There’s tons of back-and-forth on the Easterlin paradox (“The paradox states that at a point in time happiness varies directly with income both among and within nations, but over time happiness does not trend upward as income continues to grow.”), but if we’re talking about national development over time (i.e. policy-oriented growth) this seems of pretty central relevance. In particular, it’s plausibly more of a problem for growth-oriented national development than for RD because one plausible explanation for the paradox is the importance of positional goods (I care not just about my absolute income but how it compares to my neighbors or how it compares to my expectations which are influenced by neighbors). If the whole country (everyone in my comparison class) grows their GDP per capita at exactly the same rate, everyone’s position is unchanged; if the poorest are targeted by RD, their positions can be improved with minimal harm to others.
(This shades into inequality as an important consideration beyond GDP as the post mentions, but it’s not quite the same.)
The Easterlin paradox notwithstanding, as we say in the post, economic growth does buy you a lot of subjective wellbeing improvement in a country. It would be interesting to explore how far increasing growth in a country would improve subjective wellbeing in LMICs. The path to impact in HICs seems much less clear imo
The Easterlin paradox notwithstanding, economic growth does buy you a lot of subjective wellbeing improvement in a country.
I might not be understanding you, but it seems like this tries to smuggle in causation and assume away the problem. As I see things, there are two conflicting pieces of correlational evidence:
Cross-country regressions show strong correlation at a point in time between income and SWB (what the post highlights)
Time series regressions within countries show a weak correlation between income and SWB (Easterlin paradox)
I don’t currently know of a fully convincing resolution of this conflict, but the second correlation actually seems a bit more central for the question of the causal effect of growth over time on SWB.
It would be interesting to explore how far increasing growth in a country would improve subjective wellbeing in LMICs.
Some analysts assert that in less developed countries happiness and
economic growth are positively related “up to some point,” beyond which the association
tends to become nil, but time series data do not support this view. The most striking
contradiction is China where, despite a fourfold multiplication in two decades in real GDP per
capita from a low initial level, life satisfaction has not improved.
(For the record, I would be surprised if the Easterlin paradox turned out to 100% correct and rising national income over time had 0 positive effect on subjective well-being. But I am significantly uncertain about this, could imagine the effect being quite substantial, and knowing the magnitude of the effect seems very important.)
Updated research on the Easterlin Paradox here. Free working draft here. Nice audio/visual overview from one of the authors here. Good discussion on the EA forum here.
There’s tons of back-and-forth on the Easterlin paradox (“The paradox states that at a point in time happiness varies directly with income both among and within nations, but over time happiness does not trend upward as income continues to grow.”), but if we’re talking about national development over time (i.e. policy-oriented growth) this seems of pretty central relevance. In particular, it’s plausibly more of a problem for growth-oriented national development than for RD because one plausible explanation for the paradox is the importance of positional goods (I care not just about my absolute income but how it compares to my neighbors or how it compares to my expectations which are influenced by neighbors). If the whole country (everyone in my comparison class) grows their GDP per capita at exactly the same rate, everyone’s position is unchanged; if the poorest are targeted by RD, their positions can be improved with minimal harm to others.
(This shades into inequality as an important consideration beyond GDP as the post mentions, but it’s not quite the same.)
The Easterlin paradox notwithstanding, as we say in the post, economic growth does buy you a lot of subjective wellbeing improvement in a country. It would be interesting to explore how far increasing growth in a country would improve subjective wellbeing in LMICs. The path to impact in HICs seems much less clear imo
I might not be understanding you, but it seems like this tries to smuggle in causation and assume away the problem. As I see things, there are two conflicting pieces of correlational evidence:
Cross-country regressions show strong correlation at a point in time between income and SWB (what the post highlights)
Time series regressions within countries show a weak correlation between income and SWB (Easterlin paradox)
I don’t currently know of a fully convincing resolution of this conflict, but the second correlation actually seems a bit more central for the question of the causal effect of growth over time on SWB.
Easterlin on LMIC and the paradox:
(For the record, I would be surprised if the Easterlin paradox turned out to 100% correct and rising national income over time had 0 positive effect on subjective well-being. But I am significantly uncertain about this, could imagine the effect being quite substantial, and knowing the magnitude of the effect seems very important.)
Updated research on the Easterlin Paradox here. Free working draft here. Nice audio/visual overview from one of the authors here. Good discussion on the EA forum here.