Oct 22 2007
How happy are we? Measuring Gross National Happiness
Published by Michelle Close at 8:31 pm under
Technorati
Flickr
del.icio.us
Ice Rocket
WikipediaShanghai Daily, Oct 22, 2007: How happy are we?-Let’s measure Gross National Happiness
When I first talked to Mr.Welker about a writing a blog entry about an alternative measurement of well-being to GDP and GNP, called the Gross National Happiness quotient, he gave me one those “looks”. I perceived the look to mean, “you are like a peace loving, hippy dippy gal from the East Coast, Ms. Close… this is economics we are doing here!” Of course, Mr. Welker would never admit that was what he was thinking because he is far too nice for that. But, I am happy to say that I am finally writing this entry because I finally have Oxford University and Cambridge University in England to back me up on this, Happiness Research.
These famous educational institution have their economists developing new ways to measure well being from an holistic economic perspective. Economists and sociologists all over the world, especially those interested in international development models are seeking to, “establish scientific methods for finding our what makes us happy and why”.
Happiness and well-being are complicated. Researchers cite many factors, like education, nutrition, freedom from fear and violence, gender equality, and perhaps most important, having choices, write Authur Max and Toby Sterling.
Two researchers , Ruut Veenhovern, Professor University of Rotterdam,, and Adrian White of the University of Leicester, have been collecting data for years. Veenhoven’s data base, called the “World Database of Happiness”, has data on 95 countries while White has created the “Global Projection of Subjective Well-Being” on twice that many countries. Both researchers have found that Denmark is the country where inhabitants have he highest rating of well being and happiness. Veenhovern was surprised by some of his findings.
Veenhoven’s database, which lists 95 countries and regions, is headed by Denmark with a rating of 8.2, followed by Switzerland, Austria, Iceland and Finland, all countries with high per capita income. At the other end of the scale are much poorer countries: Tanzania rated 3.2, behind Zimbabwe, Moldova, Ukraine and Armenia.
The United States just makes it into the top 15 with a 7.4 index rating. While choice is abundant in America, nutrition and violence issues helped drag its rating down.
Wealth counts, but most studies of individuals show income disparities count more. Surprisingly, however, citizens are no happier in welfare states, which strive to mitigate the distortions of capitalism than in purer free-market economies.
“In the beginning, I didn’t believe my eyes,” said Veenhoven of his data. “Icelanders are just as happy as Swedes, yet their country spends half what Sweden does (per capita) on social welfare,” he said.
Another reaseacher Alkire, emphasized personal freedom as the root of happiness. Her study of women in the southern Indian state of Kerala, which showed that poor women who make their own choices score highly, compared with women with strict fathers or husbands.
Bhutan, which has a 50% illiteracy rate came up in the top 8 in White’s list of happy nations because its measure of “gross national happiness” (GNH) is based on, “equitable development, environmental conservation, cultural heritage and good government”.
So, what should policy makers consider when they are trying to improve the economy, there are different perspectives: Veenhoven says that with the right combination of individual choices and government policy, nations can raise their happiness quotient by as much as five percent.
British opposition leader David Cameron recently established a Quality of Life Policy Group to examine ways governments can legislate to boost national contentment levels. He said in a speech last year:
“It’s time we admitted that there’s more to life than money, and it’s time we focused not just on GDP, but on GWB - general well-being,”
In the end the researchers discovered that, “Happiness is more complicated than we originally thought,” said Alkire.
I guess I am not alone in ” the peace loving, hippy dippy world ” of measuring economic well being. While some say that money can buy happiness it seems like there is a whole lot more to happiness than cash… Thank goodness!
Editor’s note: For the record, while I may not own any tie dyed shirts, wear flowers in my hair or Birkenstocks on my feet, dance in circles while listening to the Grateful Dead and day-dream about my own “summer of love” (like Ms. Close on weekends), I do advocate the development of alternative measures of economic and social well-being. The current method of measuring wealth by the access to physical output per-capita distorts what I believe are the true measures of happiness.
