مرکز منطقه ای اطلاع رسانی علوم و فناوری پژوهش سیاست نظری 2008-5796 21 39 2026 9 23 The State and Well-Being: An Analytical Comparison of Models دولت و نیک‌زیستی: مقایسۀ تحلیلی الگوها 53 80 fa گیتی پورزکی پژوهشكده امام خميني و انقلاب اسلامي 2025 9 6 The State and Well-Being: An Analytical Comparison of Models   Giti Poorzaki<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1">*</a>   Whether or not it is humanity’s most important end, the “good life” and well-being have undoubtedly been among the most significant human pursuits throughout history. Consequently, determining the state’s role in securing and promoting the well-being of its citizens remains one of the most critical and contentious issues in contemporary political philosophy. This article addresses the central question: What role should states play in the well-being of their citizens, and which model of state intervention is justifiable? The answer varies depending on the diverse models of governance and the state. This article first identifies four types of states based on their approach to the relationship between the state and well-being. The primary finding is that the “well-being-focused state” (or “solicitous state”) model better satisfies the criteria of consistency, coherence, and empirical outcomes, appearing more defensible from an argumentative standpoint. The research employs an analytical-argumentative method.   Keywords: Well-being, Happiness, State, Well-being-focused State, Neutral State.   Introduction Should states be concerned with the well-being of their citizens, or is this not their duty, but rather a task each individual must pursue alone, in an Odyssean fashion? The World Values Survey has indicated that a significant portion of subjective satisfaction and happiness depends on the quality of governance (Layard, 2005: 230). The core question is: What role do states play in the well-being of their citizens, and which model of state intervention is justifiable? Answers differ based on one’s philosophical approach. We can identify at least four types of states based on their relationship with well-being: <ol style="text-align: left;"> <li>The Neutral State</li> <li>The Liberal Perfectionist State</li> <li>The Authoritarian or Ideological Perfectionist State</li> <li>The Caring (Well-being-focused) State</li> </ol> Our primary hypothesis is that the Caring State (model 4) is more justifiable than the other three models. We utilize the analytical-argumentative method to examine this hypothesis.   Literature Review Derek Bok’s The Politics of Happiness (2010) examines the role of states in improving citizens’ well-being but focuses primarily on the United States rather than comparing various models of governance. Richard Layard’s Wellbeing: Science and Policy (2023) provides a scientific foundation for well-being-based policymaking but concentrates on a single policy model. This article differs by focusing on a theoretical evaluation of diverse state models. Additionally, Paul Dalziel’s Wellbeing Economics: The Capabilities Approach to Prosperity (2018), drawing on the Capabilities Approach of Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum, attempts to provide a theoretical and practical foundation for well-being economics in public policy.   Methodology This research employs an Analytical-Argumentative method, involving the following steps: <ol style="text-align: left;"> <li>Precise and comprehensive definition of concepts.</li> <li>Logical presentation of supporting arguments for existing viewpoints.</li> <li>Challenging these arguments through counter-arguments.</li> <li>Critical evaluation and comparison of the models.</li> <li>Defending a specific position or theory as the conclusion of the analysis.</li> </ol>   Findings and Discussion By scrutinizing these four models, we sought to determine which is most defensible. We evaluated each based on three criteria: (1) Internal consistency, (2) Compatibility (coherence), and (3) Empirical and practical consequences. The models of the Neutral State, the Liberal Perfectionist State, and the Authoritarian Perfectionist State face internal inconsistencies. Conversely, the “Caring” or “Well-being-focused” state seeks not to be indifferent to the actual conditions of human well-being. Rather than imposing a specific image of the “good life,” this model utilizes empirical data and multidimensional metrics, attempting to structure institutions such that flourishing is possible for all. Conceptually, this approach attempts to reduce the conflict between liberty and well-being more effectively than the other three models. Discussion: Four Theoretical Models on the State and Well-being   <ol style="text-align: left;"> <li> The Neutral State: Known in the tradition of political liberalism as a state that avoids intervening in judgments regarding the nature of the “good life.”