Reykjavík Grapevine - 11.10.2013, Blaðsíða 8

If Iceland’s WHR ranking is any indica-
tion, this assessment seems to be true. In
the report’s first year (2012), Iceland was
ranked 20th in happiness worldwide. This
year, however, we’ve leapt up the charts
and are now part of the big ten, ranked as
the world’s 9th happiest country. Another
recent happiness report, issued by the Eu-
ropean Commission’s Eurobarometer in
2012, ranked Iceland as the second happi-
est country in the world, with satisfaction
and well-being levels roughly equivalent
to those before the crash. But wait a min-
ute, you’re thinking: the economy is still
in shambles, the capital controls are still
in place, and purchasing power in Iceland
continues to decrease. Shouldn’t everyone
be miserable?
Quantifying happiness
The income level of a nation’s inhabit-
ants, as measured by the country’s Gross
Domestic Product, was once treated as
shorthand for peoples’ overall well-being.
In 2009, however, a panel commissioned
by French President Nicolas Sarkozy and
led by the Nobel-prize winning econo-
mists Joseph E. Stiglitz and Amartya
Sen resolutely determined that GDP has
significant limitations as a measure of
both social and economic well-being.
Their findings stressed the importance
of “get[ting] away from GDP fetishism”
and instead seeking alternative measures
of “sustainability and human well-being.”
Since the early 1970s, the Himalayan
nation of Bhutan has countered the con-
cept of Gross Domestic Product with that
of Gross National Happiness and has de-
veloped a sophisticated survey (with four
pillars, nine domains, and 72 happiness
indicators) to measure the Bhutanese
people’s happiness. The survey “was pri-
marily devised to provide policy guidance
to increase happiness” because, “people
who are not-yet-happy are an important
policy priority.”
In 2011, the United Nations passed
a Bhutan-sponsored resolution which
stated that “happiness is a fundamental
human goal and universal aspiration;
that GDP by its nature does not reflect the
goal; that unsustainable patterns of pro-
duction and consumption impede sus-
tainable development; and that a more in-
clusive, equitable and balanced approach
is needed to promote sustainability, eradi-
cate poverty, and enhance well-being and
profound happiness." In order to act on
this resolution, however, a substantive
data set was needed. Enter the first World
Happiness Report in 2012.
Okay, but how exactly are these WHR
rankings determined? The answer is
complicated. The World Happiness Re-
port (WHR) distils happiness down to
six fundamental criteria: GDP per capita
(yes, it’s still used), years of healthy life
expectancy, social support, perceptions
of corruption within society, the preva-
lence of generosity, and the freedom to
make life choices. The WHR—like many
other well-being indices—primarily re-
lies on Gallup World Poll data, which it-
self is subject to the interpretations of the
Cantril Self-Anchoring Scale.
The Cantril scale is a well-being as-
sessment that asks individuals to imagine
a ten-step ladder on which the top rung
(10) is their best possible life, and the bot-
tom rung (0) is their worst possible life.
Survey respondents are then asked to re-
port which rung they believe they are cur-
rently standing on, and which rung they
will be standing on in five years. (Inter-
estingly, according to Gallup’s own meth-
odological explanations, “research...indi-
cates substantial correlations between the
Cantril Scale and income. This contrasts
with measures of feelings or affect which
appear to be more closely correlated with
variables such as social time.”) In addition
to these Cantril assessments, the WHR
also weights its rankings with “measures
of positive emotions (positive affect) in-
cluding happiness, usually asked about
the day preceding the survey; measures
of negative emotions (negative affect)
again asked about the preceding day; and
evaluations of life as a whole.” In this way,
the rankings are meant to accurately re-
flect the complexity of happiness: both
as a transient emotional feeling, and as a
standing social evaluation.
Legislating happiness
Any attempt to try to quantify the happi-
ness, well-being, or overall satisfaction of
an entire nation will necessarily be some-
what biased and limited. For instance, the
current WHR parameters still include
GDP, but don’t take into account the sat-
isfaction or inner-peace that a citizenry
might take from their local environment.
(It seems reasonable to assume that many
Icelanders would give Icelandic nature at
least some credit for their quality of life.)
But the essential point—the idea that
a government would regularly assess the
happiness of its people and then actively
work to improve the lives of those who are,
as the Bhutanese say, “not-yet-happy”—is
a powerful one. The WHR admits to be-
ing “highly subjective,” and admits that
well-being is “not a cure-all. Happy people
do get sick and lose friends. Not all happy
people are productive workers...” But as
subjective bases for public policy go, you
could certainly do worse. Mightn’t we all
stand to benefit from more happiness-
improving legislation? According to the
King of Bhutan, increasing his peoples’
happiness is a real governmental respon-
sibility: “[T]he duty of our government
must be to ensure that these invaluable
elements contributing to the happiness
and well-being of our people are nurtured
and protected. Our government must be
human.”
