Markus Korhonen ANALYSIS: What does the UN Happiness Report really measure?

African countries again score low in the 2018 rankings of the annual UN Happiness Report, and some stable nations below those in conflict zones. Markus Korhonen examines how the scores were put together – and the value of measuring happiness in the first place.

The annual release of the United Nations World Happiness Report leads to much jubilation – and flagellation – around the globe.

Since the ranking was first compiled in 2012, Scandinavian countries have dominated the top. African countries are found at the other end.

The 2018 round was no different, with the New York Times declaring “Want to Be Happy? Try Moving to Finland”, while website Face2Face Africa lamented that “Africa remains the least happy region in the world”.

Based on a single question

But what is the ranking based on, and how seriously should we take it?

The Happiness Report uses data collected by Gallup, a management-consulting company known for its public opinion polls. For the report, Gallup – which asks the “same questions, every time, in the same way” – asks the following question in an annual worldwide survey:

“Please imagine a ladder with steps numbered from 0 at the bottom to 10 at the top. Suppose we say that the top of the ladder represents the best possible life for you and the bottom of the ladder represents the worst possible life for you.
“On which step of the ladder would you say you personally feel you stand at this time, assuming that the higher the step the better you feel about your life, and the lower the step the worse you feel about it? Which step comes closest to the way you feel?”

Gallup explains that it randomly selects the respondents in each country, but takes care to ensure that the group is geographically and demographically representative of the entire population aged 15 and older. The typical sample size in each country is 1,000 people.

The report uses the national average response to this question over three years. In the top-ranked country, Finland, the average response (for 2015 to 2017) resulted in a score of 7.632, while in lowest-ranked Burundi it was 2.905.

War-torn countries more happy?

While the methodology appears relatively robust and simple, some of the results are surprising.

Though the ranking is based solely on the single question, the Happiness Report attempts to explain the contributing factors to each country’s happiness score. How happy one feels about life, the report’s authors suggest, can be explained by six factors:

  • GDP per capita,
  • healthy life expectancy,
  • available social support,
  • the degree of freedom to make decisions about one’s life,
  • generosity in a society, and
  • the absence of corruption.

In other words, in countries where the above six factors score highly, we would also expect higher degrees of reported happiness.

But the report points out three countries where this was not the case. “Tanzania, Rwanda and Botswana have anomalous scores, in the sense that their predicted values based on their performance on the six key variables, would suggest they would rank much higher than shown by the survey answers.”

Conflict-scarred Libya outranks SA, Nigeria

Indeed, Tanzania (153rd), Rwanda (151st) and Botswana (146th) all come in near the bottom as the least happy countries. Several countries that are in ongoing wars or military conflicts rank higher.

Libya has been in a constant state of conflict since the 2011 uprising which ousted Muammar al-Qaddafi, yet is comfortably in the top half of the ranking in 70th place. Somalia, which has been embroiled in a civil war since 1991, comes in 98th. By comparison, relatively stable South Africa is 105th, while Nigeria is 91st and Kenya is 124th.

The fight against the Islamic State in Iraq has displaced an estimated 5.4 million people since 2014. Yet at 117th in the happiness ranking, Iraqis still appear to be happier than Namibians (119th) – whose former president Hifikepunye Pohamba received the Mo Ibrahim Prize for “excellence in African leadership” in 2014.

What is happiness? Why rank it?

The anomalous results raise questions about the ranking, which deserves further scrutiny, Prof Charles J Wheelan, senior lecturer at Dartmouth College and author of the book Naked Statistics, among others, told Africa Check.

“The most significant limitation is that happiness is obviously difficult to quantify and measure. It can mean different things to different people, and across cultures, so one should not oversell the findings.”

Despite this, Wheelan noted that the findings were valuable in the sense that they allowed for in-country comparisons over time, for example, and contributed to our overall understanding of happiness and well-being.

“The more we know and think about it, however imperfect the methodology, the better,” he said.

Happy?

Markus Korhonen is a political analyst specialising in Global Political Economy. He is currently teaching at the Department of Political Science at Stellenbosch University.

