Gross National Happiness
|You are currently viewing a revision titled "Gross National Happiness", saved on March 31, 2014 at 3:10 pm by Sean Lynn|
Gross National Happiness
Gross National Happiness was first coined in the 1970s by King Jigme Singye Wangchuck of Bhutan (3). Its purpose implies that sustainable development should give equal importance to holistic measures of economic progress and the non economic aspects of human livelihood. The basic need of healthy living in human life extends past the physical boundaries. This logic is used in the participation in political decision making processes to measure progress towards satisfying basic human needs.
Context within NORA
GNH directly refers to participation in collective and economic decision making processes through creating a system of measuring Happiness rather than product in a 9 indicator framework. This collective participation leads to efforts of sustainability in areas of needs, organizational forms, and resources.
These 9 indicators that are measured are Psychological Well-Being, Health, Education, Cultural Diversity and Resilience, Good Governance, Community Vitality, Ecological diversity and Resilience, Living Standards, and Time Use. These are then measured under sub-indicators that try to assess all aspects of each indicator or domain.
The GNH index strives to measure and account for basic human needs in various ways. The indicators that are measured are broken down into aspect of human needs such as health.
GNH emphasizes Health access and mental health as 2 separate indicators in the GNH index. Physical as well as Mental health are measured on separate but fluid scales (excel sheet)
Health needs are assessed through a national survey/index where health is measured through measures of self reported physical and mental health. If these questions are measured at above 66% overall, then the health measurement of that specific area is considered adequate or happy. The survey also inquires about disabilities, mental and physical, to assess where health centers or clinics would be beneficial in the effort to create a sustainable healthy lifestyle. (3)
The needs for participation in collective political and economic decision making, as well as opportunities to learn are measured under the indicators of Good Governance and Education. The government of Bhutan is assessed by the people through measures such as job creation, fighting corruption, reducing wealth disparity, and providing education. These are all measures of the government's performance. The government is also measured on services they provide to the people such as health, electricity, quality of water and waste disposal. The government of Bhutan is incentivized to follow the GNH index to help create a happier and sustainable life for its people.
Opportunities to learn is a need that the GNH has helped creating abundance in multiple areas. Education is weighed as an equal indicator for happiness within the GNH Index. It is measured on levels of general knowledge, values, and access to schooling. Literacy in Bhutan, since the instillation of GNH, has nearly doubled (source). Also nearly 99 percent of Bhutanese children are enrolled in schools.
Time use is measured within the GNH index as a need for the contemplative and relaxing time used to think and enjoy life. The GNH measures time use on a basis of working hours vs. sleeping hours. Time use is important as people need to be able to freely spend time thinking and enjoying life to be considered or measured as happy. Eight hours are allotted for work and sleep.
The GNH helps with sustaining the needs and resources of the people of Bhutan. The organizational forms of community solidarity and natural resource management are somewhat covered within the GNH index. The GNH index is instilled by the government, so businesses and communities are encouraged to follow the program for the benefit of everyone. Community vitality is measured within the GNH index that tries to quantify how much a person trusts their neighbors, or how one's sense of belonging within their community is.
Ecological diversity and resilience is measured within the GNH index as a way to reduce pollution within the lives of the Bhutanese people. The citizens rate their environmental "cleanliness" through different measure of air, water, and noise pollution in rural and urban environments.
Certain resources are measured within the 9 domains' sub indicators that strive to create clean and sustainable supplies for the Bhutanese. Air quality is assessed within the GNH index through questions asking whether or not the air pollution is an issue in a specific area (Urban and Rural). Water quality is measured along similar questions. The government then assess which areas need help with resource management if measurements are below the 66% passing standard.
Land resources that are assessed revolve around the GNH index's domain of Ecological diversity and resilience. Most Bhutanese people rely on subsistence farming in rural areas which cause issues in assessing appropriate amounts of land for farmers. Most land in Bhutan is forest at nearly 72 percent. The nature preservation laws are incredibly strict due to the Buddhist undertones of land aesthetics. Many forests are preserved and owned by the government which has set a very high standard with regards to preservation that states 60 percent of the forests will never be touched by commercial loggers. Having large forested areas can create issues in transportation and assessment of such resources in rural areas especially. Soil erosion, lanslides, and floods are of main concern in land preservation
Animals, domesticated or wild, are mostly used in rural areas that are assessed through levels of diversity and population. Domesticated animals are mainly used for labor within the farming communities in the highlands, but animal life is also assessed in the wild. Surveyors include questions in the GNH index that assess how much wildlife interferes with a rural worker's crop or livestock. Animals are seen as a large part of a healthy environment in Bhutan as a labor force, and maintenance of a large, healthy ecosystem.
