Advertisement

Journal of Happiness Studies

, Volume 17, Issue 3, pp 893–912 | Cite as

Wellbeing as a Wicked Problem: Navigating the Arguments for the Role of Government

  • Ian Bache
  • Louise Reardon
  • Paul Anand
Research Paper

Abstract

Governments in a number of countries have shown increasing interest in seeking to elevate happiness or wellbeing as an explicit policy goal. This interest has led to fierce debates both within and, increasingly, beyond academe about the appropriate role for government in this area. It is difficult to adjudicate between the various arguments surrounding the issue as they often take very different starting points, either metatheoretical or disciplinary. In seeking to steer a course through these arguments we take the distinction between ‘wicked’ and ‘tame’ problems as a reference point, arguing that wellbeing should be categorised as the former. The seminal discussion of this distinction (Rittel and Webber in Policy Sci 4:155–169, 1973) resonates sharply with current debates on wellbeing and indeed is located within similar debates in the past. We argue that understanding wellbeing as a wicked problem steers us towards deliberation and scrutiny as central to the agenda and cautions us against expecting to find a panacea. However, this understanding can take us beyond irresolvable disputes by pointing to the need for pragmatic and legitimate government action. In developing our arguments we ground them mainly in relation to empirical research on developments in the UK, where the connection between wellbeing and public policy is seen as relatively advanced. However, we suggest these arguments apply to other contexts where wellbeing is gaining increasing traction as a potential goal of government policy.

Keywords

Wicked problems Tame problems Wellbeing Government Quality of life Measurement 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank John MackMersh for suggesting the connection between wellbeing and wicked problems and Paul Allin, Karen Scott and the anonymous reviewers for the Journal of Happiness Studies reviewers for their very helpful comments on this article. We would also like thank participants in the ESRC Seminar Series on The Politics of Wellbeing (http://politicsofwellbeing.group.shef.ac.uk/—Grant Ref: ES/L001357/1). Paul Anand would like to thank the Leverhulme Trust for its support.