The failure of GDP to account for environmental conservation, racial diversity and harmony, equality of income and wealth distribution, access to safe and healthy living environments and so on creates the flawed perception that output growth is the end-all-be-all of economic development. Poor countries and rich countries alike could benefit from the wide-spread adoption of a qualitative measurement of well-being that more effectively incorporates the non-monetary, non-output related components of human welfare and happiness!
Peace, man… JW
About the author: Michelle Close teaches AP Economics and IB Economics the Shanghai American School where she is also the CAS coordinator for the IB program. Michelle has taught in a wide variety of school settings for the last twenty years and truly values teaching, living and traveling abroad.
Michelle has been living in Shanghai with her husband Kevin and two children, Maya and Cooper since 2006 and she previously taught at the Columbus School in Medellin, Colombia. She calls Boston and The Bay Area her home away from home. 
So…money doesn’t buy happiness after all. What a strange concept for our totally materialistic and commericial world! Everyone wants more and more and more, and this insatiable demand is topped off with limited and scarce resources. I guess, people have forgotten than happiness doens’t come only from buying the newest designer bag or most expensive car, but also from simple things like communication with other people. IN the end, rich people can be unhappy, so people should not be so concerned with GDP, but rather…as this article suggests, GWB.
This article shows that money is not the determinant for happiness. I guess really what’s important in our life is being happy, not just being eager to make money. People should take a break and look back in their life and think about what really makes them happy. It’s not just the material things that are valuble. I really think that GDP is less important than GNH.
I had a teacher once that took a class “Happiness Survey”, we all put our happiness percentage on paper and we found that the class average of “happiness” is at about 70%. It’s pretty cool and kind of sad all at the same time, that no one’s ever truly happy. What’s also interesting is that it was a school like SAS where “rich” is pretty common. I think it’s human nature to never be truly happy, there’s always going to be someting we want and no one will ever be 100% happy, it makes sense, but it’s really depressing all at the same time.
It would have been very ignorant to consider money a definitive basis for happiness in the first place (though it does play quite a considerable role). Often times it can be said that it depends on the surroundings we live in. If we live in a metropolitan city like Shanghai where it’s all about money and “success”, we sometimes have our priorities in the wrong order. Wanting so many things like we do only complicates things and makes us miserable. Those who live in developing nations like Bhutan find happiness in simplicity and in life itself. We could learn alot from them.
In AP Gov, we have learned about other scales that measure economic well-being which extend beyond the simple GDP. So I guess others, in addition to the scientists of “Happiness Research”, have realized and did something about the flaws in GDP.
One is the PPP (purchasing power parity), which takes into consideration the difference in price of the same product across different countries. PPP adds more meaning than GDP because in a way it explains what the GDP “means” in different countries.
Another one is the HDI (Human Development Index) developed by the UN. This index takes into consideration three elements - income, knowledge, and longevity. The founders of this scale definitely know that money is not the only thing that buys you happiness.
It’s all true that money is only a small component of happiness. But without money, happiness is made all that much more difficult. And I think it is because a certain level of GDP is achieved/satisfied that then led to concern for GWB.
Agreed with Cassy. I always thought money CAN be happiness. To a certain extent of course. It makes you happy to eat a lot. It makes you happy to be able to travel around the world and see things. Maybe it makes you happy to buy a nice car or something. However, there are other kinds of happiness, which this article and everyone else seems concerned about. How much happiness you have is ultimately more important to how much money you have, but in the “materialistic world and commercial world” (Mok, 2007) that we live in, it’s hard to be happy without money. (Unless you like living like a hermit and like hunting animals for food.)
Happiness cannot be bought with money. For the most part, I believe that saying to be true. However, I do believe that money can indirectly buy happiness. It plays a significant role in our satisfaction levels. Happiness can be achieved through material goods. Where is one supposed to obtain tangible goods without money? Unless, of course, you are like a hermit that Jacques described.
As how people have already said, money can’t buy happiness. Even though people think money equals everything and it’s the main source of power in this materialistic society, through reading this article, I could find out that money also has limits. Happiness can mean many different things, and it’s absolutely true that money can bring certain type of happniess, such as buying a new car, house, or a computer, etc. However, bigger happiness, such as friendship and love, cannot be purchased with money.
