The Many Dimensions of Wellbeing
Lead Research Organisation:
UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE
Department Name: Politics and International Studies
Abstract
Government policies are often justified by their potential contribution to the growth of GDP, and yet the sense that it is a flawed measure, failing to capture much of people's experience of economic progress (or otherwise) is increasingly widespread. A good deal of academic research in the past decade or so has therefore explored alternative measures of how well society is doing. One leading contender is the measurement of people's well-being more directly, through surveys. The Office for National Statistics has developed a set of well-being indicators, and the What Works Centre for Well-being has been exploring the concept and measurement of well-being.
There is no consensus, though, about how to define and measure well-being in a way that can be measured in official statistics and used by policy makers. In the academic literature there are several approaches to the definition of well-being, ranging from self-evaluation to moods or feelings to lists of 'objective' material, social or psychological needs. As one WWWC report puts it: "Most lists of wellbeing dimensions are based either on the author's theoretical background or their personal preferences." As a result, there are also many different approaches to measurement, and there has been a proliferation of surveys and dashboards, produced by different organisations as well as official statisticians. Not only are these all different, with unstated or varied theoretical rationales, they are also not as useful as is needed for everyday policy because they typically consist of a large number of indicators. Developing useful well-being indicators as an alternative to the conventional use of GDP to guide policy choices therefore requires finding ways of substantially reducing the number of possible well-being indicators to a few that are also ethically and politically legitimate as well as psychologically valid. The many dimensions of well-being need to be reduced for practical purposes without losing sight of the need for a pluralistic concept of well-being.
Our inter-disciplinary proposal therefore offers a new approach to the work on developing well-being measures policymakers can use. One aspect is ethical: in a democratic country, what people of different kinds - different places, incomes, genders, beliefs etc - themselves say contributes to their well-being is essential for legitimacy. We will explore through deliberative methods and interviews what are the legitimate sources of difference in definitions of well-being. A second aspect is whether the plentiful existing data on well-being indicators in fact reflect the ethical or psychological features we can identify, and can statistical methods therefore enable the production of a small number of measures that would be useful to policymakers?
There is no consensus, though, about how to define and measure well-being in a way that can be measured in official statistics and used by policy makers. In the academic literature there are several approaches to the definition of well-being, ranging from self-evaluation to moods or feelings to lists of 'objective' material, social or psychological needs. As one WWWC report puts it: "Most lists of wellbeing dimensions are based either on the author's theoretical background or their personal preferences." As a result, there are also many different approaches to measurement, and there has been a proliferation of surveys and dashboards, produced by different organisations as well as official statisticians. Not only are these all different, with unstated or varied theoretical rationales, they are also not as useful as is needed for everyday policy because they typically consist of a large number of indicators. Developing useful well-being indicators as an alternative to the conventional use of GDP to guide policy choices therefore requires finding ways of substantially reducing the number of possible well-being indicators to a few that are also ethically and politically legitimate as well as psychologically valid. The many dimensions of well-being need to be reduced for practical purposes without losing sight of the need for a pluralistic concept of well-being.
Our inter-disciplinary proposal therefore offers a new approach to the work on developing well-being measures policymakers can use. One aspect is ethical: in a democratic country, what people of different kinds - different places, incomes, genders, beliefs etc - themselves say contributes to their well-being is essential for legitimacy. We will explore through deliberative methods and interviews what are the legitimate sources of difference in definitions of well-being. A second aspect is whether the plentiful existing data on well-being indicators in fact reflect the ethical or psychological features we can identify, and can statistical methods therefore enable the production of a small number of measures that would be useful to policymakers?
Planned Impact
The many dimensions of well-being: impact summary
Many people consider that the measurement of economic progress needs to extend beyond the traditional metric of growth in GDP. The measurement of well-being as a holistic indicator of progress is an appealing alternative yet although the need to quantify well-being for policy purposes is well recognized there is little agreement on the selection of specific measures or frameworks for policy purposes. This interdisciplinary project, marrying philosophy and economics, will contribute to building a consensus, to enable wellbeing-based policies, as well as contributing to the growing scholarly literature is to sustain policy engagement. It will investigate sources of variation in well-being that reflect subjective needs and are ethically grounded as well as democratically legitimate, while at the same time producing a reasonably small and agreed indicator set for practical purposes.
