Sunday, September 08, 2013
Thursday, August 22, 2013
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Australian Labor Party : Contact the Australian Labor Party
The corporations powers in our constitution is a reflection of the corrupt judicial system that followed the US civil war. The powers that have been granted to corporations have never been properly challenged and are certainly against the original intent of early legislative controls. Unfortunately we adopted a corrupted model of these powers into or constitution from the American model. Perhaps we should re-examine the benefits that these powers bring to our commercial and working life……
Although the US Constitution makes no mention of corporations, the history of constitutional law is, as former Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter said, “the history of the impact of the modern corporation upon the American scene.”
British kings granted charters to the British East India Company, the Hudson’s Bay Company and many American colonies, enabling the kings and their cronies to control property and commerce. The royal charter creating Maryland, for example, required that all of the colonies exports be shipped to or through Great Britain.
The American colonists did not revolt simply over a tax on tea. The laborers, small farmers, traders, artisans, seamstresses, mechanics and landed gentry who sent King George III packing, feared corporations. As pamphleteer Thomas Earle was to write in 1823: “Chartered privileges are a burden, under which the people of Britain, and other European nations, groan in misery.”
While American volunteers were routing the king’s armies, they vowed to put corporations under democratic command. After the revolution, people were determined to keep investment and production decisions local and democratic. They believed corporations were neither inevitable nor always appropriate.
Craft and industrial workers feared absentee corporate owners would turn them into “a commodity being as much an article of commerce as woolens, cotton, or yarn,” according to historian Louis Hartz.
Citizens governed corporations by specifying rules and operating conditions—not just in the charters, but also in state constitutions and laws. Incorporated businesses were banned from taking any action that citizens and legislators did not specifically allow.
States limited corporate charters to a set number of years. Citizen authority clauses dictated rules for issuing stock, for shareholder voting, for obtaining corporate information, for paying dividends and for keeping records. They limited corporate capitalization, debts, land holdings and sometimes profits. They required a company’s books to be turned over to a legislature upon request.
The power of large shareholders was limited by scaled voting, so that large and small investors had equal voting rights. Interlocking corporation directorates were outlawed. Shareholders had the right to remove directors at will.
Side by side with these legislative controls, citizens experimented with various forms of enterprise and finance. Artisans and mechanics owned and managed diverse businesses. Farmers and millers organized profitable cooperatives, shoemakers created unincorporated business associations. None of these enterprises had the rights and powers of modern corporations.
In 19th-century America, many citizens believed that it was society’s inalienable right to abolish an evil. The penalty for abuse or misuse of corporate charters, therefore, was not simply a plea bargain or corporate fine. It was revocation of the charter and dissolution of the corporation.
In 1825, Pennsylvania legislators adopted broad powers to “revoke, alter or annul” corporate charters whenever they thought proper. An 1857 constitutional amendment instructed the state’s legislators to “alter, revoke or annul any charter of a corporation hereafter conferred . . . whenever in their opinion it may be injurious to citizens of the community. . . .” By the 1870s, the people of 19 states had amended their constitutions to make corporate charters subject to alteration or revocation by legislatures.
New York, Ohio, Michigan and Nebraska successfully revoked the charters of oil, match, sugar and whiskey trusts. In 1894, the Central Labor Union of New York City, citing a pattern of abuses, asked the state’s attorney general to request the state supreme court to revoke the charter of the Standard Oil Trust of New York, which the court did.
During the last third of the 19th century, “Corporations confronted the law at every turn,” according to Harvard law professor Lawrence M. Friedman. “They hired lawyers and created whole law firms. They bought and sold governments.” Courts began creating legal doctrines to protect corporations and corporate property, subverting charter law and constitutional amendments.
These judges gave certain corporations, such as railroad, mining and manufacturing companies, the power of eminent domain—the right to take private property with minimal compensation to be determined by the courts. They eliminated jury trials to determine corporation-caused harm and to assess damages. Workers, the courts also ruled, were responsible for causing their own injuries on the job. This came to be called the “assumption of risk.”
Judges created the “right to contract” doctrine, which stipulates that the government cannot interfere with an individual’s “freedom” to negotiate with a corporation for wages and working conditions. Former George Washington University law professor Arthur Selwyn Miller called the creation of the right to contract doctrine “one of the most remarkable feats of judicial law-making this nation has seen.”
Responding to banking, shipping, railroad, manufacturing and agribusiness corporations and their lawyers, judges creatively interpreted the commerce and due process clauses of the US Constitution. Inventing the concept of “substantive due process,” they ruled that laws passed as a result of widespread citizen organizing—e.g., state wage and hours laws, fees and rates for grain elevators and railroads—were unconstitutional.
