Should a subjective well-being (SWB) indicator replace gross domestic product (GDP) as the standardised measure of social progress in the UK? A theory-based assessment 4584 words (excluding contents page, abstract & references page)
Contents Page Abstract 3 Economic theory and literature review 3 Research method and data 6 Findings and discussion of findings 7 Conclusion 14 Bibliography 16 Figures and tables Figure 1: Life satisfaction in China 1990-2004 7 Figure 2: UK life satisfaction and GDP per capita 1970-1997 8 Figure 3: Incorporating SWB into the policy process 12 Table 1: Mean net affect by activity 10 Table 2: 2013 milestone events for well-being 15
Abstract In 2008, the former French President Nicholas Sarkozy commissioned a report on better ways to measure social progress. The Sarkozy Report propelled the national well-being debate into the mainstream media, inducing significant public interest. In 2010, Prime Minister David Cameron asked the Office for National Statistics (ONS) to 'develop measures of national well-being and progress,' (ONS, 2011) for the UK. In the years preceding the Sarkozy Report, a growing number of economists, social scientists and academics had begun to campaign for a new approach in measuring national welfare. This research project attempts to contribute to the debate by answering the question: 'Should a subjective well-being (SWB) indicator replace gross domestic product (GDP) as the standardised measure of social progress in the UK?' The research project investigates the reasons for replacing GDP as the measure of social progress in the UK and assesses the suitability and feasibility of an SWB indicator as its replacement. The research project begins with a brief review of the economic theories utilised to underpin the response, namely the Easterlin Paradox, neoclassical utility theory and welfare economics, specifically the use of SWB data. It then briefly reviews literature from the leading welfare economists and reviews other related literature. The research project utilises secondary data to answer the research question. Submitting this research project represents a significant personal milestone. The people who have helped make it possible deserve acknowledgement and a big thank you - to my tutors x and x for their skilled guidance and encouragement, to Matt for his technical expertise, to Fern for putting up with me and to Patricia and Mark for always encouraging us to pursue happiness. Economic theory and literature review The economic theories that underpin the research project are utility theory, the Easterlin Paradox and the use of SWB data. Utility theory The early neoclassical economist Alfred Marshall (1842-1924) introduced the theory of utility. Marshall assumed that individual consumers knew the amount of satisfaction (what he called utility) they could derive from each bundle of material goods. Consumers therefore selected the bundle of material goods that maximised their satisfaction/utility (reference redacted). The theory of utility, specifically the concept of ordinal utility (when consumers prefer higher bundles of goods to lower ones) is relevant to the research question, as it forms the basis for the standard neoclassical theory of consumer behaviour (reference redacted) which underpins the GDP calculation.
GDP is the primary measure of economic performance, attempting to capture the state of the economy in a single number (ONS, 2012). It can be calculated using three different methods of measurement; by output, by expenditure and by income. In the UK, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) publishes one single measure of GDP that uses all three methods of measurement (ONS, 2012). If GDP is up on the previous three months, the economy is growing, if GDP is down on the previous three months, the economy is contracting. Two consecutive three-month periods equals a recession. GDP is relevant to the research question, as it's currently used as the primary measure of social progress and the proxy for individual satisfaction and life happiness in the UK. According to neoclassical theory, if GDP is up, the UK economy is growing and society is progressing, but if GDP is down, the UK economy is contracting and society is regressing. In order to gain an enhanced understanding of the basis for utility theory and its historical context, the work of utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) was sought. Bentham introduced his theory of how we should live; the Greatest Happiness Principle. The central idea being that the right thing to do is whatever produces the most happiness. The Felicific Calculus was Bentham's method of calculating happiness; the happiness value of the act ion was called utility- hence the name utilitarianism (Warburton 2011, p123). Bentham's utilitarianism is relevant to the research question, as Bentham identified happiness as the key objective for society back in the 19 th century, whilst 21 st century macroeconomic policy is still focussed on increases in GDP and not increases in happiness, yet. Bentham's utilitarianism is also relevant to the research question, as Alfred Marshall's neoclassical interpretation of the word utility is a departure from its original definition. By measuring the happiness value of the action only in monetary terms, the neoclassical version does not account for any actions that derive happiness without cost - for example personal relationships or free exercise. The assumptions on which utility theory is based, known as the axioms of rational choice or rational choice theory (reference redacted) are also relevant to the research question, as individuals may not always be rational agents preferring more to less, and they may not only derive satisfaction from maximum material consumption. Easterlin Paradox Leading welfare economist Richard Easterlin is the architect of the Easterlin Paradox. Easterlin has conducted extensive work to support his claim that despite increasing levels of GDP per capita, individual levels of happiness have remained constant (reference redacted). In order to gain an enhanced understanding of the Easterlin Paradox, his original example was sought. Easterlin analysed data from the United States (1946-1974) and found that happiness levels had remained constant, despite a doubling of income per head in the period. Similar examples exist for the UK, China, Japan and the Eastern European countries.
