Ranking of Finland as the happiest country for the 8th year while India stands at 118, prompting questions about perception-based global happiness metrics, cultural biases, and why economic growth doesn’t translate into higher “happiness” scores for countries like India.

About World Happiness Report 2025

• UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network (UNSDSN) has published the World Happiness Report (WHR) 2025 on World Happiness Day (20th March)
• Report: Published by the Wellbeing Research Centre at the University of Oxford in partnership with Gallup and the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network (UNSDSN).
• Top Performers: Finland, along with other Nordic countries (Denmark, Iceland, Sweden), consistently ranks at the top.
• India vs. Pakistan: Pakistan ranks 109th, while India ranks 118th
• Economic Paradox: India’s economy (3.7trillion) is about 10 times larger than Pakistan’s (375 billion). 
  • India is experiencing a boom in digital and physical infrastructure, yet the report suggests Pakistan’s population is happier.
• India’s Score: India scored 4.389 out of 10. The core reason for this disparity is found in psychology, not economics.
• Methodology
• • Cantril Ladder–Based Self-Evaluation: Report relies on the Gallup World Poll’s Cantril Ladder, where individuals rate their lives on a 0–10 scale, grounded in personal perception rather than objective behaviour. (0 being the worst possible life, 10 being the best). 
  • Six-Variable Correlation Model: Happiness scores are statistically linked with six factors,  treating these as correlates rather than direct causal determinants. 
    •  Six Factors: GDP per capita, Social support, Healthy life expectancy, Freedom of choice, Generosity, and Perception of corruption
  • Trust and Kindness Emphasis: The report itself admits that social trust and belief in community kindness often predict happiness more strongly than income or economic performance.

Limitations of the Happiness Measurement Framework

• High Perception Bias: Democracies like India score lower because open media, criticism, and rising aspirations create a sense of dissatisfaction. 
  • This penalises societies that allow free expression.
• Low-Expectation Advantage: Societies with chronic hardship or limited aspirations often report higher happiness scores because people adapt to difficulties and expect less, artificially inflating their scores.
• Subjective Nature of the Index: The World Happiness Report is based on self-reported life satisfaction rather than objective outcomes. 
  • This creates large cross-country variations that reflect perception differences more than real wellbeing.
• WEIRD Cultural Bias: The framework reflects Western, Educated, Industrialised, Rich, Democratic assumptions, privileging individual autonomy and institutional trust while overlooking collective trust networks (family, caste, community) that anchor wellbeing in countries like India.
• Opaque Expert-Based Indexing: Similar to critiques of Freedom House and V-Dem, the report relies on assessments shaped by small pools of Western experts, creating systemic distortions in global comparisons.
• Authoritarian Stability Illusion: Regimes with suppressed dissent or controlled media may appear “content” because fewer complaints surface, misleadingly raising their happiness rankings compared to noisy democracies.
• Neglect of Informal Trust Networks: India’s strong village and family safety nets (visible during COVID-19 reverse migration) are not captured in metrics focused only on state institutions.

Reasons for Nordic Countries to Dominate

• High Institutional Trust: Citizens believe public systems work predictably  exemplified by the idea that a lost wallet will likely be returned, reinforcing social confidence.
• Strong Social Welfare Architecture: Universal healthcare, unemployment protection, and state-backed childcare build a secure environment that translates directly into perceived happiness.
• Low Inequality & High Social Cohesion: Nordic countries maintain low income disparity and consistent delivery of essential services, improving both stability and subjective wellbeing.
• Stable Expectations & Low Aspirational Volatility: Citizens experience fewer shocks in governance or service delivery, contributing to steady positive self-evaluation.
• Transparent and Corruption-Resistant Governance: High systemic transparency boosts trust in public institutions, a key factor rewarded heavily in the happiness index.

Core Challenge of India

• Shrinking Social Networks: India’s growth is rapid, but social bonds are weakening due to migration, urbanisation, and digital lifestyles. 
  • This disconnect lowers perceived social support, a key happiness indicator.
  • Connection Deficit in Urbanising Society: Rapid digital life and migration strain real-world relationships, shrinking support networks despite economic growth – “prosperity without proximity.”
• High-Aspiration Dissatisfaction: India’s democratic vibrancy, media scrutiny, and rising citizen expectations create a persistent sense of discontent, reflecting ambition rather than unhappiness.
  • Democratic Noise Misread as Misery: India’s openness to criticism results in lower happiness ratings because visible dissatisfaction is misinterpreted as poor wellbeing.
• Uneven Institutional Trust: Public service delivery varies sharply across regions; inconsistent governance lowers trust scores compared to Nordic standards.
• WEIRD bias: The report’s behavioural framework also carries the WEIRD bias — Western, Educated, Industrialised, Rich and Democratic. 
  • It privileges institutional trust that is typical of individualistic societies and overlooks collective trust networks in countries such as India, where family and community are the real safety nets.
• Rank Volatility Due to Perception Swings: India’s score has fluctuated between 94 and 144 in a decade, influenced more by political scandals or public sentiment than actual living standards.
  

Check Out UPSC CSE Books

Visit PW Store

Way Forward

• Rebuild Social Capital: People need to connect with friends and community to strengthen emotional bonds. 
  • Currently, 19% of Indian youth report lacking a reliable person in whom they can confide; therefore, building real-world networks is essential.
• Build Institutional Trust: Simplify citizen–state interactions; ensure predictability and transparency in public services such as ration distribution, healthcare access, and ticketing processes.
• Mental Health Support: The government has started focusing on mental health, but better implementation and wider outreach is required. 
  • Programmes such as Tele-MANAS (Tele Mental Health Assistance and Networking Across States) and Mind India place emotional resilience on the policy map.
  • The WHO data highlights that every $1 invested in mental health yields a 4x economic return, making such investment essential for national productivity.
• Integrating GNH with GDP: Move beyond output-driven metrics to include emotional resilience, social trust, and wellbeing indicators alongside economic growth targets.
• Strengthening Community Kindness Culture: Policies must encourage volunteerism, public empathy campaigns, and local cooperation because these variables directly raise happiness scores.
• Building an Empathy Infrastructure: Position wellbeing, inclusion, mental-health care, and social trust as core components of India’s development strategy rather than adjunct goals.

Conclusion

India’s low rank reflects rising expectations and social transformation,indicating that the nation is striving toward a deeper and more inclusive idea of wellbeing.

DOWNLOAD PDF