016 017 Can money buy happiness? Matthew Mccall A fundamental challenge faced by all societies is the economic problem. The problem of which that humans, by nature, have unlimited wants yet this is compromised by the fact that there are limited resources. Due to this scarcity of land, labour and capital, people are forced to make decisions on how to allocate them. Since the dawn of this problem, the key focus of allocation was an increase in GDP otherwise known as Gross Domestic Product. Now this may seem like the obvious solution, yet as economies grow, and incomes rise it is becoming evident that these increases do not have a corresponding increase in happiness which raises the question: Is this really what we should be measuring? In 1972, the 4th King of Bhutan, King Jigme Singye Wangchuck created GNH – Gross National Happiness and declared that “Gross National Happiness is more important than Gross Domestic Product.” Encouraging a paradigm shift towards a more holistic approach that considers the contentment of society as an equal to pure economic growth. This concept was internationalised in 2011 where the UN General Assembly passed resolution 65 – “Happiness: towards a holistic approach to development”, urging members of the UN to follow suit from Bhutan methodologies. Now many people would presume that by nature, countries with larger, more flourishing economies would have a higher level of happiness because the common view is that money does in fact buy happiness. However, this figure taken from the pre-COVID World Happiness Report released by the United Nations demonstrates that happiness and GDP have no correlation. Now this figure portrays the statistics of America, therefore leading onto the point that it could be argued that this highly political nation is an outlier to the trend due to internal issues. Yet it can be disproven through analysis of what are considered the happiest nations across the globe. According to the UNs latest report, the top 5 ranking nations on happiness are Finland, Denmark, Iceland, Israel, and Netherlands. Although in terms of GDP they rank 48th, 37th, 111th, 29th and 18th, which clearly follows the trend stated earlier of no correlation. Even the other largest economies like China and Japan only rank 61st and 47th in the happiness index. This would suggest that the state of an economy is not a factor of happiness, thus proving money cannot in fact buy happiness. On the other hand, in terms of GDP per capita, with the relative prices in each nation considered (Purchasing Power Parity) to make the comparison more equitable, the top 5 ranked respectively 21st, 9th, 12th, 34th and 10th, in happiness. This would imply a slightly closer correlation between the living conditions in certain nations compared to the level of satisfaction as all 5 countries ascended the rankings. Moreover, another important factor to consider is inequality, as with any statistic or ranking it is important to consider the nation-wide level and account for the top 1% bringing up the average. However, looking at this graph portraying the happiness gap in the top 137 countries, it becomes evident that the inequality in terms of happiness has been accounted for with the previous research, as our top 5 can all be found in the top 10 of this data for the happiness gap. Linking onto this, by comparing the Gini coefficients, it is evident to see that 3 of the 4 countries available from this specific research support the conclusion that low income-inequality is an obvious basis for the low happiness gaps. The comparison between these two graphs allows us to recognise that money has an undeniable impact on the happiness of a population. By analysing data that represents the differences in wealth and income within countries alongside the differences in happiness, it is clear how money is the underlying key factor in determining the happiness of citizens. Can Money Buy Happiness? By Ma&hew Mccall A fundamental challenge faced by all socie4es is the economic problem. The problem of which that humans, by nature, have an unlimited wants yet this is compromised by the fact that there are limited resources. Due to this scarcity of land, labour and capital, people are forced to make decisions on how to allocate them. Since the dawn of this problem, the key focus of alloca4on was an increase in GDP otherwise known as Gross Domes4c Product. Now this may seem like the obvious solu4on, yet as economies grow, and incomes rise it is beco ing evident that th se increases do not have a corresponding increase in happiness raises the ques4on: Is this really what we should be measuring? In 1972, the 4th King of Bhutan, King Jigme Singye Wangchuck created GNH – Gross Na4onal Happiness and declared that "Gross Na4onal Happiness is more important than Gross Domes4c Product." Encouraging a paradigm shiS towards a more holis4c approach that considers the contentment of society as an equal to pure economic growth. This concept was interna4onalised in 2011 where the UN General Assembly passed resolu4on 65 – “Happiness: towards a holis4c approach to development" urging members of the UN to follow suit from Bhutan methodologies. Now many people would presume that by nature countries with larger, more