Judges also established the “managerial prerogative” and “business judgment” doctrines, giving corporations legal justification to arrest workers’ civil rights at factory gates and to blockade democracy at boardroom doors.
The biggest blow to citizen constitutional authority came in 1886. The US Supreme Court ruled in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad [[118 U.S. 394], that a private corporation was a “natural person” under the US Constitution, sheltered by the 14th Amendment, which requires due process in the criminal prosecution of “persons.” Following this ruling, huge, wealthy corporations were allowed to compete on “equal terms” with neighborhood businesses and individuals. “There was no history, logic or reason given to support that view,” Supreme Court Justice William 0. Douglas wrote 60 years later.
Within just a few decades, appointed judges had redefined the “common good” to mean the corporate use of humans and the Earth for maximum production and profit—no matter what was manufactured, who was hurt or what was destroyed. Corporations had obtained control over resources, production, commerce, jobs, politicians, judges and the law. Workers, citizens, cities, towns, states and nature were left with fewer and fewer rights that corporations were forced to respect.
Yours
John Ward
20 Grosse Road
Gordon
Tasmania
7150
03 62 92 12 11
Although the US Constitution makes no mention of corporations, the history of constitutional law is, as former Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter said, “the history of the impact of the modern corporation upon the American scene.”
British kings granted charters to the British East India Company, the Hudson’s Bay Company and many American colonies, enabling the kings and their cronies to control property and commerce. The royal charter creating Maryland, for example, required that all of the colonies exports be shipped to or through Great Britain.
The American colonists did not revolt simply over a tax on tea. The laborers, small farmers, traders, artisans, seamstresses, mechanics and landed gentry who sent King George III packing, feared corporations. As pamphleteer Thomas Earle was to write in 1823: “Chartered privileges are a burden, under which the people of Britain, and other European nations, groan in misery.”
While American volunteers were routing the king’s armies, they vowed to put corporations under democratic command. After the revolution, people were determined to keep investment and production decisions local and democratic. They believed corporations were neither inevitable nor always appropriate.
Craft and industrial workers feared absentee corporate owners would turn them into “a commodity being as much an article of commerce as woolens, cotton, or yarn,” according to historian Louis Hartz.
Citizens governed corporations by specifying rules and operating conditions—not just in the charters, but also in state constitutions and laws. Incorporated businesses were banned from taking any action that citizens and legislators did not specifically allow.
States limited corporate charters to a set number of years. Citizen authority clauses dictated rules for issuing stock, for shareholder voting, for obtaining corporate information, for paying dividends and for keeping records. They limited corporate capitalization, debts, land holdings and sometimes profits. They required a company’s books to be turned over to a legislature upon request.
The power of large shareholders was limited by scaled voting, so that large and small investors had equal voting rights. Interlocking corporation directorates were outlawed. Shareholders had the right to remove directors at will.
Side by side with these legislative controls, citizens experimented with various forms of enterprise and finance. Artisans and mechanics owned and managed diverse businesses. Farmers and millers organized profitable cooperatives, shoemakers created unincorporated business associations. None of these enterprises had the rights and powers of modern corporations.
In 19th-century America, many citizens believed that it was society’s inalienable right to abolish an evil. The penalty for abuse or misuse of corporate charters, therefore, was not simply a plea bargain or corporate fine. It was revocation of the charter and dissolution of the corporation.
In 1825, Pennsylvania legislators adopted broad powers to “revoke, alter or annul” corporate charters whenever they thought proper. An 1857 constitutional amendment instructed the state’s legislators to “alter, revoke or annul any charter of a corporation hereafter conferred . . . whenever in their opinion it may be injurious to citizens of the community. . . .” By the 1870s, the people of 19 states had amended their constitutions to make corporate charters subject to alteration or revocation by legislatures.
New York, Ohio, Michigan and Nebraska successfully revoked the charters of oil, match, sugar and whiskey trusts. In 1894, the Central Labor Union of New York City, citing a pattern of abuses, asked the state’s attorney general to request the state supreme court to revoke the charter of the Standard Oil Trust of New York, which the court did.
During the last third of the 19th century, “Corporations confronted the law at every turn,” according to Harvard law professor Lawrence M. Friedman. “They hired lawyers and created whole law firms. They bought and sold governments.” Courts began creating legal doctrines to protect corporations and corporate property, subverting charter law and constitutional amendments.
These judges gave certain corporations, such as railroad, mining and manufacturing companies, the power of eminent domain—the right to take private property with minimal compensation to be determined by the courts. They eliminated jury trials to determine corporation-caused harm and to assess damages. Workers, the courts also ruled, were responsible for causing their own injuries on the job. This came to be called the “assumption of risk.”
Judges created the “right to contract” doctrine, which stipulates that the government cannot interfere with an individual’s “freedom” to negotiate with a corporation for wages and working conditions. Former George Washington University law professor Arthur Selwyn Miller called the creation of the right to contract doctrine “one of the most remarkable feats of judicial law-making this nation has seen.”
Responding to banking, shipping, railroad, manufacturing and agribusiness corporations and their lawyers, judges creatively interpreted the commerce and due process clauses of the US Constitution. Inventing the concept of “substantive due process,” they ruled that laws passed as a result of widespread citizen organizing—e.g., state wage and hours laws, fees and rates for grain elevators and railroads—were unconstitutional.
Judges also established the “managerial prerogative” and “business judgment” doctrines, giving corporations legal justification to arrest workers’ civil rights at factory gates and to blockade democracy at boardroom doors.
The biggest blow to citizen constitutional authority came in 1886. The US Supreme Court ruled in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad [[118 U.S. 394], that a private corporation was a “natural person” under the US Constitution, sheltered by the 14th Amendment, which requires due process in the criminal prosecution of “persons.” Following this ruling, huge, wealthy corporations were allowed to compete on “equal terms” with neighborhood businesses and individuals. “There was no history, logic or reason given to support that view,” Supreme Court Justice William 0. Douglas wrote 60 years later.
Within just a few decades, appointed judges had redefined the “common good” to mean the corporate use of humans and the Earth for maximum production and profit—no matter what was manufactured, who was hurt or what was destroyed. Corporations had obtained control over resources, production, commerce, jobs, politicians, judges and the law. Workers, citizens, cities, towns, states and nature were left with fewer and fewer rights that corporations were forced to respect.
Yours
John Ward
20 Grosse Road
Gordon
Tasmania
7150
03 62 92 12 11
Friday, December 29, 2006
Thursday, July 27, 2006
Mr j
The World Map of Happiness
This is an interactive map - double click on a country to view in more detail.
Key: Red = High Levels of Happiness
Use of this map is subject to the credit line: Adrian White, Analytic Social Psychologist, University of Leicester.
A high resolution image for downloading in .eps format is available by clicking here: . Please feel free to download this map for publication, but use of the map is subject to the credit line: Adrian White, Analytic Social Psychologist, University of Leicester.
To download a .bmp version click here :
To download a .pdf version click here :
To download an .fh11 version click here :
1. This is the first map to illustrate international differences in happiness.
2. UK comes 41st out of 178 countries.
3. UK doing better than most of our similar neighbours and competitors (France 62nd, Italy 50th, Spain 46th, Japan 90th, Chine 82nd, India 125th). However other counties did do better (Germany 35th, USA 23rd, Ireland 11th). A full copy of the league table is published below.
4. Health is more important than wealth or education. Further analysis was performed to examine the links between satisfaction with life and measures of life expectancy (health), wealth (GDP per capita) and education (access to secondary level education).It was found that satisfaction with life correlated most closely with health (a correlation of .62), followed by wealth (.52) and then education (.51). (All pearson's r correlations were significant at the p<.001 level)
5. The map is based on an analysis of the results from over 100 studies. It uses data published by by UNESCO, the CIA, the New Economics Foundation, the WHO, the Veenhoven Database, the Latinbarometer, the Afrobarometer, and the UNHDR.
6. The map is being published in a psychology journal in September, and will be presented at a Psychology conference later in the year.
Quotes
Adrian White said “The concept of happiness, or satisfaction with life, is currently a major area of research in economics and psychology, most closely associated with new developments in positive psychology. It has also become a feature in the current political discourse in the UK.”
"There is increasing political interest in using measures of happiness as a national indicator in conjuntion with measures of wealth. A recent BBC survey found that 81% of the population think the Government should focus on making us happier rather than wealthier."
“It is worth remembering that the UK is doing relatively well in this area, coming 41st out of 178 nations”.
"Further analysis showed that a nation's level of happiness was most closely associated with health levels (correlation of .62), followed by wealth (.52), and then provision of education (.51)."
"The three predictor variables of health, wealth and education were also very closely associated with each other, illustrating the interdependence of these factors."
“There is a belief that capitalism leads to unhappy people. However, when people are asked if they are happy with their lives, people in countries with good healthcare, a higher GDP per captia, and access to education were much more likely to report being happy.”
“The frustrations of modern life, and the anxieties of the age, seem to be much less significant compared to the health, financial and educational needs in other parts of the World. The current concern with happiness levels in the UK may well be a case of the 'worried well'."
