Read the 1st two paragraphs on the origin of GNH at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_national_happiness
and watch a short 8’38’’ video on "Happiness in Bhutan" at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/4782636.stm
Other useful references:
1)http://tutor2u.net/economics/content/topics/livingstandards/measuring_sol.htm
2)http://www.bized.co.uk/virtual/dc/copper/theory/th11.htm
3) http://www.bized.co.uk/virtual/dc/farming/theory/th3.htm
You should then be able to engage your friends and respond to the following question:
1) Discuss whether Gross National Happiness is a good measure of living standards.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
GNH and GDP are very conflicting ways of measuring living standards. Even though GNH aims to achieve general well-being instead of economic well-being, it hinders development that boosts the economy. For example, the government could have used traffic lights and mechanised the activity instead of using human beings. This would result in increased efficiency as the worker could be put to other forms of employment that would maximise his potential. GDP measures the economic well-bring of the country but this does not signify the spiritual well-being of the citizens in the country. Perhaps the standard of living could be better measured if there was a measurement that can combine both spiritual and economic well-being as happiness without money might not bring about a good standard of living, nor vice-versa. I still think GDP would be a better measure of living standards as economic well-being would lead to greater resources for the creation of an environment that provides better living standards. GNH might result in less wealth and hence unfavourable living conditions which will affect general well-being.
ReplyDeleteTING THINKS THAT...
ReplyDeleteit depends on whether GNH is a good measure of living standards. firstly, the definition of happiness differs from country to country. less developed countries such as vietnam may be satisfied with life so as long they can make ends meet, have a shelter to stay in and there's no war. on the other hand, more developed countries may only be happy if they own the 5Cs etc. secondly, the culture and practices of each country plays a part in the happiness index of its people. For example, Bhutan is the only country in the world which puts happiness at the heart of government policy probably because they feel that they are being protected by the government(mtv, plastic bags etc banned) and also maybe as a rather isolated area, they do not really see the realities of the world. GNH can be thus used as a measure of living standards but since it is subjective, it should be used with other standards eg GDP and HDI as well.
As can be seen from Bhutan, the government limits development and even though the poeple may be happy, living standards are still relatively low. Generally the thinking is such that the more developed a country is, the more unhappy the people will be as they will be fixed on paperchase and the endless climb up the corporate ladder. Hence from the Bhutanese's buddhist perspective, spiritual poverty is worse than poverty hence the government's actions.
ReplyDeleteHowever BNH doesn not entirely measure happiness but it encompassses the 4 pillars which includes socio-economic development. Hence it can be said to be more wholesome, taking into account both economic development and also measureing how contented the people are with their lives, together with the environmental state. yay:)
GNH is not a good measure of living standards.
ReplyDeleteWhen we talk about living standards, we should not contrast it with the 'quality' of life. This is because GNH measure things in a more holistic and psychological way that is intangible, such as the social life of people. The fact that these factors are intangible would mean that they are subjective and vary individually. An example would be in Bhutan, where living standards are low ( lesser developed with limited technology available ), yet a high level of GNH is recorded. GNH would thus be an inaccurate measure of 'standard' of living since it will not acquire a 'standard' measurement worldwide.
However, if there are countries with similar material standards of living, GNH would then be a good measure to differentiate between these countries. This is so as the quality of life would thus mean a better standard of living in the country.
Yan says that:
ReplyDeleteI think that the GNH is both a good and bad indicator of the standard of living (SOL). It definately indicates how happy people are with what they have and how they live. But yet it doesnt mean that the people are living with good SOL. It only means that the peopl are content with the SOL they have- which might not necessarily be good. So it is not a good indicator as the people might be ignorant with the improvements to standard of living they can have. So they may not actually have the highest SOL.
GNP is generally not a good indicator of people's standard of living. Even though it may seem to appear to be better than GDP at measuring the people's SOL, however this is only true for Butan which is an isolated case considering the fact that its a remote kingdom and an absolute monarchy whereby the people do not have much say in government matters. Hence, the people there are contented with their simple lives and consider their SOL to be high. However, if you look from a global perspective, GDP would still be a better indication of SOL as the economic growth of a country would meant that the poepl would have more money to spend in order to satisfy their increasing wants and needs and when these wants and needs a re fulfilled, their level of happpiness or quality of live increases which thus equates to higher SOL
ReplyDeleteI think that the Bhutan Government, who puts much focus on GNH, may cause the country to lag behind others in terms of economic growth as it can be commonly seen that decisions to improve GNH made are at the expense of its GDP. For example, banning advertising to hold back consumerism will cause Bhutan to have a decreased GDP. This in turn shows how different GDP and GNH are as measurements of living standards.
