DISQUS

Karl Smith · 5 months ago

I don't have a problem with the basic notion of equal entitlement. It strikes me as a Varian-esque, no envy principle.

In some sense you could call the measure an index of happiness efficiency. How much happiness can you get out X amount of the earth's resources. But, then it reinforces something we already know, the relationship between happiness and income is complex.

However, given that self reported happiness almost certainly varies with cultural intepertations of the question and genetic predisposition its not an effecient measure.

I say almost certainly because it could be that cultural institutions are driving a real difference in happiness. That is, living in East Asian culture might just be a less happy experience for the average person.

ryan yin · 5 months ago

Wait, if it's a no-envy principle, why does that mean it's an ok notion?

Jason Kuznicki · 5 months ago

A good question. Why is envy the minimand? Why not some other socially undesirable trait, like poverty? (And might envy, taken as a minimand, actually decrease in a situation where entitlements are high but unequal?)

Karl Smith · 5 months ago

Well the short answer is that someone might prefer to live in poverty rather than to do what is necessary to live in luxury. In many cases perhaps not but we cannot be sure.

No envy basically just says, that you wouldn't rather trade your starting position with anyone else. All differences in income are matters of choice.

Jason Kuznicki · 5 months ago

"No envy basically just says, that you wouldn't rather trade your starting position with anyone else. All differences in income are matters of choice."

This is not what the real-world experience of envy is necessarily about. I suspect that even if resources were allocated with precise equality, and even if that equality could somehow be maintained over time, envy would still run rampant: We'd still want to own other people's stuff, and just add it to our own.

A "no envy" rule of this sort (with which I was not previously familiar) would seem to require either a change in the definition of the word envy, or in human nature itself.

ryan yin · 5 months ago

I think that's too short an answer. Why would you think this goal should be the objective. I mean, just for starters, it's not Pareto efficient. I'm not saying you have to be a pure Paretian, but explaining why we ought to follow any particular rule that violates Pareto is a pretty high hurdle, even in the best of circumstances. And the no-envy principle isn't in that position: it's got time issues (can people born in different times envy you? what about people whose lives only partially overlap yours?) and people advocating that position clearly don't seem to really mean it (unless they mean it only applies within national borders, which is problematic too). So I think a huge effort at defense is needed here.

Steve M. · 5 months ago

Apologies for deviating somewhat from the topic, but this raises a related issues in my mind. Also this is one of the very best Big Idea blogs, so I'll hope for forgiveness.

I imagine that the study's authors really do believe that, using current technologies, it really is impossible to transform the world into Denmark, probably because they think that Denmark's wealth is built on the use of coal and petrochemicals for fuel and electrical generation and that either there isn't enough coal, oil, or gas in the world, or the continued use of coal, oil, and gas will prove too environmentally destructive, for their use to be the basis of long-term global economic development. And so they stigmatize using coal, oil, and gas. And all this swirls around with the related question of whether we'll be able to invent our way out of the problem, and -- maybe more importantly -- whether we'll be able to do so on anything like a reasonable time frame.

But to my mind, the answers to these empirical questions -- you might collectively put is as, Will we be able to solve the energy problem? -- are among the great questions of human civilization. They rank right up there with the question whether liberalism will be able to survive the invention, and proliferation, of nuclear weapons.

I guess I want to ask Will what questions he'd put on a list of, say, five or ten Big Empirical Questions that he'd (you'd!) like to know the answers to. I think "Will we solve the energy problem?" and "Can liberalism coexist with nuclear weapons on a permanent basis?" are good candidates. Strong AI isn't at all interesting to me (I think it will happen, sooner than most people think, and it will be totally uninteresting), though I think I would put "Will we colonize a planet or moon other than Earth on a permanently sustainable basis, i.e., without need for supplies to be delivered from Earth?" on the list. Also, I'd like to know whether Aubrey de Grey is misguided or prophetic.

Christopher Monnier · 5 months ago

“[E]veryone is entitled to the same amount of the planet’s natural resources”?

I think this would be true if everyone were born at the exact same moment in time and then only at that very moment. After this completely fictional moment, all bets would be off. After all, is a person who leeches off of society really entitled to the same amount of the planet's natural resources as a person who transforms Earth's raw materials (and/or the subsequent man-made products) into something people find useful? Perhaps every person is entitled to some minimum standard of living (which could be expressed in terms of the planet's natural resources), but certainly not everyone is entitled to the same amount of resources regardless of their actions ad infinitum.

Steve M. · 5 months ago

Also, in re: the global-equal-share claim: isn't this one of the rare occasions in which Locke's "enough and as good" proviso is actually relevant to the topic of discussion? And then there's the work extending Rawls's TJ to a "global original position."

