The Impact of Hierarchy

Happiness in the North European is substantially higher than in the South European nations. Only part of that difference can be explained by economic prosperity. This paper explores the effect of social hierarchy. A comparison of contemporary survey findings show that power distance is more pronounced in the South than in the North of Europe. Macro-sociological theory is used to provide an historical account of this difference and it can be used to explain why happiness is lower in hierarchical societies.

Hedonic level of affect: Like other animals, humans can feel good or bad, but unlike other animals, we can reflect on that experience, assess how well we feel most of the time and communicate this to others. This is the feeling-based part of happiness. Veenhoven assumes that affective experience draws on gratification of innate needs and infers on this basis that the determinants of hedonic happiness are universal (Veenhoven 2010).
Contentment: Unlike other animals, humans can also appraise their life cognitively and compare their life as it is with how they want it to be. Wants are typically guided by common standards of the good life and in that sense contentment is likely to be more culturally variable than affect level. This cognitive appraisal of life assumes intellectual capacity and for this reason this concept does not apply to people who lack this capacity, such as young children who cannot yet oversee their life-as-a-whole and thus can have no clear standards in mind.

Measurements of happiness
Thus defined, happiness is something we have in mind and things we have in mind can be assessed through questioning. Questions on happiness can be framed in many ways, directly or indirectly, using single or multiple items. An overview of acceptable questions is available in the collection 'Measures of Happiness' of the World Database of Happiness (Veenhoven 2011b).
Overall happiness: A commonly used survey question is: 'Taking all together, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with your life as a whole these days?', Please answer by ticking a number between 0 to 10, where 0 stands for most 'dissatisfied' and 10 for most 'satisfied'. Responses to equivalent questions of this kind are gathered in the collection 'Happiness in Nations' of the World Database of Happiness (Veenhoven 2011c). This set of data yields comparable information on average happiness in 143 nations over the years 2000 to 2009. These data are also included in the data file 'States of Nations' (Veenhoven 2011d), which we used in this study. The variable name is HappinessLSBW10.11_2000.09.
Hedonic level of affect: The affective component of happiness was measured in the Gallup World Poll (Gallup 2009) using responses to a series of 14 questions about how the interviewee felt the day before the interview. Typical questions were whether one felt 'depressed', 'stressed' or conversely had felt 'well rested' and 'smiled a lot' yesterday. Respondents could answer 'yes' or 'no'. Using these responses, we calculated an affect balance score per nation, subtracting the percentage of reported negative feelings from the percentage of reported positive feelings per nation. The variable name in the data file States of Nations is: HappinessYesterdayABS_2006.08.

Contentment:
The cognitive component of happiness was measured using a question found in the European Quality of life Survey (Anderson et al. 2009). This question reads: 'On the whole my life is close to how I would like it to be'. Answers were rated on a 5-step scale ranging from 'strongly agree' to 'strongly disagree'. The variable name in data file States of Nations is: HappinessLifeFitsWants5_2007.

North-South
In this analysis of European nations 'Northern' countries will include Scandinavia (Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland and Iceland) and the Netherlands. 'Latin' countries www.intechopen.com denote the following Mediterranean countries: Portugal, Spain, France, Italy and Greece. North European Germany, Poland and the Baltic countries are left out because average happiness in these nations is still influenced by war and regime change in the past century. The South European Balkan countries were not included for the same reason. For comparison matters, three representative countries of each group are selected: Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands for Northern countries, France, Italy and Spain for Latin Countries.

Are Latin Europeans really less happy?
Let us now take a closer look at average happiness in the Northern and Latin countries of Europe.

Happiness in Northern and Latin European nations
The differences in overall happiness and its components between Northern and Latin European nations are presented in Table 1. There is a consistent difference: inhabitants of Latin European nations are clearly less satisfied with their life as a whole, they feel less well affectively and see a greater difference between how their life is and how they want it to be.

