Eight years ago we proposed a new measure of happiness in nations, called Inequality-Adjusted Happiness (IAH). This measure indicates how successful nations are in combining a high level of happiness and a low degree of inequality in happiness among citizens. The index gives equal weight to the level of happiness measured using the mean and inequality of happiness measured using the standard deviation. Scores on this index are now available for 139 nations. In this paper we present a technical improvement for the method to calculate IAH.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Similar content being viewed by others
Questions on happiness can be phrased in more ways, using different key words. An overview of questions that fit the concept of ‘the subjective appreciation of one’s life as-a-whole is available in Veenhoven (2011b). The method described in this paper applies to all measures.
In an earlier paper in this journal we argued that the standard deviation is a proper statistic for measuring inequality in happiness (Kalmijn and Veenhoven 2005). Recently, Delhey and Kohler (2011) proposed an adjustment to that method. We advised against that adjustment in Kalmijn (2012) and Veenhoven (2012) to which Delhey and Kohler (2012) replied.
Delhey, J., & Kohler, U. (2011). Is happiness inequality immune to income inequality? New evidence through instrument-effect-corrected standard deviations. Social Science Research, 40, 742–756.
Delhey, J., & Kohler, U. (2012). Happiness inequality. Adding meaning to numbers—A reply to Veenhoven and Kalmijn. Social Science Research, 41, 731–734.
Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and a proposal for a national index. American Psychologist, 55(1), 34–43.
Diener, E., Ng, W., Harter, J., & Arora, R. (2010). Wealth and happiness across the world: Material prosperity predicts life evaluation, whereas psychosocial prosperity predicts positive feeling. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 52–61.
Kalmijn, W. M. (2010). Quantification of happiness inequality, PhD dissertation Erasmus University Rotterdam (NL) (pp. 182–183). Available at http://repub.eur.nl/resource/pub_21777/index.html.
Kalmijn, W. M. (2012). Happiness is not normally distributed: A comment to Delhey and Kohler. Social Science Research, 41, 100–202.
Kalmijn, W. M., & Veenhoven, R. (2005). Measuring inequality of happiness in nations: In search for proper statistics. Journal of Happiness Studies, 6, 357–396.
Ott, J. (2005). Level and inequality of happiness in nations: Does greater happiness of a greater number imply greater inequality in happiness? Journal of Happiness Studies, 6, 397–420.
Tay, L., & Diener, E. (2011). Needs and subjective well-being around the world. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 354–365.
Veenhoven, R. (2003). Equality-adjusted happiness in nations. Paper presented at the conference of the International Society for Quality of Life Studies (ISQOLS), Frankfurt (DE).
Veenhoven, R. (2005). Return of inequality in modern society? Test by dispersion of life satisfaction across time and nations. Journal of Happiness Studies, 6, 457–487.
Veenhoven, R. (2011a). World Database of Happiness: Archive of research findings on subjective enjoyment of life. Erasmus University Rotterdam (NL). Available at: http://worlddatabaseofhappiness.eur.nl.
Veenhoven, R. (2011b). Measures of happiness. World Database of Happiness. Available at: http://worlddatabaseofhappiness.eur.nl/hap_quer/hqi_fp.htm.
Veenhoven, R. (2011c). Inequality-Adjusted Happiness in 139 nations 2000–2009. World Database of Happiness. Accessed on 15 Aug 2011 at: http://worlddatabaseofhappiness.eur.nl/hap_nat/findingreports/RankReport_InequalityHappiness.php.
Veenhoven, R. (2011d). Trends Inequality-Adjusted Happiness in nations 1946–2010. World Database of Happiness. Accessed on 15 Aug 2011 at: http://worlddatabaseofhappiness.eur.nl/hap_nat/findingreports/TrendReport_InequalityAdjustedHappiness.pdf.
Veenhoven, R. (2012). The medicine is worse than the disease: Comment on Delhey and Kohler’s proposal to measure inequality in happiness using ‘Instrument-Effect-Corrected’ standard deviations. Social Science Research, 41, 203–204.
Veenhoven, R. (2013a). Inequality-Adjusted Happiness in 139 nations 2000–2009. World Database of Happiness. Accessed 15 May 2013 at, http://worlddatabaseofhappiness.eur.nl/hap_nat/findingreports/RankReport_InequalityHappiness.php.
Veenhoven, R. (2013b). Trends Inequality-Adjusted Happiness in nations 1946–2010, World Database of Happiness. Accessed 15 May 2013 at, http://worlddatabaseofhappiness.eur.nl/hap_nat/findingreports/TrendReport_InequalityAdjustedHappiness.pdf.
Veenhoven, R., & Hagerty, M. (2006). Rising happiness in nations 1946–2004. A reply to Easterlin. Social Indicators Research, 79, 421–436.
Veenhoven, R., & Kalmijn, W. M. (2005). Inequality-Adjusted Happiness in nations: Egalitarianism and utilitarianism married in a new index of societal performance. Journal of Happiness Studies, 6, 421–455.
The authors wish to thank Dr. Jan Koster (Erasmus University Rotterdam) for his suggestion to apply the skew projection method.
Appendix 1: Improved IAH by the Application of Skew Projection
Let in Fig. 1 the point M be the centre of the semicircle with radius LM = r. If L is adopted as the origin, a nation N can be represented by its mean happiness value m = LG as its abscissa and its internal standard deviation s = NG as its ordinate.
Let W represent the compromise for the worst conceivable situation and WZ be the tangent through W to the semicircle. The skew projection U of N onto the IAH-axis WH is obtained as the intersection of WH with the line segment ND through N parallel to WZ.
In that case, the IAH-value of N equals the ratio (UW/HW) × 100.
From the parallelism of WZ and UD follows the proportionality
The angles ZMW and DNG are equal; let their value be 2φ, where φ: = angle(WHL). The value of 2φ equals [w E/(w E + w U)](π/2), where w E and w U are the weights assigned to the egalitarian and utilitarian views respectively. Since
the IAH-value of the nation represented by the point N (m,s) equals
This result can also be written as
In the case of equal weights w E = w U and 2φ = π/4; when happiness is quantified on a [0, 10] scale, then r = 5 and in this particular case this formula can be simplified to IAH ≈ 8.28(m − s) +17.2.
Appendix 2: Inequality-Adjusted Happiness (IAH) in 15 Nations 2003–2009
IAH-values in modified and previous version.
About this article
Cite this article
Kalmijn, W., Veenhoven, R. Index of Inequality-Adjusted Happiness (IAH) Improved: A Research Note. J Happiness Stud 15, 1259–1265 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-013-9474-3