Ranking of Happiness 2019-2021
Our country rankings in figure show life evaluations (answers to the Cantril ladder question) for each country, averaged over 2019-2021. Not every country has surveys every year. The total sample sizes are reported in Statistical Appendix 1 and are reflected in Figure by the horizontal lines showing the 95% confidence intervals. The confidence intervals are tighter for countries with larger samples.
The overall length of each country bar represents the average ladder score, also shown in numerals next to the country names. The rankings in Figure depend only on the respondents' average Cantril ladder scores, not on the values of the six variables that we use to help account for the large differences we find.
The colour-coded sub-bars in each country row represent the extent to which six key variables contribute to explaining life evaluations. These variables (shown in Table) are GDP per capita, social support, healthy life expectancy, freedom, generosity, and corruption. As already noted, our happiness rankings are not based on any index of these six factors -- the scores are instead based on individuals' own assessments of their lives, as revealed by their answers to the single-item Cantril ladder life-evaluation question. We use observed data on the six variables and estimates of their associations with life evaluations to explain the observed variation of life evaluations across countries, much as epidemiologists estimate the extent to which life expectancy is affected by factors such as smoking, exercise and diet. As will be explained in more detail later, and in the online FAQ, the value for Dystopia (1.83) is the predicted Cantril ladder for a hypothetical country with the world's lowest values for each of the six variables. This permits the calculated contributions from the six factors to be zero or positive for every actual country. We also show how measures of experienced well-being, especially positive affect, are predicted by the six factors and how the affect measures contribute to the explanation of higher life evaluations.
In Table , we present our latest modelling of national average life evaluations and measures of positive and negative affect (emotion) by country and year. For ease of comparison, the table has the same basic structure as Table did in several previous editions, most recently in World Happiness Report 2020.
We now include data for both 2020 and 2021. Despite difficulties COVID-19 posed for the Gallup World Poll's operations, our sample now includes data from 116 countries and territories in 2020 and 119 in 2021. Adding the data from 2020 and 2021 slightly improves the model's overall fit while leaving the coefficients largely unchanged. There are four equations in Table. The first equation provides the basis for constructing the sub-bars shown in Figure.
The results in the first column of Table explain national average life evaluations in terms of six key variables: GDP per capita, social support, healthy life expectancy, freedom to make life choices, generosity, and freedom from corruption.
Taken together, the six variables explain more than three-quarters of the variation in national annual average ladder scores among countries, using data from the years 2005 to 2021.
How do we calculate each factor's contribution to average life evaluations? Taking the example of healthy life expectancy, the sub-bar in the case of Tanzania is equal to the number of years by which healthy life expectancy in Tanzania exceeds the world's lowest value, multiplied by the Table 2.1 coefficient for the influence of healthy life expectancy on life evaluations. The width of each sub-bar then shows, country-by-country, how much each of the six variables contributes to the international ladder differences.
These calculations are illustrative rather than conclusive for several reasons. One important limitation is that our selection of candidate variables is restricted to what is available for all these countries. Traditional variables like GDP per capita and healthy life expectancy are widely available. But measures of the quality of the social context, including a variety of indicators of social trust, engagement, and belonging, are not yet available for all countries. The variables we use may be properly taking credit due to other variables or unmeasured factors. There are also likely to be vicious or virtuous circles, with two-way linkages among the variables. For example, there is much evidence that those who have happier lives are likely to live longer, and be more trusting, more cooperative, and generally better able to meet life's demands.[11] Providing feedback to improve health, income, generosity, corruption, and a sense of freedom. Additionally, some of the variables are derived from the same respondents as the life evaluations, and hence possibly determined by common factors. There is less risk when using national averages because individual differences in personality and many life circumstances tend to average out at the national level.
You must be logged in to post a comment.