IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/bpubpo/v4y2020i2p210-225_7.html

Happiness and public policy: a procedural perspective

Author

Listed:
  • STUTZER, ALOIS

Abstract

This article comments on the role of empirical subjective wellbeing research in public policy within a constitutional, procedural perspective of government and state. It rejects the idea that, based on the promises of the measurement, we should adopt a new policy perspective that is oriented toward a decision rule maximizing some aggregate measure of subjective wellbeing. This social engineering perspective, implicit in much reasoning about wellbeing policy, neglects: (1) important motivation problems on the part of government actors, such as incentives to manipulate indicators, but also on the part of citizens to truthfully report their wellbeing; and (2) procedural utility as a source of wellbeing. Instead, wellbeing research should be oriented toward gaining insights that improve the diagnoses of societal problems and help us to evaluate alternative institutional arrangements in order to address them, both as inputs into the democratic process.

Suggested Citation

  • Stutzer, Alois, 2020. "Happiness and public policy: a procedural perspective," Behavioural Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(2), pages 210-225, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:bpubpo:v:4:y:2020:i:2:p:210-225_7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S2398063X19000447/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Block, Joern & Kritikos, Alexander S. & Priem, Maximilian & Stiel, Caroline, 2022. "Emergency-aid for self-employed in the Covid-19 pandemic: A flash in the pan?," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    2. Martijn Burger & Martijn Hendriks & Elena Ianchovichina, 2022. "Happy but Unequal: Differences in Subjective Well-Being across Individuals and Space in Colombia," Applied Research in Quality of Life, Springer;International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies, vol. 17(3), pages 1343-1387, June.
    3. Niclas Berggren & Andreas Bergh & Christian Bjørnskov & Shiori Tanaka, 2020. "Migrants and Life Satisfaction: The Role of the Country of Origin and the Country of Residence," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 73(3), pages 436-463, August.
    4. Olga Pilipczuk, 2021. "A Conceptual Framework for Large-Scale Event Perception Evaluation with Spatial-Temporal Scales in Sustainable Smart Cities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-17, May.
    5. Alem, Yonas & Tato, Gidisa Lachisa, 2023. "Shocks and mental health: Panel data evidence from South Africa," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    6. Kristen Cooper & Mark Fabian & Christian Krekel, 2023. "New approaches to measuring welfare," Fiscal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 44(2), pages 123-135, June.
    7. Marina Bravi & Marta Bottero & Federico Dell’Anna, 2024. "An Application of the Life Satisfaction Approach (LSA) to Value the Land Consumption and Ecosystem Services," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 15(1), pages 2988-3013, March.
    8. DiMaria, charles-henri, 2024. "Let’s all get pessimistic about ill-being: civil society and political organisation mediations," MPRA Paper 121603, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Schreiner, Nicolas, 2021. "Changes in Well-Being Around Elections," Working papers 2021/03, Faculty of Business and Economics - University of Basel.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • D60 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - General
    • D70 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - General
    • H11 - Public Economics - - Structure and Scope of Government - - - Structure and Scope of Government
    • I31 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty - - - General Welfare, Well-Being

    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:cup:bpubpo:v:4:y:2020:i:2:p:210-225_7. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/bpp .

    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.