BECÖм¶ÔĶÁ£ºÐÒ¸£²»ÄÜ¿¿Õþ¸®
ÐÒ¸£²»ÄÜ¿¿Õþ¸®
ÓйØÕþ¸®Õþ²ßÓ¦¸üÃ÷È·µØ¾Û½¹ÓÚ"Ôö½øÐÒ¸£"µÄÖ÷ÕÅ£¬½üÀ´Õý»ñµÃÖ§³Ö¡£Ö§³Ö´ËÖÖ¹ÛµãµÄÈËÖ¸³ö£¬»ùÓÚËùνÐÒ¸£¸Ðµ÷²éµÄÐÒ¸£Ö¸±ê£¬ÒÑÍ£ÖÍÁ˼¸Ê®Äê¡£Ò»¸öÖØÒªµÄÔÒòÊÇ£¬¸÷¹úÕþ¸®×ÅÑÛÓÚÌá¸ßÒ»¸ö¶¨ÒåÏÁ°¯¡¢ÒÔÎïÖÊΪ±¾µÄ¾¼Ã¸£ÀûºâÁ¿Ö¸±ê£¬¼´¹úÃñÉú²ú×ÜÖµ(GNP)£¬¶ø·ÇÒ»¸ö¸üÈ«ÃæµÄ»ùÓÚÐÒ¸£µÄ¸£ÀûÖ¸±ê¡£
The idea that government policy should be focused more explicitly on promoting happiness has been gaining support. Proponents of this view argue that happiness indicators, based on surveys that purport to measure how happy people feel, have stagnated over decades. An important reason is that governments have aimed to maximise a narrowly defined materially based measure of economic welfare, gross national product, rather than a more holistic indicator of welfare based on happiness.
ÕâһǰÌáÏÔÈ»ÊÇ´íÎóµÄ¡£¹ÅÍù½ñÀ´£¬Õþ½çÈËÊ¿ÏëʵÏÖµÄÐí¶àÄ¿±ê£¬²¢·ÇÖ¼ÔÚÌá¸ßGNP¡£ÀýÈ磬×î½üÔÚÓ¢¹ú²ÆÕþ²¿ÍøÕ¾¹«²¼µÄ¹«¹²·þÎñÐÒ飬²ûÃ÷ÁËÕþ¸®µÄ³Ðŵ£¬ÒªÔö¼ÓÖÐСѧµÄÌåÓý¿Î£¬¹ÄÀøÈËÃDzÎÓëÒÕÊõ»î¶¯£¬²¢¼õÉÙÑòɦÑ÷Ö¢µÄ·¢²¡ÂÊ¡£Ïë±Ø£¬Õâ²¢·Ç"ÇúÏß"ÍÆ¶¯¾¼ÃÔö³¤µÄ·½Ê½¡£
This premise is clearly false. Politicians have always sought to achieve many things that are not designed to increase GNP. The most recent public service agreements on the British Treasury website, for example, spell out government commitments to make schoolchildren do more physical education, increase participation in the arts and reduce scrapie in sheep. Presumably these are not just oblique ways of boosting the economy.
ÐÒ¸£Ç÷ÊÆ¼¸Ê®ÄêÍ£ÖͲ»Ç°£¬Ò²ÐíÕý˵Ã÷Õþ¸®Õþ²ß×ÜÌåÉÏÊÇʧ°ÜµÄ£¬ËµÃ÷¹ýÈ¥50ÄêÀ´£¬Í¨¹ýÕþÖνø³ÌÀ´"¸ÄÉÆÈËÀà"µÄŬÁ¦ÊÇͽÀ͵ġ£µ«Õ⽫ÊÇÒ»¸öÁîÈ˾ÚÉ¥µÄ½áÂÛ¡£Òò´Ë£¬ÐÒ¸£¸Ð³«µ¼Õß°ÑGNPµ±×÷Ìæ×ïÑò£¬Ö÷Õž¼ÃÔö³¤ÓëÐÒ¸£Î޹أ¬ÉõÖÁÓк¦¡£
A decades-long flat happiness trend could be showing that government policies in general fail; that efforts to improve the human lot through the political process over the past 50 years have proved futile. But this would be a depressing conclusion. Instead, happiness advocates make a scapegoat out of GNP and argue that economic growth is irrelevant or detrimental to happiness.
