World Happiness Report 2018

12
Chapter 2 13
International Migration
and World Happiness
John F. Helliwell, Canadian Institute for Advanced
Research and Vancouver School of Economics,
University of British Columbia
Haifang Huang, Associate Professor, Department of
Economics, University of Alberta
Shun Wang, Associate Professor, KDI School of Public
Policy and Management
Hugh Shiplett, Vancouver School of Economics,
University of British Columbia
The authors are grateful to the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research,
the KDI School, and the Ernesto Illy Foundation for research support, and to
the UK Office for National Statistics and Gallup for data access and assistance.
The authors are also grateful for helpful advice and comments from Claire Bulger,
Jan-Emmanuel De Neve, Neli Esipova, Carol Graham, Jon Hall, Martijn Hendriks,
Richard Layard, Max Norton, Julie Ray, Mariano Rojas, and Meik Wiking.
World Happiness Report 2018
Introduction using these six factors – the scores are instead

based on individuals’ own assessments of their
This is the sixth World Happiness Report. Its
subjective well-being. Rather, we use the variables
central purpose remains just what it was in the
to explain the variation of happiness across
first Report in April 2012, to survey the science
countries. We shall also show how measures of
of measuring and understanding subjective
experienced well-being, especially positive
well-being. In addition to presenting updated
emotions, supplement life circumstances in
rankings and analysis of life evaluations through-
explaining higher life evaluations.
out the world, each World Happiness Report has
had a variety of topic chapters, often dealing Then we turn to the main focus, which is migration
with an underlying theme for the report as a and happiness. The principal results in this
whole. For the World Happiness Report 2018 our chapter are for the life evaluations of the foreign-
special focus is on migration. Chapter 1 sets born and domestically born populations of every
global migration in broad context, while in this country where there is a sufficiently large
chapter we shall concentrate on life evaluations sample of the foreign-born to provide reasonable
of the foreign-born populations of each country estimates. So that we may consider a sufficiently
where the available samples are large enough to large number of countries, we do not use just the
provide reasonable estimates. We will compare 2015-2017 data used for the main happiness
these levels with those of respondents who were rankings, but instead use all survey available
born in the country where they were surveyed. since the start of the Gallup World Poll in 2005.
Chapter 3 will then examine the evidence on
specific migration flows, assessing the likely
happiness consequences (as represented both Life Evaluations Around the World
by life evaluations and measures of positive We first consider the population-weighted global
and negative affect) for international migrants and regional distributions of individual life
and those left behind in their birth countries. evaluations, based on how respondents rate their
Chapter 4 considers internal migration in more lives. In the rest of this chapter, the Cantril ladder
detail, concentrating on the Chinese experience, is the primary measure of life evaluations used,
by far the largest example of migration from the and “happiness” and “subjective well-being” are
countryside to the city. Chapter 5 completes our used interchangeably. All the global analysis on
migration package with special attention to Latin the levels or changes of subjective well-being
American migration. refers only to life evaluations, specifically, the
Before presenting our evidence and rankings of Cantril ladder. But in several of the subsequent
immigrant happiness, we first present, as usual, chapters, parallel analysis will be done for
the global and regional population-weighted measures of positive and negative affect, thus
distributions of life evaluations using the average broadening the range of data used to assess
for surveys conducted in the three years 2015-2017. the consequences of migration.
This is followed by our rankings of national The various panels of Figure 2.1 contain bar
average life evaluations, again based on data charts showing for the world as a whole, and for
from 2015-2017, and then an analysis of changes each of 10 global regions,1 the distribution of the
in life evaluations, once again for the entire 2015-2017 answers to the Cantril ladder question
resident populations of each country, from asking respondents to value their lives today on
2008-2010 to 2015-2017. a 0 to 10 scale, with the worst possible life as a 0
Our rankings of national average life evaluations and the best possible life as a 10. It is important
will be accompanied by our latest attempts to to consider not just average happiness in a
show how six key variables contribute to explaining community or country, but also how it is
the full sample of national annual average scores distributed. Most studies of inequality have
over the whole period 2005-2017. These variables focused on inequality in the distribution of
are GDP per capita, social support, healthy life income and wealth,2 while in Chapter 2 of World
expectancy, social freedom, generosity, and Happiness Report 2016 Update we argued that
absence of corruption. Note that we do not just as income is too limited an indicator for the
construct our happiness measure in each country overall quality of life, income inequality is too
limited a measure of overall inequality.3 For data, on either positive or negative affect. The
example, inequalities in the distribution of situation changes when we consider social
health care4 and education5 have effects on life variables. Bearing in mind that positive and
satisfaction above and beyond those flowing negative affect are measured on a 0 to 1 scale,
through their effects on income. We showed while life evaluations are on a 0 to 10 scale, social
there, and have verified in fresh estimates for this support can be seen to have similar proportionate
report,6 that the effects of happiness equality are effects on positive and negative emotions as on
often larger and more systematic than those of life evaluations. Freedom and generosity have
income inequality. Figure 2.1 shows that well- even larger influences on positive affect than on
being inequality is least in Western Europe, the ladder. Negative affect is significantly reduced
Northern America and Oceania, and South Asia; by social support, freedom, and absence of
and greatest in Latin America, sub-Saharan corruption. 14
Africa, and the Middle East and North Africa.

In the fourth column we re-estimate the life 15
In Table 2.1 we present our latest modeling of evaluation equation from column 1, adding both
national average life evaluations and measures of positive and negative affect to partially implement
positive and negative affect (emotion) by country the Aristotelian presumption that sustained
and year.7 For ease of comparison, the table has positive emotions are important supports for a
the same basic structure as Table 2.1 in World good life.10 The most striking feature is the extent to
Happiness Report 2017. The major difference which the results buttress a finding in psychology
comes from the inclusion of data for 2017, that the existence of positive emotions matters
thereby increasing by about 150 (or 12%) the much more than the absence of negative ones.11
number of country-year observations. The resulting Positive affect has a large and highly significant
changes to the estimated equation are very impact in the final equation of Table 2.1, while
slight.8 There are four equations in Table 2.1. The negative affect has none.
first equation provides the basis for constructing
As for the coefficients on the other variables in
the sub-bars shown in Figure 2.2.
the final equation, the changes are material only
The results in the first column of Table 2.1 explain on those variables – especially freedom and
national average life evaluations in terms of six key generosity – that have the largest impacts on
variables: GDP per capita, social support, healthy positive affect. Thus we infer that positive
life expectancy, freedom to make life choices, emotions play a strong role in support of life
generosity, and freedom from corruption.9 Taken evaluations, and that most of the impact of
together, these six variables explain almost freedom and generosity on life evaluations is
three-quarters of the variation in national annual mediated by their influence on positive emotions.
average ladder scores among countries, using That is, freedom and generosity have large
data from the years 2005 to 2017. The model’s impacts on positive affect, which in turn has a
predictive power is little changed if the year major impact on life evaluations. The Gallup
fixed effects in the model are removed, falling World Poll does not have a widely available
from 74.2% to 73.5% in terms of the adjusted measure of life purpose to test whether it too
R-squared. would play a strong role in support of high life
evaluations. However, newly available data from
The second and third columns of Table 2.1 use
the large samples of UK data does suggest that
the same six variables to estimate equations
life purpose plays a strongly supportive role,
for national averages of positive and negative
independent of the roles of life circumstances
affect, where both are based on answers about
and positive emotions.
yesterday’s emotional experiences (see Technical
Box 1 for how the affect measures are constructed).
In general, the emotional measures, and especially
negative emotions, are differently, and much less
fully, explained by the six variables than are life
evaluations. Per-capita income and healthy life
expectancy have significant effects on life
evaluations, but not, in these national average
Figure 2.1: Population-Weighted Distributions of Happiness, 2015–2017
.25
Mean = 5.264
.2 SD = 2.298
.35
.15 Mean = 6.958
.3 SD = 1.905
.25
.1
.2
.15
.05 .1
.05
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Northern America & ANZ
World
.35 .35 .35

Mean = 6.635 Mean = 6.193 Mean = 5.848
.3 SD = 1.813 .3 SD = 2.448 .3 SD = 2.053
.25 .25 .25
.2 .2 .2
.15 .15 .15
.1 .1 .1
.05 .05 .05
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Western Europe Latin America & Caribbean Central and Eastern Europe
.35 .35 Mean = 5.343 .35

Mean = 5.460 SD = 2.106 Mean = 5.280
.3 SD = 2.178 .3 .3 SD = 2.276
.25 .25 .25
.2 .2 .2
.15 .15 .15
.1 .1 .1
.05 .05 .05
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Commonwealth of Independent States East Asia Southeast Asia
.35 .35 .35

