Drill into what makes S'poreans happy
By David Chan, for The Straits Times, 27 Oct 2011
THE ongoing debate on citizens' happiness and subjective well-being risks becoming polarised into false dichotomies centred on whether economic measures of well-being are relevant or irrelevant, useful or useless, important or trivial and even good or bad.
The various parties in the debate recognise that well-being includes but goes beyond economic dimensions, so it is counterproductive to frame the issue as an adversarial contest between economic and non-economic variables. In any case, proponents of subjective well-being measures are not saying these measures should replace economic ones; only that they should be taken into account in addition to economic measures.
To shed light, not generate more heat, in the debate, it is important to have clear definitions of concepts; know what the research evidence shows; and understand better what proponents of subjective well-being are saying (and not saying), so that we can learn how to move forward with practical applications for Singapore.
First, defining the concepts. The core concept of subjective well-being consists of two components: the cognitive component of one's life satisfaction, and the emotional component of one's life happiness. They are related, but distinct. Life satisfaction is our own evaluation of the extent to which our needs, wants, expectations or preferences are met. The evaluations may be about general life satisfaction or specific life domains such as family and work. Life happiness is about the relative presence of positive emotions such as joy and feelings of accomplishment, and absence of negative emotions such as anger and feelings of neglect.
Next, the research evidence. While one's sense of well-being is necessarily subjective, many studies, both within and across nations, have shown that subjective well-being is positively associated with meeting basic needs, health, stable society, positive social relationships, trust in others, volunteering and good progress towards long-term goals. Also important are personal attributes and skills such as resilience, self-efficacy and adaptability.
So Singapore is heading in the right direction in enhancing subjective well-being if and when we take a holistic and balanced approach to public policy. We see this increasingly occurring in the current government focus on values and character development in education and in developing multiple pathways to and of excellence. So too in the focus on community development and building social cohesion, job creation, skills training and employability, healthy lifestyle and active ageing and addressing income inequalities and opportunities for success.
Indeed, politicians and civil servants in Singapore are recognising more the need to go beyond material and economic incentives when formulating policies. Business organisations have long recognised the importance of tracking well-being, and have scientifically developed measures of employee well-being and engagement. The best organisations are often those who see how well-being and business growth complement and create reciprocal positive effects on each other. Like employees, citizens rightly expect their leaders to go beyond economic and material concerns to directly take into consideration their individual well-being.
But what other aspects of well-being might matter? Are there some factors unique to Singapore that matter more than in other cultures? How to measure different aspects of well-being adequately? These are areas we need to focus on for further study. Good understanding of these basics and contexts will underpin the formulation of good policy.
It is important to understand that the research goal is not necessarily to arrive at a single unidimensional happiness or well-being index. Rather, it is a process to develop rigorous measurements of well-being. These can include specific indices for various domains such as family, school or work life. Aggregate macro-indices may also be useful when addressing multidimensional issues such as commitment to Singapore and rootedness. So rather than think of the debate on happiness as a search for the magical list of what matters or an ultimate index of happiness or well-being, we can start with systematically measuring various aspects of well-being, understand their antecedents and consequences, and track them in order to get useful inputs for policies and interventions. A big part of research on well-being is to drill into each of the different dimensions of happiness or satisfaction, and examine how they may be similar or different across various segments of the populations. This of course requires a process of evolution.
It is also important to note what informed proponents of subjective well-being measurement are not saying. For example, they are not saying Singapore should change to become Bhutan or try beat Bhutan in the ranking of happiness scores. Put Singaporeans in Bhutan and most will not end up with higher well-being, because our expectations, values, background and contexts are different. But that does not mean we should not measure and understand what Singaporeans are happy and unhappy with. In fact, precisely because Singapore is different from Bhutan and many features are not transferable, we need to scientifically measure, track and improve Singaporeans subjective well-being, in Singapore. This should go hand-in-hand with the Government's acknowledgement of the need to better understand people's thinking and feelings when making and implementing policies, and engaging with public and various stakeholders.
There are multiple pathways to happiness and well-being, not only between nations but between groups and individuals within a nation. This is natural, since what factors contribute most to one's sense of satisfaction and feelings of happiness vary across people. Good research has to tease out the cultural universals versus the cultural specifics of happiness and well-being. No one has a monopoly over decisions on what happiness or well-being is. We will move forward constructively if we can collaborate in an open-minded and evidence-based manner to co-create the structures and processes to enhance our happiness, prosperity and progress.
The writer is director of the Behavioural Sciences Institute and professor of psychology at the Singapore Management University.
No comments:
Post a Comment