We will now focus on the combined ratings for effectiveness and feasibility of the strategies for greater happiness. We will not consider these matters separately. In this paper we discuss cost-effectiveness only shortly, since the ratings for this point were very similar to the general effectiveness ratings. We mark the main findings in in the Sects. 3.1.4 and 3.2.4. More detailed information is available in extended presentations of the ratings, a link to which is found at the bottom of the Tables 2 and 3.

The highest possible rating for summed effectiveness and feasibility of a strategy was 10 (average score of 5 on both) and the lowest possible rating was 2 (average 1 on both). We did not find any extreme scores, with summed ratings for effectiveness and feasibility ranging from 8.4 to 4.2. This means that our experts were not overenthusiastic; however, with an average score of 6.6, we can assume that most of the proposed ways to greater happiness were deemed suitable.

Not all strategies were equally valued. Below we fist present the strategies deemed most effective and feasible and next review the strategies deemed least effective and feasible. In our presentation, we follow a slightly different categorization than presented in the tables, in order to present the same findings in another light.

What Do Experts Think that Policymakers Can Do to Produce Greater Happiness for a Greater Number of Citizens?

Together, the experts proposed 56 strategies for raising the level of happiness in a country. Their ratings of these strategies are presented in Table 2, both the average scores (M) of effectiveness and feasibility and the differences in these rating (SD).

As announced in Sect. 2.5, we will first consider the average ratings, focusing on the sum of effectiveness and feasibility (M), then the differences in ratings across experts (SD) and lastly the differences in ratings for effectiveness and feasibility.

Average Ratings for Effectiveness and Feasibility

Which of the 56 proposed strategies were judged to be the most apt, which the least? To answer this question, we need to focus on column 4 in Table 2 where degrees of summed effectiveness and feasibility are indicated, using different shades of green: the darker the green, the most apt.

Most apt

The following policy strategies were rated the most effective and feasible. Expert agreement was typically high on these approaches.

Invest in happiness research

Experts call for more happiness research, since this is required for evidence based policymaking and for overcoming ideological prepossession about ways to greater happiness. The experts call for three strands of research in particular: (a) looking for what works for whom, rather than focusing on an average citizen, (b) monitoring happiness over time, to assess progress and effectiveness of interventions and (c) assessing how much of the things deemed conducive for happiness is optimal; for example: How many years of their life should citizens spend sitting in their school desks, for the sake of greater happiness?

Invest in good governance

Experts emphasize the importance of institutional quality in a country and in particular quality of the civil services. Though few citizens will associate happiness with bureaucracy, well-functioning public organizations does add to the happiness of a great number of them. One of the reasons is that institutions, like courts and employment offices, create a predictable environment, in which citizens can plan their lives and are less dependent on pressures by kin and neighbors.

Support vulnerable people

Experts advise prioritizing strategies aimed at the least happy citizens in a nation. In this context, they recommend findings ways to: (a) to reduce loneliness and (b) to combat discrimination and (c) to provide free health care. In this context, several experts also mentioned (d) minimum income security (e) support of families, (f) reduction of unemployment, and (g) political empowerment, but the panel is more divided on these issues.

Strengthen social bonds

Experts mention several ways to improve the social climate in a nation and in particular recommend policies to (a) promote voluntary work and (b) increase support for non-profit organizations. Some of the experts recommend introduction of civil service. Further recommendations in this context rated average for effectiveness and feasibility are: (c) to facilitate social contacts, such as by providing (d) support for local fairs and festivals. The above-mentioned advice to support families also fits this context.

Invest in health care

The experts advise governments to provide (a) free health care, a strategy already mentioned above in the context of focusing on vulnerable people, (b) to prioritize prevention and in that context and (c) to encourage healthy living. Expert call for (d) investment in mental health care in particular and in that line also finding ways (e) to bring life-skills into schools and (f) foster people’s ability to choose.

Invest in education

Experts agree largely that (a) investment in education is an effective and feasible way to greater happiness in a country, but they are less unanimous on whether (b) free education is required for that purpose. They are also less unanimous, but still positive, about particular investments, such (c) to bring life skills into the school curriculum (d) maintain order in schools, (e) monitor happiness in schools and (f) also support happiness education outside the school system.

Support work

Macro-economic strategies score not too high in the ratings, as we will see in more detail below, however most experts recommend (a) improvement of working conditions and (b) reduction of unemployment.

Focus on economic stability

With respect to macro-economic policy, the experts advise (a) an economic policy that favors stability over growth. Fostering economic growth is at the bottom of Table 2. Though experts recommend (b) providing minimum income security and (c) reducing unemployment (as mentioned above for supporting vulnerable people), the experts are less in favor of (d) reducing income inequality and (e) reducing working hours.

Higher tax

Most of the above recommendations will require higher tax rates. Experts deem that strategy effective, but not well feasible.

Least apt

Let us now look at the ways to greater happiness deemed less effective by the majority of the experts, presented in the lower part of Table 2. Since at least one expert has proposed all strategies, low average ratings typically go together with high difference of rating, the correlation between average and standard deviation is -.43. Note that a low score for effectiveness and feasibility does not mean that the proposed strategy will be counter-productive and lower average happiness in a nation; rather it means that the ‘medicine’ will not work.

