The World Happiness Report 2024 revealed this year that the United Kingdom had fallen three spots to occupy number 20 on the list of the world’s happiest countries. To make matters worse, our young people are becoming more and more unhappy, with their rates of depression now surpassing that of the elderly (a more globally-typical high-risk group). This comes at the same time that the UK’s What Works Centre for Wellbeing – the leading UK authority on wellbeing, responsible for integrating official wellbeing guidance into the UK Treasury’s Green Book – has had to close its doors due to lack of funding. 

What is the point of being the sixth largest economy in the world, if the UK is going to ignore the need for growing happiness? Why have money in our pockets if we don’t know how to enjoy it? 

We constantly hear our politicians throwing around arguments for and against de-growth and green-growth because we are under an illusion that Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is still the ultimate end goal while we address issues like climate. But what if it isn’t? Has the Easterlin Paradox taught us nothing? (That increasing wealth doesn’t run side-by-side to increasing happiness). What if we can address climate and social inequality with a more honourable and rewarding goal in mind: happiness?

I suppose the more important question then becomes: What would this look like from a policy perspective? How would this impact our leaders’ decision-making? 

For starters, it would look like the UK joining other global leaders who are pledging to prioritise human and planetary wellbeing over economic growth. The Wellbeing Economy Alliance is one such movement which aims to harness multidimensional wellbeing frameworks to reshape countries’ economic models. It boasts membership from countries like New Zealand, Iceland, Scotland, Wales, Canada and Finland – recently ranked as the world’s happiest country. The Alliance recognises that effective and sustainable change cannot easily be made on a national or international scale without global cooperation. 

A shift to embedding happiness into policy will also mean prioritising investment in the main correlates of wellbeing, like mental health, physical exercise, job satisfaction and relationships. Some have argued that Rish Sunak’s cancellation of the HS2 in 2023 might not have happened if he had considered different factors in his cost-benefit analysis of the high-speed rail. While he argued that the project did not represent value for money, we are left to presume that that ‘value’ referred solely to fiscal returns. A wellbeing analysis of this same situation would do this too, but it would also consider the returns in happiness gleaned from the increased connectivity of British family and friends across the country, the increase in place-based pride in impacted areas, the increase in mental health afforded by greater accessibility to health services in London, etc. It would also demonstrate how these outcomes are of significant economic value – for those who aren’t convinced enough. 

Going a step further though, in 2020 the Carnegie UK Trust proposed that as an alternative to measuring GDP, the UK should measure what really matters: Gross Domestic Wellbeing (GDWe). Coalescing on 40 different indicators on wellbeing into a single figure, the GDWe would aim to ‘provide an easily communicable measure that encourages policy makers to prioritise wellbeing.’ They argued that with such an approach, not only would policy-makers be forced to focus on complex pathways to wellbeing rather than the economy above all else, but that a set of ‘super policies’ that deliver positive outcomes across a range of areas (without unintended negative outcomes) would likely come to the fore; These include investment in active travel, access to green space, family support, reforms to the social security system and housing. 

It is interesting to note that Bhutan is currently the only country that uses a measure of wellbeing instead of GDP – GNH (Gross National Happiness). The GNH Index is based on 33 indicators spanning psychological wellbeing, health, education, time use, cultural diversity, and more, and classifies each person into one of four categories: deeply happy, extensively happy, narrowly happy and unhappy. Since it launched in 2015, the country has seen an increase in GNH and findings show this is mainly driven by improvements (made through policy reprioritisation) in housing, schooling, public services and also positive emotions, which even increased throughout the pandemic. Understandably, the UN Secretary-General has since fast-tracked ‘Beyond GDP’ so that it is a main agenda item at the upcoming Summit of the Future in September this year. 

Finally, putting happiness front and centre requires a collective value re-orientation from personal success to collective success. Professor Richard Layard (co-author of the World Happiness Report) suggests that in this individualistic, ‘zero-sum game’ society we currently live in, there will always be winners and losers. Instead, he argues that we need a collective transformation of our personal goals, so that we may learn to derive happiness from making others happy and therefore eventually all benefit from targeted policy. Of course, we cannot even dream of a cultural shift like this unless our leaders first win back the trust of the British people, who must believe they are motivated and rewarded by the betterment of the general population, rather than personal interest. 

Embedding wellbeing as a central component and output of government decision-making is by no means a new idea. Dating back to the US’ publication of the Declaration of Independence, the pursuit of happiness was cited as a fundamental and ‘inalienable human right’. Even here in the UK, our two leading parties (who seldom agree on anything) both have leaders who’ve called into question the validity of pedestalling GDP (see David Cameron & Keir Starmer). As a country and global community, we need our leaders to practise what they preach and once and for all, put people first.