Amitava Dutt este profesor de economie la Universitatea din Notre Dame. In articolul sau
"CONSUMPTION AND HAPPINESS: ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES", realizat in octombrie 2007, Dutt explica unele din motivele pentru care, in ciuda cresterii consumului in societatile occidentale, fericirea nu a sporit proportional.
Mai intai, autorul realizeaza o trecere in revista a acestui fapt:
Fericirea nu a sporit odata cu consumul crescut"A relatively small but growing number of economists and other social scientists have produced empirical studies that question the fact that increases in consumption and income – at least significantly – affect happiness as evaluated by the consumers themselves.
The pioneering contributions of Easterlin (1973, 1995, 2001), and subsequent work by Oswald (1997), Deiner and Shigehiro (2000), and Frey and Stutzer (2002) among others, suggest a number of empirical regularities. Time series data for individual countries do not reflect significant (and in some cases any) increases in the average level of self-reported happiness over time, despite significant increases in income and consumption. Panel data on specific individuals over their lives suggest that despite large increases in income, these individuals usually do not show significant increases in self-reported happiness. Cross-sectional studies across countries suggest that countries with higher levels of per capita income and consumption do not have higher average levels of self-reported happiness beyond a certain level of income which is far below the income of the rich countries of the world. Even individuals who win lotteries have been
found to report no greater happiness after a few years. To be sure, there is some support for the consumption-happiness connection. Cross-sectional studies within countries seems consistent with it: people in higher income groups with higher levels of consumption report higher levels of self-reported happiness than people in lower income groups; it seems that it is better to be rich than poor in a particular society at a particular point in time. Cross-country studies do suggest a positive income-happiness link at low levels of income. Some studies suggest that people are happier – even if temporarily – if their consumption and income increases. However, the bulk of the evidence seems to contradict the consumption-happiness relationship."
Al doilea pas facut de Dutt este sa argumenteze de ce criticile facute vizavi de corectitudinea concluziilor de mai sus (ca peste un prag, banii si consumul in exces nu sporesc fericirea) sunt eronate.
Raspunzand criticilor:(1)"We first examine some arguments which appear to undermine the consumption-happiness relationship (more accurately, the absence of a relationship).
The first is to suggest that the dissenters have been much too hasty in dismissing the consumption-happiness link because they have not examined all of the relevant evidence. This is a difficult line to pursue, however. As noted earlier, there is by now a large body of evidence that confirms the link.
But there are a few contributions which provide contrary results of which we briefly discuss two. Frijters, Haisken-DeNew and Shields (2004) apply a conditional fixed-effect ordinal estimate to data on East Germans using panel data from the German Socio-Economic Panel for the period 1991-2001 to find that both real income and employment status are important predictors of life satisfaction. However, there are a number of reasons for doubting the generality of these results.
One suspects that there were changes in economic and political conditions of life in the region which are not captured adequately by the annual dummies. It is possible also that the former East Germans could have increased their life-satisfaction if their conditions were improving relative to that of the former West Germans.
Finally, the results show that life-satisfaction gains were mostly concentrated in the immediate post-unification period, suggesting that the happiness gains are not necessarily long-lasting.
Heady, Muffels and Wooden (2004) uses panel data from Australia, Britain, Germany, Hungary and the Netherlands to find that income and wealth as well as non-durable consumption (where data is available for it) have significantly positive effects on life satisfaction overall. The effects are found to be stronger than just the effects of income. However, the overall effect of these variables is still relatively small, and much weaker than the effects of say employment status. Thus, while somewhat strengthening the impact of money on happiness, and suggesting that consumption has a stronger effect on happiness than income, these findings do not contradict the result that consumption and income have small effects on happiness."
Astfel, desi majoritatea studiilor indica neputinta imbogatirii de a spori fericirea, exista studii, precum cel realizat de Frijters, Haisken-DeNew si Shields in 2004 asupra populatiei din Germania de Est, care ar arata ca acolo, odata cu sporirea veniturilor populatiei, ar fi crescut si fericirea. Acest rezultat are doua mari probleme: mai intai, nu atat consumul in sine poate sa fie explicatia, ci mai ales apropierea de nivelul economic al celor din Germania de Vest. Totodata, sporirea fericirii s-a petrecut in special in perioada imediat urmatoare unificarii, ceea ce sugereaza ca efectele ei nu sunt neaparat de durata.
In privinta celui de-al doilea studiu, (Heady, Muffels si Wooden, 2004) desi s-ar parea ca sporirea comnsumului si veniturilor sporeste fericirea, aceasta crestere e extrem de mica si practic nesemnificativa.
(2)"The second [criticism] is to argue that even if consumption does not appear to increase happiness as measured by self-reported subjective well-being, that does not have any bearing on the connection between happiness and consumption because subjective well-being does not really measure happiness.
Doubts about the identification of happiness and subjective well-being can be raised at least three levels.