Mean = 5.003 Mean = 4.425 Mean = 4.355
.3 SD = 2.470 .3 SD = 2.476 .3 SD = 1.934
.25 .25 .25
.2 .2 .2
.15 .15 .15
.1 .1 .1
.05 .05 .05
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Middle East & North Africa Sub-Saharan Africa South Asia
Table 2.1: Regressions to Explain Average Happiness Across Countries (Pooled OLS)
Dependent Variable
Independent Variable Cantril Ladder Positive Affect Negative Affect Cantril Ladder
Log GDP per capita 0.311 -.003 0.011 0.316
(0.064)*** (0.009) (0.009) (0.063)***
Social support 2.447 0.26 -.289 1.933
(0.39)*** (0.049)*** (0.051)*** (0.395)***
Healthy life expectancy at birth 0.032 0.0002 0.001 0.031 16
(0.009)*** (0.001) (0.001) (0.009)***
17
Freedom to make life choices 1.189 0.343 -.071 0.451
(0.302)*** (0.038)*** (0.042)* (0.29)
Generosity 0.644 0.145 0.001 0.323
(0.274)** (0.03)*** (0.028) (0.272)
Perceptions of corruption -.542 0.03 0.098 -.626
(0.284)* (0.027) (0.025)*** (0.271)**
Positive affect 2.211
(0.396)***
Negative affect 0.204
(0.442)
Year fixed effects Included Included Included Included
Number of countries 157 157 157 157
Number of obs. 1394 1391 1393 1390
Adjusted R-squared 0.742 0.48 0.251 0.764
Notes: This is a pooled OLS regression for a tattered panel explaining annual national average Cantril ladder responses
from all available surveys from 2005 to 2017. See Technical Box 1 for detailed information about each of the predictors.
Coefficients are reported with robust standard errors clustered by country in parentheses. ***, **, and * indicate
significance at the 1, 5 and 10 percent levels respectively.
Technical Box 1: Detailed Information About Each of the Predictors in Table 2.1
1. GDP per capita is in terms of Purchasing 3. Social support is the national average
Power Parity (PPP) adjusted to constant of the binary responses (either 0 or 1)
2011 international dollars, taken from to the Gallup World Poll (GWP)
the World Development Indicators question “If you were in trouble, do
(WDI) released by the World Bank in you have relatives or friends you can
September 2017. See Appendix 1 for count on to help you whenever you
more details. GDP data for 2017 are not need them, or not?”
yet available, so we extend the GDP
4. Freedom to make life choices is the
time series from 2016 to 2017 using
national average of binary responses to
country-specific forecasts of real GDP
the GWP question “Are you satisfied or
growth from the OECD Economic
dissatisfied with your freedom to
Outlook No. 102 (Edition November
choose what you do with your life?”
2017) and the World Bank’s Global
Economic Prospects (Last Updated: 5. Generosity is the residual of regressing
06/04/2017), after adjustment for the national average of GWP responses
population growth. The equation uses to the question “Have you donated
the natural log of GDP per capita, as money to a charity in the past month?”
this form fits the data significantly on GDP per capita.
better than GDP per capita.
6. Perceptions of corruption are the average
2. The time series of healthy life expectancy of binary answers to two GWP questions:
at birth are constructed based on data “Is corruption widespread throughout the
from the World Health Organization government or not?” and “Is corruption
(WHO) and WDI. WHO publishes the widespread within businesses or not?”
data on healthy life expectancy for Where data for government corruption
the year 2012. The time series of life are missing, the perception of business
expectancies, with no adjustment for corruption is used as the overall
health, are available in WDI. We adopt corruption-perception measure.
the following strategy to construct the
7. Positive affect is defined as the average
time series of healthy life expectancy
of previous-day affect measures for
at birth: first we generate the ratios
happiness, laughter, and enjoyment for
of healthy life expectancy to life
GWP waves 3-7 (years 2008 to 2012,
expectancy in 2012 for countries
and some in 2013). It is defined as the
with both data. We then apply the
average of laughter and enjoyment for
country-specific ratios to other years
other waves where the happiness
to generate the healthy life expectancy
question was not asked.
data. See Appendix 1 for more details.
8. Negative affect is defined as the average
of previous-day affect measures for worry,
sadness, and anger for all waves. See
Statistical Appendix 1 for more details.
Ranking of Happiness by Country is equal to the number of years by which healthy
life expectancy in Tanzania exceeds the world’s
Figure 2.2 (below) shows the average ladder
lowest value, multiplied by the Table 2.1 coefficient
score (the average answer to the Cantril ladder
for the influence of healthy life expectancy on
question, asking people to evaluate the quality of
life evaluations. The width of these different
their current lives on a scale of 0 to 10) for each
sub-bars then shows, country-by-country, how
country, averaged over the years 2015-2017. Not
much each of the six variables is estimated to
every country has surveys in every year; the total
contribute to explaining the international ladder
sample sizes are reported in the statistical
differences. These calculations are illustrative
appendix, and are reflected in Figure 2.2 by the
rather than conclusive, for several reasons. First,
horizontal lines showing the 95% confidence
the selection of candidate variables is restricted
regions. The confidence regions are tighter for 18
by what is available for all these countries.
countries with larger samples. To increase the
Traditional variables like GDP per capita and
number of countries ranked, we also include four 19
healthy life expectancy are widely available. But
that had no 2015-2017 surveys, but did have one
measures of the quality of the social context,
in 2014. This brings the number of countries
which have been shown in experiments and
shown in Figure 2.2 to 156.
national surveys to have strong links to life
The overall length of each country bar represents evaluations and emotions, have not been
the average ladder score, which is also shown in sufficiently surveyed in the Gallup or other
numerals. The rankings in Figure 2.2 depend only global polls, or otherwise measured in statistics
on the average Cantril ladder scores reported by available for all countries. Even with this limited
the respondents. choice, we find that four variables covering
different aspects of the social and institutional
Each of these bars is divided into seven
context – having someone to count on, generosity,
segments, showing our research efforts to find
freedom to make life choices and absence of
possible sources for the ladder levels. The first
corruption – are together responsible for more
six sub-bars show how much each of the six
than half of the average difference between each
key variables is calculated to contribute to that
country’s predicted ladder score and that in
country’s ladder score, relative to that in a
Dystopia in the 2015-2017 period. As shown in
hypothetical country called Dystopia, so named
Table 19 of Statistical Appendix 1, the average
because it has values equal to the world’s lowest
country has a 2015-2017 ladder score that is 3.45
national averages for 2015-2017 for each of the six
points above the Dystopia ladder score of 1.92.
key variables used in Table 2.1. We use Dystopia as
Of the 3.45 points, the largest single part (35%)
a benchmark against which to compare each
comes from social support, followed by GDP per
other country’s performance in terms of each of
capita (26%) and healthy life expectancy (17%),
the six factors. This choice of benchmark permits
and then freedom (13%), generosity (5%), and
every real country to have a non-negative
corruption (3%).13
contribution from each of the six factors. We
calculate, based on the estimates in the first Our limited choice means that the variables we
column of Table 2.1, that Dystopia had a 2015- use may be taking credit properly due to other
2017 ladder score equal to 1.92 on the 0 to 10 better variables, or to other unmeasured factors.
scale. The final sub-bar is the sum of two There are also likely to be vicious or virtuous
components: the calculated average 2015-2017 circles, with two-way linkages among the variables.
life evaluation in Dystopia (=1.92) and each For example, there is much evidence that those
country’s own prediction error, which measures who have happier lives are likely to live longer,
the extent to which life evaluations are higher or be more trusting, be more cooperative, and be
lower than predicted by our equation in the first generally better able to meet life’s demands.14
column of Table 2.1. These residuals are as likely This will feed back to improve health, GDP,
to be negative as positive.12 generosity, corruption, and sense of freedom.
Finally, some of the variables are derived from
It might help to show in more detail how we
the same respondents as the life evaluations and
calculate each factor’s contribution to average
hence possibly determined by common factors.
life evaluations. Taking the example of healthy life
This risk is less using national averages, because
expectancy, the sub-bar in the case of Tanzania
individual differences in personality and many Although four places may seem a big jump, all
life circumstances tend to average out at the the top five countries last year were within the
national level. same statistical confidence band, as they are
again this year. Norway is now in 2nd place,
To provide more assurance that our results are
followed by Denmark, Iceland and Switzerland in
not seriously biased because we are using the
3rd, 4th and 5th places. The Netherlands, Canada
same respondents to report life evaluations,
and New Zealand are 6th, 7th and 8th, just as
social support, freedom, generosity, and
they were last year, while Australia and Sweden
corruption, we tested the robustness of our
have swapped positions since last year, with
procedure (see Statistical Appendix 1 for more
Sweden now in 9th and Australia in 10th position.
detail) by splitting each country’s respondents
In Figure 2.2, the average ladder score differs
randomly into two groups, and using the average
only by 0.15 between the 1st and 5th position,
values for one group for social support, freedom,
and another 0.21 between 5th and 10th positions.
generosity, and absence of corruption in the
equations to explain average life evaluations in Compared to the top 10 countries in the current
the other half of the sample. The coefficients on ranking, there is a much bigger range of scores
each of the four variables fall, just as we would covered by the bottom 10 countries. Within this
expect. But the changes are reassuringly small group, average scores differ by as much as 0.7
(ranging from 1% to 5%) and are far from being points, more than one-fifth of the average
statistically significant.15 national score in the group. Tanzania, Rwanda
and Botswana have anomalous scores, in the
The seventh and final segment is the sum of
sense that their predicted values based on their
two components. The first component is a fixed
performance on the six key variables, would
number representing our calculation of the
suggest they would rank much higher than
2015-2017 ladder score for Dystopia (=1.92). The
shown by the survey answers.
second component is the 2015-2017 residual for
each country. The sum of these two components Despite the general consistency among the top
comprises the right-hand sub-bar for each countries scores, there have been many significant
country; it varies from one country to the next changes in the rest of the countries. Looking at
because some countries have life evaluations changes over the longer term, many countries
above their predicted values, and others lower. have exhibited substantial changes in average
The residual simply represents that part of scores, and hence in country rankings, between
the national average ladder score that is not 2008-2010 and 2015-2017, as shown later in
explained by our model; with the residual more detail.
included, the sum of all the sub-bars adds up
When looking at average ladder scores, it is also
to the actual average life evaluations on which
important to note the horizontal whisker lines at
the rankings are based.
the right-hand end of the main bar for each
What do the latest data show for the 2015-2017 country. These lines denote the 95% confidence
country rankings? Two features carry over from regions for the estimates, so that countries with
previous editions of the World Happiness Report. overlapping error bars have scores that do not
First, there is a lot of year-to-year consistency in significantly differ from each other. Thus, as already
the way people rate their lives in different countries. noted, the five top-ranked countries (Finland,
Thus there remains a four-point gap between the Norway, Denmark, Iceland, and Switzerland) have
10 top-ranked and the 10 bottom-ranked countries. overlapping confidence regions, and all have
The top 10 countries in Figure 2.2 are the same national average ladder scores either above or
countries that were top-ranked in World Happiness just below 7.5.
Report 2017, although there has been some
Average life evaluations in the top 10 countries
swapping of places, as is to be expected among
are thus more than twice as high as in the bottom
countries so closely grouped in average scores.
10. If we use the first equation of Table 2.1 to look
The top five countries are the same ones that
for possible reasons for these very different life
held the top five positions in World Happiness
evaluations, it suggests that of the 4.10 point
Report 2017, but Finland has vaulted from
difference, 3.22 points can be traced to differences
5th place to the top of the rankings this year.
in the six key factors: 1.06 points from the GDP
Figure 2.2: Ranking of Happiness 2015–2017 (Part 1)
1. Finland (7.632)
2. Norway (7.594)
3. Denmark (7.555)
4. Iceland (7.495)
5. Switzerland (7.487)
6. Netherlands (7.441)
7. Canada (7.328)
8. New Zealand (7.324)
9. Sweden (7.314)
20
10. Australia (7.272)
11. Israel (7.190) 21
12. Austria (7.139)
13. Costa Rica (7.072)
14. Ireland (6.977)
15. Germany (6.965)
16. Belgium (6.927)
17. Luxembourg (6.910)
18. United States (6.886)
19. United Kingdom (6.814)
20. United Arab Emirates (6.774)
21. Czech Republic (6.711)
22. Malta (6.627)
23. France (6.489)
24. Mexico (6.488)
25. Chile (6.476)
26. Taiwan Province of China (6.441)
27. Panama (6.430)
28. Brazil (6.419)
29. Argentina (6.388)
30. Guatemala (6.382)
31. Uruguay (6.379)
32. Qatar (6.374)
33. Saudi (Arabia (6.371)
34. Singapore (6.343)
35. Malaysia (6.322)
36. Spain (6.310)
37. Colombia (6.260)
38. Trinidad & Tobago (6.192)
39. Slovakia (6.173)
40. El Salvador (6.167)
41. Nicaragua (6.141)
42. Poland (6.123)
43. Bahrain (6.105)
44. Uzbekistan (6.096)
45. Kuwait (6.083)
46. Thailand (6.072)
47. Italy (6.000)
48. Ecuador (5.973)
49. Belize (5.956)
50. Lithuania (5.952)
51. Slovenia (5.948)
52. Romania (5.945)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
 Explained by: GDP per capita  Explained by: generosity

