nach oben

Journal of Happiness Studies

24.01.2019 | Research Paper

Happiness Matters: Productivity Gains from Subjective Well-Being

verfasst von: Charles Henri DiMaria, Chiara Peroni, Francesco Sarracino

Erschienen in: Journal of Happiness Studies

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

This article studies the link between subjective well-being and productivity at the aggregate level, using a matched dataset from surveys and official statistics. Well-being and productivity are measured, respectively, by life satisfaction and total factor productivity. The analysis, which applies non-parametric frontier techniques in a production framework, finds that life satisfaction generates significant productivity gains in a sample of 20 European countries. These results confirm the evidence of a positive association between the variables of interest found at the individual and firm level, and support the view that promoting subjective well-being is not only desirable per se, but it is conducive to higher productivity and improved countries’ economic performances.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Note that a basic measure of productivity is a ratio of output to inputs (OECD 2001).

DEA solves sets of cross-sectional linear programmes with optimisation techniques. This delivers distance measures which are interpreted as TFP indicators.

At the same time, DEA requires the observational units (countries) to be comparable and to have access to the same technology. We regard the set of countries in the sample as sufficiently homogeneous to obtain meaningful results.

The primary source of AMECO data is countries’ national accounts.

The year 2002 is not included as some of the countries in our sample were not surveyed. ESS survey documentation is available at http://ess.nsd.uib.no/ess/.

Various studies document that the 0 to 10 scale is a standard and reliable scale for measuring well-being (see Pavot and Diener 1993b; Krueger and Schkade 2008).

Various imputation techniques are available. We opted for mode replacement because this technique does not alter the distribution of the variable of interest and, therefore, this allows us to use the given sample weights. Alternative methods, such as the imputation using the predicted values from a happiness regression, may alter the original distribution of the variable. In this case it is necessary to re-compute the sample weights, which is not trivial.

Note that, while life satisfaction is an integer variable, average life satisfaction is measured on a continuous scale. Thus, we do not need to adopt DEA frameworks designed to deal with integer values.

This is because countries’ positions are established by comparing their output to the “optimal” level of output given by the unique frontier.

In a DEA framework, valid inputs are those that are under the control of the decision maker, or are quasi-fixed inputs. Other variables that might influence the outcome but are not under the control of managers are regarded as exogenous, and they are referred to as contextual variables.

Largely speaking, in DEA the definition of inputs and output set characterises the production technology. No functional form is specified for the transformation of inputs into outputs.

Note that the use of the rescaled GDP as output guarantees that changes in efficiency can only be attributed to the omitted variable (life satisfaction in our case). Intuitively, to meaningfully compare the efficiency scores, we need to “fix” the frontier. This is depicted in Fig. 3b.

Following Simar and Wilson (1998, 2000a, b), efficiency estimates were also obtained using a bootstrap procedure, rescaling GDP so that bootstrap estimates were close to unity. Results are available from authors on request.

The changes in efficiency following a unit change in life satisfaction should not be interpreted as the elasticities computable in a standard econometric framework. Note that it is not possible to compute derivatives of a piece-wise linear frontier.

Results available upon request to the authors.

The CRS assumption is easily relaxed in this setting, by adding the constraint that the \(\lambda\)s parameter sum to unity.

Bartolini, S. (2014). Building sustainability through greater happiness. The Economic and Labour Relations Review, 25(4), 587–602.

Bartolini, S. (2019). Manifesto for happiness: Shifting society from money to well-being. Palgrave.

Bartolini, S., & Sarracino, F. (2007). Are stressful jobs the price to pay for economic prosperity? (Chapter 9). In F. Sarracino (Ed.), The happiness compass: Theories, actions and perspectives for well-being (pp. 125–140). Hauppauge: NOVA.

Bateman, T., & Organ, D. (1983). Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The relation between affect and employee “citizenship”. Academy of Management Journal, 261, 587–595.

Blanchflower, D., & Oswald, A. (2004). Money, sex and happiness: An empirical study. The Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 106(3), 393–415.

Bryson, A., Forth, J., & Stokes, L. (2017). Does employees subjective well-being affect workplace performance? Human Relations, 70(8), 1017–1037.

Caves, D., Christensen, L., & Diewert, W. (1982). The economic theory of index numbers and the measurement of input, output, and productivity. Econometrica, 50, 73–86.