The main beneficiaries will be policymakers in central and devolved or local governments who would like to implement policies focused on enhancing well-being, and so - ultimately - all of their citizens. There is growing interest in the practical application of wellbeing policies, in countries such as New Zealand and the Netherlands as well as the UK and through international organisations including the OECD and the European Commission with its 'GDP and Beyond' work. In addition to policy engagement at the international and national level, we will also reach out to our networks in the UK's devolved nations and our close ties with some city regions, specifically Greater Manchester and Cambridge and Peterborough.
One of the obstacles to using wellbeing measures to guide policies in practice, however, has been the proliferation of surveys and metrics of the many aspects of wellbeing, with a lack of the necessary consensus for this approach to policymaking to become embedded as standard practice. Economic statistics in effect are like technical standards such as three-pin plugs or driving on the left: public debate requires all engaged in it to use the same broadly consistent terms and metrics to enable comparisons across locations or time and thus assess progress. The aim of this proposal is to explore a statistical approach to developing a small number of wellbeing indicators, at the same time testing whether and how these need to very to reflect the different values or interests of different people or groups. For a second hurdle to adoption for wellbeing policies is confirming their legitimacy, all the more important at a time when 'expertise' has been challenged and politics is fragmenting.
As building consensus is part of the aim of the project, in addition to the University of Cambridge research team, and the What Works Centre for Wellbeing partners, we will be collaborating with the ONS and other statistical agencies, and with researchers across our disciplines in the UK and beyond. We will also seek to engage with civil society organisations and think tanks with a deep interest in furthering the wellbeing agenda, such as the New Economics Foundation and Happy Cities.
There will be practical and methodological contributions in addition to our contribution to the various academic literatures, in the form of a tested and validated method for reducing the many indicators of contributors to wellbeing to a relatively few that reflect the varied interests and values of different groups of people in society. We anticipate that the method will be applicable in policy environments, so any interested researchers, policymakers or civil society organisations may be able to apply it for themselves.
Many people consider that the measurement of economic progress needs to extend beyond the traditional metric of growth in GDP. The measurement of well-being as a holistic indicator of progress is an appealing alternative yet although the need to quantify well-being for policy purposes is well recognized there is little agreement on the selection of specific measures or frameworks for policy purposes. This interdisciplinary project, marrying philosophy and economics, will contribute to building a consensus, to enable wellbeing-based policies, as well as contributing to the growing scholarly literature is to sustain policy engagement. It will investigate sources of variation in well-being that reflect subjective needs and are ethically grounded as well as democratically legitimate, while at the same time producing a reasonably small and agreed indicator set for practical purposes.
The main beneficiaries will be policymakers in central and devolved or local governments who would like to implement policies focused on enhancing well-being, and so - ultimately - all of their citizens. There is growing interest in the practical application of wellbeing policies, in countries such as New Zealand and the Netherlands as well as the UK and through international organisations including the OECD and the European Commission with its 'GDP and Beyond' work. In addition to policy engagement at the international and national level, we will also reach out to our networks in the UK's devolved nations and our close ties with some city regions, specifically Greater Manchester and Cambridge and Peterborough.
One of the obstacles to using wellbeing measures to guide policies in practice, however, has been the proliferation of surveys and metrics of the many aspects of wellbeing, with a lack of the necessary consensus for this approach to policymaking to become embedded as standard practice. Economic statistics in effect are like technical standards such as three-pin plugs or driving on the left: public debate requires all engaged in it to use the same broadly consistent terms and metrics to enable comparisons across locations or time and thus assess progress. The aim of this proposal is to explore a statistical approach to developing a small number of wellbeing indicators, at the same time testing whether and how these need to very to reflect the different values or interests of different people or groups. For a second hurdle to adoption for wellbeing policies is confirming their legitimacy, all the more important at a time when 'expertise' has been challenged and politics is fragmenting.
As building consensus is part of the aim of the project, in addition to the University of Cambridge research team, and the What Works Centre for Wellbeing partners, we will be collaborating with the ONS and other statistical agencies, and with researchers across our disciplines in the UK and beyond. We will also seek to engage with civil society organisations and think tanks with a deep interest in furthering the wellbeing agenda, such as the New Economics Foundation and Happy Cities.
There will be practical and methodological contributions in addition to our contribution to the various academic literatures, in the form of a tested and validated method for reducing the many indicators of contributors to wellbeing to a relatively few that reflect the varied interests and values of different groups of people in society. We anticipate that the method will be applicable in policy environments, so any interested researchers, policymakers or civil society organisations may be able to apply it for themselves.
Publications

