0.52*Break 3 n=51 (se) (0.06) (0.02) (0.07) (0.11) (0.14)

European happiness trends


-0.20

-0.10

0.00

0.10

0.20

Lif

e S

atis

fact

ion:

Ord

ered

pro

bit i

ndex

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Life satisfaction Trend: Growth of 0.005 per year [se=0.001]

Happiness Trend: Growth of 0.010 per year [se=0.007]

Source: Eurobarometer, 1973-2007.

Year fixed effects, from an ordered probit regression ofwell-being on country and year fixed effects

Trend in European Well-Being

International Panel Data


WVSLife Satisfaction

WVSHappiness

EurobarometerLife satisfaction

Levels 0.34***

(0.04)0.34***

(0.04)0.77*** (0.18)

Country fixed effects 0.15*

(0.08)0.15

(0.11)0.19***

(0.06)

Country and wave fixed effects

0.27**

(0.11)0.25

(0.15)0.20**

(0.90)

Sample period 1981-2004(4 waves)

1981-2004(4 waves)

1973-2007(biannual)

Countries 82 82 32 (mostly rich)

n 183 183 759

Robust SE clustered by Country-wave Country-wave Country

Eurobarometer: Nine countries


-.5

-.25

0.2

5.5

$8k $16k $32k

y = 3.84 + -0.38 * log(GDP) [se=0.18]Correlation = -0.36

Belgium

-.5

-.25

0.2

5.5

$8k $16k $32k

y = -6.20 + 0.62 * log(GDP) [se=0.08]Correlation = 0.74

Denmark

-.5

-.25

0.2

5.5

$8k $16k $32k

y = 0.56 + -0.06 * log(GDP) [se=0.14]Correlation = -0.05

Greece-.

5-.

250

.25

.5

$8k $16k $32k


France

-.5

-.25

0.2

5.5

$8k $16k $32k


Ireland

-.5

-.25

0.2

5.5

$8k $16k $32k


Italy

-.5

-.25

0.2

5.5

$8k $16k $32k


Netherlands

-.5

-.25

0.2

5.5

$8k $16k $32k


United Kingdom

-.5

-.25

0.2

5.5

$8k $16k $32k


West Germany

Lif

e S

atis

fact

ion:

Ord

ered

pro

bit i

ndex

Dev

iati

on f

rom

cou

ntry

ave

rage

Real GDP per capita, PPP (2000 $ US; Log scale)Source: Eurobarometer, 1973-2007. Solid dots=1973-89; Hollow dots=1990-2007.

Growth in Life Satisfaction and GDP in Europe

USA: Is it surprising that happiness hasn’t grown?


-0.2

-0.1

0.0

0.1

0.2

Hap

pine

ss:

Ord

ered

Pro

bit I

ndex

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Average Happiness

Averagehousehold

income [CPS]

GDP percapita

Averagehousehold

income [GSS]-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Cha

nge

sinc

e 19

72 in

log(

aver

age

inco

me)

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Measures of Log(Average Income)

Averagelog(householdincome) [CPS]Average

log(householdincome) [GSS]-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Cha

nge

sinc

e 19

72 in

aver

age

log(

inco

me)

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Measures of Average Log(Income)

Income and Happiness Trends in the U.S.

Happinesst = 0.048 * Average log household income in GSSt [95% ci: -0.25 - +0.34]Happinesst = 0.058 * Average log household income in CPSt [95% ci: -0.21 – 0.33]

Conclusion: Stylized facts about Wellbeing and Income




National Time Series USA Japan Europe

βwithin ≈ 0.2 – 0.4

βbetween ≈ 0.2 – 0.4

βtime series ≈ 0.2 – 0.4


Blank slide: End of talk

Spare Slides


Background Within-country Between-country National time series International panel data Broader measures of subjective well-being

Yesterday’s Experiences


Recalled feelings and GDP


Bradburn: Recent Feelings and GDP


ARG

AUT

BELBEL

BGR

BRA

CANCAN

CHE

CHL

CHN CZE

DEUDEUDNKDNK

ESPESP

EST

FIN

FRAFRA

GBR

GBR

HUN

IND

IRLIRL

ISLISL

ITAITA

JPN

LTULVAMEX

MLT

MLT

NGA NLDNLD

NORNOR

POLPRT

ROM

RUS

SVK

SVN

SWESWE

USAUSA

ZAF

0

.2

.4

.6

.8

1

500 2000 8000 32000

Correlation = 0.28y=0.198+0.053*ln(x) [se=0.025]

