Xavier Chatron-Colliet*, Valentin Burban**

*The literature on subjective well-being (SWB) or "happiness economics" has developed around a hedonic approach, measuring well-being through life satisfaction and the balance of affects. Although its conceptual foundations date back to the 1990s, the notion of eudaimonia has attracted growing interest over the past decade. This theoretical shift, initiated by the work of Carol Ryff as early as 1989, emerged in opposition to a conception of happiness limited to the mere experience of pleasure and the satisfaction of preferences. While the literature on subjective well-being primarily focuses on measuring life satisfaction, the eudaimonic approach also emphasizes the quality of individuals’ psychological functioning. In practice, however, the assessment of eudaimonia is often reduced to the sole measurement of meaning in life in survey instruments. One hypothesis, well documented in the literature, is that this simplification stems from a lack of theoretical consensus, linked to a fragmented proliferation of empirical measures, which in turn creates an epistemological gap that weakens the applicability of these studies for public policy purposes. In response to this fragmentation, we propose returning to the Aristotelian roots of the concept. From this perspective, eudaimonia cannot be reduced to a form of psychological functioning that is autonomous from the external world. On the contrary, we argue that eudaimonia is inseparable from the living conditions and social contingencies within which individuals operate. To address these challenges, this article proposes to articulate the concepts of eudaimonia and agency by bridging Amartya Sen’s capability approach with Self-Determination Theory.

**This paper examines how sovereign yield curves react to natural disasters using a panel of advanced and emerging economies. It analyzes changes in the level, slope, and curvature of the yield curve and decomposes long-term yields into expected short rates and term premia. The results show that large disasters generate stronger and more persistent interest rate responses, particularly in emerging markets. Climate vulnerability plays an important role in explaining cross-country differences: more vulnerable countries tend to experience larger increases in borrowing costs following disasters. Overall, the findings suggest that financial markets incorporate both the economic impact of disasters and countries’ structural exposure to climate risk when pricing sovereign debt.