The integration of subjective well-being indicators into public policy has triggered both enthusiasm and scepticism within academic and political circles. Advocates argue these measures provide holistic insights into citizens' lived experiences, extending beyond traditional economic metrics such as GDP (Dolan et al., 2006a). Theoretical models—ranging from preference satisfaction and basic needs to hedonic and evaluative approaches—offer diverse lenses to interpret well-being, each revealing different facets of human flourishing. However, this conceptual diversity is also a weakness, complicating the creation of coherent, universally accepted indicators. Moreover, technical challenges such as bounded scales, adaptation effects, and status comparisons undermine the reliability of longitudinal data, particularly when subjective reports are used to assess policy impact. Politically, resistance often arises from classical liberal concerns about state overreach and the perception of a "nanny state," although contemporary governance generally supports welfare-enhancing interventions. In practice, well-being indicators can function as contextual tools, performance metrics, or even leading indicators when designed carefully. Nevertheless, effective application depends on ensuring clarity of purpose, selecting indicators appropriate to demographic and life-course stages, and integrating subjective data with objective benchmarks. Without these, well-being measurement risks becoming conceptually muddled and operationally ineffective (Thompson & Marks, 2008).
Thompson, S. & Marks, N. (2008) Measuring well-being in policy: issues and applications. London: nef.