References

  1. Anand, P., Hunter, G., Dowding, K., Guala, F., & van Hees, M. (2009). The development of capability indicators. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, 10(1), 125–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Austin, A. (2014). Defining and measuring national well-being: are we capable of questioning the hegemony of happiness? Working paper, Oxford: Institute for Social Change, University of Manchester.Google Scholar
  3. Bache, I., & Flinders, M. (Eds.). (2004). Multi-level governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bache, I., & Reardon, L. (2013). An idea whose time has come? Explaining the rise of well-being in British politics. Political Studies, 61(4), 898–914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beaumont, J. (2012). Measuring national well-being: Report on consultation responses on proposed domains and measures. London: Office for National Statistics.Google Scholar
  6. Boelhouwer, J. (2010). Wellbeing in The Netherlands. The SCP life situation index since 1974. The Hague: The Netherlands Institute for Social Research. http://www.scp.nl/english/Publications/Publications_by_year/Publications_2010/Wellbeing_in_the_Netherlands. (Accessed 27 Sept 2014).
  7. Brulde, B. (2010). Happiness, morality, and politics. Journal of Happiness Studies, 11(5), 567–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cameron, D. (2010). PM Speech on Well-Being. Speech given by the Prime Minister, London, 25 November. http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/speeches-and-transcripts/2010/11/pm-speech-on-well-being-57569. (Accessed Jan 2011).
  9. Canadian Index of Wellbeing. (2012). How are Canadians really doing? The 2012 CIW report. Waterloo, ON: Canadian Index of Wellbeing and University of Waterloo.Google Scholar
  10. CMEPSP. (2009). Report by the commission on the measurement of economic performance and social progress. http://www.stiglitz-sen-fitoussi.fr/en/index.htm (Accessed June 2011).
  11. Cobb, C., Halstead, T., & Rowe, J. (1995). If the GDP is up, Why is America down?, The Atlanta Online, October. http://www.theatlantic.com/past/politics/ecbig/gdp.htm (Accessed Jan 2011).
  12. Conklin, J. (2005). Dialogue mapping: Building shared understanding of wicked problems, Wiley. http://cognexusgroup.com/about-us2/resources/#book (Accessed 10 Feb 2014).
  13. Costanza, R., Hart, M., Posner, S., & Talberth, J. (2009). Beyond GDP: The Need for new measures of progress. The Pardee papers, No 4, Boston: Boston University. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/29/6/42613423.pdf (Accessed June 2011).
  14. Cummins, R., Lau, A., Mellor, D., & Stokes, M. (2009). Encouraging governments to enhance the happiness of their nation: Step 1: Understand subjective wellbeing. Social Indicators Research, 91, 23–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. De Jonge, T. (2009). The state of play in measuring SWB in the Netherlands. Paper for the OECD meeting Measuring subjective well-being: an opportunity for National Statistical Offices?, Florence, Italy, 23-24 July 2009. http://www.isqols2009.istitutodeglinnocenti.it/Content_en/Measuring%20SWB%20in%20The%20Netherlands%20v2RGED%20with%20cover%20page.pdf (Accessed 27 Sept 2009).
  16. De Prycker, V. (2010). Happiness on the political Agenda? PROS and CONS. Journal of Happiness Studies, 11(5), 585–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. De Vos, M. (2012). The unbearable lightness of wellbeing policy. In P. Booth (Ed.), … and the Pursuit of happiness: Wellbeing and the role of government (pp. 181–204). London: Institute of Economic Affairs.Google Scholar
  18. Di Tella, R., & MacCulloch, R. (2008). Gross National happiness as an answer to the Easterlin paradox? Journal of Development Economics, 86, 22–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Diener, E., Lucas, R., & Scallon, C. (2006). Beyond the hedonic treadmill: Revising the adaptation theory of well-being. American Psychologist, 61(4), 305–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Diener, E., Suh, E., Lucas, R., & Smith, H. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 276–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dolan, P., Peasgood, T., & White, M. (2008). Do we really know what makes us happy? A review of the economic literature on the factors associated with subjective well-being. Journal of Economic Psychology, 29, 94–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dolan, P., & White, M. (2007). How can measures of subjective well-being be used to inform public policy? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2, 71–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Duncan, G. (2010). Should happiness-maximization be the goal of government? Journal of Happiness Studies, 11(2), 163–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Durant, R., & Legge, J. (2006). Wicked problems, public policy, and administrative theory: Lessons from the GM food regulatory arena. Administration and Society, 38, 309–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Easterlin, R. (1973). Does money buy happiness? The Public Interest, 30(Winter), 3–10.Google Scholar
  26. Erikson, R. (1993). Descriptions of inequality: The Swedish approach to welfare research. In M. Nussbaum & A. Sen (Eds.), The quality of life (pp. 67–83). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Frey, B., & Stutzer, A. (2000). Maximising Happiness? German Economic Review, 1(2), 145–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Frey, B., & Stutzer, A. (2007). Should national happiness be maximised?. Institute for Empirical Research Institute, University of Zurich Working Paper Series, Working Paper No. 306.Google Scholar
  29. Fujiwara, D., & Campbell, R. (2011). Valuation techniques for social cost-benefit analysis: Stated preference, revealed preference and subjective well-being approaches. A discussion of the current issues. London: HM Treasury, DWP.Google Scholar
  30. Hay, C. (2007). Why we hate politics. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  31. Head, B. (2008). Wicked problems in public policy. Public Policy, 3(2), 101–116.Google Scholar
  32. Head, B., & Alford, J. (2013). Wicked problems: Implications for public policy and management. Administration and Society, XX, X–X29. doi: 10.1177/0095399713481601.Google Scholar
  33. HM Government. (2013). Well-being evidence submitted by the government to the environmental audit committee well-being inquiry. http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/environmental-audit-committee/inquiries/parliament-2010/well-being/
  34. Kroll, C. (2011). Measuring progress and well-being: Achievements and challenges of a new global movement. Berlin: International Policy Analysis.Google Scholar
  35. Kroll, C., & Delhey, J. (2013). A happy nation? Opportunities and challenges of using subjective indicators in policymaking. Social Indicators Research, 114(1), 13–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Layard, R. (2005). Happiness: Lessons from a new science. London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
  37. Lindblom, C. (1959). The science of ‘muddling through’. Public Administration Review, 19, 79–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nef. (2012). Nef response: Well-being and the role of government. London: Nef.Google Scholar
  39. Nef. (2013). New economics foundation evidence to the environmental audit committee inquiry on well-being. http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/environmental-audit-committee/inquiries/parliament-2010/well-being/
  40. OECD. (2012). Highlights and conclusions: 4th OECD world forum on statistics, knowledge and policy measuring well-being for development and policy making. http://www.oecd.org/site/worldforumindia/OECD-World-Forum-2012-India-proceedings.pdf (Accessed 27 Sept 2014).
  41. OECD. (2013). OECD guidelines on measuring subjective well-being. OECD Publishing,. doi: 10.1787/9789264191655-en.Google Scholar
  42. ONS. (2011). News release: People asked to rate ‘life satisfaction’ as new well-being questions revealed. London: ONS.Google Scholar
  43. ONS. (2012a). First ONS annual experimental subjective well-being results. London: ONS.Google Scholar
  44. ONS. (2012b). Measuring national well-being: Life in the UK, 2012. London: ONS.Google Scholar
  45. ONS. (2014). Personal well-being in the UK, 2013/14. London: ONS.Google Scholar
  46. Ott, J. (2010a). Happiness Economics and public policy: A critique. Journal of Happiness Studies, 11, 125–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ott, J. (2010b). Greater happiness for a greater number: Some non-controversial options for governments. Journal of Happiness Studies, 11, 631–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rittel, H., & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Schon, D. A., & Rein, M. (1994). Frame reflection: Toward the resolution of intractable policy controversies. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  50. Scott, K. (2012). Measuring wellbeing: Towards sustainability?. Abingdon: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  51. Sen, A. K. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Tomlinson, M., & Kelly, G. (2013). Is everybody happy? The politics and measurement of national wellbeing. Policy and Politics, 41(2), 139–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. UNDP. (1990). Human development report. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Wall, I., & Salvaris, M. (2011). Measuring Australia’s progress—An update. OECD Newsletter on Measuring the Progress of Societies, 8, 8–10.Google Scholar
  55. Weber, E., & Khademian, A. (2008) Wicked problems, knowledge challenges, and collaborative capacity builders in network settings. Public Administration Review, 68(2), 334–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PoliticsUniversity of SheffieldSheffieldUK
  2. 2.Faculty of Social SciencesThe Open UniversityMilton KeynesUK
  3. 3.Institute for Transport StudiesUniversity of LeedsLeedsUK

Personalised recommendations