placestats

Life satisfaction vs. Unemployment

Holds up after adjusting for income

Across 159 countries, Life satisfaction and Unemployment rise and fall together at r = -0.28 (on a scale from −1 to +1, where 0 means no link). It holds up almost unchanged when only countries with similar income (GDP per person) are compared (r = -0.31, q = 0.026, allowing for the many pairs tested). Caution: direction is not consistent across regions.

Comparing countries across the middle half of unemployment, 3.23% to 8.44% of labor force, life satisfaction is worse by 0.293 points at the top of that range than the bottom. Comparing only countries with similar national income, the gap is 0.194 points.

Link before adjusting (r)-0.280p = 0.000 · 159 countries
After adjusting for national income-0.312p = 6.7e-5 · likely range [-0.45, -0.16]
p, allowing for regions0.056standard error 0.132 · 7 regions
Check for luck (q)0.026across 12,497 pairs

How to read these.r runs from −1 (one goes up as the other goes down) to +1 (they rise together), and 0 means no link. Adjusting for national income means comparing countries with the same GDP per person, so differences in wealth can’t explain the link. Income is used in percentage terms, since an extra $1,000 means more to a poor country than to a rich one. p is how likely a link this strong would be if there were really none. Below 0.05 means it is unlikely to be chance. Very small values are written in short form: 1.1e-32 means a decimal point followed by 31 zeros and then 11, so very close to zero. The likely range is where the true figure probably lies, and a range that crosses zero means the link could easily be chance. Countries in the same region tend to resemble each other, so the third figure allows for that, which gives a fairer p. The standard error is the typical size of the error in r. Finally, testing this many pairs means some will look strong by luck alone. A q below 0.05 means this link is unlikely to be one of those.

Life satisfaction · score (0-10)link with income +0.81 · proxy
Unemployment · % of labor forcelink with income -0.00 · independent

“Link with income” is how closely each measure tracks GDP per person across countries, from −1 to +1.

