This week saw the publication of a UNICEF report comparing child well-being in the richer countries of the globe. It makes interesting reading. The results are both predictable and surprising.
What has surprised many is how appallingly Britain and the US have fared. Of the 21 countries compared and over the six dimensions measured, the UK is ranked bottom and the US gets the next place up. It seems that Messrs Bush and Blair match their failures in the Middle East with failures back home, where it matters, in creating the best environment for nurturing future generations.
If you were to create the perfect environment for bringing up a child, first you would seek the basics: A certain threshold of wealth to ensure adequate living conditions. You'd add good healthcare and the best schooling. You'd also want a stable, secure and loving home life, with parents who not only love their children but spend time with them. You'd want your children to feel happy, to have the confidence and freedom to be all that they can be. You'd probably also want them to live somewhere safe and relatively quiet, free from the stress and hectic demands of modern life.
It's hardly surprising then that the countries who come top are relatively wealthy, small and egalitarian. The Netherlands ranks top, closely followed by the Nordic countries. In almost every dimension measured, it is Northern European countries who set the standard and Anglo-Saxons who bring up the rear.
The findings of the report suggest that GDP does not appear to be related to well-being. The wealthiest countries do not have the happiest children and the poorer countries - among the industrialized nations - do not have the least well-off children. Relative poverty seems to be a much better indicator of dissatisfaction with life.
Why do the UK and the US score so badly? Inequality is a large part of the answer. They are both rich countries with large discrepancies between rich and poor. Children born to middle-class parents living in affluent suburbs do very well, but those born to relative poverty get left behind.
The UK and the US are also more competitive cultures. Social comparison plays a significant role in making children dissatisfied with their lot. The greater the discrepancies, the greater the dissatisfaction. There is more pressure on children to perform, to catch up, to go one better than their neighbors, to be top of the class. Just like adults feel the strain, so do their children.
One of the most interesting findings of the report concerns Japan. Though not one of the 21 countries compared, some data was provided on social exclusion. Children were asked three questions gauging feelings of loneliness and exclusion. On the whole, children did not feel exceptionally lonely or excluded, in most countries between 5 and 10 percent of respondents reported feeling lonely, except Japan where the figure was 30 percent. The report's authors point to the possibility of this being an anomaly due to differences in translation. Nevertheless it is a fascinating finding.
And why did the Netherlands rank first? I would have predicted to see Sweden up there, but I confess to being a little surprised to see the Netherlands pip it to the post.
Where Dutch children seem to outshine children elsewhere is in subjective well-being. This dimension measured children's own perceptions of their well-being. How satisfied were they with their own lives? Very satisfied, they answered. This points to the importance of culture in nurturing children. The Netherlands did not score particularly high on material well-being. Children in the Netherlands do not have better access to material resources than say children in neighboring Belgium. Nor do they have better scores on educational well-being; in fact Belgium comes top when it comes to education. And yet Dutch children not only report being more satisfied with their lives, but they also score better on family and peer relationships and on health and safety.
What can we learn from the Dutch to make our children happier? Speaking to Dutch friends what I am struck with is how they manage to combine being relaxed with being interested. They encourage children without putting too much pressure on them. They encourage communication above judgment. They avoid being authoritarian yet manage to provide children with secure boundaries. They go for the practical, stable and steady approach to life. Perhaps it is a little dull, but it is a good environment for bringing up children.
And what of the Arab world? How happy are our children? Would Arab children have answered very satisfied about their lives? Maybe, maybe not.
Certainly Arab culture is family-friendly. It sometimes feels like children are the center of our universe. We cherish them and pamper them. There is no shortage of love, but are we providing the best environment for them to grow?
My guess is that we would encounter huge inequalities both between countries and within countries. We would also encounter large disparities between different dimensions. For instance, you'd expect Arab children to score relatively highly on the dimension tapping family and peer relationships. This dimension measures factors such as whether children live with one or both parents or whether they eat meals with their parents. On the face of it, they should do well, but even here I have my doubts. Given the growing reliance on hired help to look after children, can we really expect children to report that they spend quality time talking to their parents?
I also have a hunch that we would find large gaps between the well-being of young children and that of adolescents, a consequence of the demographic challenges facing the Arab world today. It is relatively easy to make young children happy, but teenagers are a different matter. Unless we can provide a better future for our young adults, we will continue to see more and more adolescents chasing fewer and fewer opportunities and the pressure is bound to take its toll.