Pleased about having accomplished something

ARG

AUT

BEL

BEL

BGR

BRA

CANCAN

CHE

CHL

CHN

CZE

DEUDEU

DNK

DNK

ESPESP

EST

FIN

FRA

FRA

GBR

GBR

HUN

IND

IRLIRL

ISL

ISL

ITAITA

JPNLTU

LVA

MEX

MLT

MLT

NGANLD

NLD

NOR

NOR

POLPRT

ROM

RUSSVK

SVNSWE

SWE

USAUSA

ZAF

0

.2

.4

.6

.8

1

500 2000 8000 32000


Proud b/c someone complimented you on something you had done

ARG

AUTBEL

BELBGR

BRA CAN

CAN

CHE

CHL

CHN

CZEDEU

DEU

DNKDNK

ESP

ESP

ESTFIN

FRA

FRAGBR

GBR

HUN

IND

IRL

IRLISLISL

ITA

ITA

JPN

LTULVA

MEX

MLT

MLT

NGA

NLD

NLD

NORNOR

POL

PRTROMRUS

SVK

SVNSWE

SWEUSAUSAZAF

0

.2

.4

.6

.8

1

500 2000 8000 32000

Correlation = -0.10y=0.678+-0.015*ln(x) [se=0.021]

Particularly excited or interested in something

ARG AUTBELBEL

BGR

BRA

CANCAN

CHE

CHL

CHN

CZE

DEUDEU

DNKDNK

ESPESPEST

FINFRA

FRA

GBRGBR

HUN

IND

IRLIRL

ISLISL

ITA

ITA

JPNLTU

LVA

MEX

MLT

MLT

NGA

NLDNLD

NORNOR

POL

PRT

ROMRUS

SVK

SVN

SWE

SWE

USAUSA

ZAF

0

.2

.4

.6

.8

1

500 2000 8000 32000

Correlation = 0.18y=-0.042+0.043*ln(x) [se=0.033]

On top of the world/ feeling that life is wonderful

ARG

AUTBEL

BELBGR

BRA

CANCAN

CHE

CHLCHN

CZE

DEU

DEU

DNKDNKESPESPEST

FINFRA

FRA

GBRGBR

HUNIND

IRL

IRL

ISLISL

ITAITA

JPN

LTU

LVA

MEX

MLT

MLT

NGA

NLDNLD

NORNOR

POL

PRTROM

RUS

SVK

SVN

SWESWE

USAUSA

ZAF

0

.2

.4

.6

.8

1

500 2000 8000 32000


That things were going your way

ARG

AUTBELBEL

BGR

BRA

CANCAN

CHE

CHLCHN

CZE

DEUDEU

DNKDNK

ESPESP

EST

FIN

FRAFRA

GBRGBR

HUN

INDIRLIRL

ISL

ISL

ITA

ITAJPN

LTU

LVAMEX

MLTMLT

NGA

NLDNLD

NOR

NORPOL

PRT

ROMRUS

SVKSVNSWESWE

USAUSAZAF

0

.2

.4

.6

.8

1

500 2000 8000 32000


Bored

ARGAUT

BELBEL

BRA

CANCAN

CHE

CHL

CHN

CZEDEUDEUDNKDNK

ESPESP

EST

FINFRAFRA

GBRGBRHUNIND

IRLIRLISLISL

ITAITA

JPN

LTU

LVAMEXMLT

MLT

NGA

NLDNLDNORNOR

POL

PRT

ROMRUSSVKSVN

SWESWE

USAUSA

ZAF

0

.2

.4

.6

.8

1

500 2000 8000 32000


Upset because somebody criticized you

ARG

AUT

BELBEL

BGRBRA

CANCAN

CHL

CHNCZE

DEUDEU

DNK

DNKESPESP

EST

FINFRAFRA

GBRGBRHUN

IND IRLIRLISLISL

ITA

ITAJPN

LTULVA

MEXMLT

MLTNGA

NLD

NLD

NORNOR

POL

PRT

ROM

RUSSVKSVN

SWESWE

USAUSAZAF

0

.2

.4

.6

.8

1

500 2000 8000 32000


So restless you couldn't sit long in a chair

ARG AUT

BELBELBGR

BRA

CANCAN

CHE

CHL

CHN CZE

DEUDEU

DNKDNK

ESPESPEST

FINFRA

FRAGBR

GBRHUNIND

IRLIRL

ISLISL

ITA

ITAJPNLTULVA

MEX

MLTMLT

NGA

NLD

NLD

NORNORPOLPRT

ROMRUS

SVKSVN

SWESWE

USAUSA

ZAF

0

.2

.4

.6

.8

1

500 2000 8000 32000


Very lonely or remote from other people

ARG

AUT

BELBELBGR

BRA

CANCAN

CHE

CHL

CHN CZE

DEUDEU

DNKDNKESPESPESTFIN

FRAFRA

GBRGBRHUN

IND

IRLIRL

ISLISL

ITA

ITAJPN

LTU

LVA

MEX

MLTMLT

NGA

NLDNLDNORNOR

POL

PRT

ROMRUS

SVKSVNSWESWE

USA

USA

ZAF

0

.2

.4

.6

.8

1

500 2000 8000 32000


Depressed or unhappy

Pro

port

ion

expe

rien

cing

eac

h fe

elin

g

Real GDP per capita, PPP (log scale)Question: 'We are interested in the way people are feeling these days. During the past few weeks, did you ever feel...'Dashed line shows regression line; dotted line is lowess fit. Source: World Values Survey, 1981-84 and 1989-93 waves.

