Summary Notes from Students on The Politics

of Happiness
GROUP 1

Chapter 1: What Investigators have Discovered

Retirement:
Bok acknowledges that differences in average happiness among nations are highly
correlated to differences in citizens average per capita income. As such, it is suggested that
wealthier countries have happier populations than poorer nations. That said, long-term studies
suggest that over long periods of time peoples satisfaction has little variance with the rise and fall
of income. Bok seeks to break explain the controversy of why rising levels of prosperity have not
increased levels of happiness, when individuals with higher incomes tend to be happier and to do so
he raises five possible explanations. Firstly, it is suggested that richer people are happier not
because their incomes make them so, but rather because happier workers tend to be more
successful and earn more money. Secondly, Bok posits that income growth has been responsible for
greater happiness, however the effects have been nullified by other trends in society, which have
decreased well being. These effects Bok refers to include increased levels of divorce, crime,
unemployment and other social issue. Thirdly, Bok discusses how increased wealth is only going to a
select number, which explains why you are not seeing a broad increase of happiness across the
American population. Fourthly, it is suggested that individuals are happy with their own income, as
it compares with others. This means that if everyone elses income increases aside yours, this does
not produce greater happiness. Finally, Bok describes the problem of people constantly aspiring to
greater riches.

Bok turns to the interesting finding by psychologists that people are bad judges of what
makes them happy-- both in terms of length and duration of happiness. People commonly state
that they think a higher income would make them happy; however, they do not realize how quickly
they will adapt to their new income level. With these points in mind, Bok identifies 6 important
factors which have greater influence on lasting happiness: marriage, strong social relationships,
employment, health, religion, and quality of government. Marriage is shown to help individuals
immune systems and acts as a buffer against adversity. As a result, married couples are found to be
more satisfied with their lives, live longer, less likely to be depressed, and less likely to experience
health problems. Strong social relationships are also found to be a positive influence on happiness,
with the intuitive explanation that people feel happier around other people then they do when they
are alone. The impact of social relationships can be quite substantial on happiness, with the finding
that being part of a social club or volunteering monthly is equivalent to the doubling of income.
Employment helps people to feel happy if they are trustworthy of management. On the flip side,
losing a job or being let go has been shown to having lasting negative effects and can take quite
1

some time for people to recover from. Health is found to influence happiness based on an
individuals perceived level of health, as opposed to the doctors diagnosis. This sounds strange, but
it is because an individuals perception may reflect other factors such as depression, anxiety, and
social isolation, which a doctor might not pick up on. That being said, chronic pain and terminal
diseases such as cancer negatively affect happiness. The fifth factor, religion, is found to lead to
better health, longer life, and lower crime or suicide rate. Both being part of a religious community
and actually believing in god increase happiness levels. Religion helps individuals to find meaning
within their lives and to feel that life is worthwhile. The final factor influencing happiness is quality
of government. Living in a democracy with guarantees of economic and personal freedom, the rule
of law, low level of violence and corruption, trust in public officials, and tolerance of minorities has
a positive influence on peoples wellbeing.
The third key topic of focus in Chapter 1 was on the methods used for measuring individual
happiness. Experience sampling is when researchers ask individuals about their feelings at various
points in the day. Experience sampling can give conflicting resultspeople tend to not attack much
significance to things that happen in their day-to-day life, but then looking back they see a lot more
meaning to those events. One of the most interesting results that experience sampling has revealed
in terms of happiness is that people tend to experience greater happiness throughout their day
doing everything but work. Considering that people spend majority of their day and life at work, this
creates an interesting dilemma in terms of how policy makers can increase well-being. Another
interesting result produced by experience sampling is that people in different groups may have
different perceptions of an event (ex. Married, cohabiting, divorced). For example, a divorced
individual may think they are unhappy compared to a married individual, when they may actually
have a higher level of happiness because they have more time to spend on things they enjoy such
as friends and family rather than household duties. There are important factors to keep in mind
with experience sampling, such as the fact that different cultures vary in their willingness to tell an
interviewer that they are very satisfied with their lives, which may skew results.
Issues/ interesting points for debate:
In Chapter 1 of The Politics of Happiness one of the central concepts is the sources of
happiness. These sources can be broken down into key categories outlines above. Bok uses these
sources to explain that how happy or unhappy someone may be is primarily related to circumstances of
these sources. However, a critical point of interest and debate comes from the Comparing Nations
section of this chapter on page 26 It is more likely that people have a natural tendency to be happy that
exists even in trying circumstances due to their remarkable ability to adapt to differing environments.
The idea of adaptability is further unpacked in Chapter 2 but the notion that people have a natural
disposition to be happy leads to a lot of questions about the science of happiness. How accurate are all
the statistics if a certain level of happiness cannot be reasoned? Since it assumes everyone has a natural
disposition to be happy does that mean the natural increase cancels itself out because everyone has
relatively the same disposition to be happy, or are some nations more likely to have a higher
unexplainable, natural happiness? This point is quite controversial because it can be used to both
support and disprove Boks theories about happiness and the research credibility of the science of
happiness.
2

Most married couples are anxious and excited to have children as soon as they tie the knot.
According to Bok (2010), couples that chose not to have children are just as happy (if not more) than
those who do (p. 19). In fact, couples that do have children experience on average more tension,
depression, and emotional distress than couple without children (Ibid.). Daniel Gilbert suggests that a
couples happiness actually declines after they have children, and does not rise again until said children
move out of their home (Ibid.). Many researchers disagree with these findings as many parents state
that their children are their greatest source of happiness. All in all, then, the effects of having children
are not entirely clear, although the weight of the evidence suggests that parenthood often fails to
increase well-being significantly, let alone bring as much happiness to most parents as popular opinion
would suggest (Ibid.).
Chapter 6: Financial Hardships
There has been a shift of responsibility from the employer to the employee to save for
retirement, which is concerning because the average retiree does not have an accurate conception of
how much they need to save to live comfortably for the rest of their life. It is estimated that 15-20% of
people will face severe health problems or be laid off and unable to save enough for retirement. The
average age of retirement is 62, but Bok suggests the age of retirement needs to be closer to age 67 to
attain proper retirement savings. Analysts are concerned that those who retire in the future will face
hardships in greater numbers unless Congress takes more effective steps to create policies that will
protect retirees. However, the view that people are not saving enough for retirement is disputed by
other analysts. Looking at important statistics, 35% of households have no member with a pension plan.
In workplaces that offer the choice to join a plan and contribute to a pension only 74% of workers are
doing so, and only 10% are contributing the maximum allowable amount. Many are even borrowing
against the plan and do not purchase annuity at retirement, but instead spend it and risk outliving their
savings. Saving pensions indepenantly has virtually disappeared altogether. Despite these alarming
statistics, at retirement 60% claim to be very satisfied while 30% are moderately satisfied, and over half
of the elderly population finding retirement better than their lives prior to retirement. The most difficult
aspect of saving for retirement is the psychological barriers that people must overcome. Studies have
found that people choose not to think about their savings for retirement until their mid 50s, because
the human mind tries to block out depressing and fearful thoughts, and retirement seems like a distant
problem in the future as opposed to an immediate problem. In terms of policy recommendations, Bok
says the government should be encouraging retirees to purchase annuities to avoid the risk of outliving
their savings, and offering programs to limit the cost of long-term nursing care so it doesnt force elderly
couples into poverty. There should be an increase in minimum social security benefits since many of the
elderly are not responsible for their condition, as they spent their life working a low-wage job and then
faced something out of their control such as severe illness. Requiring workers who are not contributing
to their employers pension plan to sign a form stating this would help people to be consciously aware of
their decision and to give further consideration to their retirement plan.
Illness and Health Care
The United States has managed to spend more per capita on healthcare than any other country
on the planet, and is the only advanced industrial nation that does not guarantee adequate health care
for all its citizens. This dilemma has formed as a result of relying on health insurance supplied by
employers offering benefits many years ago, but many employers have since cut back on these benefits
3

