Decide how the national budget is divided by how much each project raises people's satisfaction with life, not by how much it grows the economy
In short
- When setting the budget, the government stops ranking projects by how much they grow the economy.
- Instead, it compares projects by how much they raise people's satisfaction with their lives.
- Agencies that ask for money must estimate each project's effect on satisfaction.
- When lawmakers choose a project with a lower effect first, they must write the reason in the budget document.
If this comes true
On a night when a community hall gets funding before a road widening, women who have finished a shift at the factory gather around a ping-pong table and laugh until it is time for their bus home.
Perhaps
A harbor repair that did not score high in the satisfaction survey might be put off, and some years later the ships of trading partners might move to a port in a neighboring country.
Water so far 💧 0
The proposal in detail
This proposal changes how projects are compared when the national government or a large local government sets its budget each year. Today, in many cases, projects such as roads, factory recruitment, and subsidies are judged by how much they increase economic output and jobs, and those numbers shape how the budget is divided. Under this proposal, the agency in charge of finance compares new and large projects by how much they raise a combined measure for each unit of money spent. The measure includes people's satisfaction with life, mental and physical health, ties with other people, and free time. An independent body that includes statistics experts and citizen representatives decides what the measure contains and how it is taken, and regular surveys of residents check the effects. When each ministry asks for budget money, it must attach this estimate. If the legislature or the government puts a project with a lower effect on satisfaction ahead of one with a higher effect, it must write the reason in the budget document. Economic figures are not banned, but they count as one part of the measure, as their effect on satisfaction through job security and income. Spending that does not fit being measured by satisfaction, such as national defense and debt repayment, is handled in a separate category.
BenefitsMoney goes where people actually feel it in their lives
Changing how budgets are compared changes what a society values, through the flow of money rather than words. When projects are compared by their effect on satisfaction, things that were put off because their economic effect was small move toward the top: care for mental health problems, gathering places that prevent isolation, transportation that shortens commutes, and programs that create time to spend with children. On the other hand, projects that move economic numbers but barely reach people's daily experience, such as large buildings and showy events, can no longer be chosen without an explanation. The rule that each ministry attach an estimate builds a habit of thinking about quality of life inside government, and it changes how projects are designed in the first place. Because economic numbers are not thrown away but counted as the effect that work and income have on satisfaction, the importance of an economy that supports people's lives is not lost. By continuing to check effects with resident surveys, the government can tell which projects worked and which did not, and make the next budget more solid.
DrawbacksThe national purse is trusted to something hard to measure
Satisfaction and happiness are hard to measure, because they differ from person to person, from culture to culture, and even with a person's mood that day. If the budget is tied to those numbers, fierce fights may break out over how the measure is built, and it may be reworked to suit the government of the day. When the state decides what kind of life is good by means of a measure, it steps into how people live, and the values of minorities may fall outside the numbers. Also, the effects on satisfaction are easier to measure the sooner they appear, so investments that support people's lives decades later, such as harbors, power grids, and research, tend to be underestimated. As a result, investment in the foundations of future wealth may shrink, tax revenue may not grow, and there may not be enough money even for projects that raise satisfaction, which would bring the opposite of what was intended. The voices of people who worry that companies and jobs will flow out in competition with countries that value economic growth highly are also far from light.
Learn the background
The question of what it means for a person to live well has been at the center of philosophy since ancient times. In society today, the thing that in effect decides the answer is how the national budget is divided. In many countries, a growing economy has been treated as the clearest sign that a government is succeeding, and projects have been chosen by whether they help with that. But it has become well known that once income passes a certain level, more of it does not raise satisfaction much, and that long commutes, isolation, and overwork lower satisfaction a great deal. Measures of happiness and quality of life have been created in many places, but most are only published as reports, and the way budgets are divided has not changed. The reason is that economic numbers have strong supporters in the industries and regions that profit from them, while the value of parks, local gathering places, and time to rest has almost no organizations to speak up for it. For the finance agencies too, changing a familiar way of calculating takes effort, and the blame for failing with a new yardstick feels heavy.
Choose them ready to accept their drawbacks too (up to 5)
It helps pay for the server and the AI's planting
This proposal was written in Japanese by AI (claude-opus-5-5, policy version 2026-10-23a) and translated by AI (claude-sonnet-5-5). Nobody has checked the facts. Read the original (日本語) How the AI writes