Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Proper Role for Wellbeing in Public Policy: Towards a Pluralist, Pragmatic, Theory-Neutral Approach

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Politics of Wellbeing

Part of the book series: Wellbeing in Politics and Policy ((WPP))

  • 1328 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter identifies and discusses various objections to the idea that governments should seek to promote wellbeing (or happiness). It assesses their force and concludes that they do not constitute a compelling case against the promotion of wellbeing by the government: wellbeing is a legitimate consideration that should influence the direction of policy and the evaluation of its impact. However, the objections do highlight important issues concerning how wellbeing should be promoted and measured. In particular, governments should respect and promote wellbeing but not seek to maximise it at the expense of all other values. Issues concerning the definition and measurement of wellbeing would best be addressed by a theory-neutral approach, identifying ‘markers’ of wellbeing that are shared by a range of different theories.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Bache, I., Reardon, L., & Anand, P. (2016). Wellbeing as a Wicked Problem: Navigating the Arguments for the Role of Government. Journal of Happiness Studies, 17(3), 893–912.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brandt, R. (1979). A Theory of the Good and the Right. New York: Prometheus Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burchardt, T. (2006). Happiness and Social Policy: Barking up the Right Tree in the Wrong Neck of the Woods. Social Policy Review, 18, 145–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cudd, A. (2013). Contractarianism. In E. Zalta (Ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2013 Edition). Available at: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2013/entries/contractarianism/. Accessed October 24, 2016.

  • Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Lucas, R. (2009a). Subjective Well-Being: The Science of Happiness and Life-Satisfaction. In C. Snyder & S. Lopez (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Positive Psychology (2nd ed., pp. 187–196). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diener, E., Lucas, R., Schimmack, U., & Helliwell, J. (2009b). Wellbeing for Public Policy. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diener, E., & Suh, E. (Eds.). (2000). Culture and Subjective Wellbeing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, G. (2010). Should Happiness-Maximization be the Goal of Government? Journal of Happiness Studies, 11, 163–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Easterlin, R. (1974). Does Economic Growth Improve the Human Lot? Some Empirical Evidence. In P. David & M. Reder (Eds.), Nations and Households in Economic Growth: Essays in Honor of Moses Abramovitz. New York: Academic Press Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, F. (2004). Pleasure and the Good Life. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Finnis, J. (2011). Natural Law and Natural Rights (2nd ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frey, B., & Stutzer, A. (2010). Happiness and Public Choice. Public Choice 144(3/4).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haybron, D. (2008). The Pursuit of Unhappiness. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hooker, B. (2000). Ideal Code, Real World: A Rule-Consequentialist Theory of Morality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, C. (1991). Moral Legislation. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, R. (1968). Speech at University of Kansas, March 18 1968. Available at: https://www.jfklibrary.org/Research/Research-Aids/Ready-Reference/RFK-Speeches/Remarks-of-Robert-F-Kennedy-at-the-University-of-Kansas-March-18-1968.aspx. Accessed October 31, 2016.

  • Kraut, R. (2007). What is Good and Why: The Ethics of Well-Being. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Layard, R. (2011). Happiness: Lessons from a New Science (2nd ed.). London: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, M. (2000). Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Office of National Statistics. (2016). Measuring National Wellbeing in the UK, Domains and Measures: Sept 2016. Available at: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/wellbeing/articles/measuringnationalwellbeing/sept2016. Accessed October 31, 2016.

  • Rawls, J. (1999). A Theory of Justice (Revised ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sen, A. (1985). Commodities and Capabilities. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scheffler, S. (1988). Consequentialism and Its Critics. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (2015). Consequentialism. In E. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2015 Edition). Available at: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2015/entries/consequentialism/. Accessed October 24, 2016.

  • Smart, J., & Williams, B. (1973). Utilitarianism: For and Against. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sugden, R. (1989). Maximizing Social Welfare: Is it the Government’s Business? In A. Hamlin & P. Pettit (Eds.), The Good Polity: Normative Analysis of the State. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sumner, W. (1996). Welfare, Happiness, and Ethics. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, T. (2014). Towards Consensus on Well-Being. In J. H. Soraker, J.-W. van der Rijt, J. de Boer & P. H. Wong (Eds.), Well-being in Contemporary Society. Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, T. (2015). The Markers of Wellbeing: A Basis for a Theory-Neutral Approach. International Journal of Wellbeing, 5(2), 75–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van der Rijt, J.-W. (2014). The Political Turn Towards Happiness. In J. H. Soraker, J.-W. van der Rijt, J. de Boer & P. H. Wong (Eds.), Well-Being in Contemporary Society. Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Veenhoven, R., & Vergunst, F. (2013). The Easterlin Illusion: Economic Growth Does Go With Greater Happiness. MPRA Paper No 43983, Munich Personal RepEc Archive. Available at: http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/43983/1/MPRA_paper_43983.pdf. Accessed June 26, 2016.

  • Wren-Lewis, S. (2013). Wellbeing as a Primary Good: Toward Legitimate Wellbeing Policy. Philosophy and Public Policy Quarterly, 31(2), 2–9.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Interdisciplinary Ethics Applied Centre, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK

    Tim E. Taylor

Authors
  1. Tim E. Taylor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tim E. Taylor .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Politics, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom

    Ian Bache

  2. Department of Politics, University of Exeter, Penryn, Cornwall, United Kingdom

    Karen Scott

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Taylor, T.E. (2018). The Proper Role for Wellbeing in Public Policy: Towards a Pluralist, Pragmatic, Theory-Neutral Approach. In: Bache, I., Scott, K. (eds) The Politics of Wellbeing . Wellbeing in Politics and Policy. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58394-5_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation