RATIONALE FOR THE UCL GRAND CHALLENGE OF HUMAN WELLBEING
"Directly or indirectly, well-being, in some shape or other...is the subject of every thought,
and object of every action, on the part of every known Being...nor can any intelligible reason
be given for desiring that it should be otherwise."1
1. Introduction
1.
Consideration of how to secure the wellbeing of humanity for the future presents a
major challenge for society. For humans to flourish fully, it is not sufficient simply to live;
we must live well.
2.
The UCL Grand Challenge of Human Wellbeing (GCHW) seeks to consider both the
nature of being human and the nature of wellbeing. It will harness UCL’s research
expertise from across our academic community to provide new, multifaceted,
multidisciplinary considerations of human wellbeing.
3.
This paper considers why human wellbeing matters; how it can be defined; ways of
measuring wellbeing; the role of Government in ensuring wellbeing; and what is
necessary for achieving wellbeing, before discussing the approach of GCHW.
2. Context: Why does human wellbeing matter?
4.
In recent years, wellbeing has been an increasing focus of both academic research2
and of consideration by government and policymakers3. This arises from, among other
things, a concern that conventional western models of economic growth and increased
wealth have not necessarily led to increased levels of wellbeing among populations. As
Richard Layard has noted, recent “major debate” on measuring the wellbeing of
populations “reflects the fact that higher national income has not brought the better
quality of life that many expected”4. For example, in the UK, GDP per person almost
trebled in real terms between 1957 and 20065 but the proportion of people who said
they were ‘very happy’ fell from 52% to 36% – that is, from a majority of people to just
over a third.6
5.
A recent European Commission paper noted that “the European economic and social
model [is] under pressure from globalisation, demographic ageing, the rise of the
service economy and climate change… EU citizens do not expect their living conditions
to improve in the future. This raises the question of what direction social policies should
move in to increase their life satisfaction and wellbeing.”7 For the UK there may be a
particular concern, given apparent poor levels of wellbeing when compared to other
1
Jeremy Bentham, Chrestomathia (1817).
For example, Professor Richard Layard’s work on happiness economics, including Happiness: Lessons from a
New Science (2005).
3
See, for example: the new economic foundation’s National Accounts of Wellbeing, which presents a history of
the growing importance of wellbeing in UK and international policy since 2000, and calls for governments to use
wellbeing measures in policy-making; the report of the Commission on the Measurement of Economic
Performance and Social Progress to the French Government; UK government publications exploring wellbeing
such as DEFRA’s Sustainable Development Unit commissioning a number of reports; and the OECD conference
on Measuring the Progress of Societies.
4
Layard, R. Measuring Subjective Wellbeing. Science 372, 576 (2010), 534-535.
5
Griffiths S. and Reeves R. (eds.) (2009) Well-being: How to lead the good life and what government should do
to help. Social Market Foundation.
6
Griffiths S. and Reeves R. (eds.) (2009) Well-being: How to lead the good life and what government should do to
help. Social Market Foundation.
7
Theodoropoulou S. and Zuleeg F. (2009) What do citizens want? Well-being measurement and its importance
for European social policy-making. EPC Issue Paper No.59.
2
2
European countries8, despite our relatively high level of wealth and (prior to the global
downturn) consistent economic growth. A 2008 study of wellbeing in the UK estimated
that only 14% of the population has a high level of wellbeing, with 14% having very low
wellbeing9.
6.
Many national governments are already considering how to enhance wellbeing for their
citizens. Most notably, the French President has called for a new approach to
governing which would replace GDP with a new measure of national economic wealth
that also takes into account national wellbeing10. President Sarkozy has appealed to
political leaders from around the world to commit to measuring ‘gross domestic
happiness’; France has begun to compile figures on some measures of happiness11.
Similarly, in the UK, (current Prime Minister) David Cameron said in 2006 that more
attention should be paid to ‘General Well-being’ as well as GDP, and there has been
an increasing prevalence of policy-focused reports considering how to improve the
wellbeing of the population12.
7.
Whilst for many western governments, attempts to improve wellbeing can be made
from a starting point of a reasonable standard of living and economic growth, a
substantial proportion of the world’s population have not achieved the basic standard of
living that may be thought necessary in order to achieve wellbeing (ie sufficient income,
good health, education). Because wellbeing is a global challenge, consideration of
human wellbeing will need to recognise the impact of inequity in human development
and the variation in different countries’ current states of wellbeing. (For example, the
United Nations Human Development Index shows that whilst the wellbeing of most of
the world’s population has improved over the past 50 years, there remains significant
inequity in wellbeing across the globe, although the gaps in human wellbeing are,
overall, shrinking13.)
8.
In particular, it will be necessary to consider: how and if wellbeing can be achieved in
adverse economic circumstances or with a poor standard of living; and the
interdependency of wellbeing and the impact of globalisation14. Determining what
would constitute enhanced wellbeing will vary significantly between different countries,
whose populations will have different requirements and different concepts of wellbeing.
Wellbeing for all humans remains a pressing challenge.
8
The Child Poverty Action Group places the UK 24th out of 29 European countries for child wellbeing
(http://www.cpag.org.uk/info/ChildWellbeingandChildPoverty.pdf); the new economics foundation places the UK at
13th off 22 nations in its National Accounts of Wellbeing for Europe (http://www.neweconomics.org/pressreleases/uk-13th-new-national-accounts-well-being-europe); a study by the University of Cambridge puts the UK
at 9th for happiness and 10th for life satisfaction, among 15 other European countries
(http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/news/dp/2007041701).
9
Huppert F. (2008) Psychological wellbeing: evidence regarding its causes and its consequences. Government
Office for Science, Foresight Mental Capital and Wellbeing Project.
