Verified by 
Every year, I have marveled at the ranking of countries in the World Happiness Report when I thought the authors of the report were basing the ranking on GDP, social support, generosity, absence of corruption, life expectancy, and the freedom of citizens, in each country. However, I took a closer look and found three reasons suggesting that many Finns may not be flourishing as much as we think:
1. The incidence of suicide in Finland is well over three times the incidence of suicide in Afghanistan or Lebanon (the two supposedly unhappiest countries in the world). For example, the incidence of suicide was 15.3, 4.1, and 2.8 in Finland, Afghanistan, and Lebanon respectively—according to the World Health Organization report in 2018.
2. The use of antidepressants by Finns is one of the highest in Europe as well as among the 38 member countries of the OECD.
3. Seasonal Affective Disorder remains endemic in Finland due to long dark cold winters with no sunrise for several weeks in the year, heavy snowfalls, and frequent raging snowstorms.
To identify the happiest country, the Gallup World Poll surveyed 1000 citizens in each country who were asked how satisfied they were with their lives on a scale of 0 to 10 (with 0 representing the worst possible life imaginable and 10 representing the best life possible). Specifically in 2023, the overall average score of 7.82 out of 10 by Finnish respondents is what led to Finland being named the happiest country. Denmark got an overall average score of 7.62 out of 10 and was declared the number 2 happiest country. Iceland was declared number 3, based similarly on the overall average score of 7.56 out of 10 by 1000 citizens of Iceland. Israel was number 4 with an overall average score of 7.5. The Netherlands became the fifth happiest country because its randomly selected 1000 citizens got an average score of 7.4 out of 10.
The World Happiness Report may need a better tool for ranking countries of the world and this ranking should be based on the happiness of the citizens not merely on how satisfied they are with their lives on a scale of 0 to 10—with 0 representing an imaginable worst possible life. The imagination required has no guide rails or boundaries to help ensure some level of caution and uniformity among the respondents. Also very probable is that the respondents’ ultimate chosen number on the scale to indicate their level of satisfaction may be heavily influenced by culture. For example, while it is not unusual in Western cultures to be boastful during self-appraisal and therefore rate oneself high—with an 8, 9, or 10; it is culturally ingrained in Asians and other people of Eastern cultures to be modest during self-assessments and therefore tend to rate themselves moderately—likely with a 5 or 6.
Also quite possible is that the number ultimately chosen may be seen by some respondents as an expression of patriotism and therefore tends to be 8, 9, or 10, whereas to others it is an opportunity to make a political statement of protest or grievance and therefore tends to be a low number—below 5. In either case, how satisfied one is, is merely reflecting how one feels about his or her country. Happiness, perhaps, is not what is being measured.
The editors of the report should consider using other types of assessment scales for measuring happiness. Some scales can differentiate between flourishing individuals and languishing individuals; and, in between these two extremes can also convincingly identify happy people, unhappy people, very happy, and very unhappy persons—in any cohort.
How happy the citizens of a nation are is the most authentic measure of how well that country is doing—more so than GDP. An accurate measure of citizens’ happiness is most desirable, informative, and instructive for rating or planning the socioeconomic progress of a nation—as no one can effectively improve what one cannot accurately measure.
The truly happiest country in the world should convincingly have the highest percentage of its citizens flourishing and the lowest percentage languishing.
