Bhutan 2010 GNH_Index_3

The 2010 Gross National Happiness Index : Part III

The Centre for Bhutan Studies2011

Part III: Increasing Happiness1. GNH Index and Policy: concern for

Unhappiness2. Insufficiencies by Dzongkhag3. Insufficiencies by region4. Insufficiencies by gender5. Insufficiencies by age group6. Insufficiencies by marital status7. Insufficiencies by occupational group8. Policy recommendations9. Sustaining GNH



GNH Index: PurposeThe GNH Index is formulated to provide an incentive to Increase Happiness.

Civil servants, business leaders, and citizens of Bhutan may ask, ‘how can I help to increase GNH?’

The GNH Index can help them answer this question in practical ways.

Increasing GNH

“Our nation’s Vision can only be fulfilled if the scope of our dreams and aspirations are matched by the reality of our commitment to nurturing our future citizens.”

HM Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck, the 5th King of Bhutan

Increasing GNHTo Increase happiness, we need to ask a new set of questions.

We have to identify people who are not yet happy.

And we have to ask, where do they lack sufficiency? What must more be done?

This analysis is of direct relevance for policy.

National GNH Index: .737 using the happiness

threshold of 66%

Below 25000

25001-50000

50001-75000

75001-100000

Above 100000

0.5

0.55

0.6

0.65

0.7

0.75

0.8

0.85

0.9

0.95GNH Index by income group (Household per capita

income)

GNH Index increases with income per capita Bhutan still has a signifi-cant share of people not able to meet basic physical needs some relationship is or-ganic, because income is an indicator measured in the GNH Index and is also correlated with assets, housing, and education.

59% of Bhutanese do not fulfil the threshold of being happy

in 6 or more than 6 domains.

According to the GNH Index, they are ‘not-yet-happy’.

National headcount

ratio:

Of course, happiness is deeply personal. Some of these people may regard themselves as fully flourishing. That is why we need to discuss GNH widely in Bhutan.

Of the Bhutanese who are unhappy, on average they

have insufficiency in 43% of the domains (roughly equal to

4 domains)

National Breadth (Lack of

sufficiency):

Nationa

l Pov

erty

line

200

7

Multid

imen

siona

l Pov

erty

Inde

x 20

10

Gross

Nat

iona

l Hap

pine

ss In

dex 20

100%

10%20%30%40%50%60%

23%26%

59%

Proportion of people deprived/unhappy

.

Indicator: Consumption per capita

Indicator: Health,

Education and Living

Standards

Indicator: Psychological

wellbeing, Health, Time use, Culture,

Ecology, Community

vitality, Good Governance and Living standards

1,66,124

1,46,956

3,76,975

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

% insufficiency amongst the unhappy % insufficiency amongst the happy

First, a birds eye view of happy vs unhappy people.

How do their achievements vary?

When the blue bars are higher, it means that

insufficiency is higher among unhappy people.

For example, insufficiency in Life satisfaction is much

higher among the unhappy.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Across all indicators we see that there is no indicator in which orange bars are higher than blue – none in which ‘happy’ people

have less sufficiency than unhappy.

But some are relatively close; others very different. Let’s look further.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Looking at psychological

well-being, health, and time, we see that the

‘unhappy’ always have higher

insufficiency.

The groups are closest in sleep.

Psychological Health Time Use well-being

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Education Culture Governance

In education, culture, and

governance, the groups are least

different in of Value, Language, Driglam Namzha,

and Political participation.

Both have highest

deprivations in education.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Community Ecology Living Standard

In community, ecology, and

living standard, the strong

differences are in wildlife damage

and in living standard.

Happy people’s insufficiencies in community and

ecology are otherwise rather

close and in urbanization, almost equal.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Next we analyse the blue bars – the insufficiencies of unhappy people – and ask, how can we reduce them?

Education15%

Living standards14%

Time use14%

Good Gov-

ernance13%

Cultural diversity and resilience

11%

Psychological wellbeing

11%

Ecological di-versity and resi-

lience8%

Community vitality7%

Health6%

Percentage contribution to unhappiness

Education is the highest contributor to

unhappiness

Health is the lowest contributor to

unhappiness followed by community vitality

Education15%

Living standards

14%

Time use14%

Good Gov-

ernance13%

Cultural diversity and resili-

ence11%

Psycho-logical

wellbeing11%

Ecological diversity and resi-

lience8%

Community vitality

7%

Health6%

Domain contribution to un-happiness

Series10.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

0.2%4.2%

4.8%

6.2% KnowledgeSchoolingLiteracyValue

Contribution of Education indicators to unhappiness

Value Literacy Schooling Knowledge0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

2%

39%45%

58%

Percentage of people who are not-yet-happy and lack sufficiency

Assets Household per capita income

Housing0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

19%

35%39%

Chart Title

Series1-2.0%

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

2.8%

5.1%

5.7%

HousingHousehold per capita incomeAssets

Education15%

Living standards

14%

Time use14%

Good Gov-

ernance13%


ence11%

Psycho-logical

wellbeing11%


lience8%

Community vitality

7%

Health6%

Domain contribution to un-happiness Contribution of Living standard indicators

to unhappiness


Contribution of Time use indicators to unhappiness

Contribution of Good Governance indicators to unhappiness

Series10%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

4.8%

8.7%

WorkSleep

Series10.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

0.6%1.1%4.6%

7.2%

Services Political par-ticipation Fundamental rightsGovernment performance

Sleep Work0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

22%

40%


21%38% 43%

59%

Series10.0%2.0%4.0%6.0%8.0%

10.0%12.0%

0.3%2.1%

3.3%

5.6%

Cultural par-ticipationArtisan skills Driglam NamzhaSpeak native language

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

1.8%

2.1%

2.2%

4.9% SpiritualityLife satisfac-tionPositive emo-tionsNegative emo-tions

Cultural diversity and resilience indicators to unhappiness

Psychological wellbeing indicators to unhappiness

0%10%20%30%40%

3%

24% 25%

43%Percentage of people who are not-yet-happy and

lack sufficiency

Life satis-faction

Negative emotions

Positive emotions

Spirituality0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

15%

25%29%

34%

Community vitality indicators to

unhappinessEcological diversity and resilience

indicators to unhappiness


Series10.0%1.0%2.0%3.0%4.0%5.0%6.0%7.0%8.0%

0.4%

2.1%

4.5%

Donations (time & money)

Community re-lationship

Family

Safety

Series10.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

0.5%0.8%1.5%

5.5%

Wildlife damage (Ru-ral)Urbanization issues

Ecological issues

Responsibility towards envi-ronment

0%

10%

20%

30%

3% 6%

24%34%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

9% 11%

19%

32%

Series10.0%1.0%2.0%3.0%4.0%5.0%6.0%

0.9%

1.2%

1.6%

2.4% Healthy daysMental health DisabilitySelf reported health status

Contribution of Health indicators to unhappiness

Education15%

Living standards

14%

Time use14%

Good Gov-

ernance13%


ence11%

Psycho-logical

wellbeing11%


lience8%

Community vitality

7%

Health6%

Domain contribution to un-happiness


Disability Mental health Healthy days Self reported health status

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

9%12%

18% 20%

Spiri

tuality

Negat

ive e

mot

ions

Self

repo

rted

health

stat

us

Men

tal h

ealth

Slee

p

Know

ledg

e

Liter

acy

Cultu

ral p

artic

ipat

ion

Artisa

n sk

ills

Serv

ices

Fund

amen

tal r

ight

s

Donat

ions

(tim

e & m

oney

)

Fam

ily

Wild

life

dam

age

(Rur

al)

Respo

nsibilit

y to

wards

env

ironm

ent

Housin

g

Asset

s0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

Total percentage of people who lack sufficiency in the indicators – whether they are happy or not yet happy.


HealthTime use Educatio

n


Good Governance

Community vitality

Ecological diversity and resilience

Living standards

Spiri

tuality

Posit

ive e

mot

ions

Negat

ive e

mot

ions

Life

satis

fact

ion

Self

repo

rted

health

stat

us

Health

y da

ys

Men

tal h

ealth

Disability

Slee

pW

ork

Know

ledg

e

Scho

oling

Liter

acy

Value

Cultu

ral p

artic

ipat

ion

Driglam

Nam

zha

Artisa

n sk

ills

Spea

k na

tive

lang

uage

Serv

ices

Politica

l par

ticipat

ion

Fund

amen

tal r

ight

s

Gover

nmen

t per

form

ance

Donat

ions

(tim

e & m

oney

)

Comm

unity

relatio

nship

Fam

ily

Safe

ty

Wild

life

dam

age

(Rur

al)

Ecolog

ical is

sues

Respo

nsibilit

y to

wards

env

ironm

ent

Urban

izatio

n iss

ues

Housin

g

House

hold p

er cap

ita in

com

e

Asset

s0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

Total percentage of people who lack sufficiency


Health

Time use

Education


Good Governance

Community vitality


More than 50% of the Bhutanese are insufficient in 3 of the 4 indicators of Education.