10
The Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress, commissioned by
President Sarcozy and led by Professor Joseph Stiglitz, Professor Amartya Sen and Professor Jean-Paul Fitoussi
to assess the limits of GDP as a measure of progress and to consider alternative or additional measures, made a
number of recommendations aimed at improving measurement of economic performance and developing
measures of wellbeing and sustainability.
11
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/sarkozy-proposes-the-ijoie-de-vivrei-index-1787221.html
12
For example: Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit, November 2002, ‘Life-satisfaction: the state of knowledge and
implications of government’; The World in 2005, The Economist, December 2004, ‘The Economist Intelligence
Unit’s quality of life index’; Richard Layard, February 2005, ‘Happiness; lessons from a new science’’ New
Economics Foundation, 2004, ‘A wellbeing Manifesto for a Flourishing Society; Australian Centre on Quality of
Life, August 2004, ‘Australian Unity Wellbeing Index’; New Zealand Quality of Life Project,
http://www.bigcities.govt.nz/; Sustainable Development Commission 2003, Redefining prosperity: resource
productivity, economic growth and sustainable development.
13
Goklany I M. The Globalisation of Human Well-Being. Policy Analysis: No.447. August 2002.
14
Goklany has discussed the extent to which globalisation may benefit wellbeing, because rich countries develop
medicine and technologies (through wealth) that then benefit poor countries, proposing a ‘health-wealth cycle’.
(Goklany, I. M. "The Globalization of Human Well-Being". The Cato Institute. August 2002.)
RATIONALE FOR THE UCL GRAND CHALLENGE OF HUMAN WELLBEING
November 2010
3
9.
GCHW must thus seek to:




articulate the importance of wellbeing in a variety of different contexts
recognise the complexity and variation in concepts of wellbeing
define different aspects of wellbeing and their value without necessarily
assigning objective prioritisation
consider wellbeing holistically and take into account its global significance,
implications and impact.
3.
Defining wellbeing
10.
One of the great challenges faced in any consideration of wellbeing, and certainly by
GCHW, is how to define wellbeing in the first place. UCL chooses to promote a holistic
approach which recognises that wellbeing is a multifaceted, multi-dimensional, fluid
concept. An initial focus for GCHW will therefore be to strike a balance between
defining some of the basic elements of wellbeing and maintaining a flexible definition of
wellbeing that embraces multiple aspects.
11.
There are a number of constituent elements, or dimensions, that could be broadly
agreed to be essential for a basic state of wellbeing (this is discussed further below).
Achieving and sustaining wellbeing will require an approach which takes account of the
varied factors which influence wellbeing. GCHW should not expect to provide a
definitive, uniform characterisation or explanation of wellbeing but to provide insights
into different concepts of wellbeing.
12.
Within the literature on human development, a number of distinct approaches have
evolved as ways of attempting to define – or start to define – wellbeing15. Three broad
approaches to defining wellbeing have emerged16: hedonistic accounts which advocate
the pursuit of pleasure; desire fulfilment accounts that advocate the satisfaction of
particular preferences; and objective list accounts which attempt to identify necessary
requirements for wellbeing. These approaches can be seen in the development of
17,18,19
,
various definitions of the basic human needs
or values20 21 that are necessary for
22, 23
wellbeing, or of the dimensions of wellbeing
. Such approaches attempt, by
15
McGillivray, M. “Human Wellbeing: Issues, Concepts and Measures”, in McGillivray M (ed.) (2006) Human
Well-being: Concept and Measurements. Palgrave Macmillan.
16
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/well-being/
17
Ramsay, M. (1992) Human Needs and the Market (Aldershot: Avebury). Ramsay identifies universal
psychological needs for wellbeing: physical survival; sexual needs; security; love and relatedness; esteem and
identity; self-realisation.
18
Doyal, L. and Gough, I. (1991) A Theory of Human Need. Macmillan. Doyal and Gough identify 11 intermediate
needs that governments should address to achieve wellbeing: nutritional food and water; protective housing; work;
physical environment; health care; security in childhood; significant primary relationships; physical security;
economic security; safe birth control / childbearing; basic education.
19
Max-Neef, M. (1991) Human Scale Development, The Apex Press, New York. This constructed a matrix of 10
human needs, intended to be exhaustive, according to certain categories of expression: being, having, doing and
interacting.
20
Grisez, G., Boyle, J. & Finnis, J. (1987) Practical principles, moral truth and ultimate ends.
American Journal of Jurisprudence, 32, pp. 99–151. Identifies the basic human values that are self-evident for
wellbeing: life; knowledge and aesthetic experience; work and play; friendship; self-0integration; self-expression;
religion.
21
Schwartz, B. (1994) The costs of living: How market freedom erodes the best things in life.
New York: W. W. Norton and Company. Identifies a list of universal human values which is intended to be
comprehensive: power; achievement; hedonism; stimulation; self-direction; universalism; benevolence; tradition;
conformity; and security.
22
Cummins, R. A. (1996) Domains of life satisfaction: an attempt to order chaos, Social Indicators Research,
38(3), pp. 303–328. Cummins identified seven domains of subjective wellbeing (material well-being; health;
productivity; intimacy/friendship; safety; community; and emotional wellbeing) and the Comprehensive Quality of
Live Survey developed to collect subjective and objective indicators in these domains.
23
Narayan, D., Chambers, R., Shah, M. K. & Petesch, P. (2000) Voices of the Poor: Crying Out for Change. New
York: Oxford University Press for the World Bank. Identifies six dimensions of wellbeing common to poor people
RATIONALE FOR THE UCL GRAND CHALLENGE OF HUMAN WELLBEING
November 2010
4
identifying elements of wellbeing, to arrive at a definition of what wellbeing might be
said to be. Amartya Sen’s capabilities approach to wellbeing24 offers a more subjective
account in which ‘capabilities’ reflect the combination of quality of life ‘functions’ that
individuals can achieve, so wellbeing is the capability to achieve (subjectively defined)
functions. This has been refined by Martha Nussbaum to ten central human
capabilities25.
