HAPPINESS INDICATORS

[America is rich; once people get rich, what do they want? What is worth having? I found a number of Americans who had answered this question in their own way. This column was published in Business Standard of 28 August 2000.]

DIY Indexes of Bliss 

Economists take the growth of gross domestic product as a synthetic index of how much better a country is doing. To non-economists this sounds too materialistic. Even some economists think that it does not capture what truly makes people’s lives better. Their dissatisfaction led to the institution of the Human Development Report, and its associated index of quality of life. Apart from per capita GDP, it adds together indicators of health, education, and social welfare. Apart from the UN, a couple of dozen countries report every year on their own quality of life, including Britain, Turkey – and Madhya Pradesh.

Here in America, however, there are people who think other things matter; and it being a free country, everyone makes his own index. Thus Professor Marc Miringoff of Fordham University is known for his social health index. Amongst the 16 indicators he incorporates are child poverty, infant mortality, crime, access to medical care and to affordable housing, alcohol-related fatal traffic accidents, youth suicides, teenage drug-related arrests, low-weight births, unemployment, income inequality and real wages. According to this index, the United States has gone from bad to worse: from 77 in 1973, the index went down to 46 in 1997, although the 1990s showed a modest upturn. The basic reason is that whilst the US is more prosperous today, the prosperity went to those who were well off to begin with. The average income of the top 20 per cent went up by 45 per cent in the 24 years; that of the bottom 20 per cent dropped 2 per cent, and the average wage went down 19 per cent. Behind these figures is a radical structural change in the economy: old smokestack industries have declined in the east, and with them, steady, well paid blue-collar jobs have disappeared, whilst the new industries based on information technology boom on the west coast, bringing untold riches to whiz-kids in their twenties. The poor can neither move so easily nor change their skills to adapt themselves to these continental changes. Thus the proportion of children living in poverty went up from 14 per cent in 1973 to 20 per cent in the 1990s. But some things have improved: violent crime, abortions, AIDS, divorces and suicides have gone down, whilst schoolgoers’ performance and charitable giving have increased.

If Miringoff concerns himself with social health, William J Bennett concerns himself with moral health. Some of his indicators are similar to Miringoff’s: for instance, alcohol-related deaths and drug use. But he also includes crime and births to unmarried women, which are epidemic especially amongst black girls. Some of his indicators are pretty qualitative, like community participation and trust in government. 

Not content with these indexes, a group called Redefining Progress has constructed an index called the Genuine Progress Indicator. It takes the GNP, subtracts from it indicators of regression like legal fees, medical costs, commuting time and expenditure on locks and alarms, and adds in time spent on household work and child care.

These are the better known indexes. But Alexander Stille of The New York Times found some stranger experiments. On Lake Michigan there is an obscure city called Traverse City. A group there surveyed 2000 residents of surrounding counties and asked them what they thought was important. At the top of their list was environment – in particular, the magnificent view of the bay to their north. Then came education and public health. They do not like houses sprawling into the countryside; so the group included the number of septic tanks in its index. It also took in litigation and shoplifting.

One of the oddest indicators is one used in Tucson, Arizona: it is the number of pedestrians on the street. To someone familiar with American cities, it will make immediate sense. Some years ago I spent some time in Washington. At weekends I used to go for walks. In Du Pont Circle one found pedestrians even early on Sunday mornings. But once one went south past White House, their number dwindled. The strangest area was one to the south where poor people lived. There there were presumably far more people behind the doors, but I almost never saw anyone on the streets. Mugging is common in certain areas, and people avoid walking there. If they are seen on the streets, it is an index of how safe they feel.

That would be a pretty irrelevant index in an Indian city, where no one thinks twice before walking out on a street.
What indicators would we take in India? Speaking for myself, I would put atmospheric pollution at the top. It does not simply make our cities ugly and smelly; its harm to health is immense. One of my greatest joys is getting away to the Himalayas; even in dirty cities like Simla one can see stars at night.

Next I would put noise. It is the first thing one notices on one’s return to India: there is so much wanton, unpleasant noise. Most of it is unnecessary. Everywhere else in the world, people drive without blowing their horns; cars do not start sounding alarms at the drop of a hat; weddings are not accompanied by third-rate bands.

Finally, I would put facilities for walking. The vast majority of Indians are pedestrians, but the conditions they face are abysmal. The authorities in Delhi systematically build pavements that are too high; presumably contractors are paid by the volume of dirt that goes into the pavements. There is so much encroachment on the pavements. They are broken and left unrepaired. And there are no beautiful pedestrian areas. In so many old cities of the world, their old centres have been turned into pedestrian areas, cleaned up and beautified; today they attract millions of tourists. Contrast it with what we have done with the core areas of Delhi, Hyderabad and Ahmedabad. We have a great heritage, but we do not deserve it.