Mutluluğun Şifresini Çözmek: Dünya Mutluluk Endeksi Bileşenlerinin Analizi

Year 2025, Volume: 22 Issue: 4, 567 - 579, 04.08.2025

Eylül Kabakçı Günay

https://doi.org/10.26466/opusjsr.1595415

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı seçilmiş Dünya Mutluluk Endeksi bileşenlerinin mutluluk endeks değerine olan etkilerini ortaya çıkarmaktır. Bu amaç doğrultusunda 29 Avrupa ülkesinin 2019-2024 dönemine ait verileri kullanılarak mutluluğun temel belirleyicileri incelenmiş ve yatay kesit bağımlılığı ile heterojenlik de dikkate alınarak Eberhardt ve Teal’in (2010) Arttırılmış Ortalama Grup (AMG) tahmincisi uygulanmıştır. Dünya Mutluluk Endeksi ve temel bileşenleri olan logaritmik kişi başına düşen GSYH, sosyal destek ve yaşam tercihi özgürlüğü değişkenlerinden yola çıkılarak, bu faktörlerin öznel iyi oluş üzerindeki bireysel ve birleşik etkileri analiz edilmiştir. Bulgular, söz konusu ülkeler genel düzeyinde sosyal destekteki bir birimlik artışın mutluluk endeksini 0.84 birim artırdığını göstermiştir; buna karşın gelir ve özgürlük değişkenleri istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bulunmamıştır. Ülke bazlı sonuçlar ise farklılık göstermektedir. Örneğin, Avusturya, İzlanda ve Hollanda’da gelirdeki artış mutluluk endeks değerini azaltmaktadır. Bu yönüyle analiz sonuçları söz konusu ülkeler için AMG sonuçları, yüksek gelirli bazı ülkelerde artan gelirin azalan mutlulukla ilişkili olduğunu ortaya koyarak Easterlin Paradoksu’nu desteklemektedir. Sosyal destek ve hayata dair karar alma özgürlükleri ise Estonya,Fransa,İzlanda,İrlanda,Letonya, Hollanda, Romanya, Slovakya ve Türkiye’de mutluluk endeksi üzerinde olumlu etkiye sahiptir. Çalışma bu bağlamda yenilik getirmekte , öznel iyi oluşun yalnızca ekonomik büyüme ile değil, sosyal ve kurumsal dinamiklerle şekillendiğini ortaya koymakta ve yaşam memnuniyetini artırmaya yönelik bağlama özgü, çok boyutlu politika çerçevelerinin önemini vurgulamaktadır.

Keywords

Mutluluk , Dünya Mutluluk Endeksi , Mutluluk Bileşenleri , Arttırılmış Ortalama Grup Tahmincisi

Decoding the Happiness: Analyzing the Components of World Happiness Index

Abstract

The aim of this study is to reveal the effects of selected World Happiness Index components on the happiness index value. Thus, the study investigates effect of log GDP per capita, social support, and freedom to make life choices on happiness index across 29 European countries using panel data from 2019 to 2024 and applies the Eberhardt&Teal’s (2010) Augmented Mean Group (AMG) estimator to account for cross-sectional dependence and heterogeneity. Results show that, at the European aggregate level, a one-unit increase in social support is associated with an increase of 0.84 in the Happiness Index, while GDP and freedom yield statistically insignificant effects. However, country-specific findings vary. For instance, Austria, Iceland and the Netherlands show significant negative effects of increasing income on Happiness Index. Thus for these countries the AMG results support the Easterlin Paradox in several high-income nations, where increased income correlates with decreased happiness. Social Support and Fredom to make life choice has positive effect on happiness for Estonia, France, Iceland, Ireland, Latvia, Netherlands, Romania, Slovakia and Türkiye. The study concludes that subjective well-being is shaped more by social and institutional dynamics than by economic growth alone, highlighting the importance of context-specific and multidimensional policy frameworks in improving life satisfaction.

Keywords

Happiness , World Happiness Index , Components of Happiness , Augmented Mean Group Estimator