46%54%

Literacy

Literate Illterate

Schooling

No formal education;

65.56Primary educa-tion (VI); 13.75

LS education (VIII); 5.36

MS education (X); 7.50

HS education (till degree 2nd yr); 4.21

Diploma/Certificate; 0.69 Bachelors Degree; 2.45Post Graduate; 0.48

Very poor37%

Poor29%

Average23%

Good10%

Very good2%

Knowledge and understanding in local tshechus and festivals

Very poor31%

Poor25%

Average22%

Good17%

Very good4%

Knowledge and understanding in traditional Bhutanese songs

Knowledge

Very poor37%

Poor29%

Average23%

Good10% Very good

2%

Knowledge of local legends and folk tales

Not at all5% Just heard of

it21%

Some un-derstanding

43%

Good un-derstanding

31%

Knowledge and understand-ing on transmission of

HIV/AIDS

Very poor33%

Poor29%

Average24%

Good12% Very good

2%

Knowledge of Constitution

Knowledge (contd.)

Spiri

tuality

Posit

ive e

mot

ions

Negat

ive e

mot

ions

Life

satis

fact

ion

Self

repo

rted

health

stat

us

Health

y da

ys

Men

tal h

ealth

Disability

Slee

pW

ork

Know

ledg

e

Scho

oling

Liter

acy

Value

Cultu

ral p

artic

ipat

ion

Driglam

Nam

zha

Artisa

n sk

ills

Spea

k na

tive

lang

uage

Serv

ices

Politica

l par

ticipat

ion

Fund

amen

tal r

ight

s

Gover

nmen

t per

form

ance

Donat

ions

(tim

e & m

oney

)

Comm

unity

relatio

nship

Fam

ily

Safe

ty

Wild

life

dam

age

(Rur

al)

Ecolog

ical is

sues

Respo

nsibilit

y to

wards

env

ironm

ent

Urban

izatio

n iss

ues

Housin

g

House

hold p

er cap

ita in

com

e

Asset

s0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

Total percentage of people who lack sufficiency


Health

Time use

Education


Good Governance

Community vitality


More than 40% of the Bhutanese are insufficient in 2 of the 4 indicators of Good Governance

Services

Others0%

River, pond, lake, streams, rainwater

2%Spring

2% Unprotected well0% Protect well

1%Public outdoor tap21%

Piped wa-ter outside

house49%

Piped-in dwelling

25%

Source of water Very poor2%

Poor5% Neither good

nor poor10%

Good45%

Very good38%

Quality of drinking water

Others1%

Dump on open air1%

Dump in forest1%

Dump in rivers/streams

1%Municipal garbage pick-up

15%

Burning55%

Composting27%

Waste disposal method

No28%

Yes72%

Do you have electricity in your household?

More than 60 mins walk to nearest

health care centre37%

60 mins or less than 60 mins walk to nearest

health care centre63%

Distance to nearest health care centre

Political participation

Yes93%

No5%

Don' know3%

Will you participate in the next general election?

Once or more63%

Never37%

In the past 12 months, how many times have you at-tended zomdues (meet-

ings)?

Fundamental rights

No8%

Yes91%

Don't know1%

Do you feel that you have right to freedom of speech

and opinion? No1%

Yes98%

Don't know1%

Do you feel you have the right to vote?

No 6%

Yes92%

Don't know2%

Do you feel you have the right to join political party of your

choice?

No12%

Yes83%

Don't know5%

Do you feel you have the right to form tshogpa?

No 15%

Yes81%

Don't know4%

Do you have right to equal access and apportunity to

join public service?

No13%

Yes85%

Don't know3%

Do you have right to equal pay for work of

equal value?

