IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/col/000093/016014.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Felicidad en la política pública: una revisión de la literatura

Author

Listed:
  • Mario García Molina
  • Liliana Chicaíza
  • Jhonathan Rodríguez

Abstract

El artículo revisa la literatura sobre felicidad desde una perspectiva de política pública. Se encuentra una tendencia, que debería fortalecerse en el futuro, a estudiar los efectos de diversas políticas sobre la felicidad, en lugar de extrapolar los efectos de trabajos sobre los determinantes. Dado que muchos métodos fueron disenados para estudiar la utilidad, hace falta adaptarlos, especialmente en el tratamiento del tiempo, y en el uso de métodos experimentales y la evaluación de impacto. La noción de felicidad plantea preguntas importantes, pero todavía son necesarios más desarrollos para su uso fructífero en la toma de decisiones de política. The article surveys the recent literature on happiness from a policy perspective. We identified a trend in order to study the effects of different policies on happiness instead of simply extrapolating policy recommendations from studies on the determinants of happiness. We predict that this trend will become more pronounced in the future. As many policy tools were made for utility, they require adaptation to promote happiness, especially in terms of the treatment of time, the use of experimental methods, and impact evaluation. Happiness studies raise important and interesting questions; however, more developments are needed for them to be useful in aiding public policy.

Suggested Citation

  • Mario García Molina & Liliana Chicaíza & Jhonathan Rodríguez, 2018. "Felicidad en la política pública: una revisión de la literatura," Revista Cuadernos de Economia, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, FCE, CID, vol. 37(73), February.
  • Handle: RePEc:col:000093:016014
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://fce.unal.edu.co/media/files/v37n73a05_Rodriguez.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bartolini, Stefano & Bilancini, Ennio & Bruni, Luigino & Porta, Pier Luigi (ed.), 2016. "Policies for Happiness," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198758730.
    2. Fabrizio Antolini, 2016. "The Evolution of National Accounting and New Statistical Information: Happiness and Gross Domestic Product, Can We Measure It?," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 129(3), pages 1075-1092, December.
    3. Stefano Bartolini, 2014. "Building sustainability through greater happiness," The Economic and Labour Relations Review, , vol. 25(4), pages 587-602, December.
    4. Mohammed Abdellaoui & Ahmed Driouchi & Olivier L’Haridon, 2011. "Risk aversion elicitation: reconciling tractability and bias minimization," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 71(1), pages 63-80, July.
    5. Annie Austin, 2016. "On Well-Being and Public Policy: Are We Capable of Questioning the Hegemony of Happiness?," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 127(1), pages 123-138, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Alejandro Arrieta & Ariadna García‐Prado & Paula González & José Luis Pinto‐Prades, 2017. "Risk attitudes in medical decisions for others: An experimental approach," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(S3), pages 97-113, December.
    2. Alserda, Gosse A.G. & Dellaert, Benedict G.C. & Swinkels, Laurens & van der Lecq, Fieke S.G., 2019. "Individual pension risk preference elicitation and collective asset allocation with heterogeneity," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 206-225.
    3. Francesco Sarracino & Kelsey J. O’Connor, 2023. "Neo-humanism and COVID-19: Opportunities for a socially and environmentally sustainable world," Applied Research in Quality of Life, Springer;International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies, vol. 18(1), pages 9-41, February.
    4. Ahlin, Christian & Gulesci, Selim & Madestam, Andreas & Stryjan, Miri, 2020. "Loan contract structure and adverse selection: Survey evidence from Uganda," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 172(C), pages 180-195.
    5. Mikucka, Malgorzata & Sarracino, Francesco & Dubrow, Joshua K., 2017. "When Does Economic Growth Improve Life Satisfaction? Multilevel Analysis of the Roles of Social Trust and Income Inequality in 46 Countries, 1981–2012," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 447-459.
    6. Larry Dwyer, 2023. "Why tourism economists should treat resident well-being more seriously," Tourism Economics, , vol. 29(8), pages 1975-1994, December.
    7. Holzmeister, Felix, 2017. "oTree: Ready-made apps for risk preference elicitation methods," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 33-38.
    8. Bauermeister, Golo & Musshoff, Oliver, 2016. "Risk Aversion and Inconsistencies - Does the Choice of Risk Elicitation Method and Display Format Influence the Outcomes?," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 235348, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    9. Etelvina Stefani Chavez & Gastón Milanesi & Gabriela Pesce, 2021. "Aversión al riesgo implícita en los precios de mercado de diferentes activos financieros de Argentina," Remef - Revista Mexicana de Economía y Finanzas Nueva Época REMEF (The Mexican Journal of Economics and Finance), Instituto Mexicano de Ejecutivos de Finanzas, IMEF, vol. 16(1), pages 1-23, Enero - M.
    10. Antoni Bosch-Domènech & Joaquim Silvestre, 2013. "Measuring risk aversion with lists: a new bias," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 75(4), pages 465-496, October.
    11. Arjan Verschoor & Ben D’Exelle, 2022. "Probability weighting for losses and for gains among smallholder farmers in Uganda," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 92(1), pages 223-258, February.
    12. Matteo Assandri & Anna Maffioletti & Massimiliano Piacenza & Gilberto Turati, 2018. "Risk Attitudes and Preferences for Redistribution: New Evidence from the Lab," CESifo Economic Studies, CESifo Group, vol. 64(3), pages 489-515.
    13. Mayrhofer, Thomas & Krieger, Miriam, 2012. "Patient Preferences and Treatment Thresholds under Diagnostic Risk: An Economic Laboratory Experiment," VfS Annual Conference 2012 (Goettingen): New Approaches and Challenges for the Labor Market of the 21st Century 62033, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    14. Syster C. Maart-Noelck & Oliver Musshoff, 2014. "Measuring the risk attitude of decision-makers: are there differences between groups of methods and persons?," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 58(3), pages 336-352, July.
    15. Tamás Csermely & Alexander Rabas, 2016. "How to reveal people’s preferences: Comparing time consistency and predictive power of multiple price list risk elicitation methods," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 53(2), pages 107-136, December.
    16. Seeun Jung & Kenneth Houngbedji, 2014. "Shirking, Monitoring, and Risk Aversion," PSE Working Papers halshs-00965532, HAL.
    17. Kpegli, Yao Thibaut & Corgnet, Brice & Zylbersztejn, Adam, 2023. "All at once! A comprehensive and tractable semi-parametric method to elicit prospect theory components," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    18. Holzmeister, Felix & Stefan, Matthias, 2019. "The Risk Elicitation Puzzle Revisited: Across-Methods (In)consistency?," OSF Preprints pj9u2, Center for Open Science.
    19. Filippin, Antonio & Crosetto, Paolo, 2014. "A Reconsideration of Gender Differences in Risk Attitudes," IZA Discussion Papers 8184, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    20. Norbert Hirschauer & Oliver Musshoff & Syster C. Maart-Noelck & Sven Gruener, 2014. "Eliciting risk attitudes -- how to avoid mean and variance bias in Holt-and-Laury lotteries," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(1), pages 35-38, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    felicidad; utilidad; políticas públicas;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • B4 - Schools of Economic Thought and Methodology - - Economic Methodology
    • D01 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Microeconomic Behavior: Underlying Principles
    • D60 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - General
    • H00 - Public Economics - - General - - - General
    • I30 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty - - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:col:000093:016014. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Facultad de Ciencias Economicas Unal (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/funalco.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.