Subjective Well Being, Income, Economic Development and Growth

Transcription

1 Subjective Well Being, Income, Economic Development and Growth Dan Sacks, Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania and NBER CSLS ICP Conference on Happiness December 1, 2010

2 Implications of the Easterlin Paradox Why do national comparisons among countries and over time show an association between income and happiness which is somuch weaker e than, if not inconsistent ste twith,,that shown by within-country comparisons? Easterlin (1974) Reference dependent preferences Relative income matters [Other people s consumption matters] Habit formation = hedonic treadmill [Other period s consumption] Policy implications: Growth: My results, along with mounting evidence from other time series studies of subjective well-being, do on balance undermine the view that a focus on economic growth is in the best interests of society. Easterlin (2005) Public finance: If preferences are interdependent Pigouvianrationale at o a for taxing labor supply / conspicuous cuous consumption o Sacks, Stevenson & Wolfers, Income and Happiness 2

3 Subjective Well being Subjective well being refers to all of the various types of evaluations, both positive and negative, that people make of their lives. It includes reflective cognitive evaluations, such as life satisfaction and work satisfaction, interest and engagement, and affective reactions to life events, such as joy and sadness. (Diener, 2005) Typical questions: Happiness Taking all things together, would you say you are: very happy; quite happy; not very happy; not at all happy. Life satisfaction All things considered, how satisfied are you with your life as a whole these days? [1=Dissatisfied 10=Satisfied] Satisfaction ladder: Here is a ladder representing the ladder of life. Let's suppose the top of the ladder represents the best possible life for you, and the bottom, the worse possible life for you. On which step of the ladder do you feel you personally stand at the present time??[0 10 steps]. Sacks, Stevenson & Wolfers, Income and Happiness 3

4 Research Question: What is the Relationship Between Subjective Well being and Income? Types of comparisons Within country: Rich v. poor people in a country Between country: Rich v. poor countries National time series: Country when rich v. poor 1970s view Easterlin Paradox Big effects Statistically insignificant effects interpreted to be zero No effects (Japan, USA, Europe) 1990s view Satiation Big effects for income <$15kf But not for the rich New view: Stevenson-Wolfers findings My results, along with mounting Strong effects: evidence from other time series β within 0.35 studies of subjective well-being, do on balance GDP<$15k: undermine the view Strong that effects a Strong effects β between =0.35 focus on economic growth is in the best interests of society society. GDP>$15k: No effects No effects Richard Easterlin (2005) (Available data are for rich countries) Strong effects β time series =0.35 International panel: Largely unexamined Largely unexamined Strong effects Countries with fast v. slow β panel =0.35 growth Implications Relative income Relative income There s no paradox determines well- determines well- (and never was) being being once basic needs are met Policy conclusions De-emphasize growth Rich countries should de-emphasize growth and tax labor supply Sacks, Stevenson & Wolfers, Income and Happiness 4

5 Research Question: What is the Relationship Between Subjective Well being and Income? Types of comparisons Within country: Rich v. poor people in a country Between country: Rich v. poor countries National time series: Country when rich v. poor 1970s view Easterlin Paradox Big effects Statistically insignificant effects interpreted to be zero No effects (Japan, USA, Europe) 1990s view Satiation Big effects for income <$15k But not for the rich GDP<$15k: Strong effects GDP>$15k: No effects No effects (Available data are for rich countries) New view: Stevenson-Wolfers findings Strong effects: β within 0.35 once a country has over $15,000 per head, its level of happiness Strong effects appears β between to be =0.35 independent of its income Strong effects Richard β time Layard series =0.35 (2003) International panel: Largely unexamined Largely unexamined Strong effects Countries with fast v. slow β panel =0.35 growth Implications Relative income Relative income There s no paradox determines well- determines well- (and never was) being being once basic needs are met Policy conclusions De-emphasize growth Rich countries should de-emphasize growth and tax labor supply Sacks, Stevenson & Wolfers, Income and Happiness 5

6 Research Question: What is the Relationship Between Subjective Well being and Income? Types of comparisons Within country: Rich v. poor people in a country Between country: Rich v. poor countries National time series: Country when rich v. poor 1970s view Easterlin Paradox Big effects Statistically insignificant effects interpreted to be zero No effects (Japan, USA, Europe) 1990s view Satiation Big effects for income <$15k But not for the rich GDP<$15k: Strong effects GDP>$15k: No effects No effects (Available data are for rich countries) New view: Strong effects: β within 0.35 Strong effects β between 0.35 Strong effects β time series 0.35 International panel: Largely unexamined Largely unexamined Strong effects Countries with fast v. slow β panel 0.35 growth Implications Relative income determines well- Relative income determines well- There s no paradox (and never was) being being once basic needs are met Policy conclusions De-emphasize growth Rich countries should de-emphasize growth and tax labor supply Sacks, Stevenson & Wolfers, Income and Happiness 6

7 Why revisit the stylized facts? 1. Theoretical implications: Reference dependent preferences 2. Yielding important policy implications (and big policy claims) What explains our new findings? 1. New data: Longer time series ( ); More countries (n=140) 2. Statistical inference: Absence of evidence v. evidence of absence 3. What are big versus small effects? Focus on the magnitudes What we won t do Assess causality: Happiness = β log(income) Revisit what subjective well being data mean Sacks, Stevenson & Wolfers, Income and Happiness 7

8 Outline: Assessing the Happiness Income link Within country cross sectional comparisons USA All countries Between countries: In past and current data Multiple datasets For both happiness and life satisfaction No evidence of satiation National Time Series and International Panels Japan Europe World Values Survey USA Newly available measures of subjective well being Sacks, Stevenson & Wolfers, Income and Happiness 8

9 Within Country Comparisons: USA Taken all together, th how would you say things are these days? Family income Very happy Pretty happy Not too happy <$12,500 (bottom 10%) 21% 53% 26% $12,500 $49,999 25% 61% 13% $50,000 $149,999 40% 54% 6% $150, (top 10%) 53% 45% 2% Source: U.S. General Social Survey, 2006 When we plot average happiness versus income for clusters of people in a given country at a given time, we see that rich people are in fact much happier than poor people. It s actually an astonishingly large difference. There s no one single change you can imagine that would make your life improve on the happiness scale as much as to move from the bottom 5 percent on the income scale to the top 5 percent. Robert Frank (2005) Sacks, Stevenson & Wolfers, Income and Happiness 9

10 Satisfaction and Log(Family Income) Well Being and Log(Income) 10) r score (0- Satisfac ction ladde 8 Lowess fits for the 25 Largest Countries; Gallup World Poll β within 0.35 MEX ITAFRADEU USA 1 GBR JPN COL KOR.5 BRA IND THA VNM PAK TUR RUSIRN CHN PHL EGY UKR 0 BGD NGA ETH -.5 Normalize ed satisfact tion ladder score 3 Figure shows the central 90% of the income distribution for each country Annual household income ($000s; Log income scale) Source: Daniel Sacks, Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers (2010), Subjective Well Being, Income, -1 Sa 10 cks

