Happiness is...

I must be experiencing the Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon (I had to dig deep into my memories of Psych 1 to remember that one), but ever since writing about happiness, I have come across innumerable articles identifying the variables that affect our choices, our wealth and our subsequent happiness.

First: Religion. In discussion section, we argued (and were unable to agree) as to whether religion is an absolute or religious need. Do people require faith in absolute terms, or do they desire to belong to a religious group because their neighbor does? What sacrifices are made in the name of religion?

A recent study examines the breakdown of wealth in America by religion — and finds distinct variation between groups.

The article provides minimal analysis, but does raise a number of interesting questions, particularly the begging question of causation versus correlation. Jewish wealth is often traced back to the Middle Ages when people of all other faiths (well, Christian-derived faiths) were prohibited from entering the banking profession. Even if those historic roots are able to account for current wealth distribution, how can the other breakdowns be explained? Is it a reflection of the ties to race and ethnicity that religion have? Do different faiths place different values on work and leisure?

Second: Education. Studies point to the affirmative — YES, education does make us happier. (Comforting news to the college student currently in the library.) But, there is a growing consensus arguing a somewhat contrary position: that we are overeducating our children.

Though having a bachelor's degree may correlate to a certain level of happiness, is this really the best route for everyone? It's a viewpoint Americans are reluctant to express — we're supposed to be ever dreaming upward —but in other countries (Spain, for example), the "risk of overeducation" is a more widely expressed opinion. Because a college education does not necessarily guarantee a better occupation or lifestyle, students I met while studying abroad there put much more thought into whether or not to attend university. Comparatively, my friends and I stateside just viewed college as the automatic, the next step. Choosing not to go was never an option most of us considered. So although Brown is the happiest school in the country, are we actually happier because of the choice we made?

And if the quantifiable factors aren't satisfying for you, here's an article proving that happiness can be generated just by imagining how awful your life would be without the positive things you already have.

Come on, get happy

Keynes and Mill both wrote about their ideal societies, which came with a "destination," a "stationary state," some eventual point when advancement would stop and a leveling off would occur. Keynes wrote that all absolute needs would be fulfilled; Mill said populations would stop growing. Neither could be certain when such an endpoint would arise, but they knew it was coming.

The concept of an "end date" for societal development is odd to picture. Though Keynes was writing at a time when technology was nothing compared to what it is today, it is still difficult to fathom how he thought we would eventually just stop developing new technology. There always seems to be a next step, a new moon to fly to. Innovation is an expensive investment, but it is what keeps us asking questions, moving forward. In a dynamic world, why would a population choose to become stagnant?

Defining the endpoint is also tricky. In discussion section, we struggled to understand what the theorists meant — is it the moment in which every member of the society has exactly the same possessions, the same income, the same occupation? This Stepford world does not seem ideal. How can a construct exist that defines when everyone would be happiest? Keynes wrote that "there is no country and no people, I think, who can look forward to the age of leisure and abundance without a dread."

From my vantage point, this could not be farther from the truth. The values placed on work and leisure are cultural, even individual, constructs. It is impossible to delineate what would make an entire country happy, prosperous and complete. Gallup recently conducted a survey, measuring all 50 states on a "well-being" index. The variables that feed into such a measure do include basic access to necessities and a "work environment," but other aspects of living — healthy behavior, emotional health and life evaluation — are also considered. Is Hawaii the happiest state because there is no innovation, or because everyone has the same possessions?

Happiness, from my perspective, is achieved when individuals have the ability to choose. Some will choose to live without innovation, some will choose to work 15 hours a week, while others will choose to work 60 hours a week. What is vital though is that it was a choice. If we are to imagine that, like Keynes and Mill said, society will eventually level out, I believe that can only occur when all individuals have the ability to choose the work, the life, the environment that will individually, make them happiest.

Unwrapping an impoverished nation

A recent Slate article asks, "Why is Yemen so poor?" Compared to its neighbors, the small Middle Eastern country is floundering.

Yemen is heralded as an oil-funded nation. But it has lost much of the oil that brought in cash (output has declined 40 percent in 6 years), and yet the product still accounts for 80 percent of the government's income. Nearly half of the country's employable men are farmers, but the majority do not even grow food. Instead, they concentrate on qat, a drug illegal in most Western countries, forcing Yemen to import more than 75 percent of its food supply. To make matters worse, many of the adult men spend their income — a quarter of it, on average — on the qat.

Widespread insurgencies leads the nation to spend more than 6 percent of its GDP on military expenses — making it the seventh biggest spender in the world. (Not-so-coincidentally, the other six are also in the Middle East.) Yemen has become a safe haven for terrorists, leading Senator Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) to dub the nation "tomorrow's war."

Despite being a republic, the nation is one of the most corrupt in the world. The Yemeni army can barely be trusted to show up for duty, let alone protect itself from terrorist insurgents.

So in the question of what makes a country prosperous (or not), what are the variables to look at? Government, geography, resources … At first glance, Yemen looks like it could have it all. (1)

Government? They have a republic — in definition. As many as 70 percent of Yemeni government officials have taken bribes.