ReplyDeleteI think that both GDP and GNH, although very much different, may be used together to better indicate the living standards of countries.
GDP can be used to give a gauge of the standard of living of a country as the citizens of one with higher GDP tends to have higher purchasing power and ability to get the goods that they need. Health and sanitation would also be better.
Between countries with close rankings for GDP, GNH can then be used to compare the quality of life of the people in the various countries as a country with higher GDP may not neccessary have a higher GNH.
In this way, both GDP and GNH can be considered to give a less flawed indication of a country's living standard.
Mai says:
ReplyDeleteGNH is not a good measurement of living standards because as proven by the average affluence of individuals in Bhutan, they are definitely not well-off. Living standards are not high and they can even be seen as being a young developing country in the 21st century. Well, just imagine, they only had television in this century what say laptops and ipods.
However, I think that what the monk said in the video was apalling and worth reflecting upon because I do agree with his view that with the world as it is now, humans are slowly losing their spirituality and capability of progressing as a civilisation. Modernization had resulted in materialism and the price to pay for it is the lost of happiness.
People in Bhutan, even though poor in material possesions, they are rich in spiritual and emotional well-being. This to them, is not measurable with the usual GDP instrument.
In this case, a Bhutan citizen may argue that they have a better quality of life than many other countries even though their standard of living is not high.
Living standards consists of both the material and non-material aspects. GNH is a good indicator of SOL because it takes into account the non-material apsect of SOL which GDP does not. It takes into account the negative impacts that vices and social problems have on the people which thus affects their SOL. e.g. to try to increase happiness and SOL in Bhutan, the government bans tabacco and television wrestling shows to prevent encouragement of addiction and violence which might cause a decrease in the SOL of the country. A high GDP does not mean a high level of happiness of the people as they may be stressed at work or many social problems may be present. Using GNH is thus a good indicator as it takes these into account and measures the level of happiness directly, which is a significant part of SOL.
ReplyDeleteGNH is also a good indicator because there are several aspects to it e.g. environmental, physical, political and economic wellness. It also takes into account slightly the economic well-being of the people and thus would be a good indicator compared to GDP which measures only economic well-being and does not take into account happiness at all.
GNH is also a good indicator as it can also suggest SOL not only at the time of measurement but also might predict the SOL in the long run. This is because it takes into acocunt physical wellness and environmental sustainability and preservation of culture, which would affect SOL in the long run.
However, using GNH is not a good indicator because of the fact that it does not really focus on the material aspect of SOL. It does not focus on measuring economic well-being, which is needed for consumption of goods which will contribute to material SOL. The GNH of a country might be high, but the economic activity of the country might be low and thus the country's infrastructure and living conditions might be poor, leading to SOL. In Bhutan, due to the large focus on the level of happiness, there is inefficiency in the economy e.g. using traffic marshalls on the roads when traffic lights could be installed and the labour could be used in other industries to help the country to develop its economy. Bhutan also restricts consumption of foreign imports by prohibiting excessive advertising of certain goods like coke.
Using a composite indicator like HDI which takes into account both the non-material and material aspects of SOL would be better than using just GNH which focuses on the non-material aspect or just GDP which measures only economic well-being.
Gross National Happiness does not clearly indicate living standards.
ReplyDeleteWhile Gross National Happiness does take into account the non material side of the standard of living, it does not take into account the material side of standard of living such as real income per capita, healthcare, income inequality, etc.
From the video, the Bhutan citizens seemed to be more focused on the non material side of living rather than money. For example religious spirituality cannot be monetiezed in any way and cannot be measure by numbers. To the Bhutan people, it seems that this is a major factor of their lives. In contrast, in urban cities like singapore, not many people care about what religion you are. Even pastors, priests and monks are out to make money in their own way. Thus, we can see that people in urban cities value material goods more than their emotional and spiritual well being, unlike the people in Bhutan. In other words, different people tag different weightages to various aspects of Standard Of Living. Thus the Gross National Happiness cannot be justified to be accurate or inaccurate.
However many things which are factors of Standard of Living affect the Gross National Happiness. Therefore, it can be said that Gross National Happiness can be linked back to the Standard of Living. Again, because this cannot be directly given a monetary value, it is difficult to compare Gross National Happiness across the board.