References

• Aknin, L. B., Barrington-Leigh, C. P., Dunn, E. W., Helliwell, J. F., Burns, J., Biswas-Diener, R., Kemeza, I., Nyende, P., Ashton-James, C. E., & Norton, M. I. (2013). Prosocial spending and well-being: Cross-cultural evidence for a psychological universal. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(4), 635–652. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031578
• Aydınbaş, G., & Erdinç, Z. (2022). Toplum 5.0 bağlamında mutluluk ile ilişkilendirilen faktörlerin panel veri kanıtları. ODÜ Sosyal Bilimler Araştırmaları Dergisi, 12(3), 2081–2104. https://doi.org/10.48146/odusobiad.1106244
• Baltagi, B. H. (2005). Econometric Analysis of Panel Data (3rd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
• Bond, S., & Eberhardt, M. (2013). Accounting for unobserved heterogeneity in panel time series models. University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
• Breusch, T. S., & Pagan, A. R. (1980). The lagrange multiplier test and its applications to model specification in econometrics. Review of Economic Studies, 47(1), 239–253.
• Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (2002). Model Selection and Multimodel Inference: A Practical Information-Theoretic Approach (2nd ed.). Springer-Verlag.
• Carrero, G., Makin, J. A., & Malinowski, P. (2022). A mathematical model for the dynamics of happiness. 19(2), 2002–2029. https://doi.org/10.3934/mbe.2022094
• Cârstea, V. G., Iordache, A. M. M., Ionescu, A., Grigore, N. R., & Coculescu, C. (2024). Enhancing Well-Being at Population Level: A Case Study on Romania. Sustainability, 16(23), 10497. https://doi.org/10.3390/su162310497
• Clark, A. E. , Frijters P., and Shields M.A. (2008). Income, happiness, and utility: An explanation for the Easterlin paradox and other puzzles, Journal of Economic Literature.
• Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The "What" and "Why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.
• Diener, E. (1984). Subjective well-being. Psychological Bulletin, 95(3), 542–575.
• Easterlin, R. A. (1974). Does economic growth improve the human lot? Some empirical evidence. In R. David & R. Reder (Eds.), Nations and households in economic growth: Essays in honor of Moses Abramovitz (pp. 89–125). Academic Press.
• Easterlin, R.,& Angelescu, L. (2009). Happiness and growth the world over: time series evidence on the happiness-income paradox, IZA Discussion Papers, No. 4060, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA), Bonn, https://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:101:1-20090327277
• Eberhardt, M., & Bond, S. (2009). Cross-section dependence in nonstationary panel models: A novel estimator. MPRA Paper No. 17692.
• Eberhardt, M., & Teal, F. (2010). Productivity analysis in global manufacturing production. Economics Series Working Papers,No. 515, University of Oxford.
• Frey, B.S. and Stutzer A. (2002). What can economists learn from happiness research?. Journal of Economic Literature, 40(2), 402-435.
• Gujarati, D. N., & Porter, D. C. (2009). Basic econometrics (5th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
• Helliwell, J. F., & Huang, H. (2008). How's Your Government? International Evidence Linking Good Government and Well-Being. British Journal of Political Science, 38(4), 595–619.
• Helliwell, J. F., Layard, R., & Sachs, J. (2019). World Happiness Report 2019. Sustainable Development Solutions Network.
• Iddrisu, A.A. & Alagidede, I. A. (2020). Revisiting interest rate and lending channels of monetary policy transmission in the light of theoretical prescriptions, Central Bank Review, 20(4), 183-192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbrev.2020.09.002
• Jaswal, V., Kishore, K., Muniraju, M., Jaswal, N., & Kapoor, R. (2020). Understanding the determinants of happiness through Gallup World Poll. Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care, 9(9), 4826–4832. https://doi.org/10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_156_20
• Kahneman D. and Deaton A.(2010). High income improves evaluation of life but not emotional well-being. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(38), 16489–16493.
• Lane, R. E. (2000). The loss of happiness in market democracies. Yale University Press.
• Mukherjee, D. (2018). Predictive factors of happiness: A study on college students. Indian Journal of Positive Psychology, 9(2). https://doi.org/10.15614/ijpp/2018/v9i2/176635
• Nandini, D., & Afiatno, B. E. (2020). The determinants of happiness: Empirical evidence of Java Island. Ekonika: Jurnal Ekonomi Universitas Kadiri, 5(2), 123–139. https://doi.org/10.30737/ekonika.v5i2.713
• Park, N. (2004). The Role of Subjective Well-Being in Positive Youth Development. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 591(1), 25-39. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716203260078 (Original work published 2004)
• Pesaran, M. H. (2004). General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels. CESifo Working Paper Series No. 1229.
• Pesaran, M. H., Ullah, A., & Yamagata, T. (2008). A bias-adjusted LM test of error cross-section independence. Econometrics Journal, 11(1), 105–127.
• Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 141–166.
• Schurer, S., & Yong, J. (2016). Happiness, income and heterogeneity. The Singapore Economic Review, 61(3), 1650016. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217590816500160
• Sezgin V. (2022). Exploring a Scientific Research Methodology in Social Sciences: Steps for Analyzing NonStationary Heterogeneous Panel Data. AYBU Business Journal, 2(1), 10-22.
• United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). (2020). Human development report 2020: The next frontier—Human development and the Anthropocene. http://hdr.undp.org/en/2020-report
• Veenhoven, R., & Dumludağ, D. (2015). İktisat ve mutluluk: Bugün daha mutlu muyuz? In D. Dumludağ, O. Gökdemir, L. Neyse, & E. Ruben (Eds.), İktisatta davranışsal yaklaşımlar (pp. 201–230). İmge Kitabevi.
• World Happiness Report. (2024). World happiness report 2024. https://worldhappiness.report/ed/2024/
• Wooldridge, J. M. (2010). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data (2nd ed.). MIT Press.
• Xiao,J. (2024). Multidimensional Exploration of Happiness: A Comprehensive Analysis of Social, Economic, Psychological, and Other Factors. Communications in Humanities Research,38,63-69.
• Yerdelen Tatoğlu, F. (2013). Panel veri ekonometrisi: Stata uygulamalı. Beta Yayınları.