ÁíÒ»ÖÖ¹ÛµãÊÇ£¬³¤ÆÚµÄÐÒ¸£¸ÐÊý¾Ý°üº¬µÄÕæÕýÐÅÏ¢ºÜÉÙ£¬ÉõÖÁÍêȫûÓС£ÎÒÃǸù±¾²»ÄÜÒÀÀµ´ËÀàÊý¾Ý×÷ΪÓÐÓõÄÖ¸±ê¡£µÄÈ·£¬ÕâЩÊý¾Ý²¢Î´ÏÔʾ³öÓëһϵÁÐÏÔÈ»ÓÐÍûÔö½øÐÒ¸£µÄÒòËØ¾ßÓÐÏà¹ØÐÔ£¬ÀýÈç´ó·ùÔö¼ÓÐÝÏÐʱ¼ä£¬Ô¤ÆÚÊÙÃü¸ü³¤£¬ÒÔ¼°ÐÔ±ð²»Æ½µÈµÄËõС¡£
The alternative view is that the happiness data over time contain little or no genuine information. We simply cannot rely on such data as an indicator of anything useful. Indeed, they show no correlation with a whole range of factors that might reasonably be thought to improve well-being, such as a massive increase in leisure time, a tendency to live longer and a decline in gender inequality.
ÈËÃÇÍùÍùÖ÷ÕÅ£¬ÊÕÈ벻ƽµÈÊÇÐÒ¸£Óë·ñµÄÖØÒª¾ö¶¨ÒòËØ£¬¶øÕâÒ»"ÊÂʵ"±»ÓÃ×÷Ôö¼ÓÀÛ½øË°ÊÕµÄÀíÓÉ¡£È»¶ø£¬ÔÚÊÕÈ벻ƽµÈ¼Ó¾ç»ò¼õ»ºÆÚ¼ä£¬ÎÒÃÇûÓз¢ÏÖÐÒ¸£¸ÐÊý¾ÝÓÐÈκα仯¡£ÎÒÃÇ»¹±»¸æÖª£¬½üÊýÊ®ÄêÀ´£¬ÓÇÓôÖ¢·¢²¡ÂÊ´ó·ùÉÏÉý£¬µ«ÐÒ¸£Ö¸±ê²¢Î´³öÏÖÓëÖ®¶ÔÓ¦µÄϽµ¡£
Income inequality is often claimed to be a strong determinant of happiness, and this "fact" used to argue for more progressive taxation. Yet we do not see any change in recorded happiness when inequality goes up or down. We are also told there has been a large rise in depression in recent decades, but this is not reflected by a downturn in measured happiness.
ÓÐʱºò£¬ÎÒÃDZ»¸æÖª£¬ÐÒ¸£³Ì¶ÈÖ®ËùÒÔûÓÐÉÏÉý£¬ÊÇÒòΪ¼ÒÍ¥ºÍÁÚÀï¹ØÏµÆÆÁÑÔÚµÖÏû¾¼ÃÔö³¤µÄÒæ´¦¡£µ«ÊÇ£¬°´ÕÕÕâÖÖ˵·¨µÄÂß¼£¬¾ö²ßÕßÓ¦¸ÃÎÞ¶¯ÓÚÖÔ£¬ÒòΪÒÔÕâÖÖ"È«Ãæ"µÄÐÒ¸£Ö¸±êÀ´ºâÁ¿£¬ÎÒÃDz¢Ã»ÓбÈÒÔǰ±äµÃ¸üÔã¡£¾ÍÁ¬×îÒõ³ÁµÄÕýͳ¾¼Ãѧ¼ÒÒ²²»»áÉù³Æ£¬ÎïÖʲƸ»¿ÉÒÔÌæ´úÇ×Çé¡£
Sometimes we are told that happiness has failed to increase because the benefits of economic growth have been offset by a breakdown in family and community relationships. But the normative implication of this argument is that policymakers should be indifferent because, by this supposedly all- encompassing measure of welfare, we are no worse off than we were before. Not even the most dismal orthodox economist would claim that material wealth is a substitute for kinship.
Ïà¹ØÍÆ¼ö£º