IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/mon/ceddtr/163.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Subjective Well-Being: Easterlin Paradox, the (decreasing) Return(s)? From log to square, new evidence from wealthier data

Author

Listed:
  • Thomas Roca

    (GED, Université Montesquieu Bordeaux IV)

Abstract

The quest for happiness is neither new for human beings, nor for economists. With the systematization of household surveys, Subjective Well-Being studies have flourished. Discussions now focus on the slope of the virtually unchallenged curvilinear functional form between income and life satisfaction. Indeed, if growth positive returns are not -yet- contested for societies that have difficulties satisfying their population?s basic needs, the correlation between income and Subjective Well-Being in wealthier countries has no consensus; from flat to steep, researchers dither? Benefitting from larger datasets, recent papers have attempted to debunk the Easterlin paradox. They show that self-reported well-being is steadily and positively correlated with income and growth, even in developed countries. However, using the most up-to-date global surveys, calculations cast doubt upon the belief in an eternal sunshine relation between income and ?happiness?. Indeed, we observe that the curvilinear relation between income and happiness could be challenged by the quadratic one. Thus, it now appears difficult to reject the possibility of decreasing returns, to the extent that it might be possible to consider, not only a weak, but a negative correlation between income and happiness for wealthier countries. Nevertheless, this perspective is likely dependent on the sample size. Moreover, we claim no direct causality for the uncovered negative slope. Further investigations would be necessary to prove, inform - or disprove - these new findings. La recherche du bonheur n?est pas une quête nouvelle pour les humains, ni pour les économistes ! Avec la systématisation des enquêtes ménages, les études sur le bien-être subjectif se sont multipliées. Si le caractère curvilinéaire de l?association entre revenu et bien-être subjectif n?est pas, jusqu?ici, remise en question, les débats se sont récemment concentrés sur la pente de celle-ci. En effet, bien que l?impact positif de la croissance sur le bien-être dans les pays en développement ne soit pas contesté, pour les pays industrialisés, la corrélation entre bien-être subjectif et revenu est loin de faire l?objet d?un consensus. Récemment, en utilisant des bases de données de plus en plus larges, certaines recherches ont remis en cause le paradoxe d?Easterlin. D?après ces travaux, il serait désormais clair que le bien-être subjectif soit durablement et positivement corrélé avec le revenu et la croissance, même pour les pays industrialisés. Néanmoins, nos observations réalisées grâce aux plus complètes bases de données actuellement disponibles, montrent que la relation idyllique entre revenu et bien-être subjectif peut être remise en question. La forme curvilinéaire pourrait en effet, cacher une forme quadratique. Il deviendrait alors difficile de rejeter l?existence de gains marginaux décroissants. Néanmoins, il serait imprudent d?établir un lien de causalité pour la partie décroissante de la pente ainsi mise à jour. De nouvelles recherches et des données plus longues seront nécessaires pour alimenter, ou réfuter, nos observations. (Full text in english)

