Cited by 545Psychological Well-being and Life SatisfactionQuality of Life MeasurementIncome, Poverty, and Inequality

Economic Growth and Subjective Well-Being: Reassessing the Easterlin Paradox

Open access
Stevenson, Betsey, Wolfers, Justin·2008·Brookings Papers on Economic Activity

Abstract

The “Easterlin paradox” suggests that there is no link between a society’s economic development and its average level of happiness. We reassess this paradox, analyzing multiple rich datasets spanning many decades. Using recent data on a broader array of countries, we establish a clear positive link between average levels of subjective well-being and GDP per capita across countries, and find no evidence of a satiation point beyond which wealthier countries have no further increases in subjective well-being. We show that the estimated relationship is consistent across many datasets and is similar to that between subjective well-being and income observed within countries. Finally, examining the relationship between changes in subjective well-being and income over time within countries, we find economic growth associated with rising happiness. Together these findings indicate a clear role for absolute income and a more limited role for relative income comparisons in determining happiness.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1353/eca.0.0001

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The evidence from the literature assessing the link between income and SWB is that this relationship is positive and modest.

    “The evidence from the literature assessing the link between income and SWB is that this relationship is positive and modest (Stevenson and Wolfers, 2008), although there are some differences depending on what measure of SWB is used (Kahneman and Deaton, 2010), and whether other people's income is included in the assessment (Luttmer, 2005;Layard et al., 2010).”

    From Measuring Subjective Wellbeing: Recommendations on Measures for use by National Governments (2012) · cites this paper as Stevenson and Wolfers, 2008

  • The relationship between income and evaluative well-being is best described as logarithmic.

    “They also show that the relationship between income and evaluative well-being is best described as logarithmic (4, 10, 11).”
  • People with larger incomes tend to report greater evaluative well-being.

    “These studies show that people with larger incomes tend to report greater evaluative well-being (1–10).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. Cantril, Hadley. Public Opinion, 1935-1946. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1951.
  2. Diener, Ed. "Subjective Well-Being." Psychological Bulletin 95, no. 3 (1984): 542-575.
  3. Easterlin, Richard A. "Feeding the Illusion of Growth and Happiness: A Reply to Hagerty and Vennhoven" Social Indicators Research, 2005c, 74:3, 429 -443.
  4. Layard, Richard. "Human Satisfaction and Public Policy." The Economic Journal, 1980: 737-750.
  5. Smith, Tom W. "Time Trends, Seasonal Variations, Intersurvey Differences, and Other Mysteries." Social Psychology Quarterly 42, no. 1 (1979): 18-30.
  6. Smith, Tom W. Timely Artifacts: A Review of Measurement Variation in the 1972-1989 GSS. GSS Methodological Report, NORC, Univeristy of Chicago, 1990.
  7. Strunk, Mildred. "The Quarter's Polls." Public Opinion Quarterly 14, no. 1 (1950): 174-192.
  8. Veenhoven, Ruut "Is Happiness Relative?" Social Indicators Research 24, 1991, pp. 1-34

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Stevenson, B., & Wolfers, J.
Affiliations
National Bureau of Economic Research (US)
Venue
Brookings Papers on Economic Activity
Publisher
Project MUSE
Published
2008-03
Volume
2008
Issue
1
Pages
1-87
ISSN
  • 0007-2303 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4465
OpenAlex
W4250943512
Cited by
545
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 30 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 32 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 30 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 41 · 2015: 40 · 2014: 38 · 2013: 44 · 2012: 54
FWCI
32.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Brookings Papers on Economic Activity (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Psychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Quality of Life Measurement
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Income, Poverty, and Inequality
Keywords
Easterlin paradox, subjective well-being, happiness, economic growth, GDP per capita, absolute income, relative income, satiation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review