or stopped offering them altogether. As a consequence, 45 million people are uninsured with 29 million
underinsured. The toll of being underinsured is primarily being felt by low-wage earners, which is
negative for health as they can visit emergency rooms but tend to do so once their illness has reached a
severe or critical state. An estimated 18,000 people between 25-64 die unnecessarily every year do the
inadequate care. People are far more stressed about their health and access to care than retirement
because the risk seems more immediate, while retirement seems far off in the future. If the American
government was to bring proper health care within the financial reach of everyone, it would especially
increase the well-being of younger Americans. It would also provide financial relief for families as 20% of
those who have declared bankruptcy cite medical costs as the reason. The effects of healthcare policy
on happiness can be seen by looking at Medicare: when it was extended to those over 65 years old, the
elderly went from somewhat less happy than younger Americans to somewhat more happy. Bok
recommends an insurance plan that covers a range of essential services, including long-term care,
which would help workers to be less dependent on their employment for health care services. There
should also be policy to put a ceiling on the out of pocket charges on health care for individuals to make
sure that it is not unreasonable compared to their individual income.
Unemployment
Layoffs have become more prominent over the past few decades, with 4.3% of the American
workforce being laid off annually by companies wishing to improve their bottom line. The loss of a job
comes at an extreme cost to individual happiness, with it taking several years for a person to fully
recover and regain their previous level of well-being as they gain a great deal of anxiety and feel
rejected. Those who lose their job multiple times are less likely to want to work altogether. Researchers
show that lay-offs do not have long-term positive benefits for companies other than temporarily
pleasing shareholders. Under half of all workers in the United States are eligible to receive
unemployment insurance, and benefits last for only 26 weeks, leading many to pull out their retirement
savings. The government does offer training programs, but less is spent on training than other
industrialized nations, and few have actually been proved to be more than mildly helpful. A lot of jobs
could be saved if more policies were put in place to enforce grounds for lay-offs, such as a 60 day notice
prior to lay-off. More effective training programs would be useful to help workers, as well as extending
assistance for the unemployed so that they can attend college or school to gain important skills to get
back into their workforce. Another proposal by Bok is offering workers compensation for half of their
lost earnings if they for take a lower-paying job within 6 months of being laid off to get back into the
workforce.
Discussion Topics/ Interesting Points:
-The section on personal responsibility: Who should take the onus on providing health benefits,
unemployment insurance, and retirement savings? Should this be the responsibility of individuals alone,
or should the government be doing more to help them? Many argue it will weaken America by
undermining peoples resilience and self-reliance. Bok presents many common arguments for personal
responsibility, but then refutes them stating that many of the severe hardships individuals face are due
to circumstances out of their control. Which do you agree with? How does the idea of the American
dream (hard work, being able to purchase what you desire) impact people being able to plan for
retirement, health care, unemployment?

-Bok makes an interesting argument that Americans are exposed to so much advertising and put under
so much pressure to continually buy products that it is difficult to hold them responsible for adequately
saving enough money for retirement, health care, etc. Do you agree with this?

Group D
The Politics of Happiness Notes
Chapter 3
3 main points
1.
Happiness is an important goal but it should not be the only goal for policy makers.
Happiness research is most useful when we find out something we think make us
happy doesnt actually. This would be a good time to use happiness research in public
policy.
Only focusing on happiness for the greatest amount of people can erode minority
rights. For example, free speech for some can cause happiness for certain groups and
take away happiness from other groups. Bok gives the example of someone saying
racist things, like an offensive joke. Bok gives another example of the prisoner who
becomes happy within his circumstances even if they are legally/morally unjustified.
Should we take this happiness seriously and allow injustices to the prisoner occur
because he claims to be happy?
2.
Listening to what the public has to say about happiness vs. what academia and
experiments show what make people happy. People are bad judges of their own
happiness and therefore policy makers should not create laws solely based on public
perception of what makes them happy. For example, many people think that if they
had more money they would be happier and therefore aim to increase their income. If
states listen to the public on this they would be making their goals to increase GDP.
However the Bok book shows through experiments and studies that happiness in fact
is not that affected by having more money. Humans dont recognize their ability to
5

adapt to changing circumstances be they positive or negative and this can create
misguided judgments.
3.
Should all citizens happiness be accounted for, and should they be accounted for
equally? This issue seems to be an impossible and difficult task for policy makers to
compare and value levels of happiness. Invading Iraq might make some citizens
happy, but could make the people in the military or their relatives unhappy. It could
also have a negative affect on the happiness of Iraqi citizens. Another example is
introducing a tax on smoking. This could cause people to stop smoking and therefore
make them happy. However people who do not have the willpower to stop smoking
would be unhappy by this tax. How do we balance these levels of happiness?
2 points of disagreement/discussion
1. Is your responsibility as a leader of a country to maximize happiness within your
country or within the world?
a. If a leader wants to maximize world happiness they would be more open to
humanitarian aid (if you have the resources available). However this could have a
negative affect on happiness of the countrys citizens.
b. If a leader is only concerned about the happiness of their own citizens that could
justify invading and exploiting other countries. An extreme example of this would be
colonization.
c. What groups happiness should be weighted more heavily? Is it possible to satisfy
both?
2. Should policy makers be using happiness research?
a. Using happiness research might dictate what is best in the long term, however
citizens may not be able to see this and therefore be against long term policy goals.
b. This could result in public officials being voted out and unable to complete long
term policy objectives
c. Bok talks about how young people tend to me unhappier over elderly people
therefore should there be more done for younger people to make them happier.
d. We can learn from existing ideas and knowledge of what makes people happy
6

e. Happiness research may have a role to play but must be balanced with other
considerations
Chapter 8
3 main points
1.
The divorce rate in the US is the highest in the world, and only 40% of couples have
received couple counseling. Strengthening existing marriages is essential to improve
happiness nationwide. Divorce is more likely to induce unhappiness such as
psychological harm for the men including experiencing depression, and women can
have more stress due to loss of income. Bok writes about teaching couples conflict
resolution as an important factor for marriage since most conflict is temporary and can
be overcome within a few years.
Strengthening marriage is also essential for children within the family as well.
Children who felt their parents were colder and less affectionate experienced more
illness later on in life than children who described their parents as warm and
affectionate. Children growing up in a household with both parents are more likely to
have a better school performance, fewer emotional and behavioral problems, less
substance abuse, less abuse or neglect, less criminal activity and fewer out of wedlock
births. Children may blame themselves for divorce and a parents remarriage may
bring new tensions into the home.
2.
Removing economic barriers for low income young couples that wish to marry. Bok
focuses on discouraging out of wedlock births as a solution to create more happiness.
Bok discusses controversial policies such as a combination of tougher child support
enforcement and stricter requirements for women in welfare to go to work to reduce
the likelihood of pregnancy.
Bok offers some solutions such as higher minimum wage, expanded earned income
tax credit coupled with better job training and greater efforts to persuade boys to stay
in high school and graduate. Congress also needs to examine ways to reduce the
financial disincentives to marriages that poor women face by having to give up
various means-tested benefits if they marry a steady wage earner.
3.

