 |
 |
|||
 |
|
|||
| |
|
|||
|
|
|||
Statistically Speaking
Measuring Progress of Societies:
Would You Rather Be Rich Or Would You Rather Be Happy? 
by Dr. Romulo A. Virola 1
Secretary General, NSCB
Many say that Pinoys are among the happiest people on earth! Also, that we are among the poorest2! On the other hand, countries like China, Japan, Singapore, Thailand and the United States are very rich or at least richer than us; but they also happen to have higher suicide rates than the Philippines! According to the latest data available from the World Health Organization3, the suicide rates per hundred thousand population for these countries are 36.5 for males and 14.1 for females in Japan (1999), 17.6 for males and 4.1 for females in the United States (1999), 13.0 for males and 14.8 for females in China (1999), 12.5 for males and 6.4 for females in Singapore (2000), 5.6 for males and 2.4 for females in Thailand (1994) but only 2.5 for males and 1.7 for females in the Philippines (1993)! If these statistics are correct, where would we rather be? And did you notice that in China, unlike in other countries, the suicide rate among women is higher than that for men?
Progress, when conventionally measured in terms of economic growth or even in terms of the UNDP concept of human development apparently cannot always be equated with happiness. It seems too, as many of our readers have probably come to acknowledge, that it is not easy to be rich and be happy at the same time. If we cannot have both, what should we then aspire for? Would you prefer to be rich or happy?
Sounds like talking about someone’s cleavage or another’s hairdresser instead of the issues affecting the U.S. presidential election?
Not quite.
The Istanbul Declaration of the Second OECD World Forum on Statistics, Knowledge and Policy4 held in June 2007 in Istanbul, Turkey, highlighted “the need to undertake the measurement of societal progress in every country, going beyond conventional economic measures” such as for example, the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and “the need to encourage communities to consider for themselves what “progress” means in the 21st century”. One of the sessions was a roundtable discussion on “Measuring Happiness and Making Policy”.
National statistical agencies are thus facing new challenges. Increasingly, it appears that it is no longer sufficient for us official statisticians to confine ourselves to the delivery of our traditional products like the national accounts and price and employment statistics. Lately, we have gone into the measurement of democracy, human rights and governance, thanks to the advocacy of the METAGORA project of the OECD. Interesting applications of statistics! Towards enhancing the relevance of statistical offices! And now, measurement of happiness?
The idea of measuring national happiness was pushed by no less than the King of Bhutan, King Jigme Singye Wangchuck way back in 1972. The kingdom of Bhutan seeks to measure its Gross National Happiness (GNH) index composed of four pillars: the promotion of equitable and sustainable socio-economic development, preservation and promotion of cultural values, conservation of the natural environment and establishment of good governance. Others have followed5.
Let us look at some statistics on happiness. The World Database of Happiness6 provides data on correlates of happiness and the average happiness in 95 nations in 1995-2005. It carefully notes that correlations say little about cause and effect. This means that correlates of happiness like income are not necessarily conditions for happiness. The database is based on the same concept of happiness defined as “the degree to which an individual judges the overall quality of his life-as-a-whole positively”; meaning “how well one likes the life one lives”. The compilation of the database is directed by Prof. Ruut Veenhoven of Erasmus University Rotterdam.
On a scale of 0 to 10, Pinoys scored in the middle range of happiness with 6.4, tying for 40th to 43rd with Czechia, Greece and Nigeria. Topping the list is Denmark, followed by Switzerland7, Austria, Iceland and Finland. At the bottom are Tanzania, Zimbabwe, Moldova, Ukraine and Armenia. Among the ASEAN countries, Singapore with its high suicide rate is surprisingly tied for 29th to 33rd; Indonesia is 38th and Vietnam is 48th to 50th. Other Asian countries are China, 44th; India and Japan, 45th to 46th and South Korea, 56th to 57th.
In terms of happy life years, Pinoys also scored in the middle range at 44.1 years, with a life expectancy of 69.0 years. On top of the list are Switzerland, 63.9 years; Denmark, 62.7 years; Iceland, 62.2 years; Austria 61.0 years and Sweden, 60.8 years. Among those in the middle range are South Korea, 43.8 years; Iran, 41.4 years; Hungary, 40.9 years and Morocco, 37.9 years. At the bottom are Zimbabwe, 11.5 years; Tanzania, 15.2 years; Angola, 17.6 years; Uganda, 23.3 years and Moldova, 23.7 years. Interestingly, the Japanese, with the highest life expectancy of 80.8 years only have 50.4 happy life years, ranked 30th among the 95 nations. On the other hand, what is in the Scandinavian countries that make their people so happy?
When one looks at the happiness data and the suicide rates among nations, it is quite clear that nations which score high in happiness do not necessarily have lower suicide rates. For instance, Denmark, which has the highest happiness score has suicide rates 8 times that for the Philippines among males, and 5 times among females. Of course, we cannot discount the possibility of errors in the measurement of these variables, but the relationship among economic growth, happiness and suicide seems intriguingly complex.
Dr. Allen Tan, former president of the Psychological Association of the Philippines wrote a paper that touched on happiness and contentment. He studied a group of upwardly mobile farmers and a group of more economically stagnant farmers; one of Dr. Tan’s conclusions is that happiness could be viewed as a choice! A choice between what one8 referred to as optimistic explanatory style and a pessimistic explanatory style. An optimist would attribute good fortune to something internal within oneself (hard work, innate intelligence) and bad fortune to something external (supersungit na biyenan, chismosang kapitbahay). A pessimist would explain it in reverse: good fortune to something external ( help of others, God’s will) and bad fortune to something internal ( I am stupid). Dr. Tan speculates that Pinoys are a happy lot because we adopt the optimistic explanatory style. He further suggests that while we may be individually happy, we are dissatisfied with the state of the nation because “people with optimistic explanatory styles tend to blame others for the negative happenings in their lives in order to achieve happiness”. In other words, government is a convenient scapegoat for our misfortunes! Are we Pinoys then happy at the expense of our nation? Hmm!
