Last week the Office for National Statistics put out a report saying that, while wealth more that doubled since 1971, happiness has failed to increase. At face value, this report seems to bolster the sceptics of pro-growth economics, like the New Economics Foundation, who think economic growth is not what society should be pursuing. After all, if becoming richer is not making us happier, shouldn't we be willing to accept lower levels of income in order to protect the environment or redistribute global wealth with larger overseas aid budgets?
Discussions about happiness economics can be frustrating and over-simplified. It seems to me that we enjoy many things that do not, in a simplistic way, make us obviously happier. For example, we might watch the popular BBC hospital series Casualty, which is hardly a bundle of laughs. Week after week viewers tune into scenes of hospital staff quarrelling with each other and operating theatres that frankly make me want to look the other way. We moan about modern Britain in a way that does not seem to scientifically correlate to how good - or bad - it is, empirically. Indeed, complaining is something of a national pastime and, ironically, something that people seem to enjoy.
Far from being a major problem, there is something virtuous about being unhappy with our present circumstances. Ludwig von Mises, one of the 20th century's leading free-market economists, said (pdf) that to be happy with one's existing condition: "and to abstain apathetically from any attempts to improve one's own material conditions, is not a virtue. Such an attitude is rather animal behaviour than conduct of reasonable human beings."
It is not the level of wealth that makes us happy. Instead, it is the process of betterment - the pursuit of it - that makes us happy. Whether we are twice as rich today as in 1971 has little bearing on our happiness, because it is in the past. Whether people can see their lives improving in the future is what counts. That is why economic growth remains a key component in happiness, despite what the happiness researchers might tell us. We are happiest when we are striving and succeeding. Witness the suicides that occur in recessions as people see their dreams in tatters.
Besides, the whole notion of including happiness in public policy discussions is riddled with problems. Measuring happiness is entirely subjective, and when politicians start legislating to make us happier, there is a risk that they become overbearing interferers. Politicians would be wise to take George Bernard Shaw's advice: "Do not do unto others as you would have them do unto you. They may have different tastes." Because everyone is different, politicians ought to give us more space to pursue our own dreams, rather than try and make us feel better by imposing top-down visions of society.
That space is key. The state might not be able to directly legislate to make us happier, but with worrying times ahead for the economy, there is a strong case for helping us in our pursuit of happiness by cutting taxes - for example, by increasing the tax-free allowance on incomes. After all, aren't people who have some budgetary space to breathe likely to be happier? Certainly, the two words that make me most depressed are "insufficient funds".