World Happiness League Table
SWL Ranking is each country's position in the international ranking of happiness
Country
SWL Ranking (1)
SWL Index (2)
Life Expectancy (3)
GDP per capita (4)
Access to education score (5)
Albania
157
153.33
73.8
4.9
75.8
Algeria
134
173.33
71.1
7.2
66.9
Angola
149
160
40.8
3.2
.
Antigua And Barbuda
16
246.67
73.9
11
.
Argentina
56
226.67
74.5
13.1
93.7
Armenia
172
123.33
71.5
4.5
.
Australia
26
243.33
80.3
31.9
.
Austria
3
260
79
32.7
99.1
Azerbaijan
144
163.33
66.9
4.8
80.2
Bahamas
5
256.67
69.7
20.2
.
Bahrain
33
240
74.3
23
102
Bangladesh
104
190
62.8
2.1
53.7
Barbados
27
243.33
75
17
101.1
Belarus
170
133.33
68.1
6.9
94.2
Belgium
28
243.33
78.9
31.4
145.4
Belize
48
230
71.9
6.8
71.6
Benin
122
180
54
1.1
21.8
Bhutan
8
253.33
62.9
1.4
.
Bolivia
117
183.33
64.1
2.9
.
Bosnia & Herze
137
170
74.2
6.8
.
Botswana
123
180
36.3
10.5
81.8
Brazil
81
210
70.5
8.4
103.2
Brunei Darussalam
9
253.33
76.4
23.6
.
Bulgaria
164
143.33
72.2
9.6
92
Burkina Faso
152
156.67
47.5
1.3
10
Burma
130
176.67
60.2
1.7
.
Burundi
178
100
43.6
0.7
.
Cambodia
110
186.67
56.2
2.2
17.3
Cameroon
138
170
45.8
2.4
.
Canada
10
253.33
80
34
102.6
Cape Verdi
100
193.33
70.4
6.2
.
Central African Republic
145
163.33
39.3
1.1
.
Chad
159
150
43.6
1.5
11.5
Chile
71
216.67
77.9
11.3
87.5
China
82
210
71.6
6.8
62.8
Columbi
34
240
72.4
7.9
70.9
Comoros
97
196.67
63.2
0.6
.
Congo Democratic
176
110
43.1
0.7
18.4
Congo Republic
105
190
52
1.3
.
Costa Rica
13
250
78.2
11.1
50.9
Croatia
98
196.67
75
11.6
.
Cuba
83
210
77.3
3.5
.
Cyprus
49
230
78.6
7.14
.
Czech Republic
77
213.33
75.6
19.5
87.9
Denmark
1
273.33
77.2
34.6
.
Dijbouti
150
160
52.8
1.3
14.7
Dominica
29
243.33
75.6
5.5
.
Dominican Republic
42
233.33
67.2
7
.
Ecuador
111
186.67
74.3
4.3
56.7
Egypt
151
160
69.8
3.9
.
El Salvador
61
220
70.9
4.7
49.8
Equitorial Guinea
135
173.33
43.3
50.2
.
Eritrea
162
146.67
53.8
1
28.2
Estonia
139
170
71.3
16.7
107
Ethiopia
153
156.67
47.6
0.9
5.2
Fiji
57
223.33
67.8
6
.
Finland
6
256.67
78.5
30.9
124.5
France
62
220
79.5
29.9
108.7
Gabon
88
206.67
54.5
6.8
54.4
Gambia
106
190
55.7
1.9
27
Georgia
169
136.67
70.5
3.3
77.7
Germany
35
240
78.7
30.4
99
Ghana
89
206.67
56.8
2.5
37.3
Greece
84
210
78.3
22.2
94.6
Grenada
72
216.67
65.3
5
.
Guatemala
43
233.33
67.3
4.7
32.7
Guinea
140
170
53.7
2
.
Guinea-Bissau
124
180
44.7
0.8
20.4
Guyana
36
240
63.1
4.6
81
Haiti
118
183.33
51.6
1.7
.
Honduras
37
240
67.8
2.9
.
Hong Kong
63
220
81.6
32.9
.
Hungary
107
190
72.7
16.3
98.6
Iceland
4
260
80.7
35.6
108.8
India
125
180
63.3
3.3
49.9
Indonesia
64
220
66.8
3.6
.
Iran
96
200
70.4
8.3
80
Ireland
11
253.33
77.7
41
123.1
Israel
58
223.33
79.7
24.6
93
Italy
50
230
80.1
29.2
92.8
Ivory Coast
160
150
45.9
1.6
21.7
Jamaica
44
233.33
70.8
4.4
83.6
Japan
90
206.67
82
31.5
102.1
Jordan
141
170
71.3
4.7
87.7
Kazakhstan
101
193.33
63.2
8.2
87
Kenya
112
186.67
47.2
1.1
.
