« Had I mentioned...? | Main | Neat business card designs »
How happy is Iceland?
Highest birth rate in Europe + highest divorce rate + highest percentage of women working outside the home = the best country in the world in which to live...Iceland, the block of sub-Arctic lava to which these statistics apply, tops the latest table of the United Nations Development Programme's (UNDP) Human Development Index rankings, meaning that as a society and as an economy - in terms of wealth, health and education - they are champions of the world.
Here is much more, interesting throughout, and I have been an admirer since I visited the country in the mid 1990s. The author emphasizes that Icelandic women have kids when they want to, often at young ages, and they accept that the father may not be around much but the whole family steps in to help out.
I was wondering whether the proclivity of Icelanders to leave their country (many are highly educated and speak fluent English and thus pursue opportunities elsewhere) somehow counts against these happiness claims. But oddly I think not. In part it is their intelligence and balance that makes them want to explore other locales. In percentage terms, hardly any Japanese leave Japan but this counts against the happiness of the country rather than for it. Country-specific capabilities can in the long run be stunting or reflect stuntedness.
I've not yet thought through what this means for the economists' tendency to use revealed preference as a measure of value. There are perhaps two margins of rejecting: the people who are not very good at enjoying something or not able to enjoy it because it is bad, and the people who are very good at enjoying something wonderful and thus wish to build upon that strength and move on to something else.
It is perhaps a Buddhist idea to suggest that the happiest country in the world is a totally empty one.
Pointers are from Seth Roberts and Nadav Manham.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on May 21, 2008 at 06:15 AM in Philosophy | Permalink
Comments
the happiest country in the world is a totally empty one == immigrants
Posted by: at May 21, 2008 6:57:24 AM
It's surprising to see how tiny the population actually is. 313,000 is essentially the size of Pittsburgh, PA, and it doesn’t even compare in population with the top 50 cities in the US by population:
http://www.infoplease.com/us/census/top-50-cities-2006.html
Yet they manage to have their own currency and constitutional republic with 63 legislators.
Posted by: Juan B. at May 21, 2008 7:34:04 AM
Some anthropologist believe that the natural unit for child rearing is the extended maternal family which they think was the organizing principle in early hunter gatherer societies and only economic pressures and social control maintains the nuclear family. Once women become financially self sufficient they need a babysitter not a breadwinner to raise children after the child is weaned, and men by their nature want to move on to other women. If this is true one would expect the happiness would be greatest in countries like Iceland, and that the family value advocates are fighting a losing battle.
Posted by: Joan at May 21, 2008 7:42:27 AM
I was blogging about this a couple days ago and wrote:
"Iceland is a happy place despite its high divorce rates and low levels of religiosity. It is a very free country (#14 out of 157 according to the Index of Economic Freedom). As with other nations, rising GPD per capita and better economic opportunity for women makes divorce less costly and therefore more likely. While Iceland may indeed generally be a happy place, I'd expect Icelanders who have solid marriages and attend church regularly are even happier than your average Icelander.
While it is true that people in wealthier countries are happier than people in poorer countries, there is only weak correlation inside those countries between happiness and wealth. (In other words, if you live in a wealthy nation, earning a lot of income probably won't buy you a whole lot of happiness relative to a modest income.) My intuition says that a similar relationship may hold true for marriage and religiosity -- cross-country comparisons and intra-country comparisons may lead to two entirely different results. It is entirely conceivable that countries with higher divorce rates and lower levels of religiosity are "happier" than countries with lower divorce rates and higher levels of religiosity, while at the same time people in each country who have higher religiosity and lower divorce rates are happier than their fellow countrymen."
One of my commenters pointed out that Iceland also has no military and that would make him happy. Here are my thoughts on why Iceland has no military.
Posted by: Brian Hollar at May 21, 2008 7:48:25 AM
I guess the key is to rid the nation of dumb shit males once they impregnation function is finished.
Why not just use artificial insemination and enslave the men?
Maybe, Icelanders feel they should let men have one small moment of phallic glory, sort of a socialist thing.
Posted by: Matt at May 21, 2008 8:22:31 AM
It's surprising to see how tiny the population actually is. 313,000 is essentially the size of Pittsburgh, PA, and it doesn’t even compare in population with the top 50 cities in the US by population:
http://www.infoplease.com/us/census/top-50-cities-2006.html
Yet they manage to have their own currency and constitutional republic with 63 legislators.
One legislator per 5,000 people is pretty good. Doesn't actually beat the New Hampshire House of Representatives, though-- 400 members, and about one members per 3,000 people.