One, it may be asked if happiness or satisfaction indicators based on such surveys what is called subjective well-being, measures anything at all. This kind of criticism seems unwarranted (see di Tella and McCulloch, 2006) because of the reasonable degree of correlation these indicators have with other indicators such as left-frontal brain activity and with measures of depression and suicide, and with the similar implications they have in various studies using different kinds of questions and in different contexts."
Altfel spus, o alta critica fata de valabilitatea studiilor ce demonstreaza slaba legatura intre venit si fericire este ca ele folosesc conceptul de "well-being", care nu ar avea, in opinia criticilor, vreo relevanta reala. Raspunsul lui Dutt este ca, din contra, masuratoarea well-being-ului este corelata cu masuratori cat se poate de obiective, precum activitatea lobului frontal stang si statisticile referitoare la depresie si sinucidere, laolalta cu alte masuratori diferite.
(3)"Third, it can be argued that the absence of any tendency of happiness to rise despite significant increases in consumption and income can be explained by the fact that happiness does not depend on consumption and income alone, but on many other things.
It is therefore quite possible that increases in consumption have led to increases in happiness, but that these gains have been nullified by adverse movements in the other determinants. Di Tella and McCulloch (2006) argue against this view stating that in fact many of the things that happiness depends on have actually moved in a positive direction, so that they cannot be blamed for negligible changes in happiness. However, this argument may not be very convincing without a more thorough investigation of the other causes of happiness and in their direction of change. For instance, although some measures of the environment may have improved, others, such as those indicating global warming have arguably worsened. Other determinants of happiness, for instance, interactions with friends and community bonds, have arguably moved in a direction which reduces happiness (Lane, 2000, Putnam, 2000)
There are, however, more weighty arguments to be made against this approach. First, one should examine whether these other determinants are truly independent of increases in consumption and income; if they have worsened by increases in consumption or by the same reasons which have increased consumption.
Second, one can examine more careful analyses of the determinants of happiness to control for other determinants. Most exercises in doing so have in fact found that income and consumption have relatively small effects on subjective wellbeing. These findings, however, leave open the question whether the other determinants of happiness which have a strong impact are indirectly affected by consumption and its determinants."
Asadar, o a treia critica sustine ca desi consumerismul sporeste fericirea, exista alti factori care contracareaza acest efect. Raspunsul lui Dutt e simplu: acesti factori perturbatori ai fericirii sunt cauzati de consumul in exces (de pilda cresterea poluarii), si deci din moment ce insasi consumul sporit le accentueaza, se poate spune ca pert total, consumerismul nu e o cale de urmat in cautarea fericirii. In al doilea rand, s-au realizat studii care izoleaza efectele consumului, eliminand astfel influenta unor factori terti. Rezultatele au arata ca si asa, consumerismul in sine e incapabil sa conduca la rezultatele dorite.
Consumul relativ nu ne face mai fericitiO parte fundamentala a discursului lui Dutt il reprezinta analiza consumului relativ. Acesta se refera la faptul ca noi consumam nu pentru ca am avea nevoie in sine de un produs, ci pentru ca ceilalti il consuma. Dutt identifica mai multe modalitati (cel putin sase) in care acest consum mimetic apare, dar niciuna dintre ele nu ridica per total gradul de fericire al societatii, pentru ca acesta e atins doar atunci cand consumam mai mult decat ceilalti: intotdeauna se va gasi insa cineva care are mai mult decat noi.
"Having argued against possible ways of discrediting the absence of the consumption-happiness relation, this section discusses a popular explanation of it. This explanation has been referred to in the literature in a various ways, including: consumption because others consume, the relative consumption hypothesis, positional onsumption, and interdependent consumption and preferences. Although it is not clear that these expressions are precisely equivalent, they appear to involve two main features: first, that the consumption level of individuals depends positively on what (at least some) others consume, and second that the level of utility, satisfaction or happiness that people obtain from consumption is affected by what other people consume. There are a number of
variants of this explanation, which may be classified into at least six categories."
In aceasta prezentare vom lua in considerare doua astfel de modalitati in care apare consumul relativ.
(1)"One is that individuals derive – or perceive they derive – benefits in terms of higher income by having higher levels of consumption (of certain things) in relation to the level of consumption of others. Examples include spending more on clothing than others to make a better impression on others for the purpose getting jobs and clients,
spending more on education to become more attractive to potential employers (see Frank, 1999) and spending more on consumption goods in general may signal higher wealth, making it possible to possible to attract wealthier mates in an effort to increase the
absolute level of income and (joint) consumption (Cole, et. al. 1992). In these examples, it is not the absolute amount of consumption that increases income, but consumption spending relative to that of others. Since income determines consumption, which increases utility, it is relative consumption which determines utility. Moreover, more consumption by others will lead consumers to want to consume more. Since relative consumption is not valued for its own sake, but for its effect on absolute consumption, we may refer to this as the instrumental motive."
Deci prima modalitate in care apare consumul relativ este dorinta de a-i intrece pe ceilalti. Cheltuim mai mult pe propria educatie pentru a castiga mai mult decat altii, cheltuim mai mult pe haine pentru a face o impresie mai bune la locul de munca ori/si pentru a atrage persoane la fel de bine imbracate si bogate, sporindu-ne astfel bogatia si mai mult.