Easterlin noted that whilst income was important to meet sufficient needs (we all need shelter and food), increases in income beyond sufficiency do not lead to increases in happiness/life satisfaction, (Easterlin, 1974). An example is lottery winners, who after a period of adjustment return to similar happiness levels prior to their win - known in economics as the hedonic treadmill/adaptation. The Easterlin Paradox relates to the research question, at the data contained within Easterlin's work provides supportive evidence of the limitations of GDP in measuring social progress. SWB data Welfare economics analyses individual and social welfare (reference redacted). In contrast to neoclassical theory, welfare economics questions the link between the welfare of society and GDP. Welfare economists use SWB data to explore the relationship between happiness and income by asking individuals how happy they are and what contributes towards their happiness. In order to gain an enhanced understanding of the use of SWB data, work from the original welfare economists was sought, by the likes of Richard Layard and Daniel Kahneman. Daniel Kahneman is one of a growing number of welfare economists who questions the use of GDP as a measure of social progress. He argues in his report 'Toward National Well-Being Accounts' that individuals are not always rational agents maximising their utility and that advances in psychology and neuroscience mean that SWB data can now be measured with accuracy. This relates to the research question, as Kahneman questions the assumptions on which utility theory is based and suggests that SWB data is reliable and accurate enough to be used in measuring social progress. Lord Richard Layard is another distinguished welfare economist who argues in his book 'Happiness: Lessons From A New Science' that 'happiness should become the goal of policy, and that the progress of national happiness should be measured and analysed as closely as the growth of GNP,' (Layard 2005, p147). This relates to the research question, as Layard fundamentally questions the primary objective of existing macroeconomic policy and the suitability of current measurements and analysis. Additional reading included a book entitled Trust: how we lost it and how to get it back by UK political historian Doctor Antony Seldon. In Trust, Seldon cites a UK example of the Easterlin Paradox (which is outlined and discussed in the findings and discussion of findings section) and argues that new measures of national performance are essential in rebuilding citizens' trust in the economy and in politicians. This relates to the research question, as Seldon provides supportive UK evidence of the limitations of GDP in measuring social progress and suggests that implementing polices based on measurements of well-being is essential in rebuilding trust in the UK community. Interestingly, Seldon is also co-founder of Action for Happiness with Lord Richard Layard - 'a movement for social positive change...bringing together people from all walks of life who want to play a part in creating a happier society for everyone,' (Action for Happiness, 2012). At the time of writing, Action for Happiness has 23,015 members from 126 countries.
Research method and data The research method used in answering the research question was secondary data collection - quantitative (numerical) and qualitative (text) data previously collected, processed and published. The first port of call in gathering suitable information to answer the research question was searching through the references at the end of the x course book, as these academic articles have been processed by peers via commercial publishing institutions - meaning that they are a reliable source of bona fide data. Here articles by the leading welfare economists, such as Richard Easterlin were found. Easterlin's article provided appropriate data to answer the research question, as it contained the original example of the Easterlin Paradox (outlined in the economic theory and literature review section). The next step was to search for additional peer-reviewed academic articles via the x library. Here additional relevant works by the original welfare economists (Easterlin, Layard and Kahneman etc) were sought. Easterlin's note on the Sarkozy report provides appropriate data in answering the research question, as it cites a recent Chinese example of the Easterlin Paradox. Kahneman's article provides appropriate data in answering the research question, as it shows how activities that produce happiness can be measured. Following a successful search for a suitable article, its references were analysed in order to seek out further sources of relevant information. More general library searches included typing in 'limitations of GDP, 'SWB', 'life satisfaction' and 'happiness'. Next, the Google Scholar gateway was used to search for additional and relevant secondary data sources and then the generic Google gateway was used to source 'grey' literature (non-commercially processed literature). The same x library research process was used in searching via both Google gateways, i.e. first searching for works by the leading welfare economists, analysing the references, then typing in relevant key words (as detailed above). Finally, relevant information was sought via websites from organisations such as the New Economics Foundation (NEF), Bloomberg, Financial Times and the BBC. The NEF website provided appropriate data to answer the research question, as it was here that the report on 'Measuring our progress: the power of well-being' and the report on 'National Accounts of Well-being; bringing real wealth onto the balance sheet' were found. Both reports contain data used in the findings and discussion of findings section. Initial evaluation of the research articles used the PROMPT (presentation, relevance, objectivity, method, provenance and timeliness) criteria to assess their suitability and relevance in answering the research question. Following a successful search for relevant information, a summary or abstract was written immediately- whilst the information was still retainable. Next, the relevant articles were classified and organised by their content into an excel spreadsheet in preparation for writing the findings and discussion of findings section.
