Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T10:05:11.552Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What should be the goal of public policies?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 June 2020

MARTINE DURAND
MARTINE DURAND*
Affiliation:
OECD Chief Statistician and Director of Statistics and Data, OECD, Paris, France
*
*Correspondence to: OECD Chief Statistician and Director of Statistics and Data, OECD, Paris, France. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Should subjective wellbeing, as measured by life evaluation, be the sole criterion for policies? This article answers this question negatively based on three arguments. First, it is important to distinguish between people's life evaluations, their emotional experiences and their sense of purpose; each has different drivers and consequences, implying that no single measure can adequately subsume the others. Second, while subjective wellbeing provides information missed by more conventional measures, the reverse is also true. This implies that information on the intrinsic importance of other key wellbeing dimensions cannot be derived from just looking at their instrumental value in raising subjective wellbeing. Third, the ‘utilitarian calculus’ implicit in subjective wellbeing regressions shines little light on normative decisions such as the attention we should focus on the worst off or on future generations. In contrast to the ‘automatic pilot’ approach to policies advocated by Frijters et al., this article favours an approach based on dashboards of indicators used to inform all of the stages of the policy cycles, as recently implemented by several OECD countries.

Type
Articles
Information
Behavioural Public Policy , Volume 4 , Special Issue 2: On Happiness Being the Goal of Government , July 2020 , pp. 226 - 235
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Exton, C. and Shinwell, M. (2018), ‘Policy Uses of Well-Being Metrics; Describing Countries’ Experience’, OECD Statistics Working Paper 2018/07.Google Scholar
O'Donnell, G., Deaton, A., Durand, M., Halpern, D. and Layard, R. (2014), Wellbeing and Policy, report commissioned by the Legatum Institute, Legatum Limited, London.Google Scholar
OECD (2013), OECD Guidelines on Measuring Subjective Well-Being, Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
OECD (2017), How's Life, Measuring Well-Being, Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
OECD (2019), Economic Review of New Zealand, Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
Stiglitz, J.E., Sen, A. and Fitoussi, J.P. (2010), Mismeasuring our lives: Why GDP Doesn't add up, New York: The New Press.Google Scholar
Stiglitz, J.E., Fitoussi, J.-P. and Durand, M. (2018), ‘Country-experiences with using well-being indicators to steer policies’, Chapter 4 in Stiglitz, J.E., Fitoussi, J.-P. and Durand, M., Beyond GDP – Measuring What Counts for Economic and Social Performance, Paris: OECD Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone, A. and Krueger, A. B. (2018), ‘Understanding Subjective Well-Being’, Chapter 7 in Stiglitz, J.E., Fitoussi, J.-P. and Durand, M. (eds.), For Good Measure – Advancing Research on Well-Being Metrics Beyond GDP, Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
Stone, A. and Mackie, C., eds. (2013), Subjective Well-Being – Measuring Happiness, Suffering, and Other Dimensions of Experience, Panel on Measuring Subjective Well-Being in a Policy-relevant Framework, National Research Council of the National Academies, The National Academies Press, Washington D.C.Google Scholar