In conclusion, Gross National Happiness can be used as a tool by the government to persuade citizens in 3rd world countries that "Hey, we're not that bad after all... Our GDP per capita is a fraction of a % of that in USA, but our Gross National Happiness is higher, so we are better off". This way, the people can be more consoled and not see themselves as so much worse off than other countries. This may have a positive economic impact because when the people feel motivated, they tend to be more productive in their workplace. Fullstop.
whoa.. what was the question again..
ReplyDeleteok serious.
Discuss whether Gross National Happiness is a good measure of living standards.
Currently, SOL is measured through real national income per capita. However, there are problems through such a measurement as the projected value is just a calculated average amount. Such as in the United States, where it has one of the highest GDP per capita but has a quarter of its population living in poverty. Despite the high GDP per capita in certain countries, the people are not really as happy as they should, particularly the poorer fration. As a result, GNH comes into play as a new tool for measurement.
Now GNH does not actually measure the economic state of a country, but rather the state of well-being and happiness directly, as opposed to GDP per capita. As such, problems associated to economical aspects as described above can be avoided. Furthermore, GNH utilizes the fact that people need not be rich to enjoy their lives as material aspects of happiness varies from person to person, country to country. An example would be, someone from the US would only be happy with earning a 5digit figure monthly, compared to someone from india having food to eat daily. SO what im trying to say is, as long as that particular person is able to achieve what he deems essential to his life, he will attain happiness, and this can be independent of monetary values. Thus, a country can have a high living standard without a high GDP. This allows GNH to stand out in measuring living standards as opposed to GDP.
ON HINDSIGHT.... the general perception of living conditions would be having sufficient good, shelther, health and cleanliness,etc. Even if high GNH is reached, such basic living conditions may not be met and this would not morally suffice as to having high living standards. So this raises the question of " does happiness equate living standards? "
The 4 pillars of Gross National Happiness includes socio-economic development, preservation of cultural values, conservation of the natural environment and establishment of good governance. In them, they will include many indicators like psychological well being, health, education, living standards etc. Hence, it will be a good indicator to judge on a country's standard of living.
ReplyDeleteHowever, GNH cannot be used as the sole measure of standard of living, and may not be a good one as it only measures how a person is acceptive to the living conditions, and how happy, how optimistic one can be. As you can see from the video, the people in Bhutan are focusing more on the non materialistic side of life, and not money and materialistic goods. While they are happy with their lifes, standard living conditions may not be met as people my still be happy while living in poverty. As such, happiness while not be a good indicator of living standards, as a person's happiness level is different in different people, just like how one will be satisfied with simple living while others would want to live their life working hard and earning as much money as possible.
Using Gross National Happiness(GNH) to measure the standard of living(SOL) in a country is not sufficient. I believe that GNH only measures the social side of SOL, but not the material side. People might be happy for what they have, however, they might still be living in very poor conditions which is a hinderance to the nations progress. As if people live in poor conditions, they might not have proper healthcare, etc, which ultimately affects their work performance.
ReplyDeletethus, affecting the economic side of the nation. Thus, the material side of SOL should be determined as well, by use of Gross Domestic Product(GDP), or Gross National Product(GNP). Therefore, this is a more accurate measure of a countries' SOL. As mentioned in Wikipedia, GNH is also very difficult to quantify, thus, this makes the determination of the happiness level very difficult. In addition, GNH is also highly subjective, some may rate themselves to be happier than others when their level of happiness is about the same. Some may also be happy for reasons not pertaining to SOL, such as daily mood. This being said, GNH also cannot be accurately measured as the happiness level of people change everyday, due to their different experience in life. For example, a person might be happy today because of a pay rise, but very sad the next day due to the death of a loved one, thus, GNH is very difficult to measure. Using GNH to measure SOL will also cause a decline in the economy. As seen in Bhutan's case, plastic bags, soft drinks, popular television channels are banned as they are deemed to make people less happy. These products might very well increase the revenue of country. For example, a soft drink company can be set up in Bhutan which raises, consumption, international trade and Balance of Payments(BOP), raising both potential and actual economic growth. Using GNH as a measure of a nation's SOL might also be misleading. As happiness is subjective, one who migrates to bhutan because of high SOL might feel cheated as the SOL is measured by happiness not GDP. He might not even feel happy there as happiness is subjective. Thus, using GNH is not a good measure of a nation's SOL. Conversely, GNH is somewhat a good measurement of SOL as it takes into consideration the feelings of people. It might make a country seem like a command economy at times (Bhutan's government banning stuff, controlling what is aired on television), however, it promotes social and spiritual well-being. Overall, using GNH to measure SOL is to ultimately have a balance of social and productive effeciency as it also considers the feelings of society and the economy is not left to market forces alone. In conclucion, good governance and definitely success of a country is partially determined by how happy its citizen's are, if the people are not happy, there would be strikes, violence, etc, which might in turn hinder the countries' economic progress. Thus, GNH is not a bad measure of a countries' SOL, however, if coupled with GDP, the measurement of SOL of a country would be more accurate.