Parents need prenatal care to improve childcare, paid parental leave and education for
children after birth. Prenatal education is more likely to result in healthier children and
can encourage parents to be better parents. Bok focuses on early childhood care and
stimulation being essential for increased intelligence. America is also the only
industrialized country that does not have paid parental leave and can be holding back
childhood development and decreasing happiness within a family. The Bok also
mentions after school early childhood programs such as the Head Start Program that
have shown to be successful in making kids more likely to graduate and work and less
likely to be involved in crime or drugs. These programs may be expensive to
implement however are more economically beneficial in the long run.
2 points of disagreement/discussion
1. Overemphasis on marriage being a necessity is problematic, and Bok has an
outdated view of what marriage is. Bok purely looks at marriage from an economic
standpoint and does not consider other factors. We dont disagree that economic
factors are important in the decision to get married but he does not account for
personal life choices. Bok emphasizes how divorce rates are rising and attributes this
to unhappiness however he neglects to see the secularization of the state and how
divorce is more normalized. Bok sees the institution of marriage as the only goal to
gain happiness; however there are other goals for that people can accomplish to gain
happiness.
2. Does not offer clear policy solutions to the issues discussed throughout the chapter.
Bok does not acknowledge same-sex marriage and those who are legally unable to
marry when he wrote this. This would be a very simple policy change to allow samesex marriage to increase happiness, yet he does not mention this. This just shows how
Bok has a narrow scope of what marriage can be and the amount of happiness it can
create. Bok goes back and forth on whether early childhood education is plausible.
Bok also recommends that women should go back to work through making it hard to
access healthcare; however then proceeds to say how women need to spend time with
their children. This will not discourage women to not have children; all it will do is
punish women who get pregnant as a young age. Boks perspective is one of
privileged and educated lens, which homogenizes people and assumes that people
would all think the same way he would.

Group R-S
Chapters 4 & 8

Chapter 4: The Question of Growth

Summary Point 1: Economic Growth
why has increasing GDP been a central policy concern for the government when it
has not been shown to increase overall national happiness?
GDP is seen as important in the way people perceive each other's worth (part of
Americas national identity)
Policy proposals are evaluated based on their estimated effects on the rate of
economic expansion
economic growth is politically appealing to powerful groups of society (business,
labor markets and lawmakers)
expansion is at the core of domestic policy- but expansion is not always universal
or equitable
Bok argues that its possible the US has already achieved enough growth to bring
people out of poverty but because of income distribution, growth may only further
exacerbate the division between the wealthiest and poorest groups of society
the US market is so intertwined with other countries that US cessation of growth
could have detrimental effects on other nations development, prosperity, wellbeing and thus potentially their national happiness levels
even though increasing growth may not be proven to increase happiness, Bok
stipulates that in an effort to slow growth, public officials could cause the country to
fall into a depression, with widespread unemployment and distress and therefore
the potentially for unhappiness could increase
...it turns out that the government will have a hard time making people happier so
long as Americans lack a clearer understanding of the kinds of activities that will
bring them lasting satisfaction. (p.76)
Summary Point 2: The Controversy of Growth
- challenges to individual: paradox between economic growth and happiness because
people have this false idea of what makes people happy and as long as they are
under this impression that economic growth brings happiness
- ironic to impose measures of happiness because Americans highly support
economic growth and are under the impression that it brings further happiness or
well-being.
- dont know what effects this have on the economic growth of a country - uncertain if
reducing hours actually brings happiness or well being because people end up using
their leisure time to do things that dont increase happiness

hard to limit growth because technology has merged the lines between leisure and
pleasure - even when youre off work are you really off?
- income distribution - controversial because no matter how much the
economy grows there is always going to be the majority that are worse
off.
- yesterdays luxuries become todays necessities - adapting to these
standards means that satisfaction or an increase of well being is only
temporary and soon people will become accustomed to the increase of
material goods.
challenges to country:
if the government legislates using leisure time in effective ways who regulates this,
the only way to do this is through education.
even with all this information it is hard to give up growth and economic productivity
because a lot of people would base the success of the country by the GDP and use
this as a quantitative measure of development or success.
tools to halt economic growth would have severe repercussions around the world
and would have negative effects globally because it is such a large economic power.

Summary of the Controversies Surrounding Economic Growth (Part 2 Continued):

This section challenges the idea that with economic growth comes increases in
happiness and well-being. Americans support economic growth and are under the impression
that it brings greater happiness and well-being, but this fact has not been proven and this is
where the controversy lies. According to Easterlin, despite the growth in the US GDP over the
last half-century, happiness among Americans has not increased. This is because people are
only temporarily satisfied with the luxuries that come with an increase in economic incomes or
growth and people adapt to these new standards and they soon become necessities.
Due to the misguided perception of what creates happiness, even if governments
impose policies that try and promote well-being such as a reducing work hours, there is no way
to regulate how people will spend their leisure time. In the readings, Bok explains that
Americans tend to spend their leisure time in ways that actually has no positive impact towards
their well-being.
While economic growth may not necessarily correspond with an increase in the
happiness of a population, it is argued that a stagnation in economic growth would have severe
implications for the country as a whole. Considering the domination of the United States in the
global economy, any efforts to control their complex economy would have adverse effects on an
international scale as well.

Summary Point 3: Will Americans Change Their Minds?

1. Can the government make benefits more attractive for young professionals? Americans
believe that the society is becoming very materialistic (89% agree to this), which is seen
through the problematic emphasis on money (86% agree to this). However, does money
really bring happiness? This book assumes it does not. As americans claim that society
10

is becoming materialistic, the rise of technology has become more desirable and
essential to the happiness and satisfaction of society. However, people are working
more, solely to spend more money on their materialistic needs and are in doing so
caught up in a vicious cycle that they have become unaware of the consequences.
2. It would be hard to impose limitations on young professionals. We are socialized to pay
our dues to advance ourselves. Therefore, Americans may find it difficult to change
their minds when it comes to working hours, wages, and economic growth. For
example, most young professionals work 70 hours and claim that they enjoy the hectic
pace.per week Most people enjoy their careers, and so by enforcing restrictions, the
government is restricting their happiness. (example: two thirds of young extreme
professionals responded to loving their jobs when surveyed.)
3. The expense of leisure hours: what people are actually doing with their time. It is difficult
to monitor what people do with their additional leisure time. There has been a rise in
people watching television and a drop in people socializing and reading. Television is
seen as a passive pastime that does not benefit happiness, whereas reading and
socializing has been shown to increase peoples satisfaction. Therefore providing more
leisure time does not guarantee that people will spend it productively.
2 Points for Debate:
1. Can money buy happiness? Does the economically motivated way in which Americans
supposedly lead their lives reduce or eliminate the need for a government policy to
increase happiness if money is able to provide happiness on its own?
2. Is it wise for Americans to continue to prioritize economic growth, knowing the research
available on happiness and that there are other factors other than wealth that influence
peoples overall satisfaction. The cycle of economic growth is not increasing overall
happiness, is that plausible to strive for?