11 Within country : Rich are happier than poor Gallup World Poll: Ladder question World Values Survey: Life satisfaction Pew Global Attitudes Survey: Ladder question Without controls *** (0.014) *** (0.017) *** (0.027) With controls *** (0.014) *** (0.037) *** (0.027) Permanent IV Income Adjusted *** (0.027) *** (0.035) *** (0.033) Sample size 171,900 (126 Countries) 116,527 (61 Countries) 32,463 (43 Countries) Notes: The table reports the coefficient on the log of household income, obtained from regressing standardized life satisfaction against the log of household income and country fixed effects using the indicated data set. Additional controls include a quartic in age, interacted with sex, plus indicators for age and sex missing. Our permanent income adjustment is to scale up our estimates by 1/0.55; see text for explanation. We instrument for income using full set of country education fixed effects. We report robust standard errors, clustered at the country level, in parentheses. For further details on the standardization of satisfaction and the exact wording of satisfaction question, see the text. ***, ** and * denote statistically significant at 1%, 5% and 10%, respectively. Sacks, Stevenson & Wolfers, Income and Happiness 11

12 Outline: Assessing the Happiness Income link Within country comparisons USA All countries β within 0.35 Between countries: In past and current data Multiple datasets Both happiness and life satisfaction No evidence of satiation the happiness differences between rich and poor countries that one might expect on the basis of the within country differences by economic status are not borne out by the international data. Easterlin, (1974) National Time Series and International Panels Japan Europe World Values Survey USA Sacks, Stevenson & Wolfers, Income and Happiness 12

13 Early Cross National Studies of Well Being and GDP 1.5 Gallup, 1946 (Happiness) 1.0 Tension Study, 1948 (Satisfaction) Gallup, 1949 (Happiness) Well-being (Standardize ed index) FRA GBRUSA CAN y = *ln(x) 96 14*l [se=0.31] Correlation= Patterns of Human Concerns, 1960 (Satisfaction ladder) EGY NGA IND CUB JPN ISR DEU YUG PAN BRA POL USA MEX DEU ITA NOR AUS USA GBR NLD FRA y = *ln(x) 49*l [se=0.23] Correlation= World Survey III, 1965 (happiness) THA PHL MYS GBR USA FRG FRA ITA AUS NLD GBR USA NOR CAN FRA y = *ln(x) [se=0.60] Correlation= β between DOM y = *ln(x) [se=0.17] y = *ln(x) 0 17*l [se=0.15] Correlation=0.49 Correlation= Sacks, Stevenson Real GDP per & capita Wolfers, (thousands Income of dollars, and Happiness log scale) 13

14 Satisfactio on ladder score (0-10) wave World Values Survey β between wave CHE DNK MLT MLT AUS SWE ISL DNK 8 IRL CAN NOR GBR NLD USA IRL SWE CAN FIN AUT BEL NLD ISL NOR USA DEU BEL BRA GBR ESP 7 HUN ESPFRA JPN ITA CZE DEU ITA PRT 7 KOR FRA 0.0 POLSVK TUR JPN SVN 6 ROMEST HUN LTU 6 BLR LVA KOR RUS -0.5 BGR 5 ARG 5 NGA CHN IND CHLMEX ZAF ARG y= *ln(x) *ln(x)[se=022] [se=0.22] y= *ln(x) *ln(x)[se=008] [se=0.08] Correlation= Correlation= wave COL PRI CHE NZL FIN SWE MEX AUS GBR USA SLV NOR BRA URY CHNPHL DEU NGA VEN ESPJPN IND PER POLSVN CZE TWN TURHRVSVK HUN SCG MKD AZE BIH ZAF EST LTU BGD GEO ALB DOM ROM LVA BGR CHLARG ARM BLR RUS UKR MDA wave TZA PRI MEX MLT IRL DNK AUT ISL FIN CAN NLD LUX VEN SWE BEL USA 0.5 ARG DEU GBR IDN CHL SAU SVN CZE NGA PRT ESP ISR SGP ITA FRA CHN GRC KGZ VNM PHL PER IRN HRV POL JPN 0.0 MAR KOR BGD BIH ESTSVK UGA SCG JOR DZA ZAF HUN IND IRQ ALB BGR TUR MKD ROM LVA LTU PAK EGYBLR MDA RUS UKR y= *ln(x) [se=0.05] 05] y= *ln(x) [se=0.04] 04] Correlation= Correlation= Sacks, Stevenson Real GDP per & Capita Wolfers, (thousands Income of dollars, and log Happiness scale) 14 ZWE satisfaction la adder score Standardized

15 Satisf faction ladder score (0-10) TZA Pew Global Attitudes Survey, 2002 NGA KEN MLI β between GTM CAN HND USA MEX VNM KOR ITA FRA EGY VEN DEU GBR 0.5 BRA UZB ARG CZE JPN IDN PER CIV BOL PHL SEN JOR POL SVK PAK CHN 0.0 ZAF LBN IND UKR TUR BGDGHA RUS UGA AGO BGR -0.5 tion ladder sc core Standard dized satisfac 3 y = *ln(x) [se=0.04] Correlation= Real GDP per capita (thousands of dollars, log scale) Sacks, Stevenson & Wolfers, Income and Happiness 15

16 score (0-10) Satisfa action ladder 9 Gallup World Poll β between DNK FIN NZL CAN CHE SWEUSA NLDNOR AUSIRL 1.0 CRI ESPBEL AUT SAU ISR VEN FRA GBR MEX ITA ARE PAN PRI BRA CZE GRC DEU SGP JAM CYP 0.5 GTM ARG COL MYS TWN KWT JPN JOR THA CHL HRV LTU BLR URY POL TTO SVN BOL CUB SLV KAZ KOR HKG MMR ESTPRT UZB LAO PAK VNM HND MNE INDEGY DOM IRNROMRUS SVK UNK TUR ZAF 0.0 ECU DZA BWA HUN MDA GHA IDNMAR PRY LBN PER UKR NGA BIH MOZ KGZ BGD MRT ARM ALB AGO AZE CHN LVA IRQ NIC PHL NPL SEN SRB MDG YEM ZMB TJK LKA MKD MWI MLI RWA UGA CMR AFG NER ETH KEN TZA BEN BDI BFA TCD KHM HTI GEO BGR SLE ZWE TGO y= *ln(x) [se=0.019] -1.0 Correlation= Sacks, Real Stevenson GDP per capita, & Wolfers, (thousands Income of dollars, and log Happiness scale) 16 Standardi ized satisfacti ion ladder sco ore

