The prominence of subjective well-being (SWB) in UK policy debates reflects a significant shift in how governments evaluate societal progress, yet this dominance may oversimplify complex realities. Grounded in utilitarian assumptions, the SWB approach posits that self-reported happiness or life satisfaction is a sufficient proxy for human flourishing, which aligns with classical economic metrics such as GDP. However, as Austin (2015) critically argues, this narrow lens marginalises pluralistic understandings of well-being and neglects structural inequalities. The UK’s Measuring National Well-being Programme, while initially aiming for a multidimensional framework, ultimately centres SWB as its focal metric, echoing Benthamite ideals where policy success is judged by aggregated psychological states. For instance, domains like health or employment are often interpreted merely as inputs to subjective satisfaction rather than valued ends in themselves. This instrumentalism raises both ethical and epistemological concerns, particularly given the risks of adaptive preferences, where individuals in deprived conditions may report high satisfaction despite severe objective disadvantage. The Capabilities Approach, inspired by Aristotelian ethics and advanced by Sen and Nussbaum, offers a more nuanced and egalitarian alternative. It prioritises the real freedoms individuals have to pursue meaningful lives, thereby providing a robust, multidimensional foundation for policy evaluation. As such, a genuine move beyond GDP must involve challenging the current hegemony of happiness and embracing frameworks that reflect the full spectrum of human well-being (Austin, 2015).