Cultural measurement bias?
These counterintuitive results have raised suspicion about the comparability of happiness across cultures. Several possible sources of cultural measurement bias have been suggested.
One possibility could be that the words used in survey questions have different connotations in Latinate languages than in Germanic languages. Yet several arguments plea against this explanation. One is that the survey questions in Table 1 used various words, particularly in the 14 questions about yesterday's mood. Another counter indication is that no such divide between North and South appears in the International Happiness Scale Interval Study (Veenhoven 2009), where native speakers are asked to rate numerical equivalents of verbal response options, such as 'very happy'.
Another possible explanation is that national response tendencies play us false and in this context, Ostroot and Snyder (1985) have suggested that French cynicism results in lower responses to questions about happiness than those given in the US, while both the French and the American respondents may feel equally well. If so, we can expect that the difference will be less pronounced in the responses to questions about yesterdays affect, since this is closer to the respondent's direct experience and the affect balance score does not involve an encompassing judgement. Yet Table 1 does not show such a difference.
Any such cultural measurement bias must reflect in the low correlation of average happiness with objective living conditions, if these measures merely tap hot air, scores on them will not be coupled with e.g. economic affluence and respect for human rights in nations. Yet cross-national research shows the reverse, about 80% of the differences in average happiness in nations can be explained by a handful of objective societal characteristics, see for example Ott (2010). So if cultural measurement bias is involved at all, the bias must be limited. The issue of cultural measurement bias is discussed in more detail in Veenhoven (1993) chapter 5/2.1.

Why are people less happy in Latin countries?
Comparative research on happiness shows typically that people live happiest in the most modern nations of this world, see for example Inglehart et al. (2008) and Berg & Veenhoven (2010). To what extent can this explain the difference discussed here? The most comprehensive indicator of modernity of nations is their economic prosperity, and this is commonly measured using the indicator buying power per capita. For that purpose we used variable RGDP_2005 from the data file 'States of Nations'. A plot of happiness versus buying power in European countries is given in Figure 1.
As we can see from Figure 1, average happiness ranges from 4,5 (Macedonia) to 8,3 (Denmark). The circles highlight the difference between Latin and Northern European countries on both variables; the difference in happiness is great, while the difference in affluence is relatively small. So, economic affluence is only small part of the story. What other factors can be involved? A look in the literature shows that happiness in nations also depends on the degree of freedom societies allow their members (Veenhoven 2000), on the degree to which citizens trust each other (Helliwell 2003) and on the quality of government within that society (Ott 2010). A common effect seems to be that these societal conditions add to the chance that citizens find a way of life that fits their nature. In terms of institutional economy, this societal constellation adds to the 'optimal allocation' of human resources.
Societies can limit individual choice in several ways. One way is by setting normative constraints on self direction. This is typically the case in collectivistic cultures and happiness is indeed lower in nations where collectivistic values prevail than in nations where individualist values rank highest (Veenhoven 1999). Likewise, happiness is lower in nations where men and women have to meet traditional gender roles in contrast to nations where female emancipation has led to a more varied repertoire of life style options (Bjornskov et. al. 2007).
A related factor, not yet considered in much detail, is the degree of social hierarchy in a society. Social hierarchy involves differences in power and prestige. Power differences will evidently reduce a person's self-direction, the more power other people have over you, the lower the chance that you can live the way you would like. Differences in prestige will also reduce self direction in a more subtle way: if other people are held in much higher esteem than you are, you will be less self confident and therefore less apt to go your own way. Bay (1970) refers to this limitation as 'psychological (un)freedom'.
Let us see whether hierarchy can indeed explain the difference found in happiness between the North and the South of Europe, and if so, to what extent.

Definition of hierarchy
Social 'hierarchy' involves differential access to power and prestige. Hierarchy exists in all social institutions, though not to an equal degree. Hierarchy is typically more pronounced in institutions such as the army and work organizations, than within the family and groups such as sport clubs. The degree of hierarchy in these institutions varies across societies and there is also societal difference in the degree to which these hierarchies converge.