17 Between Countries: Rich Countries Are Happier Estimates of β between Microdata National Data β between 0.35 Without controls *** (0 019) With controls *** (0 019) Sample size Gallup World Poll: Ladder question (0.019) (0.019) *** (0.019) 019) 291,383 (131 countries) World Values Survey: *** *** *** 234,093 Life satisfaction (0.034) (0.034) (0.036) (79 countries) Pew Global Attitudes Survey: Ladder question *** (0.039) *** (0.038) *** (0.037) 37,974 (44 countries) Notes: This table reports the coefficient on the log of per capita GDP, obtained from regressing standardized life satisfaction if i against the log of fgdp, using individual diid ldata with ihand without ih controls, l and using i national level i ll l data without controls, in the indicated data set. In the national level regressions, we take the within country average of standardized life satisfaction as the dependent variable. GDP per capita is at purchasing power parity. The additional controls include a quartic in age, interacted with sex, plus indicators for age and sex missing. We report robust standard errors, clustered at the country level, in parentheses. For further details on the standardization of satisfaction, the exact wording of satisfaction question, and the sources for GDP per capita, see the text. ***, ** and * denote statistically significant at 1%, 5% and 10%, respectively. Sacks, Stevenson & Wolfers, Income and Happiness 17

18 Comparing Within and Between Country Estimates Standard dized satisfacti ion ladder sco ore Country-year aggregates Within-country wellbeing gradient Between-country wellbeing gradient DNK FIN NZLCAN CHE CRI SWEUSA NLDNOR BEL AUS IRL ESPAUT SAU ISR VEN FRA GBR MEX ITA ARE SGP PAN PRI BRA CZE GRC DEU JAM ARG CYP GTM COL MYS TWN KWT JPN JOR THA CHL HRV LTU BLR URY POL TTO SVN BOL KAZ KOR SLV HKG MMR CUB EST PRT LAO PAK HND MNE DOM IRN INDEGY ROMRUS SVK UNK UZB VNM ECU DZA BWA HUN MDA GHA IDNMAR PRY LBN PER UKR TURZAF NGA BIH MOZ KGZ BGD MRT NIC PHL ARM ALB AZE CHN LVA NPL SEN SRB TJK MDG YEM ZMB AGO LKA MKD MWI MLI AFGNER CMR BEN ETH RWA UGA KEN TZA BDI BFA TCD KHM HTI GEO BGR β between β within SLE ZWE TGO Real GDP per capita (thousands of dollars, log scale) Sacks, Stevenson & Wolfers, Income and Happiness Satisf faction ladder score (0-10)

19 Are There Satiation Effects? There exists no dataset in which the well being income gradient changes at incomes above $15,000 There exists no income level above which further income Standard dized Happiness Index Happiness and Family Income in the U.S. does not raise happiness Bottom half: Slope=0.24 (0.10) Top half: Slope=0.30 (0.07) pp p p ( ) Inc<15k: Slope=0.31 (0.49) Inc>$15k: Slope=0.26 (0.05) Family Income ($000s) Source: Gallup Poll, December 2007 Stevenson and Wolfers, Subjective Well-Being 19 Source: Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers (2010), Subjective Well being and Income: Is There Any Evidence of Satiation?

20 Outline: Assessing the Happiness Income link Within country comparisons USA All countries β within 0.35 Between countries: Through time β 0.35 between Through time Multiple datasets Both happiness and life satisfaction No evidence of satiation National Time Series and International Panels Japan Europe World Values Survey USA income growth in a society does not increase happiness. - Easterlin (1995) Sacks, Stevenson & Wolfers, Income and Happiness 20

21 Happiness & Economic Growth: Time Series Evidence Japan US Old view: Life satisfaction flat, despite robust post war growth New view: Robust growth in life satisfaction apparent only when taking account of breaks in the data Old view: No increase in happiness since 1972 despite GDP growth New view: True. but few sample participants experienced income growth Europe Old view: No clear evidence of growing life satisfaction ( ) New view: Extending data through 2007 yields clearly rising satisfaction Around the World Old view: No clear evidence of growing life satisfaction New view: Clear positive relationship between income and growth when comparing comparable samples Stevenson and Wolfers, Subjective Well-Being 21 Source: Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers (2010), Time Series Evidence on the Well Being Link

22 Time Series: No rise in happiness, despite growth Japan U.S.A Europe Life in Nation Surveys General Social Survey Eurobarometer Sacks, Stevenson & Wolfers, Income and Happiness 22

23 Evolution of Subjective Well-Being and GDP in Japan Japan: Well Being versus GDP Probit Ind dex Well-being g: Ordered Pattern of responses from four different questions How do you feel about How do you feel about How do you feel about Overall, to what your circumstances at home: 1963(1) your life at home: your life now: degree are you -Satisfied -Completely satisfied -Completely satisfied satisfied with -Not 1959(1) satisfied, not dissatisfied -Satisfied -Satisfied 1995(5) your life now: -Somewhat dissatisfied -Somewhat dissatisfied -Somewhat dissatisfied -Satisfied -Extremely dissatisfied 1962(1) -Completely dissatisfied -Completely dissatisfied -Somewhat 1960(1) 1961(1) 1985(5) 1993(5) 1996(7) satisfied 1992(5) -Somewhat dissatisfied 1979(5) -Dissatisfied 1958(2) 1986(5) 1977(5) 1990(5) 1991(5) 1997(5) 2006(10) 1968(1) 1970(1) 1982(5) 1994(5) () 1984(5) 1969(1) 1973(1) 1978(5) 1983(5) 1987(5) 1988(5) 1981(5) 1999(12) 1980(5) 1989(5) 1964(1) 1967(2) 1976(5) 2007(7) 1965(1) 1975(5) 2001(9) 1972(1) 1976(11) 2002(6) 2004(6) 1966(1) 2005(6) () 1971(1) 1975(11) 2003(6) 1974(1) -0.3 Slope=0.19 [se=0.13] Slope=0.16 [se=0.08] Slope=0.18 [se=0.07] 1974(11) Slope=-1.14 [se=0.51] Real Japanese GDP per Capita, PPP (log scale); 2000 US$ β time series 0.35 Source: Life-in-nation surveys, Stevenson and Wolfers, Subjective Well-Being 23

24 Japan: Raw data Real Japanese GDP per capit ta PPP (Lo og scale) Ordered Probi it Index Well-Being: Subjective $32k $16k $8k $4k $2k $1k $.5k % 12.8% Japan: Economic Conditions 4.1%.9% 6.0 Real GDP per capita GDP trend Unemployment rate (right axis) Subjective Well-Being Raw series, with breaks 1960 Stevenson 1970 and Wolfers, 1980 Subjective 1990Well-Being Unemploym ment Rate (%)

25 USA: Is it surprising that happiness hasn t grown? Happiness: Ord dered Probit In ndex 2 in me) nge since 1972 average incom Chan log( in e) ge since 1972 age log(income Chang avera Income and Happiness Trends in the U.S. Average Happiness Measures of Log(Average Income) Average household income [GSS] GDP per capita Average household income [CPS] Measures of Average Log(Income) Happiness t = * Average log household income in GSS t [95% ci: ] Happiness t = * Average log household income in CPS t [95% ci: ] Average log(household Average income) [CPS] log(household income) [GSS] 1970 Sacks, 1975 Stevenson 1980 & 1985 Wolfers, Income 1990 and 1995 Happiness

