From the usual suspects in the Tea Party to the newly populist billionaire Donald Trump, Americans have been registering their frustration with the federal government. But it isn’t just government that has used up their patience.  According to new polling data from the Gallup Organization, Americans are suffering a crisis of confidence with most big political, financial, business, labor and government institutions (see chart below).

The Gallup survey asked a random sample of more than a thousand Americans whether they thought major institutions like banks, big corporations, the courts, and labor unions, among others had “too much power,” “about the right amount,” or “not enough power.” Topping the list of the too powerful were lobbyists—which about seven in ten survey respondents viewed as having too much power. Banks and big corporations were next. And the federal government – which gets most of the attention – came in fourth, with nearly 6 in ten of those surveyed saying it has too much power.  Americans, it seems, are even more fed up with lobbyists, banks, and big companies than they do with their dysfunctional federal government.  Next in line were unions which a smaller percentage, about a third of survey respondents, viewed as having too much power.

Not surprisingly, there was a clear partisan divide in sentiments regarding elite power according to the Gallup survey.  Republicans were more inclined than Democrats to say that unions and the federal government are too powerful. Democrats were leeriest of banks and major corporations.

Americans of all stripes view the military positively – with just 14 percent saying it had too much power.  Local government and religious organizations are also seen in a comparatively positive light.

Commenting on the Gallup poll, Kevin Drum notes that “Americans are angry” and ”apparently think that everyone has too much power” adding that the “poll doesn’t tell us much aside from the fact that American political beliefs are fairly incoherent.” But the poll data suggests that Americans’ frustration and large with their core business, financial and governmental institutions is actually pretty coherent. This sentiment is so widespread, it suggests to me that America’s elite institutions could be suffering from what German political philosopher Jürgen Habermas long ago dubbed a “legitimation crisis.”

The issue may actually have a lot less to do with the coherence of Americans’ political views (which suggest that Americans across-the-board see business, the banks and the federal government as having too much power) and more to do with the failure of political system and the political parties to reflect these views and moreover to take on these entrenched interests in any meaningful way.  Instead of blaming the voters, a better explanation comes from the investment theory of politics advanced by political scientist, Thomas Ferguson which argues  that true control of the political parties and the party system broadly rests with business, economic and financial elites – not voters.

The populist right – from Palin and the Tea Party to Trump – has certainly jumped at the chance to channel and organize these mounting popular sentiments.  But what about mainstream of the parties and while we’re at it, what about the Left, especially the progressive Left?  One would think such mounting frustration and anger could inform a major forward-looking political movement? And calls for more government spending and renewed commitment to Keynsian spendng or for protecting working-class jobs simply don’t cut it here.

What’s missing is a compelling vision of a progressive future with less power concentrated in federal hands, with real curbs on the speculative behavior of banks and financial institutions and excesses of big business, which creates new jobs and improves the 60 million plus low wage service jobs we currently have, which curbs our sprawling wasteful pattern of economic and physical development, and which tilts the economic playing field away from the economics of “trading” toward that of real “building” by investing in skills, creativity and shared prosperity.  This is the biggest political failure of our time. And you have to ask yourself what has prevented it from emerging. It happened during the last economic crisis with the New Deal, why isn’t it happening now?

But perhaps there is the germ of hope buried in the Gallup poll.  While Americans are fed up with their federal government, they largely view local government favorably.  That’s because local government is far less partisan and ideological. In my experience, it’s difficult to tell whether a mayor is a Republican or a Democrat—their focus is pragmatic and proactive; their agenda revolves around job creation and economic development, and for the most part they are indifferent to the culture war issues that have riven the country as a whole.  And these local leaders have delivered the goods, they have worked hard to rebuild their economies, fix the schools, spur local development, and even to get spending under controls. Cities and communities are not just the source of clusters of ideas, invention and economic productivity, they are the source of pragmatic, non-ideological government and consistent policy innovation. Once scorned by Americans as ineffective or even corrupt, local government is now among the most trusted and lauded institutions in American life, so much so that more seven in  ten Americans think they have at least the right amount of power and 21 percent of us even say than half  they don’t have enough power. There’s a lesson in that for Washington – and all of us.