Kuwait
38
240
76.9
19.2
55.6
Kyrgyzstan
65
220
66.8
2.1
83
Laos
126
180
54.7
1.9
35.6
Latvia
154
156.67
71.6
13.2
88.9
Lebanon
113
186.67
72
6.2
78.2
Lesotho
165
143.33
36.3
2.5
28
Libya
108
190
73.6
11.4
.
Lithuania
155
156.67
72.3
13.7
93.4
Luxembourg
12
253.33
78.5
55.6
95.3
Macedonia
146
163.33
73.8
7.8
.
Madagascar
103
193.33
55.4
0.9
.
Malawi
158
153.33
39.7
0.6
.
Malaysia
17
246.67
73.2
12.1
98.8
Maldives
66
220
66.6
3.9
42.7
Mali
131
176.67
47.9
1.2
15
Malta
14
250
78.4
19.9
90.4
Mauritania
132
176.67
52.7
2.2
.
Mauritius
73
216.67
72.2
13.1
107.3
Mexico
51
230
75.1
10
73.4
Moldova
175
116.67
67.7
1.8
.
Mongolia
59
223.33
64
1.9
64.4
Morocco
114
186.67
69.7
4.2
39.3
Mozambique
127
180
41.9
1.3
13.9
Namibia
74
216.67
48.3
7
59.8
Nepal
119
183.33
61.6
1.4
53.9
Netherlands
15
250
78.4
30.5
124.1
New Zealand
18
246.67
79.1
25.2
112.9
Nicaragua
85
210
69.7
2.9
.
Niger
161
150
44.4
0.9
.
Nigeria
120
183.33
43.4
1.4
.
Norway
19
246.67
79.4
42.3
117
Oman
30
243.33
74.1
13.2
67.8
Pakistan
166
143.33
63
2.4
39
Palestine
128
180
72.5
5.8
80.7
Panama
39
240
74.8
7.2
68.7
Papua New Guinea
86
210
55.3
2.6
21.2
Paraguay
75
216.67
71
4.9
56.9
Peru
115
186.67
70
5.9
80.8
Philippines
78
213.33
70.4
5.1
75.9
Poland
99
196.67
74.3
13.3
.
Portugal
92
203.33
77.2
19.3
112
Qatar
45
233.33
72.8
27.4
92.4
Romania
136
173.33
71.3
8.2
80.2
Russia
167
143.33
65.3
11.1
81.9
Rwanda
163
146.67
43.9
1.5
12.1
Samoa Western
52
230
70.2
5.8
76
Sao Tome And Prinicpe
60
223.33
63
1.2
.
Saudi Arabia
31
243.33
71.8
12.8
68.5
Senegal
116
186.67
55.7
1.8
19.5
Seychelles
20
246.67
72.7
7.8
.
Sierra Leone
143
166.67
40.8
0.8
23.9
Singapore
53
230
78.7
28.1
.
Slovakia
129
180
74
16.1
86.6
Slovenia
67
220
76.4
21.6
98.8
Soloman Islands
54
230
62.3
1.7
.
South Africa
109
190
48.4
12
90.2
South Korea
102
193.33
77
20.4
97.4
Spain
46
233.33
79.5
25.5
112.8
Sri Lanka
93
203.33
74
4.3
.
St Kitts And Nevis
21
246.67
70
8.8
.
St Lucia
47
233.33
72.4
5.4
94.3
St Vincent And The Grenadines
40
240
71.1
2.9
.
Sudan
173
120
56.4
2.1
28.8
Suriname
32
243.33
69.1
4.1
50.7
Swaziland
168
140
32.5
5
.
Sweden
7
256.67
80.2
29.8
152.8
Switzerland
2
273.33
80.5
32.3
99.9
Syria
142
170
73.3
3.9
42
Taiwan
68
220
76.1
27.6
.
Tajikistan
94
203.33
63.6
1.2
76
Tanzania
121
183.33
46
0.7
5.31
Thailand
76
216.67
70
8.3
79
Timor-Leste
69
220
65.5
0.4
.
Togo
147
163.33
54.3
1.7
.
Tonga
70
220
72.2
2.3
.
Trinidad And Tobago
55
230
69.9
16.7
78.4
Tunisia
79
213.33
73.3
8.3
74.6
Turkey
133
176.67
68.7
8.2
.
Turkmenistan
171
133.33
62.4
8
.
Uae
22
246.67
78
43.4
74.4
Uganda
156
156.67
47.3
1.8
.
Ukraine
174
120
66.1
7.2
92.8
United Kingdom
41
236.67
78.4
30.3
157.2
Uruguay
87
210
75.4
9.6
91.6
Usa
23
246.67
77.4
41.8
94.6
Uzbekistan
80
213.33
66.5
1.8
.
