This forum was held in Hangzhou, from 8 to 10 November 2009, organized by the Europe Research Centre of Zhejiang University and sponsored by the Hangzhou municipality.

This was an impressive, demonstrating a clear desire by the municipality to improve the quality of life, which is already comparatively high in Zhejiang province.

Hangzhou exudes entrepreneurialism, innovation and strives for better governance and a good relationship between stakeholders.

The Hangzhou Development Research Centre presented a paper, which stated that democracy (consultative and participatory, not elective) “is not only a political system, but also a lifestyle…and also a means of entrepreneurship”, and that you “promote social and economic development with democracy”.

Of particular interest was the presentation of the successful system of neighborhood councils, set up in 1999 in Los Angeles, to bring the citizens closer to the local government. This was alienated in the 1990s from citizens who were hostile because they thought the government was not responsive to their preferences and needs.

The following is the text of the paper I presented on WESTERN LIFESTYLE VS EASTERN LIFESTYLE.

This is an intriguing theme to address, but must be done with caution. What is “lifestyle”? Is there a “Western” and an “Eastern” one or are these inappropriate generalisations?

There is no simple definition of lifestyle nor is the bundle of behaviors which together constitute lifestyle clearly delineated. Included are economic, social and cultural relations and activities, working requirements and conditions, environmental quality, consumption, entertainment and dress. Some, but not all, are voluntary.

We are really addressing and comparing the quality of life, which involves evaluating the general well-being of individuals. Quality of life includes wealth and employment, as well as the overall environment (including eco-friendliness), physical and mental health, education, recreation and leisure time, social belonging, freedom, human rights and happiness. There is no clear definition of quality of life and measurement is difficult, both objective and subjective elements being involved.

The most commonly used international measure of development is the United Nations Human Development Index (HDI), which measures life expectancy, literacy, education, and standard of living in 192 countries. The index was developed in 1990 by Pakistani economist Mahbub ul Haq and Indian economist Amartya Sen.

The Happy Planet Index was introduced in 2006, and additionally measures each country’s ecological footprint. 143 countries are rated. It sets a target of 89 by 2050, on a scale of 0 to 100, based on attainable levels of life expectancy and well-being and a reasonably-sized ecological footprint.

The Legatum Prosperity Index ranks 104 countries, based on economic growth together with measures of happiness and quality of life. The Index defines prosperity as both wealth and wellbeing. The most prosperous nations in the world are not necessarily those that have a high GDP, but are those that also have happy, healthy, and free citizens.

The top 17 countries of the Legatum Prosperity Index of 104 countries are all ‘Western’ (including Australia and Japan). Hong Kong China SAR scores 18, Singapore 23, Taiwan 24, South Korea 26, Malaysia 39, Thailand 44, India 45, Mongolia 50, Phillipines 55, Indonesia 61, China 75, Vietnam 77, Cambodia 93 and Pakistan 98. Europe represents the highest concentration of the world’s most prosperous nations, due to its blend of economic progress and good quality of life.

The nine factors determining the overall score are set out below with the rankings of China, Hong Kong SAR, Taiwan and US:

Factor China HK Taiwan US Economic fundamentals 29 1 24 9 Entrepreneurship & Innovation 38 10 21 1 Democratic institutions 100 60 29 2 Education 64 39 9 7 Health 53 18 26 27 Safety & security 65 11 20 19 Governance 93 6 43 16 Personal freedom 91 67 30 8 Social capital 70 33 73 7

Conclusions

No objective conclusions can be drawn form studying the indices. Their components are not necessarily of universal application and, even where they may appear to be, their meaning probably differs from region to region.

This having been said, it is useful to examine the factors determining Legatum Prosperity Index rankings. Education, health and personal safety are the most likely criteria which are broadly applicable. The balance between economic success on the one hand and social capital and on the other certainly varies.

This paper demonstrates the difficulty in measuring objectively lifestyles and quality of life. It is not possible therefore to make a judgement on such a subjective issue. Furthermore, one cannot generalize between Eastern and Western lifestyles.

This article is an exempt from Stanley’s blog of same name posted on Nov 30.

About

Stanley Crossick is a political analyst and media commentator on EU internal and external policies, with special expertise on China. He has pursued a widely varied career - Hon Secretary of the London Basketball League, founder of the London University Basketball team, practicing solicitor in London, Secrétaire-Général de l’Union Internationale des Avocats, President of the European Liberal Professions (SEPLIS), Deputy Secretary-General of the Council of Bars & Law Societies of Europe (CCBE), practicing lawyer and negotiator based in Tehran, co-founder of Belmont (the first Brussels multi-nationality and multi-disciplinary EU law firm), Founding Chairman of the European Policy Centre, Senior Advisor on China to the European Centre for Asian Studies, Conseiller auprès de la Fondation pour l’Innovation Politique, Senior Fellow at the Brussels Institute of Contemporary China Studies (BICCS). Officier de l’Ordre National (français) du Mérite and Officer of the Order of the British Empire (OBE).