What do self-reports of wellbeing say about life-cycle theory and policy?

被引:33
作者
Deaton, Angus [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Princeton Univ, Princeton, NJ 08544 USA
[2] Univ Southern Calif, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
关键词
Happiness; Cantril ladder; Life cycle; Optimism; Transfer policy; Age; Sex; HEALTH; INCOME;
D O I
10.1016/j.jpubeco.2018.02.014
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
020101 [政治经济学];
摘要
I respond to Atkinson's plea to revive welfare economics, and to consider alternative ethical frameworks when making policy recommendations. I examine a measure of self-reported evaluative wellbeing, the Cantril Ladder, and use data from Gallup to examine wellbeing over the life-cycle. I assess the validity of the measure, and show that it is hard to reconcile with familiar theories of intertemporal choice. I find a worldwide optimism about the future; in spite of repeated evidence to the contrary, people consistently but irrationally predict they will be better off five years from now. The gap between future and current wellbeing diminishes with age, and in rich countries, is negative among the elderly. I also use the measure to think about income transfers by age and sex. Policies that give priority those with low incomes favor the young and the old, while utilitarian policies favor the middle aged, and men over women.
引用
收藏
页码:18 / 25
页数:8
相关论文
共 34 条
[31]
Subjective wellbeing, health, and ageing [J].
Steptoe, Andrew ;
Deaton, Angus ;
Stone, Arthur A. .
LANCET, 2015, 385 (9968) :640-648
[32]
Stevenson B, 2008, BROOKINGS PAP ECO AC, P1
[33]
A snapshot of the age distribution of psychological well-being in the United States [J].
Stone, Arthur A. ;
Schwartz, Joseph E. ;
Broderick, Joan E. ;
Deaton, Angus .
PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 2010, 107 (22) :9985-9990
[34]
The Effect of Mood on Judgments of Subjective Well-Being: Nine Tests of the Judgment Model [J].
Yap, Stevie C. Y. ;
Wortman, Jessica ;
Anusic, Ivana ;
Baker, S. Glenn ;
Scherer, Laura D. ;
Donnellan, M. Brent ;
Lucas, Richard E. .
JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2017, 113 (06) :939-961