Indicators of hierarchy in nations
Hierarchy as such is not easily measurable, at least not at the level of nations. In this study we used four indicators. The first was the amount of hierarchy inhabitants perceived to exist in their country. The second indicator was the degree to which people felt that they were being controlled by others. The third indicator was the degree to which hierarchy was morally accepted. The fourth indicator was the Hofstede's (1994) Power Distance Index (PDI), which is used to depict both the degree of hierarchy actually perceived to exist and the degree of hierarchy deemed desirable. Therefore, this last indicator summarizes the previous items.
Perceived hierarchy: In the context of the GLOBE study in 62 societies (House et al. 2004: 537-9) middle managers were asked to rate their agreement with the following statements: 1) In this society, followers are expected to obey their leader without question, 2) In this society, power is concentrated at the top. 3) In this organization, subordinates are expected to obey their boss without question, and 4) In this organization a person's influence is primarily based on one's ability and contribution to the organization. Agreement was rated on a numerical scale, ranging from little (1) to much (7) power distance. The highest average score was observed in Hungary (5,6) and the lowest in Denmark (3,9). The variable code in data file States of Nations is PracticePowerDistance_1996.
Perceived fate control: Another indicator of hierarchy in nations is the degree to which citizens perceive they are in control of their situation; the less control citizens perceive they have, the more hierarchical their society is likely to be. The World Values Survey (Inglehart 2000) contains several questions on this matter, two of which concern control in the workplace and one is about control of one's life in general. Approval of hierarchy: One source of data on the social approval of hierarchy is the above mentioned GLOBE study in which middle managers have first rated how much power distance exists in their society and organization. Subsequently they rated how much distance they feel should be in their society and organization, in response to the same four topics. Desired distance was again rated on a numerical scale ranging from not desired (1) to much desired (7). Scores ranged from 2,2 in Finland to 3,5 in Albania (House 2004: 540). This variable is available for 56 nations. The variable code in States of Nations is ValuePowerDistance_1996.

Hofstede's Power Distance Index:
In the context of Hofstede's (1994) landmark study of work values in business organisations employees all over the world answered the following questions; 1) How frequently are employees afraid to express disagreement with their managers? 2) How would you describe the actual decision-making style of your boss (paternalistic, authoritarian vs. else) and 3) What decision-making style would you prefer your boss to have? The first two questions depict actual hierarchy and the last approval of hierarchy. The summed Power Distance Index (PDI) summarizes the previous indicators by mixing perception and preference. The latest update of the Hofstede study covers 74 nations and regions (Hofstede & Hofstede 2005). Ratings are available in the 'States of Nations' data file as variable PowerDistance_1965.2002.

Hierarchy and happiness in the South and the North
How do these measures of hierarchy in nations relate to average happiness? Below we will consider the correlation.
Happiness and perceived hierarchy in nations: When looking at middle manager's perceptions of power distance at work, a very large difference between the Northern and Latin countries can be observed, as the difference of average of the two sets of country covers 68% of the whole European range as highlighted in Table 3.

North-South difference
In points on scale 1.13 0.9 12 0.5 0.14 29 In % actual scale range in Europe 68% 30% 50% 23% 10% 35% Table 3. Valuation in the equality of hierarchy in Northern and Latin countries 5 Happiness and acceptance of hierarchy in nations: One might think that people in Latin countries value hierarchy and power distance more than in the North. Yet there is little difference in the valuation of the hierarchy between the South and the North. There is even a slightly greater preference for equality among Latin Europeans. Consequently, the difference between 'power distance as it is' and 'power distance as it should' is much larger in the South than in the North, which obviously entails frustration and unhappiness.