Vanuate
24
246.67
68.6
2.9
28.5
Venzuela
25
246.67
72.9
6.1
.
Vietnam
95
203.33
70.5
2.8
64.6
Yemen
91
206.67
60.6
0.9
.
Zambia
148
163.33
37.5
0.9
25.5
Zimbabwe
177
110
36.9
2.3
45.3
Notes
1. SWL (satisfaction with life) rating calculated from data published by New Economics Foundation (2006).
2. SWL (satisfaction with life) index calculated from data published by New Economics Foundation (2006).
3. Life Expectancy from UN Human Development Report (2003)
4. GDP per capita from figure published by the CIA (2006), figure in US$.
5. Access to secondary education rating from UNESCO (2002)
If you are interested in the environment and personality, and live in the UK, please feel free to participate in our online study on the environment by following this link: NEPS
This is an interactive map - double click on a country to view in more detail.
Key: Red = High Levels of Happiness
Use of this map is subject to the credit line: Adrian White, Analytic Social Psychologist, University of Leicester.
A high resolution image for downloading in .eps format is available by clicking here: . Please feel free to download this map for publication, but use of the map is subject to the credit line: Adrian White, Analytic Social Psychologist, University of Leicester.
To download a .bmp version click here :
To download a .pdf version click here :
To download an .fh11 version click here :
1. This is the first map to illustrate international differences in happiness.
2. UK comes 41st out of 178 countries.
3. UK doing better than most of our similar neighbours and competitors (France 62nd, Italy 50th, Spain 46th, Japan 90th, Chine 82nd, India 125th). However other counties did do better (Germany 35th, USA 23rd, Ireland 11th). A full copy of the league table is published below.
4. Health is more important than wealth or education. Further analysis was performed to examine the links between satisfaction with life and measures of life expectancy (health), wealth (GDP per capita) and education (access to secondary level education).It was found that satisfaction with life correlated most closely with health (a correlation of .62), followed by wealth (.52) and then education (.51). (All pearson's r correlations were significant at the p<.001 level)
5. The map is based on an analysis of the results from over 100 studies. It uses data published by by UNESCO, the CIA, the New Economics Foundation, the WHO, the Veenhoven Database, the Latinbarometer, the Afrobarometer, and the UNHDR.
6. The map is being published in a psychology journal in September, and will be presented at a Psychology conference later in the year.
Quotes
Adrian White said “The concept of happiness, or satisfaction with life, is currently a major area of research in economics and psychology, most closely associated with new developments in positive psychology. It has also become a feature in the current political discourse in the UK.”
"There is increasing political interest in using measures of happiness as a national indicator in conjuntion with measures of wealth. A recent BBC survey found that 81% of the population think the Government should focus on making us happier rather than wealthier."
“It is worth remembering that the UK is doing relatively well in this area, coming 41st out of 178 nations”.
"Further analysis showed that a nation's level of happiness was most closely associated with health levels (correlation of .62), followed by wealth (.52), and then provision of education (.51)."
"The three predictor variables of health, wealth and education were also very closely associated with each other, illustrating the interdependence of these factors."
“There is a belief that capitalism leads to unhappy people. However, when people are asked if they are happy with their lives, people in countries with good healthcare, a higher GDP per captia, and access to education were much more likely to report being happy.”
“The frustrations of modern life, and the anxieties of the age, seem to be much less significant compared to the health, financial and educational needs in other parts of the World. The current concern with happiness levels in the UK may well be a case of the 'worried well'."
World Happiness League Table
SWL Ranking is each country's position in the international ranking of happiness
Country
SWL Ranking (1)
SWL Index (2)
Life Expectancy (3)
GDP per capita (4)
Access to education score (5)
Albania
157
153.33
73.8
4.9
75.8
Algeria
134
173.33
71.1
7.2
66.9
Angola
149
160
40.8
3.2
.
Antigua And Barbuda
16
246.67
73.9
11
.
Argentina
56
226.67
74.5
13.1
93.7
Armenia
172
123.33
71.5
4.5
.
Australia
26
243.33
80.3
31.9
.
Austria
3
260
79
32.7
99.1
Azerbaijan
144
163.33
66.9
4.8
80.2
Bahamas
5
256.67
69.7
20.2
.
Bahrain
33
240
74.3
23
102
Bangladesh
104
190
62.8
2.1
53.7
Barbados
27
243.33
75
17
101.1
Belarus
170
133.33
68.1
6.9
94.2
Belgium
28
243.33
78.9
31.4
145.4
Belize
48
230
71.9
6.8
71.6
Benin
122
180
54
1.1
21.8
Bhutan
8
253.33
62.9
1.4
.
