The concepts of wellbeing and economics have been closely linked since ancient times; the word e o o i s o es f o the a ie t G eek fo household a age e t hi h i luded all the i po ta t thi gs that elated to a pe so s life O fo d Di tio a ies, . It is o l si e the industrial revolutions of the 18th and 19th centuries that economics has been used more narrowly to describe the flow of goods and services within a market, and wealth and income have commonly been used as proxies for human wellbeing. This is mostly due to their broad correlation with wellbeing and relative ease of measurement (Dickinson, 2011). However, it is becoming more widely accepted that income and wealth are not sufficiently representative of human wellbeing and mixed qualitative-quantitative approaches are often more appropriate for revealing the poverty that development experts seek to alleviate (EurActive, 2007; Thomas 2008; Fox, 2012), thus harking back to the o igi al holisti ea i g of the te e o o i s . The e a e u e ous defi itio s of wellbeing in existence, each of them using a slightly different emphasis, albeit often with some significant overlap. In general, the use of the term "wellbeing" rather than "poverty", for example, represents a conceptual shift towards a more positive approach to development, focusing on what is good a d i p o es people s lives rather than primarily what is bad or lacking (nef, 2012).
4.2.1 Objective approaches
Po e t is a a se e of ell- ei g (World Bank, 2012).
Objective changes in this context refer to observable, material changes in the external world surrounding an individual. In high level, macro scale development literature, such as the UN Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and the World Bank resource documents, poverty and wellbeing are seen as objective concepts which are mutually exclusive, as in the above definition. This broad approach results in a concept that can include a number of different factors such as basic materials for a good standard of living, health, security, social relations and freedom of choice. Some more refined objective interpretations can be found within the development field, such as the FAO (2012) asserting, in relation to MDGs, that a malnourished individual cannot have good wellbeing. Objective approaches characterise many other policy areas; for example, the health discourse suggests that wellbeing is determined by good physical health which can be further improved by
79
e gagi g i positi e eha iou s as e e plified the i ed o te t of the UK Go e e t s webpage on health and wellbeing; Government of the UK, 2012). Economists widely use wellbeing i te ha gea l ith gai so that the o ept is s o ous ith a pe so s o je ti e a ess to rights, goods and services (Baldock, 2007). Given that wellbeing by definition is an internal not external state it is interesting to note that the objective approach is not so much looking at wellbeing itself as at the factors that influence wellbeing. Even when using objective proxies it is far from straightforward to correctly identify the defining factors. Focussing on objectivity we face a conundrum. How, using a purely objective approach, can the genuine sense of wellbeing commonly described as being felt in extremely poor communities be explained?
4.2.2 Subjective approaches
Well ei g efe s to the e otio al ualit of a i di idual s e e da experience – the frequency and i te sit of e pe ie es of jo , st ess, sad ess, a ge a d affe tio that akes o e s life pleasa t o u pleasa t (Kahneman and Deaton, 2010).
Fo ussi g o a i di idual s e pe ie e, su je ti e defi itio s su h as the o e used above capture how a multitude of external, objective factors are translated into internal experiences of wellbeing. In psychology, where subjective approaches have been adopted most strongly, the eudaimonic approach proposes that happiness is sourced in the experience of life satisfaction and fulfilment, while the hedonic approach engages with the more familiar concept that happiness is sourced in the experience of pleasure and pain (as reviewed by Ryan and Deci, 2001). Both approaches place considerable emphasis on individual personality but do not always correlate because the expectations of people within the same cohort, and of individuals through their lives, can differ significantly. For example, different expectations can cause people with the same emotional wellbeing and resources to experience very different life satisfaction (Kahneman and Kruger, 2006). Both app oa hes efe to the te happi ess , hi h is i easi gl fashio a le ith atio al go e e ts, e.g. the Go e e t of Bhuta s pio eering concept of Gross National Happiness CB“, a d the UK Go e e t s o issio i g of a atio al ell-being study that uses happi ess as the o e sto e of its o k ON“ . Ho e e , although su je ti e app oa hes draw upon relatively direct indicators of individually-experienced wellbeing, Keyes and Waterman asse t that the do t tell e ough of the sto a d so use a slightly hybridised definition that i ludes i te al states as ell as e te al o je ti e apa ilities: [ ell ei g] encompasses positive fu tio i g states that i lude su essful a o plishi g of so ial halle ges a d tasks .
80
4.2.3 Hybrid approaches
Well ei g is a state of ei g ith othe s, he e hu a eeds a e et, he e o e a a t
meaningfully to pursue one's goals, and he e o e e jo s a satisfa to ualit of life (Gough and
McGregor, 2007).