Some intangible resources such as values and knowledge are placed within certain sub-indicators revolving around values and spirituality. Values of the people are assessed in the domain of Cultural diversity and resilience through a code of ethics known as Driglam Namzha. This is also connected in the spiritual sense to a largely Buddhist community that strives to preserve tradition within culture in an ever modernizing world.
Understanding current patterns of abundance and scarcity
Understanding current patterns in abundance and scarcity of GNH involve the practices of implementation of the 9 indicators of Happiness onto government controlled entities being environmental/cultural preservation, education, health care, and the participation of collective ideas. All of these factors play a large role in Bhutanese society in creating a sustainable GNH level but contain their shares of strengths and weaknesses.
The GNH index was instilled in the 1970s as an alternative way to measure economic development in a holistic manner. This new approach to economic development is rooted within the Buddhist culture that defines 'happiness' as something broader than western definition. This approach measures 'progress' on a scale of human well-being with the belief that this index of happiness is a better measure than a monetary value, such as GDP. In this type of culture money cannot define happiness, so this measure of economic progress could be beneficial to a largely traditional society that is attempting to modernize with the world. While income is assessed within the Living Standards domain, self reported, or subjective, answers in the index are weighted lower than objective answers, generating more attention towards basic human needs. The purpose of GNH as a new measure of economic development is to create a readily accessible measure towards the well-being of its people, as well as informing government policymakers as to what needs attention.
The GNH measures 9 domains, that are equally weighted, listed as Psychological Well-Being, Health, Education, Good Governance, Community Vitality, Ecological Diversity and Resilience, Cultural diversity and Resilience, Living Standards, and Time Use. These 9 indicators are then broken down into 33 sub indicators which are measured objectively, and subjectively through a national survey. Objective answers are weighted higher than subjective ones mainly on the basis that they are measured on scales. Subjective answers are seen as important, but not on the same level. The data collected then is analyzed based on what type of question was asked, and what type of answer was given.
In 2010 Bhutan released a national survey to measure it's country's progress/happiness that measured all 9 indicators in each province. The data collected remains slim, but 7,142 respondents completed the survey. This is a small portion of the entire country, but the proves helpful in many ways. Quantitative data is collected on fields ranging from household income, to whether or not one owns a color television. The data is helpful for the implementation of government policies and services where it is needed. To review all 33 sub indicators, as well as how each is specifically measured, refer to the first link in the attached files section. The excel sheet lays out how each sub indicator is measured with combinations of objective and subjective questions meant to be filled out by the entirety of the population.
GNH as a government policy is highly debated throughout the world. Quantifying an emotion such as happiness can be incredibly difficult, however the use of GNH as an indicator for progress and development has proven to be helpful. The GNH index can be seen as helpful as a general measure for assessing the sustainability of a 'happy' nation. The 2010 survey conducted only reached a small percentage of the population, but the data compiled proved to show that only 41 percent of the people surveyed met the standard level of happiness (Christ). Since more than half of people were considered unhappy, the Bhutanese government assesses the needs of areas that do not meet certain standards. When the government assesses these needs, they have incentives to help increase GNH by any means they can. Within the GNH index it states that when one domain does not meet the standard, it can only be improved upon, which in turn provokes government agencies and corporations to increase happiness in any area they can. Increasing this happiness is seen as a push towards a higher level of GNH for the country as a whole.
An example of a successful assessment of happiness within Bhutan lies within their health care system. Health access has been a top priority in the recent affairs of the Bhutanese government. The access to healthcare has been improved so much so that now outlying rural areas now have less than an hour's drive to a clinic. The general health of the nation improves through the assessment of the domains of health and mental health, with the government implementing clinics in areas of need. This successful measure of rural areas having a tougher time accessing proper healthcare proved to be beneficial to the GNH of the country. Successfully measuring and assessing each domain in rural areas has been incredibly difficult due to the poor transportation routes, as well as little electricity (Glover). The policy as a whole is very new, and has changed rapidly with modernization. Though the GNH index shows that only a small portion of people are happy, it does show that there is room for improvement. Bhutan measured itself as below the 66% standard, but the information collected has proven helpful in successfully improving the lives of the general population through self-reflection and assessment of creating a greater sense of happiness for the community as a whole (Tashi).
Improvements and Success
The strengths and weaknesses of the GNH index revolve around the assessment and improvement of happiness in areas surrounding health, education, environmental preservation, and good governance. The developmental aspects in these areas of the GNH have been generally improved and accepted by the Bhutanese.