Recent Feelings and GDP

Within-Country: Rich are Happier than Poor


Similar relationship holds in other countries and eras “As far as I am aware, in every representative national survey ever

done a significant bivariate relationship between happiness and income has been found.” – Easterlin (2001)

Question: “In general, how happy would you say that you are?”

%Very happy rising with income

%unhappy falling with income

Between-Country Estimates: Happiness & GNP


Easterlin (1974) Easterlin (1995)

Cantrill data Eurobarometer data

“What is perhaps most striking is that the personal happiness ratings for 10 of the 14 countries lie virtually within half a

point of the mid-point rating of 5.”

“A positive happiness-income relationship typically turns up in international

comparisons”

Time Series: No rise in happiness, despite growth


U.S.A. Japan Europe

General Social Survey Life in Nation Surveys Eurobarometer

Implications of the Easterlin Paradox


“Why do national comparisons among countries and over time show an association between income and happiness which is so much weaker than, if not inconsistent with, that shown by within-country comparisons?” –Easterlin (1974) Reference-dependent preferences

Relative income matters [Other people’s consumption matters]Habit formation = hedonic treadmill [Other period’s consumption]

Policy implications: Growth: “My results, along with mounting evidence from other time

series studies of subjective well-being, do on balance undermine the view that a focus on economic growth is in the best interests of society.” –Easterlin (2005)

Public finance: If preferences are interdependent Pigouvian rationale for taxing labor supply / conspicuous consumption

Subjective Well-being


“Subjective well-being refers to all of the various types of evaluations, both positive and negative, that people make of their lives. It includes reflective cognitive evaluations, such as life satisfaction and work satisfaction, interest and engagement, and affective reactions to life events, such as joy and sadness.” (Diener, 2005)

Typical questions: Happiness

“Taking all things together, would you say you are: very happy; quite happy; not very happy; not at all happy.”

Life satisfaction“All things considered, how satisfied are you with your life as a whole these days?” [1=Dissatisfied – 10=Satisfied]

Satisfaction ladder: “Here is a ladder representing the ‘ladder of life’. Let's suppose the top of the ladder represents the best possible life for you, and the bottom, the worse possible life for you. On which step of the ladder do you feel you personally stand at the present time? [0-10 steps].”

Alternative measures of average happiness


ALB

ALB

ARGARGARGARG

ARM

AUSAUSAUTAUT

AZE

BELBELBEL

BGDBGD

BGR

BGRBGR

BIHBIH

BLRBLR

BLR

BRABRA

CAN

CAN

CANCHECHE

CHLCHLCHL

CHNCHN

CHN

COL

CZECZECZEDEUDEUDEUDEU

DNKDNKDNK

DOMDZAEGYESPESPESPESP

ESTESTEST

FINFINFINFRAFRAFRAGBRGBRGBR

GEOGRC

HRVHRVHUN

HUNHUNHUN

IDNIND

INDIND

IRLIRLIRL

IRNIRQ

ISLISLISL

ISRITA

ITAITAJORJPNJPN

JPNJPNKGZ

KORKORKOR

LTULTULTU

LUX

LVALVA

LVA

MAR

MDAMDA

MEXMEX

MEX

MKDMKDMLT

MLTMLTNGA

NGA

NGANIRNIR

NIRNLDNLDNLD

NORNORNORNZL

PAKPAKPERPER

PHLPHL

POLPOLPOL

PRIPRI

PRTPRT

ROMROMROM

RUSRUSRUS

SAU

SCGSCG

SGPSLV

SVKSVKSVK

SVNSVNSVN

SWESWESWESWE

TUR

TUR

TUR

TWN

TZA

UGA

UKRUKR

URYUSAUSA

USAUSAVENVENVNM

ZAFZAFZAF

ZWE

22.