So yes, how does one measure the progress of societies?9 We have tried the GDP/GNP and the HDI. These indicators no longer seem sufficient. Shall we adopt a GNH index like Bhutan? What will be the pillars of our national happiness? What are the domains of our existence that, individually, we draw happiness or unhappiness from? Should self-fulfillment or personal happiness be part of it? Should they cover family, education, work, community participation, leisure, religion, sports, health, income and financial security, technological knowhow, sex, maybe?
If the topic interests you, please come to the 10th National Convention on Statistics (NCS) to be held on 1-2 October 2007 at the EDSA Shangri-la Hotel. During the NCS, this author will present a paper10 entitled “Measuring Progress of Philippine Society: Gross National Product or Gross National Happiness?” In the paper, we hope to be able to tackle these challenging concerns on national happiness. We hope you will join us! For more info, please visit http://www.nscb.gov.ph/ncs/10thNCS/Default.asp
TABLE 08-13-07-1: HAPPINESS AND SUICIDE RATES OF SELECTED NATIONS
COUNTRY |
AVERAGE |
RANK |
HAPPY |
RANK |
SUICIDE RATES PER 100,000 |
|
MALES |
FEMALES |
|||||
Denmark |
8.2 |
1 |
62.7 |
2 |
20.9 |
8.1 |
Switzerland |
8.1 |
2-3* |
63.9 |
1 |
26.5 |
10.0 |
Austria |
8.0 |
4 |
61.0 |
4 |
27.3 |
9.8 |
Iceland |
7.8 |
5 |
62.2 |
3 |
19.1 |
5.2 |
Finland |
7.7 |
6-8 |
59.8 |
7 |
26.1 |
9.4 |
Sweden |
7.7 |
6-8 |
60.8 |
5 |
19.7 |
8.0 |
Australia |
7.7 |
6-8 |
60.7 |
6 |
21.2 |
5.1 |
USA |
7.4 |
17 |
57.0 |
15 |
17.6 |
4.1 |
Philippines |
6.4 |
40-43 |
44.1 |
45 |
2.5 |
1.7 |
Indonesia |
6.6 |
38 |
43.6 |
47 |
Not included |
Not included |
Thailand |
Not included |
- |
Not included |
- |
5.6 |
2.4 |
Malaysia |
Not included |
- |
Not included |
- |
Not included |
Not included |
Singapore |
6.8 |
29-33 |
52.9 |
25 |
12.5 |
6.4 |
Vietnam |
6.1 |
48-50 |
42.5 |
50 |
Not included |
Not included |
South Korea |
5.8 |
56-57 |
43.8 |
46 |
18.8 |
8.3 |
Japan |
6.2 |
45-46 |
50.4 |
30 |
36.5 |
14.1 |
India |
6.2 |
45-46 |
38.7 |
56 |
12.2 |
9.1 |
China |
6.3* |
44* |
44.3* |
44* |
13.0** |
14.8** |
* Colombia with the same score as Switzerland is excluded due to data inconsistencies; China also has some data problems
**For China, in selected rural and urban areas
Sources: Veenhoven, R. World Database of Happiness,
http://worlddatabaseofhappiness.eur.nl ,
http://who.int/mental_health/prevention/suiciderates/en
Reactions and views are welcome thru email to the author at ra.virola@nscb.gov.ph.
_______________
1 Secretary General of the National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB) and Chairman of the Statistical Research and Training Center (SRTC). He holds a Ph. D. in Statistics from the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, U.S.A. and has taught mathematics and statistics at the University of the Philippines. He is also a past president of the Philippine Statistical Association. The author thanks Raymond S. Perez and Candido J. Astrologo for the assistance in the preparation of the article.
2 The Asian Development Bank (Poverty in Asia: Measurement, Estimates and Prospects) lists the national poverty rate of the Philippines (34.0%) in 2000 to be higher than those for Malaysia (7.5%), Thailand (9.8%), Indonesia (18.2%), Myanmar (22.9%) and Vietnam (28.9%) but lower than Cambodia (35.9%) and Lao People’s Dem. Rep. (38.6%), with reference years ranging from 1997 to 2002.
3 http://www.who.int/mentalhealth/prevention/suicide/suiciderates/en/
4 This author presented a paper entitled “Empowering and Challenging Voters Through Governance Indicators: the Philippine Experience” in the session on “The Construction and Use of Indicator Sets: Lessons to Build Modern Democracies”. He was also the discussant for the session “Building Statistical Capacity to Monitor the Progress of Societies. His participation was funded by the UN Statistics Division.
5 An international conference on “Beyond GDP Measuring progress, true wealth, and the well-being of nations” is going to be held on 19-20 November 2007 in Brussels with OECD as one of the sponsors.
6 Veenhoven, R., Average happiness in 95 nations 1995-2005, World Database of Happiness, RankReport 2006-1d, Internet: http://worlddatabaseofhappiness.eur.nl
7 Colombia actually tied with Switzerland but was excluded from the analysis by the World Database of Happiness due to data inconsistencies.
8 Learned Optimism, Seligman (1991)
9 The OECD is coming up with “Measuring Progress in Practice An OECD Handbook”.
10 The paper is written jointly with Jessamyn O. Encarnacion.
Posted 13 August 2007.
 |
  |
 |
||||||
  E-mail the webmaster |
Terms of Use |
Home • Top of Page | ||||||
1997-2009,
National Statistical Coordination Board |
||||||||