HAPPINESS-ORIENTED POLICY

In many countries, a great deal of policy is already focused on residents’ quality of life, although much more could be done in all of them. The reason this type of policy is already being implemented is that many countries have reached the following stages:

1. Rule of Law, based on liberal democracy, individual rights and freedoms, equality before the law, separation of powers, and other mechanisms to prevent abuses. It includes various policies aimed at achieving Jeremy Bentham’s ideal of the greatest level of happiness for the greatest number of people, such as those designed to guarantee security. This ideal was a shared slogan among Enlightenment thinkers, which gave rise to this type of state. In fact, as a consequence, the right to the pursuit of happiness was included in the U.S. Constitution.

2. Welfare State (material), based on instruments such as public healthcare, retirement pensions, disability and orphan benefits, unemployment benefits, assistance for the poor and for dependent persons, or a minimum wage. These mechanisms are intended to combat certain forms of human suffering, as a consequence of the precarious conditions in which many people found themselves in the 19th century. These were situations for which the rule of law did not provide an answer and which led to the emergence of Marxism and social democracy.

The policies of the Rule of Law and the (material) Welfare State have undoubtedly greatly reduced distress and increased quality of life. However, just as we have continued to evolve from the 18th to the 20th century, in the 21st century we can do so by moving to more advanced stages in terms of being oriented toward happiness:

3. Personal Welfare State, which is aimed at optimising, to the greatest extent possible, the happiness of the greatest number of people and other sentient beings with the resources available. This does not mean achieving absolute happiness, which is very likely a utopia. It includes 3 components:

• Legislation and policies that are ambitious and effective for the ongoing improvement of well-being.

• Allocation of resources to the development of quality of life, which will be greater or lesser depending on the wealth available and on the extent to which citizens in each country and at each time wish to devote part of it to well-being policies.

• Excellence, that is, effectiveness and rigour in how the state operates, which also contributes to social well-being and to having the maximum resources available to implement the above policies. Read more at…

LET’S BUILD A BETTER WORLD!: Let’s strive for excellence to achieve it

The degree of progress of the Personal Welfare State will depend on the level of implementation of the three guidelines above. Evolving toward that type of state is not and will not be easy, since politicians focus their policies primarily on citizens’ most pressing concerns, such as employment, economic growth, public safety, or immigration.

Some countries, such as Bhutan, the United Kingdom, and France, have shown sensitivity on the issue of policies oriented toward subjective well-being. Likewise, in July 2011 the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution inviting its member states to measure their population’s happiness and use it to help guide their public policies.

It is bold and not very rigorous to try to predict what will happen in the future, and therefore I will refrain from doing so, but I do dare to state that:

• Just as an evolution (not linear, but with ups and downs) toward a society more oriented toward well-being has continued from the 18th century to the present, that progress will likely continue in the future.

• Progress toward the Personal Welfare Society will probably originate more from the bottom up than from the top down. As has happened many times in politics, first there is an evolution in public opinion’s sensitivity toward certain issues, and subsequently governments adapt their policies to those social trends.

• For this reason, it will likely be a slow evolution, since changes in mindset and priorities usually take time.

• It is likely to happen earlier in advanced, prosperous societies with a high level of education. In fact, it is in those societies that a growing interest in personal well-being is most evident. The typical profile of people who connect most with these topics has mainly a high and upper-middle cultural and economic level and is located primarily in urban areas, especially in large metropolitan areas.

• It is very likely that the increase in social and political orientation toward happiness will be greater during periods of economic growth, low unemployment, good healthcare and education, and, in general, little concern about other types of problems. When there are other more pressing needs and problems, such as public insecurity or corruption, these are prioritised over well-being, no matter how much everyone wants to be happy and places this aspiration at the top of their list. As a result, during times of economic crisis or conflict there may even be a regression in the orientation toward personal well-being.

• All happiness-oriented policies cannot be applied all at once; rather, it is a process, beginning with the highest priorities and making gradual improvements.

The following sets out which type of policy is most oriented toward quality of life: