12th national convention on statistics (ncs) edsa...

1

12th National Convention on Statistics (NCS) EDSA Shangri-La Hotel

October 1-2, 2013

ARE YOU HAPPIER NOW?

WHY NOT SYSTEMATICALLY MONITOR YOUR PERSONAL HAPPINESS?

by

Romulo A. Virola, Jessamyn O. Encarnacion, Anna Jean G. Casañas,

Mark C. Pascasio, and Gretchen M. Sacang

For additional information, please contact:

Author’s name Romulo A. Virola Designation Former Secretary General, National Statistical Coordination Board &

Consultant Affiliation “Statistically Speaking” Consultancy Services (SSCS) Address #2 Camia Street, Vergonville, Las Piñas City Tel. no. +632-8717264; +639175278265 E-mail [email protected]

Co-author’s name Jessamyn O. Encarnacion, Anna Jean G. Casañas, Mark C. Pascasio, Gretchen M. Sacang

Designation Director III, Statistical Coordination Officer (SCO) II, SCO I, and SCO II Affiliation National Statistical Coordination Board Address 403 Sen. Gil Puyat Avenue, Makati City Tel. no. +632-8967981 E-mail [email protected]; [email protected];

[email protected]; [email protected]

2

ARE YOU HAPPIER NOW? WHY NOT SYSTEMATICALLY MONITOR YOUR PERSONAL HAPPINESS?

by

Romulo A. Virola, Jessamyn O. Encarnacion, Anna Jean G. Casañas,

Mark C. Pascasio, and Gretchen M. Sacang1

Abstract

Both at the national and international levels, efforts towards improved measurement

of the progress of societies have intensified in current years. Since 2004, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)

has conducted four World Fora on Statistics, Knowledge, and Policy which highlighted the need to measure progress of societies beyond the conventional economic measures. The emerging view in these fora is that while the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) remains and will continue to remain as a very useful instrument to measure economic development, there is a need for supplementary measures that more adequately and more meaningfully capture progress of societies, including measures of happiness. In addition, countries like Bhutan, Australia, Canada, France, Korea, and the Philippines have come up with their own national approaches receiving varying levels of interest from stakeholders.

During the 10

th and 11

th National Conventions on Statistics (NCS), the 57

th and 58

th

World Statistics Congresses (WSC) of the International Statistical Institute (ISI) and other local and international fora, Virola, Encarnacion, et. al. presented papers on the Philippine Happiness Index (PHI) using a conceptual framework that, unlike other initiatives on this subject recognizes that different individuals have different sources or domains of happiness. Pilot results on the PHI framework have been presented for nonprobability samples of respondents from employees of a government office, members of the military, employees of a private firm, low-income families, and participants of local conferences. However, despite a decision by the National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB) calling for pushing the PHI agenda forward in the Philippine Statistical System (PSS), and despite enthusiastic public interest on the PHI, the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) and Congress have not seen it fit to allocate the necessary budget.

Nonetheless, the pilot results on the PHI indicate that respondents consider progress

to be synonymous with happiness. This paper therefore advocates for the use of the PHI at the individual level and proposes an approach that is very simple to follow. In the 11

th

NCS paper, correlation analysis was undertaken to check for possible overlaps among the 19 domains. Six pairs of significantly correlated domains were found to be common to at least three of the four subgroups. It was also noted that for two subgroups, a large number of pairs of domains were found to be significantly correlated – 40 pairs for Government Agency B; 38 pairs for Private Agency. Thus, in this paper, an attempt is made to reformulate the domains of individual happiness, offering an approach to systematically monitor individual happiness. As in previous efforts, due to financial and time constraints, the paper presents results from nonprobability samples mainly to illustrate the methodology. It also offers new and reiterates previous recommendations on the way forward in measuring the PHI by the PSS.

KEY WORDS AND PHRASES: progress of society, well-being, happiness, domains of happiness, levels of happiness, Philippine Happiness Index, individual level, nonprobability samples, correlation

1Former Secretary General, Director III, Statistical Coordination Officer II, Statistical Coordination Officer I, and Statistical

Coordination Officer II, respectively, of the National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB). The authors acknowledge the assistance of Noel S. Nepomuceno, Andrea C. Baylon, Albert A. Garcia and the cooperation of the NSCB and the employees of the Government Agency and the Private Agency in the preparation of this paper. The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSCB.

3

I. Introduction

According to Aristotle2, “happiness is the ultimate end and purpose of human

existence. Happiness is the perfection of human nature. Since man is a rational animal,

human happiness depends on the exercise of his reason. Happiness depends on acquiring a

moral character, where one displays the virtues of courage, generosity, justice, friendship,

and citizenship in one’s life. Happiness requires intellectual contemplation, for this is the

ultimate realization of our rational capacities”. In this regard, along with his teacher Plato, he

was one of the strongest advocates of a liberal arts education, which stresses the education

of the whole person, including one’s moral character, rather than merely learning a set of

skills. According to Aristotle, this view of education is necessary if we are to produce a

society of happy as well as productive individuals Thus, Aristotle was convinced that a

genuinely happy life required the fulfillment of a broad range of conditions, including physical

as well as mental well-being. Aristotle tells us that the most important factor in the effort to

achieve happiness is to have a good moral character — what he calls “complete virtue” (see

[1]).

Basically, Aristotle’s philosophy of happiness is that the domains of happiness of an

individual should be based on reason, on virtues, not on instant gratification! This paper is

not about that philosophy. The paper does not advocate for the rational and virtuous sources

of happiness – it simply reports on the things that make people happy at present.

A curious phenomenon noted by a study of the National Bureau of Economic

Research in the United States is the paradox of the declining female happiness. Despite

many objective measures showing that the lives of women in the United States have

improved over the past 35 years resulting from expanded opportunities3, measures of

subjective well-being indicate that women’s happiness has declined both absolutely and

relative to men (see [2]). With women having better opportunities to participate in the labor

force, to be elected as political leaders, to serve as CEOs in the corporate world, to enjoy

higher compensation in different kinds of work, to pursue fields of study previously chosen

predominantly by men, etc., why have women become less happy? Could this be a problem

inherent in subjective measurements? Does this paradox exist in the Philippine setting too?

It would be interesting to know.

2 Based on Nichomachean Ethics (2004),ed. Hugh Treddenick. London: Penguin, the main source for Aristotle’s ethics

3 According to the UNDP, human development is a process of enlarging people’s choices. The most critical of these wide-

ranging choices are to live a long and healthy life, to be educated and to have access to resources needed for a decent standard of living.

4

Just as interesting is a perspective from the bestselling book Thinking, Fast and Slow

of Nobel Laureate Daniel Kahneman4 that married people aren’t any happier than singles.

He says there are “no differences in experienced well-being between women who lived with

a mate and women who did not….Women who have a mate spend less time alone, but also

much less time with friends. They spend more time making love, which is wonderful, but also

more time doing housework, preparing food, and caring for children, all relatively unpopular

activities. And of course, the large amount of time married women spend with their husband

is much more pleasant for some than for others. Experienced well-being is on average

unaffected by marriage, not because marriage makes no difference to happiness but

because it changes some aspects of life for the better and others for the worse.” (see [3])

While there is no universal agreement on what the goals of human life should be, the

pursuit of happiness certainly features as a life long aspiration for most of us. Just as

certainly, different people find different degrees of happiness in different things, the

Aristotelian philosophy, notwithstanding. In other words, progress of society may mean

different things to different people. Thus, measuring progress of societies is not, as yet, a

clear cut job for statisticians.

Both at the national and international levels, efforts towards improved measurement

of the progress of societies have intensified in current years. Since 2004, the OECD has

conducted four World Fora5 on Statistics, Knowledge, and Policy which highlighted the need

to measure progress of societies beyond the conventional economic measures. The

emerging view in these fora is that while the GDP remains and will continue to remain as a

very useful instrument to measure economic development, there is a need for

supplementary measures that more adequately and more meaningfully capture progress of

societies, including measures of happiness. In addition, countries like Bhutan, Australia,

Canada, France, Korea, and the Philippines have come up with their own national

approaches receiving varying levels of interest from stakeholders.

A famous work on the subject is the 2009 Report prepared by Stiglitz, Sen, and

Fitoussi for the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social

Progress created by President Nicolas Sarkozy of France. The Report says it is time to

4 Daniel Kahneman received the Nobel Prize for Economics in 2002 for his pioneering work on behavioral economics,

exploring the irrational ways we make decisions about risk”, http://www.ted.com/speakers/daniel_kahneman.html 5 The principal author presented papers in three of them: in Istanbul, Turkey (2007), “Empowering and Challenging Voters

Through Governance Indicators: The Philippine Experience”; in Busan, South Korea (2009), “Measuring Democratic Governance: Emerging Challenge to Official Statisticians” (with Severa B. De Costo & Mai Lin C. Villaruel); and in New Delhi, India (2012), “Measuring Well-Being/Progress of Societies: Initiatives & Perspectives from the Philippines”.

http://www.ted.com/speakers/daniel_kahneman.html

5

“shift emphasis from measuring economic production to measuring people’s well being, both

objective and subjective, that includes happiness, positive emotions like joy and pride and

negative emotions like pain and worry.” (see [4])

In September 2013, the United Nations Sustainable Development Solutions Network

(UN SDSN)6 released the latest 2013 World Happiness Report (see [5]). Based on the

Report, the Philippines ranked 92 out of 156 countries in terms of happiness (4.985) for the

period 2010-2012. The 4.985 score of the Philippines in 2010-2012 is an increase of 0.131

compared to its score during the period 2005-2007. (Table 1) The top five countries are

Denmark, Norway, Switzerland, Netherlands, and Sweden (Table 2). However, in a much

earlier initiative on the compilation of Happiness of Nations data by the Erasmus University

in the Netherlands7 (see [6]), for 2000-2009 the Philippines ranked 74.5 out of 149 countries

with a score of 6.4, the same score as that of Syria! (Table 3) Among eight ASEAN

countries, excluding Brunei and Myanmar, the Philippines ranked second bottom, ahead

only of Cambodia with Singapore at the top! (Table 4) It may be recalled that a survey of

Gallup showed that Singapore had the most emotionless society while the Philippines had

the most emotional society for the period 2009-2011 (see [7]). The Philippines ranked 10th

out of 23 Asia Pacific countries (see [6] and Table 5). In the previous survey round for 1995

to 2005 (see [8]), the Philippines had a score of 6.4 ranking 47th out of 102 countries, 3.5th

out of 11 Asia Pacific countries, and 3rd out of 4 ASEAN countries.

During the 10th and 11th National Conventions on Statistics (NCS), the 57th and 58th

World Statistics Congresses (WSC) of the International Statistical Institute (ISI) and other

local and international fora8 including the NSCB website, Virola, Encarnacion, et. al.

presented papers (see [9], [10], [11], [12], and Annex PHI 10022013-01 on the List of Papers

and Articles and List of Presentations/Lectures/Fora/Meetings) on the Philippine Happiness

Index (PHI) using a conceptual framework that, unlike other initiatives on this subject

recognizes that different individuals have different sources or domains of happiness. The

framework which has been cited in the Asian-Pacific Economic Literature on Gross National

Happiness (see [13]), allows individuals to identify their sources of happiness and to give

value to the degree of importance of each of these sources. Pilot results on the PHI

6 The UN SDSN is under the auspices of the UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon. (http://unsdsn.org/happiness/)

7 The World Database of Happiness team based in Erasmus University Rotterdam, Netherlands is headed by Prof. R.

Veenhoven The basis of the scores is a question of the form “Taking all together, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with your life as a whole these days? “. Different countries had different numbers of surveys for the scores for the period 2000-2009, ranging from 1 in Syria/Tunisia to 2 in the Philippines, to 24 in Australia. 8 Other presentations include those during the Lecture-Forum on Everyday Statistics for the Common Tao sponsored by the

Philippine Statistical Association (PSA) in 2007 and the First Session of the Committee on Statistics organized by the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP) in 2009.

6

framework have been presented for nonprobability samples of respondents from employees

of a government office, members of the military, employees of a private firm, low-income

families, and participants of local conferences. In addition, there were a number of requests

from researchers to use the PHI questionnaire9. In fact, the PHI initiatives have greatly

contributed to enhancing the image and stature of the National Statistical Coordination

Board (NSCB) Technical Staff (TS) for its pioneering work.

Recognizing the value and relevance of the PHI efforts to users and stakeholders,

the authors have been trying to refine the methodology for possible institutionalization10 in

the Philippine Statistical System (PSS). Since the 10th NCS paper, new domains have been

added; the 11th NCS paper included low income families in the survey for which the

questionnaire was translated into Filipino, and undertook a correlation analysis among the

different domains to address possible double counting or overweighting of some of the

domains.