Chapter 8: Marriages and Families

Summary Point 1: Increasing the Success of Marriages via governmental programs and
policies
- A circular effect:
- marriage has shown to increase happiness, but happy people are also more
likely to get married.
- Marriage affects not only the couple's happiness, but also the childrens
- Divorce and separation can result in substantial decline in well-being for several years
- divorce itself comes from a decline in happiness (decline in satisfaction with the
marriage)
- However, before the divorce is initiated, happiness levels also decline due to a
lack of agreement

11

US has the highest levels of divorce in the world. Divorce has increased in the
US over the 20th century while overall happiness of married people has
decreased
- Can the Government implement policies to help marriages?
- Boks question: are there policies that exist that can do something to
strengthen marriages and relationships and promote the healthy
development of children.
3 Strategies to help strengthen marriage/families
1.Through education- by telling teenagers how and why to avoid becoming pregnant, or
teaching better skills of communication and conflict avoidance to young couples before
marriage. Many young unmarried females without education are more likely to regret their
pregnancy, and so by improving access to education we can avoid this misfortune
2. Alter incentives in ways that will discourage out-of-wedlock pregnancy and persuade
low-income couples to marry. (Tax benefits single moms, but then moms became afraid to to
marry because they would lose that tax benefit, and so quite often children grew up without
fathers)
3. take steps that will encourage better care of children. some of the reasons why having
children fails to increase well being has to do with conditions that public policy can address. (i.e.
paid parental leave to spend more time with family)
Overall: The use of lawmakers to consider more comprehensive efforts similar to the
Minnesota Family Investment Program (which increased funding for child care, wage subsidies)
in doing so, the divorce rate was substantially lower
Human relationships may be the most important source of happiness but changing the
way people feel about one another remains a formidable challenge at best
Summary Point 2: Helping Children Thrive via governmental programs and policy
In regards to pre-childbirth, Bok suggests that the government needs to focus on timely
and continuous care for expecting mothers and unborn children (in the form of education and
healthcare services). Some policy initiatives that are mentioned include:
1. Education for mothers on the negative effects of drinking and smoking
2. Subsidies for low-income earners to make education from a young age affordable and
adequate contributing to the development of infants cognitive abilities.
These have been proven to improve the health and decrease the mortality rates of infants.
After childbirth it has been proven that the nature of the home environment as well as
the levels of stimulation that infants and children experience have long term effects on their
cognitive abilities and ultimate successes in society. It has been found that children in low
income families are less stimulated in their early years making them unprepared for
kindergarten (compared to children in more affluent homes). The Perry Project found that pre
kindergarten support and education for children from low income families had positive and
12

lasting effects on the children involved. Programs similar to the Perry project, like the Head Start
Program have contributed significantly to the well being of children (the difference between
failing and passing, regular or special education, staying out of trouble vs. crime and
delinquency and dropping out vs. completing high school). Overall the children commit less
crimes, earned more money, did less drugs and had overall lower unemployment rates,
arguably making them happier overall. There was also found to be large variations in the quality
of childcare across the United states, with minimal regulation. It was found that even the most
expensive/highest quality childcare had minimal effects on children making the government
hesitant to invest heavily in such programs.
It is challenging for governments to justify the use of education programs because of two
reasons:
1. The results or the benefits arent seen until years later in the childs life
2. There isnt a direct link between education and happiness
Although much more rigorous research is needed to promote education as being a source of it,
it is clear that education and levels of stimulation can prevent teenage pregnancy and
unprepared motherhood, keep them out of crime and drugs, and influence higher grades or
even the opportunity for these grades that would not have been possible to those individuals
who are in low-income households. Although it can not be definitively proven whether the
effects of successful early childhood programs have any impact on the happiness of their
participants, one can assume that children who grow up in an environment conducive to earning
more money, committing fewer crimes, taking fewer drugs, etc. will tend to be happier than
those with worse records.
Questions for Debate
1. As stated in the chapter, adequate programs for childcare or greater education are
necessary, though expensive. Do you think that implementing such programs, even if they may
not be at an exceptional level are worth implementing? Or do you think that governments should
refrain from implementing them at all if they aren't of exceptional quality?
2. Is it the role of the government to change family dynamics within the home? If yes, how much
happiness can really come from said intervention? If no, what alternatives could the government
provide?

13

GROUP 5

Tuesday Group Notes on CH5:

Important points emphasized in the chapter under discussion.
Inequality does not make a large difference in inequality
American standpoint (belief in social upward mobility - more than European context)
Tangential to Income Inequality- Job security, the loss of a job seems to have the biggest
impact on happiness - Joel and Jeff
Political equality- income distribution does have a large effect on this. Political influence
comes from having money. Poorer people have less of a political impact.
Equality of opportunity- would bring satisfaction to many lower income Americans. Jamie and Cammie
More income will not necessarily bring happiness, but it will probably bring political
equality, which can bring happiness...
Redistribution is not necessarily the solution, should be other programs... Such as food
stamps, etc... Because otherwise you risk injury to net happiness. - Rylan and Mary

Why Not Redistribution:

Redistribution is popular because of the economic theory of diminishing marginal utility, which
is based on the argument that the rich receive less satisfaction from each dollar, once they have
reached a certain level of income, and the money would create more satisfaction if given to a
less wealthy individual. A problem with this idea, which Bok addresses, is that taking money
from the wealthy and giving it to the poor creates more distress in the wealthy than it creates
happiness in the poor; there is a net-loss of happiness. Bok also discusses how redistribution is
often based on a sense of justice, as opposed to being done to promote greater happiness; it is
based on a false conception of the cause of happiness. Bok believes that there is a great
misconception at the root of redistributive theory which is based on the false idea that money
is the greatest, or lasting, source of happiness. While people may initially become happier, the
happiness will not persist past the short term, as people are extremely adaptive and become
accustomed to a certain level of wealth.
In order to resolve the inherent issues of income inequality without creating a system of
redistribution, Bok looks to other suggestions. Dworkin suggests creating an equality of initial
resources, and Nussbaum & Sen who suggest an equalization of capability. A specific targeting
of the problems is seen to be a better solution, where the government strives to fight hunger,
provide health care, etc as opposed to simply providing money to those less wealthy and
hoping that they use the money appropriately for their base needs. Food stamps, Medicare,
14

and child care are programs that governments could create and fund instead of simply
redistributing wealth.

