Deaton is not unhappy for not getting Nobel
Alvin Deaton tells Indivjal if happiness measurements are not robust, could be misused to divert attention from the real issues
Before the Nobel prize for economics was announced yesterday, there were a number of reports in the media, saying that economics professor at Princeton, Angus Deaton was a favorite to win the prize for his research on what makes people happy. Those writing media stories might have got upset when US economists Alvin Roth and Lloyd Shapley were named winner of the coveted prize yesterday, but not Deaton. In India to take part in the OECD Word Forum, Deaton tells Indivjal Dhasmana that if the measurements of happiness are not robust, those could be misused to divert attention from the real issues. Edited interview:
Q) Does it disturb you that you didn't get Nobel prize?
I think it is a sense of relief. My wife sent me an e-mail yesterday afternoon, saying we are free. I always understood that there was a very small chance for everybody because they had a huge list of people all of whom are worthy. But, the press has made it a huge thing. This is a thing of past because I knew this is not going to happen.
Q) You have been associated with a measurement for happiness. Do you really believe that these kinds of subjective things could be measured?
Ans) I mean, we can measure something for sure. So, we can ask people questions about happiness. We can do what I and my colleagues are going to do which is try to figure out what people were thinking when they answered those questions. The question is not whether you are going to measure these things but what is it that you can measure. What are you getting when you ask people how happy they are? I can ask--in days so far was there something when you were really happy? And that is a very concrete question and you may get very good answer.
Q) Will this help policy making as well?
Ans) I am not sure whether that is very useful for policy. You know, because really poor people often experience lot of happiness. That does not stop them being poor. Amartya Sen has written very eloquently about this and I will agree with a lot of what he says. You have to be very careful using these measurements. Especially, in places like India where many people are living in terrible deprivation and if you find out they manage to be happy, that would not diminish their deprivation. But, I think there is some immortal life than income. Trying to measure some of these things is very important thing to do and that is what this conference is about.
Q) Theme of this conference is looking beyond GDP for well being. Do you really think it is possible to look beyond GDP, particularly in a society as heterogeneous as India?
Ans) Well, we can certainly go beyond GDP. First of all, GDP could be a lot better. Let us take an example of an earthquake. Earthquake comes, destroys lots of stuff, you have to repair it, this increases GDP. But, GDP has not really increased at all. Also, GDP is not very good at telling you who gets what. Tells you what the total is, but is completely indifferent to whether one man gets all, or it is equally shared.
Q) Does this whole debate over looking beyond GDP hold more relevance at times of crisis in the Euro zone?
Ans) That worries me a bit. I am worried that if these happiness measures are not very good measures, and I think some of these are not. Then, people hurt by the financial crisis and we say don't worry you are happy. I don't think that is a very good way to go. And I think it is an agenda of some people. I don't think it is part of OECD agenda. It's also not an agenda of this conference. But, I think some politicians would like to distract attention.
Q) You have been associated with India on poverty issue. What is your take on the recent controversy over the Planning Commission's definition of poverty line?
Ans) This controversy erupted after I had finished my work in India. The point is hundreds of millions of people in India are living on less than the poverty line that the Planning Commission gave. So, the people who said the lines were ridiculous because you can't live on those, they are just wrong and should look at hundreds of millions of Indians living on less than that. One should not lose sight of that. And I don't think that is given sufficient recognition in that debate