In 2005 I was privileged to visit the Himalayan Kingdom of Bhutan. The following article appeared in the Australia Institute Magazine. The Australia Institute is a leading Australian think tank on Sustainability issues
Gross Domestic Product vs Gross National Happiness - through the looking glass
“Gross National Happiness is more important that Gross Domestic Product” said His Majesty Jigme Singye Wangchuck upon his ascension to the throne of Bhutan, a tiny Himalayan nation nestled between India and Chinese Tibet. Simeon Michaels visits Bhutan to investigate.
Research on human happiness shows that past a certain point, more wealth does not equal more happiness. We in the developed world, while experiencing levels of wealth unprecedented in human history, are simultaneously experiencing unprecedented rates of suicide, depression and loss of community.
In that context, Bhutan’s focus on Gross National Happiness (GNH) shows a rare willingness to re-think the paradigm of economic growth advocated, and often imposed, by the governments and institutions of the global North.
If more wealth equals does not lead to more happiness, then what does? In the words of Dasho Meghraj Gurung, it is ‘a vision that puts the individual’s self-cultivation at the center of the nation’s developmental goals, a primary priority for Bhutanese society as a whole as well as for the individual concerned’.
The crucial distinction made here is that the Bhutanese government is not attempting to make each of its citizens happy. Rather, it sees its role on providing the conditions for self-fulfillment. According to a central tenet of Mahayana Buddhism known as the Middle Path those conditions are a balance of spiritual and material well being, and a life of spiritual devotion in close harmony with the community and the environment.
Commencing 1972, one of the key achievements of the architects of GNH has been the adaptation of this ancient Buddhist wisdom to modern political realities. The result is a modernized, operationalised, deliverable framework known as ‘Four Pillars of GNH’:
- Economic self-sufficiency.
- Environmental preservation and enhancement.
- Cultural promotion.
- Good governance, including honest government, decentralisation of power and democratisation
As it progresses from a medieval kingdom to a modern nation, Bhutan has set itself the task of strengthening all four of these pillars, and ensuring that no decisions are made which will fortify one at the expense of others. Following are examples of GNH-based decision making.
Hydro Power
With high annual rainfall and rivers plunging from the Himalaya almost to sea level, Bhutan has the capacity to generate over 30,000MW of hydro-electricity. However, to fully realise this potential would require the damming of rivers, relocation of villages and loss of agricultural land, China’s three dams project being a case in point.
In balancing the GNH equation, Bhutan came down on the side of developing its hydro resources, but with an eco-compromise – employing run-of river technology. Without storage capacity, run-of-river power stations suffer reduced output during the dry season. Power outages are staved off by demand management initiatives such as subsidizing energy-efficient light bulbs, but are still a regular occurrence. This may not be acceptable in Australia, but for Bhutan, the short term “unhappiness” caused by a power outage is outweighed by the long term benefits.
In the wet season, Bhutan’s large electricity surplus is sold to India, providing Bhutan with 37% of current annual government revenue, forecast to reach 50% by 2006 – a well struck balance between environmental preservation and economic self-sufficiency.
Forest use and protection.
With steep terrain, thin topsoil and slow growth rates, Bhutan’s forests do not recover quickly if clear-felled. Unlike hydro-power, when Bhutan weighed the economic benefits against the cultural and environmental costs of forestry, GNH came down on the side of protecting forests from use as an income source.
Legislation now mandates that 60% of Bhutan’s land will remain forested for all time. Export of raw sawlog is prohibited outright. Industrial timber usage is also licensed and monitored, an example being the Gedu plywood factory which, despite initially generating employment and profits, was closed due to its unsustainable timber consumption. The government is supportive of craftsmen who produce low-volume, high-value carvings for export.
At a local level, steps have been taken to manage demand for timber. A strict quota system on firewood coupled with subsidies on metal roofing (replacing wooden shingles) electricity and efficient stoves is ensuring that community use of timber remains sustainable, even as population expands due to improved health services.
It seems that Bhutan, with a per capita GNP of $US1,400 can ‘afford’ to protect 60% of its forests while Australia, with an annual per capita GNP of $US30,700 and only 9% coverage remaining (having cleared 58% of original forest) cannot ‘afford’ to stop wood-chipping our remnant native forests. Discuss.
Other illustrations of GNH based decisions include: construction of university campuses in remote areas to prevent rural depopulation; a high-value, low-volume (and very difficult to circumvent) tourism policy which requires a minimum expenditure of US$200 per day; health programs run by monks in conjunction with doctors trained in western medicine; and exemplary use of foreign aid to retain debt-free ownership of national infrastructure.
Modernisation or Westernisation?
In summary, the GNH framework has led to led to intelligent, balanced, creative and sustainable policy decisions for Bhutan.
More recently, Bhutan has begun to confront the dangers of modernisation. The immediate ramification of the introduction of television in 1999 was an increase in crime and violence. More insidious perhaps is the adoption of Western values by Bhutan’s youth. This experience has led to Bhutan’s emerging catch-cry: ‘Modernisation, not Westernisation’. Indeed, securing the benefits of modernisation (roads, electricity, tractors) without also importing the cultural deficiencies of the West (consumerism, loss of community, MTV) is no easy task. It is hoped that GNH will rise to this challenge, and allow Bhutan to complete its process of wealth creation without losing its ecological, cultural and spiritual integrity. The West faces the same challenge through the other side of the looking glass.
Can other countries adopt the GNH framework to attain a balance of material and spiritual wellbeing? It might be argued that the concept of GNH is too uniquely Bhutanese to work anywhere else, that the values it embodies are too foreign to the Western mindset.
The counter argument is provided by Western scientific research. ‘Happiness researchers’ are almost unanimous in concluding that past the point of basic comfort, more money adds little to happiness. In fact, studies show that one of the major contributors to unhappiness is consumerism and its never-ending cycle of acquisition, overwork, and discontent.
What does seem to lead to happiness is a sense of belonging and community, a focus on internal development, and devotion to a higher cause – values which are as conspicuously present in Bhutan as they are increasingly absent in Australia.
The success of GNH in Bhutan leads to a series of questions for Australia: Is it time to question the fundamental assumptions underlying our pursuit of economic growth? What would an Australian version of GNH look like, and how would our lives change if Australia joined Bhutan in giving equal quarter to economic, ecological, social and spiritual wellbeing?
Perhaps most tantalizingly, what opportunities does the coherent, appealing and test-driven platform of Gross National Happiness provide for Australia’s political parties?
Simeon Michaels is Vice President of the Ethical Investment Association. His visit to Bhutan was sponsored by the Vincent Fairfax Fellowship operated by the St James Ethics Centre. He is contactable on simeon@paddlewithsim.com.