Frey, B. S. (2011). Peace, war, and happiness: Bruder Klaus as wellbeing facilitator. International Journal of Wellbeing, 1 (2), 226-234. doi:10.5502/ijw.v1i2.5 Bruno S. Frey University of Zurich and University of Warwick bruno.frey@econ.uzh.ch Copyright belongs to the author(s) www.internationaljournalofwellbeing.org 226 ARTICLE Peace, war, and happiness: Bruder Klaus as wellbeing facilitator Bruno S. Frey Abstract: Little is known in the scholarly literature about the effect of war and peace on happiness; but they have a large number of direct and indirect effects on happiness, difficult or impossible to capture due mainly to issues of causality and attribution. The paper concentrates on three fundamental claims regarding the effect of war and peace on happiness: ‘War brings happiness’; ‘People adjust to wars’; and ‘The happiness of the dead is irrelevant’. An attempt is made to discuss different solutions to deal with these claims but it is made clear that each one has grave disadvantages. Bruder Klaus, whose full name was Niklaus von Flüeh, is the patron saint of Switzerland. This paper describes Bruder Klaus as a creator of peace and, based on the claims mentioned above, as a felicitator or wellbeing facilitator. Keywords: peace, war, happiness, wellbeing, well-being, Civil War, terrorism, Bruder Klaus 1. Introduction Bruder Klaus, whose full name was Niklaus von Flüe, is the patron saint of Switzerland. He was born in 1417 into a well-to-do peasant family in Flüeli, canton Obwalden, which is in the center of Switzerland. He excelled as an officer in the Zurich war (1440-44) and was a much esteemed councilor and judge in his commune. In 1467 he changed his life dramatically. With the approval of his wife, he left his family, which included several grown-up sons, and decided to live as a hermit and to lead a spiritual life. While he is also known as a mystic who received profound visions (highly valued by Carl Gustav Jung) this paper focuses on Bruder Klaus as a creator of peace, thus acting as a facilitator to bring happiness to people. During Klaus’ time what later became the Swiss federation was still only a loose confederation of four rural and four city cantons. In 1481 a disagreement broke out among them at the Tagsatzung (General Assembly) at Stans on the question whether or not to admit two new cantons into the confederation. The conflict ran so deep that the outbreak of war became imminent. The delegates of each of the cantons could reach consensus on only one procedural issue, namely to ask the hallowed hermit Bruder Klaus for advice. The emissary came back with two pieces of advice: „Machet den zun nit zu wit‚ (do not extend your boundaries too far) and „Mischt Euch nicht in fremde Händel‚ (do not interfere in the affairs of other communities). Above all Bruder Klaus urged the delegates: ‚Keep peace!‛ He was well aware that cooperation leads to superior outcomes compared to aggressive and conflicting behavior. To the surprise of all observers, the delegates accepted the advice of the holy man and found a solution within two hours. Peace, war, and happiness Frey www.internationaljournalofwellbeing.org 227 This event has had a lasting effect on Swiss people. While the country unfortunately was not able to evade all conflicts and was engaged in several wars, the basic message was not lost. Over time not interfering in the affairs of other nations became a guiding rule in Swiss politics. The principle of neutrality helped to save the country from getting involved in World Wars I and II, and laid the foundation for the humanitarian efforts of the country. It made it possible for the Red Cross to emerge. The guiding principle for the efforts of the Swiss government and its diplomats still is to provide facilities, or ‘good services’, to achieve peace, and to guarantee peace treaties. Many observers suggest that the stable and deep-seated democracy known in Switzerland, as well as economic prosperity and peaceful social conditions, are the major reasons why in surveys the Swiss are regularly among the top nations with respect to average happiness. The purpose of this paper is not to provide a historical account of the manifold achievements of Bruder Klaus. Rather, he is looked at as an example of a facilitator of happiness through creating peace. The paper discusses evidence of what is known about the effect of war on happiness. The broader aspect of his teaching, that cooperation is better than conflict and leads to a happier population, is not further pursued here because it would lead too far. The author is, however, well aware that it is of great importance1. The focus of the paper lies on the question of how much, if at all, peace raises the wellbeing of the population2. Many readers will be surprised that such a question is raised at all: is it not a matter of course that war leads to terrible human suffering and unhappiness, and that only peace allows people to achieve happiness? I started this research exactly on this premise. I was absolutely convinced that peace brings happiness, and that therefore it is a primordial goal of politics to avoid war and to achieve peace. After writing this paper I am still convinced that this is true, but I had to realize that it is not as obvious as it at first seemed to me. Things look somewhat different when one goes beyond the first (wishful) impression. I do not want to dwell on the well-known Phoenix effect (see Organski and Kugler 1980, Koubi 2005), which suggests that a population’s size and economic pace often tend to recover relatively quickly after a war, West Germany and Japan being cases in point. I wish to concentrate on the effects on happiness produced during a war, compared to periods of peace. This paper reflects my effort to understand what is not obvious, namely that to some extent, and in some regard, war may produce happiness. I make a special effort to collect the relevant empirical evidence. Section I reviews what is known in happiness research on the effects of war on happiness. Section II deals with the surprising claim that ‘War brings happiness’ by adding meaning to life, energizing the population and creating solidarity. Also, there is the phenomenon of ‘combat flow’ raising the happiness of the soldiers involved. Section III grapples with the observation that people tend to adapt to circumstances, in particular to war events: Over time they get used to death and destruction, and weigh them less heavily than in times of peace. Section IV considers how persons killed in war should be treated with respect to a happiness analysis. Should they be left out of account (because they are no longer among the living) or 1 These considerations address issues such as the role of procedural utility (see Frey, Benz and Stutzer 2004, Frey 2008, chapter 10) and of trust (see Helliwell 2010, Helliwell and Wang 2011) for individual wellbeing. 2 Wellbeing can either be affective (a short run experience) or cognitive (a longer run evaluation of one’s life, called life satisfaction). Following current practice in scientific research, I use the term happiness, or interchangeably wellbeing, for both, and differentiate the two only when it is of importance. Peace, war, and happiness Frey www.internationaljournalofwellbeing.org 228 should their unrealized expected happiness in the future be calculated? The closing section endeavors to reach conclusions. They are by necessity quite tentative and personal. 2. Existing research on war and happiness The effect of war on happiness is a most relevant topic. According to credible estimates, not less than 191 million persons lost their lives due to war during the twentieth century (Iqbal 2006: 631). In addition, many millions were wounded and became disabled, suffering through the entire remainder of their lives. In addition, war destroys infrastructure as well as cultural heritage (such as a large part of ancient German cities during World War II). Even smaller wars have significant consequences. Collier (1999: 181, see also Collier and Hoeffler 2003, Murdoch and Sandler 2002) estimates that during civil wars per capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP) falls at an annual rate of 2.2% relative to a country without civil war because production directly falls and capital stock is gradually reduced. As many civil wars drag out over a considerable number of years, the decline in average income is substantial. Koubi (2005: 69), looking at a large cross-section of countries over the period 1960-89 (which does not include a major global war), finds that the average growth in GDP in countries that fought a war was slower than in those that did not, and that this effect is larger for civil than for interstate wars. To my great surprise I could find only very few studies studying the effect of war on happiness3. In view of the great consequences of war on the population, economy and society at large this is most surprising. In comparison, there are now hundreds of studies analyzing the effects of income on happiness, generally coming to the conclusion that it is rather small, if it exists at all (see the surveys by Clark, Frijters and Shields 2008, Dolan, Peasgood and White 2008, Frey and Stutzer 2002a, 2002b, Frey 2008, Helliwell and Barrington-Leigh 2010). There may be several reasons why happiness researchers are reluctant to deal with the effect