26 Change in Life Satisfaction and Economic Growth in Europe 0.50 Belgium Denmark Greece y = * log(gdp) [se=0.14] Correlation = y = * log(gdp) [se=0.05] Correlation = 0.73 y = * log(gdp) [se=0.10] Correlation = Scale isfaction, 0-1 Life Sat 0.50 France Ireland Italy y = * log(gdp) [se=0.10] Correlation = 0.63 y = * log(gdp) [se=0.05] Correlation = Netherlands United Kingdom West Germany y = * log(gdp) [se=0.09] Correlation = β time series 0.35 y = * log(gdp) [se=0.07] Correlation = y = * log(gdp) [se=0.03] Correlation = Stevenson and Wolfers, Subjective Well-Being Real GDP per capita (thousands of dollars, log scale) y = * log(gdp) [se=0.08] Correlation =

27 Change in Life Satisfaction & Economic Growth: World Values Survey Cum mulative chang ge in life satis sfaction (z-sc cale) 0.75 Changes between waves I and II Ch. Sat.= *Ch. GDP [se=0.15] ITA ESP BEL MLT FRA USA ARG CAN NLD IRL ISL DNK SWEJPN NOR DEU GBR KOR Changes between waves II and III Ch. Sat.= *Ch. GDP [se=0.11] JPNSVN FIN GBR USA DEUNOR CHE SWETUR CZE BRA HUN POL BGR ESP SVK ARG HUN Changes between waves I and III Ch. Sat.= *Ch. GDP [se=0.27] JPN ARG USA ESP GBR SWE AUS DEU NOR HUN β time series 0.35 RUS LVA LTU EST BLR ROM CHL Changes between waves III and IV Ch. Sat.= *Ch. GDP [se=0.25] EST VEN MDA CZE BGRSVN UKR MEX DEU ESP ALB BLR ROM BIH LVA PRI RUS HRV ZAF PER LTUFIN SCGPOL SVKUSA GBR JPN HUN PHL SWE TUR MKD Changes between waves II and IV Ch. Sat.= *Ch. GDP [se=0.12] SVN BGR CZEDEU FRA FIN AUT DNK NLD ESTJPN ISL ITA BEL USA GBR CAN PRT ESPMLT POL SWE HUN LVA RUS BLRROM SVK TUR LTU IRL KOR Changes between waves I and IV Ch. Sat.= *Ch. GDP [se=0.08] ITA ESP FRA BEL DEU NLD ISL CAN DNK USA JPN GBR SWE Stevenson & Wolfers, Economic Growth and Happiness 27 Cumulative change in real GDP per capita (percent) HUN MLT KOR Offscale (215, 0.35) IRL

28 Normalized sa atisfaction, re elative to coun ntry and wav ve fixed effect ts International Panel Data: World Values Survey β panel 0.35 y = 0.51*ln(x) [se=0.13] Correlation= Sacks, Stevenson -.25 & Wolfers, Income 0 and Happiness

29 Satisfaction and Growth: International Panel Regressions All Countries World Values Survey Transition Countries Non transition Countries Eurobarometer All Countries Panel A: Panel Regressions ln(gdp) *** (0.109) ** (0.239) *** (0.116) ** (0.074) N 166 observations 79 countries 31 observations 10 countries 135 observations 66 countries 776 observations 31 countries Panel B: Long differences, ln(gdp) 0.47 *** * 0.35 ** * (0.128) (0.387) (0.163) (0.164) N 66 differences 10 differences 46 differences 30 differences β panel 0.35 Sacks, Stevenson & Wolfers, Income and Happiness 29

30 .4 relative to cou untry and wav ve fixed effec cts 0.2 Normalized satisfaction, r International Panel Data: Eurobarometer β panel 0.35 y = 0.17*ln(x) [se=0.05] 05] Correlation= Sacks, Stevenson & Wolfers, Income and Happiness log GDP, relative to country and wave mean 30

31 Change in sa atisfaction, re elative to coun ntry and wave fixed effect s RUS Long Differences: World Values Survey LTU LVA BGR HUN BLR β panel 0.35 VEN ISL SCG UKR EST ZAF ITA CZE FRA BELDEU NLD CHE PER BIH HRV DNK CAN AUS SWE PHL SVK ROM MKD TUR USA JPN MDA ESP MEXAUT FIN GBR BRA PRT NOR SVN ALB PRI POL MLT IRL KOR KOR Offscale (1, 0.33) y = *ln(x) 00+0 [se=0.14] Correlation= Sacks, Stevenson & Wolfers, Income and Happiness Change in log GDP, relative to country and wave fixed effects 31

32 ts.4 ntry and wav ve fixed effect.2 elative to cou 0 atisfaction, re -.2 Long Differences: Eurobarometer GRC ITA NOR ESP β panel 0.35 FRA GRC DNK PRT NLD FRG FRG LUX DNK ITA GBR GBR NLD FIN BEL IRL ITA DNK SWE FRA GBR LUX LUX FRA BEL AUT PRT ESP NLD GDR GDR IRL Change in s -.4 GRC FRG IRL BEL y = *ln(x) 01+0 [se=0.16] Correlation= Sacks, Stevenson & Wolfers, Income and Happiness Change in log GDP, relative to country and wave fixed effects 32

33 Conclusion: Stylized Facts about Well being and Income Within country comparisons USA All countries β within 0.35 Between countries: Since 1946 Multiple datasets Both happiness and life satisfaction No evidence of satiation β between 0.35 National Time Series Japan USA 9 European nations β time series 0.35 International Panel data World ldvalues Survey β international panel Eurobarometer Other measures of well being Pain, depression, smiling, good tasting food to eat, respect Sacks, Stevenson & Wolfers, Income and Happiness 33

34 Blank slide: End of talk Sacks, Stevenson & Wolfers, Income and Happiness 34

35 Is there any evidence of satiation? if we compare countries, there is no evidence that richer countries are happier than poorer ones so long as we confine ourselves to countries with incomes over $15,000 per head. Layard (2005) Rich countries (GDP>$15,000) Satisfaction=1.08*log(GDP) [se=0.21] Poor countries (GDP<$15,000) Satisfaction=0.35*log(GDP) [se=0.04] A1% rise in GDP: Has three times larger effects in rich countries than poor countries A $100 rise in GDP 3x larger effect in Jamaica than US 20x larger effect in Burundi than US Sacks, Stevenson and Wolfers, Subjective Well-Being 35

