Happiness Surveys and Public Policy: What’s the Use?
Matthew D. Adler
Duke University School of Law
Duke Law Journal, Vol. 62, 2013 Forthcoming
U of Penn Law School, Public Law Research Paper No. 12-36
U of Penn, Inst for Law & Econ Research Paper No. 12-23
This Article provides a comprehensive, critical overview of proposals to use happiness surveys for steering public policy. Happiness or “subjective well-being” surveys ask individuals to rate their present happiness, life-satisfaction, affective state, etc. A massive literature now engages in such surveys or correlates survey responses with individual attributes. And, increasingly, scholars argue for the policy relevance of happiness data: in particular, as a basis for calculating aggregates such as “gross national happiness,” or for calculating monetary equivalents for non-market goods based on coefficients in a happiness equation.
But is individual well-being equivalent to happiness? The happiness literature tends to blur or conflate important concepts: well-being, subjective well-being, happiness, utility, satisfaction. A preference-realization account of well-being denies the equivalence of happiness and welfare, since someone can have preferences for non-mental attributes, such as health, autonomy, goal-fulfillment, knowledge or the quality of her relationships.
It is critical, therefore, to differentiate two potential policy roles for happiness surveys. First, the survey response may provide prima facie evidence of the respondent’s preference-utility: the extent to which her preferences are realized. Second, it may indicate her experience-utility: the quality of her mental states. The Article clarifies these two, very different, ideas. It then criticizes, in turn, the preference-utility and the experience-utility defenses of the policy relevance of happiness surveys. Enthusiasm about happiness is premature.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 70
Keywords: happiness, subjective well-being, SWB, surveys, satisfaction, preferences, preference-utility, experience-utility, social welfare, welfare economics, welfarism, wellbeing, cost-benefit analysis, welfare, hedonism, utility
JEL Classification: D03, D63, D69, D81, I18, K32, Q58
Date posted: June 7, 2012