6 / 32
V
irginia
C
apitol
C
onnections
, S
ummer
2015
6
Happiness as a measure of a nation’s
success is a proposition with a long history.
It was the Greek philosopher Aristotle,
the founder of the study of politics, who
first made the assertion that happiness
was man’s primary pursuit. According to
Aristotle it followed that happiness ought
to be the goal of the polis, a term Aristotle
used to identify the governing community
in which the people of his day lived. In
1776 over 2,000 years later, George
Mason reinforced this idea in Virginia’s
Declaration of the Rights of Man. Mason said the pursuit of
happiness was among man’s natural rights. That same year Thomas
Jefferson repeated this idea in the Declaration of Independence.
Coming at a formative time in our nation’s history, these statements
not only supported the importance of the nation-state ensuring the
happiness of its citizens, but also helped to reinforce this concept
as a core value in the collective consciousness of early America. As
a core value, it is appropriate that Americans regularly reflect on
the state of our individual and collective happiness and the extent
to which our government’s policies contribute or detract from
happiness. This is a prime focus of this paper.
The economic turmoil in the world today has been the genesis
of numerous examinations of happiness as a measure of a country’s
success and of those variables contributing to expressions of
happiness. The most mentioned reason given in early studies was
that a region’s relative wealth was the single biggest contributor
to the happiness of its residents. However, the results of recent
studies reveal that among economically developed societies there
is not a direct correlation between a nation’s wealth and the overall
happiness of its citizens. Many analysts who had formerly held to
the idea that a country’s measure of success was best found in stark
economic realities began asking to what extent are a people really
happy with the wealth represented in a nation’s Gross National
Product. Questions were invariably directed to the United States, a
nation that has the world’s highest GNP ranking, but is ranked only
15th among the happiest countries.
The quest for common denominator other than wealth that
contributes to societal happiness led researchers to search for
countries and regions that might serve as models. This search led
to the Scandinavian region and the countries of Denmark, Norway,
Sweden and Finland. The preponderance of socio-economic
analysts of Scandinavian societies believe that Scandinavian
countries are indeed unique in their overall sense of happiness.
They quote numerous well-respected surveys in support of their
conclusion. Furthermore, they are in agreement that much can be
learned from an examination of the key determinants supporting
the happiness of Scandinavian societies, but they disagree on what
these key determinants are.
Despite studies to the contrary, a number of observers of
Scandinavian countries still hold to the notion that happiness is
primarily linked to a country’s wealth. Other researchers in search of
an alternative explanation attribute happiness among Scandinavians
to the fact that they live in societies that are homogeneous with a
strong sense of identity and a common culture. Still others explain
Scandinavian expressions of happiness to the socialistic policies
of their governments’ economic programs. To varying degrees all
of the reasons given for the happiness of the Scandinavian people
have some merit and can be supported. They, however, fall short
as a consistent predictor of happy societies. There is, however,
Path To Societal Happiness:
Economic Equality and Populism
By Dr. William “Bill” Shendow
one indicator that can be shown to be a consistent contributor to
societal happiness. That indicator is economic equality.
Studies consistently show that economic equality within a
country makes for a comparatively happy citizenry. Inequality, on
the other hand, is a consistent inhibitor of happiness in societies.
There is a strong correlation between economic inequality and
a multitude of societal problems. This correlation is too strong
to be dismissed as a chance finding. Notable among those who
have studied differences between unequal and equal societies are
Professors Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett. They co-authored
The Spirit Level : Why Equality Is Better For Everyone
. Their
book was said to be groundbreaking for it put forward the idea
and supported its thesis with years of research and hard evidence
showing how societies are impacted positively by economic
equality.
Like many of their contemporaries, Wilkinson and Pickett’s
research led them to the Scandinavian countries. In Scandinavia
their research revealed societies that were both happy and
more economically equal than other well developed societies.
To determine the relative economic equality in Scandinavian
societies Wilkinson and Pickett relied on two measures. The first
measure used by Wilkinson and Pickett was the Gini coefficient
score. For each country this measure produces a number between
0, the completely economically equal society, and 100, a
country with a completely unequal distribution of wealth. The
Gini coefficient score for Scandinavian countries range from
a low of 25 (Sweden) to a high of 28.1 (Denmark). These low
scores support the conclusion that the distribution of wealth in
Scandinavian countries is significantly more equal than other
developed countries to include the United Kingdom at 36.1 and
the United States which at 40.8 was among the most unequal of
all advanced nations.
A second less sophisticated study used by the authors of
The
Spirit Level
relied on a measure that focuses on the income gap
between the 20% richest people and the 20% poorest people in
a society. This study produced a similar conclusion as the Gini
coefficient. Findings from this measure revealed that the four
Scandinavian countries were among the five countries having the
smallest income gap between the 20% richest and 20% poorest
people in their respective countries. Among the twenty-five
countries surveyed for this story, the income gap in the Unites
States was greater than all developed countries except Singapore.
Despite the difficulty in bringing about a more balanced
and equal economic system in the United States, it has been
accomplished in past. Ever since this nation’s founding period
whenever the economic system was seen as being out of balance
there have been political movements designed to restore a greater
degree of balance and equality. The modern history of these
movements can trace its origin to the populism movement of the
latter part of the 19th century. This movement was a reaction to
the Gilded Age, a time from the late 1860s to about 1896 that was
characterized by an economic system that benefitted the very rich
at the expense of the common man.
While the populism movement failed to elect its own leaders,
it did serve to influence others to take-up the cause of a more
balanced economic system. Those who were so influenced did so
under the label of a new movement, the progressivism movement.
Theodore Roosevelt was the most notable leader of this movement
at the dawn of the 20th century. Under his leadership numerous
policies were enacted which helped to establish greater economic
equality.