flourishing economies would have a higher level of happiness because the common view is t at money does in fact buy happiness. However, this figure taken from the pre-COVID World Happiness Report released by the United Na4ons demonstrates that happiness and GDP have no correla4on. Now this figure portrays the sta4s4cs of America, therefore leading onto the point that it could be argued that this highly poli4cal na4on is an outlier to he trend due to nternal issues. Yet can b disproven through naly is of what re considered the hap iest na4ons acros the globe. According to he UNs latest report, the top 5 ranking na4ons on happiness are Finland, Denmark, Iceland, Israel, and Netherlands. Although in terms of GDP they rank 48th, 37th, 111th, 29th and 18th which clearly follows the trend stated earlier of no correla4on. Even the other largest economies like China and Japan only rank 61st and 47th in the happiness index. This would suggest that the state of an economy is not a factor of happiness thus proving money cannot in fact buy happiness. On the other hand, in terms of GDP per capita, with the rela4ve prices in each na4 considered (Purchasing ower Parity) to m ke the comparison mo equi able, the top 5 ranked respec4vely 21st, 9th, 12th, 34th and 10th in happiness. This would imply a slightly closer correla4on between the living condi4ons in certain na4ons compared to the level of sa4sfac4on as all 5 countries ascended the rankings. Moreover, another important factor to consider is inequality, as with any sta4s4c or ranking it is important to consider the na4onwide level and account for the top 1% bringing up the average. However, looking at this graph portraying the happiness gap in the top 137 countries it becomes evident that the inequality in terms of happiness has been accounted for with the previous research as our top 5 can all be found in the top 10 of this data for the happiness gap. Linking onto this, by comparing the Gini coefficients it is evident to see that 3 of the 4 cou tries available from this specific research support the conclusion that low incomeinequality is an obvious basis for the low happiness gaps. The comparison between these two graphs allows us to recognise that money has an undeniable impact on the happiness of a popula4on. By analysing data that represents the differences in wealth and income within countries alongside the differences in happiness, it is clear how mon y is the und rlying key factor in determining the happiness of ci4zens. While Denmark, Finland and Netherlands follow the expected results of rela4vely lowincome inequality, which is demonstrated by a lower Gini Coefficient, Israel is an outlier to not only this sta4s4c but also could be argued of our earlier sta4s4c on GDP per capita in terms of purchasing power parity. So, with a rela4vely high level of income inequality, a low level of average income in terms of the living’s condi4ons, and currently ac4vely par4cipa4ng in war, how does Israel manage to stay among the top 5 happiest countries as of 2024? It is first important to declare how the happiness index is determined, which is through social support, income, health, freedom, generosity, and the absence of corrup4on. Now while one would assume that this na4on scores a mediocre score throughout all categories, the one main outlier is social support. With 73.8 percent of the popula4on wide level and account for the top 1% bringing up the average. However, looking at this graph portraying the happiness gap in the top 137 countries it becomes evident that the inequality in terms of happiness has been accounted for with the previous research as our top 5 can all be found in the top 10 of this data for the happiness gap. Linking onto this, by comparing the Gini coefficients it is evident to see that 3 of the 4 countries available from this specific research support the conclusion that low incomeinequality is an obvious basis for the low happiness gaps. The comparison between these two graphs allows us to recognise that money has an undeniable impact on the happiness of a popula4on. By analysing data that represents th differen es in wealth and i come within countries alongside the differences in happiness, it is clear how money is the underlying key factor in determining the happiness of ci4zens. While Denmark, Finland and Netherlands follow the expected results of rela4vely lowincome inequality, which is demonstrated by a lower Gini Coefficient, Israel is an outlier to not only this sta4s4c but also could be argued of our earlier sta4s4c on GDP per capita in terms of purchasi g power parity. So, with a rela4vely high level of income inequality, a low level of average income in terms of the living’s condi4ons, and currently ac4vely par4cipa4ng in war, how does Israel manage to stay among the top 5 happiest countries as of 2024? It is first important to declare how the happiness index is determined, which is through social support, income, health, freedom, generosity, and the absence of corrup4on. Now while one would assume that this na4on scores a mediocre score throughout all categories, the one main outlier is social support. With 73.8 percent of the popula4on
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy ODA2Njk=