Political Equality and Equality of Opportunity:

There are two important forms of equality. The first is political equality (Bok 89). By almost
universal agreement, each citizen should have an equal right to cast a ballot but no known
policy will the cause the poor to vote as frequently as the rich. If they would vote in numbers
that were the same or exceeded more affluent groups and if they could form strong unions and
political parties (as in the case in Europe), their influence would grow. However, if lower
segments of the population organize themselves in political parties or groups, they may seem
to be going against the American dream of social upward mobility. Most Americans believe that
hard work will lead to ones success, so they are more tolerant to the inequality. Yet, it is
inaccurate to place all the blame on the poor, because the unwillingness of candidates to spend
money campaigning in poorer districts also contributes to their low voting rates. Further,
redistributing income is unlikely to do much to solve this problem of wealthier citizens being at
an advantage.
The second is equality of opportunity. (Bok 94) This is considered fundamental to the American
dream. There have been many policies implemented, although imperfect, that have benefited
Americans, such as through helping all children develop according to their ability and doing
away with arbitrary obstacles to fulfilling lives. There are merits to equality of opportunity as it
improves the performance of the economy and of all other organizations by helping to ensure
that positions throughout society are filled according to peoples ability to do the job. America
does a poor job of lifting barriers from the lowest socioeconomic quartile. Measures such as
making college more affordable for lower-income families by lowering economic barriers that
have arisen as states have had to cut back on support for higher education, would probably do
more to reduce inequality of income than any top-down program of redistribution. Greater
opportunity and political influence would make expressions of well-being by the poor more
convincing and less likely to merely reflect adaptions to conditions that are unjust and
unacceptable. Unlike redistributing income, both equal opportunity and political equality are
goals that Americans support overwhelmingly.
All in all, by implementing political equality and equality of opportunity, America will be more a
just society if all its citizens have an equal voice in speaking to their government and an equal
chance to succeed in life to the fullest extent of their efforts and abilities.
Tangential to Income Inequality:
Bottom 80% of income scale report for be very happy or pretty happy, 20% not, compared to
6% in top quartile. Americans are much more likely to feel that financial and occupational
15

success comes from ability and hard work rather than luck, for example a Fast food Survey 7288% believe in the American dream. Thus giving money from rich to poor does not decline the
happiness gap. This is because low-income individuals less likely to blame society when
inequality grows and more inclined to believe that persons of great wealth must deserve their
good fortune. People enjoy great satisfaction when they know or believe they live in a just
world where hard work and good behaviour pay off. So what are main drivers of lower income
unhappiness? Behavioural patterns; such as differences in diet, smoking and alcohol use do not
change even if economic situations improves. Simply giving more money does not change
happiness because even if you give more money, utilizing the theory of marginal utility we see
diminishing returns, which is the theory that as people get more income they obtain less utility
(or benefits) from it.
Disagreement/Critique
1) Bok is making the argument that governments could do more to equalize opportunities in
schooling by continuing to narrow the differences in budgets, teacher salaries, and teacher
turnover that handicap schools in poorer communities. (Bok 96) However, this claim creates a
climate of mediocracy and is not substantially supported by empirical evidence to prove it
would be effective. Taking funds away from the institutions of one social group to benefit
another can be arguably unjust, and lead to mediocre standards for both groups. Instead of
raising the standards of both schools, that recommendation would bring social groups to a
middle ground. This would make everyone theoretically equal, but simultaneously the
achievements would be lower.
2) Bok discusses an opinion that is particularly prevalent among Americans: that upward social
mobility is possible for everyone who is willing to work for it. While an admirable belief, many
Americans face systematic disadvantages that obstruct their climb up the social ladder. The
wide acceptance of the pull-up-your-bootstraps argument likely has a negative influence on
public opinion in regards to government-run welfare programmes, hindering the governments
ability to implement such programmes and thus their ability to help those struggling the most
due to income inequality.

Thursday Group Notes on CH10:

Important points emphasized in the chapter under discussion
Negative attitudes are a self-fulfilling prophecy... Cyclical
We can change those perceptions through the media and college education
o Reporters need to exercise considerable imagination to look at positive
accomplishments not only negative - negative info is on the rise, fosters a sense of
distrust in politicians
o Journalism should be more than soundbites of politicians, taken out of contextunimportant issues take up more media time than serious policy issues/proposals

16

Media does negativity because it gets more viewership, which is necessary in an era
where media is profit driven, all about 'hits', and followers.
o USA edu system does a poor job, primary and post-secondary - bc we have majors
we do not have a breadth of civic information, creates poor citizenship
o Compulsory courses on actual legislation/policy formation, instead of just focusing
on critical thinking
USA Government Performance Perceived, Actual, and Comparative:
In this chapter, one of the key ideas discussed by Bok is the USA's government performance,
and he breaks this down in three ways: performance as measured objectively, performance
compared to other developed democracies, and performance as perceived by the American
public. Bok presents statistics which show that between 1960 and 2000 there has been
substantial progress on 2/3 of 75 common American goals, such as economic growth and good
health care. In only one quarter of the 75 goals did America not progress, and these were areas
where government control over results were relatively tenuous. While these results may seem
impressive, Bok points out that the American's progress in 2/3 of the 75 cases was below
average when compared with 6 other leading democracies. Overall, America's performance was
mediocre in all 75 categories in comparison to the other democracies. In the World Bank study,
which measures nation's voice and accountability, political stability, effectiveness of
government, quality of regulation, rule of law, and control of corruption, USA was ranked third
from the bottom. The USA was ranked above Japan and France, but below Sweden, Canada, the
UK, and Germany (in that order). In the World Bank study, the USA had the lowest ranking in
political stability of all democracies included in the comparison.
Perceived performance of governmental success is not performing well, either, as most
Americans believe the USA is performing poorly. Bok presented a study which showed that 2/3
of Americans do not trust the federal government to do the right thing all, or even most, of the
time. Most believe that more than half of every tax dollar collected by the government is
wasted on overhead costs, or is simply misspent.
Changing Perception through Media and Education:
Perception of the United States government is rather poor. Perception is driven by different
vehicles, which we can change through the media and college education. Reporters need to
exercise considerable imagination to look at positive accomplishments, not only negative news
stories. To put it in perspective, negative information is on the rise: in 1972 66% of stories were
negative; by 1992 90% of the stories were negative and growing. This is problematic because it
fosters a sense of distrust in politicians and a severe bias in regard to the negative
representation on the effectiveness of legislation. Journalism should be more than soundbites
of politicians, taken out of context, and should be focused less on unimportant issues and slips
of the tongue, and more on serious policy issues/proposals. Media utilizes negative stories
because it drives viewership, which is necessary in an era where media is profit driven, all about
17

'hits', and followers. Furthermore, the United States education system does a consistently poor
job, at both the primary and post-secondary levels. Because the education system is focused on
job creation, we have majors, and thus education is no longer a holistic experience. We do not
have a breadth of civic information, which in turn creates poor citizenship. Some forms of
improvement could include compulsory courses on actual legislation/policy formation, instead
of just focusing on critical thinking, as educated individuals should have an actual legislative
understanding as opposed to the current notion of simply acquiring the skill of rational
thought.
How to Make Government More Efficient:
In order to lessen the cynicism and distrust towards government and public officials, Bok
recommends the following reforms to make government more effective. First, he argues for the
greater use of impartial bodies to make and enforce the rules of politics and build confidence in
the fairness of the system. Second, an independent ethics commission might diminish the
suspicions aroused by a Congress that insists on policing itself. Third, an amply staffed Federal
Election Committee might be helpful to help bolster confidence that campaign finance rules are
being administered properly. Fourth, independent redistricting commissions could eventually
overcome the impression that politicians gerrymander electoral districts to ensure their
reelection and give an unfair advantage to the party in power. Next, measures to curb earmarks
and the pork barrel spending they engender might do something to persuade citizens that
lawmakers are more concerned with the public welfare than with their own reelection.
Additionally, basic forms of social protection such as health care, unemployment insurance,
paid paternal leave, and should be guaranteed by the government, as most other leading
democracies do.
There are several obstacles to these reforms. First, the result of federalism is that it makes it
more difficult to craft coherent legislation programs or to avoid a clutter of special exceptions
and concessions to accommodate individual lawmakers. Second, it will not be easy to enact
truly effective procedural reforms along the lines just described. Doing so will require
lawmakers to check their instinctive desire to maintain their political advantage through their
ability to raise campaign money from interest groups, gerrymander their election districts, and
spend taxpayers money on showy projects in their home districts. Third, there are conflicting
government ideologies, which makes procedural reform a tedious process. Although,
ideological debate is conducive to a democratic system of government.
Disagreement/Critique

