And if you hope to use a measure of well-being to guide social policy you need an index that will pick up permanent effects of good policies on the happiness of the population.Ībout ten years ago I had an idea that seemed to solve these difficulties: perhaps people's satisfaction with their life is not the right measure of well-being. If you are a compassionate liberal, the finding that the sick and the poor are not very miserable takes wind from your sails. If you believe that economic growth is the key to increased well-being, the Easterlin paradox is bad news. Hedonic adaptation is a troubling concept, regardless of where you stand on the political spectrum. The famous "Easterlin paradox" seemed to nail it down: Self-reported life satisfaction has changed very little in prosperous countries over the last fifty years, in spite of large increases in the standard of living. Evidence that people adapt - though not completely - to becoming paraplegic or winning the lottery supported the idea of a "hedonic treadmill": we move but we remain in place.
The effects of circumstances on life satisfaction appeared surprisingly small: the rich were only slightly more satisfied with their lives than the poor, the married were happier than the unmarried but not by much, and neither age nor moderately poor health diminished life satisfaction. Ten years ago the generally accepted position was that there is considerable hedonic adaptation to life conditions. The central question for students of well-being is the extent to which people adapt to circumstances.
0 kommentar(er)
