Transcript The 2010 Gross National Happiness Index : Part III The Centre for Bhutan Studies.

The 2010 Gross National
Happiness Index : Part III
The Centre for Bhutan Studies
2011
Part III:
Increasing Happiness
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
GNH Index and Policy: concern for Unhappiness
Insufficiencies by Dzongkhag
Insufficiencies by region
Insufficiencies by gender
Insufficiencies by age group
Insufficiencies by marital status
Insufficiencies by occupational group
Policy recommendations
Sustaining GNH
Part III:
Increasing Happiness
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
GNH Index and Policy: concern for Unhappiness
Insufficiencies by Dzongkhag
Insufficiencies by region
Insufficiencies by gender
Insufficiencies by age group
Insufficiencies by marital status
Insufficiencies by occupational group
Policy recommendations
Sustaining GNH
The 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 GNH
To 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: .743 using
the happiness threshold of 66%
GNH Index by income group (Household per capita income)
0.95
0.9
0.85
0.8
0.75
0.7
0.65
0.6
0.55
0.5
GNH Index increases with
income per capita
• Bhutan still has a significant
share of people not able to
meet basic physical needs
• some relationship is organic,
because income is an indicator
measured in the GNH Index
and is also correlated with
assets, housing, and
education.
National
headcount ratio:
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’.
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.
National Breadth
(Lack of
sufficiency):
Of the Bhutanese who are
unhappy, on average they have
insufficiency in 43% of the
domains (roughly equal to 4
domains)
Proportion of people deprived/unhappy
3,76,975
59%
60%
1,66,124
50%
40%
1,46,956
26%
30%
23%
20%
Indicator:
Consumption
per capita
10%
Indicator: Health,
Education and
Living Standards
Indicator:
Psychological
wellbeing,
Health, Time
use, Culture,
Ecology,
Community
vitality, Good
Governance and
Living
standards
0%
National Poverty line
2007
Multidimensional
Poverty Index 2010
Gross National
Happiness Index 2010
.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Life satisfaction
Positive emotions
Negative emotions
Spirituality
Self reported health…
Healthy days
Disability
Mental health
Work
Sleep
Schooling
Literacy
Value
Knowledge
Artisan skills
Speak native language
Cultural participation
Driglam Namzha
Government…
Fundamental rights
Services
Political participation
Donations (time &…
Community…
Family
Safety
Ecological issues
Responsibility…
Wildlife damage (Rural)
Urbanization issues
Assets
Household per capita…
Housing
% 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.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Life satisfaction
Positive emotions
Negative emotions
Spirituality
Self reported health…
Healthy days
Disability
Mental health
Work
Sleep
Schooling
Literacy
Value
Knowledge
Artisan skills
Speak native language
Cultural participation
Driglam Namzha
Government…
Fundamental rights
Services
Political participation
Donations (time &…
Community…
Family
Safety
Ecological issues
Responsibility…
Wildlife damage (Rural)
Urbanization issues
Assets
Household per capita…
Housing
% 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.
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Driglam Namzha
Cultural participation
Speak native language
Artisan skills
Knowledge
Value
Literacy
Schooling
Sleep
Work
Psychological Health
well-being
Mental health
Disability
Healthy days
Self reported health status
Spirituality
70%
Negative emotions
80%
Positive emotions
Looking at
psychological
well-being,
health, and time,
we see that the
‘unhappy’ always
have higher
insufficiency.
The groups are
closest in sleep.
Family
Community relationship
Donations (time & money)
Political participation
Services
Fundamental rights
Government performance
90%
Life satisfaction
% insufficiency amongst the unhappy
% insufficiency amongst
100%
Time Use
Assets
Urbanization issues
Wildlife damage (Rural)
Responsibility towards…
Ecological issues
Safety
Family
Community relationship
Donations (time & money)
Political participation
Services
Fundamental rights
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.
