IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Subjective Well-Being: Easterlin Paradox, the (decreasing) Return(s)? From log to square, new evidence from wealthier data


  • Thomas Roca

    (GED, Université Montesquieu Bordeaux IV)


The quest for happiness is neither new for human beings, nor for economists. With the systematization of household surveys, Subjective Well-Being studies have flourished. Discussions now focus on the slope of the virtually unchallenged curvilinear functional form between income and life satisfaction. Indeed, if growth positive returns are not -yet- contested for societies that have difficulties satisfying their population?s basic needs, the correlation between income and Subjective Well-Being in wealthier countries has no consensus; from flat to steep, researchers dither? Benefitting from larger datasets, recent papers have attempted to debunk the Easterlin paradox. They show that self-reported well-being is steadily and positively correlated with income and growth, even in developed countries. However, using the most up-to-date global surveys, calculations cast doubt upon the belief in an eternal sunshine relation between income and ?happiness?. Indeed, we observe that the curvilinear relation between income and happiness could be challenged by the quadratic one. Thus, it now appears difficult to reject the possibility of decreasing returns, to the extent that it might be possible to consider, not only a weak, but a negative correlation between income and happiness for wealthier countries. Nevertheless, this perspective is likely dependent on the sample size. Moreover, we claim no direct causality for the uncovered negative slope. Further investigations would be necessary to prove, inform - or disprove - these new findings. La recherche du bonheur n?est pas une quête nouvelle pour les humains, ni pour les économistes ! Avec la systématisation des enquêtes ménages, les études sur le bien-être subjectif se sont multipliées. Si le caractère curvilinéaire de l?association entre revenu et bien-être subjectif n?est pas, jusqu?ici, remise en question, les débats se sont récemment concentrés sur la pente de celle-ci. En effet, bien que l?impact positif de la croissance sur le bien-être dans les pays en développement ne soit pas contesté, pour les pays industrialisés, la corrélation entre bien-être subjectif et revenu est loin de faire l?objet d?un consensus. Récemment, en utilisant des bases de données de plus en plus larges, certaines recherches ont remis en cause le paradoxe d?Easterlin. D?après ces travaux, il serait désormais clair que le bien-être subjectif soit durablement et positivement corrélé avec le revenu et la croissance, même pour les pays industrialisés. Néanmoins, nos observations réalisées grâce aux plus complètes bases de données actuellement disponibles, montrent que la relation idyllique entre revenu et bien-être subjectif peut être remise en question. La forme curvilinéaire pourrait en effet, cacher une forme quadratique. Il deviendrait alors difficile de rejeter l?existence de gains marginaux décroissants. Néanmoins, il serait imprudent d?établir un lien de causalité pour la partie décroissante de la pente ainsi mise à jour. De nouvelles recherches et des données plus longues seront nécessaires pour alimenter, ou réfuter, nos observations. (Full text in english)

Suggested Citation

  • Thomas Roca, 2011. "Subjective Well-Being: Easterlin Paradox, the (decreasing) Return(s)? From log to square, new evidence from wealthier data," Documents de travail 163, Groupe d'Economie du Développement de l'Université Montesquieu Bordeaux IV.
  • Handle: RePEc:mon:ceddtr:163

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Di Tella, Rafael & MacCulloch, Robert, 2008. "Gross national happiness as an answer to the Easterlin Paradox?," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(1), pages 22-42, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • D60 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - General
    • O1 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development
    • I0 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - General
    • C81 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs - - - Methodology for Collecting, Estimating, and Organizing Microeconomic Data; Data Access
    • C3 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Multiple or Simultaneous Equation Models; Multiple Variables

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:


    Access and download statistics


    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:mon:ceddtr:163. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.