The World Happiness Report is a globally influential publication that examines the state of happiness and well-being across nations, offering a unique lens through which to evaluate societal progress. Established in 2012 as part of a UN initiative to redefine development metrics, the report highlights how happiness—measured through individual life evaluations and correlated with key quality-of-life factors—can inform public policy.
Drawing primarily on data from the Gallup World Poll, it provides annual rankings of countries based on their citizens’ reported happiness levels. Published in partnership with the Oxford Wellbeing Research Centre, Gallup, the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network, and an expert editorial board, the report underscores the growing recognition of happiness as a vital component of sustainable development.
Download, Read and Share the comprehensive report by Ij-Reportika: Link
Methodological Flaws
The World Happiness Report relies on carefully constructed variables, yet its methodology presents several severe flaws:
- Subjectivity of Life Ladder Evaluations: The “Cantril life ladder” relies on individuals’ self-reported evaluations of their lives, which are inherently subjective. These responses are influenced by cultural norms, expectations, or temporary emotional states, making cross-country comparisons less precise.
- Interpolation and Extrapolation of Data: Variables like Healthy Life Expectancy and GDP per Capita are estimated for missing years using interpolation and extrapolation. This introduces assumptions that do not accurately reflect real-world trends, particularly in rapidly changing economies or regions with limited reliable data.
- Proxy Measures for Missing Data: In the absence of government corruption data, perceptions of business corruption are used. This substitution does not adequately capture the broader corruption landscape, skewing results.
- Use of Residuals for Generosity: Generosity is calculated as the residual of donations after accounting for GDP per capita. This method isolates generosity from economic conditions but ignores other social or cultural factors influencing charitable behaviour.
- Simplified Aggregation of Social and Institutional Trust: Institutional trust is derived using principal component analysis from a limited set of survey questions. This aggregation oversimplifies nuanced perceptions of governance, judiciary, and public services.
- Exclusion of Diverse Measures of Affect: Positive and negative affect are calculated using a limited number of questions about recent emotional states (e.g., laughter, worry). These measures capture short-term feelings but does not reflect deeper, long-term emotional well-being.
- Population Forecast Adjustments in GDP Data: Extending GDP estimates involves adjusting for population growth, introducing additional layers of assumptions. These misrepresent the economic realities in nations with fluctuating demographics and inaccurate population projections.
- Cultural Bias in Responses: Questions like “Do you have someone to count on?” or “Are you satisfied with your freedom to choose?” elicit responses influenced by cultural norms and social desirability bias, which leads to disparities in comparative rankings.
Do you have someone to count on?
Are you satisfied with your freedom to choose?
- Incomplete Data Coverage: Some nations lack comprehensive data for all variables, such as institutional trust or specific affect measures. This results in incomplete or uneven analysis, potentially disadvantaging certain countries in the rankings.
- Temporal Mismatch in Data Sources: Variables such as Healthy Life Expectancy (last updated in 2020) does not align temporally with newer data like 2023 GDP projections. This inconsistency distorts the relationship between indicators.
Data Limitations
Download, Read and Share the comprehensive report by Ij-Reportika: Link
- Sample Size and Representativeness: The dataset includes responses from 155 countries over several years (2005–2023), but the annual sample size for each country (1,000 individuals) limits the statistical precision, particularly for countries with highly diverse populations. Survey waves vary in coverage and participation across years, which leads to gaps in representation for certain regions.
- Correlation vs. Causation: The regression analysis highlights correlations between variables but does not establish causal relationships. For example, happier individuals might perceive less corruption or more freedom, reversing the assumed direction of causality.
- Generosity Data Ambiguity: Generosity is significant at only the 10% level in the Cantril Ladder regression, suggesting limited robustness in explaining variations in happiness. It does not adequately capture differences in altruistic behaviors globally.
- Aggregated Data Issues: The coefficients are based on pooled Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression across countries, which assumes uniform effects of variables like GDP and social support across all nations. However, these effects likely vary by region or socioeconomic context.
Flaws in the Gallup World Poll
The Gallup World Poll provides a broad global dataset on key issues, but its methodology has notable limitations and flaws that affects the reliability and interpretation of its findings. Below is an analysis of these flaws:
Sampling Limitations
- Sample Size Issues: The percentage of survey participants compared to the total population is extremely small in all countries. For large populations (e.g., China, India), even surveys with 2,000 participants represent a negligible fraction of the population (0.00014%).
Countries with smaller populations, such as Italy (0.0017%) and Canada (0.0026%), show higher percentages of surveyed participants relative to their populations. However, these percentages are still extremely low in absolute terms.
Across all top economies, the percentage of surveyed individuals is less than 0.003% of the total population, emphasizing that large-scale surveys rely heavily on statistical modelling rather than raw population coverage for reliability.