No12%

Yes86%

Don't know2%

Are you free from discrimination based on race, sex, raligion language etc.?



Percentage of not-yet-happy people by district

Higher percentage of not-yet-happy people

Lower percentage of not-yet-happy people

.

Samdrup JongkharTrongsa

Tashi YangsteLhuntse

TashigangPema Gatshel

MongarSamtse

BumthangWangdue Phodrang

ChukhaZhemgang

GasaThimphu

HaaPunakhaTsirangDaganaSarpang

Paro

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100%


Health

Time use

Education


Good Governance

Community vitality


Living standards

Domain contribution to unhappiness

.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%Paro Samdrup Jongkhar


Health

Time use

Education


Good Governance

Community vitality


Living standards

Percentage of Bhutanese who are not-yet-happy and lack sufficiency in indicators

.

Paro

Sarp

ang

Dagan

a

Tsira

ng

Puna

kha

Haa

Thim

phu

Gasa

Zhem

gang

Chukh

a

Wan

gdue

Pho

dran

g

Bum

than

g

Sam

tse

Mon

gar

Pem

a Gat

shel

Tash

igan

g

Lhun

tse

Tash

i Yan

gste

Tron

gsa

Sam

drup

Jong

khar

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

Percentage of not-yet-happy people

Where do the unhappy people live?

Thimphu and Chukha are home to the highest number of unhappy people….Note Chukha and Thimphu also house the highest number of happy people! They are big dzongkhags.

Thimphu; 52,910

Chukha; 42,431

Samtse; 36,574

Tashigang; 34,168

Samdrup Jongkhar; 30,450Mongar; 23,034

Sarpang; 20,231

Wangdue Phodrang;

18,646

Paro; 16,886

Tashi Yangste; 12,124

Zhemgang; 10,544

Lhuntse; 10,432

Tsirang; 9,760

Bumthang; 9,734

Trongsa; 9,567

Dagana; 9,431

Punakha; 9,278Pema Gatshel; 9,108Haa; 6,198Gasa; 1,681

Thimphu

Chukha

Samtse

Tashigang

Samdrup Jongkhar

Mongar

Sarpang

Wangdue Phodrang

Paro

Tashi Yangste

Zhemgang

Lhuntse

Tsirang

Bumthang

Trongsa

Dagana

Punakha

Pema Gatshel

Haa

Gasa

Average insufficiencies amongst the not-yet-happy

Higher insufficiencies Lower insufficiencies

Those living in Samdrup Jongkhar, Lhuentse, Tashi Yangste, and Trongsa experience insufficiency in the most

indicators at the same time.



.

Percentage of not-yet-happy

Average insufficiency0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70% 63%

44%

50%

42%

RuralUrban

More unhappy people in rural areas!

.

Percentage of unhappy people


10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%67%

43%

55%

41%

RuralUrban

In Rural areas, not-yet-happy people’s average ‘shortfall’ is about the same as urban shortfall.

This is good news.

It suggests less disparity in unhappiness by region.

.

Rural National Urban0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

6% 7% 11%6% 6%

5%8% 8% 8%

11% 11%14%

11% 11%12%

13% 13%

16%13%

14%

15%15% 14%

7%

16% 15% 12%

Education

Living standards

Time use

Good Governance




Health

Community vitality

Contribution of the domains to Unhappiness at the na-tional level, for urban areas and for rural areas

.


10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

6% 7% 11%6% 6%

5%8% 8% 8%

11% 11%14%

11% 11%12%

13% 13%

16%13%

14%

15%15% 14%

7%

16% 15% 12%

Education

Living standards

Time use

Good Governance




Health

Community vitality


Urban Areas have highest insufficiency in Governance, Time use, and Culture.

.


10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

6% 7% 11%6% 6%

5%8% 8% 8%

11% 11%14%

11% 11%12%

13% 13%

16%13%

14%

15%15% 14%

7%

16% 15% 12%

Education

Living standards

Time use

Good Governance




Health

Community vitality


Rural Areas have highest insufficiency in Education and Living Standards.

.

Value

Literacy

Schooling

Knowledge

Services

Fundamental rights


Government performance

Percentage of Bhutanese who are not yet happy and lack sufficiency in Education and Good Governance in-

dicators

RuralUrbanNational

.

