O que é este blog?

Este blog trata basicamente de ideias, se possível inteligentes, para pessoas inteligentes. Ele também se ocupa de ideias aplicadas à política, em especial à política econômica. Ele constitui uma tentativa de manter um pensamento crítico e independente sobre livros, sobre questões culturais em geral, focando numa discussão bem informada sobre temas de relações internacionais e de política externa do Brasil. Para meus livros e ensaios ver o website: www.pralmeida.org. Para a maior parte de meus textos, ver minha página na plataforma Academia.edu, link: https://itamaraty.academia.edu/PauloRobertodeAlmeida.

Mostrando postagens com marcador felicidade líquida. Mostrar todas as postagens
Mostrando postagens com marcador felicidade líquida. Mostrar todas as postagens

quinta-feira, 17 de julho de 2014

O PIB faz a felicidade?: uma historia do PIB (book excerpt) - Delanceyplace


Today's selection -- from GDP: A Brief But Affectionate History by Diane Coyle. There has been much debate over whether a country's GDP growth correlates to its citizens' happiness. (GDP or gross domestic product is a measure of a country's size based on income and spending.) Many have concluded that there is little or no correlation, but economist Diane Coyle disagrees, even though she concedes that much of this "happiness" is rooted in that sort of consumeristic satisfaction that wears off quickly:

"The anti-GDP campaign has its roots in a famous article by the economist Richard Easterlin. He recorded an apparent paradox. Looking at the evidence at a single point in time, people are happier in richer countries than in poorer ones (we are talking about averages); but looking at one country over time, rising GDP per capita does not translate into increased happiness. As a number of economists have noted, the paradox is due to the nature of the statistics: GDP is an artificial figure that can increase without limit, whereas happiness (reported by people in surveys or diaries) has an upper limit. The relationship between the two is like that between GDP and, say, height, or life expectancy -- they are strongly linked, just not proportionately over time. The silliness of the notion that rising GDP does not increase happiness is even easier to see when you remember that a recession, when GDP declines just a little, makes people very unhappy. What's more, given that productivity increases over time, GDP has to rise to keep unemployment from going up; and higher unemployment would also make people unhappy.






"So the apparently obvious conclusion is based on a misunderstanding of the kinds of statistics being used to relate happiness and GDP. 'Happiness' is measured from surveys, with respondents asked to rate their feelings on a scale of 1 to 3 or 1 to 10. It can never climb above the top of the scale, even with centuries of data. GDP is a constructed statistic that can rise without limit. If you plot a line that climbs extremely gently over time against a line that rises steadily by 2-3 percent a year, they will look unrelated even if they are not [unrelated]. It turns out from a number of more recent studies that reported happiness is strongly positively linked with the change or growth in GDP per capita from year to year.

"There is a valid point that economic growth measured by GDP over time is not an accurate indicator of well-being or social welfare. (I'm going to use the term social welfare, but bear in mind that it does not mean welfare payments.) In the children's book The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, the White Witch uses enchanted Turkish Delight candy to ensnare Edmund. Once he has had one piece, he cannot resist more. Consumerism is an addiction too. Psychology offers insights into the rat race and consumerism. The experimental evidence is that most people care more about status and therefore their relative income than they do about the absolute level of income. The 'conspicuous consumption' first named by Thorstein Veblen is a kind of arms race of status, and one that the excesses of corporate pay have let rip in the past quarter century. What's more, the satisfaction we get from extra income and purchases wears off quickly, leaving us, like Edmund in the story, hungry for another fix. The evocative technical term for this is the hedonic treadmill.

"If money is an addiction, it's not surprising that some people think society needs help being weaned off it. Economists such as Robert Frank and Richard Layard advocate a tax on purchases of luxury items. Another policy recommendation has had more traction: that instead of measuring GDP we should be measuring happiness. In the United Kingdom there is even a Campaign for Happiness. The government leapt on its bandwagon, ordering the Office for National Statistics to start a survey to measure happiness levels around the country. Grotesquely, there are cheerleaders for the king of Bhutan because of his claim that he seeks to increase gross national happiness, when Bhutan is one of the poorest and one of the more authoritarian countries in the world.

"The fashion for measuring happiness is based on two approaches to the evidence. One kind is the approach using top-down aggregate economic data that Richard Easterlin used in his original paper. Other studies look at the statistical links between the level of happiness people report in surveys and their personal circumstances: are they married? Employed? In good health? The results are comfortingly sensible. People are happier if they are in a job, married, healthy, or have a religious faith. People like spending time with their friends and family but not their boss, and hate commuting. There is a life cycle of happiness: in general, we are least happy in middle age ('middle age' ranging from thirty-six in the United Kingdom to sixty-six in Portugal). Women tend to be happier than men, although that relative advantage may have diminished over the decades. It is not clear, however, that there are all that many policy implications in these results. We already knew that voters hate it when unemployment goes up. The government can hardly start mandating marriage and churchgoing to enforce greater happiness. The most important new practical finding from these studies is that mental ill-health is a major contributor to unhappiness, and yet almost everywhere it is a low priority in public health policies.