Posted by: John Thacker at May 21, 2008 9:06:51 AM
I visited Iceland last year and found it captivating. The country has a pristine natural beauty. The Icelanders were friendly and almost all spoke good English (with only about 300,000 native speakers, not too many books get translated into Icelandic). The population is very homogeneous, which is probably why everyone gets along. There is virtually no crime. About 90% of the Icelanders belong to the state (Lutheran) church, though, of course, not all attend regularly. Historically, not having any armed forces has been a mixed blessing. Iceland has little in the way of natural resources except fishing and geothermal power, and most other nations ignored it. Iceland was initially a part of Norway and then Denmark, from which it declared independence in 1944. In World War Two, Iceland's location made it a strategic prize in the battle of the Atlantic. The British sailed into Reykjavik harbor and basically took over the country in 1940 - the Icelandic government protested but really couldn't do anything about it. The British said this was done to forestall occupation by the Germans, which may have been true - Iceland's geographic location made it a superb air and naval base. In 1941, the British passed control to the Americans, who occupied Iceland with 40,000 troops, which exceeded the number of adult male Icelanders. The Americans just pulled out a few years ago. Iceland is a member of NATO but obviously doesn't contribute much except its location.
Posted by: Ned at May 21, 2008 9:13:10 AM
Ethnic homogeneity and high intelligence can do wonders for one's happiness..
And it also sounds like Icelanders also have to be able to ignore the fact that they are parasites on the rest of the world for defense and economic prosperity.
Posted by: Robert Speirs at May 21, 2008 9:13:56 AM
Robert, I gather from your comment that you're not a parasite. You're out there manning the barricades to defend the rest of us? And I guess you played a major role in inventing the technologies that drive our economic prosperity, too -- now I remember, it was Robert Speirs who invented the microprocessor!
When it comes to these things, Dylan had it right: "Show me someone who's not a parasite, and I'll say a prayer for him."
Posted by: K. Williams at May 21, 2008 9:26:08 AM
"The British said this was done to forestall occupation by the Germans, which may have been true": almost certainly true - troops were sent to The Faroes too, and evacuated when the war was won. Did the same for Madeira in the Napoleonic Wars. Couldn't do the same for Jersey and Guernsey in WWII because they were indefensible, so just evacuated the men of military age and instructed the rest of the population not to resist the Germans.
Posted by: dearieme at May 21, 2008 9:31:21 AM
Better to empty your head than your country. Eric Weiner's Geography of Bliss factors in expectations when measuring happiness and contentment, putting the Danish on top of the charts. Modest expectations produces greater contentment. Ohm.
Posted by: Ann Oliveri at May 21, 2008 9:59:51 AM
I was wondering whether the proclivity of Icelanders to leave their country (many are highly educated and speak fluent English and thus pursue opportunities elsewhere) somehow counts against these happiness claims. But oddly I think not. In part it is their intelligence and balance that makes them want to explore other locales.
I don't think this "intelligence and balance" really supports your argument that Iceland is a happy place because so many of its inhabitants want to leave. I think the better argument, suggested in other comments here, is that Iceland, perhaps due to its small size and its links with many other much larger, less happy countries, successfully sheds its malcontent population, leaving only the people who are content to live in a country of 300,000 people where everyone's related to you. Most other countries are too large to shed their malcontent population effectively -- where would they all go?
True, other tiny countries, like Swaziland or Lesotho, don't have particularly high happiness scores. In fact, their happiness scores are some of the lowest in the world. But this is probably because they are full of famine, pestilence, and death, and if they try to run away to their neighbours, the natives will hunt them down and burn them to death. If they weren't completely screwed up, I'm sure they could be as happy as Iceland.
Posted by: Taeyoung at May 21, 2008 10:31:49 AM
Highest birth rate in Europe + highest divorce rate + highest percentage of women working outside the home = the best country in the world in which to live
Funny how that doesn't work in U.S. inner cities.
Besides, isn't having the highest birth rates in Europe a bit like being the tallest kid in the third grade?
Iceland sounds like a really exclusive suburb more than a country to be emulated.
Sorry if I sound skeptical, but I am. I think a lot of these happiness studies are B.S.