Every country as a dot

Life satisfaction · score (0-10) →Unemployment · % of labor force →1.457.760.13%34.2%Afghanistan: 1.45 score (0-10), 13.4% of labor forceAngola: 3.79 score (0-10), 14.1% of labor forceAlbania: 5.66 score (0-10), 10.9% of labor forceUnited Arab Emirates: 6.82 score (0-10), 2.17% of labor forceArgentina: 6.43 score (0-10), 7.14% of labor forceArmenia: 5.58 score (0-10), 12.9% of labor forceAustralia: 6.92 score (0-10), 4.09% of labor forceAustria: 6.84 score (0-10), 5.58% of labor forceAzerbaijan: 4.99 score (0-10), 5.46% of labor forceBurundi: 3.77 score (0-10), 0.922% of labor forceBelgium: 6.93 score (0-10), 5.91% of labor forceBenin: 4.39 score (0-10), 1.59% of labor forceBurkina Faso: 4.46 score (0-10), 3.48% of labor forceBangladesh: 4.32 score (0-10), 3.78% of labor forceBulgaria: 5.7 score (0-10), 3.54% of labor forceBahrain: 6.25 score (0-10), 1.1% of labor forceBosnia and Herzegovina: 6.38 score (0-10), 11% of labor forceBelarus: 5.82 score (0-10), 3.38% of labor forceBelize: 6.71 score (0-10), 8.86% of labor forceBolivia: 5.83 score (0-10), 2.97% of labor forceBrazil: 6.63 score (0-10), 5.97% of labor forceBhutan: 5.08 score (0-10), 3.23% of labor forceBotswana: 3.46 score (0-10), 24.5% of labor forceCentral African Republic: 3.48 score (0-10), 6.25% of labor forceCanada: 6.74 score (0-10), 6.91% of labor forceSwitzerland: 7.02 score (0-10), 4.87% of labor forceChile: 6.3 score (0-10), 8.97% of labor forceChina: 6.07 score (0-10), 4.62% of labor forceCote d'Ivoire: 5.15 score (0-10), 2.32% of labor forceCameroon: 5.08 score (0-10), 3.6% of labor forceCongo, Dem. Rep.: 3.76 score (0-10), 4.43% of labor forceCongo, Rep.: 4.46 score (0-10), 19.9% of labor forceColombia: 6.04 score (0-10), 8.29% of labor forceComoros: 3.92 score (0-10), 3.82% of labor forceCosta Rica: 7.44 score (0-10), 6.84% of labor forceCyprus: 6.13 score (0-10), 4.92% of labor forceCzechia: 6.82 score (0-10), 2.83% of labor forceGermany: 6.88 score (0-10), 3.71% of labor forceDjibouti: 4.37 score (0-10), 26% of labor forceDenmark: 7.54 score (0-10), 5.53% of labor forceDominican Republic: 6.09 score (0-10), 5.09% of labor forceAlgeria: 5.71 score (0-10), 11.6% of labor forceEcuador: 6.14 score (0-10), 3.31% of labor forceEgypt, Arab Rep.: 3.86 score (0-10), 6.78% of labor forceSpain: 6.54 score (0-10), 10.4% of labor forceEstonia: 6.41 score (0-10), 8.31% of labor forceEthiopia: 3.98 score (0-10), 3.32% of labor forceFinland: 7.76 score (0-10), 9.46% of labor forceFrance: 6.59 score (0-10), 7.54% of labor forceGabon: 5.17 score (0-10), 20.2% of labor forceUnited Kingdom: 6.69 score (0-10), 4.75% of labor forceGeorgia: 5.52 score (0-10), 12.1% of labor forceGhana: 4.55 score (0-10), 2.98% of labor forceGuinea: 4.61 score (0-10), 5.16% of labor forceGambia, The: 4.31 score (0-10), 6.52% of labor forceGreece: 5.7 score (0-10), 8.54% of labor forceGuatemala: 6.53 score (0-10), 2.6% of labor forceGuyana: 5.99 score (0-10), 12% of labor forceHong Kong SAR, China: 5.57 score (0-10), 2.8% of labor forceHonduras: 6.1 score (0-10), 4.92% of labor forceCroatia: 6.01 score (0-10), 5% of labor forceHaiti: 3.62 score (0-10), 14.9% of labor forceHungary: 5.94 score (0-10), 4.52% of labor forceIndonesia: 5.62 score (0-10), 3.24% of labor forceIndia: 4.54 score (0-10), 4.22% of labor forceIreland: 6.93 score (0-10), 4.63% of labor forceIran, Islamic Rep.: 5.15 score (0-10), 8.3% of labor forceIraq: 5.21 score (0-10), 15.5% of labor forceIceland: 7.54 score (0-10), 3.63% of labor forceIsrael: 7.19 score (0-10), 3.49% of labor forceItaly: 6.57 score (0-10), 6.39% of labor forceJamaica: 6.3 score (0-10), 3.29% of labor forceJordan: 4.48 score (0-10), 16.5% of labor forceJapan: 6.13 score (0-10), 2.45% of labor forceKazakhstan: 6.63 score (0-10), 4.77% of labor forceKenya: 4.67 score (0-10), 5.45% of labor forceKyrgyz Republic: 6.05 score (0-10), 3.53% of labor forceCambodia: 4.46 score (0-10), 0.263% of labor forceKorea, Rep.: 6.04 score (0-10), 