博客 Blog

Shooting at the wrong goal

Guest post by Mao Yushi

Over three decades of economic reform, China has witnessed an exponential increase in wealth creation. China is now one of the largest wealth generators in the world – but probably also one of the largest generators of dissatisfaction, considering the recent increase in citizen complaints.

This is curious. Although the gap between rich and poor is still a cause for concern in China, the country has improved the living conditions of its poorest inhabitants. As the World Bank recently pointed out, in recent years China’s poverty-reduction policies have had unexpected success. Uneven distribution of wealth notwithstanding, China is making tremendous progress in the fight against poverty.

However, the fact that Chinese citizens’ sense of well-being is not increasing in line with wealth indicates that society is unstable – and that wealth is not the problem.

I personally believe that the problem lies with the goal we are striving to achieve. We consider wealth acquisition the only target worth pursuing. It is not wrong to make money, as long as the latter is merely regarded as the means to achieve a goal, and not as the goal itself. Nowadays, the work of government functionaries is exclusively assessed on the basis of economic performance, and the central aim of local government is to achieve GDP growth targets.

However, in spite of a rapid increase in wealth, the degree of satisfaction amongst Chinese people is still low. This highlights the fact that wealth does not lead directly to happiness.

The Chinese government has recently set the strategic goal of building a “harmonious society”. But harmony is too vague a notion to be scientific and quantifiable. From an economic perspective, the general pattern of increased wealth that China has followed over the last 30 years perfectly embodies the “Pareto improvement” theory. A “Pareto improvement” occurs when there is a change in the allocation of resources that makes one person better off without making anybody else worse off. For example, imagine an elderly lady who sells one of her chicken’s eggs to a customer who desires to eat it: both agents gain from this exchange, without hurting anyone. This is the advantage of a free market economy.

Similarly, how can a “harmonious society” achieve harmony? Not through the maximisation of wealth, but through the maximisation of happiness. That is, making at least one person happier without making others unhappy. If we popularise this concept in our society, we could succeed in increasing human happiness.

The Shanghai World Expo 2010 offers an analogy. It could have been an enjoyable event for everyone – but it wasn’t. The country and its leaders attained considerable prestige, and the authorities earned plenty of money. But visitors spent hours queuing outside the pavilions, waiting to attend the exhibits. This was totally predictable: the combined daily capacity of the pavilions was limited to less than 100,000 people, while the average daily attendance was estimated between 300,000 and 400,000 people. Three quarters of visitors were thus destined to wait outside.

Some people argue that limiting government power might improve society’s sense of well-being – but if privileged classes become unhappy, then the goal of maximising happiness fails. However, I think that even if, in the short term, the happiness of privileged classes falls, long-term happiness is still likely to increase. In the long run, the selfish pursuit of wealth to the detriment of others can be dangerous. Although justice is not always dispensed fairly, people are not discouraged from voicing their opinions and social unrest like that we have recently seen in Egypt will be difficult to prevent.

The maximisation of happiness has not yet become a widely shared goal because, today, information and opinion is not spread freely. Society is not sufficiently well educated and lacks tolerance towards value pluralism.   I hope that politicians will embrace the concept of well-being and put aside their pompous rhetoric, in order to focus better on the happiness of citizens.

Now more than ever…

chinadialogue is at the heart of the battle for truth on climate change and its challenges at this critical time.

Our readers are valued by us and now, for the first time, we are asking for your support to help maintain the rigorous, honest reporting and analysis on climate change that you value in a 'post-truth' era.

Support chinadialogue

发表评论 Post a comment

评论通过管理员审核后翻译成中文或英文。 最大字符 1200。

Comments are translated into either Chinese or English after being moderated. Maximum characters 1200.

评论 comments

Default thumb avatar





Painfully happy

The Reverent Mr. Mao holds that harmony is not a scientific concept in that it cannot be "quantified", implying that happiness, on the other hand, can be "quantified". Like I'm 90% happy today and hope to be 95% happy tomorrow, etc. Maybe a happiness index can be invented to measure the degree of happiness of our country, too. But different people have different concepts of happiness, because happiness is a very personal experience. There's no way to "unify" it, as no two people are exactly the same. To force such an unrealistic concept on us seems an indication of the immensely problematic condition of our academic field. Happiness is happiness is happiness, which means to be happy now and here and the maximization of it. The discussion may require the definition of unhappiness and the elimination of it at first, but this is such a big topic that nobody in the world can fathom it. That is to say, the discussion is not worth it. But the fact that it's not worth the discussion doesn't mean people are all unhappy, even though sometimes they are "painfully happy", which is actually a book title of some famous author. (Note of translator: the expression first appeared in a pop song composed by Taiwanese singer Qi Qin and then was borrowed profusely by others for its fresh oxymoronic effect.)

Recently, some people suggested "universal values ". The Reverent Mr. Zhou You Guang put forward "one world". In a nutshell, the more profound the problem is, the keener the discussion. It appears that the reform and opening up has come to such a stage that our intellectuals have nothing to research on, and are only bent on finding out the meaning of life, about which they themselves are finally muddleheaded, because there's no way for us mortal beings to understand the philosophical issue , or maybe it's not necessary to understand it.

The practical world is built on the basis of profit pursuit, exchange is necessary whether you are raising chicken or buying the egg. While everyone gets what they want through the transaction, and acquires some portion of happiness, the transaction will continue and evolve into something like what we are now. This is the predictable result of economics, and it's not surprising at all. Perhaps the problem is the sum of happiness of our people now is zero, you get more means I get less. But can we not achieve happiness in the way of win-win like the sale of eggs? There's only one possibility: a starving rich man spends ten thousand yuan for two boiled tea-flavoured eggs.

Default thumb avatar



Painfully Happy?

I don't think that Gaidee's post makes any sense at all. First of all, on happiness, obviously it is subjective but people respond to inquiry. They know whether they are happy or not and for millenia there has been a consensus in religion and philosophy that once basic needs are met, more money does not bring more happiness, compared to other things (like love, socialising, kindness, creativity, respect etc). Secondly, his point about the starving rich man and the two eggs -- perhaps its a translation thing but I don't get it. Maybe he could explain to the slower witted amongst us?