of war on happiness: 1) There is a data problem. Normally, in times of war no surveys are undertaken capturing how happy or satisfied civilians and soldiers are with their lives; 2) It is unclear whether people remember war episodes correctly. The difference between experienced and remembered utility (see Kahneman, Wakker and Sarin 1997) is crucial in this context; 3) The issue is extremely complicated. There are many different types of war, ranging from more or less dormant civil wars to all out national wars. There are also many different and indirect consequences. For example, in wars, democratic rights are curtailed and authoritarian decisions take over. Undermining democracy is known to reduce happiness (Frey and Stutzer 2000, Inglehart and Klingemann 2000, Graham and Sukhtankar 2004, Dorn et al 2005). During interstate and intrastate conflicts the health achievements of states decrease4, lowering the wellbeing of the population (Iqbal 2006). Moreover, the question of how to deal with the forgone happiness of persons dying in war is difficult to deal with; 3 In contrast, the reverse causation, i.e. whether happier persons are more inclined to endorse peace, has been empirically analyzed. The important study by Diener and Tov (2007) finds that individual wellbeing is related to several peace attitudes, among them greater confidence in parliament and civil services, stronger endorsement of democracy, and less intolerance of immigrants and members of different racial and ethnic groups. These attitudes support a peaceful society that is open and free to all people. Subjective wellbeing is therefore considered ‚a crucial element in sustaining peace over time‛ (p. 438). 4 Remember the influenza which broke out during WWI, killing more people than were killed in combat; and other epidemics or famines, or the effect of lack of clean water, or poor sanitation etc. prevalent during wars. Peace, war, and happiness Frey www.internationaljournalofwellbeing.org 229 4) The causalities going from war to happiness, and from happiness to war, are difficult to separate and to empirically measure. I could find three areas in which serious empirical studies have been undertaken in order to capture the effect of war on happiness. 1) Civil Wars: Violent conflict has the tangible effects mentioned above and, in addition, intangible effects in terms of psychic costs such as pain, suffering, fear, and agony, as well as empathy with relatives, friends and other persons mourning the victims. In a study comprising 44 countries around the year 2000, and using average happiness by country from representative surveys, Welsch (2008: 336) finds that the current number of conflicts significantly reduces the wellbeing of the population. He calculates that, on average, the compensating variation for one fatality is about 108,000 US dollars. This means that income must increase by 108,000 dollars to leave happiness constant when one additional person dies. The direct effects in terms of suffering, fear and agony are larger than the indirect effects due to the smaller income brought about by the premature death. 2) Terrorism: Terrorism is a special type of war in which, normally, the civil population is targeted and the goal is to create havoc and produce fear (see e.g. Frey 2004, Sandler and Enders 2004). Estimating standard happiness functions for two countries affected by terrorism, Frey, Luechinger and Stutzer (2007) show for France and Northern Ireland that more intensive terrorist activity in terms of the number of attacks and of victims significantly reduces the life satisfaction of the population. For Northern Ireland, the wellbeing cost from one additional terror victim amounts to about 0.6 per cent of income. This figure is similar to the one calculated by Welsch (2008: 335) for Israel, Burundi and Liberia. 3) Particular events and countries: The exposure of concentration camp inmates leads to intense distress due to the terrible experience but is sometimes alloyed with positive experience a former inmate may have later in life. In a careful study, Shmotkin and Lomranz (1998: 152-3) find that ‚< the survivors (are) deficient in satisfaction and joy< (but there is) also a dynamic response to challenge and change< leading to a life story that bears a message of comfort besides agony‛. Another study (Landau, Beit-Hallahmi and Levy 1998) looks at life satisfaction in Israel in the period 1967 to 1979, during which time there were several wars, including the War of Attrition with Egypt, the October 1973 War, and the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. There were also many other war-like events, including terrorist attacks. As a result, ‚