36 Is there any evidence of satiation? if we compare countries, ti there is no evidence that tricher ih countries ti are happier than poorer ones so long as we confine ourselves to countries with incomes over $15,000 per head. Layard (2005) Rich countries (GDP>$15,000) Satisfaction=1.08*log(GDP) [se=0.21] Poor countries (GDP<$15,000) Satisfaction=0.35*log(GDP) [se=0.04] A 1% rise in GDP: Has three times larger effects in rich countries than poor countries A $100 rise in GDP 3x larger effect in Jamaica than US 20x larger effect in Burundi than US it index) Life sa atisfaction (ordered probi Linear income scale DNK FIN CAN NLD AUS CHE NOR NZL SWE VEN BEL CRI ISR ESP FRA AUT IRL 1.0 SAU USA 1.0 GBR ITA BRA ARE MEX PRI DEU CZE JPN SGP ARG JAM JOR CYP PAN TWN 05 COL CHL KWT 0.5 MYS GRC GTMTHA LTU DZAURY HRVTTO SVN SLVBLR KOR POL LBN HKG BOL HND CUB KAZ IND ESTPRT MMR UZB VNM EGY IRN MNE SVK 0.0 MRT DOM HUN UNK PAK 0.0 MDA LAO ECU ROM ZAF IDN BIH RUS ZMB PER NGAPRY AZE BWA KGZPHL SRB UKR ALBTUR LVA MOZ NPL TJK SEN GHA MAR MKD CHN YEMNIC BGDLKA -0.5 RWA ARM -0.5 AFG BDI AGO MDG KEN MLI MWI BFA CMR BGR NER ETHGEO UGA ZWE HTI IRQ TZA SLE KHM TCD -1.0 BEN TGO Log income scale DNK FIN CAN AUS NLDNOR CHE NZL SWE VEN BEL CRI ISR ESP FRA AUT IRL SAU USA GBR ITA BRA DEU ARE MEX PRI CZE SGP JPN ARG JAM JOR CYP PAN TWN COLMYS CHL KWT GRC GTM THA LTU DZA URY HRV TTOSVN SLV BLR KOR POL LBN HKG BOL HND CUB KAZ IND EST PRT MMR UZB EGY IRN MRT PAK VNM MNE SVK DOM HUN UNKLAO MDA ECU ROM ZAF IDNBIH RUS ZMB PER NGA PRYAZE BWA KGZ PHL SRB UKR ALB TUR LVA MOZ TJK NPL SENGHA MAR MKD CHN YEM NIC BGD LKA ARM BDI RWA AGO AFG MDG MLI KEN MWI BFA CMR BGR NER ETH UGA HTI ZWE IRQGEO TZA SLE KHM TCD BEN TGO Real GDP per capita (thousands of dollars) Sacks, Stevenson & Wolfers, Income and Happiness 36

37 4 Happiness and GDP (World Values Survey) Scale) iness (1-4 Happ 3 2 NGA TZA MEX PRI VNM VEN ISL IRL CAN DNK NLD SAU BEL PHL SGP SWEUSA AUT FRA IDN JPN MLT ZAF CHL ARG FIN ESP UGA KGZ BIHMAR PRTISR DEU PAKIND PERDZA CZE KOR ITA BGD JOR GRC CHN MKD TUR HRV POL SVN SCG IRN LTU HUN BLR EST SVK ZWEIRQ ALB LVA MDA UKR BGR ROM RUS EGY y = *ln(x) [se=0.05] Correlation=0.29 Excluding NGA and TZA: y = *ln(x) [se=0.04] 04] Correlation= Sacks, 1 Stevenson 2 & Wolfers, 4 Income 8 and Happiness GDP (log scale) LUX Standa ardized hap ppiness 37

38 robit index Ordered p IND Happiness versus Life Satisfaction BRA MEX Happiness Life satisfaction GBRUSA AUS CAN FRA DEU JPN ITA Kettering-Gallup Survey, 1975 y = *ln(x) [se=0.14] Correlation= MEX BRA AUS GBR CAN DEU USA ITA JPN FRA DNK MLT CYP ESPSWE FIN AUT IRL GRC DEU GBR ITA BEL NLD ROM HUN CZE SVN FRA POL EST PRT TUR LVA LTU SVK BGR LUX SLV ROM BGR IND First European Quality of Life Survey, 2003 y = *ln(x) [se=0.07] Correlation=0.82 DNK IRL BEL GBR SWE NLD FRA FIN POL ESP CZE FRG PRT AUT GDR GRCITA LVA LTU SVK EST HUN Eurobarometer, 2006 LUX y = *ln(x) [se=0.12] Correlation= y = *ln(x) [se=0.14] Correlation=0.78 DNK FIN SWE AUT IRL MLT CYP ESP DEU GBR BEL NLD SVN ITA GRC FRA CZE ROM POL TUR ESTHUNPRT LVASVK LTU BGR LUX y = *ln(x) [se=0.10] Correlation= SLV DNK SWE NLD LUX FIN BEL GBRIRL ESP CZE FRA FRG TUR AUT HRV POL SVK EST GDR GRCITA LVA LTU PRT ROM HUN BGR y = *ln(x) [se=0.15] Correlation= Sacks, Stevenson Real GDP & per Wolfers, capita (thousands Income of dollars, log and scale) Happiness 38

39 More Income is Associated with Less Pain More Enjoyment Less Depression BUT More Stress How do people s days differ with income? More likely to be treated with respect More likely to eat good tasting food More likely to smile or laugh And people p are more likely to want to have more days like the one that they just had Stevenson and Wolfers, Subjective Well-Being 39

40 Enjoyment Correlation: 0.49 Physical Pain Correlation: Worry Correlation: 0.11 Sadness Correlation: ing the indica ated feeling yesterday Perce ent experienc y= *ln(x) )[se=0.67] Boredom Correlation: y= *ln(x) [se=0.48] Depression Correlation: y= *ln(x) )[se=0.76] Anger Correlation: y= *ln(x) [se=0.47] Love Correlation: y= *ln(x) [se=0.67] 0 y= *ln(x) [se=0.44] 0 y= *ln(x) [se=0.55] 0 y= *ln(x) [se=0.93] Sacks, Stevenson Real GDP per & capita Wolfers, (thousands Income of dollars, and log Happiness scale) 40

41 Would you like to have more days just like yesterday? Yesterday Did you feel well rested yesterday? Were you treated with respect all day yesterday? Were you able to choose how you spent your time all day? Percent re eporting indic cated feeling Correlation = 0.14 y= *ln(x) )[se=0.61] Did you smile or laugh a lot yesterday? Correlation = 0.15 y= *ln(x) )[se=0.61] Were you proud of something you did yesterday? Correlation = 0.43 y= *ln(x) )[se=0.65] Did you learn or do something interesting yesterday? Correlation = 0.19 y= *ln(x) )[se=0.67] Did you have good tasting food to eat yesterday? Correlation = 0.28 Correlation = Correlation = Correlation = 0.59 y= *ln(x) [se=0.79] 0 y= *ln(x) [se=1.00] 0 y= *ln(x) [se=0.94] 0 y= *ln(x) [se=0.68] Sacks, Stevenson Real GDP per & capita Wolfers, (thousands Income of dollars, and log Happiness scale) 41

42 eeling ay nced this fe ay yesterda ho experien ot of the da oportion wh during a l Pro Enjoyment NZL DNK CAN KWT LAO CRI SWE IRL CHE USA NOR PRYSLV AUS AUT NLD CHN CYPGBR GTM ECU ARG MEX UZB BEL NPL DJI IDN THA BRA VEN COL TTO TWN MLI JAMPAN SAU GUY URY MYS CHL CZE KEN MRT PHL HND FRA DEU ARE BLZ LVA NER SEN BOL HUN NGA NIC ZAF SVK TZA NAM POLEST SGP BGD FIN KHM JPN GIN IND LKA ISR SDN JOR PER ROU AFG DOM BWA GRC HKG MWI ZMB KAZ SVN CAF RWA TJK EGYBIH MKD SRB ESP ITA COD MDG KGZ MDA UKR RUS ZWE MMR HRV UGA BFATCD PAK GHA COG TUN BLR PRT KOR SYR BGR LTU CMR IRN ALB LBN ETH MNG AGO AZE HTI BEN YEM MAR MOZ TUR DZA TGO ARM VNM LBR BDI GEO SLE Correlation = Real GDP per Capita at PPP ($000s, log scale) Stevenson and Wolfers, Subjective Well-Being 42

