On Gross National Happiness as a Measure of Human Progress and National Development
“Ultimately, a happy society is a caring society, caring for the past and future, caring for the environment, and caring for those who need protection. Establishing such a society will require a long-term rather than a short-term perspective of development. Much will depend upon how well the country’s environmental resources are harnessed and managed. Happiness in the future also will depend upon mitigating the foreseeable conflict between traditional cultural values and the modern lifestyles that inevitably follow in the wake of development.”
(Zurick 2006)
A New Paradigm
The Development project has been many years in the making, and major improvements have been made in many areas, but the question why do development projects fail? continues to plague anthropologists, state and local governments, and those in the development sector. A common critique is that the way we define human progress, and thus the way it is measured, is not in alignment with what truly matters to people. Over the years, it has become clear that despite substantial economic growth, 1.4 billion people are still living in extreme poverty (McDonald 2010). Findings in the growing field of positive psychology have also found that human happiness is not linked to external or material factors like financial growth, but to internal states, once basic needs have been met. Measuring and striving for human happiness has been one of the proposed alternatives to fiscal measures like economic growth.
One of the most well recognized alternatives to measuring national progress has been Gross National Happiness (GNH). This project was formulated in the late 1970s by Bhutan’s fourth king, His Majesty Jigme Singye Wangchuck (McDonald 2010), who realized that his “country belongs to a stream of civilization where the explicit purpose of the government is to create enabling conditions for our citizens to pursue happiness” (Centre 2016). The stream being referred to is the Vajrayana form of Buddhism which is central to the country’s national ethos and philosophy. At the core of GNH are values of compassion, contentment, calmness, and respect for all, often associated with Buddhist philosophy (McCarthy 2018). Initially, the King hoped to use the paradigm to guide domestic policy, seeing it as a “new ethic for human development” but it has received great international attention (McDonald, 2010), and has now been referred to, by anthropologist Dorji Penjore, as Bhutan’s soft power export (McCarthy 2018).
The concept of GNH emerged as a response to its observations of development in nearby countries, particularly that economic foci in development tend to lead to environmental degradation. Bhutan had been a fairly isolated country from the global stage until 1961 when the kingdom first sought India’s help with launching its first development plan. The relationship has remained strong since, with India being Bhutan’s main source of foreign aid and primary trading partner. The state’s capital, Thimphu, was established this same year, with the largest population in the country, and populations have been moving from rural areas into towns since then, shrinking the agriculture industry. Primarily situated in the high mountains of the Himalayas, the land is mostly covered in native forests and is home to great biodiversity, much of which is on the world’s endangered species list. With the influence of modernization and urbanization, the management of Bhutan’s wildlife relies increasingly on how environmental policies of Bhutan balance the preservation of forests and wildlife against the demands of a modernizing society.” (Zurick 2006)
GNH thinking has arisen out of the fact that “current levels of consumption are rapidly undermining the biosphere’s regenerative capacities” which is unsustainable in a business as usual scenario (McDonald, 2010). Environmental issues join with an appreciation for the persistence of impoverishment in the modern world and a “further unsettling awareness comes in the form of the mounting empirical evidence that beyond a basic point, increasing economic growth loses the ability to lift happiness levels” (McDonald, 2010). In Bhutan, these challenges and failures inspired a paradigm shift away from globally mainstreamed indicators of growth toward one more aligned with its national values.
Calculating Happiness
Trying to measure happiness sounds simultaneously simple and convoluted. Veenhoven’s article on Happy Life Years defines happiness as the degree to which a person enjoys their life in a holistic way, so GNH is the degree to which citizens enjoy the life they live within the country (Veenhoven 2004). Bhutan has been intentional with keeping its measure broad so as to accommodate various forms of happiness. The stated goal of the The Centre for Bhutan Studies and GNH Research is to “clarify areas in which the conditions for happiness exist and those where public action is required to establish conditions of happiness,” so the published report includes action guidance for public policy, the private sector, and various civil society organizations (Centre 2016). The GNH, arising out of the context described above, was designed to be a more balanced way to measure true well-being, rather than simply economic well-being.