I agree with Jack’s point on how Happiness cannot be purchased by any amount of money, although at times it can be just the opposite. Buying a new product that you desire would definitely create a great utility for you, but can that happiness stay for long? From this article we can infer that there are certain limitations on what money can do.
Although happiness cannot be purchased by money, but at some certain point it creates happiness
for you. For example, you finally got the iPhone you’ve been waiting forever, getting the iPhone
definitely makes you happy. Happiness is important, but without money you would be wandering on the street for your life. So I think making money and feeling happy should be balanced.
This is interesting, because as Yunqi said, we are living in a very materialistic and commercial world. Money definitely makes one happier, I mean, who doesn’t like money? We can get anything with money, but as this article suggests, happiness cannot be bought with money. Even if you are rich, everything would be pointless without happiness. Life is all about happiness, but then why aren’t we measuring the Gross National Happiness instead of Gross National Product? A person from Bhutan can be happier than a millionaire in the United States.
It is true that money cannot buy happiness. Even you are the richest guy in the world that doesn’t mean you are happy. There are lots of stuff cannot be purchased by money. Indeed, happiness is much more important than money.
Money indeed cannot buy happiness, however each individual’s happiness depends on their personal choices and tastes. I do believe that wealth is a strong determinant on people’s happiness, however there are other determinants that are heavily weighted as well.
This whole notion of measuring happiness strikes me as funny, not like…because I think it’s retarded or anything. Anyway, I know other people have said this, but I’m sure no one individual can TRULY be happy; after all, we have unlimited wants with limited resources. Indeed, that is one of the main aspects in creating the field of economics. Anyway, I’m just sharing my views on the actual measurement of happiness.
Well I think everyone is agreeing that “happiness cannot be bought and still money is somewhat important factor of happiness” and this idea is being repeated and repeated in differnt wordings. Yes, however, I also do agree with this and how much money is important to affect happiness would probably depend on the person.
i think we can all agree that money can’t buy happiness. but i mean, money WILL give you a lot of satisfaction up to a certain extent, and past that certain extent, other factors such as greed and selfishness kick in, and that is when we start to abuse the money and that is when we start to become less happy.
like, when we see those homeless people out on the streets of shanghai, new york, or practically anywhere, we cant POSSIBLY think that they are happy because, without money, u really cant do much in society. so when we say money cant buy happiness, it is somewhat true, but u also have to think that without money, full happiness and satisfaction cannot be achieved.
well..I think little different. I think money gives happiness(I didn’t say it as always, and i didn’t say money don’t take away happiness). and without money people could be happy but not fully.. I think … hehe
I agree with Mina that money can bring happiness and also the people without money are most likely unhappy because they do not have enough money; however, it is true that money is not a necessity for happiness, it is only a side factor.
I agree with Cassy that although money doesn’t buy happiness, it certainly makes it easier to obtain happiness. Happiness can be indirectly bought. I think that in order to be happy, needs must be obtained first. According to Maslow, first level is food, water, etc (basic needs to keep someone alive). If you have no money, you cannot get those things and therefore, you’d be starving and probably not happy. Second level is you need safety and security; without money, you can’t really buy a home where you are protected by the walls around you. And so on and so forth with the levels of needs.
I don’t think that happiness can be put into numbers. It’s abstract and everyone has different ways of expressing it. Also I believe that money can bring happiness to a person; more money can increase a persons choices which can lead to buying that something that was unattainable before.
gosh. i thought some country in africa had the highest happiness rate hahaha.
well, although some people might argue that money cannot buy happiness, as proven by this article, without money, one cannot be satisfied with their life either. While i like the notion of being rich ( :)who doesnt?), it is hard to keep your head grounded and appreciate your surroundings. Take for example, people i know who say they hate their life and their life sucks. Their life compared to orphans in lets say.. Zimbabwe is SO much better. At least we have the money to purchase temporary happiness
It’s all relative. I feel that while money does not define happiness, it makes us happy, but only temporarily. Sure, when you get the iPhone you’ve always wanted, you’re happy, but it wouldn’t constitute for a long period of time (not until the next big thing comes out). I agree with Kathie that the relationship between happiness and money vary with the tastes and preferences of individuals. Money seems to set what would make each person happy; to a homeless child in rural China, a white rabbit candy would probably make them light up, while to someone like us, a white rabbit candy probably wouldn’t do the trick like a box of Godiva’s would. And then there are other factors that money can’t buy, like relationships with family and friends.
