Return to: Home | Life & Society

Don't keep up with the Joneses

Andrew Oswald

Published 14 January 2008

Once a nation has filled its larders is there any point in getting richer? Prof. Andrew Oswald on how economic growth doesn't make us happy

In espousing quality of life for his nation, French President Nicolas Sarkozy is rare. Most politicians think economic growth is what makes a nation happier.

"Britain is today experiencing the longest period of sustained economic growth since the year 1701 – and we are determined to maintain it," began Gordon Brown, then chancellor of the exchequer, in the first sentence of his 2005 Budget speech.

Now prime minister, he has gone on to act as though he still does believe that growth is vital. Yet Nicolas Sarkozy is right and Gordon Brown is wrong.

Today there is much statistical and laboratory evidence in favour of the following simple fact: once a country has filled its larders there is no point in that nation trying to become richer.

First, surveys show that the industrialised nations have not become happier over time. Random samples of UK citizens today report the same degree of psychological wellbeing and satisfaction with their lives as did their (poorer) parents and grandparents.

In the US, happiness has fallen over time. Strikingly, and for reasons we do not completely understand, white American women are markedly less happy than were their mothers.

Second, using more formal measures of mental health, rates of depression in a country like the UK have increased over the last couple of decades.

Third, measured levels of stress at work seem to have risen.

Fourth, suicide statistics paint a picture that is often consistent with such patterns. In the US, even though real income levels have risen six-fold, the per capita suicide rate is the same as in the year 1900 (though in the UK, more encouragingly, the suicide rate has fallen in the last century).

Fifth, climate change is another reason why we should turn away from fast economic growth as the ideal to be pursued.

Some of the world’s most creative academics have followed the seminal work of economics professor Richard Easterlin in California and have come up with evidence on why growth does not work.

One reason is that humans are creatures of comparison. Research last year showed that happiness levels depend inversely on the earnings levels of a person’s neighbours. Prosperity next door makes you dissatisfied. It is relative income that matters: when everyone in a society gets wealthier, average wellbeing stays the same. There is a kind of giant neutralization.

A further reason is adaptation. Experiences wear off. A joint intellectual effort by psychologists and economists has got to the bottom of the way that human beings adapt to good and bad events. There is still disagreement about details, but some researchers believe that there is close to complete adaptation to rises in income. Such hedonic flexibility also works downwards.

Those who become disabled recover half of their happiness by three or four years later. Yet economics textbooks still ignore such ‘habituation’.

A final reason is, as Daniel Gilbert at Harvard has shown, that human beings are bad at forecasting what will make them happy.

In laboratory settings, people systematically choose the wrong things for themselves.

Yet surely, it might be argued, what about skiing holidays, power showers, televised football matches, fancy wristwatches, car travel for all – are these not compelling evidence for the long arm of growth? Yes they are, but we need these because Mr and Mrs Jones have them, not because they make an intrinsic difference.

Economists’ faith in the value of growth is now diminishing. That is a good thing. I believe that in the long run these (still strange) ideas are unstoppable. The reason is straightforward: they are supported by the data.

Andrew Oswald began working on happiness data in the early 1990s. His current work lies at the borders of economics, psychology and medicine.

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • Reddit

13 comments from readers

Cybertiger
14 January 2008 at 16:01

Carl Jones laughs out loud a lot. I want to be happy like him.

IrritatedofTonbridge
14 January 2008 at 16:01

I blame TV, not for Carl Jones you understand, but for the fact that we now have so much fuel for our envy.

Robert Powell
14 January 2008 at 16:06

Is this article a tribute to the huge intellectual clout he Jonesy brings to this sight? LOL.

Robert Powell
14 January 2008 at 16:33

Obviously I meant site. Chortle quietly to myself.

Cybertiger
14 January 2008 at 16:33

"Is this article a tribute to the huge intellectual clout he Jonesy brings to this sight?"

Yes - Jonesy sees things that a lot of us don't: I envy his insight and want to keep up with him. LOL.

Colonel Blimp
14 January 2008 at 18:08

Titter!

Jane Greene
14 January 2008 at 18:12

And dragging it back from the realm of the eccentrics that inhabit the comment section of this website, can I just say what an excellent article. How true - if want less we'll feel less disappointed.

gnuneo
14 January 2008 at 18:55

Mr Oswald - very interesting, but have you studied any comparative studies done in Scandinavia, where wealth levels ARE more flattened?

looking to the US, where community values have been deliberately destroyed over the last century, for "understanding human psychological happiness", is surely going to give very skewed results - indeed, precisely the results you have just written in your article!

to explain further, if a society widely holds the belief that 'personal achievement and success' is measured by how much more you have than your neighbour, then any study done upon that society will reveal just that - but there is absolutely NO compelling evidence that this is a universal value!

indeed, considering (as your article states) those very societies that hold this value have not increased in social/individual satisfaction despite an enormous growth in wealth, whereas the Scandinavian societies who have a widely held value that happiness is more based upon social equality and investment HAVE increased in social/individual happiness (the skandi countries regularly come in the top 10 countries for social contentment, despite the suicide rates (for which the long winter darkness has to take some measure of blame)) then it can easily be argued by social scientists/psychologists that much of the blame should rest upon this value itself, rather than using studies taking this value as a benchmark.

it is also to be noted in this context, that the average skandi has more disposable wealth than the average UK or US citizen.

this is not to deride the focus of your article, that greater wealth does not necessarily bring greater happiness - this i agree with completely, and the belief that continued growth of GDP is always good will result in inevitable catastrophe for us all, and indeed i agree with the vastest portion of your article.

what i object to is using studies that take a certain social value as read, and then extrapolating from those studies as though it is a universal value, without studying societies that hold very different values.

and carl jones, unfortunately, is laughing through his tears at us, a position i can understand only too well.

LOL.

sonicdeathmonkey
14 January 2008 at 22:21

Good comment GnuNeo. I liked the article too but its very biased towards English speaking cuntries.

Oliver James would have an apoplectic fit if he read this.

link

I don't agree with Oliver wholly either but there's a strong argument to made for a public education program on this theme. That sounds a bit weak so maybe someone else has a better idea but you know what I mean. God knows we can't trust the politicians to make a difference.

TRH
15 January 2008 at 20:51

Advertising is the culprit. We now see far more adverts than did our parents and grandparents. The whole point of advertising is to make us sad because sad people are more likely to go shopping.

We need to take conscious steps to minimise our exposure to ads.

mitchy
16 January 2008 at 11:41

Yup. Manufactured needs and wants. The capitalist system thrives on imparting crap upon us. Time we woke up.

Guy Bellairs
06 February 2008 at 12:28

TRH is right. (Non-classified) advertising is the root of all evil, especially today when Westerners have to accept a reduced standard of ostentation in order to allow emerging economies to have a fair share of the world's reasonably accessible goods without cooking us all into oblivion. During WW II intelligent advertising asked us to AVOID unnecessary consumption - I remember it well.

antileft
20 February 2008 at 08:16

Oh what a load of leftie crap! Honestly, if I sent everyone here an ipod with all their favourite songs on, Ill bet that itd make you happy.

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before you can comment on the website

About the writer

Andrew Oswald

Andrew Oswald is professor of economics at Warwick University and an ESRC professorial fellow. He has won various awards for his research, including Princeton University’s Lester Prize

Also by Andrew Oswald

Read More

Vote!

Was the government wrong to sack David Nutt?

Suggest a question

View comments

© New Statesman 1913 – 2009

Tracker