Institute for Policy Research Symposium Lost Youth in the 21 st Century University of Bath 17 September 2014

 New interest in subjective well-being both nationally and internationally  Some of it focussed on children and youth  There is evidence that subjective well-being varies  Between countries  Within countries over time  Also associated with objective well-being at an international level.  But in micro analysis difficult to explain variation.  Therefore policy responses not easy to determine

 Well-being multi-dimensional  Objective= material, health, education, (employment), safety, housing and environment, participation/inclusion.  Subjective= feelings.  Hedonic  Affective: positive (joy) and negative feelings (anxiety)  Cognitive: Life satisfaction  Eudaimonic: purpose in life, flourishing….  Subjective can be objectively measured  In practice mainly cognitive

 The outcomes of social policy often evaluated using money metrics  Poverty  Inequality  Spending per capita  Income not reliable  Lots of good things left out of GDP  Personal love and care  Quality of the environment/Absence of pollution  Freedom, Justice  Increasing GDP (after a certain level) does not lead to increased happiness. Easterlin paradox

 Richard Layard (2005) Happiness  Critique of mainstream economics  Prosperity Paradox  Strive to increase income  Much richer than in the past  We are not happier

 Well-being:  Material living standards  Health  Personal activities/work  Political voice/governance  Social connections/relationships  Environment present/future  Insecurity  Elements of quality of life/subjective well-being:  Happiness  Life satisfaction  Positive affect (joy/pride)  Negative affect (pain/worry)

It's time we admitted that there's more to life than money, and it's time we focused not just on GDP but on GWB - General Wellbeing. It's about the beauty of our surroundings, the quality of our culture and above all the strength of our relationships. There is a deep satisfaction which comes from belonging to someone and to some place. David Cameron, May 2006

 Promoting well-being is a reasonable goal for any society  Studying well-being can enable us to understand what matters in people’s lives  In the UK ONS has established two programmes to measure national subjective well-being of  Adults  Children

 Personal well-being  Life satisfaction  Life worthwhile  Happiness yesterday  Happiness with appearance  Relationships  Health  What we do  Where we live  Personal finance  Education skills  Economy  Governance  Natural environment  guidance/well-being/index.html

 State of the World’s Children (UNICEF)  Innocenti Report Cards (UNICEF)  Doing Better for Children (OECD)  Child poverty and derivation (EU)  Child well-being (EU Tarki)  African Report on Child Well-being (ACPF)  Multi-dimensional child poverty (Bristol)  Many, many national reports

 The well-being of children in the UK – three reviews latest Bradshaw, J. (ed) (2011) The Well-being of Children in the United Kingdom, Bristol: Policy Press  International comparative studies of child well- being – EU, OECD/UNICEF, CEECIS, Pacific Rim  The well-being of children - at small area level in England using indicators Bradshaw J, Noble M, Bloor K, Huby M, McLennan D, Rhodes D, Sinclair I, Wilkinson K. (2009) A Child Well-Being Index at Small Area Level in England, J. Child Indicators Research 2, 2,  The subjective well-being of children – Children’s Society survey od_report_2014_-_final.pdf  Trends in the subjective wellbeing of children

Material situationHealthEducation Subjective well- being Living environmentRisk and safety JapanHong KongSingaporeChinaJapanHong Kong KoreaSingaporeJapanVietnamSingapore VietnamJapanKoreaPhilippinesThailandChina AustraliaKoreaTaiwanIndonesiaNew ZealandTaiwan New ZealandAustraliaNew ZealandTaiwanHong KongJapan Taiwan Hong KongMalaysia SingaporeChinaAustralia ChinaVietnam Hong KongNew ZealandMalaysiaNew ZealandAustraliaKorea Thailand SingaporePhilippinesAustralia IndonesiaMalaysiaVietnamThailandVietnamNew Zealand MalaysiaVietnamIndonesiaHong KongIndonesiaThailand ChinaIndonesiaPhilippinesJapanKoreaIndonesia Philippines Korea Philippines

Average rank MaterialHousingHealthEducationPersonalFamilyRisk Croatia Bosnia Herzegovina FYR Macedonia Serbia Uzbekistan Turkmenistan Belarus Montenegro Bulgaria Ukraine Kazakhstan Russia Kyrgyzstan Romania Armenia Georgia Turkey Azerbaijan Albania Tajikistan Moldova

 Measures not very good  Lost in translation – life satisfaction  Adaptive preferences  Homeostatic adaptation  Difficult to explain variations  Personality a factor  Most important factor relationships and choice - ?social policies  But

VariableDemographic variables only + deprivation scale+ family type Year group (6 as reference) **-1.39**-1.33** **-2.86**-2.80** Ethnicity (white as reference) Mixed-0.83 NS-0.82 NS-0.91 NS Indian-1.06 NS-0.36 NS-0.65 NS Pakistani/ Bangladeshi-0.59 NS-0.52 NS-0.59 NS Black-0.18 NS0.23 NS0.33 NS Other0.59 NS0.56 NS0.42 NS Number of siblings (none as reference) NS0.20 NS0.07 NS NS-0.03 NS-0.21 NS NS0.09 NS0.02 NS Sex (boy as reference)-0.66 *-0.73* Learning difficulties (no as reference)-0.60 NS-0.31 NS-0.32 NS Physical disability (no as reference)-1.39 NS-1.07 NS-1.18 NS Deprivation score -0.68**-0.64** Family type (both parents as reference) Lone parent -1.26** Step family -0.90* Other -4.68* r²

Mean happiness of year olds (BHPS/US ). With 95% confidence intervals)

 Reduction in child poverty?  Big increase in spending on children?  Institutional transformation?  Is it schools – social and emotional education and anti bullying?  Is it social networking - friends and girls?  Is it getting worse now?

 How to measure well-being  How to affect it with public policy  How to organise to influence it  It varies over time  It varies between countries  It varies between individuals  What effects your well-being?  What can be done to improve it? 

  