</li> </ol> <ul style="text-align: left;"> <li>Counter-argument: Critics argue that absolute neutrality is impossible in practice, as every policy even if ostensibly neutral reinforces or weakens specific values (MacIntyre, 1984; Sandel, 1982). Furthermore, neutrality-based liberalism holds an unrealistic view of individual identity. Individuals are “encumbered selves,” not isolated atoms devoid of moral and social bonds (Sandel, 1982).</li> </ul> <ol style="text-align: left;" start="2"> <li> The Liberal Perfectionist State: Assumes that the state can, and sometimes should, support and intervene in favor of reasonable and human forms of the good life.</li> </ol> <ul style="text-align: left;"> <li>Counter-argument: (1) Monistic Liberalism: Critics argue that any valuation even in favor of seemingly reasonable values may lead to paternalism. (2) Immature vs. Mature Well-being: When the state, in the name of “true freedom,” “self-realization,” or happiness, ignores the current desires of individuals and forces them toward what they “should want” or “should be,” it enters the dangerous path of authoritarianism (Berlin, 1969).</li> </ul> <ol style="text-align: left;" start="3"> <li> Authoritarian or Ideological Perfectionist States: These states, based on a comprehensive ideology, claim to understand human good better than the citizens themselves and thus believe it is their duty to guide individuals toward that “higher good,” even by force.</li> </ol> <ul style="text-align: left;"> <li>Counter-argument: (1) Imposing a specific conception of the good life, even with benevolent intentions, inevitably leads to the suppression of diversity, the exclusion of dissenting voices, and the disregard for human moral dignity, paving the way for justifying violence and domination. (2) The “architects of destiny” typically destroy individual autonomy (self-rule), which is a prerequisite for well-being (Pourzaki, 2022: 82).</li> </ul> <ol style="text-align: left;" start="4"> <li> The Caring (Well-being-focused) State: This approach attempts to measure, explain, and strengthen factors affecting human well-being through empirical data. Its central tenet is that well-being should be the axis and criterion of sound policy.</li> </ol> <ul style="text-align: left;"> <li>Counter-argument: Critics ask: Which well-being? Based on whose criteria? They warn that the state, even with good intentions, might violate the sphere of personal choice or lead to “forced happiness” or “mandatory well-being.” As argued by Eva Illouz and Edgar Cabanas in Happycracy, this can lead to forcing citizens to live in an “earthly paradise” (Cabanas & Illouz, 2018: 4). Michel Foucault, in his lectures at the Collège de France, also addresses these issues through concepts like biopolitics, governmentality, and technologies of the self (Foucault, 2008: 63-65).</li> </ul>   Conclusion Evaluation of Arguments: How do proponents of the Caring State respond to these criticisms? Reliance on Scientific Evidence, Not Ideology: The Well-being-focused state relies on data and empirical sciences (e.g., psychology, neuroscience, behavioral science, and new economics) rather than a specific philosophy of a “higher good.” It utilizes techniques such as double-blind psychological interviews or scientific surveys. Neutrality is Neither Possible nor Desirable: The claim to complete state neutrality is often a deception.   References Ahmed, S. (2010) The promise of happiness. Duke University Press. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822392781">https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822392781</a> Aristotle. (1999) Akhlagh-e Nikomakhoosi [Nicomachean ethics] (M. H. Lotfi, Trans.). Tarh-e No. [in Persian] Berlin, I. (1969) Two concepts of liberty. In Four essays on liberty. Oxford University Press. Buck, D. (2017) Siasat-e shadkami [The politics of happiness] (N. Salahshoor, Trans.). Farhang-e Nashr-e No. [in Persian] Cabanas, E., & Illouz, E. (2018) Happycracy: How the science of happiness controls our lives. Polity Press. Cahn, S., & Vitrano, C. (2015) Goodness and happiness. Columbia University Press. <a href="https://doi.org/10.7312/cahn17240">https://doi.org/10.7312/cahn17240</a>. Creswell, J. W. (2013) Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications. Dalziel, P., Saunders, C., & Saunders, J. (2018) Wellbeing economics: The capabilities approach to prosperity. Palgrave Macmillan. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93194-4">https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93194-4</a>. Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E., & Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 276–302. https://, Ed.; G. Burchell, Trans.). Picador. <a href="https://doi.org/10.105.2.276">https://doi.org/10.105.2.276</a>. Foucault, M. (2008) The birth of biopolitics: Lectures at the Collège de France 1978–1979 (M. Senellart, Ed.; G. Burchell, Trans.). Palgrave Macmillan. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230594180">https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230594180</a> Foucault, M. (2009) Security, territory, population: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1977–1978 (M. Senellart, Ed.; G. Burchell, Trans.). Picador. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230245075">https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230245075</a> Galston, W. A. (2002) Liberal pluralism: The implications of value pluralism for political theory and practice. Cambridge University Press. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511613579">https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511613579</a> Gray, J. (1995) Isaiah Berlin. Princeton University Press. Helliwell, J. F., Huang, H., Wang, S., & Norton, M. (2020) World happiness report 2020. Sustainable Development Solutions Network. Kymlicka, W. (1995) Multicultural citizenship: A liberal theory of minority rights. Oxford University Press. Larmore, C. (1996) The morals of modernity. Cambridge University Press. Layard, R. (2005) Wellbeing: Science and policy. Cambridge University Press. Layard, R. (2024) Shadkami, dars-haye az yek elm-e jadid [Happiness: Lessons from a new science] (G. Pourzaki, Trans.). Kargadan. [in Persian] Layard, R., & De Neve, J.-E. (2023) Wellbeing: Science and policy. Cambridge University Press. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009040822">https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009040822</a>. MacIntyre, A. (1984). After virtue (2nd ed.). University of Notre Dame Press. Nussbaum, M. C. (2000) Women and human development: The capabilities approach. Cambridge University Press. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511841286">https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511841286</a> Nussbaum, M. C. (2011) Creating capabilities: The human development approach. Harvard University Press. Plato. (2001) Doreh-ye asar-e Aflatun [Works of Plato] (M. Lotfi & R. Kaviani, Trans.). Kharazmi. [in Persian] Popper, K. (2024) Jame’e-ye baz va doshmanan-e an [The open society and its enemies] (E. Fouladvand, Trans.). Kharazmi. [in Persian] Pourzaki, G. (2022) Khodfarmanravi be masabeye khastgah-e nik-zisti dar andisheh-ye siasi [Autonomy as the origin of well-being in political thought]. Contemporary Political Studies, 13(1), 59–83. <a href="https://doi.org/10.30465/cps.2022.38985.2903">https://doi.org/10.30465/cps.2022.38985.2903</a> [in Persian] Rawls, J. (1993) Political liberalism. Columbia University Press. Raz, J. (1986) The morality of freedom. Oxford University Press. Sandel, M. J. (1982) Liberalism and the limits of justice. Cambridge University Press. Sen, A. (1999) Development as freedom. Oxford University Press. Sher, G. (1997) Beyond neutrality: Perfectionism and politics. Cambridge University Press. Wilkinson, R., & Pickett, K. (2010) The spirit level: Why more equal societies almost always do better. Penguin. Yanow, D., & Schwartz-Shea, P. (2006) Interpretation and method: Empirical research methods and the interpretive turn. M.E. Sharpe. <a href="https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315704562">https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315704562</a>   <a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1">*</a> Assistant Professor, Department of Political Thought in Islam, Imam Khomeini and the Islamic Revolution Research Institute, Tehran, Iran. gitipoorzaki@yahoo.com https://orcid.org/0009-0008-3164-2061 زندگی خوب و نیک&zwnj;زیستی اگر مهم&zwnj;ترین غایت انسان نباشد، حداقل یکی از مهم&zwnj;ترین غایات بشر در طول تاریخ بوده است. از همین رو چیستی و چگونگی نقش دولت در تأمین و ارتقای نیک&zwnj;زیستی شهروندان، یکی از مهم&zwnj;ترین و مناقشه&zwnj;برانگیزترین مسائل در فلسفه سیاسی معاصر است. از این&zwnj;رو پرسش اصلی مقاله این است که دولت&zwnj;ها چه نقشی در نیک&zwnj;زیستی شهروندان خود دارند؟ و چه الگویی از مداخلۀ دولت قابل &zwnj;دفاع است؟ پاسخ به این پرسش&zwnj; با توجه به الگوهای مختلف دولت و حکمرانی می&zwnj;تواند متفاوت باشد. در این مقاله ابتدا چهار گونه دولت با توجه به رویکردی که نسبت به رابطۀ دولت و نیک&zwnj;زیستی دارند، بازشناسی شده است. یافتۀ اصلی پژوهش این است که الگوی دولت دغدغه&zwnj;مند نیک&zwnj;زیستی&zwnj;محور بیشتر می&zwnj;تواند معیارهای سازگاری، انسجام و پیامد عینی را برآورده سازد و به &zwnj;لحاظ استدلالی موجه&zwnj;تر به &zwnj;نظر می&zwnj;رسد. روش مورد استفاده، تحلیلی- استدلالی است.

http://political.ihss.ac.ir/ar/Article/Download/51378