-
Completely agree This text reflects 2 statements to both of which I agree completely: a) The existence of interest in a measure of collective well-being. I agree completely with that statement. Such interest is advocated by colleagues from collectivist cultures. Though it is not mainstream, the interest exists certainly. b) That, from the perspective of overall human welfare, collective well-being can best be seen as a determinant of life-satisfaction rather than as a distinct dimension of well-being. I agree completely, since a single dimension of well-being is clearly not overall well-being.
Professor Ruut Veenhoven
Professor of Sociology, Erasmus University Rotterdam -
Agree There may be as many conceptualizations of well-being as there are scholars thinking about it. There are no clear criteria to choose among conceptualizations, and it does not make sense for scholars to choose that conceptualization that ranks their region better. My approximation to the conceptualization issue is that wellbeing refers to the experience of being well people have. It is in human condition -as a consequence of evolutionary processes- to experience being well. The essential experiences of being well people have are affective experiences (associated to joy and suffering), sensory experiences (associated to pleasure and pain), and evaluative experiences (associated to achievement and failure). These experiences are ‘essential’ in the sense that they are part of human condition, and, in consequence, they are common to all human beings. Thus, wellbeing as the experience of being well people have can be considered as a universal conceptualization; which applies to everybody in the world. A completely different issue is about the question used to approximate the experience of being well a person has. We tend to rely on life satisfaction, but other questions could also portray relevant information about the experience. In addition, we should not confuse the experience of being well (which is universal across human beings) with the drivers that trigger these experiences. Drivers may differ across cultures, and even across people in the same region. For example, family life may trigger important affective experiences in some regions but not in others. Similarly, material wealth may trigger important evaluative experiences in some people but not in others. Thus, family life and income must be understood as potential drivers of wellbeing, but not as wellbeing itself.
Professor Mariano Rojas
Professor of Economics, Universidad Popular Autónoma del Estado de Puebla -
Completely disagree Studies on the determinants of life satisfaction across all cultures establish the vital importance of friends and family for individual SWB. This ubiquitous finding is well documented by Easterlin (2020). Other determinants of individual wellbeing that have been well documented in successive World Happiness Reports relate to the importance of community including through having deep social capital. As such, there is no need to consider family or community wellbeing as distinct dimensions of wellbeing: they are instead determinants of individual wellbeing in the same way that income, health and human rights are determinants of individual life satisfaction. Easterlin RA (2020) 'An Economist's Lessons on Happiness: Farewell Dismal Science!' Springer.
Professor Arthur Grimes
Chair of Wellbeing and Public Policy, School of Government, Victoria University of Wellington -
Completely agree I am increasingly of the view that we should not simply assume a that illbeing is the flip of illbeing. We have clearly seen a big rise in the illbeing of the young in data files like come-here and global minds. It is much harder to see in life satisfaction and happiness data. Cantril seems ill suited to pick up short term shocks and we need variables like phew MAGA gad and ghq scores to pick up what is happening at the tails Doctors ask how unhappy and depressed you are they don’t ask how happy you are
Professor David Blanchflower
Professor of Economics at Dartmouth -
Completely disagree I think that extending the measurement of wellbeing is essential, but I do not think that individual life satisfaction represents a fair assessment of overall human welfare, or that family and community wellbeing are best thought of simply as its determinants. First, life satisfaction has been shown to emphasize an evaluation based on power and wealth (see Nilsson et al., 2024). This is problematic when comparing across countries, as some countries who do well on life satisfaction do not experience much laughter and joy throughout their days (see Boyce, 2024). Second, life satisfaction is insensitive to both climate change and inequality, which are ongoing major human welfare concerns. It is important to question high performance on life satisfaction when it does not meet sustainability requirements (see Abdallah & Marks, 2023). Further, a large number of quality of life indicators have been shown to relate strongly to inequality, of which life satisfactionis not one of them (see Wilkinson & Pickett, 2010). Third, life satisfaction does not capture the extent to which life has meaning and feels purposeful, being largely a hedonic measure based on external life factors. Eudaimonic conceptions of wellbeing ought to be similarly considered. Finally, more stock should be put on individual country assessments of wellbeing. Wellbeing has different meanings across the world and it is not for western academics to pronounce what it is for cultures they don't properly understand. References Abdallah, S., & Marks, N. (2023). Happy Planet Index. In Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research (pp. 1-5). Cham: Springer International Publishing. Boyce, C. Is Finland really the happiest country? And if so, at what cost to our planet? Hot or Cool Institute (https://hotorcool.org/hc-posts/is-finland-really-the-happiest-country-and-if-so-at-what-cost-to-our-planet/) Nilsson, A. H., Eichstaedt, J. C., Lomas, T., Schwartz, A., & Kjell, O. (2024). The Cantril Ladder elicits thoughts about power and wealth. Scientific Reports, 14(1), 2642. Wilkinson, R., & Pickett, K. (2010). The spirit level. Why equality is better for everyone.