 Explained by: social support  Explained by: perceptions of corruption
 Explained by: healthy life expectancy  Dystopia (1.92) + residual
 Explained by: freedom to make life choices 95% confidence interval
53. Latvia (5.933)

54. Japan (5.915)
55. Mauritius (5.891)
56. Jamaica (5.890)
57. South Korea (5.875)
58. Northern Cyprus (5.835)
59. Russia (5.810)
60. Kazakhstan (5.790)
61. Cyprus (5.762)
62. Bolivia (5.752)
63. Estonia (5.739)
64. Paraguay (5.681)
65. Peru (5.663)
66. Kosovo (5.662)
67. Moldova (5.640)
68. Turkmenistan (5.636)
69. Hungary (5.620)
70. Libya (5.566)
71. Philippines (5.524)
72. Honduras (5.504)
73. Belarus (5.483)
74. Turkey (5.483)
75. Pakistan (5.472)
76. Hong Kong SAR, China (5.430)
77. Portugal (5.410)
78. Serbia (5.398)
79. Greece (5.358)
80. Tajikistan (5.352)
81. Montenegro (5.347)
82. Croatia (5.321)
83. Dominican Republic (5.302)
84. Algeria (5.295)
85. Morocco (5.254)
86. China (5.246)
87. Azerbaijan (5.201)
88. Lebanon (5.199)
89. Macedonia (5.185)
90. Jordan (5.161)
91. Nigeria (5.155)
92. Kyrgyzstan (5.131)
93. Bosnia and Herzegovina (5.129)
94. Mongolia (5.125)
95. Vietnam (5.103)
96. Indonesia (5.093)
97. Bhutan (5.082)
98. Somalia (4.982)
99. Cameroon (4.975)
100. Bulgaria (4.933)
101. Nepal (4.880)
102. Venezuela (4.806)
103. Gabon (4.758)
104. Palestinian Territories (4.743)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

105. South Africa (4.724)

106. Iran (4.707)
107. Ivory Coast (4.671)
108. Ghana (4.657)
109. Senegal (4.631)
110. Laos (4.623)
111. Tunisia (4.592)
112. Albania (4.586)
113. Sierra Leone (4.571)
22
114. Congo (Brazzaville) (4.559)
115. Bangladesh (4.500) 23
116. Sri Lanka (4.471)
117. Iraq (4.456)
118. Mali (4.447)
119. Namibia (4.441)
120. Cambodia (4.433)
121. Burkina Faso (4.424)
122. Egypt (4.419)
123. Mozambique (4.417)
124. Kenya (4.410)
125. Zambia (4.377)
126. Mauritania (4.356)
127. Ethiopia (4.350)
128. Georgia (4.340)
129. Armenia (4.321)
130. Myanmar (4.308)
131. Chad (4.301)
132. Congo (Kinshasa) (4.245)
133. India (4.190)
134. Niger (4.166)
135. Uganda (4.161)
136. Benin (4.141)
137. Sudan (4.139)
138. Ukraine (4.103)
139. Togo (3.999)
140. Guinea (3.964)
141. Lesotho (3.808)
142. Angola (3.795)
143. Madagascar (3.774)
144. Zimbabwe (3.692)
145. Afghanistan (3.632)
146. Botswana (3.590)
147. Malawi (3.587)
148. Haiti (3.582)
149. Liberia (3.495)
150. Syria (3.462)
151. Rwanda (3.408)
152. Yemen (3.355)
153. Tanzania (3.303)
154. South Sudan (3.254)
155. Central African Republic (3.083)
156. Burundi (2.905)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

per capita gap, 0.90 due to differences in Of the 141 countries with data for 2008-2010 and
social support, 0.61 to differences in healthy 2015-2017, 114 had significant changes. 58 were
life expectancy, 0.37 to differences in freedom, significant increases, ranging from 0.14 to 1.19
0.21 to differences in corruption perceptions, points on the 0 to 10 scale. There were also 59
and 0.07 to differences in generosity. Income significant decreases, ranging from -0.12 to -2.17
differences are the single largest contributing points, while the remaining 24 countries revealed
factor, at one-third of the total, because, of the no significant trend from 2008-2010 to 2015-2017.
six factors, income is by far the most unequally As shown in Table 35 in Statistical Appendix 1,
distributed among countries. GDP per capita the significant gains and losses are very unevenly
is 30 times higher in the top 10 than in the distributed across the world, and sometimes also
bottom 10 countries.16 within continents. For example, in Western
Europe there were 12 significant losses but only
Overall, the model explains quite well the life
three significant gains. In Central and Eastern
evaluation differences within as well as between
Europe, by contrast, these results were reversed,
regions and for the world as a whole.17 On average,
with 13 significant gains against two losses. The
however, the countries of Latin America still have
Commonwealth of Independent States was also
mean life evaluations that are higher (by about
a significant net gainer, with seven gains against
0.3 on the 0 to 10 scale) than predicted by the
two losses. The Middle East and North Africa
model. This difference has been found in earlier
was net negative, with 11 losses against five
work and been attributed to a variety of factors,
gains. In all other world regions, the numbers
including especially some unique features of
of significant gains and losses were much more
family and social life in Latin American countries.
equally divided.
To help explain what is special about social life in
Latin America, and how this affects emotions Among the 20 top gainers, all of which showed
and life evaluations, Chapter 6 by Mariano Rojas average ladder scores increasing by more than
presents a range of new evidence showing how 0.5 points, 10 are in the Commonwealth of
the social structure supports Latin American Independent States or Central and Eastern
happiness beyond what is captured by the vari- Europe, three are in sub-Saharan Africa, and
ables available in the Gallup World Poll. In partial three in Asia. The other four were Malta, Iceland,
contrast, the countries of East Asia have average Nicaragua, and Morocco. Among the 20 largest
life evaluations below those predicted by the losers, all of which showed ladder reductions
model, a finding that has been thought to reflect, exceeding about 0.5 points, seven were in
at least in part, cultural differences in response sub-Saharan Africa, three were in the Middle East
style.18 It is reassuring that our findings about the and North Africa, three in Latin America and the
relative importance of the six factors are generally Caribbean, three in the CIS and Central and
unaffected by whether or not we make explicit Eastern Europe, and two each in Western Europe
allowance for these regional differences.19 and South Asia.
These gains and losses are very large, especially

for the 10 most affected gainers and losers. For
Changes in the Levels of Happiness each of the 10 top gainers, the average life
In this section we consider how life evaluations evaluation gains were more than twice as large
have changed. In previous reports we considered as those that would be expected from a doubling
changes from the beginning of the Gallup World of per capita incomes. For each of the 10 countries
Poll until the three most recent years. In the with the biggest drops in average life evaluations,
report, we use 2008-2010 as a base period, and the losses were more than twice as large as would
changes are measured from then to 2015-2017. be expected from a halving of GDP per capita.
The new base period excludes all observations
On the gaining side of the ledger, the inclusion
prior to the 2007 economic crisis, whose effects
of six transition countries among the top 10
were a key part of the change analysis in earlier
gainers reflects the rising average life evaluations
World Happiness Reports. In Figure 2.3 we show
for the transition countries taken as a group. The
the changes in happiness levels for all 141 countries
appearance of sub-Saharan African countries
that have sufficient numbers of observations for
among the biggest gainers and the biggest
both 2008-2010 and 2015-2017.
Figure 2.3: Changes in Happiness from 2008–2010 to 2015–2017 (Part 1)
1. Togo (1.191)
2. Latvia (1.026)
3. Bulgaria (1.021)
5. Serbia (0.978)
8. Morocco (0.870)
9. Hungary (0.810)
24
10. Romania (0.807)
11. Nicaragua (0.760) 25
14. Philippines (0.720)
16. Malta (0.667)
19. Iceland (0.607)
20. China (0.592)
21. Mongolia (0.585)
23. Mali (0.496)
25. Benin (0.474)
30. Estonia (0.445)
31. Russia (0.422)
32. Uruguay (0.374)
33. Germany (0.369)
34. Georgia (0.317)
36. Nepal (0.311)
37. Thailand (0.300)
39. Chad (0.296)
40. Bahrain (0.289)
41. Kenya (0.276)
42. Poland (0.275)
43. Sri Lanka (0.265)
44. Nigeria (0.263)
46. Ecuador (0.255)
47. Peru (0.243)
49. Turkey (0.208)
-2.5 -2.0 -1.5 -.1.0 -.05 0 0.5 1.0 1.5
 Changes from 2008–2010 to 2015–2017 95% confidence interval

53. Cambodia (0.194)

54. Chile (0.186)
55. Lebanon (0.185)
56. Senegal (0.168)
57. South Korea (0.158)
58. Kosovo (0.136)
62. Finland (0.100)
63. Moldova (0.091)
64. Ghana (0.066)
66. Bolivia (0.029)
69. Saudi Arabia (0.016)
70. Guatemala (-0.004)
71. Japan (-0.012)
72. Colombia (-0.023)
73. Belarus (-0.034)
74. Niger (-0.036)
75. Switzerland (-0.037)
76. Norway (-0.039)
77. Slovenia (-0.050)
78. Belgium (-0.058)
79. Armenia (-0.078)
80. Australia (-0.079)
81. El Salvador (-0.092)
82. Sweden (-0.112)
83. Austria (-0.123)
84. Netherlands (-0.125)
85. Israel (-0.134)
86. Luxembourg (-0.141)
87. United Kingdom (-0.160)
88. Indonesia (-0.160)
89. Singapore (-0.164)
90. Algeria (-0.169)
91. Costa Rica (-0.175)
92. Qatar (-0.187)
93. Croatia (-0.198)
94. Mauritania (-0.206)
95. France (-0.208)
96. United Arab Emirates (-0.208)
97. Canada (-0.213)
98. Haiti (-0.224)
99. Mozambique (-0.237)
100. Spain (-0.248)
101. Denmark (-0.253)
102. Vietnam (-0.258)
103. Honduras (-0.269)
104. Zimbabwe (-0.278)
-2.5 -2.0 -1.5 -.1.0 -.05 0 0.5 1.0 1.5

105. Uganda (-0.297)

106. Sudan (-0.306)
107. United States (-0.315)
108. South Africa (-0.348)
109. Ireland (-0.363)
110. Tanzania (-0.366)
111. Mexico (-0.376)
112. Iraq (-0.399)
113. Egypt (-0.402)
26
114. Laos (-0.421)
115. Iran (-0.422) 27
116. Brazil (-0.424)
117. Jordan (-0.453)
118. Central African Republic (-0.485)
119. Italy (-0.489)
120. Bangladesh (-0.497)
121. Tunisia (-0.504)
122. Trinidad & Tobago (-0.505)
123. Greece (-0.581)
124. Kuwait (-0.609)
125. Zambia (-0.617)
126. Panama (-0.665)
127. Afghanistan (-0.688)
128. India (-0.698)
129. Liberia (-0.713)
130. Cyprus (-0.773)
131. Burundi (-0.773)
132. Rwanda (-0.788)
133. Albania (-0.791)
134. Madagascar (-0.866)
135. Botswana (-0.911)
136. Turkmenistan (-0.931)
137. Ukraine (-1.030)
138. Yemen (-1.224)
139. Syria (-1.401)
140. Malawi (-1.561)
141. Venezuela (-2.167)
-2.5 -2.0 -1.5 -.1.0 -.05 0 0.5 1.0 1.5

losers reflects the variety and volatility of larger than predicted. As Figure 18 shows,
experiences among the sub-Saharan countries changes in the six factors are not very successful
for which changes are shown in Figure 2.3, and in capturing the evolving patterns of life over
whose experiences were analyzed in more detail what have been tumultuous times for many
in Chapter 4 of World Happiness Report 2017. countries. Eight of the nine regions were predicted
Togo, the largest gainer since 2008-2010, by to have 2015-2017 life evaluations higher than in
almost 1.2 points, was the lowest ranked country 2008-2010, but only half of them did so. In
in World Happiness Report 2015 and now ranks general, the ranking of regions’ predicted changes
17 places higher. matched the ranking of regions’ actual changes,
despite typical experience being less favorable
The 10 countries with the largest declines in
than predicted. The notable exception is South
average life evaluations typically suffered some
Asia, which experienced the largest drop, contrary
combination of economic, political, and social
to predictions.
stresses. The five largest drops since 2008-2010
were in Ukraine, Yemen, Syria, Malawi and
Venezuela, with drops over 1 point in each case,
the largest fall being almost 2.2 points in
Immigration and Happiness
Venezuela. By moving the base period until well In this section, we measure and compare the
after the onset of the international banking crisis, happiness of immigrants and the locally born
the four most affected European countries, populations of their host countries by dividing
Greece, Italy, Spain and Portugal, no longer the residents of each country into two groups:
appear among the countries with the largest those born in another country (the foreign-born),
drops. Greece just remains in the group of 20 and the rest of the population. The United
countries with the largest declines, Italy and Nations estimates the total numbers of the
Spain are still significantly below their 2008-2010 foreign-born in each country every five years. We
levels, while Portugal shows a small increase. combine these data with annual UN estimates for
total population to derive estimated foreign-born
Figure 18 and Table 34 in the Statistical Appendix
population shares for each country. These
show the population-weighted actual and
provide a valuable benchmark against which to
predicted changes in happiness for the 10 re-
compare data derived from the Gallup World Poll
gions of the world from 2008-2010 to 2015-2017.
responses. We presented in Chapter 1 a map
The correlation between the actual and predicted
showing UN data for all national foreign-born
changes is 0.3, but with actual changes being
populations, measured as a fraction of the total
less favorable than predicted. Only in Central and
population, for the most recent available year, 2015.
Eastern Europe, where life evaluations were up
At the global level, the foreign-born population
by 0.49 points on the 0 to 10 scale, was there an
in 2015 was 244 million, making up 3.3% of world
actual increase that exceeded what was predicted.
population. Over the 25 years between 1990 and
South Asia had the largest drop in actual life
2015, the world’s foreign-born population grew
evaluations (more than half a point on the 0 to
from 153 million to 244 million, an increase of
10 scale) while predicted to have a substantial
some 60%, thereby increasing from 2.9% to 3.3%
increase. Sub-Saharan Africa was predicted to
of the growing world population.
have a substantial gain, while the actual change
was a very small drop. Latin America was The foreign-born share in 2015 is highly variable
predicted to have a small gain, while it shows a among the 160 countries covered by the UN
population-weighted actual drop of 0.3 points. data, ranging from less than 2% in 56 countries
The MENA region was also predicted to be a to over 10% in 44 countries. Averaging across
gainer, and instead lost almost 0.35 points. Given country averages, the mean foreign-born share
the change in the base year, the countries of in 2015 was 8.6%. This is almost two and a half
Western Europe were predicted to have a small times as high as the percentage of total world
gain, but instead experienced a small reduction. population that is foreign-born, reflecting the
For the remaining regions, the predicted and fact that the world’s most populous countries
actual changes were in the same direction, with have much lower shares of the foreign-born.
the substantial reductions in the United States Of the 12 countries with populations exceeding
(the largest country in the NANZ group) being 100 million in 2015, only three had foreign-born
population shares exceeding 1% – Japan at 1.7%, population, without special regard for the
Pakistan at 1.9% and the United States at 15%. For representativeness of the foreign-born
the 10 countries with 2015 populations less than population shares. There are a number of reasons
one million, the foreign-born share averaged 12.6%, why the foreign-born population shares may be
with a wide range of variation, from 2% or less in under-represented in total, since they may be
Guyana and Comoros to 46% in Luxembourg. less likely to have addresses or listed phones that
would bring them into the sampling frame. In
The 11 countries with the highest proportions of
addition, the limited range of language options
international residents, as represented by foreign-
available may discourage participation by potential
born population shares exceeding 30%, have an
foreign-born respondents not able to speak one
average foreign-born share of 50%. The group
of the available languages.20 We report in this
includes geographically small units like the Hong 28
chapter data on the foreign-born respondents
Kong SAR at 39%, Luxembourg at 45.7% and
of every country, while recognizing that the
Singapore at 46%; and eight countries in the 29
samples may not represent each country’s
Middle East, with the highest foreign-born
foreign-born population equally well.21 Since we
population shares being Qatar at 68%, Kuwait
are not able to estimate the size of these possible
at 73% and the UAE at 87%.
differences, we simply report the available data.
How international are the world’s happiest
We can, however, compare the foreign-born
countries? Looking at the 10 happiest countries
shares in the Gallup World Poll samples with
in Figure 2.2, they have foreign-born population
those in the corresponding UN population data
shares averaging 17.2%, about twice that for the
to get some impression of how serious a problem
world as a whole. For the top five countries, four
we might be facing. Averaging across countries,
of which have held the first-place position within
the UN data show the average national foreign-
the past five years, the average 2015 share of the
born share to be 8.6%, as we reported earlier.
foreign-born in the resident population is 14.3%,
This can be compared with what we get from
well above the world average. For the countries
looking at the entire 2005-2017 Gallup sample,
in 6th to 10th positions in the 2015-2017 rankings
which typically includes 1,000 respondents per
of life evaluations, the average foreign-born
year in each country. As shown in Statistical
share is 20%, the highest being Australia at 28%.
Appendix 2, the Gallup sample has 93,000
For our estimates of the happiness of the foreign- foreign-born respondents, compared to
born populations of each country, we use data 1,540,000 domestic-born respondents. The
on the foreign-born respondents from the Gallup foreign-born respondents thus make up 5.7%
World Poll for the longest available period, from of the total sample,22 or two-thirds the level of
2005 to 2017. In Statistical Appendix 2 we the UN estimate for 2015. This represents, as
present our data in three different ways: for the expected, some under-representation of the
162 countries with any foreign-born respondents, foreign-born in the total sample, with possible
for the 117 countries where there are more than implications for what can safely be said about
100 foreign-born respondents, and for 87 countries the foreign-born. However, we are generally
where there are more than 200 foreign-born confident in the representativeness of the Gallup
respondents. For our main presentation in Figure estimates of the number for foreign-born in
2.4 we use the sample with 117 countries, since it each country, for two reasons. First, the average
gives the largest number of countries while still proportions become closer when it is recognized
maintaining a reasonable sample size. We ask that the Gallup surveys do not include refugee
readers, when considering the rankings, to pay camps, which make up about 3% of the UN
attention to the size of the 95% confidence estimate of the foreign-born. Second, and more
regions for each country (shown as a horizontal importantly for our analysis, the cross-country
line at the right-hand end of the bar), since these variation in the foreign-born population shares
are a direct reflection of the sample sizes in matches very closely with the corresponding
each country, and show where caution is needed intercountry variation in the UN estimates of
in interpreting the rankings. As discussed in foreign-born population shares.23
more detail in Chapter 3, the Gallup World Poll
Figure 2.4 ranks countries by the average ladder
samples are designed to reflect the total resident
score of their foreign-born respondents in all of
the Gallup World Polls between 2005 and 2017. life evaluations for the two population groups,
For purposes of comparison, the figure also with life evaluations of the foreign-born on the
shows for each country the corresponding vertical axis, and life evaluations for the locally
average life evaluations for domestically born born on the horizontal axis.
respondents.24 Error bars are shown for the
If the foreign-born and locally born have the
averages of the foreign-born, but not for the
same average life evaluations, then the points
domestically born respondents, since their
will tend to fall along the 45-degree lines marked
sample sizes from the pooled 2005-2017 surveys
in each panel of the figure. The scatter plots,
are so large that they make the estimates of the
especially those for sample sizes>100, show a
average very precise.
tight positive linkage, and also suggest that
The most striking feature of Figure 2.4 is how immigrant life evaluations deviate from those of
closely life evaluations for the foreign-born the native-born in a systematic way. This is
match those for respondents born in the country shown by the fact that immigrants are more
where the migrants are now living. For the 117 likely to have life evaluations that are higher than
countries with more than 100 foreign-born the locally born in countries where life evaluations
respondents, the cross-country correlation of the locally born are low, and vice versa. This
between average life evaluations of the foreign- suggests, as does other evidence reviewed in
born and domestically-born respondents is very Chapter 3, that the life evaluations of immigrants
high, 0.96. Another way of describing this point depend to some extent on their former lives in
is that the rankings of countries according to the their countries of birth. Such a ‘footprint’ effect
life evaluations of their immigrants is very similar would be expected to give rise to the slope
to the ranking of Figure 2.2 for the entire resident between foreign-born life evaluations and
populations of each country 2015-2017, despite those of the locally born being flatter than the
the differences in the numbers of countries and 45-degree line. If the distribution of migrants is
survey years. similar across countries, recipient countries with
higher ladder scores have more feeder countries
Of the top 10 countries for immigrant happiness,
with ladder scores below their own, and hence
as shown by Figure 2.4, nine are also top-10
a larger gap between source and destination
countries for total population life evaluations for
happiness scores. In addition, as discussed in
2015-2017, as shown in Figure 2.2. The only
Chapter 3, immigrants who have the chance to
exception is Mexico, which comes in just above
choose where they go usually intend to move to
the Netherlands to take the 10th spot. However,
a country where life evaluations are high. As a
the small size of the foreign-born sample for
consequence, foreign-born population shares are
Mexico makes it a very uncertain call. Finland is
systematically higher in countries with higher
in the top spot for immigrant happiness 2005-
average life evaluations. For example, a country
2017, just as it is also the overall happiness leader
with average life evaluations one point higher on
for 2015-2017. Of the top five countries for overall
the 0 to 10 scale has 5% more of its population
life evaluations, four are also in the top five for
made up of the foreign-born.25 The combination
happiness of the foreign-born. Switzerland,
of footprint effects and migrants tending to
which is currently in 5th position in the overall
move to happier countries is no doubt part of
population ranking, is in 9th position in the
the reason why the foreign-born in happier
immigrant happiness rankings, following several
countries are slightly less happy than the locally
high-immigration non-European countries – New
born populations.
Zealand, Australia and Canada – and Sweden. This
is because, as shown in Figure 2.4, Switzerland But there may also be other reasons for immi-
and the Netherlands have the largest top-10 grant happiness to be lower, including the costs
shortfall of immigrant life evaluations relative to of migration considered in more detail in Chapter
those of locally born respondents. 3. There is not a large gap to explain, as for those
117 countries with more than 100 foreign-born
Looking across the whole spectrum of countries,
respondents, the average life evaluations of a
what is the general relation between the life
country’s foreign-born population are 99.5% as
evaluations for foreign-born and locally born
large as those of the locally-born population in
respondents? Figure 2.5 shows scatter plots of
the same country. But this overall equality covers
Figure 2.4: Happiness Ranking for the Foreign-Born, 2005–2017, sample>100
(Part 1)
1. Finland (7.662)
2. Denmark (7.547)
3. Norway (7.435)
4. Iceland (7.427)
6. Australia (7.249)
7. Canada (7.219)
30
8. Sweden (7.184)
9. Switzerland (7.177)
31
10. Mexico (7.031)
11. Netherlands (6.945)
12. Israel (6.921)
13. Ireland (6.916)
14. Austria (6.903)
15. United States (6.878)
16. Oman (6.829)
17. Luxembourg (6.802)
18. Costa Rica (6.726)
19. United Arab Emirates (6.685)
20. United Kingdom (6.677)
21. Singapore (6.607)
22. Belgium (6.601)
23. Malta (6.506)
24. Chile (6.495)
25. Japan (6.457)
26. Qatar (6.395)
27. Uruguay (6.374)
28. Germany (6.366)
29. France (6.352)
30. Cyprus (6.337)
31. Panama (6.336)
32. Ecuador (6.294)
33. Bahrain (6.240)
34. Kuwait (6.207)
35. Saudi Arabia (6.155)
36. Spain (6.107)
37. Venezuela (6.086)
39. Italy (5.960)
43. Belize (5.804)
45. Kosovo (5.726)
46. Belarus (5.715)
47. Slovenia (5.703)
49. Poland (5.649)
51. Russia (5.548)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
 Average happiness of foreign born 95% confidence interval