Health is one of the nine domains of the GNH where improvements have been made overall. Success in creating abundance in health care access has improved in rural areas especially. The government has placed clinics in various rural areas due to data collected that showed the health indicator not being met. Issues in mental and physical health were common in rural areas due to transportation issues and lack of electricity. This issue is then compounded when rural clinics have inferior technology to adequately treat physical as well as mental health issues. Overall the GNH reform around health has been beneficial. Over 90% of the population now has some form of access to healthcare. Infant mortality rates are basically nonexistent (Glover). With these improvements brings a greater happiness and security for the need of Health that can lead to improvements in mental health as well.
Improvements have extended to the education system where the government has assessed how to improve GNH through educational programs and traditional learning environments. Green programs have created curriculums revolving around eco-literacy, cultural history, and non traditional methods of assessment. Since the instillation of these programs, over 99% of children have been enrolled in some type of school (Miller). Creating an easily accessible schooling system improves upon GNH by creating a knowledgeable generation that is the future of Bhutan. Some areas of improvement have shown in general mental health of students. Bells were replaced with traditional Buddhist chimes, and daily meditation has been added to ensure that students improve themselves along with learning to improve their society by learning techniques to increase GNH in both areas (Kelley).
Educating the public has also proven beneficial within policies revolving around environmental preservation. Commercial logging laws are strict, leaving only 4 percent of forests being logged for timber. 73 percent of Bhutan is untouched forest which is higher than the government standard of 60 percent. Techniques such as narrow logging have been implemented to preserve tree cover for wildlife and land aesthetics (Zurick). The GNH, as well as Bhutanese culture, revolve around environmental preservation creating clean sources of drinking water, clean air, and ecological diversity to promote sustainability and happiness. Rural people enjoy the untouched lands, but complain when it comes to agricultural techniques. Many forests impede growth of pastures and crops that hinder economic development of farmers. Not much land is appropriated to agriculture even though many Bhutanese still farm for a living. Land scarcity conflicts with preservation policies, especially when rural farming communities grow to border government protected lands. Rural farmers also have issues with non degradable waste disposal. Limited access to proper waste management facilities can hinder the creation of a clean environment (Elizabeth).
The government is bound to the measures of GNH to create abundance in happiness for its people. Government policies are assessed in the GNH by the people to help develop ideas in which the government can improve. This type of active participation helps policy reform ensue where it is needed. The Bhutanese government can improve GNH in any of the nine domains including itself. A secure government can lead to a happy society in which one's government adheres to the general needs of the people through a communal effort to resolve issues in creating happiness. Implementing health care access and education reform have created happiness, but resistance to new and diverse cultural ideas can impede the government's improvements to certain aspects including job creation, wealth disparity, or even cultural relevance (Priesner). With an ever modernizing world, the cultural expansion of the west has crept into Bhutan. Making Government implementation even more important when it must analyze itself if the people show to be happier with certain western influences.
These instances of creating abundance in happiness can be measured as successful in some areas. Like any National policy GNH strives to create a better life for its people. Government implementation plays the largest role in fixing many weaknesses involved with scarcity of needs within Bhutan. Rural scarcity lies at the heart of where improvements need to be made. Improving transportation to developing rural areas has improved dramatically since GNH was instilled, but scarcity always arises. Rural data collection must be improved upon first and foremost for the government to successfully assess where improvements the nine domains are needed most. GNH has made this possible by measuring a quality of life that strives to create happy people. The government of Bhutan must be willing to adhere to what its citizens have to say to help create abundance in happiness as well as minimizing scarcity.
Links and Stories
Allison, Elizabeth. (2008) "The Dark Side of Light:Managing Non-Biodegradable, wastes in Bhutan's rural Areas". Mountain Research and Development, Vol. 28, pp. 205-209
CHRIST, C. (2012). Happy Talk in Bhutan. National Geographic Traveler, 29(6), 34
Glover, S., Dema, R., Yangzon, P., Sonam, K., & Gleghorn, C. (2006). A review of health and access to health information in Bhutan. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 23(4), 290-293.
Kelly, Annie, and S. G. Subbuswamy. "Gross National Happiness in Bhutan: The Big Idea from a Tiny State That Could Change the World." The Observer. Guardian News and Media, 02 Dec. 2012. Web. 04 Mar. 2014.
Miller, J. P. (2010). Educating for Gross National Happiness. Encounter, 23(1), 52-54
Priesner, Stefan. "Gross National Happiness: Bhutan's Vision of Development and its Challenges." (1999): 24-52.
Tashi, K. P., Prakke, D., & Chettri, S. (1999). Gross National Happiness: Concepts for the Debate.
Zurick, D. (2006). GROSS NATIONAL HAPPINESS AND ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS IN BHUTAN. Geographical Review,96(4), 657-681