Gross National Happiness in Bhutan
Gross
National
Happiness
Question Two:
GDP and HDI are at odds with GNH on the one level that highlights the immeasurable but important positives of life. As stated, GDP seeks to measure social welfare on the basis of economic prosperity in terms of the nation’s success (and thus, capacity) to produce goods/services.
GNH on the other hand measures just that; the holistic approach to happiness, ie, mental well being independent of materialistic objects of prosperity.
The problem therefore is that GPI and HDI attempt to expand beyond materialism however they fall short. They fail to fully cover up the internal/mental source of contentment as GNH does.
If compared with the Mandala well being module, these new measures cover Physical well being, which deals with the external; but ignore reflective and subjective well being. GNH would cover up those areas in their pillars of equitable development and adherence to culture.
To further elaborate on how these MEWs fall short:
One example would be while measuring HDI, the constituent political/good governance is left out. If life expectancy or knowledge is high, but a country does not have a good government that cares about it’s people; it would translate to the people working in their own selfish interests and therefore, it could not be termed ‘development or prosperity’ in the right sense. In other words, the prosperity of the country does not include the happiness of it’s citizens.
Question One:
GNH, the measure for well being, has several shortcomings of it’s own. Though one would say the pros outweigh the cons, the general consensus is that the traditional measure of development, the GDP, is the preferred indicator.
Development and happiness, have different meanings for different people. And therefore, for different countries. Within the country itself, are several personalities who would choose mental health over economic health.
Bhutan is a small country with a simple lifestyle; a country that
National
Happiness
Question Two:
GDP and HDI are at odds with GNH on the one level that highlights the immeasurable but important positives of life. As stated, GDP seeks to measure social welfare on the basis of economic prosperity in terms of the nation’s success (and thus, capacity) to produce goods/services.
GNH on the other hand measures just that; the holistic approach to happiness, ie, mental well being independent of materialistic objects of prosperity.
The problem therefore is that GPI and HDI attempt to expand beyond materialism however they fall short. They fail to fully cover up the internal/mental source of contentment as GNH does.
If compared with the Mandala well being module, these new measures cover Physical well being, which deals with the external; but ignore reflective and subjective well being. GNH would cover up those areas in their pillars of equitable development and adherence to culture.
To further elaborate on how these MEWs fall short:
One example would be while measuring HDI, the constituent political/good governance is left out. If life expectancy or knowledge is high, but a country does not have a good government that cares about it’s people; it would translate to the people working in their own selfish interests and therefore, it could not be termed ‘development or prosperity’ in the right sense. In other words, the prosperity of the country does not include the happiness of it’s citizens.
Question One:
GNH, the measure for well being, has several shortcomings of it’s own. Though one would say the pros outweigh the cons, the general consensus is that the traditional measure of development, the GDP, is the preferred indicator.
Development and happiness, have different meanings for different people. And therefore, for different countries. Within the country itself, are several personalities who would choose mental health over economic health.
Bhutan is a small country with a simple lifestyle; a country that