Housing
Household per capita income
Culture
Government performance
Driglam Namzha
Cultural participation
Education
Speak native language
Artisan skills
Knowledge
Value
Literacy
Schooling
e unhappy
% insufficiency amongst the happy
Governance
Housing
Household per capita income
Assets
Living
Standard
Urbanization issues
Wildlife damage (Rural)
Responsibility towards…
Ecology
Ecological issues
Safety
Family
Community relationship
Donations (time & money)
Political participation
Services
Fundamental rights
Community
Government performance
Driglam Namzha
% insufficiency amongst the happy
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.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Life satisfaction
Positive emotions
Negative emotions
Spirituality
Self reported health…
Healthy days
Disability
Mental health
Work
Sleep
Schooling
Literacy
Value
Knowledge
Artisan skills
Speak native language
Cultural participation
Driglam Namzha
Government…
Fundamental rights
Services
Political participation
Donations (time &…
Community…
Family
Safety
Ecological issues
Responsibility…
Wildlife damage (Rural)
Urbanization issues
Assets
Household per capita…
Housing
% 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?
Health is the lowest Percentage contribution to unhappiness
contributor to
Health
unhappiness followed
6%
Education
Community
by community vitality
16%
vitality
7%
Education is the
highest contributor to
unhappiness
Ecological
diversity and
resilience
8%
Living standards
14%
Psychological
wellbeing
11%
Time use
14%
Cultural diversity
and resilience
11%
Good
Governance
13%
Domain contribution to unhappiness
Communi
ty vitality
7%
Health
6%
Education
16%
Ecological
diversity
and
resilience
8%
Living
standards
14%
Psycholog
ical
Cultural
wellbeing
diversity
11%
and
resilience
11%
Time use
14%
Good
Governan
ce
13%
Contribution of Education indicators to
unhappiness
15.0%
6.2%
10.0%
4.8%
5.0%
4.2%
0.2%
Knowledge
Schooling
Literacy
Value
0.0%
Percentage of people who are not-yet-happy and lack sufficiency
58%
60%
39%
45%
40%
20%
2%
0%
Value
Literacy
Schooling
Knowledge
Domain contribution to unhappiness
Communi
ty vitality
7%
Health
6%
Contribution of Living standard indicators to
unhappiness
Education
16%
Ecological
diversity
and
resilience
8%
14.0%
Living
standards
14%
Psycholog
ical
Cultural
wellbeing
diversity
11%
and
resilience
11%
5.7%
9.0%
Time use
14%
Good
Governan
ce
13%
5.1%
4.0%
2.8%
-1.0%
Percentage of people who are not-yet-happy and lack sufficiency
35%
40%
30%
39%
19%
20%
10%
0%
Assets
Household per
capita income
Housing
Housing
Household per
capita income
Assets
Contribution of Time use indicators
to unhappiness
Contribution of Good Governance
indicators to unhappiness
Services
15.0%
00%
80%
8.7%
Work
60%
40%
20%
0%
Sleep
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
4.8%
Political
participation
7.2%
Fundamental
rights
4.6%
1.1%
0.6%
Government
performance
Percentage of people who are not-yet-happy and lack sufficiency
59%
50%
40%
40%
30%
22%
20%
10%
0%
Sleep
Work
38%
21%
43%
Cultural diversity and resilience indicators to
unhappiness
Cultural
participation
15.0%
Artisan skills
10.0%
5.6%
5.0%
3.3%
2.1%
0.3%
0.0%
Driglam
Namzha
Speak native
language
Psychological wellbeing indicators to unhappiness
Spirituality
10.0%
4.9%
Life satisfaction
6.0%
2.2%
4.0%
2.1%
Positive
emotions
2.0%
1.8%
8.0%
Negative
emotions
0.0%
Percentage of people who are not-yet-happy and lack sufficiency
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
43%
24%
3%
25%
35%
25%
30%
29%
34%
25%
20%
15%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Life
satisfaction
Negative
emotions
Positive
emotions
Spirituality
Community vitality indicators to
unhappiness
4.5%
4.0%
0.0%
Ecological
issues
1.5%
0.8%
0.5%
2.0%
0.4%
Urbanization
issues
5.5%
4.0%
Safety
2.1%
2.0%
Wildlife
damage (Rural)
Donations (time
& money)
10.0%
Community
8.0%
relationship
Family
6.0%
8.0%
6.0%
Ecological diversity and resilience
indicators to unhappiness
0.0%