Charnes, A., Cooper, W., & Rhodes, E. (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision-making units. European Journal of Operational Research, 2, 429–444.

Coelli, T., Rao, D. P., O’Donnell, C., & Battese, G. (2005). An introduction to efficiency and productivity analysis. Berlin: Springer.

Cordero, J. M., Santín, D., & Sicilia, G. (2015). Testing the accuracy of DEA estimates under endogeneity through a Monte Carlo simulation. European Journal of Operational Research, 244(2), 511–518.

Crawford, M., & Holder, M. (2007). Promoting happiness through urban planning, chapter 12. In F. Sarracino (Ed.), The happiness compass: Theories, actions and perspectives for well-being (pp. 177–202). Hauppauge: NOVA.

Deci, E., & Flaste, R. (1996). Why we do what we do: Understanding self-motivation. New York: Penguins Books.

Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behaviour. New York: Plenum Press.

Del Gatto, M., Di Liberto, A., & Petraglia, C. (2011). Measuring productivity. Journal of Economic Surveys, 25(5), 952–1008.

Diener, E. (2006). Guidelines for national indicators of subjective well-being and ill-being. Journal of Happiness Studies, 7, 397–404.

Easterlin, R., & Angelescu, L. (2009). Happiness and growth the world over: Time series evidence on the happiness–income paradox. IZA Discussion Paper, (4060).

Easterlin, R. A., McVey, L. A., Switek, M., Sawangfa, O., & Zweig, J. S. (2010). The happiness–income paradox revisited. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(52), 1–6.

Edmans, A. (2012). The link between employee satisfaction and firm value, with implications for corporate social responsibility. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 26(4), 1–19.

Färe, R., Grosskopf, S., & Lovell, C. K. (1994a). Production frontiers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Färe, R., Grosskopf, S., Norris, M., & Zhongyang, Z. (1994b). Productivity growth, technical progress and efficiency change in industrialised countries. American Economic Review, 84, 666–683.

Farrell, M. J. (1957). The measurement of productive efficiency. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (General), 120(3), 253–281.

GALLUP. (2017). State of the global workplace. Princeton: Gallup Press.

George, J., & Brief, A. (1992). Feeling good-doing good: A conceptual analysis of the mood at work-organizational spontaneity relationship. Psychological Bulletin, 2(112), 310–329.

Grifell-Tatje, E., & Lovell, C. (1985). A note on the malmquist productivity index. Economic Letters, 47, 169–175.

Harter, J., & Schmidt, F. (2000). Validation of a performance-related and activation management tool: A meta-analysis and utility analysis. Technical report, Gallup Organization, Lincoln, NE.

Harter, J., Schmidt, F., & Keyes, C. (2003). Well-being in the workplace and its relationship to business outcomes: A review of the Gallup studies. In C. Keyes & J. Haidt (Eds.), Flourishing: Positive psychology and the life well-lived (pp. 205–224). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Haybron, D. M. (2011). Central Park: Nature, context, and human wellbeing. International Journal of Wellbeing, 1(2), 235–254.

Helliwell, J. F. (2011). How can subjective well-being be improved. In F. Gorbet & A. Sharpe (Eds.), New directions for Intelligent Government in Canada (pp. 283–304). Ottawa: Centre for the Study of Living Standards.

Judge, T., Thoreson, C., Bono, J., & Patton, G. (2001). The job satisfaction–job performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 376–407.

Kahneman, D., & Krueger, A. (2006). Developments in the measurement of subjective well-being. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20, 3–24.

Kasser, T., & Ryan, R. M. (2001). Be careful what you wish for: Optimal functioning and the relative attainment of intrinsic and extrinsic goals. In P. Schmuck & K. M. Sheldon (Eds.), Life goals and well-being: Towards a positive psychology of human striving (pp. 116–131). Goettingen: Hogrefe & Huber Publishers.

Krueger, A., & Schkade, D. (2008). The reliability of subjective well-being measures. Journal of Public Economics, 92(8–9), 1833–1845.

Kumar, S., & Russell, R. R. (2002). Technological change, technological catch-up, and capital deepening: Relative contributions to growth and convergence. American Economic Review, 92(3), 527–548.

Lafuente, E., Szerb, L., & Acs, Z. J. (2016). Country level efficiency and national systems of entrepreneurship: A data envelopment analysis approach. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(6), 1260–1283.

Layard, R. (2005). Happiness: Lessons from a new science. New York: Penguin.

