Gross national happiness as an answer to the Easterlin Paradox?
Gross national happiness as an answer to the Easterlin Paradox?
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.jdeveco.2007.06.008
复制
发表时间：
2008-04-01
影响因子：
5
通讯作者：
MacCulloch, Robert
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Di Tella, Rafael;MacCulloch, Robert
Easterlin Paradise指出，尽管收入大幅增加，但幸福数据通常是稳定的。这等于否定了当前收入是效用函数中唯一参数的假设。我们发现，1975年至1997年间，经合组织（OECD）约35万人的幸福感与收入水平、福利国家和预期寿命（微弱）呈正相关;与平均工作小时数、环境恶化呈负相关。（以硫氧化物排放量衡量）、犯罪、贸易开放、通货膨胀和失业;所有这些都控制了国家和年份的数据。这些影响以一种似乎大致合理的模式在各组之间分开（例如，富人比穷人更易遭受环境退化）。根据1975年至1997年的实际变化，在我们的样本中，对幸福的微小贡献可以归因于收入的增加。有趣的是，在这段时间里，预期寿命、工作时间、通货膨胀和失业等几个“省略变量”的实际变化也有助于幸福，因为预期寿命上升了，其他变量平均下降了。因此，无法解释的幸福趋势甚至比如果收入是效用函数中唯一的参数时所预测的还要大。换句话说，引入省略的变量消除了没有幸福的收入悖论。(C)2007 Elsevier B. V.保留所有权利。
The Easterlin Paradox refers to the fact that happiness data are typically stationary in spite of considerable increases in income. This amounts to a rejection of the hypothesis that current income is the only argument in the utility function. We find that the happiness responses of around 350,000 people living in the OECD between 1975 and 1997 are positively correlated with the level of income, the welfare state and (weakly) with life expectancy; they are negatively correlated with the average number of hours worked, environmental degradation (measured by SOx emissions), crime, openness to trade, inflation and unemployment; all controlling for country and year dummies. These effects separate across groups in a pattern that appears broadly plausible (e.g., the rich suffer environmental degradation more than the poor). Based on actual changes from 1975 to 1997, small contributions to happiness can be attributed to the increase in income in our sample. Interestingly, the actual changes in several of the 'omitted variables' such as life expectancy, hours worked, inflation and unemployment also contribute to happiness over this time period since life expectancy has risen and the others have, on average, fallen. Consequently the unexplained trend in happiness is even bigger than would be predicted if income was the only argument in the utility function. In other words, introducing omitted variables worsens the income-without-happiness paradox. (C) 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.