Should the maximisation of happiness be a goal of government?

In the past happiness was seen by many as something to be pursued

individually rather than as a matter of national policy. However following the
release of the World Happiness Report more and more people are seeing that it
makes sense to pursue policies in order to raise the publics happiness. These
views are expressed in Document 6 of the booklet.
This is not a new idea at all, as it has been brought up by many over time, such
as by Thomas Paine, in the Rights of Man, which was released in 1790. He said
that Whatever the form or Constitution of Government may be, it ought to have
no other object than the general happiness. This shows that despite whether a
country follows a democratic, dictatorial or communist method, they should all
have one key focus which is the goal of all their policies, and that is happiness.
Over time, many happiness and satisfaction surveys have been taken to find the
happiest country in the world, and throughout these Iceland has come near the
top of many. If you look at certain statistics however this may seem to be very
surprising.
In an article called No wonder Iceland have the happiest people on Earth we
find out that; as a country they have the highest birth rate in Europe and the
highest divorce rate and the highest percentage of women working outside the
home, yet it is considered to be the best country in the world to live. This comes
as great shock to many, because why would a place with high numbers of
children, broken homes and absent mothers, be a good place to live? In fact,
Iceland topped the United Nations Development Programme Human
Development Index ranking, meaning that as a society and as an economy, they
are on top of the world. Despite the aforementioned social failings, in terms of
other factors it can be seen why Iceland is such a happy place to live. An
example of a factor which increases the happiness of the country includes that if
you are employed the state gives you nine months child leave at full pay to be
split between the mother and father how they wish. This means that the problem
of inequality for women in terms of employability has been eradicated as
employers know that men are just as likely as women to take time off when they
are hiring so no discrimination is seen to women. Therefore women are able to
extend their economic activities which are seen by many to contribute to
happiness levels.
This article was written by John Carlin, for the Guardian Newspaper in 2008, and
was entitled No wonder Iceland is the happiest place on Earth. Carlin seems to
be a rather reliable source, as he has no vested interest in portraying Iceland
better or worse than it is, and he also appears to be a well-respected political
journalist. This can be seen from his wide range of clients which could only build
up so extensively if he was known to conduct accurate research and write non
biased articles.
In an interview given by the then Icelandic Prime Minister, Gier Haarde, he said 'I
believe we have blended the best of Europe and the United States here, the
Nordic welfare system with the American entrepreneurial spirit. What he is
talking about here is the fact that unlike other Scandinavian countries Iceland
has exceptionally low personal and corporate tax rates, which means that not
only do Icelandic companies stay but foreign companies come and base

themselves in Iceland, leading to the positive multiplier effect. This decision by

the government to have low taxes could also benefit the happiness of Icelandic
people as it will bring money into the economy, which can be used to pay for
things which will benefit the public, such as entertainment complexes, shopping
centres, exercise places etc. These are all things which are seen to bring
happiness to people.
Whilst Gier Haarde is undeniably going to be very well informed on the
governments policies and how they have affected the country, his credibility
could come into question. This is because although he is a well-respected figure
in the country, it is likely that he will want to portray Iceland as best as he
possibly can and he is therefore likely to focus upon the things that have worked
well in order to keep the attention away from any possible failures.
As well as this Icelanders not only receive free, top class education, but they also
benefit from free, top class healthcare as well as certain private medicines which
are used solely in Iceland. It is these governmental policies which contribute to
Iceland being seen as one of the best places to live, as well as one of the richest.
The Icelandic government has included enlightened policies to the islands
pragmatic, inventive human raw material, and it is this which means that Iceland
is one of the happiest places on Earth.
Dagur Eggertsson, the former mayor of Reykjavik, said that It is more important
for the health of a country that the social phenomena we stress here are
equality, peace, democracy, clean water, education, renewable energy, women's
rights, instead of not smoking and eating well Here he has summarised the key
governmental aims of Iceland, which are to increase awareness of what are less
prominent issues in other countries, instead of focussing on the usual factors,
and that for a country as a whole to develop positively the focus needs to be on
a wide range of social factors that could bring happiness to many.
Similarly to Haarde, Eggertsson may have the same vested interests in wanting
to make Iceland look as good as possible and therefore focusing on and possibly
exaggerating the positive factors and taking the light away from any political
shortfalls.
Looking at Iceland as a whole we can really see the benefits of focussing on
happiness maximisation, as it can be seen that the effects spread into other
factors such as the economy, so that by placing the attention on social wellbeing
the benefits will be felt by many, whereas in countries where the focus is the
economic status of the country, there may not be the same positive results in
terms of happiness and the results may not felt by as many people.
As a country, Iceland has the fifteenth highest GDP per capita in the world,
coming above countries such as the UK. Icelanders buy the most books, which
reflects the top class education; they have the highest male life expectancy in
the world, and a significantly high up life expectancy for women, reflecting the
free top class healthcare. Iceland has the fastest growing banking system in the
world, booming export business, pure air, and hot water delivered to all
households straight from the Earths volcanoes, as well as the highest ratio of
mobile phones to population.