Bolivia
117
183.33
64.1
2.9
.
Bosnia & Herze
137
170
74.2
6.8
.
Botswana
123
180
36.3
10.5
81.8
Brazil
81
210
70.5
8.4
103.2
Brunei Darussalam
9
253.33
76.4
23.6
.
Bulgaria
164
143.33
72.2
9.6
92
Burkina Faso
152
156.67
47.5
1.3
10
Burma
130
176.67
60.2
1.7
.
Burundi
178
100
43.6
0.7
.
Cambodia
110
186.67
56.2
2.2
17.3
Cameroon
138
170
45.8
2.4
.
Canada
10
253.33
80
34
102.6
Cape Verdi
100
193.33
70.4
6.2
.
Central African Republic
145
163.33
39.3
1.1
.
Chad
159
150
43.6
1.5
11.5
Chile
71
216.67
77.9
11.3
87.5
China
82
210
71.6
6.8
62.8
Columbi
34
240
72.4
7.9
70.9
Comoros
97
196.67
63.2
0.6
.
Congo Democratic
176
110
43.1
0.7
18.4
Congo Republic
105
190
52
1.3
.
Costa Rica
13
250
78.2
11.1
50.9
Croatia
98
196.67
75
11.6
.
Cuba
83
210
77.3
3.5
.
Cyprus
49
230
78.6
7.14
.
Czech Republic
77
213.33
75.6
19.5
87.9
Denmark
1
273.33
77.2
34.6
.
Dijbouti
150
160
52.8
1.3
14.7
Dominica
29
243.33
75.6
5.5
.
Dominican Republic
42
233.33
67.2
7
.
Ecuador
111
186.67
74.3
4.3
56.7
Egypt
151
160
69.8
3.9
.
El Salvador
61
220
70.9
4.7
49.8
Equitorial Guinea
135
173.33
43.3
50.2
.
Eritrea
162
146.67
53.8
1
28.2
Estonia
139
170
71.3
16.7
107
Ethiopia
153
156.67
47.6
0.9
5.2
Fiji
57
223.33
67.8
6
.
Finland
6
256.67
78.5
30.9
124.5
France
62
220
79.5
29.9
108.7
Gabon
88
206.67
54.5
6.8
54.4
Gambia
106
190
55.7
1.9
27
Georgia
169
136.67
70.5
3.3
77.7
Germany
35
240
78.7
30.4
99
Ghana
89
206.67
56.8
2.5
37.3
Greece
84
210
78.3
22.2
94.6
Grenada
72
216.67
65.3
5
.
Guatemala
43
233.33
67.3
4.7
32.7
Guinea
140
170
53.7
2
.
Guinea-Bissau
124
180
44.7
0.8
20.4
Guyana
36
240
63.1
4.6
81
Haiti
118
183.33
51.6
1.7
.
Honduras
37
240
67.8
2.9
.
Hong Kong
63
220
81.6
32.9
.
Hungary
107
190
72.7
16.3
98.6
Iceland
4
260
80.7
35.6
108.8
India
125
180
63.3
3.3
49.9
Indonesia
64
220
66.8
3.6
.
Iran
96
200
70.4
8.3
80
Ireland
11
253.33
77.7
41
123.1
Israel
58
223.33
79.7
24.6
93
Italy
50
230
80.1
29.2
92.8
Ivory Coast
160
150
45.9
1.6
21.7
Jamaica
44
233.33
70.8
4.4
83.6
Japan
90
206.67
82
31.5
102.1
Jordan
141
170
71.3
4.7
87.7
Kazakhstan
101
193.33
63.2
8.2
87
Kenya
112
186.67
47.2
1.1
.
Kuwait
38
240
76.9
19.2
55.6
Kyrgyzstan
65
220
66.8
2.1
83
Laos
126
180
54.7
1.9
35.6
Latvia
154
156.67
71.6
13.2
88.9
Lebanon
113
186.67
72
6.2
78.2
Lesotho
165
143.33
36.3
2.5
28
Libya
108
190
73.6
11.4
.
Lithuania
155
156.67
72.3
13.7
93.4
Luxembourg
12
253.33
78.5
55.6
95.3
Macedonia
146
163.33
73.8
7.8
.
Madagascar
103
193.33
55.4
0.9
.
Malawi
158
153.33
39.7
0.6
.
Malaysia
17
246.67
73.2
12.1
98.8
Maldives
66
220
66.6
3.9
42.7
Mali
131
176.67
47.9
1.2
15
Malta
14
250
78.4
19.9
90.4
Mauritania
132
176.67
52.7
2.2
.