 Average happiness of domestic born

(Part 2)
52. Turkmenistan (5.547)

53. Turkey (5.488)
55. Northern Cyprus (5.443)
56. Croatia (5.368)
58. Jordan (5.345)
60. Zambia (5.286)
61. Greece (5.284)
62. Egypt (5.277)
63. Hungary (5.272)
65. Libya (5.187)
66. Moldova (5.187)
69. Lebanon (5.116)
70. Nigeria (5.090)
72. Serbia (5.036)
73. Iraq (5.003)
74. Estonia (4.998)
79. Somaliland region (4.900)
80. South Africa (4.784)
82. Nepal (4.740)
84. Mauritania (4.733)
85. Latvia (4.728)
88. Yemen (4.584)
90. Gabon (4.581)
91. India (4.549)
92. Ukraine (4.546)
93. Senegal (4.514)
94. Botswana (4.496)
95. Liberia (4.479)
96. Mali (4.477)
98. Zimbabwe (4.413)
99. Chad (4.339)
100. Malawi (4.338)
101. Sudan (4.325)
102. Uganda (4.191)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

(Part 3)
103. Kenya (4.167)

105. Djibouti (4.139)
106. Armenia (4.101)
107. Afghanistan (4.068)
108. Niger (4.057)
109. Benin (4.015)
32
110. Georgia (3.988)
111. Guinea (3.954)
33
112. South Sudan (3.925)
113. Comoros (3.911)
115. Rwanda (3.899)
116. Togo (3.570)
117. Syria (3.516)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Figure 2.5: Life Evaluations, Foreign-born vs Locally Born, with Alternative

