Measuring the Nation’s Well-Being – A Skeptical Update

Bridget Grenville-Cleave, MAPP graduate of the University of East London, is a UK-based positive psychology consultant, trainer and writer. She is author of Introducing Positive Psychology: A Practical Guide (2012), and The Happiness Equation with Dr Ilona Boniwell. She regularly facilitates school well-being programs and Positive Psychology Masterclasses for personal and professional development. Find her on LinkedIn, Facebook and Twitter @BridgetGC. Website. Full bio. Her articles are here.

A few months ago I wrote about the British government’s intention to measure national well- being (Vanessa King discussed the same topic here a few months later). This project came about because of the obvious failing of GDP (gross domestic product) to capture all the nuances of social and economic progress (and lack of it) in the country. I promised to update you on this project’s progress, and at the end of July 2011, a series of reports was issued by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) which is running the project, including the “National Statistician’s reflections on the national debate on measuring national well-being” (see below).

Robert F Kennedy

Those of you familiar with Robert Kennedy’s 1968 University of Kansas address* will know that the idea of using something other than plain old economics to measure a country’s growth and well-being is decades old, but this hadn’t filtered through to British politicians until now. It also seems to tap into the work of Richard Easterlin (famous for the “Easterlin Paradox”) –  the basic idea being that Western societies are getting richer (on average ) but not happier (although you should note that this is the simplified explanation of the Easterlin Paradox – if you want to read a more detailed account, see Easterlin’s recent article called The Happiness Paradox Revisited.)

If you’re unsure about the value of measuring national well-being and progress using non-economic measures, it’s worth reflecting on the argument that they could have explained (and perhaps even predicted) the anti-social and criminal behavior we experienced in the recent English riots, and that if we’d had a way of measuring national well-being we might have developed policies which would have prevented them. On the other hand, if you believe that the riots were simply the work a bunch of rampaging young thugs hell-bent on causing trouble, damaging property, and stealing as much they could get away with, you’re probably not that convinced by psychological explanations for behavior anyway.

What’s in the Measure?

Rather than consult well-being experts (of which there are quite a few, but only four amongst the 40-odd members of the ONS’s Advisory Forum) and review the growing body of positive psychology literature on life satisfaction, flourishing, happiness and all the other synonyms for well-being, the ONS embarked on a six month national consultation exercise because, in the National Statistician Jil Mathieson’s own words, the only way to develop these measures is to ask people what matters most to them. She’s entitled to her opinions of course, but as I said back in February, to me it seems like a spectacular waste of time, effort, and money. The ‘results’ seem to bear this out.

In reality, people were asked to select the things that matter to them from a predefined list of items (see tables below), and then to choose those which should be reflected in a measure of national well-being. Half-way through the process a revised consultation document was issued. The items added or changed are marked like this.

Commonly used words in the national well-being debate

According to the preliminary report, the National Statistician’s reflections on the national debate on measuring national well-being, “The debate has highlighted that the things that matter the most are our health, relationships, work, and the environment. These are also themes that the majority of respondents agree should be reflected in a measure of national well-being, with the addition of education and training” (quoted from page 9).

In short, the so-called national debate has been a waste of time, effort, and money – it hasn’t told us anything about well-being that we didn’t already know. What’s more it seems to miss out some important contributors such as trust and social cohesion.

Although the consultation wasn’t a statistical exercise and that results aren’t necessarily representative from a statistical perspective,  they’re still being used as a basis for deciding national well-being measures. This is illogical. If the results aren’t representative then it wasn’t a national consultation, and they shouldn’t be used as if they were. Otherwise there is a danger that the wrong measures (and ultimately policies) could be developed.

Themes from Young People

Take, for example, the themes which emerged from discussions with young people (ages not specified):

“Some of the themes that emerged from the main debate came up in our discussions with teenagers, such as relationships with friends and money. However, the following themes, not as common in our other discussions, emerged strongly:

• Technology – mobile phones, ipods, social networking sites
• Entertainment – reality tv, celebrity gossip
• Image – the right clothes, shoes, make-up and hairstyle
• Food and drink”

If this is what matters most to our young people and we support this in our well-being measurement and policy-making, then clearly we’ll get the society we deserve.

   The kids of today

As has been pointed out in another recent ONS report by Alison Spence, Matthew Powell, and Abbie Self, the “debates about well-being have been somewhat unclear as the question of ‘what’ well-being is has often been conflated with the question of ‘how’ well-being can be measured.” At the risk of stating the obvious, there are some underlying assumptions running throughout the ONS work that i) people act rationally and ii) giving people more of what they want will improve their well-being.

In short, the consultation hasn’t moved us any closer to an accurate measure of national well-being than we were before it started. Bear in mind too that the ONS wants to capture children and young people’s well-being, subjective well-being, economic well-being, environmental well-being (in the form of natural capital) and sustainability measures. We’re in danger of ending up with a complete mishmash of ‘well-being measures’ designed by committees that don’t actually do the job they were intended to do, which is to help develop and assess policy to improve well-being. Either that or the ONS will revert to expert opinion and ignore what the consultees said. Which they could have done last November and saved £2m.

According to the ONS a proposed list of domains and dimensions for the measurement of well-being, and the well-being measures themselves, will be published later this year.

References

Easterlin, R. A., McVey, L., Switek, M., Sawangfa, O., & Zweig, J. (2010). The happiness–income paradox revisited. PNAS Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107(52), 22463-22468.

Mathieson, J., (2011). National Statistician’s reflections on the national debate on measuring national well-being. Office for National Statistics, UK.

Spence, A., Powell, M. & Self, A. (2011). Supplementary paper: Developing a framework for understanding and measuring national well-being. Office for National Statistics, UK.

Images
Robert F. Kennedy by Renegade98
The kids of today by Wooly Matt