Findings and discussion of findings The limitations of GDP have been known for decades, the NEF report on National Accounts of well being quotes the former American President Robert Kennedy, speaking in 1968: 'The Gross National Product counts air pollution and cigarette advertising, and...the destruction of the redwood and the loss of our natural wonder in chaotic sprawl...yet (it) does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play...the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages...it measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile.' In other words, GDP measures monetary transactions recorded in the economy, but fails to measure many actions that are considered very important to the well-being/happiness of its citizens. Supportive evidence of the limitations of GDP Original welfare economist Richard Easterlin provides supporting evidence of the limitations of GDP in measuring social progress, when writing in an article entitled 'Well-Being, Front and Centre: A Note on the Sarkozy Report'. Easterlin describes the Sarkozy Report as 'a landmark document, most notably in its advocacy of the use of subjective measures of well-being for designing policies and assessing social progress,' (Easterlin 2010, p119). This comment is significant, as although the Sarkozy Report was commissioned in 2008 for use in France, it helped to fuel the debate across the English Channel (Prime Minister David Cameron commissioned the ONS report in 2010) and around the world. Figure 1: Life satisfaction in China 1990-2004 Source: Mean satisfaction from World Values Survey 2005; percent satisfied from Kahneman and Kruger 2006:16.
In the same report Easterlin cites a recent example of the Easterlin Paradox using quantitative data compiled from a World Values Survey and from work by Daniel Kahneman et al. Figure 1 shows life satisfaction not increasing in China between 1990 and 2004. Mean life satisfaction is represented by the blue line and is measured on the left-hand vertical axis. Percent somewhat satisfied or very satisfied is represented by the red line and is measured on the right-hand vertical axis. Despite China experiencing rapid growth in GDP and despite domestic incomes tripling, life satisfaction levels have not improved. This is particularly interesting, as China is considered a 'success story' by the World Bank. As Easterlin notes; 'If overall life satisfaction is taken as an indicator of well-being...one might have second thoughts about this "success story" as a model for other developing countries' (Easterlin 2010, p123). Co-founder of Action for Happiness, Antony Seldon cites another recent example of the Easterlin Paradox is his book Trust. Figure 2 is taken from a Cabinet Office Report on 'Life Satisfaction: the state of knowledge and implications for government'. It shows life satisfaction remaining constant whilst GDP per capita almost doubled in the UK between 1970 and 1997. Figure 2: UK life satisfaction and GDP per capita 1970-1997 Source: 'Life satisfaction: The state of knowledge and implications for government' (Cabinet Office, 2003) Both the Chinese and UK examples of the Easterlin Paradox contribute in answering the research question, as they provide supportive evidence of the limitations of GDP in measuring social progress. According to neoclassical utility theory, increases in GDP per capita would result in increases in happiness; the evidence above suggests that this is not the case.
