PDA

View Full Version : Does Big Government Make People Happy?



Blaze
05-16-2011, 11:47 AM
n a time of vicious budget debates on Capitol Hill, a new study finds that the path to happiness might be through big government.

But the findings aren't likely to be the last word on the topic, underscoring the difficulty of answering the prevailing political question in the U.S. right now: How large should government be?

According to the new research, published in April in the journal Politics and Policy, bigger governments make for more satisfied citizens. The results, which rank the U.S. 10th out of 15 industrialized democracies in life satisfaction of citizens, seems to suggest that bumping up social welfare expenditures would make for a happier populace. But "suggest" is the key word, according to University of Pennsylvania economist Justin Wolfers, who was not involved in the research.

"The study as a whole is suggestive, but not convincing," Wolfers told LiveScience. "And the reason I say that is it's ultimately a study of [only] 15 countries." [See the rankings of all 15 countries]

Nonetheless, said Richard Easterlin, an economist at the University of Southern California who studies life satisfaction, the findings are "pretty plausible." Citizens in countries that transition from socialism to capitalism often don't experience the happiness boost one might expect from the resulting influx of goods and services, Easterlin told LiveScience. The reason may be that they lose out on perks like guaranteed health care.

"There really are areas where it seems like the market doesn't do the job," Easterlin said.

Happy citizens

To tackle the question of whether government makes people happy by providing social services, or unhappy by squelching efficiency and growth, Baylor University political scientist Patrick Flavin and his colleagues used data from the 2005 to 2008 World Values Survey. This survey asks residents of countries around the world how satisfied they are with their lives, among other questions. The researchers limited their analysis to industrialized democracies so they'd be comparing a similar slate of nations. Among the countries studied were Australia, France, South Korea, Spain, Switzerland and the United States. [Read Who's Happier: Europeans or Americans?]

For each country, the researchers measured the size of the government in four ways: the country's tax revenue as a percent of its gross domestic product (GDP), the government's consumption as a percent of real per capita GDP, average unemployment benefits and social welfare expenditures as a percent of GDP.

After controlling for factors that could skew the results, including health and age of respondents, church attendance, unemployment rates, and the level of individualism in the country's culture, the researchers found that the happiest countries were those with big, busy governments. The result remained even when the researchers took into account the fact that government size and benefits can influence variables such as unemployment and marriage rates, Flavin told LiveScience.

"The jump in happiness in going from a country that's low on the government intervention scale to one that is high on the government intervention scale is about the same as the effect of getting married," Flavin said.

Out of the 15 countries studied, the United States ranked 14th for both tax revenue as a percent of GDP and in social welfare expenditures as a percent of GDP; 13th for government's share of consumption; 11th for unemployment benefits; and 10th for life satisfaction.

The effect is largest for the poor, Flavin said, but richer citizens in big-government countries reported more satisfaction than their small-government counterparts, too.

"This is one piece of evidence that we should think long and hard about, what the effect on citizens' well-being would be if we starting changing Medicare to a voucher system or reducing welfare benefits," Flavin said.

Room for interpretation

The study isn't the first to link government intervention with happiness. One of Flavin's co-researchers authored a 2010 paper in the Journal of Politics finding that U.S. states with bigger governments have happier citizens. [Read: Happiest States Revealed by New Research]

On the other hand, a 2007 study published in the journal Political Choice used the same World Values Survey from 1997 to 2001 to compare government size (as measured by the percent of GDP made up by government consumption) and life satisfaction in 74 countries. That study found the opposite result as Flavin's: Bigger governments seemed to make people unhappy.

Justina Fischer, a senior researcher in economics at the University of Mannheim in Germany and a researcher on the 2007 study, said she thought the difference could stem from the different time periods in which the data was gathered. In the late 1990s, she said, the countries studied had left-leaning governments that may have grown the government too large; In 2005 to 2008, when Flavin's data were taken, those governments had shifted rightward.

"Given this change in governments between the 1990s and 10 years later, I think their finding is an effect of conservative governments cutting too much," Fischer told LiveScience.

In other words, Fischer said, there could be a certain balance between government size and private efficiency that both studies are dancing around. Fischer's study, she said, caught people's attitudes during a time of too much government, so cuts to government spending drew them back toward the ideal. Later, governments may have overcorrected, meaning that a tendency not to cut as much made people happier.

Measuring happiness and government size is difficult, Wolfers told LiveScience, not only because it can be tough to define what those variables mean, but also because cultural differences can confound the results. Nordic countries, which ranked high in happiness in Flavin's study, tend to be cheerful places, Wolfers said, while former communist countries are never quite as happy as would be expected.

To get to the bottom of the question, Wolfers told LiveScience, economists would have to conduct larger studies on more countries. The ideal study would randomly assign people to live in states with big governments and states with small governments and then watched to see how happy they become. Obviously, that sort of research isn't possible, Wolfers said, so conclusions about government size and happiness have to be drawn "from a pastiche of evidence." That leaves room for interpretation.

"It's very likely that a Democrat and a Republican would read that evidence and come to different conclusions," Wolfers said. "And that's because we don't have that single perfect experiment."