 

© Copyright Africa Check 2017. You may reproduce this piece or content from it for the purpose of reporting and/or discussing news and current events. This is subject to: Crediting Africa Check in the byline, keeping all hyperlinks to the sources used and adding this sentence at the end of your publication: “This report was written by Africa Check, a non-partisan fact-checking organisation. View the original piece on their website", with a link back to this page.

Comment on this report

Comments 5
  1. By Mr. W. Mahlasela

    It’s clear that these stats are misleading. If the US is stable with average 1 murder of an innocent Afro-American by Caucasian police per month at least, then this might have an econo-political agenda. IMF, World Bank all are umbrellaed by the racist, Euro-Americocentric & selective UN. Mandate could be to sway & influence investment decisions to favour the so-called ‘happy nations’, how does a sample size of 1000 people be equally representative vastly differing population sizes e.g. South Africa’s 56 million versus China with at least 1.5 billion people? Neither inferential nor deductive stats can justify such variations.

    vote
    Reply Report comment
  2. By Mshai Mwangola

    I think you ought to have first engaged the concept of “happiness” as developed in Bhutan and how that is defined, quantified and measured in order for this to make more sense. African countries might find the measurements and discourse in Bhutan much more productive as a way of beginning to understand why this index marks a significant (and possibly more productive) change in approach from measures reliant on other analyses such as GDP to measure how well countries (and their people) are doing. Then you could have moved on to see how this index has translated to the UN, (what carried through, what didn’t and why that matters) and then on to examining what using the Gallup poll means in terms of influencing how the six factors it analyses are measured. What cultural framework and epistemologies determine how people respond and the language they use to “the same question asked the same way every time” to a diverse group of people where education, class, location etc all have an influence in how these questions are answered, and I think starting from the UN (which is heavily influenced by Western indicators) isn’t the best approach for understanding how African countries might approach and use this more effectively. I do agree with you however that the Happiness report is perhaps most useful for inter-country comparisons where it is easier to develop consensus or at least understanding on the diversity re linguistic meaning and process concerns/. I personally think that the Gross National Happiness Index can be a really innovative, robust and people centred way of thinking through how different communities prioritise where to allocate resources as well as how to evaluate resource allocation after the fact.

    vote
    Reply Report comment
  3. By Bello Ahmed

    As Prof Wheelan pointed we shouldn’t over sell the statistics of such a report yet it’s important that we learn about it. Measuring happiness is much more complicated than a single question can predict.

    vote
    Reply Report comment
  4. By Markus Korhonen

    Since the score for each country is an average over three years (2015-2017), the effective sample size for most countries is 3000 (1000 respondents each year). For countries with significantly larger populations the sample used by Gallup is bigger. In China, for example, the sample was 4000+ for each year, so an effective 12,000+ for the purposes of this ranking.

    In South Africa the sample size used by Gallup over the three years (3000) brings the margin of error to within 2%. Even with the smaller sample size of 1000 in SA, the margin of error is 3.7%, which would still be a statistically valid and reliable result.

    vote
    Reply Report comment
  5. By Markus Korhonen

    As you say, happiness is understood differently by different people, so the ranking here is purely subjective in that respect. Bhutan’s Gross National Happiness measure also contains subjective elements, so it would not necessarily solve this problem. How happy you feel cannot really be measured in any other way than by asking you!

    To clarify, while the UN publishes this report, the data collection by Gallup is completely independent of the UN, and the question on happiness is just one component of a broader survey they conduct.

    vote
    Reply Report comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Africa Check encourages frank, open, inclusive discussion of the topics raised on the website. To ensure the discussion meets these aims we have established some simple House Rules for contributions. Any contributions that violate the rules may be removed by the moderator.

Contributions must:

  • Relate to the topic of the report or post
  • Be written mainly in English

Contributions may not:

  • Contain defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or harassing language or material;
  • Encourage or constitute conduct which is unlawful;
  • Contain material in respect of which another party holds the rights, where such rights have not be cleared by you;
  • Contain personal information about you or others that might put anyone at risk;
  • Contain unsuitable URLs;
  • Constitute junk mail or unauthorised advertising;
  • Be submitted repeatedly as comments on the same report or post;

By making any contribution you agree that, in addition to these House Rules, you shall be bound by Africa Check's Terms and Conditions of use which can be accessed on the website.

*