Alexandrova A
(2022)
Democratising Measurement: or Why Thick Concepts Call for Coproduction

Alexandrova A
(2022)
Democratising Measurement: or Why Thick Concepts Call for Coproduction
in European Journal for Philosophy of Science

Alexandrova A
(2022)
Democratising Measurement: or Why Thick Concepts Call for Coproduction

Fabian M
(2022)
Respecting the subject in wellbeing public policy: beyond the social planner perspective
in Journal of European Public Policy

Fabian M
(2020)
Improving Interdisciplinary Research in Well-Being-A Review with Further Comments of Michael Bishop's The Good Life: Unifying the Philosophy and Psychology of Well-Being
in Journal of Happiness Studies

Fabian M
(2023)
Coproducing Wellbeing Policy: A Theory of Thriving in Financial Hardship
in Journal of Happiness Studies



Felici, M
(2022)
The heterogeneous relationship of education with wellbeing
Description | We have advanced methods of co-production in the domain of wellbeing. We have demonstrated the complexity of well-being outcomes at different spatial scales, and that there is a need for a stronger theoretical understanding of the determinants of well-being in different contexts |
Exploitation Route | We have paved the way for more constext-specific expolorations of wellbeing, and produced a methods handbook for WWCW to disseminate. |
Sectors | Government Democracy and Justice |
Description | Many podcasts and presentations eg Podcasts, think pieces, and interviews: An honest guide to wellbeing - ePODstemology podcast Interviewed as part of Templeton Foundation 1st Global Conference on Human Flourishing Talks and presentations: Book launch - A Theory of Subjective Wellbeing - What Works Centre for Wellbeing, 10th November 2022 An introduction to wellbeing public policy - invited talk to International Institute for Islamic Thought, June 2022 Wellbeing public policy needs more theory (with Anna Alexandrova, Diane Coyle, Matthew Agarwala, and Marco Felici) University of Melbourne, December 2021 STATEC Wellbeing Policy Conference, June 2022 STATEC Luxembourg Measuring Progress Seminar series, Oct 2022 Birmingham University Centre for Urban Wellbeing Seminar Series, July 2022 What do response to life satisfaction scale questions actually mean? Evidence from cognitive interviews STATEC Wellbeing Policy Conference, June 2022 Oxford Wellbeing Policy conference, July 2022 London School of Economics - Centre for Economic Progress Seminar Series - December 2022 Paris School of Economics - Behavioural Science Group Seminar Series - March 2023 Respecting the subject in wellbeing public policy (with Anna Alexandrova, Diane Coyle, Matthew Agarwala, and Marco Felici) Norwich Business School Seminar Series, April 2022 Democratising Measurement (with Anna Alexandrova) Medical Humanities workshop, University of Cambridge, Oct 2021 odcasts, think pieces, and interviews What can science tell us about happiness? On Humans Podcast, Sept 2022 Why public policy should not be guided by master numbers New Statesman, May 27th 2022. Preprint What does progress mean and how can it be measured? Remarks on panel at the Bennett Institute for Public Policy 2022 Conf Is it the government's job to make us happy? Crossing Channels Podcast Episode 7, April 2022 Cambridge Conversations: Decisions, Politics, and Expertise, Panel discussion with John Aston and Dennis Gruber February 2022 On The Science of Wellbeing, Interview with Richard Marshall of 3:16, October 2021 Can science really tell us how to live well? Cambridge University Alumni Festival 2021, video talk Talks and presentations: Climate Change and Wellbeing: Comments on Peter Railton's Quain lectures, UCL November 2022, with Matthew Agarwala. "The Value of Measurement and Measurement of Values" Philosophy Exchange Graduate conference, Values in Science, LSE, Oct 2022, Keynote address. How Measurement Can be Participatory, Measurement at the Crossroads, Keynote Lecture, June 2022, Milan. "What input should subjects of psychological research have into measurement?", CUNY Cognitive Science Speaker Series, November 2021 "Thick Concepts in Science" (with Mark Fabian) Leibniz University Hannover, Thick Concepts in the Philosophy of Science, Keynote Lecture, December 2021 York University Philosophy Department, February 2022 Groningen Philosophy, May 2022 "Democratising Measurement" (with Mark Fabian) Human Development and Capabilities Association, Webinar, April 2021 Carleton University, Philosophy Department Colloquium, Jan 2022 P |
First Year Of Impact | 2022 |
Sector | Other |
Impact Types | Policy & public services |
Title | Co-production methods |
Description | Methods Paper on coproduction produced for What Works Centre for Wellbeing to disseminate to their audience of practitioners. |
Type Of Material | Improvements to research infrastructure |
Year Produced | 2021 |
Provided To Others? | Yes |
Impact | The handbook is available for any researchers interested in co-production - WWCW is responsible for publication and dissemination |
Description | Joint workshop with Wellbeing Research Centre, University of Oxford |
Organisation | University of Oxford |
Department | Wellbeing Research Centre |
Country | United Kingdom |