P.S I know that there is alot of irrelevant stuff that does not answer or have any relation to the question. Haha!
JelliSoyahGrinRedBean
ReplyDeleteAhhh how come everyone's answers so long ar...??
Okay anyway, I don't think Gross National Happiness is a good way to measure the standards of living because Happiness is a rather subjective issue, so if two people are very happy but they may rate their happiness differently on a scale of 1 to 100. I won't say GDP or GNP are 100% foolproof in measuring the standards of living, but at least there's some kinds of value involved, so there's still at least some things which can be compared like income and such.
I agree with some of the views above that it might be good to use GNH as an additional comparsion after we use GDP or GNP to compare the standards of living in and among countries,to get a more holistic views. But in the different websites given, there are like other various indexes which can be taken into consideration like Human development index and some don't know what poverty index, how will we know if all these various indexes are actually accurate too?
And also for GDP or GNP, there could be flunctuations in the values when we convert them to a common unit like the US dollars, so like in the case of Britain/UK, there's a dip in the chart shown because of the pound presence thingy, then wouldnt GDP/GNP be inaccurate too??
Ahh..okay i'm like going nowhere in my argument, but I just feel that GNH is probably something which we can consider but it's not the main tool which we should use to gauge standards of living. cuz like in bhutan, although like the people are quite happy an such, but their GDP isn't very good..because if all the countries simply pursue happiness and don't care about the investments coming in and such, I have no idea how long they can stay "happy", and without investments and growth in income for the people, then they may not be happy. And when they are unhappy and have low GDP, won't they have worse standards of living? 0.o
First the question:
ReplyDeleteDiscuss whether Gross National Happiness is a good measure of living standards.
GNH is not a good measure of living standards. Living standards comprises of many different aspects. Though happiness may be one of the components, other factors such as living conditions, education and income should be considered. For instance, if we were to grade happiness for the citizens, it would prove to be difficult. This is because happiness is subjective and there is no guide as to grade the level of happiness. Even if there is one, there would still be a certain level of difficulty to truly ensure that the grading is consistent. Moreover, having a high GNH may not be the same as having a high living standards. To Bhutan, they may have a high GNH in their opinion but their living conditions may not be of the same quality. In addition, to Singapore, though we have rather high living standards, according to New Economic Foundation's Happy Planet Index study, Singaporeans arent very happy. Hence, we cannot use GNH to measure SOL.
I agree with the rest that it should be used as an additional comparison above that of GDP and GNP. For happiness does affect the attitude that one has as he/she live through life, so it should be considered too to give a more holistic measurement.
Thats all. Good night everyone!
I believe very much in the words of the minister in the video and that happiness is the best indicator of living standards as it is what everyone desires. Every other indicator such as health, money, education are only a means to pursue the ultimate goal of obtaining happiness. Thus, as mentioned by the minister, it is intriguing that other countries in the world do not even take happiness as a serious indicator of the standard of living.
ReplyDeleteHaving said that however, I am not saying that GNH is the best indicator. This is because even GNH is not able to measure the true happiness within a person quantitavely as it is subjective. Thus, it might not reflect the true happiness of the people.
Nevertheless, I feel that the way forward for countries especially developed ones is to actually consider GNH in addition to GDP and GNP. This is because although these countries are technologically advanced and economically wealthy, can the people truly say that they are happier and more content with their lives than people in countries like Bhutan. What's the point if people are materially wealthy if they are stressed, unhappy, and discontent with their lives. Certainly if I discovered a new land and ruled my own country, I would use GNH or some form of happines indicator to guide the policies I make.
GNH is a ineffective indicator (albeit more of a vision) in measuring SOL.
ReplyDeleteIt places strong emphasis on values and principles.