Supportive evidence disproving the assumptions of neoclassical utility theory Leading UK welfare economist Richard Layard identifies (when writing in his book Happiness) that instead of assuming what makes individuals satisfied/happy (as Alfred Marshall did), we can now use real scientific evidence gathered via monitoring their brains or by asking them. Layard states 'once this is done, we can go on to explain a person's underlying happiness - the quality of life as he experiences it,' (Layard 2005, p6) As the NEF report on 'National Accounts of Well-Being' puts it;'...there is now considerable evidence from psychology that well-being is much less strongly influenced by income than by other aspects of people's lives...perhaps as little as 10 per cent. Around 50 per cent is due to stable factors such as personality, genes and environment during the early years. The remaining 40 per cent is linked to 'intentional activities' in which people choose to engage,' (NEF 2010, p13). These findings contribute to answering the research question, as they provide supporting evidence from the 'new psychology of happiness' (Layard 2005, p4) that disproves the behavioural assumptions on which neoclassical utility theory is based (outlined in the economic theory and literature review section). In other words, the assumption that individual citizens only derive life satisfaction/happiness from maximum material consumption is incorrect. By measuring individual domestic incomes, GDP measures only 10 per cent of what makes individual citizens happy (findings that are consistent with the Easterlin Paradox) and cannot therefore be considered a valid measure of social progress. Suitability/feasibility of an SWB indicator as a replacement for GDP Welfare economists use SWB data to explore what activities contribute towards making citizens happy in the belief that happiness leads to high levels of life satisfaction and well-being. Leading welfare economist Daniel Kahneman collected quantitative data from 909 working women in the United States, in order 'to characterise the average affective experience that people perceive during particular situations,' (Kahneman et al. 2004, p431) - a happiness value for each activity. 'The mean net affect ratings for selected activities,' (Kahneman et al. 2004, p431) was calculated by subtracting negative adjectives (frustrated, depressed, angry, hassled and criticised) from positive adjectives (enjoyable, warm and happy) for individuals engaging in each activity. Table 1 shows the results of the survey in rank order.
Table 1: Mean net affect by activity Activity %of sample Hours per day spent Net affect Intimate relations 11 0.21 4.74 Socialising after work 49 1.15 4.12 Dinner 65 0.78 3.96 Relaxing 77 2.16 3.96 Lunch 57 0.52 3.91 Exercising 16 0.22 3.82 Praying 23 0.45 3.76 Socialising at work 41 1.12 3.75 Watching TV 75 2.18 3.62 Phone at home 43 0.93 3.49 Napping 43 0.89 3.27 Cooking 62 1.14 3.24 Shopping 30 0.41 3.21 Computer at home 23 0.46 3.14 Housework 49 1.11 2.96 Childcare 36 1.09 2.95 Evening commute 62 0.62 2.78 Working 100 6.88 2.65 Morning commute 61 0.43 2.03 Source: Kahneman et al 2004 The results show that intimate relations with family and friends is the activity that produces the most happiness (although the% of sample is small at 11%). Other activities that can produce happiness without cost, such as relaxing and exercising also rank well in fourth and sixth place respectively. These findings are consistent with the findings from the 'new psychology of happiness' (outlined above) as they confirm that individual citizens derive happiness from non-cost associated activities. The findings contribute to answering the research question, as they provide supportive evidence that SWB data does measure what activities make individual citizens lead happy and satisfied lives.
And interestingly, by measuring the happiness value of the action in non-monetary terms, Kahneman is returning to Jeremy Bentham's original definition of utility (outlined in the economic theory and literature review section). The ONS report on the 'National Debate on Measuring National Well-Being' details the results of a questionnaire asking individuals and fifty firms in the UK two primary questions (outlined below).the ONS received more than 7,900 responses; the most common answers are detailed below: 'What things in life matter to you? What is well-being?' Health Good connections with family and friends Good connections with a spouse or partner Job satisfaction and economic security Present and future conditions of the environment 'Which of the things that matter should be reflected in measures of national well-being?' Health Good connections with family and friends Job satisfaction and economic security Present and future conditions of the environment Education and training The results show that what matters most to the people polled is health, relationships with family and friends, relationships with their partner, work and the environment. With the addition of education and training, respondents said that all the above matters should be included in a UK national measure of well-being - the UK's measure of social progress. The findings provide supportive evidence that what matters to people should be included in a UK national measure of well-being. Therefore, based on the evidence above, an SWB indicator is a more suitable measure of social progress than GDP in the UK, as it measures/reflects what is important to individual citizens and to the whole UK society. In addition to measuring what matters to UK citizens, what gets measured matters greatly for economic policy, as highlighted by the NEF report 'National Accounts of Well-being'; '...we tend to understand good economic performance in terms of increases in productivity, and hence gear our policy mechanisms towards this goal,' (NEF 2010). To use an analogy, if an athlete's goal is to win Olympic gold in the 10,000 metre race, they would not pursue a training programme designed for a 100 metre sprinter. In the words of original welfare economist Richard Easterlin; 'Instead of GDP, measures relating to the multiple dimensions of well-being, not just material gains, should be used in policy decisions and welfare evaluations,' (Easterlin 2010). Figure 3 shows how SWB measures could be incorporated into all stages of the policy process, namely in understanding the population, in developing policy proposals, in detailed design and implementation and finally in policy review and evaluation. According to NEF, the government could better understand the population by using SWB measures to prioritise key goals, identify new goals and identify population groups for special attention.