Suggested Citation

  • Thomas Roca, 2011. "Subjective Well-Being: Easterlin Paradox, the (decreasing) Return(s)? From log to square, new evidence from wealthier data," Documents de travail 163, Groupe d'Economie du Développement de l'Université Montesquieu Bordeaux IV.
  • Handle: RePEc:mon:ceddtr:163
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ada Ferrer-i-Carbonell, 2002. "Subjective Questions to Measure Welfare and Well-being," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 02-020/3, Tinbergen Institute.
    2. Di Tella, Rafael & MacCulloch, Robert, 2008. "Gross national happiness as an answer to the Easterlin Paradox?," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(1), pages 22-42, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Catherine Sofer & Natalia Radtchenko & Ekaterina Kalugina, 2008. "Une analyse du partage intra familial du revenu à partir de données subjectives," Économie et Prévision, Programme National Persée, vol. 186(5), pages 101-116.
    2. Samuel Cameron & Mark Fox, 2011. "Half Full or Half Empty: The Economics of Work–Life Balance," Chapters, in: Samuel Cameron (ed.), Handbook on the Economics of Leisure, chapter 6, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    3. van Hoorn, André, 2018. "Is the happiness approach to measuring preferences valid?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 53-65.
    4. Savatore Puglisi & Ionuț Virgil Șerban, 2019. "Beyond Gdp: Which Options To Better Represent Modern Socio-Economic Progress?," Sociology and Social Work Review, International Society for projects in Education and Research, vol. 3(1), pages 17-32, June.
    5. Alpaslan Akay & Olivier Bargain & Klaus F. Zimmermann, 2017. "Home Sweet Home?: Macroeconomic Conditions in Home Countries and the Well-Being of Migrants," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 52(2), pages 351-373.
    6. Easterlin, Richard A. & Angelescu McVey, Laura, 2009. "Happiness and Growth the World Over: Time Series Evidence on the Happiness-Income Paradox," IZA Discussion Papers 4060, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    7. Xu Xu & Kevin Sylwester, 2016. "Environmental Quality and International Migration," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 69(1), pages 157-180, February.
    8. Su Kye & Keeho Park, 2014. "Health-related determinants of happiness in Korean adults," International Journal of Public Health, Springer;Swiss School of Public Health (SSPH+), vol. 59(5), pages 731-738, October.
    9. William Betz & Nicole Simpson, 2013. "The effects of international migration on the well-being of native populations in Europe," IZA Journal of Migration and Development, Springer;Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit GmbH (IZA), vol. 2(1), pages 1-21, December.
    10. Jin, Olivia S. & Wunnava, Phanindra V., 2020. "Feeling Richer and Happier? Self-Perceived Economic Welfare and Life Satisfaction: Evidence of 'Easterlin Paradox' from Russian Longitudinal Data," GLO Discussion Paper Series 625, Global Labor Organization (GLO).
    11. Arik Levinson, 2013. "Happiness as a Public Policy Tool," Working Papers gueconwpa~13-13-04, Georgetown University, Department of Economics.
    12. Clark, Andrew E. & Senik, Claudia, 2010. "Will GDP Growth Increase Happiness in Developing Countries?," CEPREMAP Working Papers (Docweb) 1024, CEPREMAP.
    13. Eiji Yamamura & Antonio Rodriguez, 2012. "Influence of age of child on differencesinlife satisfaction ofmalesand females: A comparative study among East Asian countries," Development Research Working Paper Series 04/2012, Institute for Advanced Development Studies.
    14. Zhang, Xin & Zhang, Xiaobo & Chen, Xi, 2017. "Happiness in the air: How does a dirty sky affect mental health and subjective well-being?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 81-94.
    15. Nicola Pontarollo & Mercy Orellana & Joselin Segovia, 2020. "The Determinants of Subjective Well-Being in a Developing Country: The Ecuadorian Case," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 21(8), pages 3007-3035, December.
    16. Bruno S. Frey & Alois Stutzer, 2009. "Should National Happiness be Maximized?," Chapters, in: Amitava Krishna Dutt & Benjamin Radcliff (ed.), Happiness, Economics and Politics, chapter 14, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    17. Edsel L. Beja, 2017. "The Asymmetric Effects of Macroeconomic Performance on Happiness: Evidence for the EU," Intereconomics: Review of European Economic Policy, Springer;ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics;Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), vol. 52(3), pages 184-190, May.
    18. Susana Ferreira & Mirko Moro, 2013. "Income and Preferences for the Environment: Evidence from Subjective Well-Being Data," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 45(3), pages 650-667, March.
    19. Clark, Andrew E. & D'Ambrosio, Conchita, 2014. "Attitudes to Income Inequality: Experimental and Survey Evidence," IZA Discussion Papers 8136, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    20. Christopher Ambrey & Christopher Fleming & Matthew Manning, 2014. "Perception or Reality, What Matters Most When it Comes to Crime in Your Neighbourhood?," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 119(2), pages 877-896, November.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • D60 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - General
    • O1 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development
    • I0 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - General
    • C81 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs - - - Methodology for Collecting, Estimating, and Organizing Microeconomic Data; Data Access
    • C3 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Multiple or Simultaneous Equation Models; Multiple Variables

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:mon:ceddtr:163. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.