2.68% of labor forceKuwait: 6.54 score (0-10), 2.18% of labor forceLao PDR: 5.51 score (0-10), 1.19% of labor forceLebanon: 3.72 score (0-10), 11% of labor forceLiberia: 4.28 score (0-10), 2.88% of labor forceLibya: 5.73 score (0-10), 18.8% of labor forceSri Lanka: 4.01 score (0-10), 4% of labor forceLesotho: 4.38 score (0-10), 16.3% of labor forceLithuania: 6.7 score (0-10), 6.73% of labor forceLuxembourg: 7.06 score (0-10), 6.34% of labor forceLatvia: 6.37 score (0-10), 6.57% of labor forceMorocco: 4.65 score (0-10), 9% of labor forceMoldova: 5.85 score (0-10), 1.5% of labor forceMadagascar: 4.17 score (0-10), 3.04% of labor forceMaldives: 5.2 score (0-10), 4.51% of labor forceMexico: 6.97 score (0-10), 2.67% of labor forceNorth Macedonia: 5.72 score (0-10), 12.3% of labor forceMali: 4.59 score (0-10), 2.83% of labor forceMalta: 6.44 score (0-10), 2.9% of labor forceMyanmar: 4.29 score (0-10), 3.05% of labor forceMontenegro: 6.14 score (0-10), 13.6% of labor forceMongolia: 5.94 score (0-10), 5.23% of labor forceMozambique: 5.34 score (0-10), 6.63% of labor forceMauritania: 4.47 score (0-10), 10.3% of labor forceMauritius: 5.94 score (0-10), 5.63% of labor forceMalawi: 3.28 score (0-10), 5.07% of labor forceMalaysia: 6 score (0-10), 3.76% of labor forceNamibia: 4.78 score (0-10), 19.3% of labor forceNiger: 4.94 score (0-10), 0.394% of labor forceNigeria: 4.79 score (0-10), 3.06% of labor forceNicaragua: 6.3 score (0-10), 5.04% of labor forceNetherlands: 7.22 score (0-10), 3.87% of labor forceNorway: 7.24 score (0-10), 4.64% of labor forceNepal: 5.15 score (0-10), 10.5% of labor forceNew Zealand: 7 score (0-10), 5.08% of labor forceOman: 6.2 score (0-10), 3.25% of labor forcePakistan: 4.87 score (0-10), 5.42% of labor forcePanama: 6.55 score (0-10), 8.36% of labor forcePeru: 5.97 score (0-10), 5.12% of labor forcePhilippines: 6.21 score (0-10), 2.23% of labor forcePoland: 6.77 score (0-10), 2.98% of labor forcePuerto Rico (US): 7.04 score (0-10), 5.99% of labor forcePortugal: 6.03 score (0-10), 6.16% of labor forceParaguay: 6.2 score (0-10), 4.8% of labor forceWest Bank and Gaza: 4.69 score (0-10), 24.4% of labor forceQatar: 6.37 score (0-10), 0.13% of labor forceRomania: 6.63 score (0-10), 5.99% of labor forceRussian Federation: 5.83 score (0-10), 2.13% of labor forceRwanda: 3.27 score (0-10), 11.4% of labor forceSaudi Arabia: 6.82 score (0-10), 3.04% of labor forceSudan: 4.14 score (0-10), 7.53% of labor forceSenegal: 4.79 score (0-10), 2.73% of labor forceSingapore: 6.58 score (0-10), 2.82% of labor forceSierra Leone: 3.25 score (0-10), 3.15% of labor forceEl Salvador: 6.58 score (0-10), 3.3% of labor forceSomalia, Fed. Rep.: 4.51 score (0-10), 18.9% of labor forceSerbia: 6.69 score (0-10), 7.12% of labor forceSuriname: 6.27 score (0-10), 7.83% of labor forceSlovak Republic: 6.25 score (0-10), 5.36% of labor forceSlovenia: 6.87 score (0-10), 3.17% of labor forceSweden: 7.25 score (0-10), 8.69% of labor forceEswatini: 3.91 score (0-10), 34.2% of labor forceSyrian Arab Republic: 3.46 score (0-10), 13.6% of labor forceChad: 4.38 score (0-10), 1.06% of labor forceTogo: 4.28 score (0-10), 2% of labor forceThailand: 6.3 score (0-10), 0.781% of labor forceTajikistan: 5.59 score (0-10), 6.93% of labor forceTurkmenistan: 5.47 score (0-10), 4.27% of labor forceTrinidad and Tobago: 5.91 score (0-10), 3.33% of labor forceTunisia: 4.8 score (0-10), 15.1% of labor forceTurkiye: 5.3 score (0-10), 8.52% of labor forceTanzania: 3.9 score (0-10), 1.57% of labor forceUganda: 4.49 score (0-10), 2.75% of labor forceUkraine: 4.66 score (0-10), 9.83% of labor forceUruguay: 6.63 score (0-10), 7.52% of labor forceUnited States: 6.82 score (0-10), 4.2% of labor forceUzbekistan: 6.28 score (0-10), 4.62% of labor forceViet Nam: 6.43 score (0-10), 1.52% of labor forceSouth Africa: 5.01 score (0-10), 32.4% of labor forceZambia: 4.11 score (0-10), 5.92% of labor forceZimbabwe: 3.35 score (0-10), 9.29% of labor forceAFGBDIBWAFINISLISRNLDSLESWZZAF

