Led by its young king, King Jigme Singye Wangchuck, the kingdom of Bhutan is the only country in the world to measure its wellbeing by Gross National Happiness (GNH) instead of Gross National Product (GNP). This unorthodox approach is a serious attempt to question the values of unbridled economic progress, and foreground the importance of maintaining a balance between tradition and modernisation. Bhutan has followed a cautious path of development since the 1960s, with the intention of preserving its heritage and culture and protecting its environment.
‘Anyone with a grievance can get a hearing with the king’
GNH is an official policy of the kingdom, having been passed in parliament, and it is perhaps best illustrated by some examples from Bhutan which prove that happiness really does take precedence over economic prosperity there. The country limits the number of tourists that are able to visit it, because the Bhutanese had complained that the environment was being affected and sacred lands were being spoiled. The limiting was therefore aimed at increasing the ‘happiness’ of these people. Similarly, demonstrating that the concept of GNH is inextricably connected to accountability, anyone with a grievance can go to the king himself and get a hearing.
The policy of GNH, as well as focusing on cultural promotion and good governance, also aims to put an end to ‘spiritual hunger’. Material and technological progress is not rejected or banned, but it must not be to the detriment of the value of human life, and humanity’s soul. So the new policy has a spiritual aspect to it, as well as an eminently sensible accountability aspect. Mental and psychological wealth are genuine considerations in Bhutan. Happiness is more important than monetary wealth.
The flaws of Gross National Product
The concept of GNH was introduced by the leaders of Bhutan as a means of placing their Buddhist principles at the heart of life, replacing the conventional measure of a nation’s economic performance, the GNP. Essentially, the idea of GNH is to encourage a rethinking of what is important in people’s lives: should the success of a nation be judged by its ability to produce and consume, or should it be based on the quality of life in that country, the happiness of its people, however difficult that might be to measure in practice?
‘Economic calculations ignore the value of fresh water and green forests’
It is also intended to provoke discussion about how altruism, or spiritual and moral beliefs, can be integrated into economics. That is, it is intended to question the basis on which modern economics is founded, where wellbeing is judged on the acquisition of material things, consumption and production. Economics has limited itself to things which can be measured monetarily, and this is its weakness as well as its (empirical) strength. As Sander Tideman points out, in his paper ‘Gross National Happiness: Towards Buddhist Economics’, it is the qualitative distinctions that are lost in this measuring of quantity: “economic calculations ignore the value of things such as fresh water, green forests, clean air, traditional ways of life”, merely because they cannot be easily quantified.
Similarly, for example, money from logs is counted as part of a country’s income, but the depreciation of the forest as a result is nowhere calculated. The unpaid volunteering, caring and nurturing sector, the informal ‘Compassionate Economy’, is also noticeably absent, despite some studies saying it represents 50 per cent of all productive work in societies. And while the GNP measures an increase in production and consumption, and labels it as a symbol of success, there is no proportional increase in waste mentioned, nor the fact that environmental resources are finite, not a free good.
Incorporating altruism
So how can these kind of factors be incorporated into an economics? And can a spiritual dimension lead the way, as in Bhutan? In Buddhism, happiness is not determined by what we have and own (although this can be useful in alleviating poverty and allowing generosity), but also by our knowledge, our living skills and our imagination: by being, not having. Compassion and co-operation are as important to achieving happiness as competition. And developing our minds could be the key to all of these changes.
‘Defining development by free provision of education and healthcare’
There has been increasing awareness in economic studies of the need to incorporate previously unquantifiable factors, such as emotional intelligence, and the need to base development on more than just material production and consumption: Amartya Sen, for example, defines economic development in terms of the freedom of basic necessities such as education and healthcare. Thus an ethical dimension begins to be restored to economics. There has also been an increasing trend for corporations and companies to demonstrate ‘social responsibility’ due to public pressure. All of these factors point to the need for, and trend towards, an altruistic economics taking account of all factors concerning wellbeing, not just financial ones.
Steps in this direction include the World Bank’s ‘Wealth Index’ (which includes the concepts of human capital and environmental capital), the UN Human Development Index (which measures things like education provision, human rights records and life-expectancy) and, most interestingly, the ‘Calvert-Henderson Quality of Life Indicators’ which also incorporate cultural values and activities of self-improvement and group participation.
A change of emphasis
What Sander Tideman suggests is that initiatives like Bhutan’s GNH “point us to the need to base development on spiritual values, transmitted through culture, rather than merely material values”. An economics incorporating environmental and human factors does not deal with the essential problem for Tideman, which is that material development should only ever be seen as a means for people to devote themselves to spiritual development: that mind should always come over matter, as it were.
‘Buddhist economics deals with the totality of life, not just finance’
This is a kind of Buddhist economics, where material factors might only be measured for the amount of time they allow followers to develop their minds and inner selves. This, the argument goes, is dealing with the totality of life, not just its financial aspects. This still leaves the thorny task of quantifying the unquantifiable: those aspects of life and wealth that cannot be dealt with by maths or rational logic. And it is here that there is a lack of solutions. Altruistic economics may be possible, and one with a spiritual dimension might also, but as yet, Gross National Happiness is a policy and an ideal, not a quantifiable economic system. Which is not to say that the example of Bhutan should not be followed, only that it should be improved upon.
• A copy of Sander Tideman’s paper, entitled ‘Gross National Happiness: Towards Buddhist Economics’, can be downloaded for free from the website of the New Economics Foundation at www.neweconomics.org
• For examples and information on the Calvert-Henderson Quality of Life Indicators, see www.calvert-henderson.com
• Another interesting book to look at on this topic is Lester Brown’s Eco-Economy: Building an Economy for the Earth (Norton, 2001; ISBN: 0393321932, 224 pages, $16) which argues that the ecological costs of economic activities should be incorporated into the market prices of products and services. These additional costs could be offset, he suggests, by a reduction in income tax.
Summarised from a paper by Sander Tideman, entitled ‘Gross National Happiness: Towards Buddhist Economics’, on the New Economics Foundation website (www.neweconomics.org), and from information on Charles Onyango-Obbo’s website (www.charlesobbo.com).
|