Geography? Well … the desert can be a deterrent. But the nation clearly has abundant farm land. However, food does not always drive a profit — at least not when compared to drugs. Qat commands a price six times that of food.

And what about resources? The Yemen economy is dependent on oil, as the 80 percent figure demonstrates, and the oil supplies are drying up. Experts predict that the wells will run dry within 10 years. Total reliance on one product is dangerous, especially in the case of a natural resource. Charlie Brown once said that "all good things must end" — a fate Yemen has not entirely prepared for.

Does the answer lie in culture? History? Or does it just teach us that all is never as it seems?Yemen proves that ideal circumstances can — and do — turn sour, and that prosperity follows that decline.

___

(1) Weil, David. Economic Growth. Boston: Pearson Education Inc., 2009

The games we play

Monopoly's origins are contentious, but the popular board game has been in circulation since at least the early 1900s. Some historians trace it back to a British game introduced in 1904, "The Landlord's Game," which was intended to demonstrate the dangers of capitalism to children. The British viewed board games as "an instrument of moral instruction." Ironically, when the game was exported to the United States and patented by Hasbro in 1935, it became the ultimate exemplification of personal success and self-enterprise.

Monopoly is about "gouging and exploiting," a zero-sum game in which winning means that all other players have gone bankrupt. The game requires no skill — just a simple roll of the dice — and results in a wealth distribution that John Rawls would dub "arbitrary from the moral point of view." (1)

Despite any moral judgments that can be made about the game, Monopoly is a household name, holding the record as the best-selling board game in the world and boasting over 500 million players throughout its existence. Countless adaptations have been spawned — a version for children, editions based on popular television shows and boards honoring particular cities. The phrases of the game have become part of the American vernacular. (Just think about how many times you have been told "do not pass go.")

The game follows the liberal principles set out by John Locke and Adam Smith (in theory) — the rules are acceptable to the people who live, or in this case, play, under them. Anyone who participates in a game of monopoly understands that while someone will win and gain prosperity, everyone else will lose along the way. But unlike the founding principles of classic liberalism, the board game denies the role of hard work (there is no "best way" to roll a dice) and it does not permit all who play to succeed. It is a game of winner-takes-all; a state in which all that matters is the sum in your bank account.

John Stuart Mill would be appalled at the game. In applying his theory to political economy, he affirmed that "the best state for human nature is that in which, while no one is poor, no one desires to be richer." (2) Monopoly advocates the opposite: get rich as a direct result of inflicting poverty on the poor soul who happened to land on your property.

Economics Professor Ralph Anspach felt similarly and in the 1970s, created "Anti-Monopoly" — a more "philosophically pleasing alternative." After being challenged by his students to show the dark side of monopolistic practices through an equally fun activity, he designed the board game. The goal in his version: destroy and dismantle economic monopolies.

(Somewhat ironically, he was sued by Hasbro for the use of their trademarked name. He won the suit, an event he framed as a direct illustration of what his game aims to do: the little guy fighting back against "Big Business." He continued marketing the game and views his secondary purpose as ensuring that the origins of Monopoly, as a game intended to warn about the capitalist dangers it now applauds, survives.) (3)

Regardless of which game best illustrates capitalism — The Landlord's Game, Monopoly or its antithesis — all demonstrate routes to prosperity. So which is the most fair? The most adherent to liberal principles? Should those who accumulate wealth, even if by luck, be punished? Or should all the spoils be (no pun intended) fair game?

From Rawls' perspective, and from the viewpoint of those who developed the idea of "luck egalitarianism" from his principles, there must be a mechanism to correct for the chance-based poverty. Rolling a two versus rolling a seven should not — in Monopoly or in life — seal an individual to an impoverished future. He proclaimed justice as fairness, not justice as "draw chance chard." As long as there was something to prevent extreme and unfair poverty, Rawls would probably be willing to play any of the three board games.

If you handed Mill Monopoly, he would probably behave like the toddler who throws the game he does not want to play on the floor. In countries that have already undergone development, he calls for "better distribution," and shows only disdain for wealthy individuals who increase their holdings simply because they can. He speaks of "levelling institutions," and could therefore, probably get behind Anspach's Anti-Monopoly. The Landlord's Game, with its warnings about the dangers of capitalism and amassing wealth, would probably also appeal to Mill.

If Adam Smith is to be taken literally, he would disagree with all three games. Every player performs the same tasks — however will the society inside the board game survive?

Regardless, it is reasonably safe to say that it would not be enjoyable to play Monopoly with any of these three theorizing men. After all, it is just a game.

_____

(1) Tomasi, John. Market Democracy: Property, Equality and the New American Dream, 2009. Chap. 2

(2) Mill, John Stuart. Principles of Political Economy with some of their Applications to Social Philosophy, 1848. IV.6.5

(3) Williams, Juan. "Monopoly." NPR: Morning Edition, Nov. 25, 2002. http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/features/patc/monopoly/index.html

Can you hear me now?