The government could develop better policy proposals by using SWB measures to provide further evidence for action and to consider the benefits across different policy areas. Figure 3: Incorporating SWB into the policy process Source: 'Measuring our progress: the power of well-being' (NEF, 2011) The government could design and implement better policy by using SWB measures to create evidence-based principles for detailed policy design and by developing frameworks to act as heuristics (learning by experience) in official guidance. And finally, the government could review and evaluate policy by using SWB measures to estimate the effects of policy outcomes on overall well-being and assess and compare the impacts of policy. These findings contribute to answering the research question, as replacing GDP with an SWB indicator will inform, enhance and guide the UK policy process, enabling it to be geared towards making citizens happier - instead of being geared towards increases in production. Policy that increases levels of happiness/life satisfaction results in a more progressive UK society. The Sarkozy report provides evidence that the installation of an SWB indicator at the national level is feasible; 'Several summary measures of quality of life are possible... Some of these measures are already being used, such as average levels of life-satisfaction for a country as a whole, or composite indices that aggregate averages across objective domains, such as the Human Development Index (HDI)', (Stiglitz et al 2009).
As alternatives to the HDI, other aggregate indices include the Fordham Index of Social Health (FISH) and the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI). These findings contribute to answering the research question, as although an SWB indicator may be suitable as a replacement for GDP, it also has to be a feasible one - the evidence above suggests that it is. Public demand and political will In order for an SWB indicator to replace GDP, there needs to be public demand for change and political will to implement it. The NEF report of 'National Accounts of Well-being' contains some supportive evidence that there is significant public demand in the UK for the government to change the standardised measure of social progress; '81% of people supported the idea that the government's prime objective should be the 'greatest happiness' rather than the 'greatest wealth,' (NEF 2010). Interestingly, Layard also identifies Jeremy Bentham's Greatest Happiness Principle (outlined in the economic theory and literature review section) as the guiding philosophy that should underpin public policy-what Layard calls 'a concept for the common good,' (Layard 2005, p5). Perhaps, in response (in part at least) to growing public demand for change, both the former French President Nicholas Sarkozy and current UK Prime Minister David Cameron commissioned reports on the subject of national well-being and social progress - the Sarkozy report in France and the ONS report in the UK. Specifically in the UK, Prime Minister Cameron does appear to recognise the need for a change in the standardised measure of national social progress. This recognition manifests itself both in the action of commissioning the ONS report and when saying in the same report; 'there was a need to take practical steps to make sure that government is properly focussed on our quality of life as well as economic growth,' (ONS 2011, p11). The Prime Minister is also quoted by the NEF report on 'Measuring our Progress' when saying; 'We have to recognise officially that economic growth is a means to an end,' (NEF 2011, p5). The findings contribute to answering the research question, as in order to implement policy change the government needs public support - the evidence suggests that 81% of UK citizens want a change in the standardised national measure of social progress. The findings also contribute to answering the research question, as in order for change to be actioned, policy makers must first recognise the need for it - which according to the evidence they appear to do.
Conclusion In order to answer the research question, two fundamental issues needed to be addressed. Addressing the problem-side of the research question concerned investigating the limitations of GDP in measuring social progress. Addressing the solution-side of the research question concerned assessing the suitability and feasibility of an SWB indicator as a replacement for GDP. Problem-side The findings and discussion of findings section identified that the limitations of GDP have been known for decades. GDP is a useful and effective measure of economic production and still has a valuable place in informing the policy process. But, GDP is not an effective measure of social progress, as it does not measure what makes citizens happy and lead satisfied lives - as proved by the Chinese and UK examples of the Easterlin Paradox. The findings and discussion of findings section also identified that the behavioural assumptions of neoclassical utility theory, on which the GDP calculation is based are incorrect. Individual citizens do not only derive happiness and life satisfaction from maximum material consumption. The evidence from the NEF report on National Accounts of Well-being suggests only 10% of well-being is financially influenced - again proving the limitations of GDP in measuring social progress. Solution-side The findings and discussion of findings section utilised work by Daniel Kahneman to show that SWB data measures the activities that contribute to happiness and life satisfaction - therefore proving that SWB data is a suitable replacement for GDP, as it measures what matters to citizens. Kahneman's work also again proved the incorrect assumptions of neoclassical utility theory, as his results showed that the activity with the highest happiness ranking was a non-cost associated one. Also interesting was the fact that Kahneman had returned to Jeremy Bentham's original definition of utility; by giving each activity a happiness value, instead of a monetary one. The findings and discussion of findings section cited a questionnaire from the ONS report on the National Debate on Measuring National Well-being, which showed what UK citizens think contributes towards well-being and which matters should be included in a national measure. These findings again proved the limitations of GDP and that using SWB data was a suitable method for measuring what matters to UK citizens. The findings and discussion of findings section showed that an SWB indicator would improve the UK policy process. By measuring what matters to UK citizens, an SWB indicator would inform, enhance and guide UK policy, enabling it to be geared towards making citizens happier/more satisfied. The findings and discussion of findings section also addressed the issue of feasibility, citing evidence from the Sarkozy Report which states that SWB indicators are already being used in the national accounting of well-being. The Sarkozy Report also highlighted the HDI as an example composite indicator - the findings section also identified other in-use examples of other composite indicators.