- Exclusion of Marginalized Groups: Despite claims of national representation, the sampling frame excludes institutionalized populations (e.g., prisoners and hospital patients) and regions deemed or seemingly unsafe for interviewers. These omissions lead to underrepresentation of vulnerable groups who often have unique perspectives on well-being and social issues.
Similarly, oversampling in cities or areas of interest disproportionately skew the representation of urban populations, particularly in countries like China and Russia, where large rural populations might not be adequately sampled. The issue of representation becomes even more pronounced in African countries, where population sizes and logistical hurdles, such as limited infrastructure, poor internet penetration, and inadequate access to rural areas, make it challenging to collect representative survey samples.
In African Nations and countries with authoritarian regimes, marginalized and persecuted communities (e.g., Uyghurs in China, Rohingyas in Myanmar, Minority Groups in conflict zones, or Displaced Populations in Africa) are often excluded from sampling. This exclusion reduces the overall representativeness of the data.
Even though Gallup employs weighting techniques to correct for nonresponse, certain groups as mentioned above remain underrepresented due to practical difficulties in accessing them.
Reliance on Telephone Surveys
- Coverage Issues: In countries where telephone coverage represents at least 80% of the population, Gallup uses telephone surveys. However, this approach excludes the poorest populations who lack access to phones, particularly in developing nations where landline infrastructure is minimal and cellphone penetration is uneven.
- Random-Digit-Dialing (RDD) Methodology: RDD sampling leads to inefficiencies and sampling biases, especially in countries with outdated or incomplete telecommunication databases.
- Response Quality: Telephone surveys, which are shorter (around 30 minutes) than face-to-face interviews, leads to less comprehensive responses. Respondents provide socially desirable answers when discussing sensitive topics over the phone.
Download, Read and Share the comprehensive report by Ij-Reportika: Link
Question Wording and Design Flaws
Do you feel safe walking alone at night in the city where you live?
Are you satisfied or dissatisfied with your personal health?
Did you experience happiness during a lot of the day yesterday?
Would you recommend the city where you live as a place to live?
- The Gallup World Poll includes a broad range of questions, offering valuable insights into global well-being, economics, and social issues. However, some questions demonstrate methodological limitations. For instance, subjective phrasing, such as “Do you feel safe walking alone at night in the city where you live?” or “Are you satisfied or dissatisfied with your personal health?”, leads to varying interpretations across cultures, impacting the reliability of cross-country comparisons. The focus on individual perceptions without context—like crime rates or healthcare access—also skew data, as perceptions may not align with objective conditions.
- Additionally, questions about well-being, such as “Did you experience happiness during a lot of the day yesterday?” or the ladder-based self-assessment of life satisfaction, rely heavily on short-term emotions and recall bias, which does not accurately reflect long-term well-being. Questions on hypothetical actions, like “Would you recommend the city where you live as a place to live?”, also face limitations since responses differ from actual behaviours.
Unexpected or Flawed discrepancies
- Costa Rica (7.0, Rank 12) vs. Kuwait (7.0, Rank 13): Costa Rica is globally recognized for its “Pura Vida” lifestyle, emphasizing happiness, environmental sustainability, and community well-being. The country consistently outperforms many others in indices like the Happy Planet Index, which measures sustainable happiness.
Kuwait, despite having high GDP per capita and strong public services, struggles with social and political freedoms, a lack of natural scenery, and a generally restrictive societal structure that impacts personal happiness. Yet, they are tied in score. - Philippines (6.0, Rank 53) vs. Malaysia (6.0, Rank 59) vs. China (6.0, Rank 60): While all three countries share a score, the Philippines has a strong sense of community, family values, and resilience despite economic and political challenges. Surveys often highlight the Filipinos’ optimism and religious faith as contributors to happiness.
Similarly, Malaysia offers a relatively free society with vibrant democratic practices, media freedom, and cultural diversity. It has a stronger emphasis on civil liberties compared to the other two countries.
However, while economically successful, China’s authoritarian model suppresses personal freedoms, media, and dissent, which should impact perceived happiness. Issues like stringent censorship, urban stress, and limited individual rights are notable.
The countries have the same score, which overlooks open governance system compared to restrictive environment. - India (4.1, Rank 126) vs. Pakistan (4.7, Rank 108): India has a rapidly growing economy, diverse cultural heritage, and significant advancements in sectors like technology, education, and healthcare. Despite challenges, the country also enjoys strong community and familial bonds.
Pakistan on the other hand faces political instability, economic struggles, and high levels of insecurity, which typically lowers the happiness levels. The substantial gap between India and Pakistan in favor of the latter seems inconsistent with overall global narratives. - South Africa (5.4, Rank 83) vs. China (6.0, Rank 60): South Africa boasts beautiful natural landscapes and a strong sense of cultural identity despite its socio-economic challenges. China, while achieving economic milestones, has significant restrictions on personal freedoms as mentioned above.
