So, for the sixth year in a row, Finland is world’s happiest country, based on the annual ranking of World Happiness Report. Yippee-ki-yay! While such stability starts to be boring, Finland’s constant success has meant that I – as one of the leading well-being experts from Finland – have given interviews to media across the world from
Hello Frank - I'm writing a piece for The i newspaper in the UK about the annual ranking of World Happiness, and I was wondering if I could use a few of your comments in the piece (credited, of course). Please do let me know. My email is emily.cope@inews.co.uk if you'd like more info.
Solid breakdown of why Nordic countries top the rankings year after year. Thanks.
To your 5th point of citizen happiness being a serious goal for governments, it's interesting.
I'm currently reading "Sacred Economics" book. The book is quite left-ish in its overall thinking, but it provides thought-provoking analysis and historical comparisons. I've had many "light bulb" moments about how the gift economy, interdependence of people in local communities, etc, used to act as a major source of happiness just a few decades ago. During the last one or two decades, monetising our social/interaction layer really hasn't been a force of good for the population at large. If humankind decides to truly go towards happier and more sustainable living, it requires a total revamp of the monetary system and taxation, among other things. Let's see, that's not an easy endeavour.
So, why is GDP not a good metric alone? Here is one convincing example:
E.g. think of how much money/resources it takes to build an ordinary residential suburb with plenty of separate houses with small backyards. E.g. some typical suburb in the US. Think of the cost of building the roads, piping, and other infrastructure. You also need to buy a car to commute to work. A lot of GDP is generated.
Then, take for e.g. Singapore. They house the same amount of people in high-quality government skyscraper apartments with beautiful surrounding gardens. No need to build roads, or extensive piping/infra, or use much land. You can commute by metro. No need to buy a car. A lot less GDP is generated, significantly less.
Which one has happier people?
Well, it depends on many other things, right? GDP metric doesn't give accurate guidance alone.
(And btw, I'm not suggesting that everyone should live in highrise buildings).
An another example: How about if you decide to build your own house? Instead of buying one.
You know, take some time off work, do most of the things yourself. Ask friends to join once in a while to help and paint the walls. It can bring great satisfaction to certain DIY people who have the skills. You can live in your tailor-made creation and feel grateful for it daily. Besides, you saved plenty of money by doing it yourself, perhaps built the house on a more cheaper land, and shared the journey with your close friends.
Again, much less GDP was generated. Are you now less happy? Most likely the opposite.
Just like Frank said, measuring happiness beyond the GDP should be a serious activity for the governments. Area worth exploring more.
Hello Frank - I'm writing a piece for The i newspaper in the UK about the annual ranking of World Happiness, and I was wondering if I could use a few of your comments in the piece (credited, of course). Please do let me know. My email is emily.cope@inews.co.uk if you'd like more info.
Thank you
Emily
Solid breakdown of why Nordic countries top the rankings year after year. Thanks.
To your 5th point of citizen happiness being a serious goal for governments, it's interesting.
I'm currently reading "Sacred Economics" book. The book is quite left-ish in its overall thinking, but it provides thought-provoking analysis and historical comparisons. I've had many "light bulb" moments about how the gift economy, interdependence of people in local communities, etc, used to act as a major source of happiness just a few decades ago. During the last one or two decades, monetising our social/interaction layer really hasn't been a force of good for the population at large. If humankind decides to truly go towards happier and more sustainable living, it requires a total revamp of the monetary system and taxation, among other things. Let's see, that's not an easy endeavour.
So, why is GDP not a good metric alone? Here is one convincing example:
E.g. think of how much money/resources it takes to build an ordinary residential suburb with plenty of separate houses with small backyards. E.g. some typical suburb in the US. Think of the cost of building the roads, piping, and other infrastructure. You also need to buy a car to commute to work. A lot of GDP is generated.
Then, take for e.g. Singapore. They house the same amount of people in high-quality government skyscraper apartments with beautiful surrounding gardens. No need to build roads, or extensive piping/infra, or use much land. You can commute by metro. No need to buy a car. A lot less GDP is generated, significantly less.
Which one has happier people?
Well, it depends on many other things, right? GDP metric doesn't give accurate guidance alone.
(And btw, I'm not suggesting that everyone should live in highrise buildings).
An another example: How about if you decide to build your own house? Instead of buying one.
You know, take some time off work, do most of the things yourself. Ask friends to join once in a while to help and paint the walls. It can bring great satisfaction to certain DIY people who have the skills. You can live in your tailor-made creation and feel grateful for it daily. Besides, you saved plenty of money by doing it yourself, perhaps built the house on a more cheaper land, and shared the journey with your close friends.
Again, much less GDP was generated. Are you now less happy? Most likely the opposite.
Just like Frank said, measuring happiness beyond the GDP should be a serious activity for the governments. Area worth exploring more.
Greets,
Mikko Ikola