Responsibility
towards
environment
Percentage of people who are not-yet-happy and lack sufficiency
34%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
24%
3%
6%
32%
35%
30%
19%
25%
20%
15%
9%
11%
10%
5%
0%
Urbanization Responsibility
issues
towards
environment
Ecological
issues
Wildlife
damage
(Rural)
Domain contribution to unhappiness
Communi
ty vitality
7%
Health
6%
Contribution of Health indicators to
unhappiness
Education
16%
Healthy days
Ecological
diversity
and
resilience
8%
Living
standards
14%
Psycholog
ical
Cultural
wellbeing
diversity
11%
and
resilience
11%
Time use
14%
Good
Governan
ce
13%
6.0%
4.0%
2.4%
Mental health
1.6%
Disability
1.2%
0.9%
2.0%
Self reported
health status
0.0%
Percentage of people who are not-yet-happy and lack sufficiency
18%
20%
15%
10%
9%
20%
12%
5%
0%
Disability
Mental health
Healthy days
Self reported
health status
Health
Time
use
Education
Fundamental rights
Political participation
Services
Good
Governance
Community
vitality
Ecological
diversity
and
resilience
Living
standards
Assets
Household per capita income
Housing
Urbanization issues
Responsibility towards environment
Ecological issues
Wildlife damage (Rural)
Safety
Family
Community relationship
Donations (time & money)
Government performance
Cultural
diversity
and
resilience
Speak native language
Artisan skills
Driglam Namzha
Cultural participation
Value
Literacy
Schooling
Knowledge
Work
Sleep
Disability
Mental health
Healthy days
Self reported health status
Psychological
wellbeing
Life satisfaction
Negative emotions
Positive emotions
Spirituality
Total percentage of people who lack sufficiency in the indicators –
whether they are happy or not yet happy.
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
Total percentage of people who lack sufficiency
More than 50% of the
Bhutanese are insufficient in
3 of the 4 indicators of
Education.
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
Psychological
wellbeing
Health
Time
use
Education
Cultural
diversity
and
resilience
Good
Governance
Community
vitality
Ecolog
diversi
and
resilien
Literacy
Literate
Schooling
Illterate
MS
education
(X), 7.50
46%
54%
Diploma/Cer Bachelors
tificate, 0.69 Degree, 2.45 Post
Graduate,
HS education
0.48
(till degree
2nd yr), 4.21
LS education
(VIII), 5.36
Primary
education
(VI), 13.75
No formal
education,
65.56
Knowledge
Knowledge of local legends and folk tales
Good
10%
Very good
2%
Knowledge and understanding in local
tshechus and festivals
Good
10%
Very poor
37%
Average
23%
Very good
2%
Very poor
37%
Average
23%
Poor
28%
Poor
28%
Knowledge and understanding in
traditional Bhutanese songs
Very good
4%
Good
17%
Very poor
32%
Average
22%
Poor
25%
Knowledge (contd.)
Knowledge and understanding on
transmission of HIV/AIDS
Knowledge of Constitution
Very good
2%
Good
12%
Not at all
5%
Good
understan
ding
31%
Very poor
33%
Just heard
of it
21%
Average
24%
Some
understan
ding
43%
Poor
29%
Total percentage of people who lack sufficiency
More than 40% of the
Bhutanese are insufficient in
2 of the 4 indicators of Good
Governance
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
Psychological
wellbeing
Health
Time
use
Education
Cultural
diversity
and
resilience
Good
Governance
Community
vitality
Ecolog
diversi
and
resilien
Services
River, pond,
lake,
streams,
rainwater Others
0%
2%
Source of water
Piped-in
dwelling
25%
Piped water
outside
house
49%
Spring
2%
Unprotected
well
0% well
Protect
Very
poor
2%
Quality of drinking water
Neither
good nor
poor
10%
1%
Public
outdoor tap
21%
Very good
38%
Good
45%
Dump on
Waste
open air
1% Others
disposal method
1%
Composting
26%
Municipal
garbage
pick-up
15%
Burning
55%
Poor
5%
Dump in
forest
1%
Dump in
rivers/strea
ms
1%
Do you have electricity in your
Electricit
household?
y
0%
No
28%
Yes
72%
Distance to nearest health care
centre
60 mins or
less than 60
mins walk
to nearest
health care
centre
63%
More than
60 mins
walk to
nearest
health care
centre
37%
Political participation
Will you participate in the next
general election?