Doctor Christopher Boyce
Honorary Research Fellow, University of Stirling -
Disagree Although in some cultures and for some people, individual life satisfaction could certainly be partly determined by family and community wellbeing, this may not be the case for everyone. Some societies and cultures are more collectivist while others may be more individualistic in nature.
Professor Stephen Wu
Professor of Economics, Hamilton College -
Agree I agree with the comment that there are many well-being scholars that are interested in ensuring that well-being measures reflect the diversity of values around the globe. The second part of the comment relates to a different issue altogether. If the question is whether we should measure constructs like family well-being, community well-being, and/or perceived happiness of others -- I would say yes. If the question is whether these are best thought of as determinants of well-being rather than distinct dimensions of well-being -- we have to be open to possibility that this question depends on how the self is construed in different cultures. Some WEIRD cultures emphasize a sense of self that is independent and distinct from others -- and in these cultures it may make sense to conceptualize family and community well-being as determinants of individual LS (i.e., one of the many things that make ME satisfied with life). In cultures that emphasize a sense of self that is more intertwined with close others and collective identity, it is conceivable that family well-being or community well-being are an integral part of one's life satisfaction -- such that they might be viewed as distinct dimensions of well-being.
Professor William Tov
Associate Professor of Psychology at Singapore Management University -
Completely agree In WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialised, Rich, Democratic) countries, subjective well-being often centres on individualistic values, emphasising personal achievements, autonomy, and self-fulfilment. This focus is rooted in cultural norms prioritising individual rights and personal success as key indicators of a good life. Conversely, well-being is deeply intertwined with family, community, and societal welfare in many non-Western cultures. These cultures emphasise collectivist values where interdependence, social harmony, and fulfilling roles within a group are paramount. Satisfaction with life in these contexts is derived from the strength of social bonds, communal support, and contributing to the greater good, reflecting a holistic approach to well-being that values interconnectedness and mutual responsibility. I am reminded of the research published by Mohsen Joshanloo in 2014 (Eastern Conceptualizations of Happiness: Fundamental Differences with Western Views, Journal of Happiness Studies, 15: 475-493), which is definitely worth taking note of.
Professor Stephanié Rossouw
Associate Professor, School for Social Science and Public Policy, Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand -
Agree The problems with augmenting an individual-level assessment of human wellbeing with a separate assessment at any higher level (community, region, nation, etc.) are at least twofold. First, when one has multiple measures, inevitably trade-offs will emerge between them, and there is no obvious answer as to how to resolve those trade-offs. If a community "as a whole" is happier when one single person in that community is made extremely unhappy, is the optimal policy to actively make that one individual extremely unhappy? Would "we" be OK with this, ethically? Who makes that call on the optimal tradeoffs between the individual and the group? Second, assessing the welfare of a group as a separate quantity to the collective welfare of its inhabitants is fraught, because someone then must be the one to make that assessment, and who is to say that that person will achieve an unbiased answer? The beauty of individual wellbeing assessments is that they simply reflect the self-perceptions of each person: one man, one wellbeing measure, like one man one vote. "The country as a whole" does not get a vote, and if it did, that vote would quickly be corrupted by people wanting to turn policy in their own favour or that of their subgroup. With individual wellbeing assessments in hand, one can generate all manner of statistics at the group level (e.g., the average or the variance), simply aggregating those individual responses, that deliver various candidate "community-level" assessments of wellbeing, without needing to create some separate measurement and reporting task that will inevitably become captured.
Professor Gigi Foster
Associate Professor and Undergraduate Coordinator, School of Economics, UNSW Business School -
Agree I find it helpful to separate the "nature" of wellbeing (being satisfied with one's life) with its sources and indicators. Family and community are sources of wellbeing in that view. I wonder whether thinking about different "dimensions" of wellbeing does not just confuse this distinction between what is wellbeing and what are its sources.