Posted by: Ted Craig at May 21, 2008 10:32:12 AM
Iceland is going through an interesting period. With greater immigration and openness to the outside world, Iceland has been enjoying an economic boom in the 21st century. At the same time, this is putting some small chinks in the armor of ethnic homogeneity and social stability. I believe that violent crime -- while still extraordinarily low -- is much higher than it was in the 1970s and early 1980s. And Icelanders have told me that in general Reykjavik is less "orderly" than it used to be. And there is mild resentment of some of the immigrants who don't even bother to learn Icelandic. Certainly comparing R in 2007 and 1987, the city felt more like Stockholm than an isolated Danish suburb. [Contrast this to an earlier period when immigration was mostly non-existent and the few immigrants who came had to strongly assimilate, even having to adopt Icelandic names.] I wonder what will happen if there is a large enough sub-population that see themselves as hyphenated Icelanders?
A wonderful place to visit, but also an interesting experiment in changing social dynamics in a welfare state.
Posted by: jjn at May 21, 2008 10:55:43 AM
"Some anthropologist believe that the natural unit for child rearing is the extended maternal family."
Yes, that is a pattern seen in some hunter-gatherer tribes, but by no means the most common pattern for hunter-gatherers, let alone more developed societies. Where men cannot be at all confident of paternity, they don't invest in 'their' children (they don't even know who their children are), so they pay more attention to nieces and nephews.
I have to say that as a male (and a father), this pattern does not strike me as ideal for happiness (not mine, anyway). I certainly value my children much more highly than any hypothetical possibility of 'moving on to other women' -- especially women who aren't interested in being together for any length of time (children or not, which may be mine...or not). If I found myself living in such a country, I think I'd also lean toward emigration.
Posted by: Slocum at May 21, 2008 12:15:23 PM
The Guardian article which prompted this posting is a dreadful potboiler of a piece - it even calls Iceland a 'melting pot' when it is known for being at the furthest opposite extreme: it is more like a single extended family in which everyone traditionally knows their precise relatedness to everyone else.
But it is a rather wonderful place. Evolution has helped - since the Icelandic ancestors who could not withstand the long dark winter nights failed to reproduce; with the result that modern Icelanders (and their relatives in Winnipeg, Canada) are resistant to Seasonal Affective Disorder -
http://ww1.cpa-apc.org:8080/publications/archives/CJP/2002/march/orSAD2.asp
The lesson is that maybe the Icelanders are happy, but any immigrants to Iceland hoping to share the happiness (although immigrants have been virtually excluded until recently) would not only feel left-out of the happy family feeling, they would probably also be too busy suffering from SAD to be happy.
Posted by: BGC at May 21, 2008 12:37:52 PM
Let´s accept for a moment that Icelanders are the happiest people in the World. Is that because of the country of because of the Icelanders themselves? I have had a few Icelandic friends and visited the country one Summer and became fascinated by it. Yet, I have heard that most non-icelandic people living there have a really tough time adapting to the weather, lifestyle and society. In other words, we do not see a long line of people queuing to immigrate to Iceland and be happy. A possible conclusion is that there is something of being an Icelander that makes you happy wherever you live, even places with low divorce rate, private health-care and racial heterogeneity.
And by the way, why is it that every time we read a post about Scandinavian type of societies someone points to the fact that their model works only in a racially homogeneous society. Scandinavian countries have as many foreign-born residents as countries like America or the UK (similar orders of magnitude). Is racial heterogeneity such a bad thing for social harmony?
Posted by: londenio at May 21, 2008 12:44:13 PM
Why has no-one mentioned the fish?
Posted by: dearieme at May 21, 2008 1:05:55 PM
Just a guess, but I would think many Icelanders want to leave their country for the same reason so many Americans move to California or Florida: its really #$%&ing cold in Iceland!
Posted by: Grant at May 21, 2008 1:24:14 PM
The Iceland findings are not proof
that happiness studies are bogus, but
that ones based on cross sections across
countries must be taken with large grains
of salt. Too many cultural differences,
with some societies thinking it is silly
to say one is "happy," (think Russia) whereas
some rather conformist ones may feel that they
are supposed to say they are "happy," if asked,
even if they have a high suicide rate. This
latter applies to many of the Nordic countries.
I would also note that right now Iceland is having
a major financial crisis.
Posted by: Barkley Rosser at May 21, 2008 5:17:02 PM
It is entirely conceivable that countries with higher divorce rates and lower levels of religiosity are "happier" than countries with lower divorce rates and higher levels of religiosity, while at the same time people in each country who have higher religiosity and lower divorce rates are happier than their fellow countrymen.
At least in the U.S., religiosity is negatively correlated with divorce rate (i.e., the more religious get divorced more often).
Posted by: Scott P. at May 21, 2008 6:51:48 PM
I've heard good things about Iceland. One of the turnoffs though, is that they seem to drink like crazy. Everyone I know who has been there says they are raging drinkers. If they are so happy and the land is so idyllic, why are they all getting drunk off their asses every night?