However broad, measuring something as abstract as happiness is no easy feat. To measure happiness, the Centre measures happiness based on several criteria, taken from the language of the 2016 report: 1) living standards – material comforts measured by income, financial security, housing, asset ownership; 2) health – both physical and mental health; 3) education – types of knowledge, values and skills; 4) good governance – how people perceive government functions; 5) ecological diversity and resilience – peoples’ perception on environment; 6) time use – how much time is spent on work, non-work, sleep; work-life balance; 7) psychological well-being – quality of life, life satisfaction and spirituality; 8) cultural diversity and resilience – strength of cultural traditions and festivals; 9) community vitality – relationships and interaction within community, social cohesion and volunteerism (Centre 2016). These nine domains are constructed of indicators which were designed on normative and statistical grounds, and they are equally weighted in the calculation. To be “happy,” a household must have “sufficient achievements” in six of the nine domains or in 66% of the 33 weighted indicators (Akire n.d.). The method includes a sufficiency cutoff of happiness which measures happiness much like the way a poverty line is drawn to determine what “poor” means. Some indicators do not measure distance above the sufficiency cutoff, causing the data to reflect the number of people who are sufficiently happy, rather than to “keep adding in higher achievements to the quality of life mechanically” (Akire n.d.). This is supposed to account for diversity inherent in modes of and paths to happiness, while acknowledging the drawbacks of numerical measures for abstract states: “A person without education or electricity can find other routes to GNH” (Akire n.d.).
Individual data is collected through intensive interview surveys conducted by workers at the Center for Bhutan Studies over the course of several months in which researchers travel the country and speak with households (Centre 2016). In 2016, seven thousand, out of a population of about 800 thousand, Bhutanese were interviewed with a response rate of 81% (Centre 2016). “The interview covered both rural and urban residents, men and women, youth and elderly, farmers, civil servants, businessmen, students, LG members, armed forces personnel and monks” (Centre 2016). The process of numerical analysis was derived from a multidimensional model of measurement which is used in poverty calculations, and yields four categories of people: unhappy, narrowly happy, extensively happy, and deeply happy. Aggregated data is compiled in the GNH Index, which looks more broadly at gaps in happiness levels among various social groups and over time, and aims to advise policy decisions as to which areas have the greatest happiness gap (Akire n.d.).
Development Critiques
The GNH measurement paradigm generally responds to the failures of mainstream models of development which assume the Global North’s definitions of progress which have been problematized in a variety of ways. It most blatantly rejects neoliberal ideologies which arise out of market fundamentalism and opt to leave development in the hands of free market forces. Clearly stated in their publications is the realization that these economically driven theories yield a mode of development which treats economic growth as the ends rather than the means to a better world: “Since its inception, the priority of market economy has been justified by the claim that it is a self correcting mechanism guided by a beneficent and God-like Invisible Hand” but the assumption that growing markets will reduce is not holding true and markets “embed extremes of excess and privation as much as they remove them” (McDonald, 2010). In its list of nine domains to happiness (Psychological well being, Health, Education, Time use, Cultural diversity and resilience, Good governance, Community vitality, Ecological diversity and resilience, Living standards) the most economic of indicators is living standards, which is still includes normative as well as fiscal judgements of living standards. Being valued here instead is a holistic approach to understanding what a good life really looks like. The narrative format of data collection reveals the prioritizing of human-described aspects of one’s own wellness over an entirely externally-imposed economic measure of wellbeing. The kind of development being promoted is one in which human families are becoming “happier” in the way that the country defines based on local values.
In the broader trends of the “development project” Gross National Happiness is unique in many ways, yet does draw in some ways from past paradigms. Modernization theories which follow one mode of progress from tradition to modernity are being rejected in the fact that the country has looked at development paradigms, decided they don’t want them, and designed its own based on internal Buddhist values, rather than those suggested by the Global North. It also acknowledges the value of cultural and ecological diversity and resilience, suggesting an appreciation of and desire for both honoring tradition and embracing modernity — what would likely be considered a paradox to modernization theorists. Bhutan also doesn’t fit the picture of a core-periphery model for critique common among dependency perspectives. Though the kingdom was never formally colonized, it possesses some dependency on India, yet it has had a different relationship with the Global North than most “developing” nations which took on dependency perspectives in response to modernization approaches. Yet it does share in the dependency line of thinking that development globally has been generally harmful and thus that a more successful approach to development would require focusing internally on being self-sufficient and defining development for itself. Defining its own means of quantifying and pursuing development is exactly what Bhutan has done with this goal of GNH.
Bhutan’s happiness paradigm most resembles development alternatives. Specifically, it combines priorities made by good governance, sustainable development, participatory development, and human development. In fact, the same language appears in the breakdown of happiness’ nine domains, showing that the national happiness Bhutan is striving for includes things like ecological and governmental wellbeing, in addition to personal human happiness. Much of the point of measuring happiness of citizens is to put people at the center of development by “expanding their freedoms of choice, aspiration, and creativity” and measuring progress based on reported human experience (Zurick 2006). However, the project doesn’t go quite so far as to reject development as a concept completely. The kingdom still hopes to develop, “focusing on enriching people’s lives by meeting basic needs, enlarging economic and social choices, preserving cultural traditions, and promoting environmental conservation” (Zurick 2006).