18

1) One issue with this chapter is how American centric his ideas and analysis were. Bok
employs a comparison of 6 other leading democratic nations, as well as the World Bank study
of the record of 212 national governments to demonstrate how America lags behind these
states. However, he does not go in depth to explain the differences in political infrastructure
between the nations, or the uniqueness of the American governmental system. As such, his
comparison and findings lack contextual information. It would have benefitted from speaking
on the problems of other nations and their democratic standards, which are not necessarily the
same as those in the US.
2) The second critique of this chapter is based on how minimally related it was to Boks thesis,
and the rest of his book. While Bok initially discusses that good government will positively
affect citizens happiness, he does not discuss happiness in this chapter. If he were to be
discussing how unhappy Americans are because of their distrust in government, or how much
happier they would be after governmental reform, this chapter would be much more valuable
to the book. However, Bok does not discuss these things and simply goes deep into an account
of the USAs performance in terms of individual government officials and governmental
processes.

19

GROUP T-Z surname

CHAPTER 3
SUMMARIES
This chapter focuses on the level to which governments should let happiness research guide public policy.

1. Lawmakers must not impose a specific definition of well-being/happiness

Bok outlines that it is not clear that all worthwhile government actions can be accurately
described as policies that add to peoples satisfactions and that it may be possible that
negative setbacks and misfortunes may promote creativity and development. Bok argues
that the Declaration of Independence proclaims a universal right to pursue happiness; but
does not define happiness or suggest that everyone must pursue it in the same way.
2. Not every form of pleasure is desirable
Bok argues that not everyone defines or achieves happiness in the same way and that it
would be inappropriate to force citizens to alter their behaviour so that it would increase
the general well-being of citizens. He also argues that the MOST pleasure or happiness
isnt desirable, as people would cease to be self-reliant. He uses Brave New World by
Aldous Huxley is an an example. The novel describes a programmed world in which
officials have pushed the idea of happiness to the extreme of dispensing masses of feelgood pills to everyone. Bok uses the novel to suggest that dispensing these pills or
injecting a euphoric substance into the water supply might create some form of happiness,
but in a way that would surely be resisted because of the underhanded means employed.
3. Happiness should not be the only goal of public policy, but it is a capacious enough
objective to be put under many banners
In light of evidence, consensus of researchers today is that heredity probably accounts for
around 50% of one's happiness level but that the other 50% is determined by events and
circumstances and deliberate choices. Happiness should not be the only goal if there is
still 50% of our variation in happiness that is determined by events and choices. If
happiness were the only goal, lawmakers would ignore specific portions of the population
(the hopeless beggar, the landless labourer, or the hardened unemployed) Further,
safety must also be a goal of public policy, but despite the research politicians will
always bend to the will of the people regardless if it could be unsafe in the long-run. This
also brings up the notion that most people only define happiness in a short-term,
immediate fashion. The majority of people will make decisions based on immediate
consequences.
ISSUES
20

1) Should happiness be the only goal of public policy? (utilitarian vs. efficiency)
2) Is liberty more important than happiness in regards to public policy? (Benjamin
Constant, libertarian argument)
CHAPTER 7
SUMMARIES
This chapter focuses on three afflictions (chronic pain, chronic sleep loss, and depression) that Bok sees
as exceptional opportunities for the government to focus on to improve to the well-being of the
population.

1. Chronic pain
Chronic pain has an $100 billion burden per year on the economy, but in the majority of
cases can be treated. In the case of policy, medical schools should have a required course
on pain management, researchers should increase their efforts to find drugs that dont
have additives, and the government should have more centralized regulation of the use of
opiates to avoid inconsistencies and create safe-harbour legislation in collaboration
with medical professionals to protect doctors from serious legal action regarding the use
of opioids.
2. Sleep loss
At least 30 million Americans suffer from chronic insomnia. In the case of policy,
medical schools should spend more time focusing on the causes, diagnosis, and treatment
of sleep disorders, better access to equipment for treatment, and an increase in funds for
research on the disorders.
3. Depression
The total cost of the effects of depression on the American economy is a predicted $80
billion. The government has started to delve into anti-stigma policy and discourse
surrounding mental illness, but improvements are still needed. In the case of policy, Bok
suggests that there should be incentives in place to encourage better training on mental
illnesses for medical students, subsidies for companies that refer employees to psychiatric
treatment, an expectation to inform people of their benefits under Medicare/Medicaid,
and work towards a health care system that covers all of the mentally ill and ensures the
participation of enough psychiatrists to offer services to all who need them. The expense
of these policy recommendations would be offset by restoring disabled employees to
work and enabling more mentally-ill people on welfare to contribute to the economy.
ISSUES

1. Should the government regulate the amount of OxyContin doctors can prescribe to
patients? And if so, should this be a provincial responsibility or a federal one?

21

2. How should government policy address the use of a lack of awareness on these issues and
the stigma surrounding them? Does the government have a responsibility to educate
citizens on these issues?
Surname B

The Politics of Happiness

Chapter 2 + 7

CHAPTER 2

Experience sampling is a form of research used in the realm of happiness research, asking
people to evaluate their lives. In this case, this is achieved by subjects providing direct evidence of
the varying degrees of satisfaction associated with different kinds of activities that take place in a
normal day. One advantage of this form of research is that it minimizes distortion or judgment, as
memories are recent. In addition, it is useful in detecting feelings that tend to evoke strong,
immediate reactions. However, there are underlying issues with experience sampling, mainly in
regards to its expensive nature, and how difficult it is to source subjects who are willing to be called
repeatedly. Should policy makers decide to use such research on happiness as an asset to their policy
making processes, it would be important to combine day to day and overall ratings of happiness.
Retrospective evaluation entails a more broad approach to enquiring upon the satisfaction of
individuals lives, on a more general scale, by asking people how satisfied they are with their lives
overall. This has proven to be the more popular form of happiness research, as it is more easily
accessible, and subsequently is more frequently incorporated to policies regarding governmental and
democratic issues. Despite being more or less useful in these senses, retrospective evaluation is just
as contentious in capturing the well-being of citizens than, for example GDP, which has issues in
representing output rather than consumption, and can be an inaccurate measure as it also does not
account for wealth distribution. Retrospective evaluation is, however, much less affected by context.
In deciding which measurement practice is most effective in policy-making, it is important to
consider the accuracy of results produced in each case. Accurate results are those that truly represent
how respondents feel overall or in certain circumstances. Retrospective evaluation tends to be more
accurate than experience sampling as it considers the general picture instead of exaggerated reactions
to mundane events. It may also be more reliable than experience sampling, as overall experiences are
less likely to change drastically in comparison to daily events. Despite these benefits, unreliability
may still be an issue as humans are poor predictors of satisfaction and tend to make judgments on
few experiences while overlooking other important events that may influence overall happiness. An
effective method of evaluation for comprehensive policy-making would take into account both forms
of measurement to allow researchers to consider day-to-day occurrences as well was overall feelings
of satisfaction. In both cases, it would be beneficial to look at the same experiment over a period of
time and control for confounding variables as to avoid confusion surrounding causal pathways.