Posted by: Terrence at May 21, 2008 9:52:47 PM
Because the nights are 22 hours long?
Steve
Posted by: steve at May 21, 2008 10:44:28 PM
Well,they do have an unusual museum.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idUSN1519887520080516?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0
Posted by: mikesdak at May 22, 2008 2:19:59 AM
How odd not to mention Iceland's social safety net. It's a lot easier to be happy when you're not so stressed about your health, old age, education, etc.
Posted by: BobN at May 22, 2008 12:49:42 PM
The food is atrocious.
Posted by: at May 22, 2008 1:58:51 PM
End italics?
Posted by: at May 22, 2008 9:28:49 PM
Let's not forget which country has the most chess grandmasters per capita.
Posted by: AGMycroft at May 23, 2008 2:37:19 PM
Let's not forget which country has the most chess grandmasters per capita.
Posted by: AGMycroft at May 23, 2008 2:38:50 PM
What an interesting post by Tyler and comments for an Icelander, living in Iceland, to read.
Being a loyal MR and Economist reader its been interesting following the happiness debate and contemplating the conclusion of so many studies that indicate Icelanders are the happiest people on the planet at the moment.
The underlying factors are definitively a chaotic bundle of interrelating variables. Not being an economist or having thorough knowledge about the studies, I can only speak for myself. Having lived in both Denmark for two years and for a short time in Ukraine I can pinpoint a few factors that make me happy and contribute to other nation's unhappiness.
First is health and security. Being a native Icelander I've always enjoyed access to top of the line health system and excellent doctors, educated in the US or Scandinavia. Its cheap for the end user with a scandi-model health system. There are a lot of external factors that contribute as well. Clean air, clean water wherever you live. Top of the line sanitation infrastructure. Living in Iceland also gives you a sense of security. Violent crimes are few and usually confined to domestic disagreements. Handguns are banned and ownership of firearms is strict. I also feel the sense that it is highly unlikely that you will ever become a victim of any misdeed without justice being done eventually. If robbed, you will get compensation from your insurance company. If injured you will receive top line health service and don't need to have any financial worries. Even if expenses are needed, such as in the case of severe terminal illness, your friends and relatives will open a bank account for you and the news agencies will gladly report it and encourage people to chip in. And in Iceland you live in a rather small country with your family not relatively close by. That may add to the sense of security as well.
The purchasing power of Icelanders enables all Icelanders to enjoy basic and necessary commodities. Most people can afford their own flat and car, even with gas prices soaring to unprecedented levels. Icelander have also usually been a pretty egalitarian society, with the elite not really advertising their financial strength in a flamboyant way. Although recent years have thrown a small elite group into new financial heights most of them have been modest in advertising their wealth. But there's ridiculously many Range Rovers and Cayenne's on the street, I must admit. But still, most families can afford a decent home, a decent car and a guaranteed trip once a year to a sunny place.
But those things are perhaps not those that give Icelanders the extra push they seem to enjoy apart from other nations. My own personal tips are: homogeneous ethniticity and size. Icelanders are in effect just one big family or house. You don't need to go far back to trace your common ancestor. Most people have visited the towns on the island, so they can also usually relate very well to new people and their background. But still, an important factor is that Icelanders now live in or very close to their capital city of Reykjavik, so we do also enjoy the cultural and financial strengths of the city. We're an urban country, not a rural country, as so many people think.
Another pointer: Good food. I think Tyler may take note of this, but the standard of food in Iceland is great. Its expensive, but we get the quality instead. Restaurants are expensive, so that we can pay our chefs a decent salary. Even McDonalds uses beef that I suspect would be called high-quality beef in the US.
Third pointer: Intelligence? I can't help it, but I suspect Icelanders are pretty intelligent on average. Our workforce is highly educated and local students usually don't have any problems going to the best schools on both sides of the Atlantic. Icelanders have a habit of incorporating novelties from abroad and even do it better.
Fourth pointer: dynamic family patterns. As was stated above, the high levels of divorces is something that sounds familiar. But in my mind, that can only mean a positive influence on happiness since it means people are more willing to end unproductive and unhappy relationships rather than sticking to an unhappy one.
Fifth pointer: Atheist society. Icelanders are atheists in general. Although christian-lutherian by definition, all but perhaps the oldest generation is atheist or agnostic. We're pretty free from religious propaganda and don't really believe in it. So we're free from most religious protocols and only pay a little attention to our christian heritage on holidays.
More pointers may pop up later.
Posted by: Samuel T. Petursson at May 24, 2008 1:46:26 PM