43 0.40 Depression eeling ay nced this fe ay yesterda ho experien ot of the da oportion wh during a lo Pro ZWE ETH KHM YEM SLE HTI BGD BOL IRN LBR AFG ARM AZE LBN KOR RWA PHL PAK IND EGY NIC DZA PER HUN CMRMDA SYR UGA JOR ECU BLZ DOM ARE BLR PRT SRBTUR TZA TJK GUY BIH COL GEO ZAF CHL HRV JPN BWA MDG SDN GTM TTO GIN MAR COG MKD MWI MOZ TGO UKR TUN BDI NGA AGO CRI BGR CZE GHA VNMNGLKASLVJAM KAZ ISR EST HKG COD BEN HNDNAM ROU URY MEX RUS TWN LTU CHN ARG MYSSVK SGP SAUITAKWT NPL TCD VEN USA ZMB LVA GRCGBR NER CYP ESP AUS PRY BRA BEL FIN CAFMMR KEN KGZ UZB PAN MLI CAN BFA DJI THA SVN NZL NOR MRT POL FRA IDN DEU IRL LAO AUT NLD SEN SWE CHE ALB DNK Correlation = Real GDP per Capita at PPP ($000s, log scale) Stevenson and Wolfers, Subjective Well-Being 43

44 eeling ay nced this fe ay yesterda ho experien lot of the da oportion wh during a l Pro ZWE LBR BDI Correlation = 0.33 Stress PHL SYR CYP GRC DZA ROU GUY LBN LKA TUR USA IRN HKG TUN KOR NZL DOM ISR ITA DEU RWA BLZ AUS CAN KHM TJK SLE PRT MDGHTI BOL CHN COL PER GBR JOR ECU CRI SVK TWN BEL EGY FRA JPN SGP UGA MEX ARG ARE AUT CHE TZA NGA BGD YEM BRA URY MYSHUN GHA CHL IRL MWI IND NIC SLVTHA ZAF VEN LVA TTO BWACZE ESP ETH FIN KWT NOR CMR GTM POL SAU VNM KEN HND JAM SEN AGO EST DNK AFG PAK PAN SVN SWE TGO ARM NLD MOZ BEN MDA ZMB TCD GEO COG AZE NER BLR LTU BFA IDN KAZ MMR MLI NPL PRY UKR RUS KGZ LAO MNG MRT UZB DJI Real GDP per Capita at PPP ($000s, log scale) Stevenson and Wolfers, Subjective Well-Being 44

45 1.00 Were you treated with respect all day yesterday? portion agr reeing Pro ZWE LBR COD BDI ESP PRY ARG NIC DOM COLCRI BRA VEN FRA BEL AUT CHE ECU CHL AUS ARE CYP DEU DNK KWT NLD IRL PAN POL PRT SWE SLV URY FIN NOR NER UZB SVN PHL HND NZL CAN PER TTO BOL ITA MOZ VNM ARM EGY GBR LBNMEX GRC TWN USA SEN SDN EST GIN GHA CHN HUN IDNGTM JOR AFG BFA BGR ISR KEN KGZ LVA MLI MRT PAK NAM TUNROU RUS MAR HKG MDG NGA YEM UKR SAU AGO MKD KAZ BWA TZA ZMBTJK MDAGUY COG GEO AZE DZA JAMSRB IRNMYSSVK SYR HRV SLE BEN BLZBLR BGD CMR ZAF ALB CZE CAF MWI DJI KHM TUR TGO SGP BIH THA UGA IND LKA LTU HTI TCD RWA ETH MNG JPN KOR 0.50 Correlation = 0.46 MMR LAO NPL Real GDP per Capita at PPP ($000s, log scale) Stevenson and Wolfers, Subjective Well-Being 45

46 1.00 Did you have good tasting food to eat yesterday? Prop portion agr reeing PRT FINIRL CAN AUT NLD GUY TTO SVN NZL AUS LAO PRY MEX HRV GBR BEL SWE USA DNK JAMSRB VEN HUN SVK EST DEU ARE KWTNOR PAN CHE MNG ITA SEN UZB EGY THA BIH CRI BGR ARG CZE ECU ESP GHA MRT MKD JOR URY BLZ BRA POL SAU LTU CYP MDG NGA SDN COLROUCHL ISRFRA JPN KGZ HND BOL GTM SLV KAZ LBN GIN UKR DOM IRNMYS MOZ NAM PER TUR RUS NPL TZA LVA GRC NIC ZAF ALB AZE BLR LBR PHL AFG MMR KOR KEN TJK PAK COD SLE NER CMR VNM AGO HKG TGO MLI MDA BWA SGP BDI CAF MWI KHM MAR ZWE BFA ZMB IND UGA TCD HTI ARM TWN BGD YEM RWA BEN GEO CHN ETH IDN 0.40 Correlation = 0.60 LKA Real GDP per Capita at PPP ($000s, log scale) Stevenson and Wolfers, Subjective Well-Being 46

47 Pro oportion ag greeing ZWE COD LBR 0.40 Correlation = 0.29 BDI Did you smile or laugh a lot yesterday? NAM SLV CRI LAO BRA IRL NGA NIC PAN PHL PRY VEN HND ECU COL ARG ESP GTM THA MEXTTO CAN CYP NZL IDNCHN JAM TWN BEL KWT SDN DOM AUS BOL CHL GBR GUY LKA ZAF JPNLD USA URY DNK FRA AUT CHE MRT MYS NOR PER PRT SWE TZA VNM MDG GHA BLZ RWA EGY BWA GRCFIN HKG MLI ZMB KEN KHM POL MOZ DEU NER MWI ARE DJI ITA SEN GIN PAK MAR CZE KOR JOR ISR SGP SLE HTI BFA BEN KGZ UZB UGA TUN SAU MMR COG DZA TUR IND AGO CMR YEM SYR KAZ HUN IRN SVN AFG NPL SVK TJK UKR ROU RUSSVK ETH BGD BGR CAF BIH BLR LVA EST TCD LTU MNG MDA MKD TGO ARM LBN HRV ALB SRB AZE GEO Real GDP per Capita at PPP ($000s, log scale) Stevenson and Wolfers, Subjective Well-Being 47

