Well-being Implications

There are a number of lessons which have emerged from the review of well-being. These are rehearsed as follows:

s Well-being comprises a number of domains. Six have been identified and employed in this report: economic resources; work/participation; relationships/care; community/environment; health; democracy/values. An individual’s overall well-being depends on the interaction and balance between the various domains of well-being and is unique for each individual.

s At the most fundamental level having a level of income to meet basic needs matters. This level of income is contingent both on the standard of living in the society within which one is living, as well as the distribution of income, as people compare their income levels with those around them. It is also known that while loss of income can lead to a reduction in well-being in the short- term, people do readjust to their new financial circumstances. In other words, once basic needs are met, levels of income do not necessarily have long-lasting impacts on well-being, especially if others are in similar circumstances.

s While income and material goods contribute to well-being the evidence suggests that the fundamental elements which contribute to long-term well- being include participation in meaningful activity, along with affectionate and caring relationships, a secure, safe and attractive environment, good social relations, and good health.

s Participation in meaningful activity enables individuals to flourish. Participation in work, in community and voluntary activities, and in decision-making have all been found to contribute to human flourishing and well-being.

s Context matters and the situations within which people find themselves can contribute to or detract from their well-being. These situations include their socio-economic circumstances, especially in comparison to others and the values of the society within which they live. The operation of democracy, trustworthy institutions, standards of transparency and openness, acceptance and support for diversity, and principles of equality have been found to be conducive to well-being.

This knowledge of well-being provides us with some key pointers in responding to the economic recession. First, it would suggest that we should try to ensure that as many people as possible are meaningfully engaged. In the context of job losses and rapidly increasing unemployment this is a significant challenge. However, the well-being analysis strongly suggests the benefits of providing people with opportunities to engage in meaningful activity, whether that is paid work, voluntary work, education/training initiatives or incentives to employ their skills in other ways, for example, through self-employment. The alternative is a risk of undermining the capacities of people who are unemployed, with potential longer term costs to themselves, their families and to society.

Secondly, it is important to bear in mind people’s basic need for an adequate income.98 _{Not only does this point to the need to ensure that people have an}

income which is adequate to prevent poverty, but now it also means recognising that some people have experienced large falls in their income and/or savings which will put them in situations of financial hardship. This experience will affect their well-being, and their family’s well-being, at least in the short term.

Thirdly, it is relevant to reflect on the impact of social comparisons on well-being. A situation where everyone is experiencing a drop in income would seem to have a lesser effect on well-being, so long as basic needs are met, than a situation where only some people experience income reduction.

Fourthly, we should be able to learn from the past in planning for the future. The Celtic Tiger years brought unprecedented growth to Ireland and, as documented, general improvements in well-being across the well-being domains. Despite substantial economic and social progress, many social deficits remained, and new risks to well-being emerged, some from environmental resource constraints. Consequently, in building the foundations for future prosperity it would be wise to reflect on how a more comprehensive and sustainable approach could be taken to support human flourishing and well-being. For example, we may think differently about the desirability of fast economic growth, rather than deep or enduring prosperity. We may focus more on intensive rather than extensive growth and place a higher priority on sharing of gains and losses (see NESC, 2005b). We may take the view that infinite growth on a finite planet is not possible and that future prosperity is best secured by moving away from a growth economy towards a more economically, socially and environmentally sustainable model of development. We may seek a more equal society based on the evidence that more equal societies tend to have lower levels of poverty and higher levels of social cohesion (OECD, 2008b). This argument is supported by Wilkinson and Pickett (2009) who claim that more equal societies ‘almost always do better’ in terms of educational attainment, social mobility, life expectancy and higher levels of trust.

We noted earlier that the relation between individual and collective well-being is both highly important and highly complex. While a long period of growth allowed us to make an aggregate judgement that social well-being had improved, the complexity of the issue becomes salient in the current context of recession. In other words, we are now in one of those periods in which the nature of individual well- being, and the relation between individual well-being and collective well-being are, very clearly, being constructed and re-constructed in processes that include individual reflection and social interaction. The processes have implications for the roles and responsibilities of both individuals and institutions.

Some approach this reflection and re-evaluation by suggesting firm new definitions of individual well-being (with a different balance between income and other dimensions) and/or advancing strong collective norms that would define social well-being and tidy up its relation with individual well-being. While we recognise

98. A minimum ‘adequate income’ is determined in relation to the prevailing conditions of the society in question and should be ‘adequate’ to prevent poverty. A benchmark of €150 per week was set in 2002, to be uprated accordingly. An alternative expression of this target is 30 per cent of Gross Average Industrial Earnings (GAIE). These benchmarks were proposed by the 2001 Social Welfare Benchmarking and Indexation Working Group and are reflected in the National Action Plan for Social Inclusion 2007-2016 (‘to maintain the relative value of the lowest social welfare rate at least at €185.80, in 2007 terms, over the course of the Plan, subject to available resources’) and the Ten Year Framework Social Partnership Agreement 2006-2015 Towards 2016.

the urge to take these approaches, it is not appropriate for the National Economic and Social Council to do likewise. Neither approach takes sufficient account of some core elements of our thinking about well-being in Ireland in the early 21st century – particularly its pursuit in a context of individual difference and value pluralism. This does not render discussion of individual or social values irrelevant. But it does suggest that a body like NESC approach this discussion in a way that does not preach individual values and does not premise our policy observations on any one comprehensive doctrine on the relation of individual and social well-being. Indeed, the membership of the Council reflects the diversity of interests and organisations in Irish society. The challenge, in society, is to re-evaluate our approach to well-being, and our collective efforts to advance it, in a context of such diversity.

Consequently, our approach to the re-consideration of the relation of individual to collective well-being is to focus on the fact that institutions—both formal and informal—are key mechanisms through which the two levels of well-being are related. It is, in large measure, institutions that connect individual well-being to social well-being, or fail to do so. The range of institutions that do so is very wide – ranging from high-level governance of statutory bodies, through the duty of care and accountability of service providers, to the commitment of the local football club to excellence and belonging. In the Council’s work (as opposed to that of cultural or moral observers), the inevitable re-evaluation of well-being—both the dimensions of individual well-being and the relation between individual and collective well-being—can best be undertaken through a focus on institutions. It is for this reason that, when we focus on the policy implications of the well-being approach, we identify not only two urgent recession-induced policy challenges (deriving from job loss and pensions problems), but also the critical issue of institutions and accountability.

As noted earlier, people’s well-being is affected by the values they hold and the values of the society within which they live. The analysis of well-being in this report, in conjunction with the recession, raises a number of fundamental questions in relation to the values we hold as individuals and as a society. People live and operate in an institutional environment which is influenced by prevailing societal values. These are determined by interactions between the various institutions, and the participation of individuals within them.

In this context, it is pertinent to raise certain questions. Three key questions are posed, with subsidiary issues. Of course, there are many other questions which could be raised, but the Council has identified these three questions as a starting point for the consideration of our future society, our social well-being and the form of our institutional and policy landscape. The three questions are as follows: s How do we pursue both individual and collective well-being and make them

mutually supportive?

— What weight do we place on well-being vis-à-vis GDP growth? — How do we value private gain against the common good?

s What is our vision of Ireland in ten years’ time? — What values do we want to guide us?

— What does an economically, socially and environmentally sustainable future look like?

s What is the appropriate institutional response?

— What would effective and accountable institutions look like?

— What do we mean by greater accountability and how do we achieve it? — How can we do things differently?

— How can the contribution of the community and voluntary sector be maximised?