Can the government make you happy?

At first glance, “No” seems like an obvious answer. The Declaration of Independence says government is established to guarantee the right to “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” The first section of our state constitution uses the same language, but adds that North Carolinians are entitled to protection of the right to “enjoy the fruits of their labor.”

Under our political system, you have no right to be happy, nor do you have a right to enjoy the benefits of other people's labor. You are free to desire, to strive, and to pursue. You may achieve your goal and feel happy about it, or you may fall short of it and still feel satisfaction from the attempt and what you gained along the way.

Thus, the government only has a duty to protect your right to the pursuit of happiness. Your mere misery does not justify the government in using coercive powers to transfer the fruits of other people's labor to you.

On the other hand, the tasks that the government is constitutionally empowered to do for the people – ensuring public safety, running the courts, financing public goods that cannot be provided by voluntary means – clearly relate to the people's happiness. We pay taxes, obey the law, and give up some personal freedom to receive valuable public services. When we don't get those services, or when their value is far less than their cost, we naturally become unhappy. As government failure increases, that unhappiness turns to anger.

Whether in Washington or Raleigh, policymakers typically judge public policy according to objective criteria such as the pace of economic growth, changes in personal income, education levels and health conditions. But some analysts are increasingly using measures of public happiness or satisfaction to evaluate government efforts (or failures).

The technical term for what they're measuring is “subjective well-being.” Different people have different preferences, circumstances, and definitions of a fulfilling life. The best way to gauge how happy and satisfied they are is to ask them, not to guess based on facts outside of their personal experience.

Progressives and conservatives clearly disagree about the optimal size and scope of government. In the case of North Carolina, for example, progressives believe that state spending and taxes are too low to cover necessary public services. Conservatives believe that North Carolina is moving in the right direction and that making state government larger than it is would cost more than the value of the additional services.

As a conservative, I often cite studies on economic growth to support my arguments. But is that really the goal? One might argue that instead of measuring North Carolina's Gross Domestic Product, we should measure North Carolina's Gross Domestic Happiness.

Several researchers have done such analyses. For example, Baylor University political scientist Patrick Flavin published a study in the journal Social Science Research comparing state spending levels to subjective happiness. Flavin found no relationship between state-wide spending and residents' self-reported happiness. The same findings were seen for major areas of state spending, such as education and public assistance.

But Flavin found that states that spent more on true “public goods” like highways, public safety, libraries, and parks tended to have higher subjective well-being. For true public goods, it is either impossible or prohibitively expensive to prevent non-payers from enjoying their benefits, and one person's consumption does not significantly reduce another person's ability to consume.

Taken together with other research showing a link between economic freedom and subjective well-being, I interpret this evidence as broadly consistent with a fiscally conservative approach to public policy. Perhaps you disagree. I'd be happy to tell you more about that.