Jean-Benoit Gregoire Rousseau este doctorand la Universitatea din Michigan. In materialul sau intitulat „Happiness and Income Inequality”, datat 17 nov. 2008, autorul explica de ce imbogatirea materiala a SUA nu a reusit sa produca o crestere corespunzatoare a fericirii populatiei (situatie cunoscuta in literatura de specialitate ca fiind „Paradoxul lui Easterlin: veniturile cresc, fericirea ramane constanta sau chiar scade): bogatia e incapabila sa sporeasca fericirea, iar inegalitatile sociale o erodeaza la randul lor.
Prezentarea generala a studiului:
„This paper shows that the lack of growth in average well-being, despite substantial GDP per capita growth, in the US is not a paradox. It can be explained by changes in the income distribution and the concavity of the happiness function. Since 1975 in the United-States practically all of the income gains that have accrued to households have gone to the richest 20%; income inequality has increased significantly over that period. A similar pattern can be observed in subjective well-being measures: the happiness gap between the rich and the poor has widened over the last decades. Happiness has stagnated for the rich and fallen for the poor. Formal analysis suggests that the happiness function can be approximated by a log-linear relationship and con rms that there is no satiation in the function. The analyses present corrections of the slope of the happiness function for taxes, the transitory nature of income and leisure. In the
US, 10 hours of weekly leisure have a similar eect on individual happiness as a 6.25% raise in income. Analysis of patterns in European countries confirms the crucial role of income inequality in the conversion of economic growth into aggregate well-being.”
Evolutia inegalitatilor:
„The dierence in happiness between the rich and poor was 0.602 of a standard deviation in 1973. It grew by 0.004 every year and reached 0.747 at the end of 2006. The happiness gap between the top and bottom income quintile grew by 15% of a standard deviation over that period.10 The gap between the middle and rich income group started at 0.217 in 1973 and grew by 0.004 every year to reach 0.346 in 2006, about 13% of a standard deviation.”
Concluzia studiului:
„This paper presents the Easterlin paradox under a new light and argues that the phenomenon
is consistent with standard economics. The lack of growth in aggregate happiness despite massive economic growth can be attributed to the fact that the relationship between income and happiness is concave, that the income gains have accrued disproportionably to the top income earners and that real incomes have fallen for the poor.
Over the last thirty-five years the happiness gap between the rich and the poor has widened in pair with income inequality. Although the relative income of the top earners has increased their happiness has not. Alternatively, happiness has fallen for the poor.
The analyses presented in this paper rejected the idea that there is a point of satiation in the well-being function and confirmed that the function is best approximated by the log-linear form.
Formal estimates of the well-being income gradient showed that in the US, 10 extra hours of weekly leisure has a similar efect on personal happiness as a 6.25% raise in yearly income.
Correcting for taxes has little efect on the estimated slope of the happiness function and surprisingly using permanent rather than transitory income lowers the gradient. Analysis of patterns in European countries also confirm the crucial role of income inequality in the conversion of economic growth into aggregate well-being.”
Pe scurt: „Also, not only has income inequality increased since the mid seventies but real income for the poorest two quintiles has dropped over that period. The observed happiness trends are consistent with the proposed explanation: happiness has barely increased for the rich and it has dropped for the poor.”
Ce concluzii tragem din cercetarea lui Rousseau?
1. Relatia dintre venit si fericirea e concava, insemnand ca desi pana la un anumit nivel ambele cresc simultan, fericirea incepe ulterior sa scada.
2. Incepand cu 1975, principalele venituri produse de societatea americana au fost deturnate aproape exclusiv catre cei mai bogati 20%. Veniturile celor mai saraci americani au scazut, situatii ce au dus la reliefarea accentuata a inegalitatilor.
3. Zece ore pe saptamana de timp liber aduc o fericire la fel de mare cu cea a maririi venitului anual cu 6,25%.
4. Plata taxelor nu afecteaza semnificativ starea de bine a populatiei.
Cercetarea expusa mai sus confirma deci ideile sustinute pe acest blog: neputinta averii de a spori fericirea chiar si pentru cei mai bogati; inegalitatile dauneaza fericirii generale; capitalismul ii favorizeaza pe cei mai bogati dar este ostil celor mai saraci; timpul liber are un efect important asupra satisfactiei personale.
Este insa studiul lui Rousseau reprezentativ nu doar pentru SUA, ci si pentru situatia din tarile europene? Autorul raspunde pozitiv:
„In countries where income inequality has either fallen or remained constant while the economy was growing, the average level of life satisfaction has risen. This is the case in France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Denmark, and Spain. In Holland and Great Britain, the average life satisfaction level has risen despite an increase in income inequality. This either means that the whole income distribution benefited (although possibly unevenly) from the economic expansion or that the rise in well-being of the rich was larger than the loss of the poor. Portugal is very similar to the US; the economic growth failed to raise aggregate well-being because of growing income inequality.”
