A suitable measuring tool is needed.
From a scientific perspective, happiness is a multidimensional construct that cannot be reduced to income or material living standards alone. Income is a necessary condition but not the sole determining factor; mental health, stable employment, social relationships, and belief in the future are equally important.
So, how can we measure happiness without falling into vague perceptions that are difficult to use as a basis for policy planning and monitoring?
Globally, many international organizations have developed fairly comprehensive frameworks for measuring happiness and quality of life. The OECD views subjective happiness through three components: life satisfaction, daily emotions, and a sense of meaning and purpose in life; and considers quality of life as a multidimensional construct linked to employment, housing, health, education, environment, personal security, and social relationships. The World Happiness Report also shows that a nation's level of happiness reflects not only its economic development but also its close relationship with social welfare, community trust, generosity, and people's subjective assessment of their own lives.
These approaches align with Richard Layard's argument: Income is necessary, but not the sole determinant of happiness. Once a certain threshold is reached, money no longer proportionally increases happiness. Meanwhile, job stability, mental health, social relationships, and a sense of respect have a more lasting impact. For large cities, this demonstrates that economic growth is only truly meaningful when accompanied by substantial improvements in the quality of life.
For Hanoi , developing its own happiness index becomes even more necessary given the capital's rapid development, strong urban diversification, and increasingly diverse population structure. Young people, migrant workers, middle-class households, and the elderly may have very different priorities, expectations, and life experiences, so their perceptions of happiness are not entirely the same. Without a suitable measurement tool, the city will find it difficult to fully identify these differences and therefore design policies that meet the needs of each population group.
Ensuring core principles
Hanoi's happiness index needs to be built on several core principles, ensuring both scientific validity and applicability in governance. First, it must be multidimensional: Happiness cannot be reduced to income or material living standards, but should be approached as a comprehensive structure encompassing health, employment, education, environment, social relationships, cultural life, beliefs, and the subjective perceptions of the people. Second, it must be localized: The index must accurately reflect the characteristics of Hanoi, a city with a blend of heritage spaces, traditional urban areas, and newly developed areas with vastly different lifestyles. Third, it must be measurable and comparable: Each indicator needs to be clearly quantifiable, trackable over time, and across different residential areas. In the context of digital transformation, the city can also gradually leverage digital data and citizen feedback to supplement periodic surveys, thereby reducing information lags. Finally, there is the principle of participation: Citizens should not only be data providers, but should also be involved in the process of identifying the factors that truly constitute happiness in their living context.
If we delve into the content structure, the index should begin with indicators related to livelihood foundations and the stability of life. This is the foundation of happiness, because the feeling of economic security and self-reliance in earning a living directly affect people's quality of life. Factors such as sustainable employment, income sufficient to meet basic needs, access to suitable housing, and expectations of future stability should be considered central indicators. When life is precarious, happiness is difficult to sustain; conversely, a livable city must be a place where people can secure their livelihoods through honest work and have opportunities to improve their status.
The second group of indicators is the quality of essential services, factors directly linked to people's daily experiences. Happiness is not only reflected in macroeconomic indicators, but is also very concretely demonstrated through children learning in a good environment, people having access to safe food, timely medical services, convenient and safe transportation systems, and transparent and efficient administrative procedures.
The third group is social cohesion and community trust, a pillar often undermeasured but crucial to happiness. In the context of rapid urbanization, large population size can erode traditional social connections, increasing feelings of isolation. Conversely, when social relationships are maintained, when people can trust each other and have confidence in public institutions, life satisfaction often improves significantly. Indicators such as neighborhood safety, levels of community support, and participation in socio-cultural activities can all reflect the quality of this pillar.
The fourth group of indicators is living environment and sense of belonging. Hanoi is not just a residential space, but also a unique cultural and historical space, where environmental factors and urban identity are closely intertwined with the spiritual life of its people. Therefore, in addition to indicators of air quality, landscape, public spaces, and urban infrastructure, attention should be paid to people's feelings about their attachment to their homes, their pride in the city, and their sense of belonging to the community. When people feel they are part of their living space, happiness is not just fleeting but has a deeper and more sustainable dimension.
The happiness index should be a genuine management tool.
For the happiness index to be truly valuable in practical management, it needs to be designed to closely integrate objective and subjective data. Objective data reflects observable and measurable living conditions, while subjective data directly records people's perceptions, levels of satisfaction, and life experiences.
Based on this, conducting regular surveys by geographical area and population groups is essential to identify differences and trends. This approach allows the government to specifically and factually identify "bottlenecks" in development. For example, an area might achieve high economic growth but record low levels of satisfaction with its living environment or community trust. This necessitates policy adjustments and resource allocation to focus on factors directly impacting people's well-being.
More importantly, the happiness index should not remain merely a research tool, but should become a genuine governance tool. When used consistently, this index will help government agencies at all levels identify priority areas, allocate resources more effectively, and more closely monitor the impact of policies on people's quality of life.
From a broader perspective, the proposal to develop a happiness index for Hanoi is not merely a technical solution, but reflects a shift in development thinking. When happiness is defined by specific and measurable indicators, it is no longer an abstract concept, but becomes a management goal that can be monitored, evaluated, and improved over time. Then, every policy, program, or management decision will have an additional important criterion to consider: its contribution to improving the happiness and quality of life of the people.
Hanoi is facing an opportunity to better define its development model in the new era. If a scientifically-based happiness index is developed, with citizen participation and consistent implementation, the capital city will have another important tool to increasingly realize its goal of becoming a happy and livable city.
Source: https://hanoimoi.vn/xay-dung-bo-chi-so-hanh-phuc-thuoc-do-chat-luong-cuoc-song-749206.html
Comment (0)