The 23-rank difference seems disproportionate considering the unique yet comparable challenges both countries face. - Germany (6.7, Rank 24) vs. UAE (6.7, Rank 22): Germany is known for its robust social welfare, healthcare, and education systems, combined with strong democratic values. The UAE, despite its economic prosperity, lacks the same level of personal freedoms, diversity, and rights.
The UAE’s higher ranking suggests the metrics overweighs material prosperity and overlook broader societal factors. - South Korea (6.1, Rank 52) vs. Philippines (6.0, Rank 53): South Korea excels in economic power, technological innovation, and quality of life indices compared to the Philippines, which faces economic struggles. The narrow ranking gap undervalues these distinctions.
- China (6.0, Rank 60) vs. Japan (6.1, Rank 51): Japan’s high life expectancy, advanced healthcare, and emphasis on societal harmony starkly contrast with China’s issues around censorship, pollution, and urban stress. The minimal gap seems surprising given these disparities.
- India (4.1, Rank 126) vs. Myanmar (4.4, Rank 118): India is the world’s largest democracy, with an expanding middle class and global influence. Myanmar, on the other hand, is grappling with military rule, widespread poverty, and the humanitarian crisis involving the Rohingya Muslims.
The ranking does not adequately reflect Myanmar’s ongoing internal conflicts, suppression of democracy, and displacement of Rohingyas, which should weigh negatively on happiness metrics. - Palestine (4.9, Rank 103) vs. Sri Lanka (3.9, Rank 128): While both countries face economic difficulties, Sri Lanka has stronger institutions and fewer territorial conflicts. Palestine’s situation, marked by restricted freedoms, should weigh more heavily on its happiness score.
- Ukraine (4.9, Rank 105) vs. Sri Lanka (3.9, Rank 128): Ukraine, despite the ongoing war, demonstrates remarkable resilience, strong community solidarity, and international support. The war-torn country has seen a surge in patriotism and global aid, which boost morale but it is still living under constant panic, fear and war anxiety.
On the other hand, Sri Lanka has faced severe economic challenges, including a debt trap crisis from China and protests against political corruption. However, it is not embroiled in war, and its cultural richness and natural beauty often provide a psychological buffer.
While Ukraine’s ranking reflects its resilience, the significant 23-rank gap overlooks Sri Lanka’s recovery potential and peace relative to Ukraine’s active conflict. - UK (6.7, Rank 20) vs. Poland (6.4, Rank 35): The UK has faced recent disturbances, including Brexit-related economic strains, widespread strikes, rapid conversions and urban riots, leading to a polarized society. These issues detracts people from overall happiness.
While, Poland has seen economic growth and stability in recent years, with robust social welfare systems. While it faces political controversies, they do not seem to be as disruptive to daily life as the UK’s challenges. The 15-rank gap seems exaggerated given the UK’s social tensions and Poland’s steady progress. Poland could reasonably rank closer to the UK.
Controversies
Following are the controversies surrounding the World Happiness Report raised by different countries/regions and subject experts:
China (6.0, Rank 60): Geopolitics experts argue that the report overlooks political repression and censorship, which significantly impact citizens’ well-being. High rankings for China have been questioned due to the lack of freedom and transparency in its governance.
India (4.1, Rank 126): With low rankings, India has pointed out issues related to inadequate consideration of its diverse population’s happiness metrics, such as rural-urban disparities and the impacts of caste systems. Experts claim the report’s reliance on subjective well-being surveys doesn’t capture these intricacies effectively.
African Nations: The report struggles in many African countries where data collection is hindered by political instability and weak infrastructure. Additionally, factors like systemic poverty, lack of education, and healthcare access are often underrepresented in the rankings.
Nordic Countries: While Nordic nations consistently rank high, our experts argue that this reflects biases favouring developed nations with stable economies. They suggest the model underemphasizes unique cultural factors in other regions.
United States (6.7, Rank 23): Despite wealth and resources, the U.S. ranks lower than expected, drawing attention to social inequality, gun violence, and a fragmented healthcare system. Experts question the weight given to these factors in happiness assessments.
Middle East: The report often ranks countries with significant economic wealth but strict societal restrictions higher than expected. This creates skepticism about whether freedom and societal openness are adequately considered.
Taiwan: The report lists Taiwan as “Taiwan, Province of China,” reflecting the pressure exerted by China’s political stance. This designation is controversial, as Taiwan operates independently with its own government. Our experts argue that labelling undermines Taiwan’s status and politicizes the report, reducing its credibility.
Ukraine: Despite facing severe challenges from the ongoing war with Russia, Ukraine’s relatively good ranking has been attributed to the resilience and solidarity of its citizens. However, some argue that the report does not adequately account for the long-term psychological and economic toll of war.
Palestine: Palestine’s rankings often spark debate, as they reflect a comparatively high level of happiness given the occupation and ongoing conflict with Israel. Observers suggest that the report’s findings overlook the deep societal strains caused by restricted freedoms and economic hardship.
