World Happiness Report 2016: rapport sur les pays où il fait bon vivre

Description

Dans l’édition 2016 du World Happiness report, la France se situe seulement à la 32ème place des pays où il fait bon vivre.

Informations

• Publié par: Fil_actu
• Publié le: 17 mars 2016
• Nombre de lectures: 11
• Langue: English
• Poids de l'ouvrage: 1 Mo

Extrait

Chapter 2
THE DISTRIBUTION
OF WORLD HAPPINESS
JOHN F. HELLIWELL, HAIFANG HUANG AND SHUN WANG
John F. Helliwell, Canadian Institute for Advanced Research and Vancouver School of Economics,
University of British Columbia8
Haifang Huang, Department of Economics, University of Alberta
Shun Wang, KDI School of Public Policy and Management, Korea
The authors are grateful to the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research and the KDI School for research support, and to
the Gallup Organization for data access and assistance. In particular, several members of the Gallup staff helped in the
development of Technical Box 3. The author are also grateful for helpful advice and comments from Ed Diener, Curtis Eaton,
Carrie Exton, Leonard Goff, Carol Graham, Shawn Grover, Richard Layard, Guy Mayraz, Hugh Shiplett and Conal Smith.W ORLD HAPPINES S REPOR T 20 16 | UPD ATE
survey years 2005 through 2011, in order to Introduction
achieve representative samples in each answer
It is now almost four years since the publication category. In this chapter we repeat that analysis
of the frst World Happiness Report (WHR) in using data from the subsequent four years,
2012. Its central purpose was to survey the 2012-2015. This will give us suffciently large
scientifc underpinnings of measuring and samples to compare what we found for
2005understanding subjective well-being. Its main 2011 with what we now see in the data for
content is as relevant today as it was then, and 2012-2015.
remains available for those now coming to the
topic for the frst time. The subsequent World
Our main analysis of the distribution of
happiHappiness Report 2013 and World Happiness
ness among and within nations continues to be
Report 2015, issued at roughly 18 month
interbased on individual life evaluations, roughly
vals, updated and extended this background. To
1,000 per year in each of more than 150
counmake this World Happiness Report 2016 Update
tries, as measured by answers to the Cantril
accessible to those who are coming fresh to the
ladder question: “Please imagine a ladder, with
World Happiness Report series, we repeat enough
steps numbered from 0 at the bottom to 10 at
of the core analysis in this chapter, and its
the top. The top of the ladder represents the best
several on-line appendices, to explain the
meanpossible life for you and the bottom of the ladder
ing of the evidence we are reporting.
represents the worst possible life for you. On
which step of the ladder would you say you
Chapter 2 in World Happiness Report 2015, the personally feel you stand at this time?” We will,
Geography of Wappiness, started with a as usual, present the average life evaluation
global map, and continued with our attempts to scores for each country, in this report based on
explain the levels and changes in average nation- averages from the surveys conducted in 2013,
al life evaluations among countries around the 2014 and 2015.
world. This year we shall still consider the
geographic distribution of life evaluations
This will be followed, as in earlier editions, by
among countries, while extending our analysis
our latest attempts to show how six key variables
to consider in more detail the inequality of
contribute to explaining the full sample of
happiness – how life evaluations are distributed
national annual average scores over the whole
among individuals within countries and
geoperiod 2005-2015. These variables include GDP
graphic regions.
per capita, social support, healthy life
expectancy, social freedom, generosity and absence of
In studying more deeply the distribution of corruption. We shall also show how measures of
happiness within national and regional popula- experienced well-being, especially positive
tions, we are extending the approach adopted in emotions, can add to life circumstances in the
Chapter 2 of the frst World Happiness Report, in support for higher life evaluations.
which Figure 2.1 showed the global distribution
of life evaluations among the 11 response
categoWe shall then turn to consider the distribution of
ries, with the worst possible life as a 0 and the
9life evaluations among individuals in each
counbest possible life as a 10 (the Cantril ladder
try, using data from all 2012-2015 surveys, with
question). The various parts of Figure 2.2 then
the countries ranked according to the equality of
made the same allocation of responses for
life evaluations among their survey respondents,
respondents in nine global regions, weighting
as measured by the standard deviation from the
the responses from different countries according
mean. We shall then show how these national
to each country’s population. In those fgures we
measures of the equality of life evaluations have
combined all the data then available, for the
changed from 2005-2011 to 2012-2015.Our reason for paying more attention to the Measuring and Understanding
distribution of life evaluations is quite simple. If Happiness
it is appropriate to use life evaluations as an
Chapter 2 of the frst World Happiness Report umbrella measure of the quality of life, to
suppleexplained the strides that had been made during ment and consolidate the benefts available from
the preceding 30 years, mainly within psychology, income, health, family and friends, and the
in the development and validation of a variety of broader institutional and social context, then it is
measures of subjective well-being. Progress since equally important to broaden the measurement
then has moved faster, as the number of scientifc of inequalities beyond those for income and
papers on the topic has continued to grow wealth. Whether people are more concerned with
1rapidly, and as the measurement of subjective equality of opportunities or equality of outcomes,
well-being has been taken up by more national the data and analysis should embrace the
availand international statistical agencies, guided by ability of and access to sustainable and livable
technical advice from experts in the feld. cities and communities as much as to income
and wealth. We will make the case that the
distribution of life evaluations provides an By the time of the frst report there was already
over-arching measure of inequality in just the a clear distinction to be made among three main
same way as the average life evaluations provide classes of subjective measures: life evaluations,
an umbrella measure of well-being. positive emotional experiences (positive affect)
and negative emotional experiences (negative
affect); see Technical Box 1. The Organization The structure of the chapter is as follows. We
for Economic Co-operation and Development shall start with a review of how and why we use
(OECD) subsequently released Guidelines on life evaluations as our central measure of
subjec2Measuring Subjective Well-being, which included tive well-being within and among nations. We
both short and longer recommended modules of shall then present data for average levels of life
3subjective well-being questions. The centerpiece evaluations within and among countries and
of the OECD short module was a life evaluation global regions. This will include our latest
question, asking respondents to assess their efforts to explain the differences in national
satisfaction with their current lives on a 0 to 10 average evaluations, across countries and over
scale. This was to be accompanied by two or the years. After that we present the latest data on
three affect questions and a question about the changes between 2005-2007 and 2013-2015 in
extent to which the respondents felt they had average national life evaluations.
a purpose or meaning in their lives. The latter
question, which we treat as an important
supWe shall then turn to consider inequality and
port for subjective well-being, rather than a well-being. We frst provide a country ranking of
4direct measure of it, is of a type that has come
the inequality of life evaluations based on data
to be called “eudaimonic,” in honor of Aristotle, from 2012-2015, followed by a country ranking
who believed that having such a purpose would
based on the size of the changes in inequality
be central to any refective individual’s assess-that have taken place between 2005-2011 and
ment of the quality of his or her own life.
2012-2015. We then attempt to assess the possible 10
consequences for average levels of well-being,
Chapter 2 of World Happiness Report 2015 re-and for what might be done to address well-being
viewed evidence from many countries and inequalities. We conclude with a summary of our
several different surveys about the types of latest evidence and its implications.
information available from different measures
8of subjective well-being. What were the main
messages? First, all three of the commonly used W ORLD HAPPINES S REPOR T 20 16 | UPD ATE
Technical Box 1: Measuring Subjective Well-being
The OECD (2013) Guidelines on Measuring Sub- The second element consists of a short series of
jective Well-being, quotes in its introduction the affect questions and an experimental
eudaimonfollowing defnition and recommendation from ic question (a question about life meaning or
the earli