53

3.5

4S

impl

e M

ean

of 1

-4 r

espo

nse

-1.5 -1 -.5 0 .5 1 1.5

y = 3.01+0.62*x (se=0.00)Correlation=0.998

Simple Mean

ALB

ALB

ARGARGARGARG

ARM

AUSAUS

AUTAUT

AZE

BELBELBEL

BGDBGD

BGR

BGRBGR

BIHBIH

BLRBLR

BLR

BRABRA

CAN

CAN

CANCHECHE

CHLCHLCHL

CHNCHN

CHN

COL


DNKDNKDNK

DOMDZA

EGYESPESPESPESP

ESTESTEST

FINFINFINFRAFRAFRA

GBRGBRGBR

GEO

GRCHRV

HRVHUNHUN

HUNHUN

IDN

INDIND

IND

IRLIRLIRL

IRNIRQ

ISLISLISL

ISR

ITAITAITAJORJPNJPN

JPNJPN

KGZKOR

KORKOR

LTULTU

LTU

LUX

LVA

LVALVA

MAR

MDAMDA

MEXMEX

MEX

MKD

MKDMLT

MLTMLT

NGA

NGA

NGA

NIRNIRNIR

NLDNLDNLD

NORNORNORNZL

PAKPAKPERPER

PHLPHL

POL

POLPOL

PRIPRI

PRTPRT

ROMROMROM

RUSRUSRUS

SAU

SCGSCG

SGP

SLV

SVKSVKSVK

SVN

SVNSVN

SWESWESWESWE

TUR

TUR

TUR

TWN

TZA

UGA

UKRUKR

URY

USAUSA

USAUSA

VENVENVNM

ZAF

ZAFZAF

ZWE

-2-1

01

2O

rder

ed L

ogit

Ind

ex

-1.5 -1 -.5 0 .5 1 1.5


Ordered Logit

ALB

ALB

ARGARGARGARG

ARM

AUSAUSAUTAUTAZE

BELBELBELBGD

BGD

BGR

BGRBGR

BIHBIH

BLRBLR

BLR BRABRA

CAN

CAN

CANCHECHE

CHLCHLCHL

CHN

CHNCHN

COL

CZECZECZEDEUDEU

DEUDEUDNKDNKDNK

DOMDZA

EGYESPESPESPESP

ESTESTEST

FINFINFINFRAFRAFRAGBRGBRGBR

GEOGRC

HRVHRVHUN

HUNHUN

HUN

IDN

INDINDIND

IRLIRLIRL

IRNIRQ

ISLISLISL

ISRITAITAITAJORJPNJPN

JPNJPNKGZKORKORKOR

LTULTU

LTU

LUX

LVALVA

LVA

MAR

MDAMDA

MEXMEX

MEX

MKDMKD

MLT MLTMLT

NGA

NGANGANIRNIRNIRNLDNLDNLDNORNORNORNZL

PAKPAK

PERPER

PHLPHL

POLPOL

POLPRI PRI

PRTPRT

ROMROMROM

RUSRUSRUS

SAU

SCGSCG

SGP SLV

SVKSVKSVK

SVN

SVNSVN

SWESWESWESWETUR

TUR

TUR

TWN TZA

UGA

UKRUKR

URYUSAUSAUSAUSA VEN

VENVNM

ZAFZAFZAF

ZWE

0.2

.4.6

.81

Pro

port

ion

quit

e or

ver

y ha

ppy

-1.5 -1 -.5 0 .5 1 1.5


Percent Happy

ALB

ARGARGARGARG

ARM

AUSAUS

AUTAUT

AZE

BELBELBEL

BGDBGD

BGR

BGRBGR

BIHBIH

BLRBLR

BLR

BRABRA

CAN

CAN

CANCHECHE

CHLCHLCHL

CHNCHNCHN

COL


DNKDNKDNK

DOMDZA

EGYESPESPESPESP

ESTESTEST

FINFINFINFRAFRAFRA

GBRGBRGBR

GEOGRC

HRVHRVHUN

HUNHUNHUN

IDN

INDIND

IND

IRLIRLIRL

IRNIRQ

ISLISLISL

ISR

ITAITAITAJORJPNJPN

JPNJPN

KGZKOR

KORKOR

LTULTULTU

LUX

LVA

LVALVA

MAR

MDAMDA

MEXMEX

MEX

MKDMKDMLT

MLTMLTNGA

NGA

NGA

NIRNIRNIR

NLDNLDNLD

NORNORNORNZL

PAKPAKPERPER

PHLPHL

POL

POLPOL

PRIPRI

PRTPRT

ROMROMROM

RUSRUSRUS

SAU

SCGSCG

SGP

SLV

SVKSVKSVK

SVN

SVNSVN

SWESWESWESWE

TUR

TUR

TURTWN

TZA

UGA

UKRUKR

URY

USAUSA

USAUSA

VENVENVNM

ZAF

ZAFZAF

ZWE0

12

3H

eter

osce

dast

ic o

rder

ed p

robi

t ind

ex

-1.5 -1 -.5 0 .5 1 1.5


Heteroscedastic Ordered Probit

Happiness: Ordered Probit IndexDashed line shows linear regression; dotted line shows lowess fit.