Kevin · 5 months ago

The idea of a global hectare is so absurd that I cannot even grasp it. Will, it's not only that these folks resist economic growth - they don't even understand it. The idea of something like a global hectare being a useful measure just illustrates this point.

Justin Ross · 5 months ago

Look at the top 20:
1. Costa Rica
2. Dominican Republic
3. Jamaica
4. Guatemala
5. Vietnam
6. Colombia
7. Cuba
8. El Salvador
9. Brazil
10. Honduras
11. Nicaragua
12. Egypt
13. Saudi Arabia
14. Philippines
15. Argentina
16. Indonesia
17. Bhutan
18. Panama
19. Laos
20. China

Next time you are enjoying fireworks with family and friends or surfing the premium movie channels in HD, just remember how good the people of the Honduras have it!

Lorenzo (from downunder) · 5 months ago

People flows: if people move from "high" index countries to "low" index countries, as clearly they do (or would if they could) that is a revealed preference which states that the index is not even close to measuring what people care about.

nicole · 5 months ago

“[E]veryone is entitled to the same amount of the planet’s natural resources”

I don't necessarily disagree with Christopher Monnier's point above, but also, this needs to take into account human reproduction. If we all get the same number of global hectares, parents are "stealing" global hectares from the pool to give to their children, and that should really be counted as part of their consumption. I mean, we are all entitled to the same amount of space, except that some people will be able to lower the amount of space you're entitled to.

It's especially distorting if children really do make you happy--or even if they only make you say you're happy--that is a big, environmentally-unfriendly consumption good you are giving away for free in this formula.

Will Wilkinson · 5 months ago

This is a great point. There's a lot that's arbitrary about the index, but leaving out rates of reproduction is very arbitrary. It seems that a country should gain points for a sub-replacement rate of reproduction and lose points for a super-replacement rate. However, birthrates tend to drop with economic growth. And NEF wouldn't want to send mixed messages about growth.

stephen · 5 months ago

I have a certain fondness for ridiculous, made-up statistical identities that have utterly meaningless units that get paraded around as if some new law of physics has been discovered. And of course you can't just pull a meaningless variable out of your ass without adjusting and normalizing it to get the conclusion you started with, thats what we call Science, baby.

On the other hand, maybe we have finally discovered the true consequence of Colonialism, an oppressively high Alpha-Coefficient!

Anyway, equal entitlement per person is easy to reject and most (all?) people do, including "believers", as evident by the way they actually live. Some people add a high amount of value to society, some don't. Some societies add a high amount of value to global human welfare, and some don't. That was easy.

Paul Zrimsek · 5 months ago

In the interest of brevity and snappiness, I suggest "The Contented Darkie Index".

Paul Zrimsek · 5 months ago

Incidentally, the default setting for subscribing to comments appears to have changed to "subscribe". Thaler and Sunstein are looking daggers at you.

Brian Moore · 5 months ago

While I agree Costa Rica is a really nice place filled with relatively happy people, you're definitely right that the index itself is pretty crazy. The CNN article especially unintentionally reveals that it's pretty much just an ecological index + a little bit of a happiness modifier added to it. Why are these two factors charted together? No idea. I think it's basically just a list of "how much the NEF likes each country" that they tried to come up with some actual reason to justify -- but didn't try real hard.

Will Wilkinson · 5 months ago

I just thought of a better name for this: the Least Miserable Green Index

Craig · 5 months ago

Rich people should be able to pay poor people for the right to use their CO2 allowances. Doing this makes both rich countries and poor countries happier but in their index it makes poor countries happier and rich countries sadder. Then if a poor country gets wealthy and stops selling its allowances to rich countires then it becomes less happy while other rich countries get more happy. This makes no sense. We should try to maximizing total happiness with no ecological adjustment. I happen to think that a global CO2 market would increase happiness or at least increase utility because the planet is a valuable asset and its worth something while current CO2 prices suggest its worth nothing..

Derek Wall · 5 months ago

It is important to look at ecological problems and GDP (and similar measures) can be quite crude, however the happy planet index doesn't do the job. Asking people how satisfied they are is too subjective for a start.

I particularly unhappy at the high score for Colombia, where death squads continue to kick peasants from their land, so that biofuels can be grown to power vehicles in the EU and US.

Tim Worstall · 5 months ago

It's much worse than you make out Will. Much worse. For example, the over-riding factor in the ecological footprint thing is CO2 emmissions: I think we're all fairly clear that there is indeed something of a problem here? Of all the other resources there ain't.

Still, I would say that this report is an improvement on the last one. Last time the top was Vanuatu: thus the solution to a happy ecologically pure life was wearning penis sheaths and worshipping the Duke of Edinburgh as a Living God (that latter possibly having merit).

This time around they've noted that living in a tropical, Iberian influenced country does the business. That is, that it helps to have a siesta.

Hey, I'll go with that as a the secret to the good life......