Happiness and perceived control in nations:
Hierarchy is also reflected in individuals perceived freedom at work as well as freedom in general and in perceived control in life, the less freedom and control individuals perceive in a country, the more hierarchical that society apparently is.
Once more we see that the difference between Northern and Latin Europe fits this general pattern. Both perceived individual freedom and happiness are higher in the Northern countries and both are lower in Latin countries.
This data corroborates well with the data from the World Values Survey of Table 3, where it appears that the freedom of choice in Northern Europe is about one point higher than in the South. Reduced individual freedom at work typically increases frustration at work and unhappiness. This is even more striking when looking at the percentages of people feeling exploited in their work, which represents more than half of Latin Europeans.
Happiness and power distance index: Hofstede's Power Distance Index encompasses the previous results and is probably the most robust indicator of social hierarchy to date. Again Northern European countries stand out as egalitarian and happy, while Latin European nations combine a hierarchical orientation with relatively low happiness. The main results in terms of acceptance of the hierarchy and perception of freedom in the two sets of countries are shown in Table 3. General trends at the European level are given in Table 4, that shows the correlation between happiness, power distance and perceived freedom indicators.
Interesting to notice are the very significant correlations of free life, free work and PDI with life satisfaction (respectively +.75, +.74 and -.77). This shows that perceived freedom is a very strong life satisfaction predictor at the European level, something already shown by Verme (2009) at a more global scale. The zero order correlation between PDI and happiness among European countries is -.77 and it is sensibly the same (r=-.66) when controlling with GDP. Also worthwhile noticing are the strong correlations of PDI with perceived freedom at work (r=-.62) and in life in general (r=-.60). We can regret that the data on each country of Europe is not more systematic, as this would make the analysis stronger.
A large difference in power distance, which is a strong life satisfaction in Europe, proves that the lower happiness found in Latin European countries is at least partly due to the greater levels of hierarchy that exist in these societies.

Why are Latin European countries more hierarchical?
Hierarchy exists in all societies, but the degree of inequality differs between societies. Various explanations have been proposed for these differences.
One line of explanation for societal differences in hierarchy focuses on the present and looks for contemporary drivers of hierarchy. A structural explanation in this context is that globalization is weakening the control of nation states, thereby giving free way to the powers of market capitalism. See for example Aghion & Williamson (1998). A related cultural explanation holds that growing individualism is undermining moral restraints to egoism and promoting self actualization at the cost of fellow man. See for example Elliott & Lemert (2006). Since these contemporary conditions are not much different between the north and the south of Europe we see no evident explanations along this line.
Another line of explanation focuses rather on the past and looks for antecedents of present day hierarchy. A structural theory of that kind holds that the growing division of labour is creating increasing mutual interdependencies and that this is giving rise to reduction of social inequalities (e.g. Lenski & Nolan 2004, chapter 6). Explanations that focus on political institutions see contemporary hierarchy as an echo of earlier power struggles (e.g. Gurr et al. 1990). In this vein cultural explanations stress the role of religion and hold that moral teachings of the past have shaped present day hierarchy.
This latter approach has evident applicability to the case at hand, since Catholicism has historically dominated the South of Europe and Protestantism the North. There is a large literature that describes the differences in orientation to hierarchy within these two strands of Christianity. See for example Gustafson (1978), Martin (1985), House (2004, chapter 17) and Bruce (2004).
Still it is possible that even before the Reformation hierarchy was less pronounced in the North of Europe than in the South and that the change to Protestantism was a consequence www.intechopen.com of that orientation rather than a cause. In that context it is worth taking a longer view and considering what macro-sociology has taught us about the development of social inequality in human societies.

