I am seeing more and more articles, commentaries and reports on the notion of what I’ll refer to as ‘happiness metrics’. It may be some time before developed countries replace GDP, the current measure of economic progress, with a more robust and inclusive measure. However, with the increased attention that measuring and understanding “happiness” is getting, such a metric metric may not be far off.
France’s president Nicholas Sarkozy has recommended that a greater emphasis be placed on happiness relative to GDP in the development of public policy; his critics maintain he is proposing the new emphasis due to the relative failure of his government’s policies in achieving a speedier economic recovery for France.
Closer to home, in 2007 Edmonton’s Mark Anielski published the book The Economics of Happiness which provides insights on how to enable the paradigm shift from crass consumer capitalism to more sustainable economies. I have just started reading this book and I find it fascinating.
Another report, released just last week by the Centre for the Study of Living Standards titled Does Money Matter? Determining the Happiness of Canadians has provided some key findings on Canadians and happiness:
- Perceived health status is an economically significant determinant of happiness
- High levels of stress level were associated with lower life satisfaction
- An individual’s sense of belonging to their local community is an important determinant of individual life satisfaction.
- Although household income was statistically significant at the one per cent level, it carries less economic significance for happiness than the variables highlighted above.
How many people would disagree with the above findings? More importantly, how many people care?
I care because the current consumerism paradigm tends to associate happiness and success with the acquisition of large houses, several cars, and a wide array of consumables. This current paradigm has consequences, such as an array of negative societal impacts. However, my concern is from an environmental perspective. The current paradigm has been disastrous in many ways and is clearly not sustainable as evidenced by the number of species extinctions, the loss of biodiversity and of course climate change. A fundamental problem is that the goods and services provided by nature have not been properly valued, but that is another story.
With the extreme growth of the developing world and emerging economies, and the lifestyle expectations the newly formed middle classes in China and India will have based on their perceptions of happiness under the “consumerism” mindset, I am glad that more holistic discussions on “genuine wealth” are underway.
Dear Jason, thank you for your leadership and your vision. I applaud your insights in how this new paradigm of measuring what matters most to our lives applies to your life and your vision of a sustainable future. I hope you enjoy the rest of my book where I do explore the issues of how to bring the value of nature more fully into our accounting systems.
I continue to marvel at the reality that we run our nations and our cities without any accounting of the real wealth or real capital that defines well-being, that includes nature, human health, skills and aspirations and social capital. In order humanity to rise to virtuous actions we must begin to measure what matters and ensure our actions are virtuous. For Thomas Jefferson once noted ‘without virtue, happiness cannot be.’
I often ask audiences “Can you tell me the four virtues which Plato defined as the foundation of western civilizations?” Remarkably few, if any, can name one of the four. They are:
Moderation
Justice
Wisdom
Courage
And even if we believe that we can measure what matters, I am reminded by the words of Mother Teresa who said ‘Love does not measure, it just gives.’
Mark Anielski
Author, The Economics of Happiness: Building Genuine Wealth
I agree 100% Jason!