No
4%
Don'
know
3%
In the past 12 months, how many
times have you attended zomdues
(meetings)?
Never
37%
Yes
93%
Once or
more
63%
Fundamental rights
Do you feel that you have right to
freedom of speech and opinion? No
Don't
know
1%
8%
Yes
91%
Do you feel you have the right to join
political party of your choice?
Don't know No
6%
2%
Yes
92%
Do you feel you have the right to
Don't vote?
No
1%
know
1%
Yes
98%
Do you feel you have the right to
form tshogpa?
Don't
know
5%
Yes
83%
No
12%
Do you have right to equal access
and apportunity to join public
service?
Don't
know
4%
Do you have right to equal pay
for work of equal value?
Don't
know
3%
No
15%
No
12%
Yes
85%
Yes
81%
Are you free from discrimination based on race,
sex, raligion language etc.?
Don't know
2%
Yes
86%
No
12%
Part III:
Increasing Happiness
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
GNH Index and Policy: concern for Unhappiness
Insufficiencies by Dzongkhag
Insufficiencies by region
Insufficiencies by gender
Insufficiencies by age group
Insufficiencies by marital status
Insufficiencies by occupational group
Policy recommendations
Sustaining GNH
Percentage of not-yet-happy people by district
Higher percentage of not-yet-happy people
Lower percentage of not-yet-happy people
Domain contribution to unhappiness
Paro
Sarpang
Dagana
Tsirang
Punakha
Haa
Thimphu
Gasa
Zhemgang
Chukha
Wangdue Phodrang
Bumthang
Samtse
Mongar
Pema Gatshel
Tashigang
Lhuntse
Tashi Yangste
Trongsa
Samdrup Jongkhar
Psychological wellbeing
Health
Time use
Education
Cultural diversity and
resilience
Good Governance
Community vitality
Ecological diversity and
resilience
Living standards
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
.
0%
Psychological
wellbeing
Life satisfaction
Spirituality
Negative emotions
Positive emotions
Disability
Mental health
Self reported health status
Healthy days
Sleep
Work
Value
Literacy
Schooling
Knowledge
Speak native language
Driglam Namzha
Artisan skills
Cultural participation
Government performance
Fundamental rights
Political participation
Services
Safety
Family
Community relationship
Donations (time & money)
Ecological issues
Responsibility towards…
Urbanization issues
Wildlife damage (Rural)
Household per capita income
Assets
Housing
Percentage of Bhutanese who are not-yet-happy and lack sufficiency in indicators
Paro
Health
Time
use
Education
Samdrup Jongkhar
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
Cultural
diversity
and
resilience
Good
Governance
Community
vitality
Ecological
diversity
and
resilience
Living
standards
.
Percentage of not-yet-happy people
0.9
Population in hundred thousands
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
.
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.
Punakha, 9,278
Thimphu
Pema Gatshel,
9,108 Haa, 6,198
Dagana, 9,431
Chukha
Samtse
Gasa, 1,681
Tashigang
Samdrup Jongkhar
Trongsa, 9,567
Bumthang, 9,734
Tsirang, 9,760
Mongar
Sarpang
Thimphu, 52,910
Lhuntse, 10,432
Wangdue Phodrang
Paro
Zhemgang,
10,544
Tashi Yangste,
12,124
Tashi Yangste
Chukha, 42,431
Zhemgang
Lhuntse
Paro, 16,886
Samtse, 36,574
Tsirang
Bumthang
Trongsa
Wangdue
Phodrang, 18,646
Dagana
Punakha
Sarpang, 20,231
Mongar, 23,034
Samdrup
Jongkhar,
30,450
Pema Gatshel
Tashigang, 34,168
Haa
Gasa
Average insufficiencies amongst the not-yet-happy
Those living in Samdrup Jongkhar, Lhuentse, Tashi Yangste, and
Trongsa experience insufficiency in the most indicators at the same
time.
