First, there are a few different versions of the Easterlin paradox. The most relevant one, for this discussion, is whether economic growth over the long-term (i.e. 10+ years for economists—longer than the business cycle) increases subjective well-being. This version of the paradox holds in quite a few developed nations (see linked paper). That leaves it open what we might find for developing nations.
Second, the only paper I know of that looks globally at SWB over time is Neve et al. (2018). Those authors use affect data from the Gallup World Poll and find:
The level of (log) per capita GDP is not significantly related to the day-to-day emotional experience of individuals within countries over time. However, emotional well-being is significantly related to macroeconomic movements over the business cycle
Which indicates we should not expect further global growth will increase happiness. At least, there’s a case to answer.
Third, the OWID point about flat rates of MH is interesting. I’d not seen that and I’ll see if I can find out more.
Fourth, you make this hypothetical point along the lines of “if SWB data told us this, we should disbelieve it” and then you sort of assume it does show us that. But it doesn’t. If you look at the causes and correlates of SWB they tell a pretty intuitive story, for the most part: higher SWB (measured as happiness or life satisfaction) is associated with greater health and wealth, being in a relationship, lower crime, lower suicide rates, less air pollution, etc. The only result that’s puzzling is the Easterlin paradox. But if you think SWB measure get the ‘wrong’ result with Easterlin, that implies the measures aren’t valid, e.g. life satisfaction measures don’t actually measure life satisfaction. But then you need to explain how they get the ‘right’ answers basically everywhere else.
Hello. Thanks for engaging!
First, there are a few different versions of the Easterlin paradox. The most relevant one, for this discussion, is whether economic growth over the long-term (i.e. 10+ years for economists—longer than the business cycle) increases subjective well-being. This version of the paradox holds in quite a few developed nations (see linked paper). That leaves it open what we might find for developing nations.
Second, the only paper I know of that looks globally at SWB over time is Neve et al. (2018). Those authors use affect data from the Gallup World Poll and find:
Which indicates we should not expect further global growth will increase happiness. At least, there’s a case to answer.
Third, the OWID point about flat rates of MH is interesting. I’d not seen that and I’ll see if I can find out more.
Fourth, you make this hypothetical point along the lines of “if SWB data told us this, we should disbelieve it” and then you sort of assume it does show us that. But it doesn’t. If you look at the causes and correlates of SWB they tell a pretty intuitive story, for the most part: higher SWB (measured as happiness or life satisfaction) is associated with greater health and wealth, being in a relationship, lower crime, lower suicide rates, less air pollution, etc. The only result that’s puzzling is the Easterlin paradox. But if you think SWB measure get the ‘wrong’ result with Easterlin, that implies the measures aren’t valid, e.g. life satisfaction measures don’t actually measure life satisfaction. But then you need to explain how they get the ‘right’ answers basically everywhere else.
What’s more, the Easterlin Paradox isn’t that surprising when you try to explain it, e.g. that effect of income on SWB is mostly relative.