48 0.90 Would you like to have more days just like yesterday? Pr roportion ag greeing ZWE BDI COD LBR Correlation = 0.21 KWT HND SLV SGP PRY MEX MRT CRI VEN DJI GTM PAN UZB ECU ARG KEN PAK NIC IDN JAM SAU AFG BOL COL ESP MLI TZA BRA FRA DNK ARE IRL NER MOZ NGA PHL SEN URY PRT BEL AGOBIH BLZ SWE MKD MYS CAN NLDNOR NPL PERZAF GUY CHE MDG NAM CHL CZE USA GHA VNM THASRB HUN EST HKG LTU KGZ LAO SDN IND LKA TTO JOR DOM NZL BGR BFA ZMBTJK ISR GBR AUS UKR KAZ POL HRV LVA FIN GIN CYPJPN MWI ROU TUR SVN AUT SLE UGA TCD KHM CHN BWA ETH HTI EGY TWN RWA GRC BGD CMRMDA LBNRUSVK MAR BLR KOR BEN ITA MMR MNG SYR CAF COG ALB DEU TGO AZE DZA ARM YEM IRN TUN GEO Real GDP per Capita at PPP ($000s, log scale) Stevenson and Wolfers, Subjective Well-Being 48

49 0.90 Were you able to choose how you spent your time all day? Pro oportion ag greeing ZWE COD LBR BDI VNM ESP JPN KWT PHL PRYSLV CHN NGANIC BEL ARM CRI VEN TTO ITA BRA IRL AFG MDG HND NAM PAN COL TWN FRA MRT ARE AUT UZB PAK GTM ECU DOM MYS HKG NER JAM TZAKENLAO DNK GIN GHA MEX PRT KOR NLD SEN SAU AGO ARGHUN GBR FIN SLE TGOUGA ZAF CAF BOL BLZ CAN CMR SDN THA URY SWE RWA IDN POL NZL AUS USA ZMB PER CHL CHE EGY BFA BWA MWI BEN JOR ROU DEU MOZ GUY LKA LBN KAZ BGR SVN SGP NOR MLI YEMMNG MAR LVA KHM MDA SRB MKD BLR RUS HRV TCD UKR EST GRC KGZ ETH BIH LTU SVK TJK CZE CYP ISR NPL BGD IND TUR HTI IRN MMR 0.40 Correlation = 0.13 GEO ALB AZE Real GDP per Capita at PPP ($000s, log scale) Stevenson and Wolfers, Subjective Well-Being 49

50 feeling ay nced this fe ay yesterda ho experien ot of the da oportion wh during a lo Pro Anger IRN ARM DZA TUR HTI YEM PHL TUN GUY SYR LBN ARE SLE PAK BOL SVK ISR TGO GEO JOR EGY CZE FRA AZE BIH SRB SAU LBR BGD BDI BFA TCD CAF COG ECU BLZ CHL COD UGA MAR MKD GIN COL AFG BEN IND IDN PER POL KOR TZA LTU ETH SEN AGO ARG SGP ZWE NGA LAO CMR UZB LKA ALB JAM MYS ESP ZMBKHMSDNMDA ROU TTO MNG GTM VEN SVN BEL BRA BLR CYPDEU GHA HRV HUN GRCGBR USA MWI AUS TJK MRT URY BWA NZL ITA JPN CAN KWT DJI CHN HKG MOZ MDG DOM NERRWA UKR ZAF MLI KEN KAZ CRI LVA TWN NIC THA DNK BGR AUT CHE NAM EST IRLNOR NPL PRYSLV PAN RUS SWE KGZVNM MEX PRT HND NLD MMR FIN Correlation = Real GDP per Capita at PPP ($000s, log scale) Stevenson and Wolfers, Subjective Well-Being 50

51 feeling ay nced this fe ay yesterda ho experien ot of the da oportion wh during a lo Pro ZWE LBR BDI COD Correlation = 0.11 Boredom TUR GEO IRN SYR ARMAZE DZA MAR YEM JOR LBN TUN AFG HTI PHL HKG KHM ALB ETH IDN BOLEGY NIC BLZ RWA GRCARE PER CHL KOR MDA AGO SLE TGO MEX UGA TJK GUY COL MKD SRB USA BIH GIN CMR MYS SAUISR SLV ECU ROU GBR BEN GTM HRV KEN THA BGD BLR URY TCD PAK ARG CHN BGR BWA AUS JAM CRI NZL ESP ITACAN IRLNOR CAF GHAKGZ LKA UKR DOM POL TTO SGP NPL SDN UZB KAZ RUS MOZ MDG BFA TZA ZAF IND HNDNAM LTU TWN ZMB VEN SEN ESTCYP JPNKWT FIN MLI VNM PAN SVK PRT FRA SWE MWI BRA NER MNG LVA PRY CZE BEL CHE SVN MRT DEU DNK AUT NGA LAO HUN MMR NLD Real GDP per Capita at PPP ($000s, log scale) Stevenson and Wolfers, Subjective Well-Being 51

52 eeling y nced this fe ay yesterday ho experien ot of the da Prop portion wh during a lo ZWE LBR BDI COD KHM Sadness BOL PHL ARM PER TUR SLE HTI IRN PRT TGO NIC MDA ROU YEM COGEGY AGO DOMBLR CHL SYR BGD ECU LTU BEN COL LBN BGRHRV ITA ARG CAF CMR PAK RWA GUY AZE SRB ISR GIN GTM BFA ALB BIH BLZBRA GBR GEO HUN MOZ UKR POL SVK SLV DZA KAZ ETH IDN CRI URY MEX RUS LVA IND BWA CYP ESPARE AFG UGA ZMB VNM TCD LKA SDN JAM TUN TZA EST MAR GRC FRA DEU BEL GHA HND PRY ZAF SGP TTO JOR CZE NZLAUSUSA CHE MWI TJK CAN IRL AUT KEN KGZ MNG MKD KOR KWT NER MDG SEN UZB VEN MLI NGA PAN SVN NLD NOR MYS SAU SWE DNK NPL NAM MRT JPN FIN HKG DJI LAO CHN THA TWN MMR Correlation = Real GDP per Capita at PPP ($000s, log scale) Stevenson and Wolfers, Subjective Well-Being 52

53 feeling ay nced this fe day yesterda who experien lot of the d oportion w during a l Pro LBR ZWE CODBDI Correlation = 0.09 Worry HRV SVN PER BOL PRT DZA ARM MOZ TGO SRB YEM CHL ARG BEN KHM PRY AGO TUN BRA URY ROU GIN EGY DOM COLIRN ISR NIC ITA CAF BIH ECU KOR HKG SLE BFA CMR PHL SYR LBN SVK HUN CYP BGD COG CRI CAN ALB AZE CZE ESP NLD MDA GRC JORSLV MKD TUR MEX LVA BEL MAR GTM NZL USA TCD PAK IDN BLR BGR FRA GBR AUS CHE GUY POL LTU SEN FIN HTI VNM UGA BWA ARE MLI ZMB IND ZAF HND VEN UKR EST BLZ DEU JPN AFG MWI MNG THA SAU SGP MDG SDN GEO CHN PANMYS RUS NER GHA DNK AUT IRLNOR NPL RWA NAM TTO ETH KENGA MRT KWT TZA UZB LAO JAM KAZ SWE LKA TJK KGZ TWN MMR DJI Real GDP per Capita at PPP ($000s, log scale) Stevenson and Wolfers, Subjective Well-Being 53