These staggering lists of statistics are largely influenced by the government, and
bring happiness to many Icelanders, so surely other countries should follow
Icelands league to increase the happiness of citizens.
In many communist countries however unhappiness is seen throughout the
population and this is largely down to political policies. Possibly one of the most
famous examples of communism is China, where political policies have come
under central spotlight, including the world renowned One Child Policy. This is
something nearly everyone has heard of, and it came into place in 1979 under
the leadership of Deng Xiaoping. The policy was intended to slow down the rate
of population growth, as it was growing at an uncontrollable level which would
hugely exceed the optimum capacity of the country. There have been some
successes due to this policy, and the aim of controlling population size has been
met, however it has led to unpredictable devastating consequences.

In an article published for the Huffington Post entitled Chinas One Child Policy
Tragedy it is mentioned that the continuation of the one child policy could
possibly bring harm to the economic progress of China, which as it is an
emerging economy, second only to the USA, there could be hugely devastating
consequences. The policy is undeniably going to reduce those of an economically
active age in the future, which will mean that fewer people are contributing to
the government in the form of taxes, which will be incredibly detrimental to a
country which has an increasingly ageing population. The demographic make-up
of the country will become a 4-2-1 structure, meaning that each child has two
parents and four grandparents to support, which will be an incredible challenge
for the child, as well as the government. This will most likely place the child
under stresses both mentally and economically and it is possible that they may
tire themselves out trying to afford to look after the dependents. The question
raised here is is it possible for a person who has to provide solely for 6 relatives
to enjoy good wellbeing and happiness? I personally think this is not possible,
and is a down fall of the government who put into place a hugely strict policy
without taking into consideration the full consequences that it could have on a
persons happiness; instead they have mainly focused on controlling population
and helping the economy. This article was written by Priya Shah who
graduated from the University of Warwick in 2014 and is a trainee political
consultant for the Huffington Post. I personally feel that she will be a reliable
source, as she would not want to threaten the future of her career by making
short fallings in the accuracy of her facts and coming to unjust conclusions.
As well as bringing unhappiness to the children, the One Child Policy may also
bring along social repercussions, including that due to the desire for a son many
women will turn to backstreet clinics to find out the sex of the child and have an
abortion if they see it as a necessity to have a son. This can bring misery to the
women who will most likely suffer from health problems associated with a non
clinical operation, as well as the mental health issues that stem from losing a
child.
It can not go unsaid that such a policy is drastically going against the human
rights of the population, as surely it should be up to women, and their partners
how many children she has if she has the ability to support them. However

human rights are often forgotten in communist countries such as China, where
they have limited freedom of speech and consequently have limited impact on
the government. Not only this but the government also blocks many websites
such as Facebook and Twitter and it also keeps private any information on major
political events such as the Tiananmen Square Massacre, which would impact on
the respect the Chinese had for government. By limiting access of information,
they are restricting the levels of global education people can achieve, and by
restricting social media they have effectively cut off China from the Western
world and have made communications impossible. It is these restrictions which
can be seen to bring great unhappiness as they are limiting the ways in which
Chinese people can get involved online, and they are also keeping the population
of China from developing their own political ideas and having freedom of speech,
which can be seen to limit happiness.
Unfortunately for the Chinese, these policies do not seem to bring great success
rates of the country, as many people are seen to be increasingly unhappy with
life despite some economic growth. In an article from The Telegraph called
Chinese increasingly unhappy with life, a study carried out by the Chinese
Academy of Social Sciences is discussed and in the poll it is seen that confidence
in the government's ability to manage the social upheaval caused by China's
economic development was falling. It was also concluded that confidence in the
government's ability to manage the social upheaval caused by China's economic
development was falling. This suggests that by not focusing on happiness
maximisation in place for economic successes, they have not been able to create
happiness for the people of their country, and that therefore the goals of the
government may have been misplaced. This article is from a very well respected
newspaper, where the main aim is to educate and not to entertain, which already
increases the reliability of the source in my eyes. Peter Foster, the author of the
article, is based in Beijing, so will have first-hand experience and an insight into
the effects of a communist political system which isnt focused on the happiness
of a country.
Although the Institute of Economic Affairs that it is wrong for governments to
measure and attempt to improve peoples wellbeing, as it is up to the individual
person to maximise their wellbeing, and that this can be achieved by focusing on
increasing income, I personally disagree with this. I think that whilst
governments cannot physically make someone happy, it should be a vital role for
the government to create conditions in which people can have happy lives. This
is clearly shown in the examples I have given as Iceland, whose government has
focused on happiness, is having many economic successes as well as their
population being genuinely happy, compared to China whose people may be
seeing economic success they are still oppressed their human rights and are
reporting increasing unhappiness. As Thomas Jefferson said in 1809: "The care
of human life and happiness is the first and only legitimate object of good
government".
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/may/18/iceland
Gier Haarde in an interview with John Carlin conducted for the Guardian in
2008

 Dagur Eggertsson in an interview with John Carlin conducted for the Guardian
in 2008
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/priya-shah/china-one-childpolicy_b_2174016.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/8206709/Chineseincreasingly-unhappy-with-life.html