The new Gallup data on America’s happiest metro regions has just been released. Last year’s Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index ranked Silicon Valley as America’s happiest metro-region. This year Boulder, Colorado is the winner.  Boulder recently was named the best city for startups and registers highly on my own creativity rankings. College towns dominate the rankings. DC ranks tenth.

DC ranks first among large metros with Austin second, San Jose third, Seattle, fourth and San Francisco fifth. All of these metros have large tech clusters, highly educated populations and high concentrations of knowledge, professional and creative workers.

The Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index covers six key categories: Life Evaluation, Emotional Health, Work Environment, Physical Health, Healthy Behaviors, and Access to Basic Necessities. Honolulu leads in Life Evaluation and Emotional Health.

Gainesville, Florida leads in work environment, and Boulder comes in first for physical health. Salinas, California takes the top score for Healthy Behavior and Holland/Grand Haven, Michigan leads for Basic Access. Silicon Valley, did not score in the top ten this year, either for Overall Well-being or in any of the subcategories.  The most “unhappy” metros are Rustbelt locations that have been hard-hit by the Great Reset or the Sun Belt’s housing dependent cities of sand.

My next post will follow up with an analysis of the key factors that are associated with city happiness.

In the Americas broadly (the U.S., Canada and Mexico) 52 percent of the workforce is employed full time by a single employer, 10 percent are unemployed, and 24 percent are underemployed. In Europe, 56 percent are employed full time, nine percent are unemployed, and 20 percent are underemployed. Workers have the most precarious situation in Africa, where only 19 percent are employed full time for an employer. Interestingly, but perhaps not surprisingly, the countries that comprised the former Soviet Union have the highest percentage of their workers working full time for an employer.

Gallup’s analysis finds a close association between economic development (measured as GDP per capita) and full time work, a negative relationship between economic development and underemployment, but no relationship between economic development and the rate of unemployment.

Unemployment remains a persistent problem in the U.S. and other advanced nations, but perhaps a closer consideration of full time work and underemployment will yield another, even more useful set of insights.

The ability to attract talent is key to the prosperity of nations. And it is particularly important during Great Resets which are underpinned by major shifts in talent across cities, regions, and nations.

New data from the Gallup Organization suggests that U.S. edge in attracting highly skilled and educated immigrants is slipping, while Canada is gaining. The Gallup study is based on interviews with nearly 350,000 adults across 148 countries.

The U.S. remains the number 1 most sought after destination for potential immigrants (those who would like to move), with Canada in second place. The U.S. also ranks first in appealing to younger potential immigrants, those in ther 15-24 year old age range. But Canada tops the U.S. as the leading destination for more highly educated potential movers. The Gallup study concludes that:

‘The United States’ appeal to the least educated and Canada’s greater appeal to the most educated is consistent across all regions. This is most apparent among those in the European Union, East Asia, and Southeast Asia who would like to relocate to either of these nations.”

Is the U.S. losing its edge in the competiton for global talent? Can it gain it back?  Will Canada be able to turn this growing global interest in a true talent advantage. Are there any other nations which can dramatically improve their ability to compete in the ongoing Talent Reset?

A week or so ago, Newsweek’s Julia Baird pointed to my analysis of the connection between national happiness and tolerance. That reminded me and my MPI colleagues of the Heritage Foundation’s Economic Freedom Index. The index, which covers 183 countries, is based on ratings for 10 specific factors: business freedom, trade freedom, fiscal freedom, government size, monetary freedom, investment freedom, financial freedom, property rights, freedom from corruption, and labor freedom. Hong Kong topped the list overall, followed by Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, and Switzerland. Canada came in 7th, the highest among North American nations and slightly ahead of the United States which ranked 8th.