Wherever, and pretty much whenever, you look around the world,
things appear to be in a pretty constant state of falling-apartness, and
here in Iceland, there are problems like anywhere else. Nevertheless,
in spite of the difficulties of recent years, we (that’s the Global ‘We’)
may actually be on an upswing, happiness-wise. According to the 2013
World Happiness Report (WHR) published by the UN’s Sustainable De-
velopment Solutions Network, “despite the obvious detrimental happi-
ness impacts of the 2007 - 2008 financial crisis, the world has become
a happier, and more generous place.”
8The Reykjavík Grapevine Issue 16 — 2013
Iceland | Happy
“Their findings
stressed the impor-
tance of ‘get[ting]
away from GDP
fetishism’ and in-
stead seeking alter-
native measures of
‘sustainability and
human well-being.”
On Top Of The World
Iceland's happiness by the numbers
— By Larissa Kyzer
EXCELLENT
Gender Equality: Iceland has been the world’s most gender-equal country for
four years in a row and “has closed almost 73% of its gender gap,” according to
the World Economic Forum’s Gender Gap Report (GGR). The 135 countries sur-
veyed in the report were rated on how successful they have been at eradicating
gender-based inequalities in the areas of economic participation and opportu-
nity, educational attainment, health and survival, and political empowerment.
The report indicates that there is still room for improvement in Iceland and
other Nordic countries’ gender equity (for instance, “salary gaps between men
and women are among the lowest in the world, although not non-existent”), but
points out many ways in which the Nordics have successfully supported both
genders in society: “abundant opportunities to rise to positions of leadership,”
a balance of childcare labour responsibilities in the home, mandatory paternal
leave, and social insurance funds.
Peacefulness: Iceland is the world’s most peaceful country according to the
2013 Global Peace Index (GPI) published by the Institute for Economics and
Peace. “The island nation is free from conflict,” reads the report summary.
“Crime and homicide rates are minimal and the jailed population is consider-
ably lower than elsewhere in Europe and among the smallest proportions in
the world.” Iceland also scored high in the GPI for its few policemen (661 in the
whole country as of 2010), the low perception of criminality in Icelandic society,
the country’s lack of an army, and (rather contradictorily), for its cooperation in
peacekeeping missions in Afghanistan, Lebanon, Palestine, and the Balkans.
Safety and Security: In its survey of 142 countries, the 2012 Legatum Prosper-
ity Index rated Iceland as the safest and most secure country in the world, with
81.1% of respondents confirming that they “feel safe walking alone at night.”
Well-being of the Elderly: Iceland is ranked 9 (of 91 countries) when consid-
ering the well-being of people 60 and older, according to the 2013 Global Age-
Watch Index (AWI). This ranking is based on four categories: income security,
health status, employment and education, and an enabling environment. Ac-
cording to data collected by the World Health Organization, Icelanders continue
to have some of the longest life expectancies in the world (81 for men, 84 for
women) and the AWI predicts that the country’s population over the age of 60
will continue to grow in the future. As of 2012, the AWI shows that 17.5% of Ice-
land’s population was aged 60 or over. This percentage is expected to increase to
24.4% by 2030 and 28.8% by 2050.
SATISFACTORY
Economic Competitiveness: In its Global Competitiveness Report for
2013–2014, the World Economic Forum ranked Iceland 31 out of 148. “Despite
significant difficulties in recent years,” reads the report, “Iceland continues to
benefit from a number of clear competitive strengths.” These include Iceland’s
“top-notch educational system,” and an innovative business sector which suc-
cessfully adopts new technology.
Prosperity: The 2012 Prosperity Index (LPI) published by the Legatam Insti-
tute, a non-partisan public policy organisation, rates Iceland 15 out of 142 when
considering eight different categories ranging from the economy and entrepre-
neurship to personal freedom and social capital. A few representative statistics
from the report include: 90.8% of Icelanders surveyed reported that they were
satisfied with beauty of the environment; 47.1% said they had helped a stranger
recently; 97.7% said they could rely on a friend or family member for help. At
the same time, 60.9% of respondents they believed businesses and government
agencies were corrupt, and only 25.9% had confidence in the national govern-
ment.
NEEDS IMPROVEMENT
The Economy: When analysing more specific aspects of the country’s econom-
ic growth potential, Iceland was ranked far lower on the Global Competitiveness
Scale. It ranked 118 out of 148 when considering its macroeconomic environ-
ment; its financial markets were ranked 80. Meanwhile, the Prosperity Index
gives Iceland’s overall economy a ranking of 61 out of 142.
Our Happiness
Report Card
Skari