While a seemingly idyllic blend of development perspectives, questions remain about its effectiveness as a measure of development: how it is seen by locals and whether it has any relevance outside the kingdom of Bhutan. The notion of GNH was designed by Bhutanese for Bhutanese, so the “domains and indicators were chosen due to their relevance in the Bhutanese context” (Akire n.d.). The values being made visible in the measure are Buddhist in nature, yet not everyone in the country is necessarily Buddhist or necessarily agrees with the way happiness is being defined at a national level, even though it remains broad. This explicitly religious grounding of development priorities is unique. Of course, an argument could be made that development goals arising out of the Global North likely similarly arise out of deeply rooted Christian values. Religious values though tend to be oriented toward what matters most to human communities and to the individual human spirit, so it perhaps offers some benefit over economic goals, which tend to be easier measured and reached but are less important to our true quality of life. Though it may not be generalizable, the prioritizing of local worldviews as a means for defining development is admirable and the approach could be replicated in a variety of other contexts.
Another inherent challenge of Gross National Happiness as a framework is the way it still seeks to reduce complex meaning into a number. The subjective nature of happiness “poses obvious problems to the success of such a policy, but some of its essential qualities — economic, spiritual, and emotional well-being — translate specifically to development strategies: economic development, environmental preservation, promotion of cultural identity, and judicious governance” (Zurick 2006). The Centre acknowledged, in its first report, the limitations inherent in trying to regulate something as abstract as happiness: “No one can guarantee human happiness, and the choices people make are their own concern. But the process of development should at least create a conducive environment for people, individually and collectively, to develop their full potential and to have a reasonable chance of leading productive and creative lives in accord with their needs and interests” (Centre 2000). In its conception, the makers of GNH were self reflective about the limitations of the measure. The measure requires intensive research and does aim to paint as meaningful of a picture as possible in a number, which is easy to convey and use to comprehend and analyze gaps. The index may not be able to fully represent real, deep human emotions relating to happiness or wellbeing, nor may it apply to all contexts due to its cultural specificity.
Gross National Happiness calls for a paradigm shift. It calls for a realization that there really are humans living unhappy lives who ought not to be and that it is the responsibility of states to offer a supportive context in which people can communicate their needs and where they have access to happier lives. It calls for development, but development which prioritizes genuine happiness over growth. Maximizing GDP and measuring growth depends on “relentlessly stimulating demand” such that we “sacrifice genuine happiness to its ends” and “cut ourselves off not only from nature and from others but also from our own deeper selves” (McDonald, 2010). It also forces us to realize its own limitations such that it is used in a limited capacity. Some have noted that most of its power is soft, seeing it as a “gift” given by the King to Bhutan, or from Bhutan to the world. It has inspired many other countries to reconsider what progress means, and thus maybe offers more to embracing the difficulty of defining meaningful human progress than to providing real data about development. Bhutan may not be the happy paradise we think it is, but it’s idea has certainly captured our attention.
References
Akire, Sabina. n.d. Centre for Bhutan Studies. Gross National Happiness Index Explained in Detail. Centre for Bhutan Studies. link
Balasubramanian, Sriram, and Paul Cashin. 2019. “Gross National Happiness and Macroeconomic Indicators in the Kingdom of Bhutan.” IMF Working Papers 19 (15): 1. link.
Centre for Bhutan Studies & GNH Research. 2016. A Compass towards a Just and Harmonious Society: 2015 GNH Survey Report.
McCarthy, Julie. 2018. “The Birthplace Of ‘Gross National Happiness’ Is Growing A Bit Cynical.” n.d. NPR.Org. Accessed February 23, 2020.link.
McDonald, Ross, and Centre for Bhutan Studies. 2010. Taking Happiness Seriously: Eleven Dialogues on Gross National Happiness. Thimpu, Bhutan: Centre for Bhitan Studies.
Verma, Ritu. 2017. “Gross National Happiness: Meaning, Measure and Degrowth in a Living Development Alternative.” Journal of Political Ecology 24 (1): 476–90. link.
Zurick, David. 2006. “Gross National Happiness and Environmental Status in Bhutan*.” Geographical Review 96 (4): 657–81. link.