World Values Survey, Waves 1-4Alternative Estimates of Average Happiness

Income-Happiness Relationship in GSS


B

T

B

T

T

B

T

B

T

B

T

B

T

B

T

B

B

TT

B

T

B

T

B

T

B

T

B

TBT

B

T

B

T

B

T

B

T

B

T

B

B

TT

TT

B

-1.00

-0.75

-0.50

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

$0$4

0k$8

0k

$120

k

$160

k

$200

k

$240

k

$280

k

Linear Income Scale

B

T

B

T

T

B

T

B

T

B

T

B

T

B

T

B

B

TT

B

T

B

T

B

T

B

T

B

TBT

B

T

B

T

B

T

B

T

B

T

B

B

TT

TT

B

-1.00

-0.75

-0.50

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

$0.5k $1

k$2

k$4

k$8

k$1

6k$3

2k$6

4k

$128

k

$256

k

Log Income Scale

Hap

pine

ss: O

rder

ed p

robi

t ind

exE

stim

ated

for

eac

h in

com

e ca

tego

ry*y

ear

Annual Family Income (Thousands of $2005)Long dash shows: Happiness = -2.2239 + 0.2097 * Log income (se=0.0068)Short dash shows: Happiness = -0.2091 + 0.0036 * Income/$1000 (se=0.0001)

Incomes are midpoints of categories. Points labelled T and B have imputed incomes, due to top- or bottom-coding, respectively.Dot size is proportional to population in that income category.

Each point aggregates happiness in a GSS income category in a yearFunctional Form of Happiness-Income Relationship in GSS

Within-Country: Rich are happier than poor


Each cell reports coefficient on log Household Income from a regression:Ordered Probit: Well-being = log (Household Income) + Country*wave fixed effectsβ

No controls Age*gender IV: education IV: country-specific education

Gallup World Poll, 2006Satisfaction ladder

0.310***

(0.005)0.307***

(0.005)0.645***

(0.016)0.575***

(0.014)

World Values Survey:Life Satisfaction

0.211***

(0.005)0.226***

(0.005)0.301***

(0.014)0.254***

(0.012)

World Values Survey: Happiness

0.229***

(0.005)0.220***

(0.005)0.309***

(0.015)0.263***

(0.014)

Pew Global Attitudes SurveySatisfaction ladder

0.313***

(0.008)0.317***

(0.008)n.a. n.a.

Notes: ***, ** and * denote statistically significant at 1%, 5% and 10%, respectively.(Robust standard errors in parentheses, clustered by country.)Column 1: An ordered probit regression of well-being on log household income, and country fixed-effectsColumn 2: Adds gender, a quartic in age, and their interaction as controlsColumn 3: Instruments for log household income using indicator variables for levels of education. Second stage is an ordered probit regression of well-being on the predicted values, the residuals, and country fixed-effects.Column 4: The instrument set now includes indicator variables for levels of education, interacted with country dummies.

Within-Country Variation: Gallup World Poll


Between-Country GDP-Wellbeing Gradient


Each cell reports coefficient from a regression: Well-being = log (GDP per capita)β

Macro Data: OLS Dep. Var: National Well-being

Micro Data: Ordered ProbitDep. Var: Indiv. well-being

SampleRespondents

No controls Controls (clusters)

Gallup World Poll, 2006

Please imagine a ladder/mountain with steps numbered from zero at the bottom to ten at the top. Suppose we say that the top of the ladder/mountain represents the best possible life for you and the bottom of the ladder/mountain represents the worst possible life for you. If the top step is 10 and the bottom step is 0, on which step of the ladder/mountain do you feel you personally stand at the present time?

0.418***

(0.026)0.396***

(0.023)0.422***

(0.023)139,051(131 countries)

World Values Survey: Life Sat

All things considered, how satisfied are you with your life as a whole these days? [1] Dissatisfied – [10] Satisfied

4 waves combined (with wave FE)

0.316***

(0.052)0.296***

(0.048)0.302***

(0.047)261,490(82 countries)

World Values Survey: Happiness

Taking all things together, would you say you are: [4] Very happy; [3] Quite happy; [2] Not very happy; [1] Not at all happy.

4 waves combined (with wave FE)

0.181***

(0.063)0.169***

(0.056)0.188***

(0.055)256,283(82 countries)

Pew Global Attitudes Survey

Here is a ladder representing the ‘ladder of life’. Let's suppose the top of the ladder represents the best possible life for you, and the bottom, the worse possible life for you. On which step of the ladder do you feel you personally stand at the present time? [0-10 steps].

2002 0.224***

(0.041)0.223***

(0.041)0.242***

(0.040)37,974(44 countries)

Is there any evidence of satiation?


Rich countries (GDP>$15,000) Happiness=1.08*log(GDP) [se=0.19]

Poor countries (GDP<$15,000) Happiness=0.35*log(GDP) [se=0.04]

A 1% rise in GDP: Has three times larger effects in rich

countries than poor countries A $100 rise in GDP

3x larger effect in Jamaica than US 20x larger effect in Burundi than US

“if we compare countries, there is no evidence that richer countries are happier than poorer ones – so long as we confine ourselves to countries with incomes over $15,000 per head.” - Layard (2005)

Satisfaction v. Happiness (WVS)