Malmquist, S. (1953). Index numbers and indifference surfaces. Trabajos de Estadistica y de Investigacion Operativa, 4(2), 209–242.

Nakamura, S., & Otsuka, Y. (2007). Job resources enhance work engagement through positive affect and meaningful work among Japanese employees, chapter 10. In F. Sarracino (Ed.), The happiness compass: Theories, actions and perspectives for well-being (pp. 141–152). Hauppauge: NOVA.

Nataraja, N., & Johnson, A. (2011). Guidelines for using variable selection techniques in data envelopment analysis. European Journal of Operational Research, 215, 662–669.

OECD. (2001). Measuring productivity—OECD manual: Measurement of aggregate and industry-level productivity growth. Paris: OECD Publishing.

Oswald, A., Proto, E., & Sgroi, D. (2014). Happiness and productivity. Journal of Labor Economics, 33, 789–822.

Pastor, J., Ruiz, J., & Sirvent, I. (2002). A statistical test for nested radial dea models. Operations Research, 50, 728–735.

Pavot, W., & Diener, E. (1993a). Review of the satisfaction with life scale. Psychological Assessment, 5, 2.

Pavot, W., & Diener, E. (1993b). Review of the satisfaction with life scale. Psychological Assessment, 5, 164–172.

Proto, E., Sgroi, D., & Oswald, A. (2010). Are happiness and productivity lower among University students with newly-divorced parents? Warwick Economic Research Papers, (937)

Rogers, S. H., Halstead, J. M., Gardner, K. H., & Carlson, C. H. (2011). Examining walkability and social capital as indicators of quality of life at the municipal and neighborhood scales. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 6(2), 201–213.

Sacks, D. W., Stevenson, B., & Wolfers, J. (2012). Subjective well-being, income, economic development and growth, chapter 3. In P. Booth (Ed.), And the pursuit of happiness: Well-being and the role of government (pp. 59–98). London: The Institute of Economic Affairs.

Schimmack, U., Krause, P., Wagner, G., & Schupp, J. (2010). Stability and change of well-being: An experimentally enhanced latent state-trait-error analysis. Social Indicators Research, 95(1), 19–31.

Schneider, L., & Schimmack, U. (2009). Self-informant agreement in well-being ratings: A meta-analysis. Social Indicators Research, 94(3), 363–376.

Schwarz, N., & Strack, F. (1999). Reports of subjective well-being: Judgmental processes and their methodological implications. In D. Kahneman, E. D. Diener, & N. Schwarz (Eds.), Well-being: The foundations of hedonist psychology. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Silva, A., & Caetano, A. (2007). Daily hassles and uplifts at work: Perceived effects on well-being, chapter 11. In F. Sarracino (Ed.), The happiness compass: Theories, actions and perspectives for well-being (pp. 153–176). Hauppauge: NOVA.

Simar, L., & Wilson, P. (1998). Sensitivity analysis of efficiency scores: How to bootstrap in non-parametric frontier modelsleast median of squares regression. Management Science, 44, 49–68.

Simar, L., & Wilson, P. (2000a). A general methodology for bootstrapping in non-parametric frontier models. Journal of Applied Statistics, 27, 779–802.

Simar, L., & Wilson, P. (2000b). Statistical inference in nonparametric frontier models: The state of the art. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 13, 49–78.

Spector, P. E. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes, and consequences (Vol. 3). Beverly Hills: SAGE.

Syverson, C. (2011). What determines productivity? Journal of Economic literature, 49(2), 326–65.

van Reekum, C., Urry, H., Johnstone, T., Thurow, M., Frye, C., Jackson, C., et al. (2007). Individual differences in amygdala and ventromedial prefrontal cortex activity are associated with evaluation speed and psychological well-being. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19(2), 237–248.

Wanous, J., & Hudy, M. (2001). Single-item reliability: A replication and extension. Organizational Research Methods, 4, 361–375.

Wright, T., & Cropanzano, R. (2000). Psychological well-being and job satisfaction as predictors of job performance. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 84–94.

Titel: Happiness Matters: Productivity Gains from Subjective Well-Being
verfasst von: Charles Henri DiMaria
Chiara Peroni
Francesco Sarracino
Publikationsdatum: 24.01.2019
Verlag: Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in: Journal of Happiness Studies
Print ISSN: 1389-4978
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-7780
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-019-00074-1