It’s not the economy, dumbass: well-being is the real vote winner | Richard Layard
WWhat kind of society do we want? The most obvious answer is simple: we want people to be happy. We want our children to be as happy as possible, so why not everyone else? The goal should be a world where people enjoy their lives and feel satisfied and fulfilled.
This noble idea emerged during the 18th century Enlightenment. It was probably the most important idea of modern times. Yet today it is rarely discussed in debates about our future. Some people say it’s too ambitious; Others say it’s not ambitious enough. It’s neither. We just want to make people as happy as possible. And above all we want to reduce misery.
This should be the goal of every government and of each of us. More than two hundred years ago, Thomas Jefferson wrote, “The care of human life and happiness… is the first and only legitimate purpose of good government.” Why else would we have a government if not to give us an evenly distributed, better quality of life?
But what are the chances that politicians will embrace this goal? Fortunately, it is in their best interest to do so. People’s life satisfaction is the best predictor of whether the ruling party (or parties) will be re-elected. It is a better predictor than economic growth, unemployment or inflation. This is what national elections in Europe since the 1970s and the recent US presidential elections demonstrate. It’s not “the economy, dumbass.” It’s about people’s well-being.
Keir Starmer understands this. He has promised: “With every pound spent on your behalf, we expect the Treasury to weigh not just the impact on national income, but also the impact on welfare.”
This should lead to major changes in national spending priorities. The new science of well-being tells us a lot about how policies influence people’s well-being. We can then compare this benefit with the cost of a policy and choose those policies that deliver the highest value for money – i.e. the most wellbeing for every pound spent. Mental health is emerging as a high priority: the service provided by NHS talking therapies is a success because it saves more than it costs. But we urgently need a parallel service for adults with addiction or personality disorders, who receive very little therapy. Similarly, mental health care in schools is severely hampered by a lack of funding. A better deal is needed.
In total, the government spends less than £2 billion a year on psychological therapy. In contrast, road and rail transport amounts to almost £62 billion. Yet an extra pound spent on therapy makes a much more positive difference to people’s lives than a pound spent on road or rail. Likewise, we blatantly neglect the post-school education of people who don’t go to college. They need guaranteed access to an internship, provided they are qualified. And so forth.
We spend too much on things compared to what we spend on people. A thorough rethink is needed in the area of public spending.
The same applies to other organizations. They must be justified by the way they contribute to human well-being. Schools should not be exam factories; they should be places where young people learn the skills of living a fulfilling life and contributing to the well-being of others. There are excellent curricula in place, such as Healthy Minds in secondary schools, which have a proven impact on wellbeing. In the same way, employers must give more weight to the well-being of their employees.
The most important thing is our own personal goals. In today’s dominant culture, the overarching goal is individual success, compared to other people (better grades, better jobs, better income). But this is a zero-sum game. For every winner there is a loser. So no matter how hard people try, overall well-being doesn’t change. But we can be happier if our individual goal is to make others happy, and we get a large part of our own happiness from that. We need that positive goal and countries with high levels of social support and trust (such as the Nordic countries) are indeed happier.
It is not enough for philosophers to say that we have ‘mutual obligations’ to each other. We need to say what those obligations are: to help other people be happy. That is the message of the Action for Happiness movement. Its members pledge to ‘create more happiness and less unhappiness in the world’. And it offers wonderful materials and meetings to help people live this way.
The UN’s International Day of Happiness takes place on March 20, when many of us will celebrate at the World Happiness Summit in London. As the general election approaches, let’s ask every politician, “What is the purpose your party offers to the country?”
Above all, let each of us be creators of happiness as best we can – as the Como Wellbeing Manifesto put it: let’s put well-being first.