Hierarchy over societal evolution
In their famous book on 'macro sociology', Lenski & Nolan (2004) describe several pathways in the developmental history of human society. The main path is depicted as a sequence of the following society types.
Hierarchy in hunter-gatherers: The first human societies consisted of small bands of about 40 people that lived a nomadic life, roaming large territories. These simple societies were typically quite egalitarian, since this way of life provides little opportunity to harvest any appreciable economic surplus as hunter-gatherers are mainly focused on maintaining a subsistence level. This kind of society was dominant in most of human history and seems to have existed for at least 50,000 years. Other types of societies developed only some 10.000 years ago and were based on modes of existence that involved more social hierarchy.
Hierarchy in horticultural societies: Hunter-gather societies were gradually driven out by horticultural societies, based on slash-and-burn agriculture. This way of existence created a surplus, which came to be taken by warrior classes. This resulted in an unprecedented social inequality, which grew ever stronger when competition within the warrior classes resulted in ever larger hierarchically organized empires. Slavery was quite common in this phase of societal evolution.
Hierarchy in agrarian societies: The invention of the plow brought about the permanent use of land and this made humans even more dependent on a plot of land and more vulnerable to exploitation by one another. Social inequality reached its historical maximum in the feudal system that came to existence in most advanced agrarian societies.
Hierarchy in industrial societies: Only a few hundred years ago inventions such as steam machine triggered the Industrial Revolution. This way of existence resulted in a considerable decline of social inequality, among other things because the fine grained division of labour has created many mutual dependencies.
In alignment with this main developmental path, Nolan and Lenski describe several side paths, among which fishing and maritime societies.
Hierarchy in fishing societies: Fishing societies developed in places close to the sea, where fish provided an additional source of subsistence. These societies are also quite egalitarian, among other things because exploitation by warriors is less easy in this case.
Hierarchy in maritime societies: Maritime societies developed from fishing societies, taking advantage of their strategic situation to develop trading and commerce. Egalitarianism continued in this phase, again because this way of existence involves less vulnerability to dominance by others.

Feudal heritage stronger in the South, maritime heritage stronger in the North
In this context we can make sense of the present day difference in hierarchy across the Northern and Latin countries of Europe. When societies drifted away from the hunterwww.intechopen.com gatherer type of society, the Latin and Northern European areas seem to have followed somewhat different paths, due to different geographical and demographical constraints. Conditions in Northern Europe were more suited for the fishing and the maritime track, as appeared in the flourishing Viking societies before the Middle Ages and in maritime expansion of England and the Netherlands following the Middle Ages. More hierarchical agricultural-based societies came to dominate in Latin Europe and this appears in a greater concentration of landownership and greater dominance of church and nobility. This is likely to have anchored hierarchy more strongly in the culture of Latin societies, whereas the original human bent to equality has been better preserved in Northern European countries.

Why are people less happy in hierarchical society?
A common view is that happiness depends on the degree to which life fits one's values. In this context we could expect that people are less happy, the greater the difference between the degree of hierarchy they perceive to exist in their country and the degree of hierarchy they deem desirable. We checked this explanation using the above mentioned GLOBE study in which both perceived degree and acceptance of hierarchy were assessed in 53 nations. We computed the difference between perceived and accepted hierarchy. In table 3 one can see that this difference is smaller in the Northern nations (1,64), than in the Southern (2,91). We added this difference as the variable ValuePracticeGapPD_1996 to the data file States of Nations and found a negative correlation with happiness. The correlation is small however (r = -.14), so this cannot be the whole story.
A less common view holds that happiness depends more on fit of social organization with universal human nature than on fit with culturally variable notions of the good life. This view is explained in more detail in Veenhoven (2009b). Seen in this context the question arises: Why is human nature hierarchy averse?
A plausible answer to this question is that the human species evolved in the context of hunter-gatherer society, which was quite egalitarian and allowed a great deal of selfdirection. From this perspective, societal development went against human nature, at least in its agrarian phase. This view is presented convincingly by Mariansky and Turner (1992).
In their book 'The social cage' they argue that humans are social animals, but that their need for social ties is limited. In their view, evolution has resulted in a human preference for the 'weak' social ties that exist in hunter-gatherer societies, over the 'strong' social ties that came about later in agricultural society. 'Strong' ties with a clan were required for survival in the conditions of agrarian society, but pressed people into a 'social cage'. In the view of Mariansky and Turner, the Industrial Revolution has opened the door of that cage and has instigated a mass flight from the oppressive social networks of the land to the freedom of city life.

Conclusion
People live happier in the Northern countries of Europe than in the Latin countries. This difference in happiness is paralleled by a difference in degree of social hierarchy; Latin countries are more hierarchical and probably so because feudalism has been more prominent in their history. The negative correlation between happiness and hierarchy is likely to reflect a causal effect, humans being hierarchy averse by nature.