A New Measure of Well-Being From a Happy Little Kingdom – New York Times

(It makes you wonder about the GHP here in the United States. I don’t think it is really very high. I live in Hawaii where people are coming on vacation and should all be incredibly happy, yet I see so many unhappy faces among the visiting…and never mind about the unahppy residents…by the way…I’m not usually one of them…yesterday as I swam in the ocean, walked along the beachwalk in Waikiki, and rode my bike through my great little town I could hardly keep from laughing in outright happiness…I hate to gloat, but here I am doing it…cd)
A New Measure of Well-Being From a Happy Little Kingdom – New York Times
October 4, 2005
A New Measure of Well-Being From a Happy Little Kingdom
By ANDREW C. REVKIN
What is happiness? In the United States and in many other industrialized countries, it is often equated with money.
Economists measure consumer confidence on the assumption that the resulting figure says something about progress and public welfare. The gross domestic product, or G.D.P., is routinely used as shorthand for the well-being of a nation.
But the small Himalayan kingdom of Bhutan has been trying out a different idea.
In 1972, concerned about the problems afflicting other developing countries that focused only on economic growth, Bhutan’s newly crowned leader, King Jigme Singye Wangchuck, decided to make his nation’s priority not its G.D.P. but its G.N.H., or gross national happiness.
Bhutan, the king said, needed to ensure that prosperity was shared across society and that it was balanced against preserving cultural traditions, protecting the environment and maintaining a responsive government. The king, now 49, has been instituting policies aimed at accomplishing these goals.
Now Bhutan’s example, while still a work in progress, is serving as a catalyst for far broader discussions of national well-being.
Around the world, a growing number of economists, social scientists, corporate leaders and bureaucrats are trying to develop measurements that take into account not just the flow of money but also access to health care, free time with family, conservation of natural resources and other noneconomic factors.
The goal, according to many involved in this effort, is in part to return to a richer definition of the word happiness, more like what the signers of the Declaration of Independence had in mind when they included “the pursuit of happiness” as an inalienable right equal to liberty and life itself.
The founding fathers, said John Ralston Saul, a Canadian political philosopher, defined happiness as a balance of individual and community interests. “The Enlightenment theory of happiness was an expression of public good or the public welfare, of the contentment of the people,” Mr. Saul said. And, he added, this could not be further from “the 20th-century idea that you should smile because you’re at Disneyland.”