To what extent is economic freedom associated with tolerance and happiness? Are freer nations also more tolerant? Are their residents happier than those of other nations? To what extent is economic freedom also associated with other factors like affluence and material well‑being, the level of human capital, and the transition to postindustrial economic structures? And what is the relationship between freedom and economic inequality?

We decided to take a look. We ran some bivariate correlations and a series of scatter-graphs which I summarize below. Lack of matching data for some of our indicators caused us to leave out African nations from our analysis. As usual, I point out that our analysis points to association between variables only: It does not imply causation, and other factors may complicate the picture. Still, the findings are interesting.

Source: Economic Output is measured as gross domestic product per capita, World Bank, World Development Indicators

It’s not surprising that richer countries are, on average, freer – the correlation between the conventional measure of economic well-being (that is, gross domestic product per capita) and the Economic Freedom Index being .71. The scatter-graph above shows that Hong Kong, Australia, New Zealand, the United States, Canada, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Ireland all do very well on both measures.

Source: World Bank, World Development Indicators

Freer countries also have higher levels of human capital (that is, more highly educated populations) – the correlation here being .44. Again, Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, the U.S., and Canada all do well on both.

Source: Global Competitiveness Index (PDF)

Freer countries score better on global competitiveness, according to the Global Competitiveness Index (PDF) developed by Harvard University professor Michael Porter for Davos. The correlation between the two is .7. Despite what some say about the rise of the Chinese state capitalist model, overall, economic freedom and competitiveness appear to go hand-in-hand

Source: Definition based on Rise of the Creative Class; data are from the International Labour Organization.

One thing that’s interesting: Economic freedom is closely associated with the transition to postindustrialism. A key indicator of that transition is the percentage of workers in the creative class which spans science and technology; arts, culture and entertainment; and the knowledge-based professions. The correlation between the creative class and economic freedom is .45. Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, the U.S., Canada, Denmark, and the Netherlands do well on both measures. On the other hand, the correlation between economic freedom and the working class is negative, though not statistically significant.

Source: Tolerance is a combined index of  attitudes toward racial and ethnic minorities and attitudes toward gays and lesbians. Data are from a Gallup Organization survey.

Freer countries are also more tolerant. We looked at the association between economic freedom and attitudes toward ethnic and racial minorities and gays and lesbians. Freer countries had more open-minded attitudes toward each. And, the association was even higher when we generated a combined measure of both – the correlation being .59.

Source: United Nations, Human Development Index

Freer countries also have higher levels of overall human development, as measured by the United Nations. The correlation here is .67.

Source: Gallup Organization

Freer countries, not surprisingly, are also happier. The correlation between economic freedom and Gallup’s measure of life satisfaction or happiness was .55.

Source:  World Development Indicators

The relationship between economic freedom and income equality is interesting. We measure inequality based on the conventional Gini coefficient of inequality. The overall correlation is negative (-.33). That means freer countries, on average, are more equal. Many of the countries with the highest levels of economic freedom are also among those with the highest levels of economic equality – Sweden, Denmark, Japan, and Finland. The most unequal countries – Bolivia, Brazil, Ecuador, and Argentina – on the other hand, have relatively low levels of economic freedom. The United States is one of several countries, along with the United Kingdom and Singapore, that have high levels of economic freedom alongside relatively high levels of inequality.

Economic freedom, according to our analysis, is not just a lofty goal or something that can be imposed on societies. Rather, as we’ve seen, economic freedom is tied to material economic and social conditions. Economic freedom, not surprisingly, reflects levels of affluence and economic development: Richer countries are, on average, freer. But economic freedom is also tied to postindustrial economic structures. It is considerably higher and more widespread in nations with a larger creative class, a smaller working class, and more highly educated people. Freer countries are also more tolerant, with more open social attitudes toward minorities and gays.  This is in line with Ronald Inglehart’s decades-long observation of the shift from materialist to post-materialist values. And economic freedom goes hand in hand with higher levels of happiness and life satisfaction.

