Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T06:06:16.229Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

WHY ECONOMISTS SHOULD BE UNHAPPY WITH THE ECONOMICS OF HAPPINESS*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2008

Pierluigi Barrotta
Pierluigi Barrotta*
Affiliation:
University of Pisa
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The economics of happiness is an influential research programme, the aim of which is to change welfare economics radically. In this paper I set out to show that its foundations are unreliable. I shall maintain two basic theses: (a) the economics of happiness shows inconsistencies with the first person standpoint, contrary claims on the part of the economists of happiness notwithstanding, and (b) happiness is a dubious concept if it is understood as the goal of welfare policies. These two theses are closely related and lead to a third thesis: (c) happiness should be replaced by autonomy as the fundamental goal of welfare economics. To defend my claims I shall show that a hedonic approach to happiness leads to an awkward trilemma. Furthermore, I shall clarify the meaning of “happiness” and “autonomy”, along with their conceptual relationships.

Type
Essay
Information
Economics & Philosophy , Volume 24 , Issue 2 , July 2008 , pp. 145 - 165
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Ackrill, J. L. 1980. Aristotle on Eudaimonia. In Essays on Aristotle's ethics, ed. Rorty, A. O., 15–33. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aristotle 2000. The Nicomachean Ethics, translated and edited by Crisp, R.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bavetta, S. and Guala, F.. 2003. Autonomy, freedom, and deliberation. Journal of Theoretical Politics 15: 423–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bavetta, S. and Navarra, P.. 2004. Theoretical foundations of empirical measures of freedom: A research challenge to liberal economists. Economic Affairs 24: 43–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruni, L. 2004. History of Happiness in Economics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bruni, L. and Porta, P.. 2004. Introduzione to Felicità ed economia. Milan: Guerini e Associati.Google Scholar
Bruni, L. and Porta, P.. 2005. Economics and happiness. Framing the analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruni, L. and Porta, P., eds. 2006. Felicità e libertà. Milan: Guerini Associati.Google Scholar
Carter, I. 1999. A measure of freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Easterlin, R. A. 1974. Does economic growth improve the human lot? Some empirical evidence. In Nations and households in economic growth: Essays in honor of Moses Abramovitz, eds. David, P. A. and Reder, M. W., 89–125. New York and London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Easterlin, R. A. 2002, Introduction to Happiness in Economics, ed. Easterlin. Cheltenham UK, Northampton MA, USA: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Esposito, A. and Zaleski, P.. 1999. Economic freedom and the quality of life. Constitutional Political Economy 10: 185–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frank, R. 1985. Choosing the right pond. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Frank, R. 1997. The frame of reference as a public good. Economic Journal 107: 1832–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frank, R. 1999. Luxury fever. Why money fails to satisfy in an era of excess. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Frankfurt, H. 1971. Freedom of the will and the concept of a person. Journal of Philosophy 68: 5–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frey, B. 1997. Not just for money. An economic theory of personal motivation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Frey, B. and Stutzer, A.. 2000. Happiness, economy, and institutions. Economic Journal 110: 918–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frey, B. and Stutzer, A.. 2002. Happiness and economics. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glaeser, E. L. 2005. Paternalism and psychology. Harvard Institute of Economic Research, Discussion Paper no. 2097: 1–21. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.Google Scholar
Griffin, J. 1986. Well-Being: Its meaning, measurements, and moral importance. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Hardin, R. 1999. Liberalism, constitutionalism, and democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inglehart, R. 2004. Subjective Well-Being Rankings of 82 Societies. http://www.worldvaluessurvey.orgGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D. 1999. Objective knowledge. In Well-Being: The Foundations of Hedonic Psychology, ed. Kahneman, D., Diener, E. and Schwarz, N., 3–25. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D., Diener, E. and Schwarz, N., eds. 1999. Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Kant, I. 1969. Foundations of the metaphysics of morals, trans. by Lewis, White Beck. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Kraut, R. 1979. Two conceptions of happiness. Philosophical Review 88: 167–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Layard, R. 1980. Human satisfactions and public policy. Economic Journal 90: 737–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Layard, R. 2003. Happiness: Has social science a clue? Three Lectures. First lecture: What is Happiness?; second lecture: Income and Happiness: Rethinking Economic Policy; third lecture: What Would Make a Happier Society. Lionel Robbins Memorial Lectures, mimeo.Google Scholar
Layard, R. 2005. Happiness. Lessons from a New Science. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
MacIntyre, A. 1984. After virtue. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Mill, J.S. 1859 [1991]. On Liberty, ed. Gray, J. and Smith, G.W.. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ng, Y. K. 1997. A case for happiness, cardinalism, and interpersonal comparability. The Economic Journal 107: 1848–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nussbaum, M. 1986. The fragility of goodness: Luck and ethics in Greek tragedy and philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M. 1988. Nature, function, and capabilities: Aristotle on political distribution. In Oxford studies in ancient philosophy, Supplementary Volume, ed. Annas, J. and Grimm, R. H.., 145–84. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Pigou, A. C. 1932. The economics of welfare. 4th edn. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Praag, B. and Frijters, P. 1999. The measurement of welfare and well-being: The Leyden approach. In Well-Being: The Foundations of Hedonic Psychology, ed. Kahneman, D., Diener, E. and Schwarz, N., 413–33. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Putnam, R. 1993. Making democracy work. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Putnam, R. 2000. Bowling alone. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Raz, J. 1986. The morality of freedom. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Rescher, N. 1961. On the logic of presupposition. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 21: 521–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, A. 1985. The standard of living: Concepts and critiques. In The Tanner Lectures, ed. Hawthorn, G.., 1–9. Cambridge: Clare Hall.Google Scholar
Sumner, L.W. 1996. Welfare, happiness, and ethics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Veenhoven, R. 1984. Conditions of happiness. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veenhoven, R. 1993. Happiness in nations: Appreciation of life in 56 nations. Rotterdam: Erasmus University.Google Scholar
Veenhoven, R. 2000. Freedom and happiness: a comparative study in 44 nations in the early 1990s. In Culture and subjective well-being, ed. Diener, E. and Suh, E. M., 257–88. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veenhoven, R. 2005. State of nations, world database. http://worlddatabaseofhappines.eur.nlGoogle Scholar