ALB

ARG

AUT

BEL

BGD

BGR

BIH

BLR

CAN

CHL

CHN

CZE

DEU

DNK

DZAEGY

ESP

EST

FIN

FRA

GBR

GRCHRV

HUN

IDN

IND

IRL

IRN

ISL

ISRITA

JOR

JPNKGZ

KOR

LTU

LUX

LVA

MAR

MDA

MEX

MKD

MLT

NLD

PAK

PERPHL

POL

PRI

PRT

ROM

RUS

SAU

SCG

SGP

SVK

SVN

SWE

TURUGA

UKR

USAVEN

VNM

ZAF

ZWE

NGA

TZA

-1.5

-1

-.5

0

.5

1

1.5

500 1000 2000 4000 8000 16000 32000


Excluding NGA and TZA: y = -3.55+0.38*ln(x) [se=0.05]Correlation=0.72

Life Satisfaction

ALB

ARG

AUT

BEL

BGD

BGR

BIH

BLR

CAN

CHL

CHNCZE

DEU

DNK

DZA

EGY ESP

EST

FIN

FRA

GRCHRVHUN

IDN

IND

IRL

IRN

ISL

ISRITA

JOR

JPN

KGZ

KOR

LTU

LUX

LVA

MAR

MDA

MEX

MKD

MLT

NLD

PAK PER

PHL

POL

PRI

PRT

ROMRUS

SAU

SCG

SGP

SVK

SVN

SWE

TUR

UGA

UKR

USA

VENVNM

ZAF

ZWE

NGA

TZA

-1.5

-1

-.5

0

.5

1

1.5

500 1000 2000 4000 8000 16000 32000


Excluding NGA and TZA: y = -2.12+0.23*ln(x) [se=0.05]Correlation=0.48

Happiness

Wel

l-be

ing

Inde

x (o

rder

ed p

robi

t)

Real GDP per Capita, PPP (log scale)Dashed line shows linear regression; dotted line shows lowess fit.Source: World Values Survey, 1999-2004 wave.

Subjective Wellbeing and Real GDP per Capita

Happiness v. Life Satisfaction


AUSBRA

CAN

DEUFRA

GBR

IND

ITAJPNMEX

USA

-1.5-1.0-0.50.00.51.01.5

500 1000 2000 4000 8000 16000 32000


1975Happiness: Kettering

AUS

BRA

CANDEU

FRA

GBR

IND

ITAJPN

MEX USA

500 1000 2000 4000 8000 16000 32000


1975Life Satisfaction: Kettering

AUTBEL

BGR

CYPCZE

DEU

DNKESP

EST

FIN

FRAGBRGRC

HUNITA

LTU

LUX

LVA

MLT

POL PRTSVK

SVNSWE

TUR

-1.5-1.0-0.50.00.51.01.5

500 1000 2000 4000 8000 1600032000


2003Happiness: Euro_QoL

AUTBEL

BGR

CYPCZE

DEU

DNK

ESP

EST

FIN

FRAGBR

GRC

HUN

IRLITA

LTU

LUX

LVA

MLT

POL PRTSVK

SVN

SWE

TUR

500 1000 2000 4000 8000 16000 32000


2003Life Satisfaction: Euro_QoL

AUT

BEL

BGR

CZE

DNK

ESP

EST

FINFRAFRGGBR

GDRGRCHRVHUN

IRL

ITALTU

LUX

LVA

NLD

POLPRT

ROM

SLV

SVK

SWE

TUR

-1.5-1.0-0.50.00.51.01.5

500 1000 2000 4000 80001600032000


2006Happiness: Eurobarometer

AUTBEL

BGR

CZE

DNK

ESP

EST

FIN

FRAFRGGBR

GDRGRCHRV

HUN

IRL

ITALTU

LUX

LVA

NLD

POLPRT

ROM

SLV

SVK

SWE

TUR

500 1000 2000 4000 8000 16000 32000


2006Life Satisfaction: Eurobarometer

Real GDP per Capita (2000 US$), PPP (log scale)

WVS: Comparing within- and between


ALB

ARG

AUT

BEL

BGD

BGR

BIH

BLR

CAN

CHL

CHN

CZE

DEU

DNK

DZAEGY

ESP

EST

FIN

FRA

GBR

GRCHRV

HUN

IDN

IND

IRL

IRN

ISL

ISRITA

JOR

JPNKGZKOR

LTU

LUX

LVA

MAR

MDA

MEX

MKD

MLT

NGA

NLD

PAK

PERPHL

POL

PRI

PRT

ROM

RUS

SAU

SCG

SGP

SVK

SVN

SWE

TUR

TZA

UGA

UKR

USAVEN

VNM

ZAF

ZWE

-1.5

-1

-.5

0

.5

1

Wel

lbei

ng I

ndex

(O

rder

ed P

robi

t)

500 1000 2000 4000 8000 16000 32000

Country-year aggregates

Within country wellbeing gradient

Between country wellbeing gradient

Source: World Values Survey, 1999-2004 wave.