Foreign-born Sample Sizes
Foreign born sample size > 0 Foreign born sample size > 100 Foreign born sample size > 200
quite a range of experience. Among these 117 countries, the foreign-born are happier than the
countries, there are 64 countries where immigrant locally born.
happiness is lower, averaging 94.5% of that of
Another way of looking for sources of possible
the locally born; 48 countries where it is higher,
life evaluation differences between foreign-born
averaging 106% of the life evaluations of the
and locally born respondents is to see how
locally born; and five countries where the two
immigrants fare in different aspects of their lives.
are essentially equal, with percentage differences
All four of the social factors used in Table 2.1
below 1%.26
show similar average values and cross-country
The life evaluations of immigrants and of the patterns for the two population groups, although
native-born are likely to depend on the extent these patterns differ in interesting ways. The
to which residents in each country are ready to correlation is lowest, although still very high
happily accept foreign migrants. To test this (at 0.91), for social support. It also has a lower
possibility, we make use of a Migrant Acceptance average value for the foreign-born, 79% of whom
Index (MAI) developed by Gallup researchers27 feel they have someone to count on in times of
and described in the Annex to this Report.28 Our trouble, compared to 82% for the locally born
first test was to add the values of the MAI to the respondents. This possibly illustrates a conse-
first equation in Table 2.1. We found a positive quence of the uprooting effect of international
coefficient of 0.068, suggesting that immigrants, migration, as discussed in Chapter 3. The slope
local residents, or both, are happier in countries of the relation is also slightly less than 45%,
where migrants are more welcome. An increase showing that the immigrant vs locally born gap
of 2 points (about one standard deviation) on for perceived social support is greatest for those
the 9-point scale of migrant acceptance was living in countries with high average values for
associated with average life evaluations higher social support. Nonetheless, there is still a very
by 0.14 points on the 0 to 10 scale for life strong positive relation, so that immigrants
evaluations. Is this gain among the immigrants living in a country where the locally born have
or the locally-born? We shall show later, when internationally high values of social support feel
we set up and test our main model for immigrant the same way themselves, even if in a slightly
happiness, that migrant acceptance makes both muted way. When it comes to evaluations of the
immigrants and locally born happier, with the per institutional quality of their new countries,
capita effects being one-third larger for immigrants. immigrants rank these institutions very much as
But the fact that the foreign-born populations do the locally-born, so that the cross-country
are typically less than 15%, most of the total correlations of evaluations by the two groups are
happiness gains from migrant acceptance are very high, at 0.93 for freedom to make life
due to the locally born population, even if the choices, and 0.97 for perceptions of corruption.
per-person effects are larger for the migrants. There are on average no footprint effects for
perceptions of corruption, as immigrants see less
Footprint effects, coupled with the fact that
evidence of corruption around them in their new
happier countries are the major immigration
countries than do locally born, despite having
destinations, help to explain why immigrants
come, on average, from birth countries with
in happier countries are less happy than the
more corruption than where they are now living.
local population, while the reverse is true for
Generosity and freedom to make life choices are
immigrants in less happy countries. Thus for
essentially equal for immigrants and the locally
those 64 countries where immigrants have lower
born, although slightly higher for the immigrants.
life evaluations than the locally born, the average
life evaluation is 6.00, compared to 5.01 for the To a striking extent, the life evaluations of the
48 countries where immigrants are happier than foreign-born are similar to those of the locally
the locally born. When the OECD studied the life born, as are the values of several of the key
evaluations of immigrants in OECD countries, social supports for better lives. But is the
they found that immigrants were less happy happiness of immigrants and the locally born
than the locally born in three-quarters of their affected to the same extent by these variables?
member countries.29 That reflects the fact that To assess this possibility, we divided the entire
most of the happiest countries are also OECD accumulated individual Gallup World Poll
countries. In just over half of the non-OECD respondents 2005-2017, typically involving 1,000
observations per year in each country, into Ladderimm = 0.730 ladderdom +
separate foreign-born and domestically born (0.033)
samples. As shown in Table 10 of Statistical
0.243 laddersource +
Appendix 2, immigrants and non-immigrants
(0.057)
evaluate their lives in almost identical ways, with
almost no significant differences.30 0.049 migrant acceptance
(0.014)
All of the evidence we have considered thus far
suggests that average life evaluations depend Adjusted R2=0.941 n=107
first and foremost on the social and material
All parts of the framework are strongly supported
aspects of life in the communities and countries
by the results. It is also interesting to ask what
where people live. Put another way, the substantial 34
we can say about the effects of immigration on
differences across countries in average life
the locally-born population. We have already
evaluations appear to depend more on the social 35
seen that immigrants more often move to happier
and material aspects of life in each community
countries, as evidenced by the strong positive
and country than on characteristics inherent in
simple correlation between immigrant share and
individuals. If this is true, then we would expect
national happiness (r=+0.45). We cannot simply
to find that immigrants from countries with very
use this to conclude also that a higher immigrant
different average levels of life evaluations would
share makes the domestic population happier. To
tend to have happiness levels much more like
answer that question appropriately, we need to
those of others in their new countries than like
take proper account of the established sources
those of their previous friends, family and
of well-being. We can do this by adding the
compatriots still living in their original countries.
immigrant share to a cross-sectional equation
We can draw together the preceding lines of explaining the life evaluations of the locally-born
evidence to propose and test a particular model by the standard variables used in Table 2.1. When
of immigrant happiness. Immigrant happiness this is done, the estimated effect of the immigrant
will be systematically higher in countries where population share32 is essentially zero.
the local populations are happier, but the effect
A similar test using the same framework to
will be less than one for one because of footprint
explain cross-country variations of the life evalua-
effects. Footprints themselves imply a positive
tions of immigrants also showed no impact from
effect from the average happiness in the
the immigrant share of the population. The same
countries from which the migrants came. Finally,
framework also showed that GDP per capita has
immigrant happiness will be happier in countries
no effect on the average life evaluations, once the
where migrant acceptance is higher. All three
effect flowing through the average life evaluations
propositions are tested and confirmed by the
of the locally born is taken into account.33
following equation, where average immigrant life
evaluations 2005-2017 (ladderimm) are ex- We can use the same framework to estimate the
plained by average happiness of the locally born effects of migrant acceptance on the happiness
population (ladderdom), weighted average of the host populations, by adding the index to a
happiness in the source countries (ladder- cross-sectional equation explaining the average
source),31 and each country’s value for the Gallup life evaluations of the host populations 2005-
Migrant Acceptance Index as presented in the 2017 by the six key variables of Table 2.1 plus the
Annex. The life evaluation used is the Cantril Migrant Acceptance Index. The Migrant Acceptance
ladder, as elsewhere in this chapter, with the Index attracts a coefficient of 0.075 (SE=0.028),
estimation sample including the 107 countries showing that those who are not themselves
that have more than 100 immigrant survey immigrants are happier living in societies where
responders and a value for the Migrant immigrant acceptance is higher. The total effect
Acceptance Index. of the Migrant Acceptance Index on immigrants
is slightly larger, as can be seen by combining
the direct effect from the equation shown above
(0.049) plus that flowing indirectly through the
life evaluations of the locally born (0.73*0.075),34
giving a total effect of 0.103.
Does this same framework apply when we converge to different values in the two
consider migration from a variety of source destination countries.
countries to a single destination? If the
The Canadian data on satisfaction with life
framework is apt, then we would expect to find
(SWL) for immigrants from many different
migrants from all countries having happiness
countries have been used to compare the life
levels that converge toward the average for the
evaluations of immigrants from each source
locally born, with the largest gains for those
country with average life evaluations in the
coming from the least happy origin countries.
source countries, using SWL data from the
The existence of footprint effects would mean
World Values Survey (WVS), or comparable data
that immigrants coming from the least happy
from the Gallup World Poll.35 If source country
countries would have life evaluations slightly
SWL was a dominant force, as it would be if
below those of immigrants from happier
international SWL differences were explained by
source countries. To compare life evaluations of
inbuilt genetic or cultural differences, then the
immigrants from many source countries within a
observations would lie along the 45-degree line
single destination country requires much larger
if Canadian immigrant SWL is plotted against
samples of migrants than are available from the
source-country SWL. By contrast, if SWL
Gallup World Poll. Fortunately, there are two
depends predominantly on life circumstances
countries, Canada and the United Kingdom, that
in Canada, then the observations for the SWL
have national surveys of life satisfaction large
of the immigrant groups would lie along a
enough to accumulate sufficient samples of
horizontal line roughly matching the overall
the foreign-born from many different source
SWL of Canadians. The actual results, for
countries. The fact that we have two destination
immigrants from 100 different source countries,
countries allows us to test quite directly the
are shown in Figure 2.6.
convergence hypothesis presented above. If
convergence is general, we would expect it to The convergence to Canadian levels of SWL is
apply downward as well as upward, and to apparent, even for immigrants from countries
Figure 2.6 Life Satisfaction Among Immigrants to Canada from 100 Countries
Observed satisfaction with life among immigrant in the Canada (0 to 40 years since
arrival) from 100 countries and predicted SWL in their countries
with very low average life evaluations. This as shown in Figure 2.7, is strikingly similar to
convergence can be seen by comparing the that found for Canada. As with Canada, there is
country spread along the horizontal axis, strong evidence of convergence to the UK
measuring SWL in the source countries, with the average, with a corresponding reduction in the
spread on the vertical axis, showing the SWL of vertical spread of the country points. There is
the Canadian immigrants from the same source also a footprint effect, averaging 12.6% in the
countries. For the convergence model to be UK case.
generally applicable, we would expect to find
Bringing the Canadian and UK experiences
that the variation of life evaluations among
together, perhaps the most interesting result is
the immigrant groups in Canada would be
the extent to which convergence is not just
significantly less than among the source country
generally up, but is towards the national averages 36
scores. This is indeed the case, as the happiness
in the destination countries. To show this most
spread among the immigrant groups is less than
clearly, it is probably best to consider migration 37
one-quarter as large as among the source
to Canada and the UK from countries sending
countries.36 This was found to be so whether
sufficiently great numbers of migrants to enable
or not estimates were adjusted to control for
them to appear in both the Canada and UK
possible selection effects.37 Most of the
samples above. This is a smaller number of
immigrants rose or fell close to Canadian levels
countries than either in the UK or Canadian
of SWL even though migrations intentions data
groups, since Canada and the UK draw from
from the Gallup World Poll show that those
differing mixes of source countries. Looking just
wishing to emigrate, whether in general or to
at the 63 countries that have sufficiently large
Canada, generally have lower life evaluations
numbers of migrants to both countries to provide
than those who had no plans to emigrate.38 There
representative samples, we can compare the
is, as expected, some evidence of a footprint
average SWL in the 63 source countries with the
effect, with average life evaluations in the source
average SWL of the same immigrant groups in
country having a carry-over of 10.5% into Canadian
Canada and the United Kingdom. The average
life evaluations.39 If the convergence model
SWL across the source countries is 6.08
applies strictly, and if the footprint effects are
(SE=0.15), while migrants to the UK have a mean
sufficiently large, then we would expect to find
SWL of 7.57 (SE=0.038), and those to Canada
most or all of the points falling in the north-east
have a mean SWL of 7.81 (SE=0.028). The three
and south-west quadrants, with life satisfaction
means are strikingly different from each other in
increases for those coming from less happy
statistical terms. The immigrant happiness scores
countries, and decreases for those from more
have converged to local averages to such an
happy countries. This is confirmed by Figure 2.6,
extent that they form two quite different groups.
the only qualification being that immigrants from
This is perhaps the strongest evidence in this
some countries less happy than Canada find
chapter that it is local conditions that determine
themselves happier in Canada than the average
how people value their lives. Migrants who move
of the native-born population – convergence plus
to the UK tend to value their lives like others in
overshoot.
the UK, while migrants from the same countries
It is possible that the Canadian results reported to Canada have life evaluations converging
above might relate specifically to conditions towards those of other Canadians.
facing immigrants to Canada, or to depend on
The data from the United Kingdom and Canada
the specific source countries from which Canadian
can be used to shed more light on the Chapter 5
migrants are drawn. Thus it is very helpful to be
finding that emigrants from Latin America to
able to undertake a similar analysis for SWL data
other countries have not had large happiness
for immigrants to the United Kingdom, making
gains relative to other migrants. How does that
use of the very large samples of well-being
relate to the evidence presented above that
responses available from the UK Annual Population
migrant happiness is determined primarily by the
Survey. With the assistance of the UK Office for
happiness in their destination countries? That
National Statistics, we have obtained, and present
evidence would suggest that if Latin American
here, comparable data for the SWL of immigrants
migrants came from happy countries and did not
to the United Kingdom.40 The pattern of results,
move to happier countries, they would not be
Figure 2.7 Life Satisfaction Among Immigrants to the UK from 70 Countries
Observed satisfaction with life among immigrant in the UK (0 to 40 years since arrival)
from 70 countries and predicted SWL in their countries
likely to gain. The way to test how well Latin countries. Thus Latin migrants to the United
American migrants fare, relative to migrants from Kingdom show happiness gains of about 0.7
other countries, would be to compare immigrants points, compared to 1.0 points for those bound
from different source countries while holding the for Canada.
destination country fixed. This we can do by
In both cases, the migrants from Latin America
using the large samples from the UK and Canadian
fare slightly better than other migrants in their
national surveys. What do they show? For both
destinations, having life satisfaction 0.10 points
the United Kingdom and Canada, the Latin
higher in the UK and 0.17 points higher in Canada,
American source countries have higher life
compared to other migrants. But their happiness
evaluations than the average of source countries.
gains from migration are smaller, reflecting the
That gives the Latin migrants less to gain compared
fact that they were already in happy countries.
to migrants from less happy countries. But in both
The average gain for all migrants to the UK was
countries, the happiness levels of immigrants from
about 1.3 points, and 1.8 points for migrants to
Latin America exceeds that of other immigrants,
Canada. This reflects that Latin American countries
suggesting that at least some of the Latin
are happier than most other source countries,
happiness bulge described in Chapter 6 is
and not that Latin Americans in the UK or Canada
brought along as part of the migrant’s posses-
are less happy than other immigrants. Indeed, as
sions. Putting the two bits together, immigrants
shown by the positions of the symbols for Latin
from Latin America have life satisfaction of 7.71
American countries in both Figures 2.6 and 2.7,
in the United Kingdom and 8.01 in Canada, a
immigrants from Latin America often have life
difference very similar to the difference between
evaluations that are higher than those of the
average life satisfaction in the two countries. This
locally born.
compares to Latin American source country life
satisfaction of about 7.0 for the eight countries Any study of migration, especially one that
with sufficient numbers of migrants to both focuses on the happiness of both migrants and
non-migrants, leads naturally to considerations population share) had any impact in explaining
of the possible linkages between migration and cross-country variations in the average 2005-
world happiness. We have done our best to 2017 life evaluations for either the immigrant or
assemble the available data on the life evaluations locally born populations, once account is taken
of migrants and non-migrants alike. Many of the six main determinants of life evaluations.
countries, especially those where people We found no effect, either positive or negative.
evaluate their lives highly, have many would-be
migrants, on top of the humanitarian need to
somehow accommodate those whose lives in Conclusions
their birth countries have become impossibly
This chapter, as usual, has a double focus. The
difficult. Is migration making the world as a
first half of the chapter presented our latest 38
whole happier or unhappier? Is there any pre-
ranking of countries according to their average
ferred level of migration that will best serve to
life evaluations over the previous three years, 39
provide opportunities for newcomers, to build
followed by a ranking of changes in life evaluations
positive linkages among countries, and accom-
from 2008-2010 to 2015-2017. The second half
modate the need to find new homes for refu-
turned the focus to international migration,
gees, while still maintaining and improving the
ranking countries by the average life evaluations
quality of the social fabric that supports better
of all the foreign-born respondents to the Gallup
lives? There is no easy answer to this question.
World Poll between 2005 and 2017.
Are countries with higher immigration rates
The rankings of country happiness are based this
thereby happier places to live, for migrants and
year on the pooled results from Gallup World
non-migrants alike? We have already seen that
Poll surveys from 2015-2017, and show both
most migration is from less happy to happier
change and stability. There is a new top ranking
places, so we expect to find that happier countries
country, Finland, but the top ten positions are
do tend to have higher foreign-born population
held by the same countries as in the last two
shares. But that does not answer the question,
years, although with some swapping of places.
since in this case the migration is responding to
Four different countries have held top spot since
the differences in happiness and other aspects of
2015 – Switzerland, Denmark, Norway and now
life, and is probably not responsible for creating
Finland.
the differences. One limited way of answering
the question might be to add the foreign-born All the top countries tend to have high values for
population share for each country to the equation all six of the key variables that have been found
we used in Table 2.1 to explain annual observations to support well-being: income, healthy life
of life evaluations in the sample of 157 countries expectancy, social support, freedom, trust and
using data from 2005 through 2017. We did this, generosity, to such a degree that year to year
and there was no significant effect. Alternatively, changes in the top ranking are to be expected.
and preferably, we repeated that analysis using
This year the happiness changes reported are
country fixed effects, so that any influence we
those from 2008-2010, in the immediate aftermath
found would be free of country effects, and
of the financial crisis of 2007-2008; to the most
would instead look for happiness changes
recent years, covering 2015-2017. The winner of
within countries in response to changes in their
the change category was Togo, as it posted the
shares of foreign-born population. We found an
largest gain since 2008-2010, almost 1.2 points. It
insignificant negative effect that remained
was the lowest ranked country in World Happiness
both negative and insignificant under several
Report 2015 and now ranks 17 places higher.
alternative specifications.41 There are only limited
Other signal success stories, countries with
data for changes in each country’s shares of
average life evaluation gains of more than a full
foreign-born population, and many other factors
point on the 0 to 10 scale since 2008-2010,
that might be in play, so there can be no firm
include Latvia, Bulgaria and Sierra Leone. The
conclusions drawn from these limited experiments.
largest happiness losses since 2008-2010 were
As described previously, we also tested whether
in Ukraine, Yemen, Syria, Malawi and Venezuela,
international differences in accumulated net
with drops over 1 point in each case, the largest
immigration (as measured by the foreign-born
fall being almost 2.2 points in Venezuela.
Five of this report’s seven chapters deal primarily as will be shown in more detail in Chapter 3, is
with migration. Perhaps the most striking finding that every migration pathway, and each migration
of the whole report is that a ranking of countries flow, has its own story, with often diverging
according to the happiness of their immigrant well-being outcomes for the migrants, their new
populations is almost exactly the same as for the communities, and the communities left behind.
rest of the population. The immigrant happiness We have shown that the happiest counties have
rankings are based on the full span of Gallup higher than world average shares of foreign-born
data from 2005 to 2017, which is sufficient to population. The top 10 countries in the Figure 2.2
have 117 countries with more than 100 immigrant rankings of 2015-2017 life evaluations had foreign-
respondents. Finland picks up a second gold born population shares averaging 18% in 2015,
medal here, as home to the world’s happiest more than twice the global country average of
immigrants. 8.7%, and covering a wide range, from 6% to
30%. These same countries also had the happiest
The closeness of the two rankings shows that
foreign-born populations. Based on the average
immigrant happiness depends predominantly on
life evaluations 2005-2017 for foreign-born
the quality of life where they now live, illustrating
respondents (in Figure 2.4), the same countries
a general pattern of convergence. Happiness can
dominated the top spots in the world rankings,
change, and does change, according to the
with all of the top 10 countries in the overall
quality of the society in which people live.
happiness rankings 2015-2017 being in the top
Immigrant happiness, like that of the locally born
11 countries for 2005-2017 happiness of their
depends on a range of features of the social
foreign-born populations. This is due to a
fabric, extending far beyond the higher incomes
combination of factors: their attractiveness to
traditionally thought to inspire and reward
international migrants, their willingness to accept
migration. Once the overall quality of life is taken
migrants, and their ability to achieve integration
into account (with income given its due weight
in ways that maintain life evaluations for both
as one of the six factors), there is no happiness
immigrants and the locally born.
gain from moving to a higher income country.
That has been tested, but is already suggested Helsinki, Copenhagen and Reykjavik are already
by the countries with the happiest immigrants very international places. What is for them, and
are not the richest countries, but instead the for the world, the right scale and pattern of
countries with a more balanced set of social and future migration to help support and build
institutional supports for better lives. international cooperation of a sort that will help
the billions of people still living in misery? These
While convergence to local happiness levels is
are not the world’s happiest cities because of
quite rapid, it is not complete, as there is a
where they are, but because their residents
‘footprint’ effect based on the happiness in each
have over many decades built levels of trust,
source country. This effect ranges from 10% to
connections, cooperation and innovation
25%. This footprint effect, coupled with the fact
sufficient to deliver satisfying lives for them-
that most migration is from less happy to happier
selves, and to be in a position to help others do
countries, explains why, although on average
the same. What is needed is to look behind the
across the world immigrant happiness is very
average life evaluations to see what makes for
close to that of the locally born, it is less than
better lives, and to help others to make progress
that of the locals in the happiest countries and
in improving their own lives. International migra-
greater in the less happy countries.
tion, with its increasing two-way flows, is likely to
Since immigrants tend on average to have life continue to provide international human linkages
evaluations close to those of people already and shared sympathies sufficient to support
living in destination countries, does this suggest knowledge transfers of the sort that are needed.
that world happiness would be higher if there But migration flows not properly managed and
were more migration from unhappy to happy digested have the potential for destroying trust
places? Although this question underlies many and inflaming anti-immigrant views.
current political debates, the available evidence
Similar questions arise when city-level happiness
is not yet good enough to provide anything like
is ranked in countries that have sufficiently great
definitive conclusions. What does seem apparent,
samples of data to make such comparisons
feasible. One immediate response among readers
and commentators is to suggest that people
should move to a happier community in order to
make themselves happier. On reflection, when
they see the nature of the social connections,
and the quality of communities, governments
and workplaces that underlie these happier lives,
they see that the right answer is not to move to
the happier communities but instead to learn and
apply the lessons and inspirations that underlie
their happiness. Happiness is not something
inherently in short supply, like gold, inciting 40
rushes to find and much conflict over ownership.

