Post on 22-Dec-2014
description
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
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%
% insufficiency amongst the unhappy % insufficiency amongst the happy
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%
% insufficiency amongst the unhappy % insufficiency amongst the happy
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%
% insufficiency amongst the unhappy % insufficiency amongst the happy
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%
% insufficiency amongst the unhappy % insufficiency amongst the happy
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%
% insufficiency amongst the unhappy % insufficiency amongst the happy
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%
Cultural diversity and resili-
ence11%
Psycho-logical
wellbeing11%
Ecological diversity and resi-
lience8%
Community vitality
7%
Health6%
Domain contribution to un-happiness Contribution of Living standard indicators
to unhappiness
Percentage of people who are not-yet-happy and lack sufficiency
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%
Percentage of people who are not-yet-happy and lack sufficiency
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
Percentage of people who are not-yet-happy and lack sufficiency
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%
Cultural diversity and resili-
ence11%
Psycho-logical
wellbeing11%
Ecological diversity and resi-
lience8%
Community vitality
7%
Health6%
Domain contribution to un-happiness
Percentage of people who are not-yet-happy and lack sufficiency
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.
Psychological wellbeing
HealthTime use Educatio
n
Cultural diversity and resilience
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
Psychological wellbeing
Health
Time use
Education
Cultural diversity and resilience
Good Governance
Community vitality
Ecological diversity and resilience
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
Psychological wellbeing
Health
Time use
Education
Cultural diversity and resilience
Good Governance
Community vitality
Ecological diversity and resilience
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.?
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
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%
Psychological wellbeing
Health
Time use
Education
Cultural diversity and resilience
Good Governance
Community vitality
Ecological diversity and resilience
Living standards
Domain contribution to unhappiness
.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%Paro Samdrup Jongkhar
Psychological wellbeing
Health
Time use
Education
Cultural diversity and resilience
Good Governance
Community vitality
Ecological diversity and resilience
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.
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
.
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
Average insufficiency0%
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
Psychological wellbeing
Cultural diversity and resilience
Ecological diversity and resilience
Health
Community vitality
Contribution of the domains to Unhappiness at the na-tional level, for urban areas and for rural areas
.
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
Psychological wellbeing
Cultural diversity and resilience
Ecological diversity and resilience
Health
Community vitality
Contribution of the domains to Unhappiness at the na-tional level, for urban areas and for rural areas
Urban Areas have highest insufficiency in Governance, Time use, and Culture.
.
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
Psychological wellbeing
Cultural diversity and resilience
Ecological diversity and resilience
Health
Community vitality
Contribution of the domains to Unhappiness at the na-tional level, for urban areas and for rural areas
Rural Areas have highest insufficiency in Education and Living Standards.
.
Value
Literacy
Schooling
Knowledge
Services
Fundamental rights
Political participation
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
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
.
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
Average insufficiency0%
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
Average insufficiency0%
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
Ecological diversity and resilience
Psychological wellbeing
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
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 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
Cultural diversity and resi-lience
Good Governance
Community vitality
Ecological diversity and resilience
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
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
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%
15%Psychological wellbeing
Health
Time use
Education
Cultural diversity and resi-lience
Good Governance
Community vitality
Ecological diversity and resilience
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%
15%Psychological wellbeing
Health
Time use
Education
Cultural diversity and resi-lience
Good Governance
Community vitality
Ecological diversity and resilience
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
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
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
Ecological diversity and resilience
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.
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
• 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?
• 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
Individuals are linked out
• 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
Communties affect others
• 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
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%)
Political participation
(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
•
Proportion having insufficiency in Good Governance indicators
Good Governance
Government performance (21%)
Services (59%)
Fundamental rights (38%)
Political participation
(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
Weights: Higher on services & participation
•
Proportion having insufficiency in Good Governance indicators
Good Governance
Government performance (21%)
Services (59%)
Fundamental rights (38%)
Political participation
(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
Weights: Higher on services & participation
•
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
•
Proportion having insufficiency in Community vitality indicators
Community vitality
Donations (time & money) (54%)
Safety (4%)
Community relationship (37%)
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
Weights: Higher on donations and safety
•
Proportion having insufficiency in Community vitality indicators
Community vitality
Donations (time & money) (54%)
Safety (4%)
Community relationship (37%)
Family (7%)
Weights: Higher on donations and safety
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.
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
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