Higher insufficiencies
Lower insufficiencies
Part III:
Increasing Happiness
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
GNH Index and Policy: concern for Unhappiness
Insufficiencies by Dzongkhag
Insufficiencies by region
Insufficiencies by gender
Insufficiencies by age group
Insufficiencies by marital status
Insufficiencies by occupational group
Policy recommendations
Sustaining GNH
70%
60%
63%
50%
44%
50%
42%
More unhappy people in rural
areas!
40%
Rural
Urban
30%
20%
10%
0%
Percentage of not-yet-happy
Average insufficiency
.
70%
67%
In Rural areas, notyet-happy people’s
55%
60%
average ‘shortfall’
50%is about the same
as urban shortfall.
43%
41%
40%
Rural
This is good news.
Urban
30%
20%It
suggests less
disparity in
10%unhappiness by
region.
0%
Percentage of unhappy
people
Average insufficiency
.
Contribution of the domains to Unhappiness at the national level, for
urban areas and for rural areas
100%
90%
80%
16%
15%
7%
15%
14%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
12%
13%
13%
15%
Education
Living standards
Time use
14%
16%
13%
12%
11%
11%
11%
11%
8%
8%
6%
6%
6%
7%
11%
Rural
National
Urban
14%
8%
5%
Good Governance
Psychological
wellbeing
Cultural diversity and
resilience
Ecological diversity
and resilience
Health
Community vitality
.
Contribution of the domains to Unhappiness at the national level, for
urban areas and for rural areas
100%
90%
80%
16%
15%
7%
15%
14%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
12%
13%
13%
11%
15%
Living standards
Time use
14%
16%
13%
12%
11%
Urban Areas have
11%
highest
insufficiency in11%
Governance, Time use, 8%
8%
and Culture.
Education
14%
8%
5%
6%
6%
6%
7%
11%
Rural
National
Urban
Good Governance
Psychological
wellbeing
Cultural diversity and
resilience
Ecological diversity
and resilience
Health
Community vitality
.
Contribution of the domains to Unhappiness at the national level, for
urban areas and for rural areas
100%
90%
80%
16%
15%
7%
15%
14%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
12%
13%
13%
15%
16%
13%
12%
11%
11%
11%
8%
8%
6%
6%
6%
Rural
National
7%
Living standards
Time use
14%
11%
Education
Rural Areas14%
have
highest
8%
insufficiency in
5%
Education and
11%
Living Standards.
Urban
Good Governance
Psychological
wellbeing
Cultural diversity and
resilience
Ecological diversity
and resilience
Health
Community vitality
.
Percentage of Bhutanese who are not yet happy and lack sufficiency
in Education and Good Governance indicators
Value
Government
performance
Literacy
Political
participation
Schooling
Rural
Urban
National
Fundamental
rights
Knowledge
Services
.
Percentage of Bhutanese who are not-yet-happy and lack sufficiency
in Cultural diversity and resilience and Community vitality
indicators
Safety
50%
Cultural
participation
40%
Family
30%
20%
10%
Artisan skills
0%
Community
relationship
Rural
Urban
National
Donations (time &
money)
Driglam Namzha
Speak native
language
.
Percentage of Bhutanese who are not-yet-happy and lack sufficiency
in Living standards indicators
Assets
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
National
Rural
0%
Urban
Housing
Household
per capita
income
.
Part III:
Increasing Happiness
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
GNH Index and Policy: concern for Unhappiness
Insufficiencies by Dzongkhag
Insufficiencies by region
Insufficiencies by gender
Insufficiencies by age group
Insufficiencies by marital status
Insufficiencies by occupational group
Policy recommendations
Sustaining GNH
GNH Index by gender
0.8
0.783
0.78
0.76
0.737
0.74
0.72
0.704
0.7
0.68
0.66
Female
National
Male
.