According to a study done by The Economist (and rereported by Foreign Policy), 75 percent of the world's cell phones are in developing nations, or, 3 of the world's 4 billion subscriptions.

Photo from Foreign Policy

[For reference, in 2008, 5.5 of the world's 6.7 billion people — 82.1 percent — lived in developing nations.]

This harkens back to a discussion from the first days of class: does the ability to buy "stuff" make a society prosperous? The answer was unclear. Technology is an obvious indicator of growth, but in which direction do the causation arrows point?

Possession of a cell phone can aid development in the most simple of ways, by reminding the owner to take medication or attend a doctor's appointment. "Even the simplest, low-end mobile phone can do so much to improve healthcare in the developing world," the International Telecommunications Union reported.

In Uganda, more people have cell phones than electricity (10 percent versus upward of a third of the population). Countless non-profits are now on the ground, trying to find ways to bring necessary services to the people through their cell phones. Health advice, weather forecasts, agricultural tips and more are being disseminated to the farthest reaches of the nation via SMS messages.

Now that the technology threshold has been breached, will development follow? Can prosperity be imparted in 160-character spurts? Traditionally, technological advancement comes from development. But with the burgeoning worldwide use of cell phones, can the path be brought full circle?

One man's recession is another's...

It is no secret that the United States economy dramatically affects world economic conditions. The American recession has sent ripples across the globe — from the meltdown on Wall Street to the declining value of the dollar to international unemployment. (Greece, anyone?)

But can the great American misfortune — the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression — actually be a positive force in some nations?

The success of China, as they grow at rates beyond those of any other nation and buy up American debt, is not a new story. The effective pause in economic growth on our side of the globe, though, gives a leg up to nations in need of catch up. In Vietnam, for example, where a decade of war (and subsequent decades of dependence) left a weakened economy and little independent infrastructure, parts of Saigon "might easily be in Orange County, California from the standpoint of large-scale retail, office and residential development."

At the World Economic Forum in January, it was the ministers from Vietnam and neighboring countries doling economic advice on rebuilding — an unlikely turn of events. The New York Times reported that American and European economic practices were not even discussed as role models. Instead, the mostly East Asian leaders explained their own tactics and reliance on consumerism.

The decline of American dominance in world markets as the United States battles through its recession has opened the door for nations to catch up, uninhibited. Prosperity may not solely be a question of policy or history, but also simply opportunity.

Picture this.

This cartoon blog presents a graphic version of Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations. A picture says a thousand words? At the very least, more entertaining than Cliff Notes.

Culture Shock

When I first arrived for my semester abroad in Spain, it was hard to understand how anything ever got done in business. The Spanish people prize their siesta time, lunch is a three-hour affair (with wine, of course) and the night does not end until at least 2 am. Even when they are working, the Spanish have a much more laid-back attitude about, for example, task completion. They figure, why worry if it will get done eventually?

The adjustment is frustrating for American students who, three weeks into their classes, have not been formally matriculated, have no syllabus and do not know what materials are even needed for the course. The pervasive cultural attitude of work "as a necessary evil" creates an environment that values leisure and happiness at a level above productivity. (1) Relationships matter and often overpower the actual "work" side of working. In a tutorial for British nationals looking to work in Spain, the BBC cautions that individuals should "be prepared" for work to get personal. (2)

While work does matter to the Spaniards, it will never be the be-all end-all that it is for Americans. From the Spanish perspective, Americans will never be content with what they have. They, on the other hand, believe that by minimizing the pressures of work, they are able to better enjoy the simple pleasures in life, as well as the greater joys of culture and family. "Workaholism is not fashionable in Spain." (3)

In 2008, Spain's GDP per capita was $31,960, compared to the United State's $47,580. (4) But this does not explain everything. For example, the Spaniards enjoyed a longer life expectancy at birth (81 years versus 78). (5)

Given that the Spanish as a whole value leisure over work (the opposite being true in the United States), their GDP alone cannot give insight into the "wealth" of the nation. (6)

The fact that the Spanish have a generally weaker work ethic than Americans, and the reality of their culture offers an explanation as to why the GDP is lower (and why doing business with Spaniards is relatively difficult). Culture is a difficult variable to quantify, but it does offer some explanation for the numerical differences in material wealth between the United States and Spain.

But on the other hand: never discount the value of a mid-afternoon nap.

_____

(1) Weil, David. Economic Growth. Boston: Pearson Education Inc., 2009. pp. 410

(2) "Spanish for Work," BBC. http://www.bbc.co.uk/languages/spanish/forwork/beingthere/systems.shtml. Accessed on Feb. 16, 2010.

(3) Wattley-Ames, Helen. Spain is Different. Yarmouth, Maine: Intercultural Press Inc., 1992. Accessible on Google Books

(4) World Bank, www.worldbank.org. Accessed on Feb. 16, 2010

(5) Ibid.

(6) Weil 411