Comparing Within-Country and Between-Country EstimatesIncome and Life Satisfaction

Income and Happiness: Cross-section v. Cross-country


ALB

ARG

AUTBEL

BGD

BGR

BIH

BLR

CAN

CHL

CHNCZE

DEU

DNK

DZA

EGY ESP

EST

FIN

FRA

GRCHRVHUN

IDN

IND

IRL

IRN

ISL

ISRITA

JOR

JPN

KGZ

KOR

LTU

LUX

LVA

MAR

MDA

MEX

MKD

MLT

NGA

NLD

PAK PER

PHL

POL

PRI

PRT

ROMRUS

SAU

SCG

SGP

SVK

SVN

SWE

TUR

TZA

UGA

UKR

USA

VENVNM

ZAF

ZWE

-1.5

-1

-.5

0

.5

1

Wel

lbei

ng I

ndex

(O

rder

ed P

robi

t)

500 1000 2000 4000 8000 16000 32000

Country-year aggregates

Within country wellbeing gradient

Between country wellbeing gradient

Source: World Values Survey, 1999-2004 wave.

Comparing Within-Country and Between-Country EstimatesIncome and Happiness

China


Very satisfied

Somewhat satisfied

Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied

Somewhat dissatisfied

Very dissatisfied

1994 9% 41% 38% 12% 2%

1997 19% 53% n.a. 20% 7%

1999 19% 50% n.a. 22% 8%

2004 12% 51% n.a. 29% 8%

“Overall how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the way things are going in your life today?”

Happiness and the Output Gap


Happiness(right axis)

Output gap (left axis)

-0.10

-0.05

0.00

0.05

0.10

Hap

pine

ss I

ndex

(O

rder

ed P

robi

t Est

imat

es)

-.04

-.02

0

.02

.04

Out

put G

ap (

Shar

e of

GD

P)

Est

imat

ed u

sing

HP

filte

r

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Happiness = 0.00+2.11*Output gap (se=0.45)Correlation=0.69

Happiness and the Output Gap in the United States

U.S. trends by education


<Highschool

Highschool grad

Somecollege

Collegegrad

-0.4

-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

Hap

pine

ss: O

rder

ed p

robi

t ind

ex

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

U.S. Happiness trends by Education

U.S. Happiness Trends by Race


Blacks

Whites

-0.7

-0.6

-0.5

-0.4

-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

Hap

pine

ss: O

rder

ed p

robi

t ind

ex

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Not shown: 'Other' (cell sizes too small)

