Revisiting the Easterlin Paradox
What Can We Learn from It?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32890/jes2019.1.1.3Kata kunci:
Easterlin paradox, happiness measurement scale, variation of happiness measurementAbstrak
This paper examines the Easterlin paradox using empirical and simulated data. The results reveal that the existence of Easterlin paradox could be just due to the rating scale of happiness measurement. The rating scale measurement of self-reported happiness limits the variation of happiness of time series data due to the averaging effect compared to the happiness variation of cross-sectional data. Mathematically, the low variation of happiness can lead to the Easterlin paradox: cross-sectional effects of income on happiness are significant but turn into insignificant for time series happiness. The result of simulated data without the scale of happiness measurement, i.e., the underlying happiness, shows that the effects of income on happiness are significant at cross-sectional and time series data. Nevertheless, once the limited scale of happiness measurement, i.e., the self-reported happiness, is used, the income effect is significant only at cross-sectional data. Thus, the low variation in scale of measurement can be the cause of the Easterlin paradox. What we can learn is: the limited scale of happiness measurement produces the Easterlin paradox, and the happiness measurement needs to be revised to ensure the variation in happiness could be captured adequately.
Rujukan
Clark, A., Frijters, P., & Shields, M. (2007). Relative income, happiness and utility: an explanation for the Easterlin Paradox and other puzzles. IZA Discussion Paper No. 2840, IZA, Bonn, Germany.
Cummins, R. (2003). Normative life satisfaction: measurement issues and a homeostatic model. Social Indicators Research, 64(2), 225-240.
Conceicao, P., & Bandura, R. (2008). Measuring subjective wellbeing: A summary review of the literature. Online paper. Retrieved from: http://web.undp.org/developmentstudies/docs/subjective_wellbeing_conceicao_bandura.pdf
Deaton, A. (2008). Income, health and well-being around the world: Evidence from the Gallup World poll. Journal of Economic Perspective, 22(2), 53-72.
Di Tella, R., & MacCulloch, R. (2005). Gross National Happiness as an answer to the Easterlin Paradox? Online paper. Retrieved from: http://www.people.hbs.edu/rditella/papers/WPGNHappiness.pdf
Easterlin, R. (1974). Does economic growth improve the human lot? Some empirical evidence. In R. David & R. Reder (Eds.), Nations and households in economic growth: Essays in honor of Moses Abramovitz (pp. 89-125). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Easterlin, R., & Angelescu, L. (2009). Happiness and growth the world over: time series evidence on the Hapiness-Income paradox. IZA Discussion Paper No. 4060, IZA, Bonn, Germany.
Easterlin, R., McVey, L., Switek, M., Sawangfa, O., & Zweig, J. (2011). The Happiness-Income Paradox revisited. IZA Discussion Paper No. 5799, IZA, Bonn, Germany.
Gujarati, D. N. (2004). Basic econometrics (4th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Heckman, J. (1979). Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica, 47(1), 153-161.
Inglehard R., Foa, R., Peterson, C., & Wetzel, C. (2008). Development, freedom and rising happiness: A global perspective (1981-2007). Perspective on Psychological Science, 3(4), 264-285.
Lim, H. E. (2008). The use of different happiness rating scales: Bias and comparison problem? Social Indicators Research, 87(2), 259-267.
Pugno, M. (2011). Scitovsky and the Easterlin paradox. Working Paper 7/2011, Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche, Universita di Cassino, Cassion.
Stevenson, B., & Wolfers, J. (2008). Economic growth and subjective well-being: Rreassessing the Easterlin Paradox. Brooking Paper on Economic Activity, 1-87.
Tian, G., & Yang, L. (2010). How are income and non-income factors different in promoting happiness? An answer to the Easterlin Paradox. Online paper. Retrieved from: http://econweb.tamu.edu/tian/happiness-tian-yang-10-03.pdf Journal of Economics and Sustainability