A proposal to pilot the PHI was communicated to but was not approved by a

municipality in the National Capital Region. The Office of a Senator coordinated with the

NSCB TS for possible collaboration in the pilot of the PHI in a particular island but did not

push thru because we were informed that the Office of the Senator could not sign a

Memorandum of Agreement with government. Could this be a reason why so many non-

government organizations (NGOs) seem to have benefited from the pork barrel scam that is

now consuming public attention?

The most serious drawback is that despite a decision by the NSCB Executive Board

calling for pushing the PHI agenda forward in the PSS (see [14]) and its inclusion in the

Philippine Statistical Development Program (PSDP) 2011-2017 (see [15]) and despite

enthusiastic public interest on the PHI11, the DBM and Congress have not seen it fit to

allocate the necessary budget. Neither have key agencies12 of the PSS prioritized the PHI.

9 Among those who requested to use the PHI questionnaire are the students from the University of the Philippines at Los Baños

(UPLB), University of Sto. Tomas (UST), and University of Asia and the Pacific (UA&P). 10

On 4 August 2008, the NSCB Management Committee endorsed the institutionalization of the generation of the PHI in the PSS 11

During the 10th NCS, the organizers did not assign a big room to the session on the PHI and participants had to be asked to

move to the other sessions or had to listen from outside the room. Despite this, the PHI session had the 2nd

largest audience among 43 sessions of the 10

th NCS. In the 11

th NCS, the PHI session attracted the largest audience among 40 sessions.

12

In 2008, the National Statistics Office (NSO) would not commit to generate/disseminate the PHI jointly with the NSCB Technical Staff (TS). In 2010, the Statistical Research & Training Center (SRTC) would not fund an NSCB TS project proposal on the PHI.

7

In the pilot results, one major finding is that the survey respondents consider

progress to be synonymous with happiness. This highlights the critical importance of the PHI

agenda in measuring progress of Philippine society. The paper responds to that concern and

is therefore intended to sustain the earlier initiatives on the PHI.

In the 11th NCS paper, a correlation analysis was undertaken to check for possible

overlaps among the 19 domains. Six pairs of significantly correlated13 domains were found

to be common to at least three of the four subgroups. It was also noted that for two

subgroups, a large number of pairs of domains were found to be significantly correlated – 40

pairs for a Government Agency; 38 pairs for the Private Agency. Thus, in this paper, an

attempt is made to reformulate the domains of individual happiness. As in previous efforts,

due to financial constraints, the paper presents results from non-probability samples mainly

to illustrate the methodology. It also offers new and reiterates previous recommendations on

the way forward in measuring the PHI by the PSS.

Considering the major finding in the previous efforts, this paper advocates for the use

of the PHI at the individual level and proposes an approach that is very simple to follow.

This will come handy in monitoring individual happiness which can be used to compare

one’s level of happiness with others, like one’s friends.

The paper is organized as follows. The next section gives an overview of the PHI

framework and the reformulated framework. The third section presents the results of the

correlation analysis among the different domains based on non-probability samples. The

fourth section describes the methodology for monitoring personal happiness. The fifth

section shows comparative results based on the reformulated PHI and additional nonrandom

samples while the last section offers recommendations on the way forward in measuring

happiness in the PSS.

II. Overview of the Philippine Happiness Index (PHI) Framework

This section presents an overview of the Philippine Happiness Index (PHI)

Framework. The details including the limitations are described in the earlier papers

presented during the 10th and 11th NCS (see [9] and [10]).

The methodology was developed by Virola and Encarnacion in 2007 (see [9]). The

PHI is meant to measure happiness that can be combined with conventional economic

8

indicators such as the traditional measures based on the national accounting framework14 to

come up with a more multi-dimensional measure of the progress of a society. This paper,

however, dwells only on the PHI.

2.1 Conceptual Framework

The following are important features of the PHI:

1. The computation of happiness starts from the point of view of the

individual.

2. The PHI is premised on the assumption that different individuals have different

definitions and sources of happiness. The PHI is not normative, unlike many

other frameworks measuring well-being especially those from developed

countries; the methodology for the compilation of the PHI therefore

allows individuals to identify their domains of happiness.

Hence, in the compilation of the PHI, the individual plays an important role, with him/her

defining his/her own definition/sources or domains of happiness.

The 2007 NCS study initially started with 15 domains/sources of happiness, including

Others. The list consists of the following: 1) community participation and volunteer work; 2)

cultural activities; 3) education; 4) family; 5) health; 6) income and financial security; 7)

leisure and sports; 8) religion and/or spiritual work; 9) technological know-how; 10) work; 11)

economy; 12) environment; 13) government; 14) politics; and 15) others. The final list for the

2007 study included three additional domains – friends, sex life, and love life for a total of 18

domains/sources of happiness. Later, two additional domains were added – food and peace

and security for a total of 20 domains.

A value added of this paper is the reformulation of the PHI which reduced the

domains from 20 to 17 based on the correlation analysis presented in the next section.

However, a new domain – country of residence – was added for a final number of 18

domains (see Figure 1, Annex PHI 10022013-02). Domains that are on the list but not

identified by the respondent as his/her domain of happiness will not figure in the computation

of his/her happiness index.

13

With coefficients greater than or equal to 0.60. 14

The latest international guidelines on national accounting is the 2008 System of National Accounts (SNA).

9

Using responses to a questionnaire, a happiness index is computed for individuals,

which can be aggregated to come up with a happiness index for various groups: family,

employees of an organization15, members of an association, and political constituents in a

municipality/city, province, region, the entire country, etc. The conceptual framework and the

questionnaire have been revised in this paper as follows (see Annex PHI 10022013-03):

Additional domain was included, i.e., country of residence;

The domain ‘environment’ was renamed as ‘natural resources/environment’;

Three pairs of domains were combined into one domain. These are:

a) love life and sex life;

b) government and politics; and

c) economy and peace and security;

On the marital status, ‘Annulled’ was included in ‘Divorced/separated’

category.

The classification systems used were updated; particularly, the adoption of

the 2011 Philippine Standard Occupational Classification (PSOC) and the

2009 Philippine Standard Industrial Classification (PSIC); and

The boundaries of the income classification were revised to better capture

the income distribution of the respondents.

For self-monitoring of happiness, the suggested frequency is monthly, at most

weekly. For monitoring the happiness index of a group, the suggested frequency is quarterly,

at most monthly.

2.2 Statistical Framework

The basic data are to be collected through a survey questionnaire mentioned in the

preceding subsection.

For self-monitoring, the questionnaire can be accomplished anytime. But to enhance

the comparability of results for purposes of trend analysis, some regularity in the schedule

should be practiced. The reference periods should of course be comparable.

For group monitoring, in particular, for monitoring the PHI or its subnational

components, we had hoped that the survey could be conducted as a rider to one of the

15 We had discussions with a government agency for the monitoring of the Happiness Index for its employees but it did not push thru.

10

rounds of the quarterly Labor Force Survey (LFS)16 of the NSO. For other groupings, the

data should be collected using a survey specifically designed for the purpose.

For this paper, the new data were collected twice from two groups of employees: a

government agency and a private corporation. The questionnaires used as reference periods

the week from 29 July (Monday) to 4 August (Sunday) 2013, and the week from 26 August

(Monday) to 1 September (Sunday)17.

Based on the responses to the questionnaire, the happiness index is computed as

follows: (Note: This will be discussed in detail in Section IV – Methodology for Monitoring

Personal Happiness):

1. Each individual identifies his/her domains of happiness.

2. Each individual determines the weights (relative importance) of each

domain.

3. Each individual measures his/her level of happiness for each identified

domain.

4. Each individual’s happiness index is computed.

5. The group happiness index is computed from the happiness index of the

individuals comprising the group.

The codes used for each happiness category are: Very Unhappy = 0; Unhappy = 1; Neutral

= 2, Happy 3; and Very Happy = 4. Based on this, the computed happiness index for an

individual would range from 0 to 100 and the following classification is proposed:

HI Level of happiness

0-12.50 Very unhappy

12.51 – 37.50 Unhappy

37.51 – 62.50 Neutral

62.51 – 87.50 Happy

87.51 - 100 Very happy

16

The current master sample for the LFS has regions as sampling domains. 17

The responses may have been influenced by the pork barrel scam which started on 12 July 2013 and the “Million People March” held in Luneta last 26 August 2013, as well as the flooding caused by the tropical storm, “Maring”, and the Southwest monsoon, “Habagat”, which affected the CALABARZON and NCR areas on 19 - 21 August 2013.

11

III. Correlation Analysis Among the Domains of Happiness

Towards improving the PHI framework, this section presents the results of the

correlation runs on the level of happiness and the final list of domains.

Correlation runs among the 19 domains18 were performed separately for the 2007,

2008, and 2010 data19 and for all the data combined (2007-2010). Pearson’s Correlation

tests of significance20 were conducted and statistically significant correlation coefficients of at

least 0.6021 were identified. The idea is to merge domains which are highly and significantly

correlated.

3.1 Correlation Analysis

Following are some highlights based on the correlation tests for the 19 domains,

across the four subgroups/datasets (see Table 6):

Two pairs of domains were found statistically significant and with correlation

coefficients of at least 0.60 for each of the four datasets. The highly correlated

domains are

o Sex life and Love life

o Politics and Government

Two additional pairs were statistically significant and with correlation

coefficients of at least 0.60 for the combined data set (2007-2010):

o Economy and Peace & Security

o Environment and Peace & Security

The coefficients of the highly correlated domains in the combined dataset are

0.730 for politics and government, 0.707 for sex life and love life, 0.697 for

economy and peace and security, and 0.647 for environment and peace and

security.

18

There were 20 domains, but Others was excluded in the correlation runs. 19

The data came from NCS participants for 2007; from one government agency, one private agency and National Statistics Month (NSM) participants for 2008; and from two government agencies, one private agency, and low income respondents from Makati City, Taguig City and Cavite for 2010. 20

It must be noted that the data came from non-probability samples and the data sets had varying sample sizes. 21

Arbitrarily set.

12

From these results, it was decided to combine the three pairs of domains with the

highest correlation coefficient, namely, Politics and Government, Sex life and Love life, and

Economy and Peace & Security.

A second correlation run was done and Environment showed a statistically significant

correlation of 0.658 with Economy & Peace & Security. Nonetheless, Environment was

retained as a separate domain as it is currently a high profile policy-oriented variable and as

suggested by the World Bank Office in Manila in one of the meetings with the NSCB TS on

the Project on Wealth Accounting and the Valuation of Ecosystem Services (WAVES) in

201222, the domain Environment was changed to Natural Resources/Environment.

The reformulated framework is shown in Annex PHI 10022013-02.

IV. METHODOLOGY FOR MONITORING PERSONAL HAPPINESS

In line with the objective of this study, this section presents a step-by-step procedure

on how a person can compute his/her own happiness index. This is meant to help an

individual monitor his/her happiness over time. The information that will be obtained by the

individual can help him/her in making positive changes to his/her life in terms of determining

what makes him/her happy – or unhappy. In case of the former, he/she can focus his/her

energy on the sources of happiness that makes them happy; and in case of the latter, a

diversion of focus from the domains that make him/her unhappy.

To assist the individual in monitoring his/her own happiness over time (e.g.,

monthly), below are the steps an individual may wish to undertake so that he/she can

compute his/her own happiness index:

1. The individual identifies his/her domains of happiness

The individual will use the questionnaire provided in Annex PHI 10022013-03 to

monitor his/her happiness.

Using the questionnaire, the individual will identify his/her domains of happiness

from a list that includes Others. The list consists of 1) community and volunteer work; 2)

22

This is in response to the information shared by the lead author of this study, then Secretary General of the NSCB, during the meeting with WB that Environment figures among the least important sources of happiness. Considering the natural calamities and disasters that the country experienced in more recent times, the result, while plausible, was not expected. The WB Office

13

country of residence; 3) cultural activities; 4) education; 5) family; 6) friends; 7) food; 8)

health; 9) income and financial security; 10) leisure and sports; 11) love life/sex life; 12)

religion and spiritual work; 13) technological know-how; 14) work; 15) economy/peace

and security; 16) government/politics; 17) natural resources/environment; and 18) others.

Domains not identified by the individual will not figure in his/her computation of his/her

own happiness index.

2. The individual determines the weights (relative importance) of each domain

of his/her happiness

Based on his/her responses in item no. 1 above, the individual will then indicate

the degree of importance from 1 to 10 (least important to most important) of his/her

sources of happiness. The individual will use these as weights when he/she computes

for his/her own happiness. A sample illustration is shown in Annex PHI 10022013-04.

3. The individual will indicate the level of happiness for each identified

domain of happiness

The individual will choose the level of his/her happiness (very unhappy, unhappy,

neutral, happy and very happy) for each of his/her domains of happiness. For purposes

of calibrating the responses so that the Happiness Index will be on a scale of 0 to 100,

the codes for the responses (0, 1, 2, 3, 4) are multiplied by 2.5.

4. The individual will compute for his/her Happiness Index

Based on the identified domains, the weights and the level of happiness for each

identified domain, the individual will compute his/her happiness index (see Annex PHI

10022013-05).

in Manila suggested that the researchers of the study provide a clearer description of this domain – by renaming it to “Natural Resources/Environment.

14

5. The individual will monitor his/her Happiness Index over time

For an individual to empirically determine whether he/she is getting happier, the

individual will monitor his/her happiness by undertaking the steps outlined in item nos. 1

to 4 above repeatedly over time. He/she may consider a monthly monitoring (or weekly,

at best) of his/her own happiness.

For this study, individuals from two groups: a government agency and a private

corporation, were used as subjects. The information on their sources/domains of happiness

and the corresponding level of importance and level of happiness were collected twice

through a survey questionnaire with ID/respondent numbers. The reference periods for the

two rounds are the week of 29 July (Monday) to 4 August 2013 (Sunday), and the week 26

August (Monday) to 1 September (Sunday) 2013. The data collection periods were

conducted from 8 -22 August 2013 and 3 – 17 September 2013 for the first and second

rounds, respectively. Due to resource constraints, the respondents are nonrandom samples.

V. COMPARATIVE RESULTS ON THE REFORMULATED PHI

The 2013 study was conducted in August 2013 for the first round and in September

2013 for the second round using the last weeks of July and August 2013, respectively, as

reference periods. The 2013 study involved two groups: 1) Government Agency (69 and 56

respondents in the 1st and 2nd rounds, respectively); and 2) Private Corporation (30 and 17

respondents in the 1st and 2nd rounds, respectively).

Due to very limited resources, respondents were selected nonrandomly. Further, the

same samples who responded during the first round of the data collection were again

requested to accomplish the questionnaire for the second round for monitoring purposes.

There were a total of 73 matched respondents from the two rounds.

Before the presentation of the results, the readers are reminded that the responses

of individuals may have been influenced by several events that happened around the data

collection period. At that time, national attention was caught by the pork barrel scam issue,

which started on 12 July 2013. Relatedly, the “Million People March” event was held on 26

August 2013. In addition, flooding caused by the tropical storm, “Maring”, and the southwest

monsoon, “Habagat”, directly affected CALABARZON and the National Capital Region

(NCR).

15

5.1 Sources of happiness

5.1.1 Most important sources of happiness

5.1.1.1 By Agency (Tables 7 and 8)

5.1.1.1.1 Government Agency

Family, Health, Religion and/or spiritual work, Income and financial

security, and Work were consistently on the list of five most important

sources of happiness for the respondents coming from the Government

Agency for both July and August 2013 rounds.

Some of these domains likewise figured in the previous studies

conducted in 2007, 2008, and 2010 to the same group, specifically, the

domains of Family, Health, and Religion and spiritual work.

Looking at the trend of results among the nonrandom respondents

from the Government Agency in terms of important sources of happiness,

while Education figured in 2007 among the top five, this no longer came

out in succeeding studies. This was replaced by Love life in 2008, Work in

2010 and Income and Financial Security in 2013. This is sad for those who

want to rebuild the human capital of our nation which has been eroded by

the Filipino diaspora.

5.1.1.1.2 Private Agency

Among respondents in the Private Agency, Family, Health, Friends,

and Food consistently figured as the most important sources of happiness

for the two rounds in 2013. Income and financial security was on the list

for July while Education figured in the August round.

Family and Health were consistently among the top five most

important sources in 2007, 2008, 2010, and 2013.

16

Work was among the top five in 2007 but was overtaken by Friends in

2008 and 2013 and Education in 2010. Food, which ranked only 11th in

201023, entered the top five list in 2013 with Religion and Spiritual work

slipping four notches down.

5.1.1.1.3 Comparison of Results Between the Government

Agency and Private Agency

In the two rounds of the 2013 study, nonrandom respondents from the

Government and Private agencies considered Family and Health as the

most important sources of happiness. This is consistent with the results of

the previous PHI studies undertaken in 2007, 2008, and 2010. 24 Other

important sources identified for both rounds of the 2013 study for both

agencies were Religion and/or spiritual work, Income and financial

security, and work.

5.1.1.2 By Sex for the combined respondents of the Government and

Private Agencies (Table 12)

Overall, women and men found Family and Health as the most

important sources of happiness in the July and August 2013 rounds.

Family scored highest with 9.61 and 9.83 among women and men,

respectively, in the July round, and 9.35 vs. 9.75 in the August round.

Health scored 8.87 among women vs. 9.50 among men in the July 2013

round; 8.76 vs. 9.30 in the August round. Surprising that men would attach

more importance to family than women. To health as well, since men

generally die younger.

Women consistently ranked Religion and spiritual work higher than

men. It was ranked 3rd most important by women for the two rounds. Men,

however, deemed religion as only 6th and 5th most important source of

happiness in the July and August 2013 rounds.

23

Food was only included in the questionnaire starting in 2010. 24

The respondents do not form a panel from 2007 to 2013 but for the July and August 2013 study, the respondents from the Government and Private agencies already formed a panel.

17

On the other hand, women ranked Work lower than men in terms of

importance of sources of happiness – 6th vs. 3rd in the July round and 6th

vs. 4th in the August round.

Friends was consistently ranked higher by women than men in the two

rounds. Women considered Friends as 5th most important source of

happiness in 2013 compared to 8th and 6th for men in the July and August

rounds, respectively.

5.1.2 Least important sources of happiness



Country of residence, Government/Politics, Community and volunteer

work, and Cultural activities were the four least important sources of

happiness for the respondents from the Government Agency during the

July and August rounds. Making it to the top five was Leisure and sports in

the July round, and Technological know-how in the August round.

The 2008, 2010 and July 2013 studies identified Leisure and sports

among the top five least important. Maybe government employees could

not afford to indulge in leisure and sports activities?

While Sex life was regarded as one of the least sources of happiness

in 2008 and 2010, Sex Life (combined with Love life, based on the

correlation analysis undertaken in this study) was ranked 8th and 7th

important source out of 17 in the July and August 2013 rounds,

respectively. They probably have since then learned everything they had

always wanted to know about sex but were afraid to ask?


For both July and August 2013 rounds, Technological know-how,

Government/Politics, and Community and volunteer work were on the list

of least important sources of happiness. In addition, in the July 2013

18

round, Economy/Peace and Security and Love life/Sex life also figured on

the list; while for the August 2013 round, Country of residence and Cultural

activities were on the list.

Comparing with the results of the previous studies, Technological

know-how consistently posted a low level of importance in all years of the

studies. Community and volunteer work also consistently figured in all

studies, except in 2007.



Community and volunteer work and Government/Politics were the

least important sources of happiness among the nonrandom respondents

from both Government and Private agencies in July and August 2013.

Similar with the earlier PHI studies, Community and volunteer work

and Technological know-how consistently figured on the list of domains

considered least important by the sample respondents from the

Government Agency and Private Agency, respectively. Just as it is sad

that respondents from the government agency no longer attach as much

importance to education as they used to, this is also sad since community

and volunteer work would contribute to the social capital while

technological know-how would prepare us better for the challenges in a

very competitive, globalized world of knowledge-based economies.

5.1.2.2 By Sex (Table 12)

In the July and August 2013 rounds, both women and men considered

Government/Politics, Community and volunteer work, and Cultural

activities as among the top five least important sources of happiness.

Also, in July 2013, women find Country of residence as among their

least important source of happiness (i.e., ranked 14th) while their male

counterparts ranked it as those among the middle range (i.e., ranked 9th).

In August 2013, however, both women and men included it as among their

least important sources of happiness (14th vs. 16th, respectively.) What can

19

we make out of this? That we do not really care where we live? Or that we

do not love our country enough?

5.2 Level of happiness

5.2.1 Sources where respondents are happiest



Nonrandom respondents from the Government Agency are happiest

with Family, Friends, Religion and/or spiritual work, and Food both for the

July and August 2013 rounds. Love life/Sex life was also on the top 5 list

in July but was replaced by Health in August.

Respondents from the Government Agency were also happiest with

Family, Religion and/or spiritual work, and Health in 2007 and 2008.

Compared with past PHI studies, Love life figured prominently in 2008

and 2010 ranking 3rd and 2nd, respectively. A slightly lower rank was

however observed for Love life (combined with Sex life) in the July and

August 2013 rounds, at 5th and 6th, respectively. And just because the

President is single?


Respondents from the Private Agency have the highest level of

happiness with Family, Friends, and Food for both the July and August

2013 rounds. In addition, respondents were also happiest with Education

and Religion and/or spiritual work in July and Love life/Sex life in August.

In comparison with the previous efforts to measure happiness, the

2007, 2008, 2010, and the July 2013 studies all showed that the private

agency respondents were happiest with Family and Religion and/or

spiritual work.

20



Nonrandom respondents from both Government and Private agencies

are happiest with Family, Friends and Food in July and August 2013.

Further, for the 2007, 2008, 2010, and 2013 studies, Family, Friends,

and Religion and/or spiritual work are consistently included among the top

domains where respondents from the Government and Private agencies

are happiest.

A new entrant in the top five list is Love life/Sex life – in the July round

among respondents in the Government Agency (72.6 points) and in the

August round among those in the Private Agency (75.9 points). Could this

be a result of merging the two significantly correlated domains of Love Life

and Sex Life in the new PHI framework? Or could it be simply that, when it

rains, love/sex pours?

5.2.1.2 By Sex (Table 13)

Both women and men are happiest with Family, Food, and Religion

and spiritual work for both July and August 2013 rounds.

In the July 2013 round, while Health was among the five domains

where women were happiest (i.e., ranked 5th) this only figured in the middle

range for men (i.e., 9th). In the August 2013 round, both women and men

ranked health as the domain where they are 5th happiest.

5.2.2 Sources where respondents are least happy



The respondents from the Government Agency were least happy with

Natural resources/Environment, Cultural activities, Economy/Peace and

security and Government/Politics during the July and August 2013 rounds.

21

Included among the domains the respondents are least happy with are

Income and financial security in July, and Community and volunteer work

in August.

Respondents were also least happy with Natural

resources/Environment and Cultural activities in 2007, 2008, and 2010.


In the two 2013 rounds, the non-random respondents from the Private

Agency were consistently least happy with Natural resources/Environment,

Economy/Peace and security, and Private/Politics. In the July 2013 round,

the respondents were also least happy with Cultural activities and Income

and financial security. In August 2013, in addition to the three domains

aforementioned, the respondents were also least happy with Country of

residence and Leisure and sports.

If put side-by-side with the results of the previous studies in the

Private Agency, Natural resources/Environment consistently posted as

among the least sources of happiness in the 2008, 2010, and the 2013

rounds.



The nonrandom respondents from both Government and Private

agencies are least happy with Government/Politics, Economy/Peace and

Security and Natural Resources/Environment in July and August 2013.

In addition, the respondents in the Government Agency and Private

Agency are consistently least happy with Natural resources/Environment.

Calling DENR?

Cultural activities figured among the domains where those in the

Government Agency were least happy, but this is not the case for the

22

Private Agency. Maybe the NCCA could offer free cultural shows for

government employees? Really!

5.2.2.2 By Sex (Tables 13)

Both women and men are least happy with Government/Politics,

Economy/Peace and Security, and Natural Resources/Environment for

both July and August 2013 rounds. Government officials and politicians,

about time you took note? Or haven’t you noticed how long the pork barrel

scam has been trending?

5.3 Two-Month “Trend” of Individual Happiness

This section focuses only on the results of the two rounds of the 2013 study,

which monitor the individual happiness of the nonrandom respondents from two

agencies, one government and one private.

Among the nonrandom respondents,

5.3.1 By Agency (Tables 11 and 14)

The majority (52.9 percent) of the employees from the Private Agency were

less happy in August 2013 than in July 2013. For the Government Agency

employees, it is the other way around: the majority (53.6%) were happier.

More stressful to work in the private sector?

Not only are there relatively more Government Agency employees who

became happier between July and August 2013 – the increase in their

average level of happiness was also higher (9.2 vs 6.9, on a scale of 0 to

100).