Safety

Family

Community relationship

Donations (time & money)

Speak native language

Driglam Namzha

Artisan skills

Cultural participation

0%

50%

Percentage of Bhutanese who are not-yet-happy and lack sufficiency in Cultural diversity and resilience and

Community vitality indicators

RuralUrbanNational

.

Assets

Household per capita incomeHousing

0%

50%

Percentage of Bhutanese who are not-yet-happy and lack sufficiency in Living standards indicators

NationalRuralUrban



.

FemaleNational

Male

0.66

0.68

0.7

0.72

0.74

0.76

0.78

0.8

0.704

0.737

0.783

GNH Index by gender

.

Male Female0.660

0.680

0.700

0.720

0.740

0.760

0.780

0.800

Upper boundary

Significant tests for GNH indices for gender

Percentage of not-yet-happy people


10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

51%

42%

67%

44%

MaleFemale

67% of women are unhappy. About 51% of men are unhappy.

Percentage of unhappy people


10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

51%

42%

67%

44%

MaleFemale

Not-yet-happy people’s average ‘shortfall’ (lack of sufficiency) is the almost same for men and women.

Contribution of the domains to unhappiness by gender

The contribution to unhappiness in men and women by the respective domains is similar

Male

Female

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

5%

6%

7%

8%

9%

8%

10%

11%

12%

11%

13%

13%

14%

13%

14%

13%

15%

16%

Health

Community vitality



Cultural diversity and resi-lience

Good Governance

Time use

Living standards

Education

Disability

Mental health

Healthy days

Self reported health status

Spirituality

Positive emotions

Negative emotions

Life satisfaction

0%

20%

40%

Percentage of Bhutanese who are not-yet-happy and lack sufficiency in Health and Psychological wellbeing

indicators

MaleFemaleNational



.

GNH is highest among those aged 21-25

<=20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 56-60 61-65 >650.6

0.62

0.64

0.66

0.68

0.7

0.72

0.74

0.76

0.78

0.8

GNH Index by age group

<=20

21-25

26-30

31-35

36-40

41-45

46-50

51-55

56-60

61-65

>65

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%

13%

12%

12%

11%

11%

10%

11%

10%

10%

9%

4%

4%

4%

5%

6%

5%

6%

8%

8%

9%

11%

14%

14%

15%

14%

16%

14%

14%

14%

11%

11%

12%

14%

15%

16%

16%

17%

17%

17%

18%

14%

13%

13%

11%

11%

11%

10%

10%

10%

10%

11%

10%

9%

8%

7%

6%

6%

6%

6%

7%

13%

11%

12%

13%

14%

14%

15%

14%

15%

15%Psychological wellbeing

Health

Time use

Education


Good Governance

Community vitality


Living standards

.

Young people are better educated, healthier, and have relatively good living standards. Older people do better in culture, governance, community, and psychological well-being.

Domain contribution to unhappiness by age group

<=20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 56-60 61-65 >650%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

41%

36% 37% 37%35%

34%

30%29% 28% 27% 27%

SpiritualityPositive emotionsNegative emotions

Percentage of the not-yet-happy in Psychological wellbeing in-dicators

<=20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 56-60 61-65 >650%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

Self reported health statusHealthy daysDisabilityMental health

Percentage of the not-yet-happy in Health indicators

Percentage of unhappy increases with age

<=20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 56-60 61-65 >650%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%Donationa (time & money)Community relationshipFamilySafety

Percentage of the not-yet-happy in Community vitality indicators

The not-yet happy still have very high and stable achievements in family and safety – except the very young. Community decreases with age.

<=20 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 56-60 61-65 >650%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%WorkSleep

Percentage of the not-yet-happy in Community vitality indicators



Never married Married Divorced Separated Widowed0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

50%

58%64%

73%

81%

Percentage of not-yet-happyGNH IndexAverage insufficiency amongst the not-yet-happy