13.
However, these represent merely a starting point for considering definitions of
wellbeing; it should not be assumed that these dimensions taken together therefore
necessarily constitute holistic wellbeing, nor that they have equal importance in relation
to each other. In the UK, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
(DEFRA) as part of its focus on sustainable development has turned its attention to
how to understand and enhance wellbeing. Recognising that wellbeing “is a broad
concept with many varying definitions”, DEFRA has developed an understanding of
wellbeing as follows:
…a positive physical, social and mental state; it is not just the absence of pain,
discomfort and incapacity. It requires that basic needs are met, that individuals
have a sense of purpose, that they feel able to achieve important personal goals
and participate in society. It is enhanced by conditions that include supportive
personal relationships, strong and inclusive communities, good health, financial
and personal security, rewarding employment, and a healthy and attractive
26
environment.
14.
What appears clear is that wellbeing (objective and subjective) is a “multifaceted,
dynamic combination of different factors”27 which will vary between individuals and
groups. GCHW embraces “the fundamental premise that wellbeing should be seen as
a multidimensional concept, encompassing many diverse dimensions”28. It will seek a
way for forward through identifying commonality – and exploring differences – between
measures, dimensions and concepts of wellbeing.
4. Measuring wellbeing
15.
Attempts to measure wellbeing are not new. A range of national and international
indices of development and wellbeing has been developed in recent years29, the
indicators of which in themselves reflect certain conceptualisations of wellbeing.
However, basic indicators of development often rely on broad-brush and simplistic
proxies which offer only a partial view of wellbeing, omitting many crucial dimensions.
Development measures are useful in that they record progress towards what could
arguably be termed ‘basic’ wellbeing – for example: freedom from hunger; mortality
all over the world: material wellbeing; bodily wellbeing; social wellbeing; security; freedom of choice and action
and psychological wellbeing.
24
Sen A. Commodities and Capabilities. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1985. Inequality Reexamined. Oxford,
Oxford University Press. 1992. Development As Freedom. New York: Knopf. 1999.
25
Nussbaum, M. C. Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge. 2000. The capabilities are: life; bodily health; bodily integrity; senses, imagination and thought;
emotions; practical reason; affiliation; other species; play; control over one’s environment.
26
27
http://www.defra.gov.uk/sustainable/government/progress/national/68.htm
new economics foundation. National Accounts of Well-being: bringing real wealth onto the balance sheet. 2009.
28
McGillivray, M. Human Wellbeing: Issues, Concepts and Measures. (in McGillivray M (ed.) Human Well-being:
Concept and Measurements. Palgrave Macmillan, 2006. p.2.
29
The United National Human Development Index (UNDHI) is perhaps the best-known international measure of
wellbeing. Since its inception, it has shifted to include non-monetary measures of development in order to better
indicate quality of life. It now offers an indicator which takes an average of three measures: life expectancy at
birth, educational attainment; and the logarithm of per capita income. This average is a basic recognition that
development does not just entail economic growth, although the UNHDI is based on the premise that basic
indicators of human wellbeing do improve as countries become wealthier (with improvements being most rapid at
the lowest levels of wealth) because increases in income lead to reductions in malnourishment and to improved
health, and subsequently to better education.
RATIONALE FOR THE UCL GRAND CHALLENGE OF HUMAN WELLBEING
November 2010
5
rates; child labour; education; access to safe water; and life expectancy30 as well as the
quality of the environment and the state of governance in a country. However, they
reflect progress towards what are taken to be certain basic requirements for wellbeing,
rather than wellbeing in itself.
16.
Furthermore, such indices do not capture the subjective wellbeing, or life satisfaction,
of populations. Whilst it is useful to a degree to establish basic, objective, measures or
indicators of wellbeing, it is also important to remember that there is “no one
conceptualising or measure that is accepted above all others”31 and that these do not in
themselves necessarily reflect wellbeing. One challenge therefore is to develop
meaningful ways of measuring wellbeing that reflect its multiple dimensions in an
appropriately nuanced way and incorporates subjective wellbeing.
17.
DEFRA has begun to collect data against a number of indicators of wellbeing, although
it is noted that “Wellbeing cannot be fully measured by a single indicator. Numerous
factors influence individual wellbeing. It is only possible to identify and measure some
32
of them” . DEFRA’s indicators include both existing sustainable development
measures (such as fear of crime, workless households, childhood poverty, pensioner
poverty, healthy life-expectancy, self-reported health, mortality rates, accessibility,
housing conditions, environmental equality) as well as an additional wellbeing indicator
which aims to capture life satisfaction, local environment, positive and negative feelings,
child wellbeing, health and physical activity, feelings of safety, cultural participation and
positive mental health.
18.
Although this represents a positive attempt to embed consideration of wellbeing into
government, the extent to which the use of such indicators is widespread across
government or used to inform policy decisions is unclear. As an ONS report remarks,
“no framework for measuring societal wellbeing has yet been agreed”33 and the UK
Government does not currently collect and measure information on the wellbeing of the
population as a whole in a way that can be used to inform policymaking and decisions.
On a more positive note, however, it is clear that greater attention is being paid to
developing sophisticated and multiple indices of wellbeing, and that a way forward for
measuring wellbeing may be slowly emerging.
Wellbeing beyond GDP
19.
