Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T10:06:46.175Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Happiness economics as technocracy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 January 2020

RAMANDEEP SINGH  and
ANNA ALEXANDROVA
RAMANDEEP SINGH*
Affiliation:
Department of Land Economy, Cambridge University, Cambridge, UK
ANNA ALEXANDROVA
Affiliation:
Department of History and Philosophy of Science, Cambridge University, Cambridge, UK
*
*Correspondence to: King's College, King's Parade, Cambridge, CB2 1ST, UK. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Happiness economics as advocated by Frijters et al. makes three assumptions: that policy should be based on facts about the net effect of a factor on happiness; that wellbeing policy should be technocratic and centralized; and that the only credible objections come from critics who do not value happiness. We argue that all three should be rejected and that the science and policy of wellbeing should instead be pluralistic, context-sensitive and participatory.

Type
Articles
Information
Behavioural Public Policy , Volume 4 , Special Issue 2: On Happiness Being the Goal of Government , July 2020 , pp. 236 - 244
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

Alexandrova, A. (2017), A Philosophy for the Science of Well-being, New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780199300518.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alkire, S. (2005), Valuing Freedoms, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bache, I. (2019), ‘How Does Evidence Matter? Understanding ‘What Works’ for Wellbeing’, Social Indicators Research, 142(3): 1153–1173.10.1007/s11205-018-1941-0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blanchflower, D. (2008), International evidence on well-being. IZA Discussion Paper 3354. Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).10.3386/w14318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonneuil, C. (2002), The manufacture of species: Kew Gardens, the Empire, and the standardisation of taxonomic practices in late nineteenth-century botany. In Bourguet, M. N., Licoppe, C., and Sibum, H. O. (eds), Instruments, Travel and Science, Routledge.Google Scholar
Bowles, S. and Carlin, W. (in press), ‘What Students Learn in Economics 101: Time for a Change’, Journal of Economic Literature.Google Scholar
Cartwright, N. (2019), Nature, the Artful Modeler: Lectures on Laws, Science, How Nature Arranges the World and How We Can Arrange It Better, Open Court.Google Scholar
Clark, A. E., Flèche, S., Layard, R., Powdthavee, N., and Ward, G. (2019), The Origins of Happiness: The Science of Well-being Over the Life Course, Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (2008), A framework for pro-environmental behaviours. DEFRA, London. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69277/pb13574-behaviours-report-080110.pdfGoogle Scholar
Department for Transport (2011), Detailed guidance on social and distributional impacts of transport interventions. TAG Unit 3.17. DfT, London. http://www.dft.gov.uk/webtag/documents/expert/unit3.17.phpGoogle Scholar
Deaton, A., and Cartwright, N. (2018), ‘Understanding and misunderstanding randomized controlled trials’, Social Science and Medicine, 210, 2–21.10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.12.005CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Diener, E., Oishi, S., and Tay, L. (2018), ‘Advances in subjective well-being research’, Nature Human Behaviour, 2, 253–260.10.1038/s41562-018-0307-6CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Drayton, R. (2000), Nature's Government: Science, Imperial Britain and the 'Improvement of the World, New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Fabian, M. (2019), ‘Racing from Subjective Well-Being to Public Policy: A Review of The Origins of Happiness’, Journal of Happiness Studies, 20(6): 2011–2026.10.1007/s10902-018-0019-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fleurbaey, M. (2016), “Economics and Economic Justice”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2016 Edition). In Zalta, Edward N. (ed). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/economic-justice/Google Scholar
Friedli, L. and Stearn, R. (2015), ‘Positive affect as coercive strategy: conditionality, activation and the role of psychology in UK government workfare programmes’, Medical Humanities, 41(1): 40–47.10.1136/medhum-2014-010622CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hajer, M. A. and Wagenaar, H. (eds) (2003), Deliberative policy analysis: Understanding governance in the network society, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511490934CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naidu, S., Rodrik, D., and Zucman, G. (2019), Economics After Neoliberalism. Boston Review. http://bostonreview.net/forum/suresh-naidu-dani-rodrik-gabriel-zucman-economics-after-neoliberalismGoogle Scholar
Stanca, L. (2010), ‘The geography of economics and happiness: Spatial patterns in the effects of economic conditions on well-being’, Social Indicators Research, 99(1): 115–133.10.1007/s11205-009-9571-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stiglitz, J., Sen, A. and Fitoussi, J. (2009), Report by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress. http://www.stiglitz-sen-fitoussi.fr/documents/rapport_anglais.pdfGoogle Scholar