Note: results are illustrative only

Contribution of domains to unhappiness by marital status

Never married

Married

Divorced

Separated

Widowed

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

12%

11%

11%

10%

10%

5%

6%

7%

9%

9%

12%

14%

13%

11%

11%

11%

16%

16%

16%

18%

15%

11%

9%

11%

9%

15%

13%

14%

13%

13%

9%

7%

8%

8%

6%

9%

8%

8%

9%

8%

11%

14%

14%

14%


Health

Time use

Education


Good Governance

Community vitality


Living standards

Contribution of domains to unhappiness by marital status

Never married

Married

Divorced

Separated

Widowed

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

12%

11%

11%

10%

10%

5%

6%

7%

9%

9%

12%

14%

13%

11%

11%

11%

16%

16%

16%

18%

15%

11%

9%

11%

9%

15%

13%

14%

13%

13%

9%

7%

8%

8%

6%

9%

8%

8%

9%

8%

11%

14%

14%

14%


Health

Time use

Education


Good Governance

Community vitality


Living standards

The contrast between married, divorced, separated, and widowed is not very big.

Widowed and Divorced enjoy a little less culture.

Never married to show a different profile of deprivations



Note: The survey is not representative by occupational group, and some of the occupational categories are very small. So these results must be understood to be ‘illustrative’ but not definitive.

Further research would be required to verify their accuracy.

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

27% 29%37%

41% 42%49% 50% 51% 53% 56% 58%

69%

88%

Percentage of not-yet-happy peopleGNH IndexAverage insufficiency amongst the not-yet-happy people

.

National Work Force

Farmer

House wife

Others

RBG/RBA/RBP

Corporate employee

Gomchen

Unemployed

Trader/Shopkeeper/Businessman

School Student/VIT Trainees/University students

GYT/DYT member

Monk/Anim

Civil servants

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

10%

11%

12%

11%

10%

10%

6%

15%

12%

13%

10%

6%

12%

4%

6%

6%

4%

3%

5%

8%

4%

5%

5%

7%

14%

4%

16%

13%

13%

14%

20%

17%

11%

11%

19%

11%

16%

5%

14%

16%

17%

15%

15%

12%

10%

13%

10%

13%

7%

16%

16%

8%

11%

10%

11%

14%

15%

15%

7%

15%

14%

17%

11%

15%

18%

18%

12%

16%

15%

16%

17%

16%

19%

14%

17%

10%

16%

18%

9%

6%

12%

9%

10%

11%

8%

12%

11%

12%

6%

11%

12%

12%

16%

8%

12%

9%

9%

20%

8%

5%

9%

13%

17%

5% Psychological wellbeing

Health

Time use

Education

Cultural diversity and resili-enceGood Gov-ernanceCommunity vitality


Living standards

Contribution of domains to unhappiness by occupational status

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%

Positive emo-tionsNegative emo-tions

Percentage of the not-yet-happy in some of the Psychological wellbeing indicators- monk/anim have lowest insufficiencies.



• Life satisfaction• Positive emotions• Negative emotions• Self reported health • Number of healthy days• Disability • Mental health• Work • Sleep• Responsibility towards

environment• Speak native language• Assets• Housing• Family• Household per capita

income

Individual/Household effort

• Donations• Safety• Community relationship• Cultural participation• Wildlife damage• Driglam Namzha

Community effort

• Political participation• Services• Government

performance• Fundamental rights• Literacy• Schooling• Knowledge• Value• Zorig Chusum skills• Urban issues• Ecological issues

Government effort

Who can increase GNH?



income



Community effort



Government effort

Individuals are linked out



income



Community effort



Government effort

Communties affect others



income



Community effort



Government effort

And so does government

Government/Corporation/

Private

Community/ Civil society/

Religious

Individual/Household

Meaningful work, services, products

Meaningful relationships, collective

action, models

Sharing, relationships, authentic self-direction, shaping own happiness

GNH is created when different groups work to do what they do

best.

GNH Index highlights- Education

Education is the highest contributor to unhappiness as per GNH Index

Bhutanese have more than 50% insufficiency in 3 of the 4 indicators

The highest insufficiency being in the knowledge indicator. Bhutanese experience low levels of knowledge in cultural & historical aspects of the country & in health and politics.

