What’s the unhappiest country?
Friends of the Earth have released The Happy Planet Index, what they call an:
Innovative new measure that shows the ecological efficiency with which human well-being is delivered around the world. It is the first ever index to combine environmental impact with well-being to measure the environmental efficiency with which country by country, people live long and happy lives.
They claim that Vanuatu is the happiest country around, while Zimbabwe brings up the rear. 9 of the 10 happiest countries in the world border the Caribbean Sea – the power of salsa, sol y playa I guess?
I haven’t looked at the report or methodology in detail, but Heavy Lifting has (with regression results included):
The Happiness index suggests that the United States is ranked 150 out of 178, just ahead of the Ivory Coast and just behind Lithuania. This does not pass the smell test and it flies in the face of revealed preference: there are a lot more people trying to come to live in the United States than in any other country in the world. Which is more correct - the revealed happiness of people as evidenced by their relocation or the calculated happiness by the NEF?
Some of the country positions definitely raised my eyebrows.
Update: The BBC asks 'what's so great about living in Vanuatu?' Perhaps because they worship the Duke of Edinburgh, invented bungee jumping, have marvelous weather and pay no income tax. But what about all the poverty and shrinking islands?
Update: Will Wilkinson has another blunt review of the report over at CATO's blog. Thanks to John for the pointer. Will in turn points us to more criticism for the report via Glen Whitman. (On a side note: I subscribe to several blogs where Will is an author, one of which concentrates on happiness and public policy.)
Update: The WSJ's Numbers Guy has more.
Comments (7)
E-mail
Digg
Bookmark
Just take a look at how the index is composed and you'll know why. Happiness index is
HPI = Life satisfaction x Life expectancy/Ecological Footprint
US does great with the life satisfaction and life expectancy, but has a very high ecological footprint.
I have no idea why on earth somebody would want to use measure such as the one above, since those three things are mainly unrelated and there's no reason to believe they should be given weight as they have been in the index
Posted by: Mikko Särelä | Jul 18, 2006 10:16:53 AM
A too happily calculated happiness index
New Economic Foundations (NEF) has just announced their Happy Planet Index that ranks countries by multiplying Life Satisfaction times Life Expectancy and dividing it all by an Ecological Footprint. It sounds as an interesting concept of how much happiness, for how long and with how much resources used up.
Nonetheless and although I have not gone through all the details yet, unfortunately it seems that the calculations might have been just a little bit too happy, especially when we find among the better third, my country Venezuela. Though it is absolutely true that the Venezuelans quite natural happiness and decent life-length plays in their favor their absolutely horrible use of their oil resources should necessarily place them close to the bottom.
First we have what seems to be a flaw in the model, as it looks like all the oil that Venezuela extracts but that is consumed elsewhere does not count towards its own Ecological Footprint and this seems an overly generous concept. Since all the money obtained from sacrificing a non-renewable barrel of oil is spent quite happily by Venezuela’s governments without any thoughts about tomorrow a more careful observer than NEF might have thought this had more to do with a what-me-worry negligence, than with that real happiness that can only come from knowing you are doing things right and responsible.
But if Venezuela was pardoned by NEF for their oil exports, this is peccata minuta when compared to how they must have also been pardoned their local gone-crazy consumption of oil, at 15 dollar cents per liter or less.
Let us hope that next year around NEF manages to correct its index because, really, true happiness is no laughing matter.
Posted by: Per Kurowski | Jul 18, 2006 4:03:08 PM
Mikko got to the heart of the matter: the rankings don't measure happiness. Will Wilkinson has more:
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2006/07/13/vanuatu-islands-of-fire-or-heaven-on-earth/
Posted by: Jonathan Dingel | Jul 18, 2006 8:46:26 PM
Pablo, Thanks for the link. Also check out economist Glen Whitman's criticism of the study here:
http://agoraphilia.blogspot.com/2006/07/more-on-happy-planet-index.html
If the returns to happpiness as a function of "ecological footprint" are diminishing, then, obviously, societies with a smaller footprint will produce happiness more "efficiently." The question is one should care about this kind of efficiency at the cost of happiness, especially when the operative idea of "biocapacity" is nonsense. Follow the link in Glen's post to see why.
Posted by: Will Wilkinson | Jul 19, 2006 12:18:17 AM
at least the logics of index is correct as it reminds us where we are from as humankind and how much the environment concernc ecological disasters are dangerous for our common planet.even though i am not aware about the details of index it is very important awareness raising tool for more wiser way of living,sustainable development model of planet.so let us not to focus methodological aspects of index but focus mainly to the content.congrutulations to those who developed the indexs
Posted by: sambuu demberel | Jul 19, 2006 5:31:39 AM
It's worth mentioning the fact that scientists have actually found that animals tend to live longer the less they eat. Thus far I haven't found any mention of this scientific research in the NEF's report.
http://www.pbs.org/saf/1110/resources/resources-4.htm
Posted by: Kris | Jul 19, 2006 4:17:45 PM
Sorry I made a mistake in my previous comment when I reported that Venezuela, that is ranked 26th in the Happy Planet Index, was selling gasoline locally at 15 dollar cents per liter or less.
Actually it is 15 dollar cents or less, PER GALLON!
Are they not so happy go lucky that they deserve at least qualify among the first five?
Posted by: Per Kurowski | Jul 24, 2006 9:31:02 AM