41
My gold cannot be your gold. But happiness,
unlike gold, can be created for all, and can be
shared without being scarce for those who give.
It even grows as it is shared.
Endnotes
1 Gallup weights sum up to the number of respondents from 12 We put the contributions of the six factors as the first
each country. To produce weights adjusted for population elements in the overall country bars because this makes it
size in each country for the period of 2015-2017, we first easier to see that the length of the overall bar depends only
adjust the Gallup weights so that each country has the on the average answers given to the life evaluation question.
same weight (one-country-one-vote) in the period. Next In World Happiness Report 2013 we adopted a different
we multiply total population aged 15+ in each country in ordering, putting the combined Dystopia+residual elements
2016 by the one-country-one-vote weight. To simplify the on the left of each bar to make it easier to compare the
analysis, we use population in 2016 for the period of sizes of residuals across countries. To make that comparison
2015-2017 for all the countries/regions. Total population equally possible in subsequent World Happiness Reports,
aged 15+ is equal to the total population minus the amount we include the alternative form of the figure in the online
of population aged 0-14. Data are mainly taken from WDI Statistical Appendix 1 (Appendix Figures 7-9).
released by the World Bank in September 2017. Specifically,
13 These calculations are shown in detail in Table 19 of the
the total population and the proportion of population aged
online Statistical Appendix 1.
0-14 are taken from the series “Population ages 0-14
(percent of total)” and “Population, total” respectively from 14 The prevalence of these feedbacks was documented in
WDI. There are a few regions lack of data in WDI, such as Chapter 4 of World Happiness Report 2013, De Neve,
Somaliland, Kosovo, and Taiwan. In this case, other sources Diener, Tay, and Xuereb (2013).
of data are used if available. The share of population aged
15 The coefficients on GDP per capita and healthy life
0-14 is missing in WDI, we thus use the data from CIA’s
expectancy are affected even less, and in the opposite
World Fact Book, 25.01% to calculate the amount of adult
direction in the case of the income measure, being
population. The total population in Taiwan in 2016 is
increased rather than reduced, once again just as expected.
23,540,000, and the aged 15+ is 20,398,000 in 2015
The changes are tiny because the data come from other
(Statistical Yearbook of the Republic of China 2016, Table
sources, and are unaffected by our experiment. However,
3). There are no reliable data on population and age
the income coefficient does increase slightly, since income
structure in Somaliland region, therefore it is not included
is positively correlated with the other four variables being
in the calculation of world or regional distributions.
tested, so that income is now able to pick up a fraction of
2 See, for example, Atkinson (2015), Atkinson and Bourguignon the drop in influence from the other four variables. We also
(2014), , Kennedy, Lochner, and Prothrow-Stith (1997), performed an alternative robustness test, using the
Keeley (2015), OECD (2015), Neckerman and Torche previous year’s values for the four survey-based variables.
(2007), and Piketty (2014). This also avoids using the same respondent’s answers on
both sides of the equation, and produces similar results, as
3 See Helliwell, Huang, and Wang (2016). See also Goff,
shown in Table 13 of the Statistical Appendix 1. The Table 13
Helliwell, and Mayraz (2016), Gandelman and Porzekanski
results are very similar to the split-sample results shown in
(2013), Kalmijn and Veenhoven (2005).
Tables 11 and 12, and all three tables give effect sizes very
4 See, for example, Evans, Barer, and Marmor (1997), Marmot, similar to those in Table 2.1 in reported in the main text.
Ryff, Bumpass, Shipley, and Marks (1994), and Marmot
16 The data and calculations are shown in detail in Table 20
(2005).
of the Statistical Appendix 1. Annual per capita incomes
5 See Corak (2013). average $46,000 in the top 10 countries, compared to
$1,500 in the bottom 10, measured in international dollars
6 See Table 17 in Statistical Appendix 1.
at purchasing power parity. For comparison, 95% of
7 The statistical appendix contains alternative forms without respondents have someone to count on in the top 10
year effects (Table 14 of Appendix 1), and a repeat version countries, compared to 58% in the bottom 10. Healthy life
of the Table 2.1 equation showing the estimated year effects expectancy is 72 years in the top 10, compared to 53 years
(Table 9 of Appendix 1). These results confirm, as we would in the bottom 10. 93% of the top 10 respondents think they
hope, that inclusion of the year effects makes no significant have sufficient freedom to make key life choices, compared
difference to any of the coefficients. to 62% in the bottom 10. Average perceptions of corruption
are 34%in the top 10, compared to 73% in the bottom 10.
8 As shown by the comparative analysis in Table 8 of
Appendix 1. 17 Actual and predicted national and regional average
2015-2017 life evaluations are plotted in Figure 16 of the
9 The definitions of the variables are shown in Technical Box
Statistical Appendix 1. The 45-degree line in each part of
1, with additional detail in the online data appendix.
the Figure shows a situation where the actual and predicted
10 This influence may be direct, as many have found, e.g. values are equal. A predominance of country dots below
De Neve, Diener, Tay, and Xuereb (2013). It may also the 45-degree line shows a region where actual values are
embody the idea, as made explicit in Fredrickson’s below those predicted by the model, and vice versa. East
broaden-and-build theory (Fredrickson, 2001), that good Asia provides an example of the former case, and Latin
moods help to induce the sorts of positive connections that America of the latter.
eventually provide the basis for better life circumstances.
18 For example, see Chen, Lee, and Stevenson (1995).
11 See, for example, Danner, Snowdon, and Friesen (2001),
19 One slight exception is that the negative effect of corruption
Cohen, Doyle, Turner, Alper, and Skoner (2003), and Doyle,
is estimated to be slightly larger, although not significantly
Gentile, and Cohen (2006).
so, if we include a separate regional effect variable for Latin
America. This is because corruption is worse than average in
Latin America, and the inclusion of a special Latin American
variable thereby permits the corruption coefficient to take
a higher value.
20 The number of languages used in a country includes all 32 The simple correlation between the ratio and the immigrant
those spoken by more than 5% of the population. share of the population is significantly negative, but
disappears when the happiness of the locally born is
21 As noted in Technical Box 3 in Chapter 2 of World Happiness
controlled for. This is because, as we have already shown,
Report 2017, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries
foreign-born population shares are higher in countries with
are a special case in three ways. First they have very high
happier locally born populations.
foreign-born population shares. Second, their overall
country estimates are adjusted to reflect outside estimates 33 This is consistent with Hendriks and Bartram (2016), who
of the non-national population, and third, Gallup Polls in find economic conditions to be incomplete as explanations
those countries were offered in Arabic only prior to 2014, of migrant happiness. Our results are testing whether
so that their non-national respondents in the earlier years national income is more important for migrant than for
were almost entirely drawn from other Arab-speaking non-migrant happiness, and we find that it is not, since
countries. In Figure 2.4 we report the foreign-born ladder there is a zero coefficient on log GDP per capita when
scores using all available years for all countries, while in added to an equation explaining immigrant happiness by 42
Technical Box 3 of WHR 2017 the figures are based only native-born happiness and the happiness in their source
on 2014 and later, permitting a comparison of the two countries. Hence the non-economic sources of life 43
procedures. For most of the GCC countries the estimates evaluations are equally important for both immigrant and
are quite similar, differences presumably resulting from the locally born respondents.
relative evaluations and numbers of the Arab-speaking and
34 The effect flowing through domestic happiness is equal to
English-speaking respondents.
the effect in the domestic happiness equation (0.075) times
22 5.7%=100*(93/(93+1540)). the effect of domestic happiness on immigrant happiness
(0.73). The total effect on immigrants is the sum of the
23 The correlation is 0.9 between the two country-level
direct and indirect elements (0.049 + 0.73*.075 = 0.103).
estimates of foreign-born population shares.
35 The use of the Gallup World Poll data permits more
24 There is a similar ranking of immigrant life evaluations for
countries to be considered, as it covers many more
the OECD countries in Figure 3.21 of OECD (2017).
countries than does the World Values Survey. Helliwell,
25 Regressing the immigrant share, as a proportion, on the Bonikowska, and Shiplett (2018) show comparable results
average ladder score of the locally born gives a coefficient using WVS and Gallup estimates for source country life
of 0.058 (t=5.5). evaluations. An empirically estimated conversion factor is
used to convert Gallup ladder data to SWL equivalents,
26 This is based on the ratios of foreign-born to locally born
based on Gallup data from the year when ladder and SWL
life evaluation averages for the 117 countries where there
questions were both asked of all respondents.
are more than 100 foreign-born respondents in the
2005-2017 data period. The ratios are averaged for each 36 More precisely, the standard deviation across countries is
country to the nearest percentage point – hence the 1.17 among the source countries, and 0.24 among the
equality for five countries. immigrant groups. The Canadian distribution is about a
higher mean, as the average SWL in the 100 source
27 The Migrant Acceptance Index is a proprietary index
countries is 6.06, compared to 7.84 among the immigrant
developed by Gallup, based on items it asks in its Gallup
groups.
World Poll surveys. Their initial analysis of the data may be
found at: http://news.gallup.com/poll/216377/new-index- 37 See Helliwell et al. (2018). A similar matching process, with
shows-least-accepting-countries-migrants.aspx. The similar results, is available for a smaller number of countries
definition of the index, and its values for the most accepting in Frank, Hou, and Schellenberg (2016).
and non-accepting countries, are shown in the Annex to
38 See Helliwell et al. (2018, Figure 1).
this report by Esipova, Ray, Fleming, and Pugliese (2018).
39 That is, if the average SWL of immigrants from each of the
28 There is only a single value of the index for each country,
100 source countries is regressed on the average estimated
which then has to be repeated for each country-year in
SWL in those 100 countries, the estimated coefficient is
the panel.
0.105 (t=5.8).
29 See OECD (2017), Figure 3.21.
40 The ONS has posted the data for public use on:
30 A similar conclusion follows, as also shown in Statistical https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/
Appendix 2, if we use national average data in separate wellbeing/adhocs/007955estimatesofpersonalwellbeing-
cross-sectional equations for the foreign-born and locally brokendownbycountryofbirthfromtheukannualpopulation-
born sub-populations. In this instance we need to do a pure surveyaps
cross section rather than the panel approach used in Table
41 For example, regressing country averages of immigrant life
2.1, because the samples of the foreign-born in each annual
evaluations on the corresponding averages for the locally
sample of 1,000 respondents are much too small to enable
born and each country’s share of foreign-born population
regressions using country-year data.
shows a slight but insignificant negative effect for the
31 The average life evaluations of the locally born and the foreign-born population share.
weighted average source country life evaluations also make
use of the entire 2005-2017 sample. The Migrant Acceptance
Index is a single value for each country, as described in
Esipova et al. (2018).
References
Atkinson, A. B. (2015). Inequality: What can be done? Kawachi, I., & Berkman, L. (2000). Social cohesion, social
Cambridge: Harvard University Press. capital, and health. In L. F. Berkman & I. Kawachi (Eds.), Social
epidemiology (pp. 174-190). New York: Oxford University Press.
Atkinson, A. B., & Bourguignon, F. (2014). Handbook of income
distribution (Vols. 2A &2B). Elsevier. Kawachi, I., Kennedy, B. P., Lochner, K., & Prothrow-Stith, D.
(1997). Social capital, income inequality, and mortality.
Chen, C., Lee, S. Y., & Stevenson, H. W. (1995). Response style
American Journal of Public Health, 87(9), 1491-1498.
and cross-cultural comparisons of rating scales among East
Asian and North American students. Psychological Science, Keeley, B. (2015). Income inequality: The gap between rich and
6(3), 170-175. poor. OECD Insights, Paris: OECD Publishing.
Cohen, S., Doyle, W. J., Turner, R. B., Alper, C. M., & Skoner, D. P. Marmot, M. (2005). Social determinants of health inequalities.
(2003). Emotional style and susceptibility to the common cold. The Lancet, 365(9464), 1099-1104.
Psychosomatic Medicine, 65(4), 652-657.
Marmot, M., Ryff, C. D., Bumpass, L. L., Shipley, M., & Marks, N. F.
Corak, M. (2013). Income inequality, equality of opportunity, and (1997). Social inequalities in health: Next questions and
intergenerational mobility. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, converging evidence. Social Science & Medicine, 44(6), 901-910.
27(3), 79-102.
Neckerman, K. M., & Torche, F. (2007). Inequality: Causes and
Danner, D. D., Snowdon, D. A., & Friesen, W. V. (2001). Positive consequences. Annual Review of Sociology, 33, 335-357.
emotions in early life and longevity: findings from the nun
OECD (2015). In it together: Why less inequality benefits all.
study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(5), 804.
Paris: OECD Publishing. DOI: http://dx.doi.
De Neve, J. E., Diener, E., Tay, L., & Xuereb, C. (2013). The org/10.1787/9789264235120-en.
objective benefits of subjective well-being. In J. F. Helliwell, R.
OECD (2017). How’s life?: Measuring well-being. Paris: OECD
Layard, & J. Sachs (Eds.), World happiness report 2013 (pp.
Publishing.
54-79). New York: UN Sustainable Development Solutions
Network. Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the 21st Century. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.
Doyle, W. J., Gentile, D. A., & Cohen, S. (2006). Emotional style,
nasal cytokines, and illness expression after experimental
rhinovirus exposure. Brain, Behavior, and Immunity, 20(2),
175-181.
Esipova, N., Ray, J., Fleming, J., & Pugliese, A. (2018). Migrant
Acceptance Index: Do migrants have better lives in countries
that accept them? Annex to World happiness report 2018.
Evans, R. G., Barer, M. L., & Marmor, T. R. (Eds.) (1994). Why are
some people healthy and others not? The determinants of the
health of populations. New York: De Gruyter.
Frank, K., Hou, F., & Schellenberg, G. (2016). Life satisfaction

