Yes - equality of opportunity exists

Is Britain an equal opportunity society? This sounds like one of John Rentoul’s questions to which the answer is no. But it's not. If we consider opportunities for happiness rather than income or power, then the UK is reasonably egalitarian. This new paper says:

Characteristics of the child and family at birth predict no more than 1.2% of the variance in average adult life satisfaction. A comprehensive set of child and family characteristics at ages 7, 11 and 16 increases the predictive power to only 2.8%, 4.3% and 6.8%, respectively. We find that the conventional measures of family socioeconomic status, in the form of parental education, occupational class and family income, are not strong predictors of adult life satisfaction…[This] implies that there is high equality of opportunity to live a satisfied life.

Some back of the envelope maths corroborates this. The correlation between fathers’ and sons’ incomes is positive - which means there is inequality of opportunity for income - but well short of unity (pdf). Call it around 0.35. And the correlation between an individual’s income and his happiness is also positive but “modest” (pdf). Let’s call this 0.2 (pdf). Multiplying the two together gives us a correlation between fathers’ incomes and sons’ happiness of  0.07.
This is pretty close to the zero that would represent equality of opportunity for happiness.
You can see why the old Etonian David Cameron is so keen on focusing on well-being rather than incomes.
This raises the question: what, if anything, is wrong with looking at equality of opportunity for happiness rather than equality of opportunity for incomes?
It would be odd to say that income matters more than happiness. After all, what’s the point of income if it doesn’t buy us happiness?
Instead, I suspect there are two answers here.
One is that inequality of opportunity for income matters not because it represents injustice but because it is economically inefficient. It means the talents (or potential talents) of poor kids are wasted, and we are recruiting “top people” from too narrow a pool.
My preferred answer, though, is that perhaps this shows the limits of using happiness as a guide to policy. If people have adaptive preferences, and reduce their expectations to match their diminished circumstances, then they might be quite happy. If so, then equality of opportunity for happiness might tell us no more than that the poor have adapted to their poverty.
This might be equality, but is it justice?

Comments

[Nick]

Well, I was born in the 20th century rather than the 21st and so, presumptively, I am going to be less rich than I otherwise would have been over the coruse of my life. I was born in the UK, rather than Singapore or Switzerland or Norway, so I am a little less rich. Does this imply injustice of some sort?

If it does (and we want to be consistent about it) we should destroy all economic growth and development right now, since the vast majority of the human race has always lived in poverty (and the past cannot be reformed to conform with social justice).

So I think income does come apart from justice at important points. Why justice is still relevant is not because of income inequality in and of itself, but because of the power relationships it sustains and reflects in a given society. Now do power inequalities reflect unhappiness? I think one experiment you talked about a few weeks ago suggests it might well do.

[Charles Wheeler]

Good God man. Get a life. These 'surveys' are meaningless drivel designed to pretend we can measure everything.

Try getting out more.

[Tom Addison]

“If so, then equality of opportunity for happiness might tell us no more than that the poor have adapted to their poverty.”

Yeah that’s pretty much what I was thinking as I was reading the above. All it shows is that people can still be happy despite their low level of income merely because they’ve adapted to the situation. There’s no way for them to know what “may have been”.

And it too could support the case that measuring equality by “happiness” would merely be a way for the rich to take money off everyone (or take a ridiculously large share of the pie) without anyone knowing.

“But you’re happy aren’t you peasant? Well then, what you are complaining about?! Run along now anyway, my two Bugatti Veyron’s aren’t going to drive themselves you know....”

[Marbury]

Brilliant post. It's always struck me that the big problem with happiness policy is the assumed correlation between optimal happiness and a liberal society. Who is to say there is one? And if there's a conflict, which criteria should prevail? So if it was found, for instance, that mothers who stay at home and don't work are happier than those who do (have no idea if this is true but it's not entirely implausible) then should govt adjust policy to penalise working mums? Or are there, as you say, more important criteria than happiness maximisation?

[mrwh]

Doesn't this work both ways though? If people adapt their happiness to circumstances, then the rich being less happy than you'd think is a corollary of the poor being happier.

[Bruce]

Well intentioned policies to raise the expectations of the poor risks making the poor them less happy.

[Tim S.]

Of course, if Wilkinson & Pickett are right, then both rich and poor in the UK are less happy than they would be in a more equal society.

[efraim]

Pienso que no sois derecho. Puedo demostrarlo. Escriban en PM.
http://www.shampes.com/

mug