The assumption that continued economic growth would result in improved wellbeing or
quality of life was challenged by Richard Easterlin who found that above a certain
income threshold individuals don’t get happier with increased wealth34. As Layard has
noted, recent “major debate” on measuring the wellbeing of populations “reflects the
fact that higher national income has not brought the better quality of life that many
expected”35 – for example there has been no increase in reported happiness in the US
over the past 60 years 36. Indeed, the new economics foundation (nef) argues that the
pursuit of economic growth in fact impacts negatively on wellbeing and states that
30
Goklany I. M. The Globalisation of Human Well-Being. Policy Analysis: No.447. August 2002.
McGillivray, M. Human Wellbeing: Issues, Concepts and Measures. (in McGillivray M (ed.) Human Well-being:
Concept and Measurements. Palgrave Macmillan, 2006. p.2
31
32
33
http://www.defra.gov.uk/sustainable/government/progress/national/68.htm
Alin, P. Measuring Societal Wellbeing. Economic & Labour Market Review. Vol 1: No 10. October 2007 p.49.
Office for National Statistics.
34
The Easterlin paradox shows that, for countries with income sufficient to meet basic needs, average reported
levels of happiness do not vary much with national income per person. (Easterlin R. “Does Economic Growth
Improve the Human Lot? Some Empirical Evidence”. 1974
(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/04/16/business/Easterlin1974.pdf.)
35
Layard, R. Measuring Subjective Wellbeing. Science 372, 576 (2010), 534-535.
36
Layard, R. Happiness (London: Penguin, 2005), 33.
RATIONALE FOR THE UCL GRAND CHALLENGE OF HUMAN WELLBEING
November 2010
6
“Measuring progress solely in economic terms misses the key fact that the economy is
a means to an end, not an end in itself.”37
20.
The discrepancy between economic growth and wellbeing may in part be due to the
fact that recorded increases in GDP – ie overall national income – do not reflect the
more detailed picture, including the distribution of income. Given evidence that unequal
societies – with the biggest gaps between rich and poor – perform poorly on measures
of social progress38, collecting more detailed information on the distribution of income
may be a more useful way to reflect progress towards wellbeing. This may be
particularly helpful in the UK where significant inequalities in wellbeing persist, with
significant consequences for social outcomes for the poorest groups.39 If income is to
be continued to be used as a measure of progress, a more sophisticated, nuanced
measure than GDP or average income per capita may represent a positive move
towards better reflecting wellbeing40.
21.
However, using income as an indicator does not capture the multiple dimensions of
wellbeing. Even if correlated with several other dimensions of wellbeing, it is
inadvisable to see positive income measures as synonymous with positive wellbeing;
rather, “income is a means, not an end.”41 For the developed world, therefore,
governments may need to develop new conceptualisations about progress towards
wellbeing, as argued by Joseph Stiglitz, Amartya Sen and Jean Paul Fitoussi in the
recent Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social
Progress42. Greater importance should be attached to social, environmental and other
measures43 when considering the ‘progress’ of countries.
22.
The report calls for “the development of a statistical system that complements
measures of market activity by measures centred on people’s well-being and by
measures that capture sustainability” which must, “of necessity, be plural” – wellbeing
cannot be captured in a single measure so attempts to measure wellbeing must
incorporate multiple measures44. The key elements of wellbeing identified by the report
are as follows: material living standards (income, consumption and wealth); health;
education; personal activities including work; political voice and governance; social
connections and relationships; environment (present and future conditions); and
insecurity, of an economic as well as a physical nature. Progress in these areas should
thus be measured by Government to provide an indication of levels of wellbeing.
23.
This report seems to provide a sensible starting point both for considering what is
necessary for wellbeing, and considering how aspects of wellbeing can be measured.
In particular, the report argues for “the establishment of a broad statistical system that
captures as many of the relevant dimensions as possible” to “not just measure average
37
new economics foundation. National Accounts of Well-being: bringing real wealth onto the balance sheet. 2009.
See, for example: Wilkinson R and Pickett K. The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do
Better. 2009; and Marmot M. et al. Fair Society, Healthy Lives: A Strategic Review of Health Inequalities in
England Post-2010. February 2010.
39
Hills J et al. (2010) An Anatomy of Equality in the UK: Report of the National Equality Panel (Government
Equalities Office / Centre for the Analysis of Social Exclusion. January 2010. The report found that the ‘90:10’
income ratio, between the poorest and richest percentiles, was almost 100 (with the top tenth of households
having wealth above £853,000, and the bottom tenth having less than £8,800). In the top half of the wealth
distribution, those in the top tenth have more than 4.2 times as much wealth as those in the middle.
40
For example, the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress suggested
that GDP measures could be better nuanced through an examination of income and consumption, rather than
production, including greater prominence to distribution of income, consumption and wealth.
41
Human Development Report 1990.
42
Stiglitz J, Sen A and Fitoussi J. Report of the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and
Social Progress. 2009.
43
For example the New Zealand government requires local authorities to take into account cultural, economic,
environmental and social wellbeing in their planning and practice.
44
Stiglitz J, Sen A and Fitoussi J. Report of the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and
Social Progress. 2009.
38
RATIONALE FOR THE UCL GRAND CHALLENGE OF HUMAN WELLBEING
November 2010
7
levels of wellbeing within a given community, and how they change over time, but also
document the diversity of peoples’ experiences and the linkages across various
dimensions of people’s life”.45
24.
The nef’s National Accounts of Wellbeing offers a response to the need for “a
comprehensive system of accounts that allows for rigorous and nuanced
measurements of people’s experience of life”, given that wellbeing is inherently
“multifaceted and dynamic”. The report sets out a framework comprising both personal
and social wellbeing, with personal wellbeing constituted as: ‘emotional wellbeing’, ‘life
satisfaction’, ‘vitality’, ‘resilience and self-esteem’ and ‘positive functioning’; and social
wellbeing as ‘supportive relationships’ and ‘trust and belonging.’
25.