Combat capitalism and consumerism

Though market forces are often held responsible for unhappiness in modern societies (e.g. by Lane 2000), not all experts support all suggestions for taming these forces, such as (a) to counter-balance global capitalism. Experts also do not support (b) reduction of working hours and (c) stimulating consumption of stimulus-goods over comfort-goods. This is not to say that our panel embraces materialism, because they unanimously see some point in (d) favoring saving over consumption and expect little gain in (e) supporting home-ownership and (f) fostering economic growth. Above, we have also seen that the experts are positive about some correction of market forces, such as improving work conditions and providing minimum income security.

Improve happiness advice and coaching

Experts are skeptical about (a) fostering professional happiness coaching, typically fruits of the new ‘positive psychology’. Still, we have seen above that they endorse (b) investment in mental health care and (c) bringing life-skills into the school curriculum.

Support modernization

Though people live happiest in the most modern societies, the panel is divided on whether backing spontaneous societal development (rather than slowing it down), will add to greater happiness in a country. The experts agree on a low rating for feasibility of this strategy.

Agreement and Disagreement Among Experts About Policy Strategies

How much consensus is there within the panel? On what strategies do the experts agree? On which do they diverge? Expert agreement is indicated by shades of red in Table 2.

Agreement

Experts agree most on: (a) reduce loneliness, (b) combat discrimination, (c) focus on the least happy and (d) empower and involve citizens. They also agree strongly on the lower effectiveness of (e) maintaining order in schools, (f) investing in a greener environment, (g) education of parents and (h) reducing income inequality.

Disagreement

In their ratings of strategies policy makers can follow to raise the level of happiness in a country, experts differ most on the following economic strategies: (a) improving work-conditions and (b) reduction of unemployment and (c) increasing foreign aid. Experts also differ in their ratings of the following issues in health policy: (d) prioritizing prevention, (e) encourage healthy living and (f) getting people to the dentist. Another point of disagreement is (g) reduce use of cars and (h) stimulate study abroad.

Difference Between Effectiveness and Feasibility of Political Strategies

Ways to greater happiness can be effective but not easily feasible, or well feasible, but not very effective. Do such differences occur in the ratings of our experts? Below we consider the differences of more than 1 point on the 1 to 5 ratings of effectiveness and feasibility of particular strategies. Note that the panel was selected for expertise in effectiveness in the first place and may not be equally acknowledged on practicability.

Effective but not feasible

Several macro-economic strategies are seen to be effective, but not feasible. These are: (a) favor economic stability over economic growth, (b) increase support for non-profits, (c) increase taxes and (d) reduce income inequality. A similar difference appears in the ratings of two psychological strategies: (e) foster ability to choose and (f) support happiness education. Likewise, experts deem effectiveness higher than feasibility for (g) promoting voluntary work, such as by civil service for every body and (h) empowering citizens and involving them in the political process. Surprisingly, the biggest difference (2 points), was on maintaining order in schools.

Feasible but not effective

Interestingly, none of the strategies policymakers can follow were deemed better feasible than effective.

Cost-Effectiveness

The macro strategies deemed most effective + feasible are also rated high for cost-effectiveness, that is, rated 4 or more. This is most apparent for (a) investment in happiness research, such as monitoring happiness in nations, findings out what works for whom and assessing how much of conditions for happiness is optimal in a nation. Likewise, (b) investments in social support are deemed cost-effective, in particular reducing loneliness and a policy focus on the least happy. Promoting (c) good governance is also rated high for cost-effectiveness.

None of the strategies that were rated effective + feasible (6.7 or more) was deemed to be cost-ineffective (3 or less) and none of the strategies in the lower half of Table 2 was rated cost-effective.

What Do Experts Think That Individuals Can Do to Make Their Lives More Satisfying Life?

Together, the experts proposed 68 strategies that individuals could follow to raise their own happiness. These options and the expert’s ratings of these for effectiveness and feasibility are presented in Table 3. Again, we first summarize the strategies rated highest and next the ones rated lowest, we then consider unanimity among the experts and lastly the possible divergence between effectiveness and feasibility of the strategies.

Average Ratings for Effectiveness and Feasibility of Individual Strategies

Which of the individual strategies are reckoned to be the most apt? Which the least? Differences ratings are indicated using shades of green in the columns of Table 3

Most apt

The general strategies in the top of the table are rated higher than the more specific recommendations at the bottom. The main recommendations are as follows:

Connect

Experts advise in the first place to focus social bonds, such as by (a) investing in friends and family, (b) joining a club, (c) acting nicely (d) marrying and (e) socialize with colleagues. They see more gain in social contact when (f) the focus is on the happiness of others and that advice fits the strategy recommended below.

Seek meaning

Experts think that living a meaningful life will make that life more satisfying. They recommend the following ways to seek meaning: (a) live up to your values, and if you are religious, practice your religion, (b) be generous and (c) volunteer, and (d) do not focus on your own happiness in the first place and (e) seek a purpose in life, which (f) you may clarify by writing a personal mission statement.