Mauritius
73
216.67
72.2
13.1
107.3
Mexico
51
230
75.1
10
73.4
Moldova
175
116.67
67.7
1.8
.
Mongolia
59
223.33
64
1.9
64.4
Morocco
114
186.67
69.7
4.2
39.3
Mozambique
127
180
41.9
1.3
13.9
Namibia
74
216.67
48.3
7
59.8
Nepal
119
183.33
61.6
1.4
53.9
Netherlands
15
250
78.4
30.5
124.1
New Zealand
18
246.67
79.1
25.2
112.9
Nicaragua
85
210
69.7
2.9
.
Niger
161
150
44.4
0.9
.
Nigeria
120
183.33
43.4
1.4
.
Norway
19
246.67
79.4
42.3
117
Oman
30
243.33
74.1
13.2
67.8
Pakistan
166
143.33
63
2.4
39
Palestine
128
180
72.5
5.8
80.7
Panama
39
240
74.8
7.2
68.7
Papua New Guinea
86
210
55.3
2.6
21.2
Paraguay
75
216.67
71
4.9
56.9
Peru
115
186.67
70
5.9
80.8
Philippines
78
213.33
70.4
5.1
75.9
Poland
99
196.67
74.3
13.3
.
Portugal
92
203.33
77.2
19.3
112
Qatar
45
233.33
72.8
27.4
92.4
Romania
136
173.33
71.3
8.2
80.2
Russia
167
143.33
65.3
11.1
81.9
Rwanda
163
146.67
43.9
1.5
12.1
Samoa Western
52
230
70.2
5.8
76
Sao Tome And Prinicpe
60
223.33
63
1.2
.
Saudi Arabia
31
243.33
71.8
12.8
68.5
Senegal
116
186.67
55.7
1.8
19.5
Seychelles
20
246.67
72.7
7.8
.
Sierra Leone
143
166.67
40.8
0.8
23.9
Singapore
53
230
78.7
28.1
.
Slovakia
129
180
74
16.1
86.6
Slovenia
67
220
76.4
21.6
98.8
Soloman Islands
54
230
62.3
1.7
.
South Africa
109
190
48.4
12
90.2
South Korea
102
193.33
77
20.4
97.4
Spain
46
233.33
79.5
25.5
112.8
Sri Lanka
93
203.33
74
4.3
.
St Kitts And Nevis
21
246.67
70
8.8
.
St Lucia
47
233.33
72.4
5.4
94.3
St Vincent And The Grenadines
40
240
71.1
2.9
.
Sudan
173
120
56.4
2.1
28.8
Suriname
32
243.33
69.1
4.1
50.7
Swaziland
168
140
32.5
5
.
Sweden
7
256.67
80.2
29.8
152.8
Switzerland
2
273.33
80.5
32.3
99.9
Syria
142
170
73.3
3.9
42
Taiwan
68
220
76.1
27.6
.
Tajikistan
94
203.33
63.6
1.2
76
Tanzania
121
183.33
46
0.7
5.31
Thailand
76
216.67
70
8.3
79
Timor-Leste
69
220
65.5
0.4
.
Togo
147
163.33
54.3
1.7
.
Tonga
70
220
72.2
2.3
.
Trinidad And Tobago
55
230
69.9
16.7
78.4
Tunisia
79
213.33
73.3
8.3
74.6
Turkey
133
176.67
68.7
8.2
.
Turkmenistan
171
133.33
62.4
8
.
Uae
22
246.67
78
43.4
74.4
Uganda
156
156.67
47.3
1.8
.
Ukraine
174
120
66.1
7.2
92.8
United Kingdom
41
236.67
78.4
30.3
157.2
Uruguay
87
210
75.4
9.6
91.6
Usa
23
246.67
77.4
41.8
94.6
Uzbekistan
80
213.33
66.5
1.8
.
Vanuate
24
246.67
68.6
2.9
28.5
Venzuela
25
246.67
72.9
6.1
.
Vietnam
95
203.33
70.5
2.8
64.6
Yemen
91
206.67
60.6
0.9
.
Zambia
148
163.33
37.5
0.9
25.5
Zimbabwe
177
110
36.9
2.3
45.3
Notes
1. SWL (satisfaction with life) rating calculated from data published by New Economics Foundation (2006).
2. SWL (satisfaction with life) index calculated from data published by New Economics Foundation (2006).
3. Life Expectancy from UN Human Development Report (2003)
4. GDP per capita from figure published by the CIA (2006), figure in US$.
5. Access to secondary education rating from UNESCO (2002)
If you are interested in the environment and personality, and live in the UK, please feel free to participate in our online study on the environment by following this link: NEPS
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