A measurement of wellbeing across European countries, according to this framework,
shows that the UK performs relatively poorly compared to the rest of Europe, 13th out of
22 nations, with most Western European and Scandinavian countries performing better.
It also shows that high-levels of personal wellbeing do not necessarily correlate to
levels of social wellbeing within countries. The report concluded: “The relationships
between the conditions of peoples’ lives and their subjective experiences of life is
complex and demands a textured assessment of wellbeing to be fully understood.”46
Measuring happiness
26.
Layard has argued for many years that happiness is crucial to people’s wellbeing and
recently observed that: “Now is the time for every government to collect data on a
uniform basis on the happiness of its population…Once there is good information on
levels of happiness, three things will be possible: the monitoring of trends, the
identification of problem groups in the population, and the analysis of why some people
are happy and others are not.” 47 Indeed, increasing attention is being given to how to
measure subjective wellbeing or life satisfaction48, which, together with non-monetary
quality of life aspects of wellbeing, is one of the “two main strands of research in the
measurement of societal wellbeing beyond GDP” and is now being captured in the UK
Government Sustainable Development indicators49.
27.
Whilst happiness is not synonymous with wellbeing (although the terms ‘wellbeing’ and
‘happiness’ are often used synonymously), it can nevertheless to assumed to be an
important component, particularly in subjective wellbeing. Happiness might be said to
relate predominantly to “people’s multidimensional evaluation of their lives”50. For the
purpose of policy-making, there are now a number of robust data-sets on the factors
that influence happiness which offer possibilities for ranking and weighing the influence
of those factors. 51 The Social Market Foundation has observed that: “Most of the
results give some reassuring statistical significance to common sense: lasting
marriages, good health, exercise, education, good relationships with children, religious
faith, friends, sex and a certain level of wealth are good for happiness; unemployment,
death of an intimate, poverty, chronic ill-health and divorce are bad.”52
45
Stiglitz J, Sen A and Fitoussi J. Report of the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and
Social Progress. 2009. p.12
46
new economics foundation. National Accounts of Well-being: bringing real wealth onto the balance sheet. 2009.
47
Layard, R. Measuring Subjective Wellbeing. Science 372, 576 (2010), 534-535.
48
For example, the Stiglitz / Sen / Fitoussi Commission recommended that both objective and subjective
measures of wellbeing should be reported.
49
Alin, P. Measuring Societal Wellbeing. Economic & Labour Market Review. Vol 1: No 10. October 2007 p.49.
Office for National Statistics.
50
McGillivray M. and Clarke M. (ed.), Understanding Human Wellbeing. United Nations University Press. 2006.
p.10.
51
Griffiths S. and Reeves R. (eds.). Well-being: How to lead the good life and what government should do to help.
Social Market Foundation. July 2009.
52
Griffiths S. and Reeves R. (eds.). Well-being: How to lead the good life and what government should do to help.
Social Market Foundation. July 2009.
RATIONALE FOR THE UCL GRAND CHALLENGE OF HUMAN WELLBEING
November 2010
8
28.
Recent research53 has shown a strong correlation between US life satisfaction surveys
and a branch of economic objective wellbeing data, where the subjective responses
confirmed objective estimates of wellbeing. If this correlation, which also appears to
confirm the value of data on subjective wellbeing, is borne out by further research
(correlations have already been identified between reported happiness and blood
pressure, and among emotions, relative reward and the brain54), there may be
significant potential to unify measures of wellbeing in a way that may be practically
useful for governments and other actors.
29.
If subjective and objective measures of wellbeing could be combined (for example by
aggregating self-assessed happiness ratings with aggregate objective measures), then
governments may have a way to record levels of wellbeing among citizens in order to
inform future policy-making. In these circumstances, it would also be necessary to
measure outcomes of attempts to improve wellbeing. It may well be in time that
progress against wellbeing outcome measures could replace international development
indicators, and that economic growth becomes properly seen as a means to end, and
not an end in itself.
5. Governing for wellbeing
30.
The development of measures of wellbeing can function both as a way of tracking
progress and trends in wellbeing, and to inform the direction of policy-making. For
example, Michael Marmot’s recent review of health inequalities in England55 proposed
a number of national targets in order to tackle inequality and improve health and
wellbeing, including: life expectancy; health expectancy (quality years of life); readiness
for school (early years development); numbers of NEETS (“not in education,
employment or training”, to capture skills development); and a national target to
progressively increase the proportion of households that have an income, after tax and
benefits, that is sufficient for healthy living.
31.
Adopting targets as proxies for wellbeing and measuring progress towards them would
embed a commitment towards improving wellbeing into the process of government.
However, one of the key considerations must be that, as a DEFRA-commissioned
report observed:
Problems manifested in one domain may be most effectively and successfully
solved only by setting the apparently specific problem in its broader personal,
social and political context. Effective solutions will often involve actions in quite
different domains from where the problem apparently is, and in turn such
solutions will then often produce wider benefits for other domains. Holistic service
delivery requires methods of decision and project appraisal which recognise
broader outcomes.56
Attempts by governments to enhance wellbeing are likely to require a joined-up
approach to policy-making to be embedded across Government, and a recognition that
action in one area will have implications elsewhere.
53
Oswald A et al. Objective Confirmation of Subjective Measures of Human Well-Being: Evidence form the USA.
Science 327,576 (2010) 576-579.
54
Layard, R. Measuring Subjective Wellbeing. Science 372, 576 (2010), 534-535.
55
Marmot M. et al. Fair Society, Healthy Lives: A Strategic Review of Health Inequalities in England Post-2010.
February 2010.
56
Levett-Therivel sustainability consultants. Wellbeing: International Policy Interventions. Report to DEFRA.
March 2007.
RATIONALE FOR THE UCL GRAND CHALLENGE OF HUMAN WELLBEING
November 2010
9
32.