However, among those who became unhappier during the same period, the

reduction in the level of happiness was likewise greater for the Government

Agency employees (11.1 vs 8.9). Maybe, government employees are just

more intense? More passionate?

For the two groups together, 52.1 percent became happier between July

and August 2013, whose level of happiness increased by 8.7 index points.

23

For those who became unhappier, their level of happiness went down by

10.5 index points. Note that this is biased towards the results from the

Government Agency which had 56 respondents compared to 17 from the

Private Agency.

5.3.2 By sex (Tables 11 and 15)

Among women, 51 percent became happier between July and August 2013,

lower than the 54.2 percent observed among men.

However, among the women who became happier, the average increase in

their happiness index was higher than among men who became happier

(9.7 index points vs. 6.9 index points). But the same pattern is observed in

terms of the average decrease in the happiness index among those who

became unhappier – 11.6 index points for women as compared with 8.2

index points for men. Ang mga babae, pag sumaya, masaya talaga? Pag

malungkot, sobrang lungkot?

The average happiness index of the women respondents are 69.6, 71.00,

and 67.25 for 2010, July 2013, and August 2013 respectively, while their

male counterparts registered 70.3, 72.9 and 69.8 for 2010, July 2013, and

August 2013, respectively. It seems appropriate then to ask if indeed there

is the paradox of declining female happiness. Why with the new/improved

status of women in society, their level of happiness seems to be eroding?

This should be an interesting research area to pursue, right Remy and

Miyen25?

5.3.3 By sex and age group (Tables 11 and 16)

Among women who were found to be happier between July and August

2013, the highest average increase in the happiness index was observed in

a respondent aged 65 and over (16.9 index points) and among those aged

25-34 years (11.3 index points). Enjoying the 20% discount to the fullest?

Still enjoying single-blessedness?

On the other hand, among women who became unhappier, the largest

decreases in the actual level of happiness were observed among those

25

Remy Rikken and Emmeline Verzosa are Chairperson and Executive Director, respectively, of the Philippine Commission on Women.

24

aged 45-54 years (15.8 index points) and 55-64 years (20.1 index points).

Pained and wrinkled by the realization of one’s mortality?

Among men who were found to be happier, the highest average increase in

the happiness index was observed among those aged 45-54 years (8.4

index points) and 55-64 years (10.7 index points). The dirty old men?

On the other hand, among men who became unhappier, the largest

decreases in the actual level of happiness were observed among those

aged 25-34 years (11.4 index points). Scared to death by the risks of

impending marriage?

5.3.4 By marital status (Tables 11 and 17)

Among single respondents, more than half (56.3 percent) became

unhappier between July and August 2013. Lumampas na naman ang

June!

But 62.5 percent of singles aged 35-44 years became happier during this

period. Getting resigned to their fate?

On the other hand, more than half (57.9 percent) among married

respondents became happier. Enjoying the rainy season?.

The lowest increase in the level of happiness of those who became happier

was observed in the age group 55-64 years. No longer have the capacity to

enjoy what the rains bring?

5.3.5 By income bracket (Tables 11 and 19)

There are relatively more respondents in the higher income brackets who

became happier compared to those in the lower income bracket (53.3%

among those belonging to the income group PhP 30,001 – 50,000; 50.0%

for those in the income group PhP 6,001 and PhP 15,000). Money makes

the world go round?

VI. Concluding Remarks and The Ways Forward

Definitely, there has been increasing global interest in the measurement of well-being in

general, and happiness in particular. Jeffrey Sachs, one of the editors of the World

Happiness Report 2013, stated that, "there is now a rising worldwide demand that policy be

25

more closely aligned with what really matters to people as they themselves characterize their

well-being. More and more world leaders are talking about the importance of well-being as a

guide for their nations and the world. The World Happiness Report 2013 offers rich evidence

that the systematic measurement and analysis of happiness can teach us a lot about ways

to improve the world's well-being and sustainable development." ( see [5])

The question is, should official statisticians get involved, or should this area of statistical

work be left to the private sector, the academicians, and the research community? We argue

that to enhance the relevance of the PSS, official statisticians must generate statistics on

well-being and happiness.

The conceptual and statistical frameworks of the PHI and the system of monitoring

happiness by individuals are still work in progress. The PHI initiative was started in 2007 and

it is taking the PSS an inordinately long time to seriously implement its agenda on the

subject.

Potentially, the PHI can be very useful in the formulation of policies that will increase the

happiness of Filipinos, collectively, and individually. It can be used to improve the well-being

of various groups: families, employees of an organization, members of an association,

constituencies of LGU executives, etc. It can also serve as a window for moving the PHI

framework towards the science and philosophy of happiness of Aristotle that is based on

one’s exercise of reason, development of a good moral character and the “complete virtue”.

Certainly, these are areas of opportunities and challenges that official statisticians can….

and must address! We hope that the pioneering initiatives of the NSCB TS on the

measurement of well-being and happiness will continue.

Towards further improvement of the framework, following are some recommendations on

the ways forward so that the NSCB/PSS can continue to respond to emerging information

concerns of Philippine society:

1. Testing/Validation of the framework with other groups including the basic sectors

of society particularly children, especially those whose parents are OFWs, senior

citizens, farmers and fisherfolk; also with the high-income group and the business

community and groups of the workers, etc. can aid policy- and decision-makers in

addressing the social concern to increase the happiness level of all.

26

2. Continuing Improvement of the PHI framework/questionnaire. For one, the

questionnaire should be redesigned as many respondents found it difficult/ did not

know how to accomplish. Also, respondents might be making confused responses to

the importance of a domain versus their level of happiness for the domain. And

should the PHI framework continue to be individual-driven (non-normative)?

3. Policy uses of results. To maximize the information obtained from and the return

on investments on the PHI initiatives, users should come up/demonstrate actual

policy uses of these statistics. It should motivate leaders, policy- and decision-

makers to make positive changes for their constituents.

4. Practical uses of the PHI. Other uses of the PHI should be cultivated to increase

the level of happiness and well-being of society – within the family, within a basic

sector of society, within an organization, within a political unit, especially at the

barangay level, etc.

5. Continuing efforts by the international community. As many countries are still

developing their approaches to the measurement of well-being and happiness,

members of the international community like the OECD should continue with efforts

that can provide methodological guidance to countries.

6. Advocacy for rational and virtuous domains of happiness. Efforts must be

exerted by government, the private sector and civil society towards a PHI framework

whose domains of happiness do not revolve around instant gratification but are

defined by a society of good citizenship possessing what Aristotle referred to as

“complete virtue”.

7. Institutionalization of the generation of the PHI. The NSCB Executive Board and

the NSCB TS have made some decisions to push the PHI agenda forward in the

PSS. It has been included in the Philippine Statistical Development Program 2011-

2017, but will the PSA do the surveys? Will the DBM and Congress muster the

political will to provide the necessary resources to the PSS?

27

ACRONYMS

DBM Department of Budget and Management GDP Gross Domestic Product ISI International Statistical Institute LFS Labor Force Survey NCS National Convention on Statistics NGO Non-government organization NSCB National Statistical Coordination Board NSO National Statistics Office OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development PGNHI Philippine Gross National Happiness Index PHI Philippine Happiness Index PSIC Philippine Standard Industrial Classification PSOC Philippine Standard Occupational Classification PSDP Philippine Statistical Development Program PSNA Philippine System of National Accounts PSS Philippine Statistical System SRTC Statistical Research and Training Center TS Technical Staff UNESCAP United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific UNSDSN United Nations Sustainable Development Solutions WAVES Wealth Accounting and the Valuation of Ecosystem Services WSC World Statistics Congress REFERENCES

[1] The Pursuit of Happiness Bringing the science of happiness to life. Aristotle. http://www.pursuit-of-happiness.org/history-of-happiness/aristotle/.

[2] Stevenson, Betsey and Wolfers, Justin. The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness. National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) Working paper. 2009. http://www.nber.org/papers/w14969.

[3] Bella Depaulo, PhD. Why aren’t married people any happier than singles? http://blogs.psychcentral.com/single-at-heart/2011/12/why-aren%E2%80%99t-married-people-any-happier-than-singles-a-nobel-prize-winner%E2%80%99s-answer/

[4] Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress. Report of the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress. September 2009. http://stiglitz-sen-fitoussi.fr/documents/rapport_anglais.pdf.

[5] Helliwell, John, Layard, Richard, and Sachs, Jeffrey. World Happiness Report 2013. United Nations Sustainable Development Solutions Network. 09 September 2013. http://unsdsn.org/files/2013/09/WorldHappinessReport2013_online.pdf

[6] Veenhoven, R., World Database of Happiness, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Assessed on (date) at: http://worlddatabaseofhappiness.eur.nl

[7] Clifton, Jon. Singapore ranks as Least Emotional Country in the World. 21 November 2012. http://www.gallup.com/poll/158882/singapore-ranks-least-emotional-country-world.aspx#1.

28

[8] Abdallah, Saamah, Thompson, Sam and Marks, Nic. Estimating worldwide life satisfaction. 2007. http://www.uvm.edu/~pdodds/files/papers/others/2007/abdallah2007a.pdf.

[9] Virola, Romulo A. and Encarnacion, Jessamyn O. Measuring Progress of Philippine Society: Gross National Product or Gross National Happiness. 10th National Convention on Statistics. 1-2 October 2007. http://www.nscb.gov.ph/ncs/10thNCS/papers/invited%20papers/ips-28/ips28-03.pdf.

[10] Virola, Romulo A., Encarnacion, Jessamyn O, Mark C. Pascasio, and Raul A. Clavido. Measuring Progress of Philippine Society: What Makes the Poor Happy? 11th National Convention on Statistics, October 4-5, 2010, EDSA Shangri-La Hotel, Ortigas Center, Mandaluyong City, Philippines. http://www.nscb.gov.ph/ncs/11thNCS/papers/invited%20papers/ips-23/01_Measuring%20Progress%20of%20Philippine%20Society%20What%20Makes%20the%20Poor%20Happy.pdf.

[11] Virola, Romulo A. and Encarnacion, Jessamyn O. Towards Measuring Progress of Societies: The Philippine Experience. 57th Session of the International Statistical Institute. 16-22 August 2009, Durban, South Africa.

[12] Virola, Romulo A., Encarnacion, Jessamyn O. and Mark C. Pascasio. Improving the Way We Measure Progress of Societies: The Philippine Happiness Index among the Poor and the Unhappy, 58th Session of the International Statistical Institute. 21-26 August 2011, Dublin, Ireland.

[13] Bates, Winton. Gross National Happiness. Asian Pacific Economic Literature. Volume 23, Issue 2, pages 1-16. November 2009.

[14] National Statistical Coordination Board. Highlights of the 1st Regular Meeting of the NSCB Executive Board, Series of 2010. 10 February 2010.

[15] National Statistical Coordination Board. Philippine Statistical Development Program 2011-2017.

[16] Virola, Romulo A. Measuring Progress of Societies: Would You Rather Be Rich Or Would You Rather Be Happy? Statistically Speaking Article. 13 August 2007. http://www.nscb.gov.ph/headlines/StatsSpeak/2007/081307_rav_happiness.asp

[17] http://unsdsn.org/happiness/

29

ANNEX

Annex PHI 10022013-01

A. List of Papers and articles Virola, Romulo A. and Encarnacion, Jessamyn O. Measuring Progress of Societies: Would You Rather Be Rich Or Would You Rather Be Happy? Statistically Speaking Article. 13 August 2007. http://www.nscb.gov.ph/headlines/StatsSpeak/2007/081307_rav_happiness.asp Virola, Romulo A. and Encarnacion, Jessamyn O. Measuring Progress of Philippine Society: Gross National Product or Gross National Happiness? 10th National Convention on Statistics. 1-2 October 2007. http://www.nscb.gov.ph/ncs/10thNCS/papers/invited%20papers/ips-28/ips28-03.pdf Virola, Romulo A. How Happy Are Pinoys With Sex? Statistically Speaking Article. 08 October 2007. http://www.nscb.gov.ph/headlines/StatsSpeak/2007/100807_rav_happiness2.asp Virola, Romulo A. and Encarnacion, Jessamyn O. Gross National Happiness IndexL Towards Measuring the Progress of Societies. First Session of the Committee on Statistics of the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP). Bangkok, Thailand. December 2008. http://www.unescap.org/stat/cst/1/CST1-INF21.pdf Virola, Romulo A. and Encarnacion, Jessamyn O. Towards Measuring Progress of Societies: The Philippine Experience. 57th Session of the International Statistical Institute. 16-22 August 2009. Virola, Romulo A. and Encarnacion, Jessamyn O., Pascasio, Mark C., and Clavido, Raul A. Measuring Progress of Philippine Society: What Makes the Poor Happy? 11th National Convention on Statistics. 4-5 October 2010. http://www.nscb.gov.ph/ncs/11thNCS/papers/invited%20papers/ips-23/01_Measuring%20Progress%20of%20Philippine%20Society%20What%20Makes%20the%20Poor%20Happy.pdf Virola, Romulo A. and Encarnacion, Jessamyn O., and Pascasio, Mark C. What Makes Women Happy? Statistically Speaking Article. 08 November 2010. http://www.nscb.gov.ph/headlines/StatsSpeak/2010/110810_rav_joe_happiness.asp Virola, Romulo A. and Encarnacion, Jessamyn O., and Pascasio, Mark C. Improving the Way We Measure Progress of Society: The Philippine Happiness Index among the Poor and the Unhappy. 58th Session of the International Statistical Institute. 21-26 August 2011. B. List of Presentations/Lectures/Fora/Meetings Virola, Romulo A. 10th National Convention on Statistics. Mandaluyong City. October 2007. Virola, Romulo A. PSA Lecture Forum on Everyday Statistics for the Common Tao. Makati City. October 2007. Virola, Romulo A. Lecture at Arellano University. October 2007.

