I recently came across a "call for participation" from an author who is writing a book on happiness: what it is, and where it is. The author has a hypothesis based on a "geography of happiness, [...] that place matters, that where we live has an impact on our life's bliss gradation."

According to the World Database of Happiness, Switzerland ties with Denmark and Malta as the happiest countries on Earth. The author plans to visit a number of countries, including the happiest as well as the unhappiest (Moldova) to test his hypothesis. A Swiss friend of his has invited Swiss (or people living in Switzerland) to contribute their own opinions. The original "call" is here. My own response follows.

Can a Chinese businessman who gets rich in an otherwise oppressive society be happy? Can a Malian tribesman who lives in the desert in a tent without electricity or running water be happy? Is happiness related to the number of material possessions we have (as our consumer culture would have us believe)? Or does happiness have more to do with personal growth and personal relationships? Schwierig... sehr schwierig. These questions are worthy of another discussion altogether. Let's just skip them and rely on the results of other studies that have attempted to measure happiness.

I tend to agree with studies claiming that happiness rises with per capita income up to a point. Once individual basic needs are met (food, shelter...), additional income does not increase happiness. Happiness also rises in relation to other (in my opinion) basic rights independent of income: democracy, education and health care, functioning government institutions, environment, etc.

According to those studies, when per capita income continues to rise after reaching the level necessary for basic needs, happiness appears to level off or even decline. Why? People become obsessed with "getting ahead." They get stressed working long hours to afford that vacation home. The perceived need to compete with the neighbors makes it difficult to have meaningful friendships with them. It's an over-simplified explanation, but you get the picture.

Therefore I disagree with the proposition that there is a "geography of happiness," that location plays a key role in determining happiness. To live in or near the Alps has its benefits, but on their own they won't bring happiness if other basic needs aren't met.

I would suggest that these basic needs and rights have, for the most part, been met in all wealthy (i.e. industrialized) countries, and that in these countries happiness is therefore inversely proportional to per capita income. That is, the wealthier a country is, the less happy its citizens will be. (Note that this conflicts with the results of the World Database of Happiness.) And I personally see no evidence to suggest that Switzerland is an exception to this theory.

I have just one anecdote that deals specifically with Switzerland and that appears to back up the above theory: Over 10 years ago I read a Newsweek interview of Krzysztof Kieslowski, director of the film trilogy "Red," "White" and "Blue." The interview made such an impression on me that I saved it. Kieslowski was asked: "Your latest films deal with alienation. Is man more alone in the 1990s than he has been in the past?"

He replied: "Decidedly. And the richer a country is, the more alone its inhabitants are. I have never seen people as alone and isolated as in Switzerland, where I shot 'Red.' This is a country where the citizens are well off. But they are horribly alone. Nowhere in the world have I seen so many people who so badly wanted to leave their own country."

Granted, it is only one person's opinion. Nevertheless I've asked myself many times, What on earth could he have experienced during his time in Switzerland to make him respond this way?

My (geographical) background: I was born and raised in the States, I spent four years in Zurich, and since 1999 I live near Geneva. I've also lived in Glasgow and Berlin. On a happiness scale of 1 to 10 I register a solid 5.