The considerable complexity in attempting to define and measure wellbeing raises
questions about the role and purpose of Government57 – whether it is to optimise
wellbeing, and if so, how it might achieve this. It may seem obvious to state that
enhancing our wellbeing should be a priority for society as a whole, and thus both for
individuals and Government. However, in order to achieve such enhancement, it is
necessary to unpick what is meant by wellbeing, and what is required in order to
achieve its enhancement. Additionally, it may require a re-thinking of what is most
important to individuals and to society: what is the purpose of living, working, and
relating to others and how individuals can do this well.
33.
A particular challenge for governments and policy-makers will be achieving the
wellbeing of society as a whole whilst recognising that different dimensions hold
varying importance for specific groups within society. This will require identifying what
matters most for different groups, balancing different priorities to achieve a just and
equitable outcome, and teasing out the complexities of what is known about the causes
of and correlations with wellbeing. For example, the European Commission report
discussed in section 2 specified a number of factors which affect citizens’ life
satisfaction (income growth; health; quality of work; and differences in per capita
income) but also emphasised that a clear priority for policy-makers must be to identify
trade-offs in policy to achieve greater wellbeing.
34.
With limited resources, any government will always need to make choices between
policies and programmes and decisions about which to prioritise and invest in. The
central question for government must therefore be what the most effective policy
interventions and trade-offs are to achieve improved wellbeing. This will require, as
discussed above, the development of indicators that can be measured over time to
provide a record of wellbeing, and in particular consideration of how and whether
particular aspects or dimensions of wellbeing can be quantified or prioritised.
35.
Governments will have to consider at a macro-level the value of actively promoting
certain conditions that are seen to foster wellbeing, and at a micro-level interventions
that may target specific groups or specific capabilities. In addition, it will be necessary
to consider the prioritisation of particular policy measures to address specific
dimensions of wellbeing – particularly when exploring how to achieve wellbeing for
different groups and distributed across populations – in order to achieve a more
nuanced approach that addresses different needs.
36.
One (initial) option may be to pursue a broad framework to enhance wellbeing which
recognises certain key measures – such as social progress, conserving the
environment, promoting good health – in the hope that this will deliver the outcomes of
wellbeing. For example, the Marmot review identified a number of policy objectives
which may offer a way of measuring progress towards wellbeing or outcomes of
wellbeing58; similarly a recent Government Foresight report on mental capacity and
wellbeing identified a number of future challenges for wellbeing59 and suggested a
number of areas where Government could act to enhance wellbeing. In this context,
the role of Government could be said to be to ensure that individuals and societies
possess the ability for wellbeing: ie to ensure the right circumstances for wellbeing,
57
A recent survey from the BBC found that 81% of people thought government’s prime objectives should be the
happiness rather than wealth of a country.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/happiness_formula/4771908.stm
58
These include: reduced inequalities in the early development of physical and emotional health, and cognitive,
linguistic and social skills; reduced social gradient in skills and qualifications; reduced long-term unemployment
across the social gradient; reducing the number and proportion of people living in poverty; reducing the effects of
climate change through energy efficiency of housing and safe open green areas; increasing ill-health prevention
and early detection.
59
These included: the demographic age-shift, changes to the global economy and the world of work, the changing
nature of UK society and changing attitudes to and expectations of society; the changing nature of public services;
and new science and technology.
RATIONALE FOR THE UCL GRAND CHALLENGE OF HUMAN WELLBEING
November 2010
10
whatever they might be. (This echoes Sen’s capabilities approach to wellbeing,
suggesting that government should focus on enabling individuals’ wellbeing capabilities
within a broad framework.)
37.
Whilst there is clearly a role for Government in promoting wellbeing, there are also
many other actors, and consideration should be given to the ways in which their
different roles intersect in achieving wellbeing. In particular, greater consideration may
be needed of the role of and opportunities afforded to individuals in enhancing their
own wellbeing and that of others. If wellbeing is about what is valued in human
experience, how can governments promote what is valued and how can individuals
then maximise this? How can wellbeing be achieved for whole societies and
populations when it is likely to mean and require different things for different individuals
and groups? GCHW will seek to provide the insights that will enable individuals,
organisations, policymakers and governments to determine these and to act effectively
for wellbeing.
6. Achieving wellbeing
38.
If basic requirements for wellbeing as indicated by measures of human development
are met (as they have been in most western countries), urgent questions are raised as
to what more is necessary for wellbeing. Wellbeing can perhaps best be seen as a
description of an individual’s life situation. In that sense, it can be broken down into
various elements which reflect different aspects of life experience and measured
against various indicators of life situation (such as income, education, physical health).
These will include elements of objective wellbeing (eg sufficient food; good governance)
and subjective wellbeing (eg feeling happy; feeling satisfied with life), or elements
which are a combination of the two (eg good health, good personal relationships).
39.
A number of common themes (such as physical health and bodily integrity; mental and
emotional health; economic security; successful social relationships; personal security;
good governance and political freedom; and capacity for leisure) emerge from
discussions of wellbeing, making it possible to identify some of the constituent
dimensions of wellbeing with reasonable confidence. Discussions in a number of
policy-focused reports in the UK have also pointed to: a combination of material and
environmental circumstances, including personality, genes, early years, and
environment60; the importance of both personal and social dimensions of wellbeing61;
feelings of happiness and satisfaction, mental capacity, physical, social and emotional
health, and adequate living conditions62; cultural context and values63; and relative
versus absolute states of wellbeing64.
40.
It is also useful to think about ‘capabilities’ of individuals to achieve wellbeing, as set
out by Sen. This rejects the idea of imposing a ‘list’ of necessary wellbeing criteria but
relies on subjective identification and prioritisation of capabilities by individuals.