30

Virola, Romulo A. Lecture at Actuarial Society of the Philippines. November 2007. Virola, Romulo A. 3rd National Tripartite Conference for Cooperative Development. Zamboanga City. November 2007. Virola, Romulo A. and Encarnacion, Jessamyn O. Lecture at University of the Philippines-Diliman. Quezon City. January 2008. Virola, Romulo A. and Encarnacion, Jessamyn O. Lecture at University of the Philippines - Los Baños Institute of Statistics. Los Baños, Laguna. February 2008. Virola, Romulo A. and Encarnacion, Jessamyn O. Lecture at Miriam College.Quezon City. February 2008. Virola, Romulo A. and Encarnacion, Jessamyn O. 5th Mindanao Statistics Congress. Ateneo de Zamboanga University, Zamboanga City. October 2008. Virola, Romulo A. 8th Western Visayas Statistics Congress. Iloilo City. October 2008. Virola, Romulo A. and Encarnacion, Jessamyn O. Philippine Statistics Quiz Regional Elimination for CALABARZON. Lipa City, Batangas. November 2008. Virola, Romulo A. First Session of the Committee on Statistics of the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific. Bangkok, Thailand. December 2008. Virola, Romulo A. 57th Session of the International Statistical Institute. Durbam, South Africa. August 2009. Virola, Romulo A. Lecture at Insurance Institute for Asia and the Pacific. September 2009. Virola, Romulo A. and Encarnacion, Jessamyn O. Meeting between NSCB and NSO on the Gross National Happiness Index. Makati City. December 2009. Virola, Romulo A. and Encarnacion, Jessamyn O. Lecture at Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism. January 2010. Virola, Romulo A. and Encarnacion, Jessamyn O. 1st Regular Meeting of the NSCB Executive Board. Pasig City. February 2010. Virola, Romulo A. and Encarnacion, Jessamyn O. 11th National Convention on Statistics. Mandaluyong City. October 2010. Virola, Romulo A. and Encarnacion, Jessamyn O. 51st Annual Convention of the Actuarial Society of the Philippines. Laoag City, Ilocos Norte. November 2010. Virola, Romulo A. and Encarnacion, Jessamyn O. Lecture at Armed Forces of the Philippines. Quezon City. February 2011. Virola, Romulo A. and Encarnacion, Jessamyn O. Department of Labor and Employment Interagency Committee on Statistical Matters. Intramuros, Manila. May 2011.

31

Virola, Romulo A. and Encarnacion, Jessamyn O. Lecture for the Study Visit of University of the Philippines School of Statistics. National Statistical Coordination Board, Makati City. July 2011. Virola, Romulo A. and Encarnacion, Jessamyn O. 49th Annual Meeting of the Philippine Economic Society. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, Malate, Manila. November 2011. Virola, Romulo A. and Encarnacion, Jessamyn O. Meeting with the Office of Senator Loren Legarda on the Measurement of Gross National Happiness. National Statistical Coordination Board, Makati City. January 2012. Virola, Romulo A. 4th OECD World Forum on Statistics, Knowledge and Policy. New Delhi, India. October 2012. Virola, Romulo A. and Encarnacion, Jessamyn O. Seminar-Workshop on Covering the 2013 Elections, Uncovering Campaign Finance, Local Power and Governance Luzon Leg. One Tagaytay Place, Tagaytay City.November 2012. Virola, Romulo A. and Encarnacion, Jessamyn O. Seminar-Workshop on Covering the 2013 Elections, Uncovering Campaign Finance, Local Power and Governance Visayas Leg. Cebu City. January 2013. Virola, Romulo A. and Encarnacion, Jessamyn O. Math Conference Series “Detour: Touring the Social Setting with Math”. Ateneo de Manila University, Quezon City. February 2013. Virola, Romulo A. and Encarnacion, Jessamyn O. 20th Camp Math “Camp Math University Est ‘93’”. Ateneo de Manila University, Quezon City. August 2013.

32

Annex PHI 10022013-02

Figure 1. Conceptual Framework of the Philippine Happiness Index (PHI) October 2013

where, HI1 = Happiness index of the 1

st person in the population

HI2 = Happiness index of the 2nd

person in the population HIn = Happiness index of the n

th person in the population

HIn

Philippine Happiness

Index

HI1

HI2

Community and volunteer work

Country of residence

Cultural activities

Education

Family

Friends

Food

Health

Income and financial security

Leisure and sports

Love life / Sex life

Religion and spiritual work

Technological know-how

Work

Economy / Peace and security

Government / Politics

Natural Resources / Environment

Others

33

Annex PHI 10022013-03

Study on the Measurement and Self-Monitoring of Happiness

July 2013

Dear Sir/Madam:

Greetings!

In response to emerging concerns to measure genuine progress of societies, the National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB) developed a methodology to estimate the Philippine Happiness Index (PHI). The PHI is meant to measure happiness that can be combined with conventional economic indicators to come up with a more multi-dimensional measure of the progress of a society.

In October 2007, the NSCB initiated a study entitled, “Measuring Progress of Philippine Society: Gross National Product or Gross National Happiness?” which was presented during the 10

th National Convention on Statistics

(NCS). The study has been updated to produce results for 2008 and 2010 which were presented in various local and international fora, e.g., 11

th NCS, 49

th Annual Meeting of the Philippine Economic Society (PES), UNESCAP

Committee on Statistics, 57th and 58

th International Statistical Institute (ISI) World Statistics Congress, and the 4

th

OECD World Forum on Statistics, Knowledge, and Policy, among others. This year, the NSCB’s study on happiness will be presented in the 12

th NCS on October 1-2, 2013 at EDSA Shangri-La Plaza, Mandaluyong City.

Recognizing the need to continue to pursue the research agenda on measuring progress of societies, we believe that a tool to self-monitor happiness is important. In this regard, we are requesting for your kind assistance by accomplishing the questionnaire. In accordance with the UN Fundamental Principles of Official Statistics, please be assured that all information furnished on this questionnaire will be held STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL.

We would appreciate receiving the accomplished questionnaire on or before August 12, 2013 (Monday).

Thank you and best regards.

Very truly yours,

ROMULO A. VIROLA JESSAMYN O. ENCARNACION

Study Leader Co-Researcher Former Secretary General Director, Social Statistics Office National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB) NSCB

Last Name (optional) Respondent No.

First Name (optional) Date accomplished

Middle Name (optional)

E-mail address (optional)

I. HAPPINESS SURVEY Please tick the appropriate box. 1 2 3 4 5

1.1 For the WEEK OF JULY 29 (MONDAY) – AUGUST 4 (SUNDAY), 2013, taking all things together, I would say that I was…

Very unhappy

Unhappy Neutral Happy Very happy

1.2 The statement which describes my opinion on happiness is… (Choose one only.)

The good things that happen to me are results more of my own hard work, personal choices.

The good things that happen to me are results more of other people’s help, other factors around me.

1.3 The statement which best describes my opinion on unhappiness is… (Choose one only.)

The bad things that happen to me are results more of my own mistakes and misdoings.

The bad things that happen to me are results more of other people’s interference, other factors around me.

34

1.4 Based on my personal experiences on July 29 (Monday) – August 4 (Sunday), 2013, the following are the sources of my happiness. (If happiness is derived from a domain identified below, indicate the level of importance (1 for least important and 10 for most important) and level of happiness (1 for very unhappy and 5 for very happy))

Source/Domain

(1)

Source of happiness (Yes or No)

If yes, go to

column (3). If no, proceed to

next item.

(2)

Level of importance (1 for least important; 10 for most important – can have

ties)

(3)

Level of happiness on July 29 (Monday) – August 4 (Sunday), 2013

(4)

1 2 3 4 5

Very unhappy

Unhappy Neutral Happy Very

happy

A. Personal welfare/involvement on the following:

1.4.1 Community and

volunteer work

1.4.2 Country of residence

1.4.3 Cultural activities

1.4.4 Education

1.4.5 Family

1.4.6 Friends

1.4.7 Food

1.4.8 Health

1.4.9 Income and financial security

1.4.10 Leisure and sports

1.4.11 Love life/Sex life

1.4.12 Religion and spiritual work

1.4.13 Technological

know-how

1.4.14 Work

B. Personal appreciation of the following:

1.4.15 Economy/Peace and Security

1.4.16 Government/ Politics

1.4.17 Natural Resources/ Environment

C. Others

(please specify) ______

___________________’

35

1.5 In my opinion…

Progress is SYNONYMOUS to happiness.

Progress is NOT SYNONYMOUS to happiness.

II. DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

Please tick the appropriate box.

2.1 Sex

Male Female

2.2 Age

Below 25 years 45-54 years

25-34 years 55-64 years

35-44 years 65 years and above

2.3 Marital Status

Single Divorced/separated/annulled

Married Common law/live-in

Widowed

2.4 Ownership of house

Owned Rented

Living with parents/ Others (please specify)

relatives

2.5 Years living in current residence _________

III. EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT BACKGROUND Please tick the appropriate box. 3.1 Highest grade completed

No grade completed Technical-vocational

Grade I to V Some college

Elementary graduate College

1st to 3

rd year high school Post-graduate

High school graduate

36

3.2 Have a job/business?

Yes No (If answer is no, go to question no. 3.6)

3.3 Occupation

26

Manager Skilled agricultural, forestry and fishery workers

Professional Craft and related trades worker

Technician or associate professional Plant and machine operator and assembler

Clerical support worker Elementary occupations (unskilled workers)

Service and sales worker Armed forces occupations

3.4 Kind of business/industry you are engaged/employed in

27

Agriculture, forestry and fishing Real estate activities

Mining and quarrying Professional, scientific and technical services

Manufacturing Administrative and support service activities

Electricity, gas, steam and air-conditioning supply

Public administrative and defense; compulsory social security

Water supply, sewerage, waste management and remediation activities

Education

Construction Human health and social work activities

Wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles

Arts, entertainment and recreation

Transportation and Storage Other service activities

Accommodation and food service activities Activities of private households as employers and undifferentiated goods & services and producing activities of household for own use

Information and Communication Activities of extraterritorial organizations and bodies

Financial and insurance activities

3.5 Years with the present company __________

3.6 Monthly personal income

PhP 6,000 and below PhP 30,001 – 50,000

PhP 6,001 – 15,000 PhP 50,001 - 100,000

PhP 15,001 – 30,000 Above PhP 100,000

26

In accordance with the 2011 Philippine Standard Occupational Classification (PSOC) 27

In accordance with the 2009 Philippine Standard Industrial Classification (PSIC)

37

The researchers highly appreciate your participation in this activity. The answers you provided will contribute to our efforts to refine the methodology and improve the measurement and monitoring of personal happiness. We look forward to your participation again, when we try to monitor your personal happiness covering the period of August 2013. We would appreciate it if you could give us any comments/suggestions to improve our methodology. Thank you very much.

Comments/Suggestions:

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

***** END OF QUESTIONNAIRE *****

THANK YOU!

38

Annex PHI 10022013-04

Illustration of the Individuals’ Ratings of Level of Importance and Level of Happiness

Domain

Person 1 Person 2 Person n

Level importance (1 - least important, 10 – most important)

Actual level of the individual’s happiness (1 for very unhappy and 5 very happy)





1. Community and volunteer work

X11 Y11 X21 Y21 Xn1 Yn1

2. Country of residence

X12 Y12 X22 Y22 Xn2 Yn2

3. Cultural activities

4. Education

5. Family

6. Friends

7. Food

8. Health

9. Income and financial security

10. Leisure and sports

11. Love life/ sex life

12. Religion and spiritual work

. . . . . .

