Track 2.2 - Subjective Well-Being, Creativity and Innovation

Francis MUNIER, University of Strasbourg, BETA, CNRS, 

---

Track's Contact : 

fmunier[at]unistra.fr

---

Historically, research on innovation has focused on understanding the reasons of success of the innovation process with either an attention on inputs such as the number of researchers / R&D or a focus on outputs, as the number of innovations and patents. Besides, research on innovation has shown the impact of innovation on economic growth and productivity, as supposing positive. 

It is necessary to enlarge this vision and to go beyond this single quantitative logic linked to the growth of GDP and in some way to a form of hyper consumption, better is not more. Indeed, it seems essential to emphasis more on the outcomes of innovations at the societal and individual levels. Recent research on the notions of social, inclusive innovation, innovation care, dark innovation are going into this way. 

In this, the purpose of this session is to investigate the impact of innovations on subjective well-being while also trying to understand by reciprocity the role of subjective well-being in the innovation process, particularly through the issue of creativity. 

Only few researches have examined this topic of innovation, creativity and subjective well-being. In this regard, the work of Binder (2013), Binder and Witt (2011), Charlotta Mellander, Richard Florida and Jason Rentfrow (2011), Aghion, Akcigit, Deaton, and Roulet (2016), Dolan and Meltcalfe (2012) are pioneers. 

The innovation’s research agenda and, more deeply, the notion of progress need to change in order to reflect this importance of happiness. As a new challenge, we think that a change of the focus of empirical and theoretical work from innovation for wealth to innovation for Subjective Well-Being could be relevant, based notably of the Easterlin Paradox and the concept of hedonic treadmill. 

Articles which analyze this topic, including the modification in the concept of progress and in societal goal, the need for new policies, the requirement of development of appropriate empirical methods, measures, indicators, analytical approaches and conceptual frameworks will be welcome for building these foundations to innovation – creativity for wellbeing and its reciprocity.

---

References

Aghion P., Akcikit U., Deaton A., Roulet A. (2016), “Creative Destruction and Subjective Well-Being”, American Economic Review, VOL. 106, NO. 12, December, pp. 3869-97. 

Binder M. (2013), “Innovativeness and Subjective Well-Being”, Social Indicators Research, April 2013, Volume 111, Issue 2, pp 561–578 

Binder M. and Witt U. (2011), “As innovations drive economic growth, do they also raise well-being?” Papers on Economics and Evolution, 1105, Philipps University Marburg, Department of Geography. 

Dolan P. and R. Metcalfe (2012), “The relationship between innovation and subjective wellbeing”, Research Policy, vol. 41, issue 8, 1489-1498 

Mellander C., Florida R., Rentfrow J. (2011), “The creative class, post-industrialism and the happiness of nations”, Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society 2011, 1–13

Retour à la liste