Happiness, Generativity and Social Preferences in a Developing Country: A Possibility of Future Design

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper estimates the relationship between generativity, social preferences and happiness in rural and urban regions in Bangladesh. There is little empirical evidence in the literature on this relationship. Running a survey experiment, the authors show a positive association between generativity and  happiness, while no relationship between social value orientation and happiness.

The authors provide clear suggestive evidence for the necessity of the new institutional framework of future design that enhances generativity. the current global pattern of rapid urbanization could bring in negative spillover in terms of lower happiness, especially when urbanization comes along with decrease in generativity. In this regard the paper addresses a very important topic and provides a clear connection to future designs. It is extremely well-written and the experiment is well executed. I have enjoyed reading it. Nevertheless, there are a number of points and additional analyses I’d like to see in a revised version of the paper. I summarize them below:

(1) Across the paper the authors refer to generalizability and social preferences as “the” determinants of happiness. For example in p.4: ‘We hypothesize that generativity and social preferences are the determinants of happiness and conduct a survey experiment…’ . I’d drop the word “the” as those are just two indicators out of several determinants of SH and not the only ones.

(2) In the definition of the GBC in p.7, it’s unclear what the timeframe is: is it the last 2 months or over the last year? the two time periods are mentioned and this leaves the reader unsure which one is used in the survey.

(3) In Table 1, given age is a categorical variable, I’d prefer to list the different categories and show the descriptives for each category. This is more meaningful compared to the single number given in the current table.

(4) In the analyses it would be better to standardize the generativity variable. This would make it easier to interpret the coefficient.

(5) The authors have combined individualistic and competitive types together. It will be interesting to show if there are differences across the two types in terms of happiness. Also how do results look like after dropping the “unidentified” category? It is important to report in the text the shares of the 4 categories of pro-sociality.

(6) To give the reader a feeling of the magnitude of the effect, the authors should comment on the impact of generativity with regard to other determinants of happiness, e.g., income. This will be a direct test of how much money a person would give up for the sake of generativity while still achieving the same level of utility (happiness). In this sense, the authors should convert the household income to log and estimate the marginal rate of substitution between generativity and log income with regard to happiness.

(7) related to the previous point: It is important to comment on the magnitude of the coefficient in terms of percentage change in SH. For example in Table 2, Column 5. What does the 0.009 increase in the 1-7 OSH scale mean? It means an increase 0.19% increase in OSH from the average of 4.83. To what extent this is economically relevant? To answer this, the authors need to put it in comparison to other items such as income.

(8) I’d like to see the interaction between rural/urban dummy and the generativity and proself covariates: there could be differences across rural and urban areas in the effect of the two items on happiness.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Unfortunately, the introduction does not provide a sufficient framework to delimit the areas of research that remain rather vague. The authors refer to sustainability, but do not specify how the variables they have analysed (happiness, generativity and social preferences) relate to sustainability. This lack is obviously also reflected in the analysis of the literature, which is incomplete in this respect.

The design of the search is not sufficiently defined. The authors describe the research objectives from line 53 to line 58, but in a generic way and still omitting to clarify their vision of sustainability with respect to these objectives. 

The research method is described clearly and in sufficient detail, but there is no explanation or justification for this methodological choice compared to the theoretical framework of reference.

The results are also clearly presented, but there is no clear link between the results, the state of the art and the results achieved with the analysis. Therefore, the conclusions are not exhaustive.

In this form, unfortunately, I consider that this manuscript is not sufficiently suitable for its publication in the journal Sustainability. However, I suggest that the authors enhance their research by revising the paper so that it can be submitted again.
To this end, I advise them to separate the introduction from the analysis of the literature and to enunciate, on the basis of the theoretical framework constructed, some research questions that should help to link the analytical part with the theory and conclusions.
I would also like to take this opportunity, taking into account the aims of the journal, to conceptually develop the relationships between happiness generativity and social preferences with sustainability, especially in its social dimension. This part is completely absent in this version of the manuscript, instead it could be the lever to better justify and argue the aims of the research. In this way it should be easier to support the innovative contribution of the paper compared to the state of the art.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper presents a study on social happiness as a means of social sustainable development.

Considering that such a topic is not among the most diffused ones in the journal targets, in the introduction the Authors should include a clearer explanation of their research ambit, e.g. providing a definition of the terms “generativity” or “prosociality” in the sustainability context. This would also help the readers to better understand the research motivations of the study as well as the definitions given in table 1.

Regarding the scope of the paper, the definition of a research question can be also beneficial, making it clearer how the present study could augment knowledge in this specific field.

An example of the questionnaire should be provided, to support the study method.

Figure 3 should be split in different figures and each one of them should be discussed separately.

I suggest the Authors to separate the discussion of results from the concluding remarks in two different sections, e.g. “discussion of results” and “conclusions”. In this way, the findings and the limitations of the study can be better discussed.

The Authors should avoid multiple citations’ lists as in lines 21-25; or 33-35: if citations are needed, they should discuss them separately, otherwise it is better to omit them.

The Authors did not follow the journal formatting rules.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The proposed research «Happiness, generativity and social preferences in a developing country: A possibility of future design » falls within the scope of Sustainability. According to the reviewer’s opinion, major revisions are required in order to accept this research study for publication in Sustainability. Please, comply with the following suggestions and comments:

Comment 1: In my opinion, the aforementioned manuscript needs more data in order to be published in Sustainability. It approaches the subject very theoretically. I am not so sure if your readers will find innovative data in this work.

Comment 2: The question that it needs to be answered is how it extends the existing knowledge on the topic.

Comment 3: When you submit the corrected version, please do check thoroughly, in order to avoid grammar flaws.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

the significant revision you have made of your manuscript by fully taking on board the suggestions of the reviewers, is to be welcomed.
In this new version, which resolves the criticalities of the first, I believe that the paper is suitable for publication.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The Authors have improved their manuscript following the reviewers’ reccommantations. However, the paper still presents some flaws.

Firstly, the format of the manuscript does not follow the journal’s rules. Hence, I suggest the Authors to follow such a basic rule.

The research question/motivation is still supported by the extant literature weakly. Why is it important to investigate whether “people are happier by being prosocial and/or generative for sustainability”?

I suggest to add the questionnaire scheme as an appendix of the paper.

As far as the multiple citations cases are concerned, I suggest the Authors to discuss them separately (i.e. one by one), otherwise it is better to omit them. Kindly note that [17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22] or [17-22] is exactly the same….

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

According to the reviewer’s opinion, minor revisions are required in order to accept this research study for publication in Sustainability.Please, comply with the following comments:

Comment 1: Why your study is important? How it extend the existing knowledge on the issue/topic?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

The Authors have further improved the manuscript's quality. Hence it can be considered for publication.