Professor Martin Binder
Professor of Socio-Economics at Bundeswehr University Munich -
Completely agree Family and community values and norms shape individual cognitive and noncognitive skills, and therefore contribute to individual subjective well-being. But family and community values and norms vary across countries, driven by different formal and informal institutional settings. This implies that public policy can contribute to improving both cognitive and noncognitive skills of individuals as soon as possible in their life. However, policy interventions are country-specific and designed in the context of the country and its constitution, which might not be in line with the values and norms of the increasing group of foreign-born and their children born in their new home country.* Therefore, the big problem with existing measurements is perhaps driven by the fact that samples are not representative of the foreign-born population of the country. *Due to globalization and all negative events, the percentage of foreign-born and their children born in another country was progressively increasing during the last 20 years, but usually, the samples are representative for the adult population with respect to gender, age, and region.
Professor Daniela Andrén
Senior Lecturer, Örebro University School of Business -
Agree I agree with the first part of the statement that there is interest among well-being researchers in extending the measurement of well-being to reflect a better diversity of global values beyond traditional Western measures, which include concepts of collective well-being. However, I have reservations about the second part of the statement, which suggests that family and community well-being are only determinants (predictors) of individual life satisfaction rather than collective measures of well-being. First statement: Traditional life satisfaction measures most likely do not fully capture collective well-being, encapsulating social relationships, community well-being and the non-observable benefits of these relationships. In many non-western cultures, also in African cultures, community and social cohesion are essential aspects of well-being and are often more significant contributors to life satisfaction than income. Therefore, well-being measures should be extended to include measures of collective well-being. Second statement: I do not fully agree with the second statement. Although it has been shown numerous times that family and community well-being are significant predictors of individual life satisfaction, such simplistic measures cannot capture the intrinsic value of collective community well-being. The measures included in regression analyses are often based on single-item questions, such as, “How often do you meet up with your friends? (social relationships) and “How often do you participate in community activities or events?” (community well-being). However, collective well-being cannot fully be represented by these simplistic measures. It has intrinsic value, such as the social support from family and strong friendships, the benefits from collective societal health, resilience, and a sense of belonging to a community. Therefore, well-being frameworks should incorporate individual and collective well-being measures, providing a more comprehensive view of societal well-being.
Professor Talita Greyling
Professor, School of Economics, University of Johannesburg -
Completely agree We need, urgently, to improve the measurement of wellbeing to better reflect the true nature of the construct. For example, some researchers focus only on the life satisfaction block of well-being. Fortunately, human well-being is much more complex. In fact, well-being has been characterized by two traditions (Delle fave et al., 2011). First, the hedonic component of well-being, which focus on feeling pleasure and avoiding pain. Diener (1984) developed the construct of subjective well-being (SWB) to capture hedonic well-being through three main blocks: life satisfaction, positive emotions and negative emotions. Yet, well-being is not only pleasure. There are a second tradition, named eudaimonic well-being, which is strongly related to optimal human functioning. To measure the construct, Carol Ryff and colleagues (See Ryff, 2013) developed the Psychological Well-being Model (PWB). The PWB Model includes six blocks/dimensions (autonomy, competence, relationships, self-acceptance, purpose/meaning and personal growth). Thus, to summarize, we DO need to add to the LS block, several other blocks (e.g. meaning, relatedness, etc.) that will allow us to better measure well-being. Now, regarding the second part of the question, it could be perfectly possible that both family and community wellbeing are best thought of as determinants of individual LS rather than a distinct block of well-being. However, it is also possible too, that when people are cognitively evaluating their life satisfaction, they think in how well their families and communities are. In addition, the Bhutan Model of Gross National Happiness (GNH; see Ura et al., 2017) considers community vitality as part of the GNN Model instead of a determinant of it. The former shows the complexity of deciding whether a specific dimension is a predictor, a part of, or a determinant of well-being. It depends on the theory you are based on. Note: References are listed at the bottom of question # 2.