Proportion having insufficiency in Education indicators

Education

Schooling (45%)

Literacy (52%)

Knowledge (93%)

Value (3%)

• Knowledge comprises of 4-sub indicators which are observed to be relatively low in the country irrespective of any demographic characters

•Knowledge of local legends and folk stories•Knowledge of local tshechus• Knowledge of traditional Bhutanese songs• Knowledge of Constitution•Knowledge of HIV/AIDS

Weights: Schooling and literacy higher weights

Education is the highest contributor to unhappiness

Proportion having insufficiency in Education indicators

Education

Schooling (45%)

Literacy (52%)

Knowledge (93%)

Value (3%)

• • Literacy and schooling are conventional indicators for which policies are already in lined for its advancement

Weights: Schooling and literacy higher weights•Knowledge of local legends and folk

stories•Knowledge of local tshechus• Knowledge of traditional Bhutanese songs• Knowledge of Constitution•Knowledge of HIV/AIDS

Proportion having insufficiency in Living standard indicators

Living standards

Household per capita income (47%)

Housing (54%)

Assets (26%)

•

•Roofing•Toilet•Overcrowding

Gasa1%

Haa2%

Trongsa2%

Bumthang2%

Zhemgang3%

Tsirang3%

Paro3%Sarpang

4%Lhuntse

4%Punakha

4%

Dagana4%Tashi

Yangste5%

Pema Gatshel

5%Wangdue Phodrang

5%Thimphu

6%

Samdrup Jongkhar

7%

Chukha7%

Mongar10%

Samtse11%

Tashigang12%

Percentage of people who lack sufficiency in housing

Weights: all equal

•

Proportion having insufficiency in Good Governance indicators

Good Governance

Government performance (21%)

Services (59%)

Fundamental rights (38%)


(43%)

Gasa1%

Tsirang2%

Dagana3%

Tashi Yangste

3%Tashigang

4%Pema

Gatshel4%

Wangdue Phodrang

4%

Sarpang4%

Mongar4%

Punakha4%

Bumthang4%

Trongsa5%Zhemgang

5%Lhuntse

5%

Samtse5%

Haa6%

Paro6%

Samdrup Jongkhar

6%

Chukha10%

Thimphu13%

Percentage of people who lack sufficiency in political partici-

pation

Weights: Higher on services & participation

•


Good Governance


Services (59%)



(43%)

Gasa2%

Sarpang3%

Thimphu3%

Haa3% Tashi

Yangste5%

Paro5%Bumthang

5%

Punakha5%

Chukha5%

Tashigang5%

Mongar5%

Trongsa5%

Zhemgang6%

Wangdue Phodrang

6%

Dagana6%

Tsirang6%

Lhuntse6%

Samtse6%

Samdrup Jongkhar

7%

Pema Gatshel7%

Percentage of people who lack sufficiency in services


•


Good Governance


Services (59%)



(43%)

Sarpang1% Gasa

2%

Tsirang2%

Haa4% Punakha

4%

Zhemgang

4%Samtse

5%Chukha

5%Dagana

5%Paro5%

Wangdue Phodrang

5%Trongsa

5%Mongar5%

Tashi Yangste5%

Thimphu6%

Tashigang

6%

Bumthang

7%

Lhuntse8%

Pema Gatshel

8%

Samdrup Jongkhar9%

Percentage of people who lack sufficiency in fundamental

rights


•

Proportion having insufficiency in Cultural diversity and resilience indicators

Cultural diversity and

resilience

Speak native language (5%)

Artisan skills (38%)

Driglam Namzha (40%)

Cultural participation

(67%)

Gasa2%

Tashigang3%

Tashi Yangste

4% Sarpang4%

Pema Gatshel

4%Trongsa

4%Paro5%

Mongar5%

Lhuntse5%

Tsirang5%

Punakha5%

Zhemgang5%

Samdrup Jongkhar5%

Haa5%

Bumthang5%

Wangdue Phodrang

6%

Dagana6%

Thimphu6%

Samtse7%

Chukha7%

Percentage of people who lack sufficiency in cultural partici-

pation

•

Rural74%

Urban26%

Percentage of people who lack sufficiency in cultural participation

Weights: Higher on language and participation

•

Proportion having insufficiency in Community vitality indicators

Community vitality

Donations (time & money) (54%)

Safety (4%)

Community relationship (37%)

Family (7%)

Gasa2%

Tashigang4% Dagana

4% Tsirang4%

Sarpang4%

Pema Gatshel

5%

Tashi Yangste

5%Bumthang

5%Wangdue Phodrang

5%

Zhemgang5%Haa

5%Lhuntse

5%Trongsa

5%

Punakha5%

Mongar5%

Paro6%

Samtse6%

Samdrup Jongkhar

6%

Chukha8%

Thimphu8%

Percentage of people who lack sufficiency in donations (time &

money)