"Still, no matter that the empirical evidence for the happiness bandwagon is weak. The idea that once countries had grown comfortably rich, it is folly to pursue further economic growth, has struck a chord. It is important, though, to be clear that GDP is not and was not intended to be a measure of national welfare. Economists have repeatedly cautioned themselves and others not to get the two mixed up."

GDP: A Brief but Affectionate History
Author: Diane Coyle
Publisher: Princeton University Press
Copyright 2014 by Diane Coyle
Pages 111-114

 If you wish to read further: Buy Now

sexta-feira, 6 de abril de 2012

A industria da felicidade: governos, por favor, fiquem fora disso...

Se pedirmos aos governos para deixar de medir a riqueza nacional em PIB, e instituir uma medida da felicidade humana, eles vão querer fazer todos os cidadãos felizes.
Claro, para fazer isso, eles precisam instituir programas governamentais de felicidade.
E para fazer isso, eles precisam primeiro recolher um pouco do dinheiro dos cidadãos.
Evidente: se não for assim, como é que eles vão ter programas de felicidade nacional?
Pensando bem, acho melhor deixar os governos fora disso...
Please, stay out of this...
Paulo Roberto de Almeida 


Happiness

No longer the dismal science?

Economist, Apr 6th 2012, 15:56 by J.P. | LONDON
One of the more surprising growth industries to have taken off during the current period of economic downturn and austerity has been “the happiness industry”—the increasing activity of economists (not philosophers) who study what constitutes happiness and make recommendations to governments about how best to increase it. This industry has recently achieved an early pinnacle of success with the publication of the first World Happiness Report. Commissioned for a United Nations Conference on Happiness, under the auspices of the UN General Assembly, it bears the imprimatur of Columbia University’s Earth Institute and is edited by the institute’s director, Jeffrey Sachs, and two happiness experts, Richard Layard of the London School of Economics and John Helliwell of the University of British Columbia. The report unmemorably finds that the world’s happiest countries world are in northern Europe (Denmark, Norway, Finland, Netherlands) and the most miserable are in Africa (Togo, Benin, Central African Republic, and Sierra Leone).
This is one of a number of new products from the happiness industry. According to the Washington Post, a group of experts including Daniel Kahneman, a psychologist who won the Nobel Prize in economics, met in December to draw up measures of “subjective well-being”. The group is financed by the American administration, and if its measures are deemed reliable they could become official statistics. If so, America would become the latest country to clamber aboard a happiness bandwagon. The French government started publishing its own happiness indicator in 2009. Britain’s Office for National Statistics has a programme for measuring national well-being, and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development is drawing up guidelines so its members (mostly the industrialised rich countries) can produce “well-being data”.
It might seem rather peculiar that just at the time recession is presumably leading to a substantial increase in misery—and when the reputation of economists is not exactly sky-high—that economists are so busy creating a new set of indicators to debate. The reason for the activity is that there is, in the report’s words, an “emerging scientific study of happiness”. Researchers break down people’s feelings into “affective happiness” (everyday ups and downs) and “evaluative happiness” (a person’s overall assessment of his or her life). They have constructed indicators that look at happiness from different vantage points, using questions such as “How happy were you yesterday?” (that is what Britain’s ONS asks); “All things considered, how satisfied are you with your life as a whole nowadays?” (from the European Social Survey); and “Taking all things together, would you say you are: very happy, quite happy, not very happy or not at all happy?” (the World Values Survey). The different answers give economists plenty to argue about. 
No doubt this emerging science—if it is indeed a science—is improving the understanding of what happiness is. At any rate, it is certainly providing providing a lot more more information about it. But the authors of the World Happiness Report want to go further than just providing information.  
They argue that happiness can be measured objectively; that it differs systematically across societies and over time; that happiness has predictable causes and is correlated to specific things (such as wealth, income distribution, health and political institutions); and that therefore it should be possible for the government to create the right conditions for happiness to flourish. The authors want governments to use happiness as a guide to public policy, rather as they use gross national product (GNP) now. But given governments’ (and economists’) recent record in managing GNP, it is not clear whether it really would be such a good idea for the government to decide it knows better than individuals do what constitutes their happiness and how they can best pursue it.