Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/216333 
Year of Publication: 
2020
Series/Report no.: 
IZA Discussion Papers No. 13021
Publisher: 
Institute of Labor Economics (IZA), Bonn
Abstract: 
Is wellbeing higher if the same number of negative events is spread out rather than bunched in time? Should positive events be spread out or bunched? We answer these questions exploiting quarterly data on six positive and twelve negative life events in the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia panel. Accounting for selection, anticipation, and adaptation, we find a tipping point when it comes to negative events: once people experience about two negative events, their wellbeing depreciates disproportionally as more and more events occur in a given period. For positive events, effects are weakly decreasing in size. So both the good and the bad should be spread out rather than bunched in time, corresponding to the classic economic presumption of concave utility rather than Machiavelli's prescript of inflicting all injuries at once. Yet, differences are small, with complete smoothing of all negative events over all people and periods calculated to yield no more than a 12% reduction in the total negative welbeing impact of negative events.
Subjects: 
wellbeing
mental health
life events
non-linearities
hedonic adaptation
welfare analysis
JEL: 
D1
I31
K0
Document Type: 
Working Paper

Files in This Item:
File
Size
529.82 kB





Items in EconStor are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.