Sector | Academic/University |
PI Contribution | Joint workshop |
Collaborator Contribution | Ideas |
Impact | None yet, joint publications possible |
Start Year | 2021 |
Description | Blog post |
Form Of Engagement Activity | Engagement focused website, blog or social media channel |
Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
Geographic Reach | International |
Primary Audience | Public/other audiences |
Results and Impact | Blog post |
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2021 |
URL | https://www.bennettinstitute.cam.ac.uk/blog/theory-thriving/ |
Description | Blog post |
Form Of Engagement Activity | Engagement focused website, blog or social media channel |
Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
Geographic Reach | International |
Primary Audience | Public/other audiences |
Results and Impact | https://www.bennettinstitute.cam.ac.uk/blog/Well-being-public-policy/ |
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2021 |
URL | https://www.bennettinstitute.cam.ac.uk/blog/Well-being-public-policy/ |
Description | Blog post |
Form Of Engagement Activity | Engagement focused website, blog or social media channel |
Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
Geographic Reach | International |
Primary Audience | Public/other audiences |
Results and Impact | https://www.bennettinstitute.cam.ac.uk/blog/subjective-wellbeing-public-policy/ |
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2021 |
URL | https://www.bennettinstitute.cam.ac.uk/blog/subjective-wellbeing-public-policy/ |
Description | Blog post |
Form Of Engagement Activity | Engagement focused website, blog or social media channel |
Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
Geographic Reach | National |
Primary Audience | Policymakers/politicians |
Results and Impact | Post on our blog read by many policymakers |
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2020 |
URL | https://www.bennettinstitute.cam.ac.uk/blog/how-can-middle-class-flourish-21st-century-insight/ |
Description | Infrastructure and long-term wellbeing: Expert Roundtables. Understanding the relationship between infrastructure and long-term wellbeing |
Form Of Engagement Activity | A talk or presentation |
Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
Geographic Reach | Regional |
Primary Audience | Professional Practitioners |
Results and Impact | Infrastructure and long-term wellbeing: Expert Roundtables. Understanding the relationship between infrastructure and long-term wellbeing |
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2021 |
Description | Meeting with McKinsey directors |
Form Of Engagement Activity | A talk or presentation |
Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
Geographic Reach | International |
Primary Audience | Industry/Business |
Results and Impact | Meeting with consultancy researchers who are embarking on major wellbeing study |
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2021 |
Description | Parliamentary presentation |
Form Of Engagement Activity | A talk or presentation |
Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
Geographic Reach | National |
Primary Audience | Policymakers/politicians |
Results and Impact | Education and wellbeing: scales and tails. Presentation to APPG Wellbeing |
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2021 |
Description | Presentation to national forum |
Form Of Engagement Activity | A formal working group, expert panel or dialogue |
Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
Geographic Reach | National |
Primary Audience | Professional Practitioners |
Results and Impact | Wellbeing and productivity: space, scale, and statistics. Presentation at the National Forum for Health and Wellbeing at Work |
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2021 |
Description | Public event to launch report |
Form Of Engagement Activity | Participation in an activity, workshop or similar |
Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
Geographic Reach | International |
Primary Audience | Professional Practitioners |
Results and Impact | Public Forum organised in collaboration with the What Works Centre for Wellbeing on our coproduction research with Turn2us. |
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2021 |
Description | The Dimensions of Subjective Wellbeing across Administrative Regions in the United Kingdom. |
Form Of Engagement Activity | A formal working group, expert panel or dialogue |
Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
Geographic Reach | Regional |
Primary Audience | Policymakers/politicians |
Results and Impact | The Dimensions of Subjective Wellbeing across Administrative Regions in the United Kingdom. Presentation to WWCW Consultation Group. |
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2020 |
Description | The Many Dimensions of Well-being: Education & Productivity. |
Form Of Engagement Activity | A talk or presentation |
Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
Geographic Reach | National |
Primary Audience | Professional Practitioners |
Results and Impact | Presentation to WWCW Board. |
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2021 |