3 ms·
The paper is linked, available here (http://www.nber.org/papers/w18992.pdf?new_window=1 http://www.nber.org/papers/w18992.pdf?new_window=1) The graph they have
by rtpg 13y ago
The paper is linked, available here (http://www.nber.org/papers/w18992.pdf?new_window=1 http://www.nber.org/papers/w18992.pdf?new_window=1)
The graph they have included the 25 most populous countries, and is already a mess (lots of overlapping things). The Scandanavian countries didn't even make the cut on that one, the Economist probably took the ones that were the furthest apart. Maybe if all the Scandinavian countries fused together they could have made it?
- adwf 13y agoYeah, it'd be interesting if there was a study on population size vs. happiness. I imagine there would be an inverse correlation (smaller population, more happy). But whether you could isolate the cause would be a different matter. For example: is Norway happy because they have a small population with massive, well-managed oil reserves to pay for their social services? Or are they happy because with a smaller population it's easier to gain a consensus vote for alternative ways of life (eg. social democracy)? Whereas say, the USA might always be stuck with a capitalist democracy because the large population is too big to influence easily.
- Dewie 13y ago> For example: is Norway happy because they have a small population with massive, well-managed oil reserves to pay for their social services? The oil reserves don't pay for the social services. Some of the reserves are spent in the budget, but that is mostly skimming off the "interests", and there are restrictions put in place on how much you can use (maybe you already knew this; your wording was a bit ambiguous).
- adwf 13y agoYeah I did, I was just trying to point out a potential difference between being a rich country and happy vs. a small, politically engaged country and happy.