Perhaps the most interesting finding to emerge from our analysis concerns the relationship between economic freedom and inequality. The relationship is often seen in terms of a trade-off. The ability to pursue one’s economic dreams unencumbered by social or institutional restraint is seen as conditioning higher levels of inequality. But that’s not what we found. In fact, our analysis indicates that the relationship between economic freedom and income inequality is negative. That is, freer countries are on balance more equal. Many of the countries with the highest levels of economic freedom also have the highest levels of economic equality.

The United States is one of a relatively small number of nations, along with the United Kingdom and Singapore, that have relatively high levels of economic inequality alongside high levels of economic freedom. Americans frequently see this pattern as reflecting the country’s individualistic ethos that spur hard work, individual ambition, and unbridled entrepreneurship. Darwinian as it may be, inequality is seen as a necessary, if negative, byproduct of this ethos which is what in the end makes America richer, happier, and freer than other nations. That may have been true in the past. But today, the U.S. pattern is far from the dominant one: In fact, it’s rather unique. Economic freedom in general is associated with relatively low levels of income inequality.

All of this points to the fact that it’s not just greater affluence that leads to freedom and happiness but the combination of greater wealth with relative economic equality. Freer, happier societies reflect the old adage of a rising tide that lifts all boats. That’s something Americans keep in mind as the nation grapples with how best to generate economic growth, create jobs, and deal with rising social and economic inequality in the ongoing era of the Great Reset.

Last Saturday, I posted the Global Well-Being Map from the Gallup Organization which showed how the countries of the world stack up on an index of well-being which runs from “suffering” to “thriving.”

The Gallup study found a “clear well-being divide between the wealthier countries of northern, western, and central Europe and some poorer countries within eastern and southern Europe.”

Economic development clearly plays a role in levels of  national well-being or happiness. A major cross-national study by University of Pennsylvania economists Justin Wolfers and Betsey Stevenson found a close association between income and the happiness of nations. As Wolfers writes:  “1) Rich people are happier than poor people. 2) Richer countries are happier than poorer countries. 3) As countries get richer, they tend to get happier.”

But other factors also appear to be at play. It is not just the level of economic development that matters, but its nature and type. The past several decades have seen a shift from older industrial-style economies and societies to newer post-industrial ones characterized by higher levels of knowledge-based, professional, and creative jobs, more highly educated populations, and a shift toward what Ronald Inglehart has dubbed “post-materialist values” – a diminished commitment to traditional authority and institutions and a shift toward self-expression, openness, and tolerance. My recent research with Charlotta Mellander and Jason Rentfrow finds evidence that post-industrial socioeconomic structures and post-materialist values matter to the happiness of nations, especially of the most advanced nations, in addition to the effects of income and the level of economic development.

With Mellander’s help, I took a quick look at the factors which might be associated with this new Gallup well-being index of the well-being of nations. Not surprisingly, the level of economic output plays a key role, but post-industrial structures and post-materialist values do as well. Before going any further, let me point out that this analysis is based on simple correlations which identify associations between variables but do not specify causality.

“Thriving” is positively correlated with the level of economic output, measured as GDP per capita (.65).

“Thriving” is also associated with the level of education (.45) and share of the workforce in knowledge-based, creative, and professional occupations (.42).

And it is also correlated with attitudes toward racial and ethnic minorities (.44) and gays and lesbians (.7).

“Struggling” is negatively correlated with the level of economic output (-.57).

It is also associated with the share of the workforce in knowledge-based jobs (-.5), the level of education (-.4), and with attitudes toward racial and ethnic minorities (-.38) and gays and lesbians (-.63).

“Suffering” is negatively correlated with the level of economic output (-.5).

It is also negatively correlated with attitudes toward ethnic and racial minorities (-.34) and even more so with attitudes toward gays and lesbians (-.56).