(2)"A fifth relates to consumption norms. If most people consume something, a consumption norm is created which makes individuals “need” to consume it. Smith (1776. p. 351-2)) wrote about this more than two centuries ago: By necessaries I understand not only the commodities which are indispensably necessary for the support of life, but what ever the custom of the country renders it indecent for creditable people, even the lowest order to be without ... Custom ...
has rendered leather shoes a necessary of life in England. The poorest creditable person of either sex would be ashamed to appear in public without them."
The need being fulfilled here, according to Sen (1983), is the need of not being ashamed; Smith is clearly arguing that the commodity capable of satisfying this need depends on what many others do, and is therefore changeable as customs change. In our times, if most people have straight teeth, it is likely to make the rest be ashamed to have crooked teeth, so that parents obtain braces for their children to avoid shame. Although consumption norms are likely strongest for goods visible to others, they may apply to other goods as well, because not consuming them can damage one’s self respect."
A doua modalitate in care apare consumul relativ este ca odata ce multi membri ai societatii acumuleaza anumite bunuri, si ceilalti au tendinta de a o face, nu pentru ca ar avea neaparat nevoie de ele, ci pentru a nu ramane "pe dinafara". In acest fel, consumul creste dar nu sporeste fericirea, ci doar ne fereste de rusinea de a nu fi "in pas cu lumea".
Consumerismul ne obliga sa ne complicam viataCresterea generala a consumului insa trage dupa sine si exacerbeaza consumul relativ fara a spori fericirea generala si in alte moduri, nu doar in cele motivate psihologic.
"Sometimes consumption needs may not just reflect psychological processes, but may translate into the non-availability or inferiority of less expensive substitutes and therefore create the necessity of spending more to meet virtually the same needs.
As more people use private cars as means of transportation the support for public transportation may diminish, public transportation services may decline or even diminish, requiring other people to buy cars as well. As more people consume expensive goods cheaper substitutes may not be produced if the market for them is not large enough to make them profitable to cover costs in the presence of fixed costs or increasing returns to scale. As more people use refrigeration, small nearby groceries for daily shopping may vanish, requiring others to shop less frequently at distant supermarkets and buy refrigerators. As more people buy home alarm systems and live in expenses gated communities others may become more vulnerable to crime, requiring them to spend more as well. As people buy bigger cars, it can become less safe to drive in smaller cars, requiring small-car owners to buy bigger and more expensive cars. In all these cases, increases in consumption by others induce people to consume more. Yet, as everyone consumes more, the same needs of safe transportation, food, and safe housing are fulfilled with more consumer goods.
Consumption levels of others determines what level of consumption satisfies our needs and hence, our level of satisfaction."
Iata cum consumerismul are efecte nocive pentru intreaga societate, obliga oamenii sa adopte stiluri de viata mai complicate, necesitand mai mult efort pentru a-si satisface niste nevoi altfel relativ usor de satisfacut. Un nou motiv pentru care consumerismul e incapabil sa ne faca mai fericiti.
Competitivitatea naturala a omuluiTotusi, nu se poate spune ca, in ciuda inutilitatii si chiar nocivitatii consumului relativ, natura umana ne determina sa ne comportam competitiv? Chiar daca rezultate nu sunt dezirabile, putem cumva sa oprim sau sa influentam tendinta fireasca de a ne lua la intrecere cu ceilalti? Dutt raspunde afirmativ, sustinand ca ne putem intrece in domenii ce nu duc la consumerism, precum cel literar si cu sine insusi. Am putea adauga noi, domeniul sportiv.
"Even if competitiveness is a given characteristic of human beings, we can choose, to compete in things other than consumption by narrowing the sphere of competition to become the best writer, the best poet, the best writer of couplets. There are societal forces that work against such narrowing. How to compare a writer of science fiction to a writer of crime fiction, and how exactly to decide who is a better crime writer? It is tempting to fall back to the measuring rod of money, and hence consumption. An antidote to these broadening forces could be narrowing forces, those which remind us that the most satisfying form of competition is to compete with oneself – to be the best person one can be. Most of the world’s religions have in one way or another recommended this type of quest (see Dutt, 2001). A narrowing in the sphere of competition, aided by such religious and ethical crutches, can arguably make consumption less dependent on the consumption of others. Consumption can be reduced and also be allocated to goods and services which yield more lasting happiness."
IN CONCLUZIE, articolul lui Amitava Dutt ne arata ca:
1. cercetarile socio-psihologice demonstreaza slaba relatie dintre cresterea venitului si fericire.
2. criticile facute fata de aceste cercetari nu sunt convingatoare.
3. consumerismul este mai degraba si in buna masura de factura relativa (consumam nu pentru a consuma in sine, ci pentru ca altii consuma) si de aceea nu e capabil sa sporeasca fericirea chiar daca per total consumul creste in societate.
4. consumerismul unora ne complica inutil de mult viata tuturor.
5. competitivitatea specific umana poate fi canalizata in domenii ce nu duc la sporirea consumului material.