Articolul lui Jean-Benoit Gregoire Rousseau ne indreptateste sa credem ca o lume cu mai putine inegalitati sociale, mai putin interesata de imbogatire materiala si care acorda o atentie mai mare relaxarii si timpului liber in dauna muncii in exces, are mai mari sanse sa fie una fericita decat cea prezenta.
2 comentarii:
Nu cred ca bogatia aduce fericire dar cum poti tu convinge masele de oameni bucuroase sa isi cumpere haine D&G sau Armani din Obor ca sa aiba "clasa", de virtutiile downshifting-ului? Cati dintre ei crezi ca citesc acest blog? Cum se explica obsesia romanului de rand pentru bani si imbogatire rapida? De ce joaca lumea la loto, de ce nu au bani de mancare dar isi iau Nokia ultimul tip sau de ce isi fac rate peste rate ca sa ii ia si baiatului masina cand face 18 ani?
Downshiftingul nu poate provoca o revolutie. Din pacate.
Am descoperit abia acum acest blog interesant, datorita linkului depe blogul lui Red Pelikan.
Problema satisfactiei traiului("fericire" e poate un termen prea pompos) si a relatiei ei cu PIB, i-a framantat si pe unii cercetatori romani. Dau doar trei exemple:
1) "Modul de viata si calitatea vietii", carte aparuta in 1982 in Ed. Politica. O colectie de articole sub coordonarea lui Ion Rebedeu si Catalin Zamfir, ambii sociologi la Institutul de Filosofie din Bucuresti.
2) "Tranzitii in modernitate. Romania in secolele XIX-XX", carte aparuta in 1997 la ed. Noua Alternativa si cuprinzand sase articole ale prof. Radu Florian si alti doi cercetatori ai Inst. de Teorie sociala al Acad. Romane, Damian Hurezeanu si Al. Florian. In ea se examineaza cu numeroase date problemele teoretice ale tranzitiei economice si sociale ale societatii romanesti, atat in interbelic si postbelic, cat si problemele critice ale societatii romanesti dupa 1989.
3) „Tranzitia, mai grea decat un razboi. Romania 1990- 2000“ (Editura Expert – 2001) de prof. dr. Nicolae Belli, cercetator la Institutul de Cercetari Economice al Academiei Romane. Pornind de la premisa corecta ca tranzitia de la un sistem social-economic si politic ce ajunsese in impas, la alt sistem, capabil sa duca mai departe progresul societatii, a reprezentat o necesitate istorica, autorulisi pune intrebarea de ce tocmai in Romania costurile tranzitiei au fost atat de ridicate. Intr-adevar, in timp ce alte tari foste comuniste, dupa o perioada de regres, s-a atins din nou nivelul economic dinainte de 1989 dupa numai 6-7 ani, tara noastra s-a gasit inca mult timp la o distanta apreciabila de acest obiectiv. Dupa autor, printre cauzele specifice ar fi in primul rand faptul ca la noi rasturnarea vechilor forte a fost violenta, iar aceasta violenta a continuat timp indelungat prin manifestari protestatare si incercari de rafuiala personala, fara a se cauta obtinerea unui consens al tuturor fortelor politice pentru trecerea la reforme constructive. O alta cauza – pretinde autorul - ar fi insasi mentalitatea gregara a romanilor. Acestia ar fi trecut si mai trec inca printr-o stare de bulversare si haos psihologic, comportare cu radacini istorice, continand urme de bizantinism si fanariotism. In fine o cauza se considera a fi si calitatea clasei noastre politice, partidele stand indelungat incremenite in orgolii si arhaisme ale liderilor lor.
Se stie ca Romania a reusit ca, atat dupa primul, cat si dupa cel de al doilea razboi mondial, sa-si refaca nivelurile economice antebelice intr-o perioada de numai 5-6 ani (in carte se dau date precise cu privire la marimea pierderilor de diverse feluri in aceste doua conflagratii), in timp ce in actuala tranzitie ea nu si-a putut reface nivelul economic din 1989 nici dupa 11 ani de zile. Iar aceasta, fara ca sa fi avut loc in prealabil un razboi nimicitor, ba tara posedand chiar dinainte de revolutie o zestre de creante de peste 4 miliarde dolari. Fara a dori sau macar a incerca sa aduca acuze autorilor acestei situatii, prof. Belli scoate in evidenta si alte efecte colaterale ale tranzitiei : deteriorarea veniturilor populatiei, cresterea numarului de pensionari in conditiile inrautatirii sistemului de pensii, sporirea rapida a numarului somerilor. Consecinta ansamblului celor de mai sus este escaladarea agresiva a saraciei si degringolada nivelului de trai.
Post a Comment