Individuals themselves thus determine their own sense of wellbeing and what is
necessary for it. That being said, as discussed above, it is reasonable to expect the
role of government to be to provide the basics for achieving wellbeing – in other words,
to provide the conditions that enable individuals to achieve wellbeing. In particular,
60
new economics foundation. National Accounts of Well-being: bringing real wealth onto the balance sheet. 2009.
new economics foundation. National Accounts of Well-being: bringing real wealth onto the balance sheet. 2009.
62
Scottish Executive Education Department. Quality Of Life And Well-Being: Measuring The Benefits Of Culture
And Sport: Literature Review And Thinkpiece. 2006. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2006/01/13110743/4
63
Scottish Executive Education Department. Quality Of Life And Well-Being: Measuring The Benefits Of Culture
And Sport: Literature Review And Thinkpiece. 2006.
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2006/01/13110743/4
64
Scottish Executive Education Department (2006) Quality Of Life And Well-Being: Measuring The Benefits Of
Culture And Sport: Literature Review And Thinkpiece.
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2006/01/13110743/4
61
RATIONALE FOR THE UCL GRAND CHALLENGE OF HUMAN WELLBEING
November 2010
11
there are a number of key considerations for wellbeing which are discussed further
below.
Health and wellbeing
41.
It is generally presumed that wellbeing goes hand in hand with health. The World
Health Organization (WHO) defines health as “a state of complete physical, mental and
social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity65. This definition
implies both that health depends on wellbeing and that wellbeing is about more than
good health. Of course, wellbeing must entail mental as well as physical health, and
the WHO’s definition of mental health as “a state of well-being in which every individual
realizes his or her own potential, can cope with the normal stresses of life, can work
productively and fruitfully, and is able to make a contribution to her or his community” 66
suggests something further about wellbeing. Good mental health enables individuals to
pursue those things which are important for wellbeing: coping; working productively;
and making a contribution.
42.
Wellbeing therefore could be said to be about ‘living well’ – having experiences through
life that offer personal and social fulfillment. It is not only about removing impediments
or negative elements of experience but actively promoting positive elements to achieve
wellbeing. The new economic foundation’s work on wellbeing points to a multidimensional approach to achieving wellbeing, highlighting what is important for people
to live well, including the development of a ‘five a day’ to enhance individual
wellbeing.67 The nef states that “The concept of well-being comprises two main
elements: feeling good and functioning well.”68 Ensuring good mental and physical
health underpins feeling good and functioning well.
Subjective and objective wellbeing
43.
A useful working definition of broader wellbeing may be that it is about how people live
their lives, and how they feel about their lives. This clearly encompasses many
dimensions, which taken together can be described as ‘quality of life’ (also used as a
synonym for wellbeing), relating both to objective and subjective wellbeing. The quality
of life that underpins much of wellbeing is dependent on objective conditions including
health, education, environment, personal activities, which in turn can affect subjective
wellbeing. A challenge for defining wellbeing might be to assess the links between
quality of life factors in different situations and sectors. For example, physical health,
family status, employment, income and age are important causal factors for subjective
wellbeing69. Wellbeing is both underpinned by objective factors and is an inherently
subjective state, which is likely to vary between individuals and is heavily contextdependent70.
44.
It is arguably possible to capture subjective wellbeing to a degree through surveys of
how people feel, or say they feel, about their wellbeing71 (as noted in Section 3).
Layard has noted that subjective wellbeing can be measured reasonably accurately,
citing correlations between answers to happiness levels and other variables: reports of
friends; plausible causes of wellbeing; plausible effects of wellbeing; physical functions,
65
Preamble to the Constitution of the World Health Organization as adopted by the International Health
Conference, New York, 19 June - 22 July 1946; signed on 22 July 1946 by the representatives of 61 States
(Official Records of the World Health Organization, no. 2, p. 100) and entered into force on 7 April 1948.
66
http://www.who.int/features/factfiles/mental_health/en/index.html
67
new economics foundation. Five ways to wellbeing. October 2008.
68
new economics foundation. Five ways to wellbeing. October 2008.
69
Layard, R. Measuring Subjective Wellbeing. Science 372, 576 (2010), 534-535.
70
Scottish Executive Education Department. Quality Of Life And Well-Being: Measuring The Benefits Of Culture
And Sport: Literature Review And Thinkpiece. January 2006.
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2006/01/13110743/4
71
McGillivray M. and Clarke M. (ed.), Understanding Human Wellbeing. United Nations University Press. 2006.
RATIONALE FOR THE UCL GRAND CHALLENGE OF HUMAN WELLBEING
November 2010
12
and measures of brain activity. There is much more research required into subjective
wellbeing, including further work with fMRI to map brain activity, and identifying
correlations with objective wellbeing. Gathering information on subjective wellbeing in
order to track trends and influences should also be an important aspect on
governmental interventions in wellbeing.
Social wellbeing
45.
It is important to consider both individual and social dimensions of wellbeing, which,
whilst overlapping to a significant degree, do retain distinctive elements. Individual
wellbeing obviously contributes to social wellbeing as a whole; and the wellbeing of
society (eg levels of trust, civic-mindedness, health, social relationships) can underpin
levels of individual wellbeing. Whilst social wellbeing is at a basic level the aggregate of
individual wellbeing in the population, it is more systemically complex. Achieving the
collective wellbeing of a society is different from achieving the wellbeing of many
individuals; wellbeing at a collective level can constitute different dimensions to that at
individual level.
46.
Governments may therefore have to make choices between prioritising the wellbeing of
society or of individuals, and also take into account the intersection and
interdependence of different societies around the world (ie tackling climate change may
require restricting individuals’ energy consumption, which could affect their wellbeing,
in order to preserve the longer-term wellbeing of society (and of future generations of
individuals). Wellbeing is perhaps best seen as an aggregate of different dimensions
which manifests itself as a trade-off between pluralities72.
