How to Optimize the Relationship Between Public Spending and Happiness

International Journal of Community Well-Being https://doi.org/10.1007/s42413-021-00142-6 ORIGINAL RESEARCH ARTICLE How to Optimize the Relationship Between Public Spending and Happiness Renaud Gaucher1 Received: 16 July 2020 / Accepted: 28 June 2021 © The Author(s) 2021 Abstract Happiness and efficient public spending are considered to be two desirable goals. In this paper, I consider happiness in the sense of how much one likes the life one leads (Veenhoven, 1984), and emphasize negative utilitarianism (Popper, 1952) as the best approach for promoting happiness in public policies. An ethical framework about public policies implemented to improve social conditions for happiness is suggested. I give a definition of the term optimization and propose two methods to optimize the relationship between public spending and social conditions for happiness. I briefly introduce a bookkeeping method, and I then present the bases of an econometric method in which quantile regression is described as the best tool within the negative utilitarianist approach, because quantile regression makes possible to know which independent variables influence most the degree of happiness of the least happy/ the saddest. The bookkeeping and the econometric methods presented are useful for any local, regional, national or supranational authority. These methods may also be useful for optimizing the relationship between natural resources consumption and social conditions for happiness. The paper is a conceptual paper. Keywords Happiness · Public finance · Optimization · Negative utilitarianism · Public policy · Quantile regression Introduction Happiness and efficient public spending are two desirable goals. Happiness is important for at least four reasons. One: we prefer to be happy and, better, to be very happy (Adler et al., 2017). Two: happiness is humanizing. I use this adjective to highlight the fact that happiness is simultaneously a cause and a consequence of pro-social behaviours (Aknin et al., 2018). Happiness is a means to build a more * Renaud Gaucher 1 Erasmus Happiness Research Organization, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Burg. Oudlaan 50, Van der Goot Building, M5‑43, 3062 PA Rotterdam, The Netherlands 13 Vol.:(0123456789) R. Gaucher harmonious society. Three: happiness is a landmark that tells us to what extent a society works well. Four: happiness in individuals can be increased long-term (Veenhoven & Hagerty, 2006). Happiness would not be interesting in public policies if it was impossible, even only difficult, to improve it lastingly. Efficient public spending is important for at least two reasons. One: we live in a world of scarcity and this scarcity may grow with increasing ecological constraints (Hickel & Kallis, 2020). Two: people have more confidence in an authority when they perceive that this authority spends money efficiently and for their good (Kirchler, 2007). My purpose is to propose methods to optimize the relationship between public spending and happiness. These methods are useful for any local, regional, national or supranational authority. Researchers can improve and develop these methods. I consider these methods can form the basis of further developments in this field. In my perspective, social sciences have to be scientifically relevant, and socially relevant. A goal of research in social sciences is to help build a better/less bad world. This paper is divided into three parts. The first part concerns happiness, the second happiness policies and in the last part I explain a set of ideas on how to optimize the relationship between public spending and happiness. Happiness Defining Happiness Philosophers have debated happiness at least since the times of the classical Greek philosophers, and we have inherited from these Greek philosophers two main perspectives: hedonism and eudaimonia. Hedonism is associated with two figures: Aristippus of Cyrene and Epicurus. We have lost the writing of Aristippus, but a lot of anecdotes exist in which his teaching and his life are characterized by enjoyment of the present time, freedom and contempt for the superfluous. Epicurus considers that pleasure is what makes one’s life happy. What gives pleasure is good, what gives pain is bad. In Epicurus’s perspective, desires have to be controlled and this control requires self-awareness and knowledge of the desires. Epicurus’s perspective is therefore a form of asceticism (McMahon, 2006). Eudaimonia is linked today with Aristotle’s perspective on life, although other philosophical schools with different perspectives also used the concept of eudaimonia (Haybron, 2008). Aristotle considers that happiness is the ultimate goal, and that it can only be assessed over an entire life, not over a succession of moments. Happiness lies not only in pleasure, but also in the cultivation of virtue. Aristotle considers that human happiness is secondary, and that real happiness is the domain of gods (McMahon, 2006). Hedonism and eudaimonia are not the only traditions on happiness stemming from Ancient Greece. For example, stoicism is on happiness and philosophers from this philosophical school consider that emotions lead to unhappiness and should be controlled (McMahon, 2006). Today, hedonism and eudaimonia from the Aristotle’s perspective are the two movements that have the strongest influence on social scientists. 13 How to Optimize the Relationship Between Public Spending and… Social scientists define happiness in various ways. In the hedonic perspective, the most used model is the subjective well-being (SWB) model. Several definitions of SWB exist. Diener (1984) proposes that SWB has three distinct components, life satisfaction (LS), positive affect (PA), and negative affect (NA), while Diener et al., (1999) include satisfaction in specific life domains, that is domain satisfaction (DS), in the definition of SWB. Veenhoven (1984) reviewed the definitions of happiness in common, philosophical and modern social science languages, concluding that the best definition of happiness is the degree to which an individual judges the overall quality of his or her life-as-a-whole favourably. Veenhoven (1984) specifies each term of his definition. He also gives a short version of his definition of happiness: how much one likes the life one leads. To Veenhoven (1984), happiness has two components, two sources of information: the hedonic tonality of affect, that is the degree to which various affects that someone experiences are pleasant in character, and contentment, that is the degree to which an individual perceives his/her aspirations are met. Research suggests that hedonic level of affect dominates in the overall evaluation (Kainulainen et al., 2018). Kahneman (1999) proposes the model of objective happiness. In this model, happiness is described as the average of instant utility over a period of time. Utility can be defined as a flow of positive and negative emotions and instant utility as the u (...truncated)