Happy Planet Index

This week I calculated my Happy Planet Index (HPI) to work out the ecological efficiency with which I achieve well-being in my life, calculated by dividing by dividing the total of various happiness, well-being and life-expectancy measures by my ecological footprint (see http://www.happyplanetindex.org/). Despite several valid criticisms of the HPI, I still feel the measure improves greatly on indicators such as Gross Domestic Product (GDP); reflecting the most important aspects of my life, not wealth but instead my relationships with family and friends, my health, and my perceived power to "make a difference". And furthermore, the HPI assesses these qualities against my impact on the planet. I consider myself to be a very happy person, but my HPI would not be high if I had not also taken steps to reduce my ecological footprint. 


There are certainly problems with trying to put a number or value on intangible and subjective qualities like happiness. However, the HPI at least tries to take into account several aspects of happiness, from a person's recent mood, to her general life satisfaction, to her relationships and finally her self-esteem and her perceived power to "make a difference". Furthermore, the HPI is arguably no more subjective than more traditional measures like GDP. A person cannot expect to be happy every day - and indeed this should not be a government policy objective; however, in my ideal society when a person is not happy she should still have the power to do something about it and she should also have a support network of family and friends and/or professionals around her to help. 


There is a broader problem here, in that no single indicator is able to capture the complexity of what is required to have a "good" life or a "prosperous" society; and these concepts will mean different things to different people in different societies. Focusing on one number inevitable narrows one's vision, blinding policy-makers and publics to other factors, or perhaps unfairly prioritising "goods" like self-esteem over harder to measure "goods" like power to influence decision-making. At the same time, if governments were to take the well-being and happiness of their citizens seriously within policy, which I believe they should, they need a yardstick or indicator to evaluate the success of their policies so that they can be held accountable. It seems to me that part of the problem at the moment is a simplistic reliance on the part of governments on only a few indicators, instead of any attempt to see the wider picture; therefore the use of numerical indicators in itself should not be completely thrown out. 


On one level it seems ridiculous for governments to be concocting policies to induce happiness. After all, you can't legislate for love, fantastic friends, breathtaking scenery, sporting achievements or many other things that make us truly happy. However, government policies which support child care, reduce working hours, ensure the quality of working environments, promote green spaces, or encourage volunteering, could be seen as enabling ordinary people to live their lives in ways that make them happier, by reducing money worries and work stress, and giving people more time to spend on important relationships. 


Going back to my first post which distinguishes between mainstream and alternative perspectives on sustainable consumption, I worry that my policy suggestions so far have erred too much on the side of the mainstream approach. Standing back to imagine a completely different society, organised around the twin aims of increasing public well-being and reducing the ecological impact I am forced to question many taken-for-granted aspects of the world as it is. Why does society expect people to work most of their waking hours in order to earn the money to buy goods, which (I venture) in most cases they do not need and do not make them any happier? Why are the highest status individuals in society those who earn and own the most, rather than those who look after the welfare of other humans and the environment the most? Why do we consider school subjects like Maths and English more important than teaching children how to be happy or how to live within ecological limits?