This special edition of the Asia Thinker Series – held as a programme of the 2022 Festival of Ideas – brings to life a vibrant discussion of how policymaking, in this technology-deep era, affects people’s lives and quality of lives in new, distinct and profound ways. The panel that dissects and discuss this, from the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy (LKYSPP), are Prof Benjamin Cashore (Li Ka Shing Professor in Public Management and Director, Initiative on Environment and Sustainability), Dr Ng Kok Hoe (Senior Research Fellow and Head, Case Study Unit and Social Inclusion Project), Assistant Professor Dr Sreeja Nair, Assoc Prof Alfred Wu; and joined by Prof Shun Wang from the KDI School of Public Policy and Management, Sejong, Korea.
A recent global pandemic, rapid digital transformation in society and changing attitudes and awareness are all contributing to how governments and policymakers are approaching their work. To meet the evolving political, climate, economic, and social expectations of constituents, shifts in policymaking need to consider broader, more inclusive measures of satisfaction. Can happiness come about from such a social contract?
Chair of the discussion panel, Prof Cashore notes, “in the last two years, COVID-19 has left a world that is highly disrupted and in wanting of much more social emphasis.” In this light, happiness becomes not merely a nebulous concept, but an economic tool of consideration.
Measuring happiness
Prof Shun Wang, associate editor of the World Happiness Report who has been researching the economics of happiness for over 10 years shares, “happiness is not a new word to people, but research into the topic has [only] just been increasing rapidly in recent decades.”
This growing interest is borne out in search frequencies as captured by Google’s Ngram service, which records a declining number in online searches for “income” versus an uptrend for “happiness” since the mid-1990s . This trend is similarly captured in the field of academic literature, testifying to more studies on the topic.
Prof Wang adds, “earlier economics have focussed [heavily] on income, because it is a determinant of people’s welfare, however GDP excludes distinct types of spending to overall well-being and some, such as spending on air pollution and crime, point to negative well-being.”
Prof Wang points to a more captive approach in Amartya Sen’s Capability Approach , which has since been refined as the Human Development Index (HDI) to include national income per capital, education and health, for a more comprehensive measure of people’s well-being. Ironically, studies have found decreasing correlation between income and happiness over long-term growth rates. “The lessons we learnt is that it’s not just income,” says Prof Wang, “there are many other [determining] factors such as economic, political, social, and physical environments, as well as family and individual characteristics.”
“Measuring national happiness is an important policy goal,” he emphasises, “it is useful for economic analyses, as well as to improve governmental and organisational effectiveness. Happiness is a very comprehensive measure and can provide a common metric that be used to compare different outcomes in various areas.” As such, increasingly, there is a call for policymakers to treat happiness as a measure more seriously and to use it to guide policies and actions.
Social inclusion
Dr Ng Kok Hoe, whose expertise and research reside in social inclusion and how it helps public policies shape opportunities, unpacks it such: “there are many definitions of social contract, but one that aptly captures it is ‘what we owe each other ’, and this consists of the norms and rules that govern our individual and collective lives. We can also think of social contract as an allocation of risks and between the state, the market and the family, and with that, allocation of responsibilities.”
Dr Ng explains that the challenges facing any social contract are well established: population aging, technology threatening the loss of jobs, and increasing flexibility and casualisation of work, but in Singapore, there are additional unique risks. These are “moderate to high inequality, slow social mobility, wage stagnation at the bottom of the distribution and a heavy dependence on a migrant work force who face even worse work conditions, and rapid aging that is creating pressure on the national pension system.”
To rethink Singapore’s social contract, Dr Ng suggests a re-thinking along three tracks is required: meeting basic needs through setting minimum income, ensuring good work by extending wage and social protection, and supporting transitions through providing adequate training, care and income support.
Sources of happiness
Adding a further lens to the discussion is Dr Sreeja Nair, who brings the interplay of studies between science, climate and policymaking into the mix. She recaps four virtues of kindness, compassion, gratitude and awe, and how these are more important than ever for the individual today as we face the fallout of war and displacement, climate change, mental health issues, economic uncertainties and technological changes.
“Preparing for a future that is very different from the current is challenging,” says Dr Nair, “add to that the administrative burden of implementing new ideas [in terms of] costs and learning; so, one of the ways policymakers can try out these new ideas is by starting small and launching pilots – so an experimental culture in governments should be promoted.”
A second approach she recommends to re-frame a new social contract is to consider the ideas of diversity, equity, inclusion and justice, in an inter-generational way. There is a need, she calls out, to devise strategies that serve not just the majority of society, but also pays attention to the most marginalised communities.
A final consideration she proposes rests on how people value nature, the environment and natural resources varies. To address this, “we need to rethink and re-imagine our relationship with nature” by harnessing societies that boast traditional skills and closeness to nature and involving them in policies that tackle environmental change.
Trust issues
To Assoc Prof Alfred Wu, happiness is not just about life satisfactions. He cites the recent COVID-19 scenario – in terms of people’s and governments’ responses. Implicit in the relationship is social trust, notes Assoc Prof Wu. In recent studies conducted, he concludes that government trust was negatively associated with stress, and it is something emphatically prevalent among older demographics. “For the [field of] public management of happiness research, we will need to look at social trust if we are to fight such pandemics in the future,” notes Assoc Prof Wu.
Happiness: concept and caveats
As to whether “happiness” is the right term or concept that forms a critical part of measuring social contract, given its immense variance, Prof Cashore queries if a more precise notion is worth considering instead.
For Prof Wang, the term is sufficiently encompassing, since he frames the concept of happiness as a multi-dimensional one – there is happiness as defined by positive or negative emotions, which is highly changeable on a day-to-day basis, yet there are also life evaluations or the cognitive aspects of happiness, which are far more stable and associated with the social, economic, political and living circumstances.
Drawing from his research into poverty and social inclusion, Dr Ng found, among his respondents, that the intangibles that make up the basic standard of living, must encompass a sense of belonging, respect – from others and of self, security, independence, freedom and opportunities, to make up any measure of happiness. He cites “security, people’s [level of] optimism and how they look towards the future,” as inroads into understanding happiness.
To this, Prof Cashore’s caveat is: if security is correlated to happiness, or just a component of it. His opinion is that those with a purpose [to better or change the world] are inherently happy – that individuals are happier serving a larger purpose, than for themselves.
Dr Nair suggest drawing a difference between happiness as a static versus a dynamic entity. “Many wellness sessions today focus on being in the moment,” she notes, “but when it comes to policymaking, if you do so without foresight or drawing from the past and legacy issues, looking at things in such a static manner could be very detrimental. However, this is not to say that happiness as a concept cannot be achieved.” Dr Nair explains, “there can be a duality of feeling – of being frustrated by the [rate of] policy-making, but also have a sense of purpose that can drive a lot of actions.”
Assoc Prof Wu concludes, “governments have to actively work to build social trust, in peacetimes and otherwise; otherwise, all the hard infrastructure and good policies cannot be translated into better strategies.”
Watch the full discussion on Policymaking and People’s Happiness - Do we need a new social contract?