In defining happiness, two ends of a continuum have emerged, providing completely different exemplars of and pathways to happiness. One defines happiness by economic wealth, the other by overall wellbeing.
The Homo economicus eunomicus hypotheis assumes (1) scarcity and (2) needing to engage the purely rational being. With success at basic resource needs (economicus) comes relational wellbeing (eunomicus). This is global aid’s developmental and neoclassical organizational model. Economic wealth leads to wellbeing, so wellbeing is only found through higher GDP. This framing leads to a GDP-based scaling of economic wealth, human development, and well-being, with the higher-GDP countries paving the way to models of greater success. Copy the wealthy, and you too will have wealth, health, and well-being.
The Homo eunomicus economicus hypothesis assumes (1) abundance in relationship and (2) engaging purposeful energy. With success at basic relational needs (eunomicus) comes resource impact (economicus). Wellbeing leads to higher economic impact. This framing leads to subjective estimates of steady traits and transitory states of psycho-social well-being, with objective estimates of economic development and physical health. High-well-being groups show up all over the globe. Identify local examples of health, and well-being, and learn with them—they have already figured out how to contextualize success.
Initial data from a global survey in 125 countries and fieldwork in 35 shows social topographic hotspots everywhere (Homo eunomicus economicus hypothesis), as compared to the global map of economic wealth (Homo economicus eunomicus hypothesis). What you can see, in your own experience, in framing humanity as Homo economicus eunomicus vs Homo eunomicus economicus: which comes first, economic wealth or social well-being?