2.14 ndian onom
people in a heartbeat. Yet all is not well. have remained essentially unchanged
The conditions of affluence have created over the half-century. The increased US
their own set of traps. output has caused massive environmental
Most importantly, the lifestyles of damages, notably through greenhouse
the rich imperil the survival of the poor. gas concentrations and human-induced
Human-induced climate change is climate change, without doing much
already hitting the poorest regions and at all to raise the well-being even of
claiming lives and livelihoods. It is telling Americans. Thus, we don’t have a trade
that in much of the rich world, affluent off between short-run gains to well-being
populations are so separated from the poor versus long-run costs to the environment;
that there is little recognition, practical we have a pure loss to the environment
or moral, of the adverse spillovers (or without offsetting short-term gains.
‘externalities’) from their own behaviour. The paradox that Easterlin noted in
(v) Affluence has also created its own set of the US was that at any particular time
afflictions and addictions (problems)— richer individuals are happier than poorer
obesity, adult-onset diabetes, tobacco- ones, but over time the society did not
related illnesses, eating disorders such become happier as it became richer. This
as anorexia and bulimia, psychosocial is due to four reasons:
disorders, and addictions to shopping, (a) Individuals compare themselves to
TV and gambling, are all examples others. They are happier when they
of disorders of development. So too are higher on the social (or income)
is the loss of community, the decline ladder. Yet when everybody rises
of social trust and the rising anxiety together, relative status remains
levels associated with the vagaries of the unchanged.
modern globalised economy, including
(b) The gains have not been evenly shared,
the threats of unemployment or episodes
but have gone disproportionately to
of illness not covered by health insurance
those at the top of the income and
in the United States (and many other
education distribution.
countries).
(c) The other societal factors—insecurity,
(vi) Higher average incomes do not
loss of social trust, declining
necessarily improve average well-being,
confidence in government—have
the US being a clear case in point, as
counteracted any benefits felt from
noted famously by Professor Richard
higher incomes.
Easterlin18—where GNP per capita has
risen by a factor of three since 1960, (d) Individuals may experience an initial
while measures of average happiness jump in happiness when their income
rises, but then at least partly return
18. Among the foremost contributors to the Happiness to earlier levels as they adapt to their
Economics, Easterlin is particularly known for his 1974
article ‘Does Economic Growth Improve the Human
new higher income.
Lot? Some Empirical Evidence’ (his ideas are today (vii) These phenomena put a clear limit on
known as the Easterlin Paradox, was proposed by the extent to which rich countries can
him in this article). Here he concluded that contrary
to expectation, happiness at a national level does not become happier through the simple
increase with wealth once asic needs are fulfilled. device of economic growth. In fact, there