I wouldn’t say that money outright buys you happiness, but like Annie said, I think money can provide a source of temporary happiness. I mean with money, you can buy yourself a new cell phone or a new ipod, but you can’t be able to buy friends and love.
I would agree with Kristie. Money can’t buy you complete happiness, but it can provide a decent source of happiness. However, as the article said, people with more choices, more power over their own lives were more happy. In addition, the article also stated that the elderly tended to be happier than the younger generations, but friendships are “crucial.” Things like power over your own life and friendships, although money can have some affect of it, ultimately still are required to make one happy.
Materialistic people work really hard day and night to earn money, but as a result they’ve
lost their happiness. They then spend the money they earn to buy “materials” from the market
that they may not really need and may not really bring them much happiness. This is
unhealthy, because you’re not happy, and you’re not working to improve your mental
condition. These people can become really rich, with houses full of luxuries, but may also
be very stressed and become bad at socializing with people (because they “socialize” with
materials for too long).
However, these hard-working people are also responsible for keeping the economy running,
right? I think the people on the other end of this spectrum (with the materialistic people
on one side) are monk-ish people (and I mean REALLY good monks). They don’t need much
physical “materials” and some even give them all up. But they are very content, if not
happy, with life. Now imagine a society full of monks. There would be less trading, less
competetion, less of everything. Learning economics would be so much easier.
I think we need to find a balance in between being materialistic (therefore keeping the
economy running) and being monk-ish (therefore making us happy), so I think the GDP is just
as important as the GWB.
I would just like to say woot! Denmark is number 1! woot! well that is if we go by the whole “most income per capita” and on that note i would like to agree with most of the previous comments that money does not necessarily buy happiness, even though it may seem logical that with more money comes more freedom, however it turns out that money does not necessarily determine the amount of freedom people have. I guess it all actually depends on what kind of society you live in. if you live in a poorer country that is not so materialistic, of course money wont be the determinant of happiness, the more freedom one has will be. However in a place where money is …easier attainable, materialistic ways are more easily come by, therefore probably makes money a bigger basis for happiness.
Money cannot buy happiness and is more complex than people really think it is. To an extent this is proven true, but feel rating happiness in quantitative data is under thinking the true meaning of happiness. Yes, individual choices and government policies will be able to increase the gross national happiness quotient but it doesn’t necessarily mean it the whole country is happy.
Obviously, we see happy beggars which show that money is not the foundation of happiness, and we see people opening up business not for economic gain but for pleasure. In my opinion, it all boils down to the fact from person to person. You can be happy in a country that is low on the gross national happiness quotient, and you can be sad in a country which has a high GNHQ. America serves as a perfect example: 2/3 of the population has clinical depression but it is top 15 on the scale.
“Icelanders are just as happy as Swedes, yet their country spends half what Sweden does ”
This article clearly proves the belief I have believed in so far. I have always believed that “wealth” is not synonymous with “happiness”. Still in many cases, i saw poor people suffering because they didn’t have enough money to buy food/shelter/medicine, but on the contrary, people with enough money being happy becuase they could enjoy their lives with their money as much as they wanted to. I’m a hundred percent sure that GNH is a far more accurate value than GDP to measure one’s happiness.
“Money cannot buy happiness.” This saying is used a lot and it really doesnt apply to everything. Someone can be happy with a new computer that they bought, a new house or even a pair of shoes. However, if someone tries too hard to buy happiness with money, the result could prove to be the total opposite. They would spend their life buying unnecessary goods and continuously try to bring happiness for themself. On the besic level, money can buy happiness (these days).
Personally, I have never thought of happiness as a complicated idea. Some people are happy, and some people aren’t. It doesnt matter how much money one has. Both poor people and rich people can be happy with life. Life does revolve around money and I think it is safe to say that we would not be able to live without money. If you can’t live in society today, will you be a happy person? Thus, does money really not buy happiness?