Stephanie Pappas, LiveScience Senior Writer
Date: 13 May 2011 Time: 02:45 PM ET

http://www.livescience.com/14156-government-size-happiness.html

=========================
Why would a snow bound place "tend to be happiest" yet other snow bound countries are not. :umm:

binnie
05-16-2011, 03:23 PM
What the hell does happy mean?

FORD
05-16-2011, 04:06 PM
Well, in the government's case, it would be Keith Richards' definition....

Well I never kept a dollar past sunset
it always burned a hole in my pants


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSyNUAzPofI

Blaze
05-16-2011, 08:14 PM
What the hell does happy mean?
You know, it is very bizarre that people do not know what happy is.

Haven't you experienced plain happiness?

VAiN
05-16-2011, 08:56 PM
You know, it is very bizarre that people do not know what happy is.

Haven't you experienced plain happiness?

Happy hits somewhere between beers #6 - #9...

binnie
05-17-2011, 04:49 AM
You know, it is very bizarre that people do not know what happy is.

Haven't you experienced plain happiness?

What I mean is, is happiness a moment or a permanent state? Clearly the goverment can't facilitate either.

It can make life more managebale, prosperous, secure and proffitable - but 'happy'? It's not in their remit.

Nickdfresh
05-17-2011, 07:00 AM
I dunno if gov't makes people happy or not. But your posts make small kittens suffer in hell for eternity after God kills them due to your reckless, non-sequitur posting....

Seshmeister
05-17-2011, 07:38 AM
What the hell does happy mean?

You said you were half Yorkshire, half Scottish?

This post makes perfect sense... :)

FORD
05-17-2011, 11:04 AM
Happy hits somewhere between beers #6 - #9...

That pretty much lines up with Ben Franklin's definition.....

http://www.gypsyrose.com/images/P/gr379.jpg

kwame k
05-17-2011, 11:49 AM
That's why that is my sig..........

Seshmeister
05-17-2011, 11:50 AM
You know, it is very bizarre that people do not know what happy is.

Haven't you experienced plain happiness?

Is that your stripper name?

binnie
05-17-2011, 11:54 AM
Oh no he didn't......

chefcraig
05-17-2011, 11:58 AM
Hmmm...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NX3en_Te7K8

Blaze
05-17-2011, 11:16 PM
Is that your stripper name?

Thank you! If you are asking for my stripper name at 44. Thank you. ;)

However, the reptilian overlords assigned the name Blaze to me when I was hatched down at the secret underground bunkers in the Antarctica. That is the real reason my uncle wintered over, the real reason for the snow quake the year prior, the real reason station was mothballed. I was not born on the 4th of July, but On October 29, 1966. In addition, before any questions arise about it being the Nazi UFO base in the Antarctica, it is not.
:baaa:

Blaze
05-17-2011, 11:30 PM
In a way I think this next article is related to today's big government. Only because, I must agree with some one here that say our government has become a corporate shill. When corporations are creating public school curriculum, they have become our governors. :(



Dear,

Let's say you're the CEO of McDonald's. You know kids love to eat your food, but their pesky teachers keep telling them it's not healthy. Don't worry! You have options.

Scholastic (the company that publishes tons of children's books) has a program where companies like McDonald's, the American Coal Foundation, and SunnyD can pay to have teachers teach kids about their products to create "brand awareness" and "consumer loyalty."


It's called Scholastic InSchool Marketing –– and it has nothing to do with education.

Here's how the program works: A corporation gives Scholastic a pile of money. In turn, Scholastic creates a curriculum designed to further "client interests," cleverly masked as actual learning opportunities for students. (For example, Scholastic sometimes says these materials will help improve students' scores on standardized tests.)

According to Scholastic, this program reaches more than 66,000 classrooms.

Some terrific groups (including the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood and Rethinking Schools) are fighting hard to end Scholastic InSchool Marketing. This week, they had a big win when Scholastic agreed to stop selling its "United States of Energy" curriculum (paid for by the American Coal Foundation) which teaches 4th graders about the benefits of coal while hiding all the risks to public health.

Momentum is on their side. Now it's time to stop this practice for good. Sign the petition today to tell Scholastic to end its insidious InSchool Marketing division:


http://www.change.org/petitions/tell-scholastic-stop-pushing-corporate-pr-in-classrooms

Thanks for taking action,

- Patrick and the Change.org team


SIGNATURES
30,588

OVERVIEW
Trusted children's publisher Scholastic is abusing its privileged position in schools. Scholastic’s InSchool Marketing division offers its services to corporations as a curriculum producer for hire. Its mission is “to promote client objectives” and “make a difference by influencing attitudes and behaviors.” Scholastic’s clients have included McDonald’s, Cartoon Network, Shell, SunnyD, the alcohol industry, Disney and the corporate-funded Chamber of Commerce.

We know that Scholastic is listening right now. Bowing to pressure from members of the CCFC, Rethinking Schools, and environmental groups around the country, Scholastic has already agreed to stop distributing coal industry-funded teaching materials in elementary school classrooms. But Scholastic’s commercialization of children’s classrooms runs much deeper than coal.

So please, tell Scholastic: Stop pushing corporate PR in classrooms.

Read Petition Letter


http://www.change.org/petitions/tell-scholastic-stop-pushing-corporate-pr-in-classrooms

http://change-production.s3.amazonaws.com/photos/3/ct/lb/kLctLBydqnMjbOf-250.jpg