The Wellbeing in Developing Countries research group, a substantial contributor to the wellbeing literature since 2002, utilises the above definition, explaining that the blend of the objective and subjective concepts transcends both by recognising the way each is socially constructed (Gough and McGregor, 2007). Amartya Sen (1999) pioneered this mixed approach by emphasising that people are likely to subjectively experience their objective deprivation very differently. The hybrid approach has emerged from the social sciences and gained traction in other fields such as health (e.g. the Gallup-Healthways definition – ell ei g is a state of o plete ph si al, e tal a d so ial health ; Gallup, 2009), economics (e.g. the new economics foundation definition – ell ei g is fu tio i g well, having positive feelings day-to-da a d o e all, a d thi ki g ou life is goi g ell ; ef, , and government policy (e.g. the Australian Bureau of Statistics definition – ell ei g is a health o suffi ie i all aspe ts of life ; AB“, . Although usi g a h idised defi itio p o otes a holistic approach to monitoring the impacts of interventions on people and ecosystems, there is a danger that being broadly inclusive can render the wellbeing concept overly complex and difficult to operationalise. As a result, policy makers and practitioners typically face tradeoffs when conceptualising and measuring the effects of interventions on wellbeing.
4.2.4 Trade off 1: single versus multi-dimensional definitions
Some definitions of wellbeing are more complicated than others and this has implications when planning and monitoring environmental interventions while explicitly considering their impact upon human wellbeing. If a (relatively) one-di e sio al defi itio is used, su h as ell ei g is dete i ed a i di idual s e pe ie e of life satisfa tio a d fulfil e t the eudai o i approach; Kahneman and Deaton, 2010), then wellbeing is readily conceptualised and therefore more easily utilised in monitoring, fulfilling the needs of interventions with very specific interests such as the impact of forest protected areas on local livelihoods (e.g. Coad et al., 2008). The major drawback of such an approach to wellbeing is that it is narrow – it may at best only partially describe the changes that human subjects experience, in so doing defeating the point of using wellbeing as a nuanced and holistic approach. Conversely, a multi-dimensional definition su h as ell ei g is dete i ed all aspe ts that a e i po ta t to a i di idual the Aust alia Bu eau of “tatisti s approach) is so widely descriptive that any operationalisation of the concept is likely to require the
81
inclusion of many subtle elements that contribute to wellbeing, in so being more likely to capture the genuine social impacts of an intervention. However, this array of elements may make understanding, monitoring, and therefore robust measurement of wellbeing change an impractically large and complex undertaking. To reconcile this trade-off, policy makers and practitioners may choose to select a manageable set of elements from a pre-defined pool of appropriate indicators, in line with the approach outlined by Bossel (2001).
4.2.5 Trade off 2: wellbeing versus illbeing
There is a likelihood that in mobilising the concept of wellbeing, an approach that focuses on desi a le states a d hat is good i people s li es ef, , e ight fo us too hea il o the positive aspects and neglect to address the egati e aspe ts of people s li es, or illbeing Be a , 2012). In an effort to develop a genuinely holistic conceptualisation of wellbeing, McGregor (2011) ites that ell ei g is edu ed ha s su h as po e t , al ou ish e t, so ial e lusion and more extremely, war, and governments should take steps to reduce these harms. However, the wellbeing-illbeing divide is not so obviously polarised. There are four subtle aspects to consider here: (i) an active presence of positive wellbeing factors; (ii) an absence of those wellbeing factors; (iii) an active presence of negative illbeing factors; and (iv) an absence of those illbeing factors. This nuance is conceptually akin to the differentiation between satisfiers, pseudo-satisfyers, and pathogens in Max-Neef s dis ou se o hu a eeds. Pa ti ula l i a eas he e the e is su sta tial poverty, conflict and land seizure, where environmental interventions can occur, the changing presence of illbeing factors may be more relevant to the overall bala e of so eo e s life. This fou - pa t atego isatio is i po ta t as see i gl eut al ell ei g i di ato s that a gi e p ese t o a se t esults o t e essa il i lude elated ill ei g fa to s; the t o o epts a e ot utuall exclusive. An i ease i ell ei g fa to s does t e essa il p odu e a de ease i elated ill ei g fa to s, a d a a se e of o e t pe does t ea a p ese e of the othe . Fo e a ple, a individual may have improving family relationships and increased access to health and education services, but this does not mean that the social issues that negatively affect them decrease, such as al oholis i the o u it , o that the a e less affe ted e os ste dis-se i es su h as flooding or drought. As the potential duration of wellbeing interviews is limited, a greater emphasis on collecting positive information naturally leads to diminished collection of negative information. O je ti e app oa hes should e uall o e positi e a d egati e aspe ts of a pe so s su ounding environment while subjective information may reveal how these negative and positive factors are internally processed, summed and expressed. Subjective information can also serve to test the relevance of the objective measures – if the objective overview shows a person to be surrounded by
82
more positive wellbeing factors than negative illbeing factors, but they convey poor subjective wellbeing, the monitoring process may well be missing key elements that shape wellbeing for that particular person, community or society.