Advertisement

Social Indicators Research

, Volume 114, Issue 2, pp 453–464 | Cite as

Assessing Happiness Inequality in the Welfare State: Self-Reported Happiness and the Rawlsian Difference Principle

  • Mitch GainerEmail author
Article
  • 948 Downloads

Abstract

The effect of the size of the welfare state on the average happiness level in a nation has often been discussed—but the same effect on happiness inequality has been explored much less. Rooted in divergent philosophical disciplines, utilitarianism and egalitarianism respectively, scholars have discussed the merits of policies as they effect each of these two criteria for justice. John Rawls’ difference principle, on the other hand, philosophically justifies a limited trade-off, increasing happiness inequality to benefit the over-all happiness level of the least advantaged. The difference principle—that society should allow inequality insofar as it is to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged—has seldom been discussed empirically in the context of the happiness literature. This paper contributes to the ongoing literature evaluating the welfare state in light of happiness indicators by introducing the difference principle and asking whether the welfare state benefits the least advantaged in society. My empirical analysis shows that self-reported life satisfaction of the least advantaged does not improve from an increase in the size of the welfare state more than the self-reported life satisfaction of the average citizen. In short, the welfare state does not benefit the worst-off in a society in terms of happiness more than the average member.

Keywords

Happiness Happiness inequality John Rawls Difference principle Welfare state 

References

  1. Alvarez-Diaz, A., Gonzalez, L., & Radcliff, B. (2010). The politics of happiness: On the political determinants of quality of life in the American States. The Journal of Politics, 72(3), 894–905.Google Scholar
  2. Bringhouse, H., & Unterhalter, E. (2010). Education for primary goods or for capabilities? In H. Bringhouse & I. Robeyns (Eds.), Measuring justice: Primary goods and capabilities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Daniels, N. (2010). Norman, capabilities, opportunity, and health. In H. Bringhouse & I. Robeyns (Eds.), Measuring justice: Primary goods and capabilities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Diener, S. E., & Fujita, F. (1996). Events and subjective well-being: Only recent events matter. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(5), 1091–1102.Google Scholar
  5. Diener, E., & Suh, E. M. (Eds.). (2000). Culture and subjective well-being. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. Epsing-Andersen, G. (1985). Politics against markets: The social democratic road to power. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Epsing-Andersen, G. (1988). Decommodification and work absence in the welfare state. San Domenico, Italy: European University Institute.Google Scholar
  8. Freeman, S. (2002). The Cambridge companion to rawls. New York, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Frey, B., & Stuzer, A. (2005). Happiness and economics. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Hicks, A. (1999). Social democracy and welfare capitalism. Ithica, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Kawachi, I., Kennedy, B. P., Lochner, K., & Prothrow-Stith, D. (1997). Social capital, income inequality, and mortality. American Journal of Public Health, 87(9), 1491–1498.Google Scholar
  12. Kenworthy, L. (1999). Do Social-Welfare Policies Reduce Poverty? A cross-national assessment. Social Forces, 77(3), 1119–1139.Google Scholar
  13. Layard, R. (2005). Happiness: Lessons from a new science. London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
  14. Messner, S. F., & Rosenfeld, R. (1997). Political restraint of the market and levels of criminal homicide: A cross-national application of institutional-anomie theory. Social Forces, 74(4), 1393–1416.Google Scholar
  15. Ott, J. (2005). Level and equality of happiness in nations: Does happiness of a greater number imply greater inequality of happiness? Journal of Happiness Studies, Special Issue on Inequality of Happiness in Nations, 6, 397–420.Google Scholar
  16. Pacek, A., & Radcliff, B. (2008). Assessing the welfare state: The politics of happiness. Perspectives on Politics, 6, 267–277.Google Scholar
  17. Radcliff, B. (2001). Politics, markets, and life satisfaction: The political economy of human happiness. American Political Science Review, 95(4), 939–952.Google Scholar
  18. Rawls, J. (1999). A theory of justice, revised edition. Cambridge: The Berlknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Robeyns, I. (2010). Gender and the metric of justice. In H. Bringhouse & I. Robeyns (Eds.), Measuring justice: Primary goods and capabilities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Sen, A. (1999). Commodities and capabilities. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Sen, A. (2010). The place of capability in a theory of justice. In H. Bringhouse & I. Robeyns (Eds.), Measuring justice: Primary goods and capabilities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Terzi, L. (2010). What metric of justice for disabled people? Capability and disability. In H. Bringhouse & I. Robeyns (Eds.), Measuring justice: Primary goods and capabilities (p. 150). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Veenhoven, R. (1993). Happiness in nations: Subjective appreciation of life in 56 nations 1946–1992. Rotterdam: Erasmus University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Veenhoven, R. (1994). Is happiness a trait? Test of the theory that a better society does not make people any happier. Social Indicators Research, 32, 101–160.Google Scholar
  25. Veenhoven, R. (1995). The cross-national pattern of happiness: Test of predictions implied in three theories of happiness. Social Indicators Research, 34, 33–68.Google Scholar
  26. Veenhoven, R. (1996). Happy life-expectancy. A comprehensive measure of quality-of-life in nations. Social Indicators Research, 39, 1–58.Google Scholar
  27. Veenhoven, R. (2000). Wellbeing in the welfare state: Level not higher, distribution not more equitable. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 2, 91–125.Google Scholar
  28. Veenhoven, R. (2005). Inequality of happiness in nations: Introduction to this special issue. Journal of Happiness Studies, 6, 351–355.Google Scholar
  29. Veenhoven, R. (2011). Life satisfaction in nations. Sociale Sicherheit, 6, 298–302.Google Scholar
  30. Veenhoven, R., & Kalmijin, W. (2005). Inequality-adjusted happiness in nations: Egalitarianism and utilitarianism married in a new index of societal performance. Journal of Happiness Studies, Special Issue on ’Inequality of Happiness in nations’ 6, 421–455.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political Science, Kellogg Institute for International StudiesUniversity of Notre DameDublinUSA

Personalised recommendations