This is just a first cut. We are actively probing these issues in further detail and with more advanced statistical techniques in our ongoing research. But for now, we can say that while income and the level of economic development play an important role in the happiness of nations, well-being is also related to the type and nature of economic development and the values it engenders. There is something in the nature of post-industrial economies and in their values that appears to affect the happiness of their people over and above the effects of income. Perhaps it is that people with higher levels of education have more flexibility or choice in pursuing their dreams, building families and social relationships that are more fulfilling, or simply in their ability to adjust to misfortune or bad times. Perhaps it is that knowledge-based jobs are more challenging and fulfilling. It’s also clear that  the most troubled societies – those with the highest reported levels of suffering – also, generally speaking, face the highest levels of intolerance. While income and the level of economic development certainly need to be top of mind considerations when we think about or attempt to act on the happiness of nations, one simply cannot neglect the effects of economic and social structure and of values in social well-being.

This map from the Gallup Organization shows the well-being levels of the nations of the world.

Gallup collected the data through from interviews and telephone surveys with individuals across 155 nations between 2005 and 2009. It distinguishes three categories of well-being – suffering (low levels), struggling (medium levels), and thriving (high levels).

More than half of Americans (57 percent) report they are thriving, while 40 percent say they are “struggling,” and three percent report they are “suffering.”

The highest levels of “thriving” are found in Northern European, Scandinavian, and Nordic countries – Denmark (82 percent), Finland (75 percent), Norway (69 percent), Sweden (68 percent), and the Netherlands (68 percent).

Relatively high levels of “thriving” are also found in Australia (62 percent), New Zealand (63 percent), Canada (62 percent), Israel (62 percent), Switzerland (62 percent), and Costa Rica (63 percent).

High levels of “suffering” and “struggling” are found in many African nations, in Saudi Arabia in the Middle East, in Asian nations like Cambodia, Laos, and Mongolia, and in Bulgaria, Latvia, and Albania, as well as Haiti.

China fares poorly on this index of well-being,despite its tremendous rate of economic growth and rise as the “world’s factory.” Just nine percent of Chinese respondents report they are “thriving,” while 77 say they are “struggling,” and 14 percent report they are “suffering.”

The Gallup study finds a “clear well-being divide between the wealthier countries of northern, western, and central Europe and some poorer countries within eastern and southern Europe.”

Stay tuned for more on this early next week.

Here’s one hot off the press.

A new paper with Jason Rentfrow and Charlotta Mellander looks at the role of post-industrial structures – that is, the creative class and human capital as well as values toward openness and tolerance – on the happiness of  nations.  Our main hypothesis is that  these structures and values shape happiness in ways that go beyond the previously examined effects of income. Here’s more from the abstract:

Drawing from previous theory and research, we measured post-industrial structures in terms of higher-level education and the share of the workforce engaged in knowledge-based/creative work. Post-industrial values were measured in terms of acceptance of racial and ethnic minorities and of gays and lesbians. Our measure of happiness is derived from a large-scale global survey of life satisfaction conducted by the Gallup Organization. We controlled for income in our analyses and divided our sample into high- and low-income countries to explore whether income has different effects on countries at different stages of economic development.

Our results indicate that post-industrial structures and values have a stronger effect on happiness in higher-income countries where the standard of living has surpassed a certain level. Income, on the other hand, has a stronger impact on happiness in low-income countries. Thus, we propose that when income rises beyond a certain level, a new system of post-industrial values centered on education, creativity, and openness become better predictors of happiness than income.

The full paper is here.

New research by the Gallup Organization finds that 700 million people – 16 percent of the world’s total population – would like to move to a different country than the one they currently call home.

The first map below shows the percentages of people in various regions of the world that desire to permanently move to another country.

The second map shows the places these movers would most like to relocate to.

Gallup also compiled a very interesting index of potential net migration which compares “the estimated number of adults who would like to move out of a country permanently subtracted from the estimated number who would like to move to it,” as a proportion of the total population. Here are the top five and bottom five countries. Interestingly, the United States did not make the top five.

