Citizenship: what is happiness?

According to a new "happy planet index" study, published by the New Economics Foundation (NEF), the island nation of Vanuatu (archipelago of 83 islands in the western Pacific) is the happiest place on earth. But, beside the palm trees and beaches, why is life so good there?

Renowned psychologist Haim Ginott, apparently once said: "Happiness is not a destination." Well, according to the BBC, it is now, so get to your keyboard and book a one-way ticket to Vanuatu. Or not? In the meantime, Colombia is the second happiest place, Cuba comes in number six and the UK languishes in 108th place, below Libya, Iran, and Palestine! And Portugal comes only in 135th place, just after Guinea-Bissau. Belgium is 78, France 128, Spain 87 and Germany 81. Hard to believe? Yes.

Going back to Vanuatu, it’s easy to work out what the island nation has going for it - the weather is good most of the year, it has paradise-style coastlines and beaches, unique rainforests and no income tax. However, it is far from paradise lost, with limited employment opportunities and poverty. It is also not the environmental paradise one might expect, since climatic changes and rising sea levels threaten some islands, forcing many inhabitants to move inland. Annica Parilongi, financial controller at the island nation's only telecoms company - Telecom Vanuatu Limited – says "It's not perfect, it is a third-world country”. And even if it is poor, there is no hunger. But (and this changes all) "if you don't have money in Vanuatu you can still live happily. Here you can grow everything you need to eat. If people have an opportunity to make money they will take it, but it is not their ultimate aim." And people share a relaxed attitude to everyday life.

Of course if you need culture, entertainment, cinemas, shopping and all the services and amenities of modern life, you can’t be happy there. However, the "happy planet index" builds on a particular definition of happiness, which - among other things - measures people's impact on the environment. The HPI incorporates three separate indicators: ecological footprint, life-satisfaction and life expectancy. The statistical calculations that underlie the HPI are quite complex – see their site. The index reflects the average years of happy life produced by a given society, nation or group of nations, per unit of planetary resources consumed. Put another way, it aims to represent the efficiency with which countries convert the earth’s finite resources into well-being experienced by their citizens. Not an easy task, let’s admit…

“Island nations score well above average in the Index: they have higher life satisfaction, higher life expectancy and marginally lower Footprints than other states. Yet incomes (by GDP per capita) are roughly equal to the world average. Even within regions, islands do well. Malta tops the Western world (40th place overall, yet after Morocco) with Cyprus in seventh place (out of 24); the top five HPI nations in Africa are all islands; as well as two of the top four in Asia. Perhaps a more acute awareness of environmental limits has sometimes helped their societies to bond better and to adapt to get more from less. Combined with the enhanced well-being that stems from close contact with nature, the world as a whole stands to learn much from the experience of islands.”

As is written in the site, “We are accustomed to comparing countires in terms of crude riches or what they trade. Some countries earn, or are given, reputations for music, sporting excellence, food, or as holiday destinations. There are international league tables for performance on a range of issues from corruption to football. This website introduces a measure of something more fundamental. It addresses the relative success or failure of countries in supporting good life for their citizens, whilst repecting the environmental resource limits upon which our lives depend. The Happy Planet Index (HPI) is an innovative new measure that shows the ecological efficiency with which human well-being is delivered. “.

The question is whether this all makes any sense? I believe it is only relative. I believe it is difficult to measure happiness in a place where you do not have freedom, or security, or food. Of course it is possible to live long, happy lives with a much smaller environmental impact: for example, in the United States and Germany people’s sense of life satisfaction is almost identical and life expectancy is broadly similar. Yet Germany’s Ecological Ecological footprint is only about half that of the USA. This means that Germany is around twice as efficient as the USA at generating happy long lives based on the resources that they consume. But how to explain that people in Iran and Palestine, for instance, are happier than the UK? In Iran there is no freedom, women are dominated, in Palestina there is no security, no hope. And what about Colombia in 2nd place? Even if may not be the terrible place the media painted for us, with the guerrilla, kidnapping, drugs cartels, etc, it is impossible that it could stand in number 2 (seen the picture "La Virgen de los sicarios"?).

It seems that sometimes it's not about happiness, rather about lack of opportunity, which in turn leads to low expectations and thus contentment. As a conclusion, interesting approach, at least it makes one think about sustainability and happiness, but it certainly needs rethinking and integrating other factors.