Image: Tomertu/Shutterstock
Growing old is not what it used to be. For much of human history, age was treated as decline: a long descent into frailty, irrelevance and the waiting room of death. Yet global data suggest that, psychologically at least, the middle-aged are the ones who struggle most. A 2021 study spanning 145 countries finds that happiness tends to follow a U-shaped curve across life: it falls from youth into midlife, bottoms out around the age of 48 and then rises again. The pattern holds from America and Armenia to Nepal and Nigeria.
The economist behind the study, David Blanchflower of Dartmouth College, compiled nearly 500 country-level estimates from 14 major surveys—including the Gallup World Poll, World Values Survey, Eurobarometer—covering millions of individuals. His findings suggest that midlife malaise is a statistical near-universal, not a Western neurosis. Even after controlling for education, employment and marital status, the U-shape persists. “It seems to be something about the human condition,” Mr Blanchflower writes, “not merely a feature of rich societies.”
In advanced economies, the nadir comes later—around 47 years—than in developing ones, where it dips closer to 50. But in poorer countries, the rebound tends to be weaker. Nepal, for instance, shows a happiness minimum at around 40, according to Gallup data. The difference is revealing. Midlife stress in richer societies may stem from career frustration and existential angst; in poorer ones it often reflects harder realities: financial insecurity, health risks and the burden of supporting both young children and ageing parents without much of a safety net.
Why does happiness recover later in life? Economists and psychologists alike point to adaptation. People in their 50s and 60s have fewer illusions about what they can achieve; expectations adjust downward, and gratitude rises. In rich countries, by then mortgages shrink, children leave home and pensions or savings provide some comfort. In poorer ones, community bonds and spirituality may play a similar role.
The midlife dip itself has measurable economic consequences. Workers in their 40s report the lowest job satisfaction across income levels, often coinciding with stalled wage growth and heavier family costs. Consumption patterns reflect the mood: spending on leisure and travel slumps in midlife, then rises again in retirement. Firms and policymakers rarely consider this emotional dimension, yet it may matter for productivity and innovation. An economy dominated by unhappy midlife workers is unlikely to hum.
The timing of the trough also appears to be shifting. In Europe and the United States, it has crept upward—from around 40 in the 1970s to more than 50 today—reflecting longer life expectancy and delayed family formation. If this continues people may spend more years than before in the psychological doldrums between youthful ambition and late-life acceptance.
For ageing societies, that may not be entirely bad news. The rebound of happiness in later life coincides with the period when consumption shifts from goods to services such as health care, leisure and caregiving—helping sustain employment even as populations grey. Older people may spend less but they tend to spend more steadily.
In Nepal and much of developing Asia, however, the U-curve carries a sharper lesson. Life satisfaction bottoms out earlier and recovers less strongly, reflecting thin pensions as well as weak public health and little insurance against life’s shocks. Extending the upward slope—by improving social protection and access to care—may be as important as boosting GDP growth.
The arc of happiness, in other words, bends towards acceptance, only where institutions allow it to. Midlife misery may be a universal law of human psychology, yet how quickly people climb out of it depends on economics. Growing old, it turns out, is not so bad. Staying insecure is. ■