Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 519

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

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

Open access
Stevenson, Betsey, Wolfers, Justin·2008·SSRN Electronic Journal
DOI 10.2139/ssrn.1121237
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The "Easterlin paradox" suggests that there is no link between a society's economic development and its average level of happiness. We re-assess 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 the relationship between subject 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.

Overview

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 · 10.2139/ssrn.1121237

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Research works printed but not linked: 20

  1. Richard Layard, 1980, Human Satisfaction and Public Policy, The Economic Journal, 737, 10.2307/2231740 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Richard Layard, 2005, Rethinking Public Economics: The Implications of Rivalry and Habit, Economics and Happiness, 147, 10.1093/0199286280.003.0006 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Andrew Leigh, 2006, Happiness and the Human Development Index: Australia is Not a Paradox, Australian Economic Review, 39, 176, 10.1111/j.1467-8462.2006.00408.x · DOI
  4. Erzo F P Luttmer, 2005, Neighbors as Negatives: Relative Earnings and Well-Being, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 120, 963, 10.1093/qje/120.3.963 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Adriana Lleras-Muney, 2005, The Relationship Between Education and Adult Mortality in the U.S, Review of Economic Studies, 72
  6. Angus Maddison, 2007, Historical Statistics for the World Economy, 1, 10.1787/9789264104143-en · DOI · Paper page
  7. Andrew J Oswald, On the Curvature of the Reporting Function from Objective Reality to Subjective Feelings, Economics Letters, Forthcoming, 10.1016/j.econlet.2008.02.032 · DOI
  8. Douglas Rivers, 1988, Limited Information Estimators and Exogeneity Tests for Simultaneous Probit Models, Journal of Econometrics, 39, 347, 10.1016/0304-4076(88)90063-2 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Tom W Smith, 1979, Time Trends, Seasonal Variations, Intersurvey Differences, and Other Mysteries, Social Psychology Quarterly, 42, 18, 10.2307/3033870 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Tom W Smith, 1990, Timely Artifacts: A Review of Measurement Variation in the 1972-1989 GSS, GSS Methodological Report
  11. Tom W Smith, 1986, Unhappiness on the 1985 GSS, GSS Methodological Report
  12. Betsey Stevenson, 2008, Happiness Inequality in the United States, Journal of Legal Studies, 10.3386/w14220 · DOI
  13. Betsey Stevenson, 2007, The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness. mimeo, University of Pennsylvania
  14. Mildred Strunk, 1950, The Quarter's Polls, Public Opinion Quarterly, 14, 174, 10.1086/266174 · doi:10.1086/266174
  15. B M S Van Praag, 2004, Happiness Quantified. A Satisfaction Calculus Approach, 10.1093/0198286546.001.0001 · DOI · Paper page
  16. Ruut Veenhoven, 1993, Happiness in Nations, Subjective Appreciation of Life in 56 Nations 1946-1992
  17. Ruut Veenhoven, World Database of Happiness
  18. Justin Wolfers, 2003, Is Business Cycle Volatility Costly? Evidence from Surveys of Subjective Well-being, International Finance, 6, 1, 10.1111/1468-2362.00112 · DOI · Paper page
  19. All observations: Columns 2 and 4 include all country-waves, including non-nationally representative samples described in this appendix. This broader sample yields an extra 25,582 satisfaction respondents (and 26,365 happiness respondents), from 17 (18) more country-waves, adding 1, 7, 7, and 2 countries to the satisfaction (and 1, 7, 8, and 2 to the happiness) samples, respectively, in waves 1-4), yielding 13 (14) more short first differences and 6 (7) more long first differences and resulting in a total sample of 82 countries. Results in the middle panel 2 also require household income data, and so the broader sample yielded only 9,968 extra satisfaction respondents (and 9,946 extra happiness respondents), from 6 country-waves for a total of 61 countries. Panel 1: National well-being index is regressed on log real GDP per capita. The well-being index is calculated in a previous ordered probit regression of well-being on country � wave fixed effects. Standard errors are clustered by country. See the notes to table 1 for further details. Panel 2: Results of ordered probit regressions of respondent-level well-being on log household income, controlling for country fixed effects, or country � wave fixed effects plus a quartic in age, gender, their interaction, and indicators for missing age or sex. See notes to table 2 for details. Panel 3: National well-being index is regressed on log real GDP per capita, Notes: Table reports results of regressions of well-being on the indicated income variable, both in the nationally-representative World Values Survey samples analyzed in the main text and in the entire sample. Numbers in parentheses are robust standard errors. Asterisks indicate statistically significant from zero at the *10 percent, **5 percent, and ***1 percent level
  20. 1946, Yugoslavia; data from the Philippines are missing. Data for the United States were tabulated from the Interuniversity Consortium for Political and Social Research. Surveys were run from 1957 to 1963 using Cantril's "Self-Anchoring Striving Scale," which probes about the best and worst possible futures, then shows a picture of a ten-step ladder and asks, Figure 1. Early Cross-Country Surveys of Subjective Well-Being Notes: Well-being data are aggregated into an index by running an ordered probit regression of happiness or satisfaction on country fixed effects separately for each survey. Income data were extracted from Maddison (2007) and reflect estimates of real GDP per capita at purchasing power parity in 1990 U.S. dollars. Dashed lines are fitted from OLS regressions of this well-being index on log GDP. Country abbreviations in all figures are standard ISO country codes. Gallup

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Stevenson, B., & Wolfers, J.
Venue
SSRN Electronic Journal
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2008
ISSN
1556-5068 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.2139/ssrn.1121237
OpenAlex
W2741872151
Cited by
519
References
1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
green

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.