Picture: Jorge Gómez-Paredes (generated in Canva)

Happiness is one of those elusive concepts, yet one that we’ve probably all inquired about, both to ourselves and to others: “Are you happy?” But does happiness matter? A prior question might be: Is happiness humanity’s supreme good? Is general happiness what governments should aim to promote and what societies should strive to achieve?

The notion that our goal in life is to achieve happiness is not new; it can be easily linked to concepts of hedonism in ancient Greece. More utilitarian perspectives, which claim that humanity’s goal should be to maximize happiness for all, can be associated with the 18^th/19^th-century British philosopher Jeremy Bentham’s principle: “the greatest happiness for the greatest number”. Of course, what is considered “new” is a matter of perspective. If we look at Homo sapiens’ approximately 300,000 years of existence and the conditions our species endured for much of that time, one could argue that what has been in the minds of humans for most of that time is survival rather than happiness. Even today, hundreds of millions of people struggle to survive under the harsh conditions dictated by extreme poverty. However, by the same token, modernity has ensured that the survival of billions into older age is more or less guaranteed. And with physiological needs largely met, humans tend to shift their focus to “higher-level” needs (as described in Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs). As a result, happiness—or more precisely, subjective well-being, which encompasses life evaluation, affect (emotional experiences), and eudaimonia (a sense of meaning or purpose)—is now on the agenda.

At the same time, social policies and the welfare state have shifted from being a product of nationalism aimed at empowering the state and its economy, as pioneered by Otto von Bismarck in 19^th-century Germany, to a focus on the general well-being of citizens, which is now said to be the goal of social and economic development and the primary mandate of representative democracies that have spread across the world. Under this modern paradigm, it makes sense to inquire about the happiness of a country’s citizens and to consider subjective well-being as a metric for measuring progress and making comparisons between countries.

In 2011, the United Nations (UN) General Assembly adopted Resolution 65/309 titled “Happiness: towards a holistic approach to development”, sponsored by the government of Bhutan, which in 2008 had enshrined the Gross National Happiness (GNH) Index in its constitution as the measure of the country’s progress. The UN welcomed Bhutan’s offer to convene the 2012 high-level meeting, “Well-being and Happiness: Defining a New Economic Paradigm”, during which the first “World Happiness Report” (WHR), published by Columbia University’s Earth Institute, was presented. The report aimed to provide scientific support for measures of well-being. This occurred amid growing calls for new indicators to assess the sustainable development of nations, as Gross Domestic Product (GDP) —still the primary benchmark of economic progress today— only accounts for the size of an economy, not for its characteristics. Specifically, GDP reflects the total amount of goods and services, in monetary terms, produced within a year, including those based on unsustainable patterns of production and consumption.

Nowadays, the WHR is an annual publication released around the International Day of Happiness on March 20^th. It is produced by the University of Oxford’s Well-being Research Centre, in partnership with an editorial board, the United Nations Sustainable Development Solutions Network, and Gallup. The report includes a country ranking based on survey responses to a simple self-assessed life evaluation question, known as the “Cantril Ladder”:

“Please imagine a ladder with steps numbered from 0 at the bottom to 10 at the top. The top of the ladder represents the best possible life for you, and the bottom of the ladder represents the worst possible life for you. On which step of the ladder would you say you personally feel you stand at this time?”

With approximately 1,000 citizens surveyed annually per country, each year’s rankings result from the average scores of responses from that year and the two preceding years. The WHR then incorporates additional data to help explain these results. So far, it has identified six key variables that can explain about 75% of the scores, namely: a) log GDP per capita, b) social support—having someone to count on—, c) healthy life expectancy, d) freedom to make life choices, e) generosity, and f) freedom from corruption. While correlations between these variables and life evaluation scores do not imply causality, it is worth noting that GDP per capita explains only a fraction of the scores (23.66% on average in 2025), second to social support, which is the stronger predictor (23.79% average in 2025). This suggests that GDP is also not the driver of happiness, which may explain why Finland, the “happiest country” (ranked 1^st by the WHR) for eight consecutive years, holds only the 17^th position among the top 20 countries with the highest GDP per capita. Furthermore, while it is reasonable to assume that economic growth enhances well-being by improving living standards, particularly in the early stages of economic development, the direct correlation between GDP per capita and happiness may be more circumstantial than straightforward.  

We can certainly acknowledge potential shortcomings in the Cantril Ladder metrics (e.g., the effects of international social comparisons on responses), in the exploration of explanatory factors (e.g, two-way relationships such as happier people being healthier and healthier people being happier), and in establishing country role models solely based on subjective well-being (e.g., neglecting their global climate and ecological impacts, as well as their impacts on other countries). However, in a global economy primarily powered by fossil fuels, GDP growth remains positively correlated with greenhouse gas emissions, particularly with CO₂, with a clear causal link (through energy consumption). And although there are signs of an apparent decoupling between GDP and CO₂ emissions, it remains insufficient at the global level. Hence, we can objectively conclude that increases in the size of the economy contribute to climate instability, pushing us closer to tipping points and environmental conditions that could result in dire living conditions for humanity, along with significant reductions in multiple dimensions of well-being. Therefore, rather than continuing to focus on the growth of global production and consumption, we should prioritize the growth of subjective well-being—incorporating global impacts, such as climate change contributions, into country rankings (e.g., the Happy Planet Index). In other words, we may be better off pursuing subjective well-being rather than continuing down a path towards objective ill-being.

Finally, as the human population is set to continue growing for several more decades, we must also find ways to decouple perceptions of happiness from material consumption if we wish to retain the luxury of striving for happiness, rather than—again—merely for survival.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Novia University of Applied Sciences.

The blogpost has been reviewed by Novia's editorial board and accepted for publication on 5.5.2025.