What determines the level of attachment people have with their communities? And how does that level of attachment and community satisfaction affect local economies? These are big questions that cross the boundaries of urbanism, economics, sociology, and psychology.

For the past several years, the Gallup Organization, in partnership with the Knight Foundation, has conducted a substantial multi-community survey called “Soul of the Community.” I worked on earlier versions of the survey and reported some results in my book Who’s Your City? Here’s a link to the study’s website.

The survey covered 14,000 Americans across the 26 Knight communities each year and asked questions about 10 key domains of community attachment: basic services like infrastructure, the economy, safety, leadership, education, aesthetics (physical beauty and green spaces), education, social offerings, openness, civic involvement, and social capital.

The newly released findings indicate that while the economic crisis is the top community concern of Americans – supplanting crime – the economic crisis did not have a significant effect on community attachment. This is because even though factors like jobs, economic trends, education, and basic services matter to community attachment, they are not predominant factors that matter in people’s community attachment.

The top three factors were openness, social offerings, and aesthetics. Matt Thompson, who edits the Soul of the Community blog, summarized the key survey findings this way.

3. Aesthetics  In each community, Gallup researchers asked residents two questions about its attractiveness – how they rated the area’s parks, playgrounds, and trails and how they rated its overall beauty and physical setting. It turns out a pretty city is a lovable city.

You might have suspected this. After all, an area’s aesthetics are one of the first things we talk about when we say why we love a place. Urban design has become a huge topic nationwide over the past few decades, well-reflected in the online conversation through popular sites like Inhabitat and Worldchanging. We intuitively thrill to projects like Manhattan’s High Line – turning an abandoned rail line into a public park – because we recognize that these aesthetic enhancements are important for a community’s well-being.

But would you have expected that our feelings about our community’s aesthetics play a bigger part in our attachment to a place than public safety or highways and freeways? That surprised me, and it suggests to me that as much as we talk about urban design and green space, we might still be underestimating its impact.

2. Social offerings
It sometimes seems as though every city in America is working on a never-ending downtown revitalization project. In recent years, a lot of emphasis has been placed on creating vibrant social cores for our communities, dense places where diverse groups of people can interact. Our study suggests these efforts are valuable.

Researchers asked residents questions about how fun and social their communities are – Is there vibrant nightlife? Is it a good place to meet people and make friends? How much do residents seem to care about each other?

Responses to these questions did a lot to indicate how attached people are to where they live. I think this is especially interesting considering the study covers residents from a number of demographics, not just the young, single urbanites that we think of when we hear words like “nightlife.”

To be a top-three characteristic overall, social offerings had to be important to people of a wide range of ages, marital statuses and incomes. And in fact, it’s an ascendant community trait whether you’re looking at a relatively older community like Bradenton, Fla., or a relatively young community like State College, Pa. – both areas where social offerings are actually the leading indicator for community attachment.

1.  Openness
The number one trait we identified as decisive in determining residents’ attachment to a community was openness. To get at this trait, researchers asked whether the community was a “good place for” different groups of people – senior citizens, racial and ethnic minorities, families with kids, gays and lesbians, college graduates, and immigrants from other countries.

In community after community, residents’ responses to these questions told us the most about how attached they were to their community.Urban scholars such as Richard Florida have been talking for years about the economic benefits of tolerance – a community’s friendliness to different groups of people. Our findings underscore the value of these characteristics and add some strong empirical weight. B ut this leaves me with some questions.

Openness might be the most significant trait in determining community attachment, but of all the areas researchers asked about, this is also one of the most personal and subjective. After all, civic leaders can fix up highways and freeways, create parks and bike trails, make housing more affordable, encourage the development of fun nightlife corridors, and work to lower crime – we have recognized public policy levers to address all of these community needs. But how does a community make itself more welcoming? Laws and policies can only go so far in addressing this perception.