Sustainability and wellbeing
47.
In recent months, particular attention has been given to wellbeing in the context of
sustainability. The Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and
Social Progress emphasises that measures of wellbeing must also measure
sustainability and observes:
Current well-being has to do with both economic resources, such as income, and
with non-economic aspects of peoples’ life (what they do and what they can do,
how they feel, and the natural environment they live in). Whether these levels of
well-being can be sustained over time depends on whether stocks of capital that
matter for our lives (natural, physical, human, social) are passed on to future
generations.73
48.
In the aftermath of the global economic downturn, a renewed focus on wellbeing to
deliver enhanced national measures of prosperity and success opens up thinking to
alternative models of growth and of governance, including embracing limited economic
growth and enhanced social wellbeing. The current economic climate has exposed the
limits of a model of growth through consumption, as Tim Jackson has argued74. It has
also given rise to pressing questions as to whether wealth creation should be the
primary goal of government and measure of the success of society. It may in fact be
more appropriate for government to focus on promoting social progress and the
wellbeing of the population – which relies on a certain level of economic growth and
stability, but not necessarily on a model of ever-increasing growth, particularly as this
can often be at the expense of other crucial aspects of wellbeing and on the wellbeing
of the people of other nations.
72
Dasgupta P. Human Wellbeing and the Natural Environment. 2001.
Stiglitz J, Sen A and Fitoussi J. Report of the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and
Social Progress. 2009. p.11.
74
Jackson T. Prosperity Without Growth: The Transition to a Sustainable Economy. Sustainable Development
Commission. March 2009.
73
RATIONALE FOR THE UCL GRAND CHALLENGE OF HUMAN WELLBEING
November 2010
13
49.
The current financial constraints and drives for austerity provide an opportunity to move
away from a model of the pursuit of unlimited growth in isolation and to re-balance the
UK economy in the context both of pursuing increased sustainability, and in response
to the overall re-balancing of the global economy as new dominant economic powers
emerge. In particular, there is an opportunity to prioritise other measures of social
progress that better reflect sustainability and wellbeing, and to reflect on how future
wellbeing must necessarily be underpinned by sustainability if we are to achieve it for
the long-term.
7.
The UCL Grand Challenge of Human Wellbeing
50.
In the UCL Grand Challenge of Human Wellbeing, we have identified a global
challenge, encompassing human wellbeing across the world. Given the significant
variation internationally in states of wellbeing, GCHW must consider both how to
increase the basic conditions for wellbeing for all (eg food, water, health, longevity,
education, governance), whilst also exploring what constitutes wellbeing beyond those
basic measures.
51.
Questions can be posed about the different contexts in which people experience
wellbeing and thus decide what is important for the wellbeing. Additionally, the
distribution of wellbeing across populations should be investigated, particularly as
regards what delivers wellbeing for different groups, inequity in states of wellbeing
between different groups of people, and the impact of inequality on wellbeing.
52.
There are many apparent contradictions and tensions in wellbeing which GCHW will
seek to examine, including the relationship between individual and social wellbeing;
capacity for adaptation to adverse circumstances; whether measuring wellbeing in fact
will lead to its enhancement; what the outcomes of wellbeing should be; what makes
humans happy and how this relates to wellbeing; and sustainability and wellbeing.
53.
GCHW will also explore what it is to be human, what that means for the way we live our
lives, and a greater understanding of what we require to live our lives well. If wellbeing
is about what is valued in human experience, an imperative for the Grand Challenge is
to seek to explore what that is. Given that wellbeing is inherently multi-dimensional and
comprises many different individual and social accounts of wellbeing, understanding
more about what it is to be human and what gives us pleasure or makes us think we
are happy may be crucial to understanding how to sustain and enhance wellbeing.
54.
UCL recognises that as a world-leading research institution in an advanced
industrialised nation we have a responsibility to work to achieve human wellbeing
across the world and to ensure that our wellbeing is not achieved at the expense of
others. We must disseminate what insights in science and research tell us about
wellbeing, explore the nature of wellbeing, and inform public policy and governments
on how to govern or wellbeing to achieving the wellbeing of national and international
populations and a society in which individual wellbeing flourishes
55.
We also recognise that there is no single approach and indeed that the answer to many
of the pressing questions for wellbeing will come in many different parts from different
disciplines – from psychology and neuroscience to personalised medicine, and from
history and economics to anthropology and sociology. What UCL must offer is a
combination of approaches to wellbeing that are flexible and responsive.
56.
UCL’s multidisciplinarity, encompassing disciplines from art to zoology, allows us a
significant opportunity to tackle the complex, multi-faceted challenge of how to achieve,
maintain and increase wellbeing. Our challenge is manifold:

to tackle the complexity of wellbeing through our multidisciplinary expertise
RATIONALE FOR THE UCL GRAND CHALLENGE OF HUMAN WELLBEING
November 2010
14



to explore the possibilities of measuring wellbeing and developing quality of life
indicators
to address pressing questions about how to enhance wellbeing
to embrace curiosity about what it is to be human and explore the world and our
place in it.
57.
GCHW will also work in partnership with the other UCL Grand Challenges – Global
Health, Sustainable Cities and Intercultural Interaction – as well as with initiatives in the
emerging UCL Research Frontiers.
58.
GCHW will seek to harness the expertise of UCL’s research community and of the
external partnerships that we develop to provide insights into human wellbeing and its
enhancement. We hope to make novel and important contributions to the question of
how to enhance human wellbeing in a truly global context, and to achieve human
wellbeing for all.
RATIONALE FOR THE UCL GRAND CHALLENGE OF HUMAN WELLBEING
November 2010