22

Further discussion issues:

Jeremy Bentham thought that measuring happiness and unhappiness was a simple matter of
calculating profits and losses. Later in his life, however, he considered that perhaps measuring
happiness was not so simple, and that no mechanical process could explain such experiences. Does
modern happiness research truly overcome the complexities of measuring human emotion?
Numerical scales are widely used by happiness researchers to ascertain broad levels of
happiness/unhappiness, but these scales are largely particular to individual studies and their ranges
often vary. Moreover, is it even possible to attribute a number to a feeling? Each human experience is
different, and self-evaluations of happiness are similarly unique to each person. If a researcher were
to survey a diverse group of respondents and ask them to evaluate their level of happiness on a scale
of 1-7, are the results truly comparable? How can modern happiness researchers disregard the
inherently subjective nature of such questions?
Derek Bok mentions that people often have a pervasive tendency to remember happier than
unhappy experiences. However, many question whether this is truly the case. Some researchers
suggest that people are poor predictors of life satisfaction, thus often overlooking or omitting events
that would have an impact on the way they evaluate their overall well-being. Is it also possible that
the way in which the question is framed or contextualized may influence how people respond? For
example, by posing a question on well-being after ask a question about a recent trip to the dentist, the
response may be lower than normal causing inaccurate results due to the order in which the series of
questions are asked. While many suggest that these inaccurate responses are often random and do not
affect the results substantially, is the research on happiness still accurate enough to inform policies
despite these tendencies or biases?

CHAPTER 7

Chronic pain, defined as pure suffering and unhappiness, is a particularly prevalent problem
in America and is thought to affect approximately 50 million people. Not only is chronic pain
incredibly problematic, unpleasant and costly for those who experience it, but it also has considerable
economic costs; lost productivity from those with chronic pain has cost the economy $60bn.
Although chronic pain is believed to be treatable in most cases, many sufferers do not receive the
treatment they need. This is due to the fact that many do not seek help because they are unaware that
help can be given, and those who do seek help often receive inadequate treatment because pain is
very subjective, there is a lack of training and knowledge surrounding the issue, and doctors are
tentative to prescribe drugs because the most effective medications are morphine based which is
linked with addiction. Doctors are subjected to a dilemma, created in part by the legal system under-prescribe to avoid the belief that these drugs facilitate addiction but fail to deliver adequate
pain relief, or over-prescribe - both of which can result in court hearings and their licenses being
suspended. Policy should seek to solve the misconceptions surrounding chronic pain both regarding
diagnosis and treatment. Medical schools should give pain management a more prominent place in
the curriculum and qualified doctors should have to continue studying pain management and proper
23

use of opioids as a part of continuing their professional development. Policy should seek to resolve
the tension and inconsistencies surrounding prescribing morphine based drugs and develop safe
harbour legislation so that doctors are not subjected to risks when they chose to prescribe drugs so
that pain can be treated more effectively.
The main issue currently surrounding sleep disorders is that both patients and doctors do not
see them as an important health issue. This often leads to individuals to ignore their symptoms or to
take over-the-counter medications that result in negative side effects. In addition, doctors lack proper
training and equipment to effectively diagnose sleep disorders. In reality, sleep disorders are directly
linked with happiness and invoke high economic and personal costs within society. A lack of sleep
leads to a loss of productivity at work due to less effective creative thinking and can also be seen to
cause car accidents. A lack of workplace productivity may result in economic costs for companies
whose employees are unable to fulfill required tasks on time. Some effective policy implementations
would be to increase knowledge of the issue, through public education efforts and a modified
medical school curriculum. In addition to educational initiatives, technological improvements to
develop and provide more equipment for diagnosis would improve the current status of sleep
disorder treatment in the American medical system.
Depression is often characterized by deep melancholy, loss of energy and initiative, constant
anxiety, and a deterioration of judgment. Depression can weaken the immune system and increase
the risk of substance abuse and is the principal cause of workplace disability. It is a mental illness
that often goes undiagnosed and untreated due to the stigma that surrounds it as well as because of a
lack of funding, medical training, and public awareness. Many people who suffer from depression do
not seek help despite improvements in medicine making it possible to control for symptoms in over
80 percent of patients. Those who do attempt to seek help find it difficult to receive adequate
treatment due to a lack of awareness surrounding available resources and economic restrictions for
the treatment of mental illnesses imposed by insurance programs such as Medicaid. While there have
been attempts to introduce parity acts to end the economic discrimination within insurance plans for
the treatment of mental illness, these acts do not go far enough and often exclude certain mental
illnesses and sections of the population. More effective policy implementations would include
increased funding, medical training, and public education to increase awareness about healthcare
coverage and decrease the stigma surrounding mental illness.

Further discussion issues:

Relief of suffering does not necessarily ensure happiness. Although suffering is detrimental
to living a happy life, will lack of suffering ensure overall wellness? Happiness is highly subjective
and particular to individual cases. Moreover, as previously discussed in this book, is a false pretense
of happiness authentic happiness? If medication is required to make someone happy can they truly be
considered happy by policy-makers? If we let ourselves succumb to a system of prescribing our
problems away, without actually solving the problems, will Aldous Huxleys Brave New World soon
be a reality?
Opioids are considered to be the most-effective medications for chronic pain. In the United
States, however, doctors must be very careful when prescribing such medications. If they are seen to
be abusing their prescription of Opioids, they may face life-altering consequences by state-medical
24

boards. If they under-prescribe opioids to patients, they can face enormous lawsuits by those
suffering chronic pain. This leads doctors to engage in a balancing act that ultimately creates
needless suffering of countless patients. Which issue should be of more importance to policy makers,
the millions of under-treated Americans who live in chronic pain, or the small number of addicts who
have the potential to abuse the opioid-prescription system? Is it fair to ask citizens to forfeit wellness
in the name of restrictive drug legislation? Doesnt everyone deserve to live a happy life?

25

GROUP E-H
THEMES

Why are we trying to expand economic growth?

Is happiness and economic growth related? If you assume happiness is the main goal of
the government why is economic growth a main goal and should it be?
Government will have a hard time to make Americans happier if they do not understand
what will make them happier. People need to learn what actually makes them happy.
1. Peoples understanding of happiness
Happiness is the goal of the people. People do not really understand what will make them
happy. Government policies arent there to tell us what makes us happy, their policies should
pursue economic growth and enabling citizens to understand what truly makes them happy.
Government should pursue what enables people to be happy, otherwise it seems as though the
government is trying to enforce happiness rather than enable it.

2. Pros of government enabling policies for peoples happiness in relation to economic

growth
Some of the pros of economic growth in relation to happiness include; better opportunity,
standard of living and dedication of democracy. Growth also improves lives of parents in poverty,
improves infrastructure, etc. without growth we couldnt make these improvements in society. The
alternative which is depression, is such a bad alternative for society in comparison to growth. Looking at
it in this sense, it seems that economic growth does lead to happiness.

