The excerpt of a recent article published on n ° 16/2008 of 'New Review of Legislation, jurisprudence and doctrine'.
[...] In recent times again on the agenda of economics of happiness not because economists who have previously addressed the argument ignores that the wealth , ie a level of income high, is not in itself constitute grounds for happiness.
The starting point for analysis by students of economics, was established by the conviction that however things go, increases in economic well-being could not lead to a decrease in the levels of happiness.
E 'this is why, for a certain period of time, economic thought has made a simplification in which they identified the levels of economic well-being, somehow, equivalent levels of happiness and wealth.
simplification of convenience, therefore, that essentially led scholars to neglect the problem of the economy in the knowledge of economists that the real reasons for happiness not linked to market trends or consumer, but allegedly linked to factors such as the events relational, emotional, etc. the individual.
With reference to the determination of levels of happiness of the people, of the variables that are usually taken into account by the political economy, would seem to be an active, 'or more items that are neglected by economics (health, issues related to employment status, degree of freedom, inequality, levels of altruism, and others) whose availability or lack reflects positively or negatively on these levels.
RAEasterlin, one of the masters of this discipline, argues that "both monetary conditions affect both welfare and non-monetary. The most important factor is money, or the level of material life of an individual. There are also two non-monetary factors that more or less, assume the same importance: the family life and health. Then come the working conditions (the utility derived from work) and the considerations that have to do with personal characteristics. Each individual has certain objectives (or aspirations) in each domain. His overall well-being depend on the extent to which the various objectives can be achieved, and the relative importance of each domain in the utility function. The dominant economic theory does not consider the goals and aspirations " [1] .
should be noted that the debate on these issues is still ongoing, but the basic outlines of this important theory seem to be shared fairly. [...]
[1] See RA Easterlin, For a better theory of well-being in Happiness and economics, when the well-being is to live , Guerini e Associati, Milan 2004.
The starting point for analysis by students of economics, was established by the conviction that however things go, increases in economic well-being could not lead to a decrease in the levels of happiness.
E 'this is why, for a certain period of time, economic thought has made a simplification in which they identified the levels of economic well-being, somehow, equivalent levels of happiness and wealth.
simplification of convenience, therefore, that essentially led scholars to neglect the problem of the economy in the knowledge of economists that the real reasons for happiness not linked to market trends or consumer, but allegedly linked to factors such as the events relational, emotional, etc. the individual.
With reference to the determination of levels of happiness of the people, of the variables that are usually taken into account by the political economy, would seem to be an active, 'or more items that are neglected by economics (health, issues related to employment status, degree of freedom, inequality, levels of altruism, and others) whose availability or lack reflects positively or negatively on these levels.
RAEasterlin, one of the masters of this discipline, argues that "both monetary conditions affect both welfare and non-monetary. The most important factor is money, or the level of material life of an individual. There are also two non-monetary factors that more or less, assume the same importance: the family life and health. Then come the working conditions (the utility derived from work) and the considerations that have to do with personal characteristics. Each individual has certain objectives (or aspirations) in each domain. His overall well-being depend on the extent to which the various objectives can be achieved, and the relative importance of each domain in the utility function. The dominant economic theory does not consider the goals and aspirations " [1] .
should be noted that the debate on these issues is still ongoing, but the basic outlines of this important theory seem to be shared fairly. [...]
[1] See RA Easterlin, For a better theory of well-being in Happiness and economics, when the well-being is to live , Guerini e Associati, Milan 2004.
0 comments:
Post a Comment