While it is not a problem as long as policy-makers follow the values of GNH, it is getting increasingly harder for the Bhutan government to create policies consistent with GNH. GNH was instutionalised by the monarch of the nation, however, what’s to stop the future government who may come from diverse backgrounds to change it? A division of opinion in the government over which indicator should be used where would lead to an inaccurate measurement of the SOL.
Without some kind of measurement system, it cant guide policy-makers effectively. There isn’t a tangible way to bring GNH down to a practical level.
Gross National Happiness (GNH) is a good measure of living standards. As what the Bhutanese minister for Home and Cultural Affairs, the ultimate goal in a person's life is to be happy. Usually money is not the main aim in life. Hence, a country's GDP or GNP per capita is not always a good measure of the standard of living. A country's standard of living might be low due to the high GDP. To achieve a high GDP, the citizens have to work hard doing their jobs. They may neglect their family or put aside their hobbies to acommodate their work. Hence, they may not necessarily be happy with a high GDP.
ReplyDeletethere are many non-monetary factors that can contribute to the country's standard of living/quality of life. happiness for example is a non-material indicator of the country's standard of living. it measures in a more holistic and emotional of GDP compared to the GDP being accounted for just the monetary/material aspect of life. as countries have to put in alot of effort to achieve a good standard of living, some even go to the extent of not liking their jobs, which decreases the GNH (gross national happiness). thus, this is a good example of GDP being affected by non-monetary factors.
ReplyDeleteGNP is a good indicator of living standards as compared to others like GDP per capital. This is because GNP measures the standard of living (SOL) by the hapiness level of the people whereas GDP per capital measures the SOL by the income of the people. For example, for GDP, if we assume that as the GDP per head increases, consumers will spend this income on consumption goods like new clothes or cars that will allow them to derive satisfaction from, then the standard of living will indeed increase. However, if the consumers decide to spend their income on investment goods like bonds, dividends or shares, which will not bring about significant monetary gains or satisfaction in the short run, then there will be no change in the standard of living. On the contrary, if they lose this money spent on investment products, their standard of living will decrease as they will experience a monetary loss. Hence, GDP per head is only useful in measuring living standards if we assume that consumers spend their income on consumer goods; it is not necessarily always useful. As such, it is better for us to use other indicators like GNP that measure the hapiness level to measure living standards.
ReplyDeletesolitaire says that:
ReplyDeleteGNH and GNP are on extreme poles in indicating the standard of living of a nation. While GNP measures the income of a country, it does not directly take into account other aspects of life such as quality of life. GNP is the market value of all the final goods and services produced over some period of time by productive factors owned by residents of the country. Read GNP per capita therefore can be used to measure the economic well being of the country. With economic and financial stability, better healthcare can be provided leading to less infant mortality and higher life expectancy which indicates better quality of life and standard of living.
However, GNP does not provide a holistic indication of welfare in a country as the indicator itself is based on many assumptions. It neglects various sectors of the economy such as data collection problems, underground economy and the non-market economy. Furthermore, income per capita does not take into account the distribution inequalities, leisure time and external costs.
This is where GNH comes into play.
However GNH also has it's drawbacks in terms of measuring the standard of living.
The four pillars of GNH are the promotion of sustainable development, preservation and promotion of cultural values, conservation of the natural environment, and establishment of good governance.
GNH is a good measurement of the well being of countries environmentally and spiritually. Such as in Bhutan, excessive advertising is banned, and so are plastic bags and tobacco. The government restrict all forms of activities that are potentially harmful to the people of the country which enable them to obtain such high levels of hapiness index and SOL enhancing spritual development and healthy living.
However, it is difficult to obtain accurate and consistent results of the quality of life as people in the country will feel differently. Hence different declaration will be made by the citizens of the country.
Also, it may be an impractical way to to access standard of living as it mitigates the importance of economic well being entirely. For example, in Bhutan, GNH is the heart of all governmental decisions and they would rather have roads ushered by men which is rather impractical as it is a waste of manpower. Development is also moderated. While this can help promote income quality, people are less well off than they should be and this may hamper economic development.
It is also difficult to attach monetary values to happiness and there is so precise definition of happiness for comparison between countries. This will cause problems to arise when using GNH for measurement and comparison of SOL.
Lastly, while GNP mainly take into account the economic development of a country,GNH focuses on the spiritual development and hapiness of a country. Both indicators should be integrated for a more holistic indication of Standard of living.