Professor Wenceslao Unanue
Assistant Professor, Business School, Universidad Adolfo Ibáñez -
Completely agree If the life satisfaction question doesn't capture all the important dimensions in a good life, then the question wording would need to be adjusted. It's not intended to ask about one element (satisfaction) of a good life, but rather to be phrased to elicit an overall assessment of the quality of the experience of life, overall. Therefore, the important contributions from characteristics of family and community are certainly expected to be prominent factors in accounting for this overall summation. Some might object that finding wording for such a question is impossible, i.e., that life quality is fundamentally multidimensional. But that is precisely why we rely on a subjective question. Indeed, appealing to a subjective aggregation seems to render such non-existence claims untenable. That is, if there are multiple dimensions, as opposed to determinants, of life satisfaction, then we can (only) rely on subjective weights in order to aggregate across those dimensions into a single dimension. Whose weights? Certainly we don't want experts' normative guesses. Instead, we rely on each respondent's own weights to aggregate the dimensions to a scalar. Interpretation and comparability across cultures aside, this is surely always a reasonable objective, if the intent can be properly communicated to respondents.
Professor Chris Barrington-Leigh
Associate Professor, McGill University -
Neither agree nor disagree I think we need to defer to the views of individuals to make this judgment. Those judgments may vary across cultures.
Professor Daniel Benjamin
Associate Professor of Economics, University of Southern California -
Completely disagree This is partly a philosophical question, as the idea that wellbeing just is life satisfaction is a claim in philosophical ethics, so researchers would be wise to attend to that literature. Among the experts in this field there is a robust consensus that life satisfaction is *not* the whole of wellbeing. It isn't even clear life satisfaction is important for wellbeing (if you want to be satisfied, think of Tiny Tim, and voila!). And there is good reason to think emotional wellbeing metrics better track the most important stuff like relationships than life satisfaction (eg, Diener and Ng 2010). I do think life satisfaction is a useful and efficient if crude indicator of well-being in many circumstances, and far better than the traditional method: counting money. But it isn't the goal, on any theory of wellbeing that's taken seriously. But measures of wellbeing for policy don't have to take sides in ancient philosophical debates about wellbeing, which even philosophers struggle with: policy should measure the things people care about, along with things (like money) that correlate with things people value. Family and community are around the top of that list, and should receive attention along with other common values (rewarding work, a sense of security, health...). When these things seem not to make much difference to life satisfaction, there's a good chance life satisfaction measures are missing something (for instance, a pandemic resets the scale everyone uses to evaluate their lives--just be glad you're alive--so that life satisfaction reports mask major declines in quality of life.
Professor Dan Haybron
Professor of Philosophy, Saint Louis University -
Neither agree nor disagree This question seems to be asking about life satisfaction between societies or social groups. Does the global life satisfaction question capture overall satisfaction with life of an individual within a social group who compares her/himself relative to others in their group? The evidence seems to indicate this is the case, so we need to stick with the question that is validated in the literature, when we conduct within group life satisfaction studies. Between groups is another matter. Different groups have different values expectations etc, all affecting life satisfaction. This is why I have never been a fan of comparing life satisfaction numbers across societies; a German 7 is not necessarily a British 7, let alone a Somali 7, on the 0-10 global life satisfaction scale. Certainly, family and community have been shown to have an effect on life satisfaction, Yet the last sentence switched from life satisfaction to wellbeing. We need to be clear what theory-based factor or construct we are referring to. The wellbeing construct has many dimensions, including subjective and psychological. We need to be clear about what we are measuring, life satisfaction, subjective wellbeing, psychological wellbeing, or something else. Until we have validity in cross-population life satisfaction studies, we need to stick to within group studies. And in our papers and reports, we need to be consistent in how we refer to our chosen & measured factor/construct. An example we could perhaps follow is the trust literature. Not the trust literature in economics, which tends to use a single trust in strangers question. The multi-discipline, multi-item trust scale recognises that trust is domain specific: e.g. we may trust our partner, but not our bank. Why would life satisfaction, which contains a trust component, not be likewise?
Doctor Tony Beatton
Visiting Fellow, Queensland University of Technology (QUT) -
Neither agree nor disagree There is increasing interest in better measuring well-being among non-WEIRD countries. Indeed the OECD Guidelines on Measuring Subjective Well-being will reflect indigenous and non-WEIRD perspectives in the next update. From both WEIRD and non-WEIRD perspectives, family and community well-being are simply dimensions of life satisfaction; however the question is not just about life satisfaction, but about overall human welfare. From a collectivist societal perspective, interdependent well-being may be more important to people than life satisfaction. As family and community well-being correspond strongly with interdependent well-being, for the collectivist, they may come closer to distinct dimensions of well-being than to domains/determinants of overall human welfare.
Doctor Kelsey J O'Connor
Researcher in the Economics of Well-being