Author(s)

Guy Mayraz

Gert G. Wagner

Jürgen Schupp

Abstract:

Using a unique dataset we study both the actual and self-perceived relationship between subjective well-being and income comparisons against a wide range of potential comparison groups, enabling us to investigate a broader range of questions than in previous studies. In questions inserted into a 2008 module of the German-Socio Economic Panel Study we ask subjects to report (a) how their income compares to various groups, such a co-workers, friends, and neighbours, and (b) how important these income comparisons are to them. We find substantial gender differences, with income comparisons being much better predictors of subjective well-being in men than in women. Generic (same-gender) comparisons are the most important, followed by within profession comparisons. Once generic and within-profession comparisons are controlled for, income relative to neighbours has a negative coefficient, implying that living in a high-income neighbourhood increases happiness. The perceived importance of income comparisons is found to be uncorrelated with its actual relationship to subjective well-being, suggesting that people are unconscious of its real impact. Subjects who judge comparisons to be important are, however, significantly less happy than subjects who see income comparisons as unimportant. Finally, the marginal effect of relative income on subjective well-being does not depend on whether a subject is below or above the reference group income. 

Document:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1476385

References:
  • Clark, A., Frijters, P. and Shields, M. (2008). Relative Income, Happiness and Utility: An Explanation for the Easterlin Paradox and Other Puzzles, Journal of Economic Literature46(1): 95–144.
  • Clark, A. and Senik, C. (n.d.). Who compares to whom? The anatomy of income comparisons in Europe.
  • D’Ambrosio, C. and Frick, J. (2007). Income satisfaction and relative deprivation: An empirical link,Social Indicators Research81(3): 497–519.
  • Dittmann, J. and Goebel, J. (2009). Your house, your car, your education The socio-economic situation of the neighborhood and its impact on life satisfaction in Germany, Social Indicators Research83(forthcoming).
  • Duesenberry, J. (1949).Income, saving and the theory of consumer behavior, Harvard University Press.
  • Easterlin, R. (1974). Does economic growth improve the human lot? some empirical evidence,in P. A. David and M. W. Reder (eds), Nations and Households in Economic Growth: Essays in Honor of Moses Abramowitz, Academic Press, New-York, pp. 89–125.
  • Frank, R. (1991). Positional externalities, Strategy and Choice, MIT Press, Cambridge, MApp. 25–47.
  • Frank, R. (2001).Luxury fever: Why money fails to satisfy in an era of excess, Simon and Schuster.
  • Frank, R. (2005). Positional externalities cause large and preventable welfare losses, American Economic Reviewpp. 137–141.
  • Frey, B. and Stutzer, A. (2002). What Can Economists Learn from Happiness Research?,Journal of Economic Literature40(2): 402–435.
  • Knight, J., Song, L. and Gunatilaka, R. (2008). Subjective well-beingand its determinants in rural China,China Economic Review.
  • Layard, R., Mayraz, G. and Nickell, S. (2008). The marginal utility of income,Journal of Public Economics92(8-9): 1846–1857.
  • Luttmer, E. F. (2005). Neighbours as negatives: Relative earnings and well-being,Quarterly Journal of Economics120(3): 963–1002.
  • McBride, M. (2001). Relative-income effects on subjective well-being in the cross-section, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization45(3): 251–278.
  • Senik, C. (forthcoming). Direct evidence on income comparisons and their welfare effects,Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organisation.
  • Stevenson, B. and Wolfers, J. (2008). Economic Growth and Subjective Well-Being: Reassessing the Easterlin Paradox, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity.
  • Wagner, G., Frick, J. and Schupp, J. (2007). The German socio-economic panel study (SOEP)–scope, evolution and enhancements,Schmollers Jahrbuch127(1): 139–169.
The SELF Institute