Be active

Experts agree that an active way of life is the most satisfying. They recommend in particular (a) getting regular physical exercise, (b) to keep learning and (c) to set goals and (d) to seek challenges. This advice goes counter to common notions of an easy happy life.

Mind your health

Alongside their advice to live an active life, experts also recommend (a) to get regular and ample sleep and some of them even endorse the recommendation (b) to optimize one’s bedroom for good sleep. With respect to physical health experts advise (c) to check your health regularly and (d) to invest in a good health insurance. With respect to mental health, there is modest support for (f) use of professional advice, though mental health care figures prominently in the policy strategies reviewed above in Sect. 4.1. Still, some trainings for positive mental health are mentioned, such as cultivating a positive outlook on life, which we discuss below.

Cultivate a positive outlook

Several strategies are mentioned in this context. (a) Fostering self-acceptance is rated effective, but not easily feasible and experts disagree on the effectiveness of (b) to laugh often, (c) follow trainings that promote a positive outlook, (d) to keep a gratitude journal or (e) to write about positive experiences.

Save

Economic issues are again not very prominent in the rankings. The highest scores are for the advice to (a) enroll in automatic saving plans, (b) to avoid getting into debt and (c) to invest in durables and savings. Experts are less supportive of the advice (d) to minimize credit cards.

Find a way of life that fits you

Not very prominent either, is the more abstract advice to (a) find a lifestyle that fits you and in particular, (b) a job that fits you. This strategy requires you (c) to know your strengths and (d) to monitor your happiness, neither of which are seen as very effective or feasible.

Least apt

At the bottom of Table 3 are many strategies deemed ineffective or not feasible; most of these are rather specific recommendations.

Get rich

Contrary to the common view that money buys happiness, experts do not advise (a) to build wealth, which is deemed ineffective and not very feasible for most individuals. The same holds for (b) own your house. These judgements do not fit too well with the above-mentioned advice to save.

Have children

Raising a family is rated as feasible, but not as an effective way of raising one’s own happiness. Owning a pet is deemed slightly more effective, though experts diverge on that matter. Experts do endorse the advice to live close to family, though they deem this not easily done.

Reduce workload

In spite of considerable publicity about work-stress and related burnout (e.g. Schor 1991) experts do not whole-heartedly endorse the advice to (a) limit your working hours, and see no point at all in (b) work part-time. They see more effect in (c) avoiding a long commute, but rate the feasibility of that option as low for most individuals.

Choose for an alternative life-style

Several of the lowest rated strategies are part of unconventional ways of life, inspired by anti-materialism, new-age thinking, environmental concern and food-awareness, such as: (a) de-clutter, (b) eliminate screens in your house, (c) designate a ‘flow’ room, (d) create a meditation space and (e) become a vegan. As noted in Sect. 2.4, these strategies were part of a set of optional questions on specific behaviors, which we added in the last round. One of the reasons for the low scores is probably, that there is little research on these matters, and probably for that reason, several experts skipped these optional questions.

Agreement and Disagreement Among Experts About Individual Strategies

What can we say about consensus in the panel on ways in which individuals can make their life more satisfying? Differences in expert agreement are indicated using shades of red in Table 3. The darker the red, the less agreement.

Agreement

Experts agree the most on high effectiveness of (a) investment in family and friends, (b) leading an active life, such as by (c) setting goals and (d) volunteering. Experts also agree on the importance of: (e) being open for enjoyments, (f) good sleep and (g) self-acceptance. They also agree in low ratings for (h) opting for an average house and (i) de-cluttering.

Disagreement

Experts disagree most on the recommendations inspired by positive psychology, such as (a) laugh, (b) train to have a positive outlook, (c) develop skills required for greater happiness and (d) monitor your happiness. They also disagree (e) on the effectiveness of self-employment for leading a happier life.

Difference Between Effectiveness and Feasibility of Individual Strategies

The following ratings of effectiveness and feasibility differed more than 1 point on scale 1–5. Remember that the panel was selected for expertise in effectiveness in the first place.

Effective but not feasible

The experts rate effectiveness of the following psychological strategies higher than their feasibility: (a) accept yourself, (b) seek a job that fits you and (c) find a way of life that fits you. A similar difference appears in the ratings of two more tangible strategies: (d) keep out of debt and (e) avoid long commutes. The greatest difference in effectiveness and feasibility is seen in (f) live in an environment of trust.

Feasible but not effective

The experts rate practicability higher than effectiveness for (a) use/learn social media and (b) create a ‘pride shrine’ in your house. In both cases, the difference is due to a low effectiveness rating.

Cost-Effectiveness of Individual Strategies

The individual strategies rated highest for effectiveness + feasibility are also rated highest for cost-effectiveness, that is 4 points or more. This concerns building social bonds, such as by investing in friends and family, joining clubs and focusing on the happiness of others. Likewise, life-style matters rated high for cost-effectiveness are: be active, experience nature and get exercise.

Only one of the individual strategies deemed effective and feasible, was rated cost-ineffective, that is below 3. This was investing in experiences. None of the strategies rated lower than 6.7 for effectiveness + feasibility was considered cost-effective.