Democracy, well‐being, and happiness: A 10‐nation study

• Author: Reinet Loubser,Cindy Steenekamp
• Date: 01 February 2017
• Published date: 01 February 2017
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/pa.1646

SPECIAL ISSUE PAPER

Democracy, well‐being, and happiness: A 10‐nation study*

Reinet Loubser

1

|Cindy Steenekamp

2

1

Department of Political Science, Stellenbosch

University, Stellenbosch, South Africa

2

Centre for International and Comparative

Politics, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch,

South Africa

Correspondence

Cindy Steenekamp, Centre for International

and Comparative Politics, Stellenbosch

University, Private Bag X1, Matieland 7602,

Stellenbosch, South Africa.

Email: cindylee@sun.ac.za

This article explores the association between subjective well‐being (life satisfaction and happi-

ness) and the importance of living in a democracy in 10 countries: Brazil, China, India, Russia,

Rwanda, Singapore, South Africa, Sweden, Turkey, and the United States. We examine well‐being

as one possible indicator of the likelihood of a society’s commitment to democracy. We find that

there is indeed a relationship between life satisfaction and the importance of living in a democ-

racy. Countries with high levels of life satisfaction tend to be secure democracies, whereas coun-

tries with lower levels of life satisfaction tend to experience more political and economic

challenges. We briefly discuss the unique socioeconomic realities and historical trajectories that

may be responsible for varied levels of well‐being and diverse sentiments on the importance of

democracy. We have deliberately selected a wide range of diverse case studies in order to analyse

our results within varied political and socioeconomic contexts.

1|INTRODUCTION

The many ways in which democracy has (and has not) taken root in

extremely diverse parts of the world have led to a burgeoning scholar-

ship on all aspects and contexts of democratisation. One of the most

popular subjects for study has been the role of culture more broadly

and political culture in particular (Qi & Shin, 2011). In this respect,

Ronald Inglehart’s longitudinal studies have made a valuable contribu-

tion to our knowledge of changes in people’s beliefs, values, and moti-

vations. His work has demonstrated the powerful impact that the

public’s changing values can have on social and political realities.

Inglehart (1988) argues that cultural ori entations have important

political and economic implication s and has found that personal life

satisfaction and happiness (among oth er factors) are associated with

stable democracies. He posits that cu ltures with high levels of over-

all life satisfaction are more likely t o adopt democratic institutions

and maintain them. His data shows that countries , where people

have had historically high levels of lif e satisfaction, adopted demo-

cratic institutions earlier and have maint ained them for longer than

those nations where satisfaction has been lowe r (Inglehart, 1988,

pp. 1215–1217).

Inglehart also points out that the adoption of democracy in these

countries occurred before the widespread prosperity associated with

a large middle class. Although economic development increases the

likelihood of democratisation, it does not make democracy inevitable.

Cultural conditions, including social structures and political culture,

are also important because “stable democracy reflects the interaction

of economic, political, and cultural factors”(Inglehart, 1988, p. 1220).

A factor such as subjective well‐being—as an outcome of historical

experience and culture—might play an important role in the building

of successful democratic institutions that are valued as inherently good

even when they do not immediately deliver economic outcomes.

Using Inglehart’s ideas as our point of departure, we use the latest

World Values Survey (WVS) data to examine a wide range of countries

in order to see how populations’well‐being might relate to their polit-

ical systems. We do not deny the impact that other factors might also

have on the development of political systems around the world;

however, our largely exploratory study aims to investigate the links

between democracy and well‐being while keeping socioeconomic

differences in mind. In doing so, we hope to shed light on the way in

which these variables intersect in different societies.

For our study, we have selected 10 countries that differ with

regards to their political regimes, economic development, and levels

of well‐being. Our sample includes established democracies with devel-

oped economies (Sweden and the Unites States) as well as newer

democracies with varying degrees of political and economic achieve-

ment (Brazil, South Africa, and India) and lastly, a number of mixed

and authoritarian regimes (Singapore, Russia, Turkey, China, and

Rwanda), also with varying degrees of economic success. Our case

studies also score very differently on the Global Happiness Index

(Helliwell, Layard, & Sachs, 2015), which measures and ranks well‐being

in 157 nations around the world. Although some (Sweden, the United

States, Brazil, and Singapore) score very highly on the index, others rank

*This joint research project was supported by the Marianne and Marcus

Wallenberg Foundation in Sweden. The authors gratefully acknowledge their

financial support (MMW2012.0215).

Received: 12 December 2016 Accepted: 30 December 2016

DOI 10.1002/pa.1646

J Public Affairs. 2017;17:e1646.

https://doi.org/10.1002/pa.1646

Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/pa 1of12