3. Cons of government enabling policies for peoples happiness in relation to economic

growth
Money doesnt necessarily improve happiness. Economic growth can be more important for
developing countries to have growth. People may not need to work as much if there is growth, but
people might be unhappy if they dont work and have a goal to strive for. Some policies benefit
economic growth but do not enable happiness. The government should pursue policies that enable
happiness
Controversial
Bok assumes that if growth comes to an end, additional funding from social resources would have to
come from other important social resources because they would have weaker political support. We
wonder if more restrictions on lobbying and budget distribution could aid this, because right now there
are not real rules for the distribution. If it becomes a zero-sum game, more controls and regulations
would be needed. Bok seems to consider the cost of a free market as a worst case scenario.
Bok argued that environmentalists are against economic growth. This is not necessarily true.
Environmentalists are against growth in certain sectors if the growth leads to environmental damage,
26

however this does not mean that they are against economic growth as a whole. We feel that while the
government could implement public policies like carbon tax, and green initiatives, this may not increase
happiness greatly, as it would lead to added expenses for the population, so while it is a good to have
Overall: As much as economic growth isnt key to happiness, but it cannot be stopped and many
factors of growth aid happiness. Government must focus on the ways to make economic growth
increase happiness. Creating policies to do this are difficult because you cannot just change policies
because economics are intertwined and a collapse in one could lead to a collapse in another. We felt
that Bok did not provide a policy recommendations.

Chapter 9

1. Educational institutions are the most well equipped places to influence wellbeing,
however they have not yet accomplished this.
Schools are set up as institutions to influence youth, therefore if they are set up to promote tools
that lead to happiness, they can have a lasting effect. Work is not peoples main place of satisfaction
or happiness therefore education should work to also teach people how to be satisfied with other
aspects of their lives. This being said, American schools are still trying to teach people to be
economically successful rather than focusing on lasting wellbeing.

2. Education not a direct source of happiness.

Education as itself not a source of happiness but it is necessary to promote happiness. It is a key
mechanism to promote the foundations people need to acquire to attain lasting happiness in their
lives like social relationships, the arts, capabilities, etc. Bok focused on how sports and
extracurricular activities are missed opportunities for creating lasting happiness. These are also
things students can carry into their adult lives to maintain wellbeing and happiness. People view
education as a source of obtaining a good salary rather than happiness.

3. Government has political influence

The national interest of schools is to train students for the workforce, not necessarily to
promote happiness. Political leaders best interests are seen through governments educational
policies. Schools arguably accomplish little other than preparing students for jobs. A step towards
these goals is a greater civic education because schools arent doing enough to acquaint their
students with government processes.

Controversial issues
Post-secondary
Bok argued that people are going to post-secondary schools for the wrong reasons. He argued
that people should be going for a philosophical awakening rather than only for the end goal of being
financially successful. We felt this was controversial because post-secondary is so expensive now that no
one has thousands just to explore philosophical ideas. People pay so much and expect and end benefit.
27

While philosophical pursuits may make people happier, the cost of education must be reduced greatly.
This in itself would increase happiness as students would not be carrying the stress of debt which is a
factor that decreases happiness. Bok recommended that post-secondary schools implement classes on
happiness, like Harvard, so as to provide students with the tools they need to be happy.

Wellbeing courses
Bok recommended that post-secondary schools implement classes on happiness, like Harvard
has, so as to provide students with the tools they need to be happy. These courses would help people
express more gratitude, acquire tools to obtain lasting happiness, and conduct acts of kindness, etc.
Professors have said that they felt their class descriptions focused mainly on creating a zest for life. This
is problematic because people might not be able to take many of these courses if they have nothing to
do with the field someone is going into. It is also difficult to ensure the professors teaching these
courses in high schools and colleges have a rich background in happiness studies, as they can easily give
misinformation if they havent studied this topic fully. Happiness classes may follow careers and civics
classes and fall to teachers who have not specialized in these fields.
Overall: Generally, Bok argued that educators and policies must place more emphasis on the arts, and
tools for long lasting happiness, rather than focusing on turning out workers. The maths and sciences
are the most valued aspects of the curriculum and this must shift if happiness is going to be promoted.

Chapter 5: What to do about inequality?

Summary: Higher income inequality doesnt increase unhappiness. Other ways to do it!
1) Redistributing Income: there is a belief that redistributing income (thereby reducing income
inequality) will increase happiness of poor people.

Poor are less happy than rich

Happiness gap doesnt correlate well with wealth gap over time.
US poor dont want redistributive policies (American dream, hard work , makes US culturally
different than Europe, adaptability is also important)
The issue of envy not fixed by income transfer! May actually impact self-respect.
While poor may experience happiness, the wealthy experience distress etc.
There are more effective ways to treat income inequality than transfers (social programs:
Medicare, food stamps)

2) Income Inequality Consequences (Longevity +Justice)

Income distribution and Longevity: direct income inequality doesnt affect longevity b/w rich
and poor. BUT rich people tend to live longer, but not direct result of income inequality (lifestyle,
poor nutrition etc.)

28

Therefore redistributing income can only solve some of the problem.

Eg. differences in autonomy and status wont change. You still have less control in your life.
Income distribution and justice: debate about whether re-distribution is just.
Contrasting views of philosophers/public regarding extent that rich should help poor.

3) Other forms of equality/Public Policy

Political equality: citizens have opportunities to participate in democratic process. In theory
political equality is a real thing, in practice political equality does not exist (money, super pacs,
poor people less likely to vote etc.)
Solution to political equality: measures to increase voting (havent worked to help more poor
people vote) campaign finance reform (unlikely /insufficient)
Equality of opportunity: equal chance to succeed for all people (has many benefits.. Lots has
been done (civil rights etc), but incomplete.
Solutions to political equality: better schools, pre-natal care, low-income scholarships, childcare,
counselling in high schools.

Unlike redistributing income, both achieving political equality (through campaign finance) and equality of
opportunity (childcare etc.) are supported by American people!
Two interesting issues:
1) Capping donations how effective would it be? Other forms of political influence. This may be exaggerated in the
book.
2) The American Dream reduces the impact of dollars on happiness. This is cultural. Other countries are different.
Poor people are relatively happy because they think they can be rich one day to.

Chapter 9: Education
Summary: Policy is too focused on creating competitive workforce, not on preparing people for
stimulating life (but government has less influence on college compared to schools- colleges today are
oriented towards vocation) Should shift emphasis away from vocational skills, towards happiness.
1) Role of schools + teachers:

Originally a place for broad learning, social skills, civic class.

Government is no longer supporting schools now so focused on making productive members
of economy.
Three ways schools could improve happiness: 1) Civic Education 2) Appreciation for fine arts 3)
Sports + exercise. Overall fulfillment.

2) Effects of Higher Education:

People used to go for reasons for passion, now people go to get a job!
Vocationally focused. But money does not equal happiness. (e.g. increase business majors)
Indirect benefits of education: being able to find a good job, deal with people, campus politics,
extracurricular is very beneficial.

29

3) Improving Higher Education: Offer courses about well-being: 1) Study what is known about
happiness. 2) Practical application (e.g. expressing gratitude, etc).

Critiques classic great books courses more questions than answers.

Neutral about practical exercise courses he sees no issue if they are optional.
Education can extend to latter in life which can be very stimulating for older folks! Universities
should focus these courses less on making money.
Education helps determine profession, which has long lasting happiness effects.
Colleges shouldnt be only sources of education.
There is research on different professions, and emerging/changing professions. This should be
communicated to students (e.g. pros and cons of big vs. small law firm)

Two interesting issues:

1) Talks about how universities are motivated by profit (e.g. supports football team, vocational training)
2) Emphasizes importance of teaching people about their chosen profession (e.g. pros +cons of big vs.
small legal firm)

30