13. Technological

know-how

. . . . . .

14. Work . . . . . .

15. Economy/ Peace

and Security

. . . . . .

39

Domain Person 1 Person 2 Person n

16. Government/Politics X116 Y116 X216 Y216 Xn16 Yn16

17. Natural resources/ environment

X117 Y117 X217 Y217 Xn17 Yn17

18. Others X118 Y118 X218 Y218 Xn18 Yn18

40

Annex PHI 10022013-05

COMPUTATION OF AN INDIVIDUAL’S HAPPINESS INDEX

Based on the identified sources/domains of happiness of an individual, using the corresponding weights (i.e., level of importance) and level of happiness by source/domain, the happiness index of an individual is computed as,

HIi = happiness index of person i

18

1

18

1

* *2.5 *S

*10

ij ij ij

j

ij

j

X Y

X

where,

i = individual

j = domains of happiness: community and volunteer work, country of

residence,…, government/politics, natural resources/environment,

others

Xij = importance of domain j to individual i’s happiness

Yij = actual level of happiness of individual i for domain j

Sij = 1 if the domain j is a source of happiness of individual i

0 if the domain j is not a source of happiness of individual i

To illustrate, we take for example an individual A’s corresponding answers to the July and September 2013 rounds (see Annex Accomplished Questionnaire 1 and Annex Accomplished Questionnaire 2).

41

Sample of Individual A’s Accomplished Questionnaire for the July 2013 Round


Source/Domain

(1)


If yes, go to

column (3). If no, proceed to next item.

(2)

Level of importance (1 for least important; 10 for most important –

can have ties)

(3)


(4)

1 2 3 4 5

Very unhappy


happy


1.4.1 Community and volunteer work Yes 6


Yes 7


No

1.4.4 Education

No

1.4.5 Family Yes 10

1.4.6 Friends Yes 9

1.4.7 Food Yes 10

1.4.8 Health

No


No


Yes 8


Yes 10


Yes 8

1.4.13 Technological know-how

Yes 9

1.4.14 Work Yes 8

B. Personal Appreciation of the following:


No


No

42

Source/Domain

(1)


If yes, go to


(2)


can have ties)

(3)


(4)

1 2 3 4 5

Very unhappy


happy


Yes 6

C. Others

(please specify)

_________________

Sample of Individual A’s Accomplished Questionnaire for the August 2013 Round


Source/Domain

(1)


If yes, go to


(2)


can have ties)

(3)


(4)

1 2 3 4 5

Very unhappy


happy


1.4.1 Community and

Yes 7

volunteer work


Yes 8


No

1.4.4 Education

No

1.4.5 Family Yes 10

1.4.6 Friends Yes 10

1.4.7 Food Yes 10

43

Source/Domain

(1)


If yes, go to


(2)


can have ties)

(3)


(4)

1 2 3 4 5

Very unhappy


happy

1.4.8 Health

No


No


Yes 9


Yes 10


Yes 8

1.4.13 Technological know-how

Yes 9

1.4.14 Work Yes 6

B. Personal appreciation of the following:


No


No


Yes 7

C. Others

(please specify)

_________________

No

Considering Individual A’s responses for the July 2013 round on the sources of happiness

and its corresponding level of importance and happiness, the individual’s happiness index is

computed as:

(6*(3*2.5)) (7*(3*2.5)) (10*(4*2.5)) (9*(4* 2.5)) (10*(4*2.5))_

6 7 10 9 10 8 10 8 9 8 6

(8*(3*2.5)) (10*(4*2.5)) (8*(3*2.5)) (9*(3* 2.5)) (8*(2*2.5)) (6*(2*2.5))*10

91

45 52.5 100 90 100 60

AJuly HI

100 60 67.5 40 30*10

91

745*10

91

_ 81.87AJuly HI

44

Considering Individual A’s responses for the August 2013 round, the happiness index will be computed as:

(7*(2*2.5)) (8*(3*2.5)) (10*(3*2.5) (10*(3* 2.5)) (10*(4*2.5))_

7 8 10 10 10 9 10 8 9 6 7

(9*(2*2.5)) (10*(4*2.5)) (8*(3*2.5)) (9*(3* 2.5)) (6*(2*2.5)) (7*(2*2.5))*10

94

35 60 75 75 100 45

AAugust HI

100 60 67.5 30 35*10

94

682.5*10

94

_ 72.61AAugust HI

Based on the computations above, Individual A’s happiness index is 81.87 in the July 2013 round and 72.61 in the August round. This implies that Individual A was happy in July and August 2013 but the level declined.

45

TABLES

Table 1. Average Happiness of the Philippines and the Top Ten Happiest Nations: 2010-20121/

Country Level of Happiness2/

(Scale 0 - 10) Rank (1 = Happiest)3/

Denmark 7.693 1

Norway 7.655 2

Switzerland 7.65 3

Netherlands 7.512 4

Sweden 7.48 5

Canada 7.477 6

Finland 7.389 7

Austria 7.369 8

Iceland 7.355 9

Australia 7.35 10

Philippines 4.985 92 Notes: 1/ http://unsdsn.org/files/2013/09/WorldHappinessReport2013_online.pdf 2/ Explained by: Base country (1.977) plus residual, health life expectancy, perceptions of corruption, GDP per capita, freedom to make life choices, social support, and generosity 3/ Rank among 156 nations

http://unsdsn.org/files/2013/09/WorldHappinessReport2013_online.pdf

46

Table 2. Average Happiness of the Top Ten Happiest Nations: 1995 – 2005, 2000 – 2009

Country Satisfaction with life1/ Rank (1 = Happiest)

1995-20052/ 2000-20093/ 1995-20054/ 2000-20095/

Denmark 8.20 8.30 1.5 2.0

Norway 7.40 7.90 14.0 6.0

Switzerland 8.20 8.00 1.5 4.0

Netherlands 7.50 7.60 10.5 14.5

Sweden 7.70 7.80 5.5 9.0

Canada 7.60 7.80 8.0 9.0

Finland 7.70 7.90 5.5 6.0

Austria 7.80 7.40 3.5 20.5

Iceland 7.80 8.20 3.5 3.0

Australia 7.30 7.70 16.5 12.0

Costa Rica 7.41 8.50 12.0 1.0

Panama 7.16 7.80 20.0 9.0

Mexico 6.94 7.90 27.0 6.0

Ireland 7.60 7.60 8.0 14.5

Luxembourg 7.60 7.70 8.0 12.0

Malta 7.50 7.10 10.5 30.5 Notes: 1/ All above happiness variants are based on responses to a survey question like: “Taking all together, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with your life-as-a-whole these days?”.

2/ http://www.uvm.edu/~pdodds/files/papers/others/2007/abdallah2007a.pdf

3/ http://worlddatabaseofhappiness.eur.nl

4/ Rank among 102 nations


"-" No data

47

Table 3. Average Happiness of Nations in the Middle Range Category: 1995 – 2005 and 2000 – 2009


1995-20052/ 2000-20093/ 1995-20054/ 2000-20095/

Czech Republic 6.40 6.50 47.0 53.0

Korea (South) 5.80 6.00 64.0 69.5

Japan 6.20 6.50 52.0 53.0

Slovakia 5.40 5.90 71.5 74.5

Ecuador 6.16 6.40 54.0 57.0

Peru 6.18 6.20 53.0 63.5

Croatia 5.90 6.00 62.0 69.5

Uzbekistan 6.40 6.00 47.0 69.5

Vietnam 6.10 6.10 55.5 66.5

Greece 6.30 6.40 49.5 57.0

Estonia 5.10 6.00 81.0 69.5

Algeria 5.20 5.40 77.5 94.5

Jordan 5.10 5.90 81.0 74.5

Jamaica - 6.70 - 43.0

Indonesia 6.60 6.30 39.0 60.0

Turkey 5.30 5.70 74.0 82.0

Libya - - - -

Bahrain - - - -

Montenegro - 5.20 - 102.5

Pakistan 4.30 5.00 94.0 108.0

Nigeria 6.50 5.70 45.0 82.0

Kosovo - 5.40 - 94.5

Portugal 6.10 5.70 55.5 82.0

Philippines 6.40 5.90 47.0 74.5

China 6.30 6.30 49.5 60.0

48


South Africa 5.50 5.80 69.5 78.0

Tunisia - 5.90 - 74.5

Iran 6.00 5.90 59.5 74.5

Syria - 5.90 - 74.5

Namibia 6.29 5.20 51.0 102.5 Notes:

1/ All above happiness variants are based on responses to a survey question like: “Taking all together, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with your life-as-a-whole these days?”.

2/ http://www.uvm.edu/~pdodds/files/papers/others/2007/abdallah2007a.pdf

3/ http://worlddatabaseofhappiness.eur.nl



"-" No data

49

Table 4. Average Happiness among ASEAN member states: 1995 – 2005 and 2000 – 2009

Country Satisfaction with Life

(Scale 0 - 10) 1/ Rank

(1 = Happiest)

1995-20052/ 2000-20093/ 1995-20054/ 2000-20095/

Singapore 6.9 6.9 1 1

Thailand - 6.6 - 2

Malaysia - 6.5 - 3

Viet Nam 6.1 6.1 4 6

Indonesia 6.6 6.3 2 4

Philippines 6.4 5.9 3 7

Laos - 6.2 - 5

Myanmar - - - -

Cambodia - 4.9 - 8

Brunei Darussalam - - - -

Notes: 1/ All above happiness variants are based on responses to a survey question like: “Taking all together, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with your life-as-a-whole these days?”. 2/ http://www.uvm.edu/~pdodds/files/papers/others/2007/abdallah2007a.pdf 3/ http://worlddatabaseofhappiness.eur.nl 4/ Rank among 102 nations 5/ Rank among 149 nations "-" No data

http://www.uvm.edu/~pdodds/files/papers/others/2007/abdallah2007a.pdf

http://worlddatabaseofhappiness.eur.nl/

50

Table 5. Average Happiness of Nations in Asia and the Pacific: 1995 – 2005 and 2000 – 2009

Country1/ Satisfaction with Life


(1 = Happiest)

1995-20053/ 2000-20094/ 1995-20055/ 2000-20096/

Thailand - 6.60 - 2.0

Malaysia - 6.50 - 3.0

Kazakhstan - 6.10 - 7.5

Turkmenistan - 7.20 - 1.0

Uzbekistan 6.40 6.00 3.5 9.0

Viet Nam 6.10 6.10 6.0 7.5

Indonesia 6.60 6.30 1.5 4.5

Pakistan 4.30 5.00 9.0 19.5

Kyrgyz Republic - 5.50 - 12.5

Philippines 6.40 5.90 3.5 10.0

China 6.30 6.30 5.0 4.5

Mongolia - 5.70 - 11.0

Bangladesh 5.70 5.30 7.0 15.0

Laos - 6.20 - 6.0

India 5.40 5.50 8.0 12.5

Azerbaijan - 5.30 - 15.0

Myanmar - - - -

Tajikistan - 5.10 - 17.5

Armenia 3.70 5.00 11.0 19.5

Georgia 4.10 4.30 10.0 22.0

Nepal - 5.30 - 15.0

Sri Lanka - 5.10 - 17.5

Cambodia - 4.90 - 21.0

Afghanistan - 4.10 - 23.0

Timor-Leste 6.60 - 1.5 -

51

Country1/ Satisfaction with Life


(1 = Happiest)

1995-20053/ 2000-20094/ 1995-20055/ 2000-20096/

Bhutan - - - -

Cook Islands - - - -

Fiji - - - -

Kiribati - - - -

Maldives - - - -

Marshall Islands - - - -

Micronesia, Federated States of - - - -

Nauru - - - -

Palau - - - -

Papua New Guinea - - - -

Samoa - - - -

Solomon Islands - - - -

Tonga - - - -

Tuvalu - - - -

Vanuatu - - - -

Notes: 1/ List of countries is based on the Asian Development Bank's member countries in Asia and the Pacific. 2/ All above happiness variants are based on responses to a survey question like: “Taking all together, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with your life-as-a-whole these days?”. 3/ http://www.uvm.edu/~pdodds/files/papers/others/2007/abdallah2007a.pdf 4/ http://worlddatabaseofhappiness.eur.nl 5/ Rank among 102 nations 6/ Rank among 149 nations "-" No data

http://www.uvm.edu/~pdodds/files/papers/others/2007/abdallah2007a.pdf

http://worlddatabaseofhappiness.eur.nl/

52

Table 6. Significantly Correlated Levels of Happiness by Domain of Happiness: 2007, 2008, 2010 and all years combined