best-fit line line after adjusting

Four ways to measure the link

MethodrpCountries
Standard (Pearson), not adjusted-0.2800.000159
By rank (Spearman), not adjusted-0.1350.089159
Standard (Pearson), adjusted for national income-0.3126.7e-5159
By rank (Spearman), adjusted for national income-0.1690.034159

The rank version uses only each country’s place in line, from lowest to highest, so a few extreme countries count for less. The adjusted and unadjusted versions use the same 159 countries: those that report both measures and GDP per person. So the gap between them comes from the adjustment, not from a change in which countries are counted. Drop in the size of r after adjusting: -0.032 (a minus sign means it grew).

How solid is it?

Leaving out one country at a time, r ranges from -0.333 (without SOM) to -0.266 (without BWA). The bar above shows that range on a scale from −1 to +1, with the solid line at the full result. The single country that moves r most: BWA (+0.046).

Fragile: this link may not hold up.
  • direction is not consistent across regions

Within each region

Countries are not separate, unrelated cases, and neighbors share a lot. A link that holds inside each region is far more believable than one that shows up only when comparing regions.

nr
East Asia & Pacific16+0.20
Europe & Central Asia48-0.16
Latin America & Caribbean24-0.60
Middle East, North Africa, Afghanistan & Pakistan22+0.32
Sub-Saharan Africa41-0.24

By income third

If the link shows up only in the richest third of countries, it is a feature of rich countries, not a general pattern.

nr
Poorest third53-0.24
Middle third53-0.48
Richest third53+0.11

By largest religious group

Countries grouped by a label they share, such as main religion, rather than by a number. Groups of fewer than twelve countries are not shown. These groups differ in income, region and history all at once. So a gap between them is a place to start asking questions, not an answer.

nr
Christians91-0.47
Muslims47-0.21

By last european coloniser

Countries grouped by a label they share, such as main religion, rather than by a number. Groups of fewer than twelve countries are not shown. These groups differ in income, region and history all at once. So a gap between them is a place to start asking questions, not an answer.

nr
France25-0.57
Never a European colony21-0.49
Spain18-0.57
United Kingdom45-0.21

Without outliers (countries far outside the middle half of countries on either measure, by more than one and a half times the width of that middle half): r = -0.213 after dropping 13 countries.

Two series, one country

Both measures over the years for one country you pick. The two charts are stacked so they share only the years along the bottom.

Loading…

Over time, within countries

Everything above compares countries with each other at one moment. This section compares each country only with itself over 15years. So a link here can’t come from anything about a country that stays the same, such as its history, geography, institutions or culture.

The link also shows up within countries over time (r = -0.328). It holds even when looking only at changes from one year to the next (r = -0.128). This is the strongest kind of evidence available here: it holds when each country is compared only with itself, and it is not just a product of shared trends.

Across countries (adjusted)-0.312for comparison
Within countries-0.341each country vs itself
…and vs the same year elsewhere-0.328q = 0.000 · 156 countries
Year-on-year changes-0.128q = 0.000
Read with care.
  • Almost all of the second indicator's variation is between countries, so the within-country estimate rests on a small part of the data.

