Human Well-Being and Governments

The world has progressed in speed and space, in wealth and health, in knowledge and wisdom and the process is going on. It has also expanded the horizon of our thinking and raised expectation from society, government and individuals. There are more visible democracies, there are larger and taller buildings as ever, age span has increased, there are more schools and hospitals, more people are getting above the poverty line, it gives a feeling as if it has become a better and happier place to live now. This is what has to be studied as to really whether the visible progress has been translated into better human well-being or not.

Human Well-Being is a construct evolved from the philosophy of living well – mentally, physically, socially, and spiritually. Individuals tend to perform acts that (they think) provide them satisfaction and lead towards improving their state of ‘living well’. Fulfilment of human needs and having positive living environment around, contributes towards an assurance on ‘living well’ or leading a good life. Physical facilities enhance mental satisfaction and help in realising human potential by exploring different possibilities and choices. Being able to use physical facilities further require resources of different kind – good health, knowledge and ability, money, conducive eco-system, and enabling infrastructure. These resources are internal as well as external, they are possessions as well as acquisitions. Available literature on Well-Being, Happiness, or/and Quality of Life directly or indirectly travels around this philosophy of living well. Hedonism, eudemonism, utilitarianism, consequentialism and the like ‘-isms’ defend the use of an agent for HWB. The whole idea of HWB, Happiness, and Living Well voyages through ‘compulsion’ to ‘choice’ continuum.

The state (or government) plans and makes effective policies for the well-being of its citizens through providing opportunities to earn living, investing in human capital by provision of health and education, and building facilitating physical infrastructure. These policies when implemented successfully should reap fruits like economic progress, improved health, and educated and empowered citizens. The responsibility to look after social welfare is shared by four core institutions – the state, the market, the family, and the civil society. The policy formulation, and its implementation (and execution) is mediated as well as moderated by effectiveness of system involved in implementation. Mediation because it explains the how and why, between policy as such, and its execution. Moderation because effectiveness is measurable - low or high, and may be, in numbers or degree. This effectiveness of system is to be assured by the state through strong governance measures. However sound policies are, if not implemented effectively would not result in reaching out to the intended population. Adam Smith so succinctly puts it in one of his classics – The Theory of Moral Sentiments, written around 260 years ago-

“In what constitutes the real happiness of human life … In ease of body and peace of mind, all the different ranks of life are nearly upon a level, and the beggar, who suns himself by the side of the highway, possesses that security which kings are fighting for. … The same principle, the same love of system, the same regard to the beauty of order, of art and contrivance, frequently serves to recommend those institutions which tend to promote the public welfare. When a patriot exerts himself for the improvement of any part of the public police, his conduct does not always arise from pure sympathy with the happiness of those who are to reap the benefit of it”. 

The state, through its policy, and the King, through his charter, only can claim to look after the welfare of its citizens. It has the responsibility to efficiently manage resources through its equitable distribution. This is what government’s try doing for the good of its people.