Note: a/ Food and Peace and security are the additional domains in 2010. Source: Virola, Romulo A., et. al. Are You Happier Now? Why Not Systematically Monitor Your Personal Happiness? 12th National Convention on Statistics. National Statistical Coordination Board. October 2013

2007 2008 2010a/ 2007-2010

No. of respondents 167 158 356 681

Highly Correlated Domains

(Coefficient > = 0.6)

Level of happiness

Sex life and Love life 0.619 Sex life and Love life

0.785 Sex life and Love life

0.715 Sex life and Love life

0.707

Politics and Government

0.634 Politics and Government



0.730

Environment and Economy

0.631 Leisure and sports and Income

0.613 Economy and Peace and Security

0.697

Politics and Economy

0.619 Work and Income

0.629 Environment and Peace and Security

0.647

Environment and Economy

0.634

Economy and Peace and Security

0.697

Environment and Peace and Security

0.647

Community and volunteer work and Cultural activities

0.672

53

Table 7. Level of Importance of Domains of Happiness among Respondents in Government Agency: 2007, 2008, 2010 and 2013

Level of Importance

20071/ 2008

1/ 2010

1/ July 2013

2/ August 2013

2/

Average importance

Rank Average

importance Rank

Average importance

Rank Average

importance Rank

Average importance

Rank

No. of respondentsa/ 77 63 64 56

Source/Domain

Family 1.4 1 9.24 1 9.54 1 9.77 1 9.48 1

Health 3.51 2 8.82 2 9.02 2 9.1 2 8.96 2

Religion and/or spiritual work 4.92 3 8.41 3 8.82 4 8.96 3 8.8 3

Income and financial security 5.11 4 8.16 5 8.37 6 8.32 5 8.57 4

Work 6.51 6 7.85 6 8.49 5 8.51 4 8.39 5

Friendsb/ - 7.35 7 7.39 12 8.04 7 8.34 6

Love life/Sex lifec/ - - - 7.94 8 8.26 7

Foodd/ - -

7.71 11 8.24 6 8.02 8

Education 6.31 5 7.31 8 7.26 13 7.77 9 7.78 9

Natural Resources/Environmente/ 7.58 8 7.21 10 8.31 7 7.28 11 7.56 10

Economy/Peace and Securityc/ - -

- 7.53 10 7.49 11

Leisure and sports 7.09 7 6.29 14 5.8 18 6.98 13 7.08 12

Technological know-how 8.56 9 6.33 13 6.56 15 7 12 6.9 13

Country of residencef/ - -

- 6.59 14 6.29 14

Government/Politicsc/ - -

- 5.49 17 6.16 15

Community and volunteer work 9.85 11 5.43 16 5.83 17 6.38 15 5.69 16

Cultural activities 10.49 12 4.67 17 4.54 19 5.85 16 5.62 17

Love lifeb/ - 8.33 4 7.83 10 - -

Sex lifeb/

- 6.24 15 6.39 16 - -

Peace and securityd/

- - 8.97 3 - -

Politics 12.58 14 6.43 12 6.94 14 - -

Economy 9.42 10 6.94 11 8.1 9 - -

Government 11.37 13 7.25 9 8.23 8 - -

Sources: 1/ Virola, Romulo A., et. al. Measuring Progress of Philippine Society: What Makes the Poor Happy? 11th National Convention on Statistics. National Statistical Coordination Board. October 2010 2/ Virola, Romulo A., et. al. Are You Happier Now? Why Not Systematically Monitor Your Personal Happiness? 12th National Convention on Statistics. National Statistical Coordination Board. October 2013

54

Notes: a/ Nonrandom respondents from a Government Agency and they do not form a panel from 2007 -2013. b/ Not included in the 2007 and 2008 questionnaires. Per suggestions and comments from some of the respondents, these items were added from the list of possible sources/domains of happiness. c/ For the 2013 study, correlation runs were performed separately for the 2007, 2008 and 2010 data and for all the data combined (2007-2010). These domains have statistically significant coefficients with at least 0.60, hence, they were merged into a domain.

d/ These were added in the 2010 study.

e/ For the 2013 study, this was renamed from 'Environment' to 'Natural Resources/Environment'.

f/ New domain added in this study.

'-' not applicable

55

Table 8. Level of Importance of Domains of Happiness among Respondents in Private Agency: 2007, 2008, 2010 and 2013

Level of Importance

20071/ 2008

1/ 2010

1/ July 2013

2/ August 2013

2/

Average importance

Rank Average

importance Rank

Average importance

Rank Average

importance Rank

Average importance

Rank

No. of respondentsa/

46 25 29 17

Source/Domain

Family 1.70 1 9.87 1 9.84 1 9.41 1 9.47 1

Health 3.14 2 9.07 3 8.96 4 9.00 2.5 8.88 2

Foodb/ - - 8.43 11 8.56 5 8.82 3

Friendsc/ - 8.73 4 8.26 14 9.00 2.5 8.71 4

Education 6.20 6 9.13 2 8.91 5 8.19 8 8.59 5


Religion and/or spiritual work 4.67 3 8.27 6 9.13 3 8.25 7 8.47 7.5

Work 6.14 5 8.07 8 8.36 13 8.29 6 8.47 7.5

Economy/Peace and Securityd/

- - - 7.06 14 8.38 9

Love life/Sex lifed/ - - - 7.31 13 8.25 10


Natural Resources/Environmente/ 6.93 7 7.60 10 8.79 7 7.33 12 7.86 12

Technological know-how 10.18 12 6.82 14 7.42 15 7.00 15.5 7.63 13

Government/Politicsd/ - - - 6.08 17 6.92 14

Country of residencef/ - - - 7.86 9 6.82 15


Community and volunteer work 9.00 9 6.09 17 5.49 18 7.00 15.5 6.42 17

Sex lifec/ - 7.50 11 7.23 16 - -

Love lifec/ - 8.15 7 8.44 10 - -

Peace and security b/

- - 8.51 9 - -

Politics 12.85 14 7.33 12 8.39 12 - -

Government 12.03 13 7.00 13 8.66 8 - -

Economy 9.80 11 7.67 9 8.91 6 - -


56

Notes: a/ Nonrandom respondents from a Government Agency b/ These were added in the 2010 study. c/ Not included in the 2007 and 2008 questionnaires. Per suggestions and comments from some of the respondents, these items were added from the list of possible sources/domains of happiness.

d/ For the 2013 study, correlation runs were performed separately for the 2007, 2008 and 2010 data and for all the data combined (2007-2010). These domains have statistically significant coefficients with at least 0.60, hence, they were merged into a domain. e/ For the 2013 study, this was renamed from 'Environment' to 'Natural Resources/Environment'.

f/ New domain added in this study.

'-' not applicable

57

Table 9. Level of Happiness of Respondents in Government Agency, by Domain of Happiness: 2007, 2008, 2010 and 2013

Level of Happiness

20071/ 2008

1/ 2010

1/ July 2013

2/ August 2013

2/

Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank


77 63 64 56

Overall (based on domains) 58.3 67.52 69.9 71.64 68.12

Source/Domain

Family 84.42 1 93.4 1 89.96 1 90.5 1 88.02 1

Friendsb/ - 82.67 2 80.1 3 80.4 3 81.38 2


Foodc/ - - 76.93 5 77.7 4 77.84 4

Health 67.53 3 80.16 5 71.25 6 72.3 6 75.65 5


Work 59.74 7 70.88 8 65.62 9 68.02 9 68.72 7 Technological know-how 65.13 5 69.62 9 65.09 10 68.17 8 68.47 8 Education 65.33 4 74.05 6 64.67 11 67.5 10 66.64 9 Leisure and sports 62.67 6 69.2 10 63.71 12 64.2 12 65.33 10 Income and financial security 54.28 9 68.23 11 61.23 13 59.28 14 61.61 11

Country of residencee/ - - - 69.35 7 61.17 12


Natural Resources/Environmentf/ 53 11 44.3 15 42.1 18 55.91 15 57.92 14



- - - 52.97 16 52.96 16


Love lifeb/ - 82.2 3 87.32 2 - -

Sex lifeb/ - 72.16 7 70.97 7 - -

Peace and securityc/ - - 58.97 14 - -

Politics 23.36 14 48.96 14 37.2 19 - - Economy 50 12 41.8 16 50.6 17 - - Government 38.49 13 38.14 17 51.15 16 - -

Others 70 80.56 75.00 75.00


58

Notes: a/ Nonrandom respondents from a Private Agency b/ Not included in the 2007 and 2008 questionnaires. Per suggestions and comments from some of the respondents, these items were added from the list of possible sources/domains of happiness. c/ These were added in the 2010 study.

d/ For the 2013 study, correlation runs were performed separately for the 2007, 2008 and 2010 data and for all the data combined (2007-2010). These domains have statistically significant coefficients with at least 0.60, hence, they were merged into a domain.

e/ New domain added in this study.

f/ For the 2013 study, this was renamed from 'Environment' to 'Natural Resources/Environment'.

'-' not applicable

59

Table 10. Level of Happiness of Respondents in Private Agency, by Domain of Happiness: 2007, 2008, 2010 and 2013

Level of Happiness

20071/ 2008

1/ 2010

1/ July 2013

2/ August 2013

2/

Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank


46 25 29 17

Overall (based on domains) 55.26 64.33 65.60 72.10 66.57

Source/Domain

Family 82.07 1 86.66 1 80.27 3 90.3 1 85.87 1

Friendsb/ - 81.87 2 80.69 2 86.8 2 78.21 2

Foodc/ - - 74.3 4 84.9 4 77.33 3


Education 62.5 4 79.2 3 72.51 7 79.4 5 71.23 5


Health 73.89 3 73.9 5 71.96 8 76.8 6 69.2 7

Work 62.5 5 64.38 7 62.4 10 76.6 7 68.9 8

Cultural activities 50.56 11 64.22 8 50 14 63.1 14 64.04 9



Technological know-how 59.44 6 63.24 10 62.96 9 67.6 12 60.25 12

Country of residencee/ - - - 69.1 11 60.13 13


Natural Resources/Environmentf/ 52.22 9 54.61 14 43.07 17 60.0 15 55 15


- - - 54.4 16 50.9 16


Sex lifeb/ - 63.33 9 72.67 6 - - -

Love lifeb/ - 61.32 11 73.02 5 - - -

Peace and securityc/ - - 49.74 15 - - -

Politics 19.02 14 50 15 41.38 18 - - -

Government 22.73 13 43.33 16 35.29 19 - - -

Economy 35 12 42.39 17 43.22 16 - - -


60

Notes: a/ Nonrandom respondents from a Private Agency b/ Not included in the 2007 and 2008 questionnaires. Per suggestions and comments from some of the respondents, these items were added from the list of possible sources/domains of happiness. c/ These were added in the 2010 study.

d/ For the 2013 study, correlation runs were performed separately for the 2007, 2008 and 2010 data and for all the data combined (2007-2010). These domains have statistically significant coefficients with at least 0.60, hence, they were merged into a domain. e/ New domain added in this study.

f/ For the 2013 study, this was renamed from 'Environment' to 'Natural Resources/Environment'.

'-' not applicable

61

Table 11. Monitoring of Individual Happiness Index from July 2013 to August 2013

Respondent No.

SEX JULY HI AUG HI Is August HI Greater

than July HI? (1 = Yes)

Difference

GA1 0 75.00 68.28 FALSE (6.72)

GA2 0 82.02 80.84 FALSE (1.18)

GA3 0 87.14 74.77 FALSE (12.37)

GA4 0 69.62 73.20 1 3.58

GA5 0 100.00 56.42 FALSE (43.58)

GA6 0 66.10 58.40 FALSE (7.71)

GA7 0 61.20 73.97 1 12.77

GA8 0 73.62 93.38 1 19.75

GA9 0 60.37 52.73 FALSE (7.64)

GA10 0 66.02 67.86 1 1.84

GA11 0 84.60 89.04 1 4.44

GA12 0 75.00 86.22 1 11.22

GA13 0 59.49 64.86 1 5.37

GA14 0 80.79 77.00 FALSE (3.79)

GA15 0 77.91 71.43 FALSE (6.48)

GA16 0 66.33 75.00 1 8.67

GA17 0 66.92 0.00 FALSE (66.92)

GA18 0 84.80 92.23 1 7.43

GA19 0 61.43 57.52 FALSE (3.92)

GA20 0 67.39 66.67 FALSE (0.72)

GA21 0 68.94 77.29 1 8.35

GA22 0 77.27 94.21 1 16.94

GA23 0 94.74 74.09 FALSE (20.65)

GA24 0 84.84 81.76 FALSE (3.08)

GA25 0 77.78 66.33 FALSE (11.45)

GA26 0 55.06 52.78 FALSE (2.29)

GA27 0 60.71 39.61 FALSE (21.11)

62

Respondent No.