54 Were you proud of something you did yesterday? Prop portion agr reeing LAO CRI NER NGA NIC VEN ECU PAN GIN KHM MRT SLV SEN SDN NAM HND COL NZL MLI DOM CAN BOL GTM THA TTO PRY GUY BRA AUS IRL USA PER BLZ CHL IDN JAM MEX ARG SVN BDI KEN BFA CMR ESP KWT SLE MOZ ZMB ROU LBR AUT COD GHA AGO KOR TGO TZA URY UZB ZAF GBR FIN MYS SAU SWE NLD MWI POL HUN CHE AFG CAF UGA TCD ISR ITA MDA DEU BIH PRT BEL DNK NOR ZWE MDG SRBTUR HTI PHL EGY MKD LBN HRV BWA SVK CYP KGZVNM LVA EST ARE TJK KAZ LTU CZE FRA BEN UKR RWA BLR GRC ETH SGP PAK ARMALB RUS JPN MAR LKA JOR YEM CHNAZE IRN BGR Correlation = 0.00 MMR NPL BGD IND MNG TWN HKG GEO Real GDP per Capita at PPP ($000s, log scale) Stevenson and Wolfers, Subjective Well-Being 54

55 0.90 Did you feel well rested yesterday? portion agr reeing Pro KWT PRY IDN NAM VEN CHN HND SLVTHA MYS PAN COL CRI MEX MRT ESP JPN HKG LAOVNM ECU IRL NPL NGANIC PHL SGP UZB MAR ZAF TWN ARE AUT DJI ARG GTM URY EGY PRT SAU NLD AFG MWI TZA SDN BOL BEL BLZ CAN CHE GIN MLI GHA KEN SEN KOR NER MNG COG JOR DOM SVN FIN COD UGA PER BRA CHL DNK GUY BWA KHM DEU BGD CMRIND JAM MKD NOR ZMB MOZ PAK KGZ AGO BGR GBR SWE USA RWA TUNSRB IRN TTO SLE ISRFRA AUS KAZ NZL ZWE LBR LKA BIH POL BEN CZE BDI CAF TCD TUR GRC ITA BFA HTI HRV SVK EST TJK LBN SYR LVA ROU RUS TGO YEM UKR LTU MDG DZA BLR ETH MMR MDA CYP HUN 0.40 Correlation = 0.14 ARM ALB AZE GEO Real GDP per Capita at PPP ($000s, log scale) Stevenson and Wolfers, Subjective Well-Being 55

56 Pro portion agr reeing Did you learn or do something interesting yesterday? VEN NGA NIC GUY SLV GIN GTM ECU PAN CRI NER MRT DJI COL TTO NZL MLI SEN HND NAM JAM BLZ KWT SLE PHLPRY THA CAN LBR KEN BOLAGO MEX SDN DOM PER BRA AUS DNK NOR RWA TZA USA ZMB CHL ARE AFG CAF GHA CMR VNM IRL MOZ SWE FIN JPNCHE ARG MYS AUT COD MWIUGA TCD ZAF BWAPRT ESP GBR BFA LAO COG URY FRA EGY SAU SVN HTI ISRBEL ZWE BIH CZE DEU ETH IDNJOR MKD HRV ITA SGP UZB ESTCYP BEN MDA DZA LVA NLD MAR SYR SRB ROU LBN POL TGO KGZ LTU TWN TJK GRC ARM AZE KAZ YEM UKR RUS PAK LKA TUN HUN BDI BLR IRN TUR SVKKOR KHM MMR IND CHN ALB MDG HKG MNG BGR NPL 0.20 Correlation = 0.01 BGD GEO Real GDP per Capita at PPP ($000s, log scale) Stevenson and Wolfers, Subjective Well-Being 56

57 1.00 Love feeling ay nced this fe ay yesterda ho experien ot of the da oportion wh during a lo Pro RWA PHL KHM HUN PRY CYP LBN TTO NGA CRI TZA GUY ECUBRA ESP LAO JAM VEN ARG MEX GRCBEL CAN COL DNK MDG VNM PRT DOM NZL ITANLD USA URY TUR CAF MWI GHA CHL SAU ARE DEU AUS LBR ZMBKEN NIC NAM ZAF PAN PAK HND AUT CHE BGD EGY SLVBIH FRA GBR SWE FIN KWT IRL ZWE SLE IND PERSRB BLZ TWN MOZ BDI HTI BOL CHN MKD HRV LKA IRN COD GTM POL SVN UGA NOR SDN JOR GINBFA AGO ALB THA ISR BWA AFG NER MLI SEN CMR IDN ROUMYS NPL BGR SVK HKG CZE JPN SGP MMR BENMRT KOR TGO LVA EST TCD LTU ETH YEM AZE UKR RUS TJK MDA KAZ MAR GEO BLR Correlation = 0.19 KGZ UZB MNG ARM Real GDP per Capita at PPP ($000s, log scale) Stevenson and Wolfers, Subjective Well-Being 57

58 0.50 Physical Pain feeling ay nced this fe ay yesterda ho experien ot of the da oportion wh during a lo Pro ZWE LBR BDI COD SLE CAF Correlation = 0.39 TGO MDA EGYDZA ETH HTI CMR YEM SYR SDN NER BEN SEN COG JOR AGO PER TUN CHL BFA MRTNIC ARM DOM ARG MOZ PAK BOL AZE ROU GIN UGA TZA GEOALB ISR KWT TCD GHA KHM ECU HUN RWA LKA COL BRA PRT IRN CRI MEX ESP FRA SLV MWI NGA GTM UKR LBN VEN URY BWA KOR CYP BEL CHE BGDTJK AFG KGZIND MAR GUY BIH BLZ BLR HRV HND GRC SGP MMR MLI NPL PHL KAZ SVK SVN USA NZL ZMB UZB PRY ITA GBR AUS ARE CAN SRB TTO MKD ZAF LTU CZE DEU DJI THA BGR TUR LVA DNK MDG KEN PAN RUS SAU SWE FIN AUT NLD IDN NAM POL EST JPN NOR MYS TWN CHN JAM HKG IRL LAO MNG VNM Real GDP per Capita at PPP ($000s, log scale) Source: Alan Krueger, Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers, A World of Pain. Stevenson and Wolfers, Subjective Well-Being 58

59 A Global Map of PainGlobal Map of Pain Proportion of population experiencing pain [0.00,0.05] (0) (0.05,0.10] (1) (0.10,0.15] (4) (0.15,0.20] (22) (0.20,0.25] 0 25] (65) (0.25,0.30] (49) (0.30,0.35] (34) (0.35,0.40] (13) (0.40,0.45] (5) (0.45,0.50] (2) (0.50,0.55] 0 55] (1) No data (56) Stevenson and Wolfers, Subjective Well-Being 59 Did you experience the following feelings during a lot of the day yesterday? How about physical pain? Source: Alan Krueger, Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers, A World of Pain.