Finally, the findings and discussion of findings section identified that in order to implement any changes in policy there are two key requirements, namely public demand and political will. The findings section cited evidence that 81% of people polled believe that the UK government should focus on national well-being rather than national wealth - suggesting that there is significant public demand for change. The findings also cited evidence from the ONS report on the 'National Debate on Measuring National Well-Being' that suggests there is also sufficient political will to implement change The UK Prime Minister commissioned the report in the first place and has publicly gone on record stating his recognition of the limitations of GDP and his intention to improve the lives of UK citizens. Therefore, based on the evidence above, an SWB indicator should replace GDP as the standardised measure of social progress in the UK. However, any SWB indicator that becomes the national measure of social progress should also include a measure of wealth and income. Only 10% of well-being is financially influenced, but wealthy individuals can achieve financial sufficiency without the need for income. In order to ascertain a complete picture of UK well-being, the new SWB indicator should include a measure of wealth, in addition to income. Also, replacing GDP with an SWB indicator presents a significant cost and logistical challenge. But, if the government is serious about improving the lives of UK citizens, it is a challenge well worth overcoming. A timeline of key well-being events for 2013 is detailed below: Table 2: 2013 milestone events for well-being Date Milestone 2013 Further publication of the refined version of the set of well-being indicators and continued consultation including working with key user groups 2013 EU Survey of Income and Living Conditions (EU-SIL C) module on well-being Source: 'National Statistician's Reflections on the National Debate on Measuring national Wellbeing' (ONS, 2011)
Bibliography 'www.actionforhappiness.org ' accessed 28 th September 2012 'A little history of philosophy' Warburton, Nigel., (2011) Yale University Press 'Does economic growth improve the human lot? Some empirical evidence' Easterlin, R Nations and households in Economic Growth: Essays in Honour of Moss Abramovitz, New York, NY, Academic Press, Inc. 'Happiness: lessons from a new science' Layard, Richard., (2005) Penguin Books LTD ' http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/index.html' accessed 21 st September 2012 'Measuring our progress : the power of well-being' Abdallah, Saamah., Mahony, Sorcha., Marks, Nic., Michaelson, Juliet., Seaford, Charles., Stoll, Laura., Thompson, Sam (2011) New Economics Foundation 'Life Satisfaction: The state of knowledge and implications for government' Halpern, Nick., Sargeant, Richard (2003) p17 Cabinet Office Strategy Unit 'National Accounts of Well-being; bringing real wealth onto the balance sheet' Michaelson, Juliet., Abdallah, Saamah., Steuer, Nicola., Thompson, Sam., Marks, Nic (2009) New Economics Foundation 'National Statistician's Reflections on the National Debate on Measuring Well-being' Matheson, Jil (2011) Office for National Statistics 'Report by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic and Social Progress ' Stiglitz, Joseph., Sen, Amarty a., Fitoussi, Jean-Paul (2009) French Government 'Toward National Well-Being Accounts' Kahneman, Daniel., Krueger, Alan., Schkade, David., Schwarz, Norbert., Stone, Arthur (2004) Memos to the Council of Behavioural Economics Advisors v. 94 no. 2 'Trust: how we lost it and how to get it back ' Seldon, Antony., (2009) Biteback Publishing LTD 'Well-Being, Front and Center: A Note on the Sarkozy Report' Easterlin, Richard A.; Population and Development Review, March 2010, v. 36, iss. 1, pp. 119-24