Last night I went to the launch of a new All Party Parliamentary Group, on Wellbeing Economics. I went along out of interest, having been fascinated by Lord Layard’s writings about population wellbeing and mental health. But really I knew next to nothing about it and in spite of being unanimously elected Vice Chair (almost everyone present got roped in, which tells you how very few parliamentarians were present), I am a complete novice and my main aim is to learn more. That went for most of the members present, from both ends of the House, and all parties This isn’t a new way of looking at economics, since Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, people have been interested in shaping economic policy to improve population wellbeing for the greatest majority. But we’ve become used to thinking that the more growth we had, the greater the rise in GDP, the better off we were. But GDP is only one measure of economic performance and it is no guide to whether a society feels it’s making progress. We know that beyond a basic level of prosperity that provides freedom from hunger and guaranteed shelter, greater wealth does not make us any happier. Our rising standards of living have not made us any happier now than we were 50 years ago.
According to Lord Layard, who was present last night but somehow managed to avoid election to office (preserving his own wellbeing I suspect) wellbeing depends on three things: family relationships, satisfaction at work and strong communities: “Many policies to drive up income harm precisely those things from which we derive our quality of life.” Lord Layard wants to make the pursuit of happiness part of government policy.
The key mover and shaker for the new group is Jo Swinson, a Scots LibDem MP, whom we naturally elected Chair (http://www.joswinson.org.uk). We agreed to meet regularly but not often and go for the ‘big event’, sponsoring debates and discussion among parliamentarians. We are supported by the New Economics Foundation, a think tank who’s web site is worth a look (http://www.neweconomics.org ) So many APPGs get started; many die from neglect. We’ll just have to see how it goes.
Baroness: “Lord Layard wants to make the pursuit of happiness part of government policy”. There is an inconsistency in what Lord Layard says? New Labour as government has, and continues to use the physiology of irrational fear to control public opinion and win general elections. No room for happiness here!
The opposition parties any one of which might win the next general election will no doubt use the same techniques based on marketing and focus group interviews.
New Labour has consistently brought irrational fears onto centre stage and then passed legislation to make them real or give them credibility. The electorate are being played in this respect by Parliament and the House of Lords is complicit.
The challenge for the Lords is to determine whether a fear addressed by legislation is irrational and then to prevent it from entering onto the statute books whilst at the same time taking into account the needs of the many.
The house might consult with Lord Mandelson in this respect as he is regarded as having considerable experience in the practical uses of these techniques to control and persuade both the electorate and political agendas. He may be the antidote that allows the House of Lords to pursue its own agenda of improving the nations general happiness and well being?
That leaves just the masters of irrational fear the Health & Safety Executive to deal with; anyone up for a risk assessment?
Ref: Irrational fears fuel stifling regulations
http://www.fundstrategy.co.uk/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=162572
Senex, i didn’t know that site so thanks for the introduction. I agree that risk aversion is more a feature of our society than it was, I suspect the Government merely responds to irrational fears rather than creates them. I would, like you I suspect, prefer they led by downplaying risks; deaths from terrorism and child murder are two obviously excessively feared risks. The press have a role in this too. But now all the organisations I work with have a risk register which highlights the chief risks to be avoided in a way which in my view skews the performance against key objectives.
Wellbeing Economics. Gulp! I fear that it may be as hard to define into workable policy and law as squeezing jelly in your hand – the more you grasp the more it slips through your fingers. 🙂
It is only though an act of great self control that I resist joining in on the H & SE.;-)
More into behavioural socio-economics, myself, after some time spent on econometrics. This would feed directly into most spheres of life, especially wellbeing (the explantion of the dummy variable(s))