The pursuit of happiness

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.

What is happiness? For the ancient Greek philosopher Plato, it meant a life committed to knowledge and virtue. The Japanese concept of “ikigai” preaches balance. Or, according to the legions of self-anointed lifestyle gurus on social media, it is about “being your best self” — whatever that may mean. There is no universal definition. But there is an international consensus that happiness, however measured, is important — so much so that the UN has a resolution recognising it as a “fundamental human goal”. And since 2012, it has declared March 20 the International Day of Happiness.

The annual World Happiness Report, released to mark the occasion this week, ranks the happiest countries. It is based on a survey that asks individuals to evaluate their lives on a scale of 0 to 10. Out of 143 countries, the rich, low-inequality and high-welfare Scandinavian nations rank near the top. The G7 nations are spread between 15th and 51st place. And fragile, conflict-affected states cluster unsurprisingly at the bottom.

Although many national constitutions mention happiness, Bhutan is most unique for explicitly focusing on it. Should more nations do so? After all there has been a welcome push for wider measures of societal progress, beyond gross domestic product, ever since the financial crisis. As the WHR shows, nations with higher GDP tend to have higher happiness, but none of the world’s 10 largest economies feature in its top 10.

The Himalayan kingdom illustrates the pitfalls of trying to measure happiness. When Bhutan was last ranked in the WHR in 2019, it came a lowly 95th out of 156. But the country’s own gross national happiness index — based on nine themes such as wellbeing, community and the environment — has edged up since 2015. Indeed, even if a country can agree on an appropriate set of happiness metrics, each citizen derives a sense of life satisfaction in a different way. Cross-country comparisons can be nonsensical, and mood-based surveys are influenced by everything from the time of day to the weather.

Nonetheless, feelings matter for politics and the economy. Studies show that high life satisfaction is a reasonable predictor of an incumbent party’s electoral success, and that unhappy voters tend to vote for populists. The WHR also highlights the troubling decline in youngsters’ happiness across the west. Rising mental health problems have a knock-on impact on productivity and demand for public services.

So, what role should government play in citizens’ pursuit of happiness? Measurement issues aside, targeting higher happiness scores is not a recipe for utopia. “Bread and circuses” is not a sustainable form of governance — be that for a country’s citizens or a company’s employees. Nor is it possible to make everyone happy at the same time.

But, understanding what contributes to happiness is valuable. The WHR shows that life evaluations can be largely explained by six factors: GDP per capita, levels of social support, health, freedom, generosity and perceptions of corruption. These drivers of fulfilment are a far better basis for policy. An equivalent approach is to see the role of government as reducing the causes of unhappiness. This focuses on giving citizens the capability to improve their own lives, by providing basic public services, supporting freedoms and protecting them from harm.

It is best left to individuals to pursue whatever happiness means for them, be that starting a business, doing yoga, or early morning ice baths. For such an amorphous yet important concept, happiness should be best thought of as a byproduct of good governance, rather than its raison d’être.