2,050 country-years (one country in one year), 156 countries, 2011–2025, about 13 years each on average. Share of the variation that happens within countries over time: 10% for Life satisfaction, 9% for Unemployment. The margins of error allow for each country appearing many times, and for each year’s value being close to the year before.

Year-to-year changes are a cautious test, not a final answer. Looking only at changes from one year to the next removes each country’s own trends. But it also makes measurement mistakes louder, which pulls the results toward zero. A near-zero result here is weak evidence of no link, not proof.

With one measure years behind the other

0.40−0.4-100+9years Unemployment trails Life satisfaction →lag -10: r = 0.087 (n = 2,059)lag -9: r = 0.081 (n = 2,059)lag -8: r = 0.059 (n = 2,059)lag -7: r = 0.010 (n = 2,059)lag -6: r = -0.056 (n = 2,059)lag -5: r = -0.123 (n = 2,059)lag -4: r = -0.185 (n = 2,059)lag -3: r = -0.265 (n = 2,058)lag -2: r = -0.334 (n = 2,056)lag -1: r = -0.350 (n = 2,053)lag +0: r = -0.328 (n = 2,050)lag +1: r = -0.274 (n = 1,906)lag +2: r = -0.216 (n = 1,754)lag +3: r = -0.167 (n = 1,613)lag +4: r = -0.119 (n = 1,474)lag +5: r = -0.055 (n = 1,327)lag +6: r = 0.004 (n = 1,174)lag +7: r = -0.005 (n = 1,020)lag +8: r = -0.007 (n = 853)lag +9: r = -0.015 (n = 690)

Same year (lag 0): -0.328. A peak away from zero does not show which comes first. These series change slowly — this year’s value is close to last year’s. That makes the curve smooth and nearly symmetric, whatever produced the data. Even a sharp peak at one lag (a gap of some years) would not prove that one measure changes the other.

The data


score (0-10)

% of labor force
Years
Finland FIN7.769.46%2025
Iceland ISL7.543.63%2025
Denmark DNK7.545.53%2025
Costa Rica CRI7.446.84%2025
Sweden SWE7.258.69%2025
Norway NOR7.244.64%2025
Netherlands NLD7.223.87%2025
Israel ISR7.193.49%2025
Luxembourg LUX7.066.34%2025
Puerto Rico (US) PRI7.045.99%2015, 2025
Switzerland CHE7.024.87%2025
New Zealand NZL75.08%2025
Mexico MEX6.972.67%2025
Ireland IRL6.934.63%2025
Belgium BEL6.935.91%2025

Helliwell, J. et al., World Happiness Report; underlying data Gallup World Poll
World Bank, World Development Indicators

Sources

Life satisfaction

Life satisfaction (Cantril ladder score)

Gallup / World Happiness Report · via Our World in Data · CC BY 4.0 · updated annual

The national average answer to the "Cantril ladder" question: "Please imagine a ladder, with steps numbered from 0 at the bottom to 10 at the top...". It is a direct survey measure, not a combined index. The six factors the World Happiness Report uses to explain the ladder are not part of it. Values are usually three-year rolling averages of the Gallup World Poll. So each year's value overlaps with the next, and they are not separate readings.

Unemployment

Unemployment, total (% of total labor force) (modeled ILO estimate)

International Labour Organization · CC BY 4.0 · updated quarterly

How this was computed

Data used: most recent value in 2010-2025; values come from 2011–2025. To adjust for income, each measure is first predicted from GDP per person (in percentage terms, on a log scale) with a straight-line fit. Only what is left over is then compared. This is called a partial correlation. The line is drawn the standard way (ordinary least squares), which picks the line that comes closest to all the countries at once. The error margins allow for countries in the same region resembling each other, using 7 World Bank regions. The q-value corrects for testing all 12,497 pairs at once, using the Benjamini–Hochberg method. Underlying data last updated DYB 2024. How the country data works · explore Life satisfaction and Unemployment

This page shows that two measures go together. It does not show that Life satisfaction changes Unemployment, or the reverse. These figures also describe countries, not individual people. See the ecological fallacy.

More links with Life satisfaction or Unemployment