Difference

GA28 0 67.29 71.38 1 4.08

GA29 0 67.13 70.75 1 3.62

GA30 0 55.80 79.86 1 24.06

GA31 0 75.00 69.72 FALSE (5.28)

GA32 0 58.42 69.77 1 11.35

GA33 0 39.38 63.77 1 24.39

GA34 0 69.72 83.02 1 13.30

GA35 0 62.19 70.54 1 8.35

GA36 0 57.64 68.06 1 10.42

GA37 0 89.19 86.11 FALSE (3.08)

GA38 1 83.76 90.03 1 6.28

GA39 1 58.67 60.28 1 1.61

GA40 1 65.65 59.73 FALSE (5.92)

GA41 1 65.78 70.92 1 5.14

GA42 1 63.56 79.85 1 16.30

GA43 1 67.19 72.64 1 5.45

GA44 1 69.59 74.19 1 4.60

GA45 1 59.81 69.85 1 10.03

GA46 1 67.89 76.30 1 8.41

GA47 1 72.18 83.50 1 11.32

GA48 1 81.87 80.29 FALSE (1.57)

GA49 1 83.33 86.50 1 3.17

GA50 1 78.69 73.02 FALSE (5.67)

GA51 1 58.33 56.36 FALSE (1.98)

GA52 1 64.55 61.21 FALSE (3.35)

GA53 1 71.82 57.08 FALSE (14.74)

GA54 1 80.85 85.33 1 4.48

GA55 1 91.67 90.13 FALSE (1.54)

GA56 1 100.00 75.00 FALSE (25.00)

63

Respondent No.



Difference

PA1 0 69.18 74.46 1 5.28

PA2 0 82.05 76.53 FALSE (5.52)

PA3 0 65.98 54.62 FALSE (11.36)

PA4 0 68.33 76.42 1 8.09

PA5 0 85.23 76.27 FALSE (8.96)

PA6 0 72.80 78.72 1 5.92

PA7 0 80.26 66.67 FALSE (13.60)

PA8 0 82.95 75.00 FALSE (7.95)

PA9 0 78.32 80.21 1 1.89

PA10 0 67.24 74.23 1 6.99

PA11 0 49.61 63.00 1 13.39

PA12 0 71.50 68.65 FALSE (2.85)

PA13 1 93.75 80.77 FALSE (12.98)

PA14 1 68.75 56.75 FALSE (12.00)

PA15 1 74.26 69.02 FALSE (5.24)

PA16 1 65.43 72.92 1 7.49

PA17 1 50.00 56.02 1 6.02

Source: Virola, Romulo A., et. al. Are You Happier Now? Why Not Systematically Monitor Your Personal Happiness? 12th National Convention on Statistics. National Statistical Coordination Board. October 2013

64

Table 12. Level of Importance by Domain of Happiness of All Respondentsa/, by Sex: July and August 2013

July 2013 August 2013

Women Men Women Men

Average Importance

Rank Average

Importance Rank

Average Importance

Rank Average

Importance Rank

No. of Respondents 49 24 49 24

Source / Domain

Community and volunteer work 6.00 15 7.71 14 5.30 17 7.14 13.5

Country of residence 6.35 14 8.50 9 6.25 14 6.84 16

Cultural activities 5.77 16 7.38 16 5.40 16 7.00 15

Education 7.56 8 8.71 7 8.02 9 7.95 11

Family 9.61 1 9.83 1 9.35 1 9.75 1

Friends 8.13 5 8.55 8 8.32 5 8.65 6

Food 7.89 7 9.24 4 8.04 8 8.59 7

Health 8.87 2 9.50 2 8.76 2 9.30 2

Income and financial security 8.15 4 8.95 5 8.43 4 8.82 3

Leisure and sports 6.73 12 7.90 12 7.04 13 7.70 12

Love life/Sex life 7.49 9 8.32 10 8.11 7 8.52 8

Religion and spiritual work 8.76 3 8.86 6 8.73 3 8.68 5

Technological know-how 6.69 13 7.57 15 7.08 12 7.14 13.5

Work 8.07 6 9.29 3 8.21 6 8.78 4

Economy/Peace and Security 7.24 10 7.79 13 7.56 10 8.00 9.5

Government/ Politics 5.45 17 6.07 17 6.20 15 6.79 17

Natural Resources/ Environment

6.95 11 8.06 11 7.47 11 8.00 9.5

Others 7.00 7.00

Source: Virola, Romulo A., et. al. Are You Happier Now? Why Not Systematically Monitor Your Personal Happiness? 12th National Convention on Statistics. National Statistical Coordination Board. October 2013 Notes: a/ Nonrandom respondents from a Government Agency and a Private Company

65

Table 13. Level of Happiness by Domain of Happiness of All Respondentsa/ by Sex: July and August 2013

July 2013 August 2013

Women Men Women Men

Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank

Overall Happiness Index 68.27 69.06 70.62 72.54

Source / Domain

Community and volunteer work 66.67 12 70.37 10 61.94 12 61.50 13

Country of residence 68.67 10 70.50 8 62.33 11 58.27 14

Cultural activities 62.50 13 64.49 13 56.11 15 63.99 11

Education 69.20 8 75.18 5 68.22 8 67.45 7

Family 89.33 1 92.70 1 88.29 1 86.00 1

Friends 83.86 3 80.62 2 82.99 2 75.88 6

Food 80.33 4 78.13 4 75.91 4 81.35 2

Health 74.90 5 70.40 9 72.95 5 76.17 5

Income and financial security 60.60 14 63.00 14 61.40 13 62.24 12

Leisure and sports 67.94 11 65.71 12 62.50 10 66.57 9

Love life/Sex life 72.80 6 72.83 6 72.20 6 79.05 4

Religion and spiritual work 84.48 2 79.97 3 78.01 3 80.11 3

Technological know-how 68.97 9 66.39 11 66.07 9 65.67 10

Work 69.79 7 71.22 7 69.43 7 66.71 8

Economy/Peace and Security 54.01 16 51.96 16 53.91 16 49.02 16

Government/ Politics 43.90 17 44.30 17 39.00 17 42.82 17

Natural Resources/ Environment 57.00 15 59.60 15 57.27 14 56.84 15

Others 75.00 75.00 Source: Virola, Romulo A., et. al. Are You Happier Now? Why Not Systematically Monitor Your Personal Happiness? 12th National Convention on Statistics. National Statistical Coordination Board. October 2013

Notes: a/ Nonrandom respondents from a Government Agency and a Private Company

66

Table 14. Number and Percentage Share of Respondents with Higher Happiness Index (HI) Between July and August 2013

Total respondents

Happier respondents

Unhappier respondents Average Increase/

Decrease in the HI No. Percent No. Percent

Total 73 38 52.1 35 47.9 8.73 (10.52)

Government Agency 56 30 53.6 26 46.4 9.22 (11.07)

Private Agency 17 8 47.1 9 52.9 6.88 (8.94) Source: Virola, Romulo A., et. al. Are You Happier Now? Why Not Systematically Monitor Your Personal Happiness? 12th National Convention on Statistics. National Statistical Coordination Board. October 2013

Table 15. Number and Percentage Share of Respondents with Higher Happiness Index (HI) Between July and August 2013, by Sex

Total respondents

Happier respondents



Women

Total 49 25 51.0 24 49.0 9.66 (11.59)


Private Agency 12 6 50.0 6 50.0 6.92 (8.37)

Men

Total 24 13 54.2 11 45.8 6.94 (8.18)


Private Agency 5 2 40.0 3 60.0 13.51 (10.07) Source: Virola, Romulo A., et. al. Are You Happier Now? Why Not Systematically Monitor Your Personal Happiness? 12th National Convention on Statistics. National Statistical Coordination Board. October 2013

67

Table 16. Number and Percentage Share of Respondents with Higher Happiness Index (HI)

Between July and August 2013, by Age Group and Sex

Total respondents

Happier respondents



Total 73 38 52.1 35 47.95 8.73 (10.52)

Below 25 years 9 6 66.7 3 33.3 9.38 (3.30)

25-34 27 13 48.1 14 51.9 9.10 (8.97)

35-44 15 8 53.3 7 46.7 9.09 (9.18)

45-54 11 6 54.5 5 45.5 1.50 18.09

55-64 10 4 40.0 6 60.0 7.16 (14.96)

65 and above 1 1 100.0 0 0.0 16.94 -

Women 49 25 51.0 24 49.0 9.66 (11.59)

Below 25 years 4 3 75.0 1 25.0 10.41 3.08

25-34 18 9 50.0 9 50.0 11.34 (7.59)

35-44 10 5 50.0 5 50.0 10.73 (9.51)

45-54 10 5 50.0 5 50.0 6.08 (15.75)

55-64 6 2 33.3 4 66.7 3.60 (20.13)

65 and above 1 1 100.0 0 0.0 16.94 -

Men 24 13 54.2 11 45.8 6.94 (8.18)

Below 25 years 5 3 60.0 2 40.0 8.36 (3.41)

25-34 9 4 44.4 5 55.6 4.06 (11.44)

35-44 5 3 60.0 2 40.0 6.37 (8.36)

45-54 1 1 100.0 0 0.0 8.41 -

55-64 4 2 50.0 2 50.0 10.72 (4.63)

65 and above 0 0 - 0 - - - Source: Virola, Romulo A., et. al. Are You Happier Now? Why Not Systematically Monitor Your Personal Happiness? 12th National Convention on Statistics. National Statistical Coordination Board. October 2013

68

Table 17. Number and Percentage Share of Respondents with Higher Happiness Index (HI) Between July and August 2013, by Marital Status

Total respondents

Happier respondents



Total 73 38 52.1 35 47.95 8.73 (10.52)

Single 32 14 43.8 18 56.3 9.27 (11.25)

Married 38 22 57.9 16 42.1 8.20 (9.43)

Widowed 1 1 100.0 0 0.0 16.30 -

Divorced/separated/annulled 1 0 0.0 1 100.0 - (14.74)

Common law/live-in' 1 1 100.0 0 0.0 5.28 -


69

Table 18. Number and Percentage Share of Respondents with Higher Happiness Index (HI) Between July and August 2013, by Marital Status and Age Group

Total respondents

Happier respondents



Total 73 38 52.1 35 47.95 8.73 (10.52)

Single 32 14 43.8 18 56.3 9.27 (11.25)

Below 25 years 4 2 50.0 2 50.0 12.97 (2.33)

25-34 13 5 38.5 8 61.5 5.92 (7.90)

35-44 8 5 62.5 3 37.5 10.73 (11.44)

45-54 4 1 25.0 3 75.0 3.62 (25.25)

55-64 2 0 0.0 2 100.0 - (12.28)

65 and above 1 1 100.0 0 0.0 16.94 -

Married 38 22 57.9 16 42.1 8.20 (9.43)

Below 25 years 4 3 75.0 1 25.0 8.36 (5.24)

25-34 14 8 57.1 6 42.9 11.09 (10.38)

35-44 6 3 50.0 3 50.0 6.37 (5.07)

45-54 7 5 71.4 2 28.6 7.04 (1.51)

55-64 7 3 42.9 4 57.1 4.12 (16.30)

65 and above - - - - - - -

Widowed

55-64 1 1 100.0 0 0.0 16.30 -

Divorced/separated/annulled

35-44 1 0 - 1 100.0 - (14.74)

Common law/live-in

Below 25 years 1 1 100.0 - - 5.28 -


70

Table 19. Number and Percentage Share of Respondents with Higher Happiness Index (HI) Between July and August 2013, by Income Group

Total respondents

Happier respondents



Total 73 38 52.1 35 47.95 8.73 (10.52)

PhP 6,000 and below - - - - - - -

PhP 6,001 - 15,000 8 4 50.0 4 50.0 5.42 (12.92)

PhP 15,001 - 30,000 49 26 53.1 23 46.9 10.12 (11.55)

PhP 30,001 - 50,000 15 8 53.3 7 46.7 5.86 (5.56)

PhP 50,001 - 100,000 1 0 0.0 1 100.0 (12.00)

Above PhP 100,000 - - - - - - -


12th national convention on statistics (ncs) edsa...

Documents