The real feel-good factors must be allowed to guide government decisions alongside economic measures, says an economist and Labour peer

MORE than 200 years ago Thomas Jefferson declared: “The care of human life and happiness… is the only legitimate object of good government.” The third US president’s advice was finally taken in 2011, when the UK began the continuous measurement of national well-being. Since then all rich countries have followed suit.

Has this made any difference? In opposition, UK Conservative leader David Cameron embraced a new approach: “It’s time we admitted there’s more to life than money, and it’s time we focused not just on GDP [gross domestic product], but on GWB – General Well-Being.” In practice it is hard to see much sign of this during his five years as prime minister, when the economy and cutting public services were firmly centre stage.

Making improved well-being the focus of policy would have produced very different priorities. Every survey of happiness shows that family income accounts for only a small variation in happiness across the population. Much more important are health, family relationships, community life and youth employment. Whoever leads the country after the election in May, we need to see a new focus on support for parents and young people.

Making well-being the focus of policy would have led to different priorities over the past five years


Professional help for people experiencing domestic violence and family conflict, as well as children in difficulty, must be provided. Schools need to have the well-being of pupils as an explicit goal. Personal, social and health education need to be statutory and taught by well-trained staff. Child mental health services need to grow and become more modern, and therapy services for adults need to double. Young people need a right to an apprenticeship or a course that leads to one.

Some of this will be in party manifestos. But we really need an institutional shift. Treasury rules say policies should be judged by how much people would be willing to pay for the benefits they bring. A new approach in which policies are based on their effects on happiness is needed.

This was suggested by a high-profile, independent assessment last year and repeated in the third World Happiness Report. It is an idea whose time has come.

This article appeared in print under the headline “Feel-good factors”