27/5/15: Creative Destruction vs Subjective Individual Wellbeing

There is one persistent question in economics relating to the issues of aggregate income attained in the economies: the connection between that income and happiness. In other words, does higher per capita GDP or GDP growth increase happiness?

A new paper by Aghion, Philippe, Akcigit, Ufuk, Deaton, Angus and Roulet, Alexandra M., titled "Creative Destruction and Subjective Wellbeing" (April 2015, NBER Working Paper No. w21069 http://www.nber.org/papers/w21069) looks at this matter. The authors "…analyze the relationship between turnover-driven growth and subjective wellbeing, using cross-sectional MSA level US data. We find that the effect of creative destruction on wellbeing is

1. unambiguously positive if we control for MSA-level unemployment, less so if we do not; 
2. more positive on future wellbeing than on current well-being; (
3. more positive in MSAs with faster growing industries or with industries that are less prone to outsourcing; 
4. more positive in MSAs within states with more generous unemployment insurance policies."

A bit more colour.

Existent literature

As noted by the authors, "…the existing empirical literature on happiness and income looks at how various measures of subjective wellbeing relate to income or income growth, but without going into further details of what drives the growth process. In his 1974 seminal work, Richard Easterlin provides evidence to the effect that, within a given country, happiness is positively correlated with income across individuals but this correlation no
longer holds within a given country over time."

This is known as the Easterlin paradox and there are several strands of explanations advanced: "…the idea that, at least past a certain income threshold, additional income enters life satisfaction only in a relative way… Recent work has found little evidence of thresholds and a good deal of evidence linking higher incomes to higher life satisfaction, both across countries and over time. Thus in his cross-country analysis of the Gallup World Poll, Deaton (2008) finds a relationship between log of per capita GDP and life satisfaction which is positive and close to linear, i.e. with a similar slope for poor and rich countries, and if anything steeper for rich countries. Stevenson and Wolfers (2013) provide both cross-country and within-country evidence of a log-linear relationship between per capita GDP and wellbeing and they also fail to find a critical "satiation" income threshold.3 Yet these issues remain far from settled…"

One common problem with all of the literature on links between income and wellbeing is that "…none of these contributions looks into the determinants of growth and at how these determinants affect wellbeing. In this paper, we provide a first attempt at filling this gap."

Theory:

To address this problem, the authors "look at how an important engine of growth, namely Schumpeterian creative destruction with its resulting flow of entry and exit of firms and jobs, affects subjective wellbeing differently for different types of individuals and in different types of labor markets."

The authors "develop a simple Schumpeterian model of growth and unemployment to …generate predictions on the potential effects of turnover on life satisfaction. In this model growth results from quality-improving innovations. Each time a new innovator enters a sector, the worker currently employed in that sector loses her job and the firm posts a new vacancy. Production in the sector resumes with the new technology only when the firm has found a new suitable worker. …In the model a higher rate of turnover has both direct and indirect effects on life satisfaction. The direct effects are that, everything else equal, more turnover translates into both, a higher probability of becoming unemployed for the employed which reduces life satisfaction, and a higher probability for the unemployed to find a new job, which increases life satisfaction. The indirect effect is that a higher rate of turnover implies a higher growth externality and therefore a higher net present value of future earnings: this enhances life satisfaction."

Four theoretical model predictions are:

1. "Overall, a first prediction of the model is that a higher turnover rate increases wellbeing more when controlling for aggregate unemployment, than when not controlling for aggregate unemployment."
2. "…higher turnover increases wellbeing more, the more turnover is associated with growth-enhancing activities. 
3. "…higher turnover increases wellbeing more for more forward-looking individuals." 
4. "…higher turnover increases wellbeing more, the more generous are unemployment benefits".

Data:

The authors test theoretical predictions based on actual US data.

"Our main finding is that the effect of the turnover rate on wellbeing is unambiguously positive when we control for unemployment. This result is …remarkably robust. In particular it holds: (i) whether looking at wellbeing at MSA-level or at individual level; (ii) whether looking at the life satisfaction measure from the BRFSS or at the …Gallup survey; (iii) whether using the BDS or the LEHD data to construct our proxy for creative destruction."

"We also find that the positive effect of turnover is stronger on anticipated wellbeing than on current wellbeing. On the other hand, creative destruction increases individuals' worry - which reflects the fact that more creative destruction is associated with higher perceived risk by individuals."

"…When interacting creative destruction with MSA-level industry characteristics; we find that the positive effect of turnover on wellbeing is stronger in MSAs with above median productivity growth or with below median outsourcing trends."

"Finally, we find that higher turnover increases wellbeing more in states with unemployment
insurance policies that are more generous than the median."

