The 'dismal science' turns its attention to question of happiness
Economics, known as the dismal science, has become increasingly interested in recent years in the question of happiness.
Next year a team headed by a Nobel prize-winning economist plans to launch an index to measure people's happiness, to be established alongside gross domestic product as a critical gauge of a nation's progress.
Daniel Kahneman, the Princeton psychology professor who shared the 2002 Nobel prize for economics, and Alan Krueger, an economics professor at Princeton, have been working on a "national well-being account" which aims to give a more accurate picture of how happy people are than the one conveyed by standard satisfaction questionnaires.
"Happiness economics" is not yet in the economics textbooks but it has edged closer to the mainstream as the link between rising income and happiness has broken down. An accurate measure of well-being has the potential for widespread application in business and government.
Gallup, the US-based pollster and management consultant, is paying top academics such as Prof Kahneman and Ed Diener, professor of psychology at the University of Illinois, who is working on a separate "national well-being index", for advice on how to measure well-being.
Companies have long talked about their employees being their greatest asset. "Now they seem to actually mean it," said Jim Clifton, Gallup's chief executive, who says the company is spending "huge" amounts on research and development on well-being.
"We see this as a big new area that leadership is interested in." He cites the example of a large retailer staffed by employees with low morale. "There will be theft in their stores, more sick days and lower sales. Employers want to know what the impact of well-being on a productive workforce will be," he said.
Governments have also started to take notice. The strategy unit of Britain's Cabinet Office published a paper entitled "Life Satisfaction" in December 2002 in which it argued there was "a case for state intervention to boost life satisfaction".
More recently, in October, the British Treasury hosted a seminar on well-being issues at which Lord Layard, professor of economics at the London School of Economics and author of a forthcoming book on happiness, presented. Hetan Shah, programme director at the New Economics Foundation, a London-based think-tank that supports alternative well-being measures to GDP, said recent government initiatives focusing on issues such as childcare were symptomatic of a change in government thinking.
In the US, Prof Kahneman's research into establishing a national well-being account is partly federal-funded, through the National Institute of Ageing.
Economic output as measured by GDP has risen steeply in recent decades in the developed economies but people have not been getting significantly happier.
If the link between GDP and happiness no longer exists, one of the key objectives of government policy in keeping GDP on an upward trajectory is called into question. This is partly why economists have increasingly turned their attention to the study of happiness, once exclusively the preserve of psychology.
One problem has been devising robust quality-of-life indicators, a subject to which the annual American Economic Association conference devoted its attention in a session on the economics of happiness at the weekend.
Survey data can be erratic, partly because for one person a score of five on a scale of one to 10 when asked how happy they are might equate to seven for someone else. Mood may also influence replies. Prof Kahneman's team believe they have devised a way of getting round such problems by getting people to rank their enjoyment of different activities over a period of time.
Speaking before the conference, held in Philadelphia, Prof Krueger said the team was developing a phone survey version of the national well-being account with Gallup.
"If all goes well, we should be able to implement the method a year from now. I hope it could, years from now, become as important as GDP," he said.
“阴沉科学”盯上幸福研究
经济学常被人称为阴沉科学，但近年来，经济学开始越来越关注幸福问题。
明年，一个诺贝尔奖得主带领的经济学家研究小组准备推出一种指数，来衡量人们的幸福感。这个幸福感指数将和国内生产总值一起，作为衡量一个国家进步的关键指标。
丹尼尔?卡恩曼(Daniel Kahneman)是普林斯顿大学心理学教授，也是2002年诺贝尔经济奖获者之一。艾伦?克鲁格(Alan Krueger)是普林斯顿大学经济学教授。他们两位正在从事一项“全国幸福感帐户”的研究，旨在描述人们的幸福程度，并要在准确性上超过常见的满意度问卷。
“幸福经济学”还没有列入经济学教科书，但因收入和幸福间的关系已经瓦解，幸福经济学越来越受到主流的关注。如能准确衡量幸福感，衡量的结果会被企业和政府广泛采用。
美国问卷调查和管理顾问机构盖洛普（Gallup）聘请顶尖卡恩曼教授和埃德?迪纳 (Ed Diener) 教授提供幸福感衡量方面的咨询。埃德?迪纳教授是伊利诺伊大学心理学教授，目前正在从事一项独立的“全国幸福指数”研究。
企业一直在说员工是最宝贵的资产。“现在，他们好像当真了，”盖洛普的首席执行官吉姆?克利夫顿（Jim Clifton)。他还说，盖洛普正投入巨资从事幸福感方面的研发工作。
“我们觉得，这是一个很大的新领域，会引起领导者的兴趣。”他还举例说，如果某个大型零售公司的员工士气低迷。“商店里就会出现盗窃现象，而且会有更多员工请假，销售额也会下降。雇主很想知道哪些幸福因素会影响员工的效率。”他说。
政府也开始关注这个问题。2002年12月，英国内阁办公室战略组发布了一份报告，题为”生活满意度”。报告争辩说，”政府有理由采取干预措施，提高生活满意度。”
今年10月，英国财政部还主持了一次研讨会，伦敦经济学院（London School of Economics)经济学教授莱亚德勋爵在研讨会上发言。莱亚德还写了一本关于幸福感的专著，即将出版。总部设在伦敦的智库新经济基金会（New Economics Foundation)项目主任Hetan Shah也赞成，国内生产总值可以用幸福感指数取代国内生产总值。他说最近政府提出一些倡议中，着重强调儿童护理之类问题，这就说明政府思维有所改变。
在美国，卡恩曼教授从事的全国幸福感帐户课题，经由全国老年化研究会，得到联邦政府的部分资助。
最近几十年来，按照国内生产总值等指标来衡量，一些发达国家的经济产出有显著上升，可是人们并不觉得比以前幸福多少。
倘若国内生产总值和幸福之间的联系不复存在，那么在政府政策当中，保持国内生产总值的高增长的做法就值得怀疑了。幸福感话题向来为心理学家专利，之所以引起经济学家关注，上述因素就是一个原因。
如何设计可靠的生活质量指数却是个问题。最近美国经济协会的年会上，就有专门一个部分讨论幸福经济学的话题。
问卷调查数据可能会有随机性，如果用从0到10的等级，询问某人如何给自己的幸福感打分，他的回答是5, 可能会等同于另外一人的7。情绪也会影响答案。卡恩曼教授的研究小组相信，他们已经找到了解决这一问题的方法，他们让受调查者对自己一段时期内对某些活动的享受程度来打分。
在费城召开的这次会议上，克鲁格教授说，他的研究小组正和盖洛普一起，在设计一套电话版的全国幸福感帐户调查问卷。
“如果一切顺利，我们一年后就可以将方法实际应用起来。我希望一段时间以后，该方法会像国内生产总值一样重要。”他说。
