|
on Economics of Happiness |
|
Issue of 2025–09–22
three papers chosen by Viviana Di Giovinazzo, Università degli Studi di Milano-Bicocca |
| By: | Caleiro, António |
| Abstract: | The level of well-being of a society, via the individuals that comprise it, obviously depends on their state of health. Thus, some well-being indicators/indices include health indicators/indices in their calculation. In fact, these well-being and health indexes must be complemented with others, of obvious relevance to the matter. This being the (main) objective of this work, the data corresponding to Portugal are analyzed: i) in the area of well-being, the indicators of happiness, satisfaction with life and, ii) in the area of health, the indicators of global burden of diseases, healthy life expectancy and self-perceived health status. This allows us to (better) understand the relationship between health and well-being in Portugal over the last few years. |
| Keywords: | Happiness; Health; Life satisfaction; Well-being. |
| JEL: | I14 I18 I31 |
| Date: | 2025–05–26 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:pra:mprapa:126003 |
| By: | Christopher P Barrington-Leigh |
| Abstract: | Global comparisons of wellbeing increasingly rely on survey questions that ask respondents to evaluate their lives, most commonly in the form of "life satisfaction" and "Cantril ladder" items. These measures underpin international rankings such as the World Happiness Report and inform policy initiatives worldwide, yet their comparability has not been established with contemporary global data. Using the Gallup World Poll, Global Flourishing Study, and World Values Survey, I show that the two question formats yield divergent distributions, rankings, and response patterns that vary across countries and surveys, defying simple explanations. To explore differences in respondents' cognitive interpretations, I compare regression coefficients from the Global Flourishing Study, analyzing how each question wording relates to life circumstances. While international rankings of wellbeing are unstable, the scientific study of the determinants of life evaluations appears more robust. Together, the findings underscore the need for a renewed research agenda on critical limitations to cross-country comparability of wellbeing. |
| Date: | 2025–09 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:arx:papers:2509.06867 |
| By: | Crispin Cooper; Ana Fredrich; Tommaso Reggiani; Wouter Poortinga |
| Abstract: | How should well-being be prioritised in society, and what trade-offs are people willing to make between fairness and personal well-being? We investigate these questions using a stated preference experiment with a nationally representative UK sample (n = 300), in which participants evaluated life satisfaction outcomes for both themselves and others under conditions of uncertainty. Individual-level utility functions were estimated using an Expected Utility Maximisation (EUM) framework and tested for sensitivity to the overweighting of small probabilities, as characterised by Cumulative Prospect Theory (CPT). A majority of participants displayed concave (risk-averse) utility curves and showed stronger aversion to inequality in societal life satisfaction outcomes than to personal risk. These preferences were unrelated to political alignment, suggesting a shared normative stance on fairness in well-being that cuts across ideological boundaries. The results challenge use of average life satisfaction as a policy metric, and support the development of nonlinear utility-based alternatives that more accurately reflect collective human values. Implications for public policy, well-being measurement, and the design of value-aligned AI systems are discussed. |
| Date: | 2025–09 |
| URL: | https://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:arx:papers:2509.07793 |