9/9/2014: Creative Destruction and Individual Well-Being

Here's a very interesting paper by Philippe Aghion, Ufuk Akcigit, Angus Deaton, and Alexandra Roulet, titled "Creative Destruction and Subjective Well-Being" (April 7, 2014, http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic1259555.files/Papers%20Spring%202014/AGHION%20April%202014.pdf)

The paper looks at "the effect of Schumpeterian creative destruction on subjective well-being. We
highlight theoretically the two opposite forces that creative destruction has on well-being: a negative
force through the higher risk of displacement and a positive one through higher growth expectations."

The displacement comes from the entry by an 'innovator' that displaces currently employed worker(s). The new technology is only enabled when a new worker is hired, and this results in higher output thereafter. So "more turnover translates into a higher probability of becoming unemployed which in turn reduces life satisfaction". But higher turnover means higher growth and this implies higher future earnings which "enhances life satisfaction."

Beyond this, the authors distinguish two types of workers, and as the result derive two different net effects.
"A second prediction is that higher turnover has a less positive (or more negative) effect on life satisfaction for more risk-averse individuals."

Applying the model to data, "Empirically, we find evidence supporting the existence of these two effects. We measure subjective well-being … [and] also use a measure reflecting individuals’ current ”worry”. For creative destruction we use establishment and job turnover following Davis et al (1996). The turnover data are MSA-level panel data from the Business Dynamics Statistics."

In more details: "We find that the effect of creative destruction on life satisfaction is unambiguously positive when we control for MSA level unemployment, less so when we do not. The magnitude of the effect is similar than that of the unemployment rate (but of opposite sign) and stronger when focusing on anticipated well-being (the growth expectation effect); yet creative destruction is also associated with increased worry (the displacement risk effect). Consistent with our model, we also find that creative destruction has a more positive effect on life satisfaction in states with a more generous unemployment insurance policy."


Note: Thanks to Liam Delaney for spotting this one earlier on twitter.

22/9/2013: Relative v Absolute Income: What Matters to Our Well-Being?

A very important paper by Sacks, Daniel W. and Stevenson, Betsey and Wolfers, Justin, The New Stylized Facts About Income and Subjective Well-Being (January 23, 2013, CESifo Working Paper Series No. 4067. http://ssrn.com/abstract=2205621). Note: emphasis in bold is mine

On foot of decades-long research that "asks people how happy or satisfied they are with their lives", "much of the early research concluded that the role of income in determining well-being was limited, and that only income relative to others was related to well-being".

This is the so-called relative income hypothesis that also engendered a strand of social policy research relating to relative income poverty.

"In this paper, [the authors] review the evidence to assess the importance of absolute and relative income in determining well-being. Our research suggests that"
1) absolute income plays a major role in determining well-being and
2) national comparisons offer little evidence to support theories of relative income and
3) the data show no evidence for a satiation point above which income and well-being are no longer related.

Authors "find that well-being rises with income, whether we compare people in a single country and year, whether we look across countries, or whether we look at economic growth for a given country. Through these comparisons we show that richer people report higher well-being than poorer people; that people in richer countries, on average, experience greater well-being than people in poorer countries; and that economic growth and growth in well-being are clearly related.

Crucial finding is that recent data rejects the so-called Easterlin Paradox: "Easterlin (1974), …asked “Does economic growth improve the human lot?” He answered: it does not. He began by showing that, relative to poor people, rich people within a country report greater well-being, as measured by self-reported happiness, life satisfaction, and related concepts. No-one disputes this observation… His argument was straightforward. If only absolute income matters, then when everyone gets richer, everyone’s well-being should rise. But if only relative income matters, then when everyone gets richer, no one’s well-being should rise, since no one gets richer relative to the average."

Here is the striking conclusion of the authors: "But is Easterlin correct? The accumulation of data over recent decades shows that Easterlin’s Paradox was based on empirical claims which are simply false. In fact rich countries enjoy substantially higher subjective well-being than poor countries, and as countries get richer, their citizens experience ever more well-being. What’s more, the quantitative relationship between income and well-being is about the same, whether we look across people, across countries, or at a single country as it grows richer. This fact turns Easterlin’s argument on its head: if the difference in well-being between rich and poor countries is about the same as the difference in well-being between rich and poor people, then it must be that absolute income is the dominant factor determining well-being."

Basic illustration of the above across countries:

Basic illustration across and within countries:

This is a paper that challenges the fundamentals of our understanding of the relationship between income, happiness, income inequality and absolute v relative poverty.


Note: I wrote about the related paper here: http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2013/05/452013-higher-income-vs-higher.html