Weights: Higher on donations and safety

•


Community vitality


Safety (4%)


Family (7%)

Gasa1%

Tsirang3%

Sarpang3%

Mongar4%

Lhuntse4%Tashigang

4%

Tashi Yangste

4%Dagana5%

Zhemgang

5%

Pema Gatshel

5%Wangdue Phodrang

5%

Punakha5%

Haa5%

Samtse5%

Trongsa5%

Paro6%

Bumthang6%

Samdrup Jongkhar

7%

Chukha8%

Thimphu10%

Percentage of people who lack sufficiency in community rela-

tionship


•


Community vitality


Safety (4%)


Family (7%)


Gasa2%

Tashigang4% Dagana

4%Tsirang

4%Sarpang

4%Pema

Gatshel5%Tashi

Yangste5%

Bumthang5%

Wangdue Phodrang

5%

Zhemgang5%

Haa5%Lhuntse

5%Trongsa

5%

Punakha5%

Mongar5%

Paro6%

Samtse6%

Samdrup Jongkhar

6%

Chukha8%

Thimphu8%

Percentage of people who lack suf-ficiency in donations (time &

money)

Some Next Steps: Send GNH analyses of Dzongkhags and domains

to Dzongkhag Administrations and Ministries Review Dzongkhag policies to see if adjustments

are useful to increase GNH. Review sectorial policies to see if adjustments

are useful to increase GNH. Probe cross-cutting questions, such as: Why are

farmers and housewives least happy? How can they be supported?

Undertake holistic studies of key problem areas, drawing on existing analyses and new insights.

Promote national citizen dialogue on ‘what is GNH’; share definitions, domains, and examples.



Value

Spea

k na

tive

lang

uage

Disabi

lity

Urban

izatio

n iss

ues

Life

sat

isfac

tion

Health

y da

ys

Self

repo

rted

heal

th sta

tus

Slee

p

Comm

unity

rela

tions

hip

Artisa

n sk

ills

Posit

ive

emot

ions

Polit

ical p

artic

ipat

ion

Spiri

tual

ity

Housin

gW

ork

Scho

olin

g

Know

ledg

e0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

Percentage of people enjoying sufficiency

How do we sustain what we already have?

Sustaining GNH: key priorities The GNH is constructed of 33 indicators

covering the 9 elements of the GNH. Think of these as nine offering bowls. To be

fully happy, six or more bowls should be full for every person.

In future years, the indicators may shift slightly to improve the accuracy of the GNH Index in certain domains, but the nine bowls will be the same.

What does this mean for me?

As a person, think of each of the nine domains in your life. Which bowls are full? Which are empty? How can you fill the empty bowls more?

Think of your family, your friends: how can you help them to fill their offering bowls?

Think of your responsibilities at work or at home or at school: how can you help fill all nine offering bowls for other people?

What does this mean for policy?

All government projects and policies are to work together to maximize the GNH Index in Bhutan. For example, a school advances ‘education’. But it can also help children fill other bowls. It can teach values and so fill the ‘community’ bowl, and teach skills so improve the income component of the ‘living standards’ bowl in the future. For example, a hospital advances ‘health’. But it can also help patients to learn to meditate, and so help fill people with ‘culture’ and enhance psychological well-being; it can have green trees and so fill ‘ecology’. A road will fill ‘living standards’. But maybe the community should also talk about how they will respond to the influences that the road will bring wisely, so that they can keep their bowls of ‘community vitality’ and ‘culture’ full. Business managers may consider how they can not only advance ‘living standards’ but also how they can offer their employees’ family life, psychological well-being, care for ecology, and embody good governance.

Sustaining GNH: key priorities Intentionally support existing GNH

achievements that are valued from erosion due to cultural change.

Incorporate GNH index questions into more regular surveys, to ensure timely detection of erosion.

Prepare materials for different ages, region, and occupational groups of Bhutanese on how to increase GNH for oneself, with examples

The 2010 Gross National Happiness Index : Part III

The Centre for Bhutan Studies2011

Travel

Bhutan 2010 GNH_Index_3