U.S. Happiness trends by Race

Gender Happiness Trends in the United States

-.2

0

.2

.4

Hap

pine

ss%

>m

edia

n ha

ppin

ess

/ Est

imat

ed h

appi

ness

inde

x

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

%>Median Happiness: Women Men

Ordered probit index: Women Men Difference

Source: General Social Survey

Happiness in the United States

World Values Survey Changes


ALB

ARG

AUS

AUT

BEL

BGD

BGR

BIH

BLR

BRA

CANCHE

CHL

CHN

CZE

DEU

DNK

ESP

EST

FINFRA

GBR

HRV

HUN

IND

IRL

ISL

ITA

JPN

KOR

LTULVA

MDA

MEX

MKD

MLT

NGA

NLD

NOR

PAK

PER

PHL

POL

PRI

PRT

ROM

RUS

SCG

SVKSVN

SWE

TUR

UKR

USA

VEN

ZAF

96

82

82

90

82

96

90

96

90

90

8290

90

90

90

82

82

82

90

9082

82

96

82

90

82

82

82

82

90

9090

96

90

96

82

90

82

82

96

96

96

90

96

90

90

90

96

9090

82

90

96

82

96

90

00

90

96

00

90

00

96

00

96

9690

96

9696

96

90

90

90

96

9690

90

00

90

96

9090

909096

96

96

00

9600

9096

90

90

0000

00

96

00

00

96

96

00

96

96

9096

00

90

00

96

96

00

00

00

00

00

00

0096

00

96

00

00

0096

96

00

00

00

00

96

00

00

00

00

00

00

00

96

00

00

00

00

00

96

00

96

00 00

00

00

00

00

00

00

-1.50

-1.00

-0.50

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50H

appi

ness

500 1000 2000 4000 8000 16000 32000

Happiness

ALB

ARG

AUS AUT

BEL

BGD

BGR

BIH BLR

BRA

CAN

CHE

CHL

CHN

CZE

DEU

DNK

ESP

EST

FIN

FRA

GBR

HRV

HUN

IND

IRL

ISL

ITAJPN

KOR

LTU

LVA

MDA

MEX

MKD

MLT

NGA

NLD

NOR

PER

PHL

POL

PRI

PRT

ROM

RUS

SCG

SVK

SVN

SWE

TUR

UKR

USA

VEN

ZAF

96

82

82 90

82

96

90

96 90

90

82

90

90

90

90

82

82

82

90

90

82

82

96

82

90

82

82

8282

82

90

90

96

90

96

82

90

82

82

96

96

90

96

90

90

90

96

90

90

82

90

96

82

96

90

00

90

96

00

90

00

96

00

96

96

90

96

9696

96

90

90

90

96

96

90

90

00

90

96

9090

90

90

90

9696

00

96

00

90

96

9090

00

00

96

00

00

96

96

00

96

96

90

96

00

9000

96

96

00

00

00

00

00

00

0096

00

96

00

00

00

96

96

00

00

00

00

96

00

00

00

00

00

00

0096

00

00

00

00

00

96

00

96

00

00 00

00

00

00

00

00 00

Lif

e S

atis

fact

ion

500 1000 2000 4000 8000 16000 32000

Life Satisfaction

Wel

lbei

ng I

ndex

(O

rder

ed P

robi

t)

Real GDP per Capita, PPP (2000 $ US; Log scale)82=1981-84 wave; 90=1989-93 wave; 96=1994-99 wave; 00=1999-2004 wave.Dashed line shows slope of regression line through pooled well-being and GDP data across wavesSource: World Values Survey.

Evolution of Well-Being and GDP Through Time

WVS: First diffs


ALB96-00ARG82-90

ARG90-96

ARG96-00

AUS82-96

AUT90-00BEL82-90

BEL90-00

BGD96-00

BGR90-96

BGR96-00

BIH96-00

BLR90-96

BLR96-00

BRA90-96

CAN82-90CAN90-00

CHE90-96

CHL90-96

CHL96-00

CHN90-96CHN96-00CZE90-96

CZE96-00

DEU82-90DEU90-96

DEU96-00

DNK82-90

DNK90-00

ESP82-90

ESP90-96

ESP96-00

EST90-96

EST96-00

FIN90-96FIN96-00FRA82-90FRA90-00

GBR82-90

GBR90-96

GBR96-00

HRV96-00

HUN82-90

HUN90-96HUN96-00IND90-96

IND96-00

IRL82-90

IRL90-00

ISL82-90ISL90-00

ITA82-90

ITA90-00JPN82-90

JPN90-96

JPN96-00

KOR82-90

KOR90-00

LTU90-96

LTU96-00

LVA90-96

LVA96-00

MDA96-00

MEX90-96

MEX96-00

MKD96-00

MLT82-90

MLT90-00

NGA90-96

NGA96-00

NLD82-90NLD90-00

NOR82-90

NOR90-96PER96-00

PHL96-00 POL90-96POL96-00

PRI96-00

PRT90-00

ROM90-96

ROM96-00

RUS90-96

RUS96-00

SCG96-00

SVK90-96

SVK96-00

SVN90-96

SVN96-00

SWE82-90

SWE90-96SWE96-00TUR90-96

TUR96-00

UKR96-00

USA82-90USA90-96USA96-00

VEN96-00

ZAF90-96

ZAF96-00

-.5

-.25

0

.25

.5

Cha

nge

in W

ellb

eing

Ind

ex (

Ord

ered

Pro

bit)

-.5 -.25 0 .25 .5 .75%Change in Real GDP per Capita, PPP

Source: World Values Survey. 82=1981-84 wave; 90=1989-93 wave; 96=1994-99 wave; 00=1999-2004 wave.

Economic Growth and Changes in Life Satisfaction

International Panel Data


Each cell reports coefficient from a regression: Well-beingc,t = log (GDP per capitaβ c,t)

Microdata Estimates(Respondent observations)

Macro Estimates(Country-wave obs)

Sample

Dep Var:Life Satisfaction (WVS)

All things considered, how satisfied are you with your life as a whole these days? [1] Dissatisfied – [10] Satisfied

Levels 0.317***

(0.036)0.339***

(0.031)259,165

(182 country-waves) Levels | Country FE 0.159**

(0.078)0.155**

(0.078)259,165

(182 country-waves) Levels | Country and Wave FE

0.265**

(0.110)0.251**

(0.100)259,165

(182 country-waves) First Differences n.a. 0.412***

(0.109)101 diffs

Long Differences 0.169(0.116)

0.180(0.113)

150,952(110 cty-waves= 55 diffs)

Happiness (WVS) Taking all things together, would you say you are: [4] Very happy; [3] Quite happy; [2] Not very happy; [1] Not at all happy.

Levels 0.168***

(0.043)0.181***

(0.035)253,986

(182 country-waves) Levels | Country FE 0.290***

(0.075)0.281***

(0.099)253,986

(182 country-waves) Levels | Country and Wave FE

0.033(0.103)

0.008(0.127)

253,986(182 country-waves)

First Differences 0.073(0.134)

101 diffs

Long Differences -0.015 (0.109)

-0.026(0.126)

152,452(112 cty-waves= 56 diffs)

Economic Growth and Subjective Well-Being: Reassessing the Easterlin Paradox

Documents

Transcript of Economic Growth and Subjective Well-Being: Reassessing the Easterlin Paradox