among recent immigrants in Canada: comparisons to
source-country and host-country populations. Journal of
Happiness Studies, 17(4): 1659-1680. doi:10.1007/s10902-015-
9664-2.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in

positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive
emotions. American psychologist, 56(3), 218-226.
Gandelman, N., & Porzecanski, R. (2013). Happiness inequality:

How much is reasonable? Social Indicators Research, 110(1),
257-269.
Goff, L., Helliwell, J., & Mayraz, G. (2016). The welfare costs of
well-being inequality. NBER Working Paper no. 21900.
Helliwell, J. F., Bonikowska, A. & Shiplett, H. (2018). Migration as

a test of the happiness set point hypothesis: Evidence from
immigration to Canada and the United Kingdom. NBER
Working Paper no. 22601 (original version 2016, revised to
include the United Kingdom, March 2018).
Helliwell, J. F., Huang, H., & Wang, S. (2016). New evidence on

trust and well-being. NBER Working Paper no. 22450.
Hendriks, M., & Bartram, D. (2016). Macro-conditions and

immigrants’ happiness: Is moving to a wealthy country all that
matters? Social Science Research, 56, 90-107.
Kalmijn, W., & Veenhoven, R. (2005). Measuring inequality of

happiness in nations: In search for proper statistics. Journal of
Happiness Studies, 6(4), 357-396.

World Happiness Report 2018

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

World Happiness Report 2018

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

World Happiness Report 2018

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

12

Introduction using these six factors – the scores are instead

Africa, and the Middle East and North Africa.

Figure 2.1: Population-Weighted Distributions of Happiness, 2015–2017

.35 .35 .35

.25 .25 .25

.15 .15 .15

.05 .05 .05

.35 .35 Mean = 5.343 .35

.25 .25 .25

.15 .15 .15

.05 .05 .05

.35 .35 .35

.25 .25 .25

.15 .15 .15

.05 .05 .05

 Explained by: GDP per capita  Explained by: generosity

Figure 2.2: Ranking of Happiness 2015–2017 (Part 2)

53. Latvia (5.933)

 Explained by: GDP per capita  Explained by: generosity

105. South Africa (4.724)

 Explained by: GDP per capita  Explained by: generosity

These gains and losses are very large, especially

-2.5 -2.0 -1.5 -.1.0 -.05 0 0.5 1.0 1.5

 Changes from 2008–2010 to 2015–2017 95% confidence interval

Figure 2.3: Changes in Happiness from 2008–2010 to 2015–2017 (Part 2)

53. Cambodia (0.194)

-2.5 -2.0 -1.5 -.1.0 -.05 0 0.5 1.0 1.5

 Changes from 2008–2010 to 2015–2017 95% confidence interval

105. Uganda (-0.297)

-2.5 -2.0 -1.5 -.1.0 -.05 0 0.5 1.0 1.5

 Changes from 2008–2010 to 2015–2017 95% confidence interval

 Average happiness of foreign born 95% confidence interval

Figure 2.4: Happiness Ranking for the Foreign-Born, 2005–2017, sample>100

52. Turkmenistan (5.547)

 Average happiness of foreign born 95% confidence interval

103. Kenya (4.167)

 Average happiness of foreign born 95% confidence interval

Figure 2.5: Life Evaluations, Foreign-born vs Locally Born, with Alternative

Figure 2.7 Life Satisfaction Among Immigrants to the UK from 70 Countries

rushes to find and much conflict over ownership.

Frank, K., Hou, F., & Schellenberg, G. (2016). Life satisfaction

Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in

Gandelman, N., & Porzecanski, R. (2013). Happiness inequality:

Helliwell, J. F., Bonikowska, A. & Shiplett, H. (2018). Migration as

Helliwell, J. F., Huang, H., & Wang, S. (2016). New evidence on

Hendriks, M., & Bartram, D. (2016). Macro-conditions and

Kalmijn, W., & Veenhoven, R. (2005). Measuring inequality of

You might also like

 Average happiness of foreign born 95% confidence interval

 Average happiness of foreign born 95% confidence interval

 Average happiness of foreign born 95% confidence interval