0.800
Significant tests for GNH indices for gender
0.780
0.760
0.740
0.720
0.700
0.680
Lower
boundary
0.660
Male
Female
GNH index
Upper
boundary
.
67%
70%
60%
51%
50%
40%
30%
67% of women
are unhappy.
44%
42%
About 51% of
men are
unhappy.
20%
10%
0%
Percentage of not-yet-happy
people
Average insufficiency
Male
Female
70%
67%
Not-yet-happy
51%
60%
people’s average
50%
‘shortfall’ (lack
40%
of sufficiency) is
the almost same
30%
for men and
20%
women.
10%
42%
44%
Male
Female
0%
Percentage of unhappy
people
Average insufficiency
Contribution of the domains to unhappiness by gender
Health
Community vitality
6% 8% 8% 11% 11% 13%
Female
13%
13%
16%
Ecological diversity and
resilience
Psychological wellbeing
Cultural diversity and
resilience
Good Governance
5% 7% 9% 10% 12% 13%
Male
14%
14%
15%
Time use
Living standards
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Education
The contribution to unhappiness in men and women by the
respective domains is similar
Percentage of Bhutanese who are not-yet-happy and lack sufficiency
in Health and Psychological wellbeing indicators
Disability
40%
Life satisfaction
30%
Mental health
20%
10%
Negative
emotions
0%
Male
Healthy days
National
Self reported
health status
Positive emotions
Spirituality
Female
Part III:
Increasing Happiness
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
GNH Index and Policy: concern for Unhappiness
Insufficiencies by Dzongkhag
Insufficiencies by region
Insufficiencies by gender
Insufficiencies by age group
Insufficiencies by marital status
Insufficiencies by occupational group
Policy recommendations
Sustaining GNH
GNH Index by age group
0.8
0.78
0.76
0.74
0.72
0.7
0.68
0.66
GNH is highest
among those
aged 21-25
0.64
0.62
0.6
<=20
21-25
26-30
31-35
36-40
41-45
46-50
51-55
56-60
61-65
>65
.
Domain contribution to unhappiness by age group
61-65
9% 9% 11%
56-60
10% 8%
14%
17%
51-55
10% 8%
14%
17%
46-50
11% 6% 14%
17%
10%
41-45
10% 5% 16%
16%
11%
6%
14%
36-40
11% 6% 14%
16%
11%
7%
14%
31-35
11% 5% 15%
15%
11%
8%
13%
26-30
12% 4% 14%
14%
13%
9%
12%
21-25
12% 4% 14%
12%
13%
10%
11%
<=20
13% 4% 11% 11%
0%
20%
18%
10%
15%
10%
6%
15%
Health
10%
6%
14%
Time use
14%
40%
Psychological wellbeing
7%
6%
11%
60%
80%
15%
Education
Cultural diversity and
resilience
Good Governance
Community vitality
13%
100%
120%
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.
.
Percentage of the not-yet-happy in Psychological wellbeing indicators
45%
40%
41%
Spirituality
36%
37%
37%
35%
35%
Positive emotions
Negative emotions
34%
30%
30%
29%
28%
27%
27%
56-60
61-65
>65
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
<=20
21-25
26-30
31-35
36-40
41-45
46-50
51-55
Percentage of the not-yet-happy in Health indicators
45%
40%
Self reported health status
Healthy days
35%
Disability
30%
Mental health
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
<=20
21-25
26-30
31-35
36-40
41-45
46-50
51-55
56-60
61-65
>65
Percentage of the not-yet-happy in Community vitality indicators
80%
Donationa (time & money)
70%
Community relationship
60%
Safety
Family
50%
40%
30%
20%
The not-yet happy still have very
high and stable achievements in
family and safety – except the
very young. Community
decreases with age.
10%
0%
<=20
21-25
26-30
31-35
36-40
41-45
46-50
51-55
56-60
61-65
>65
Percentage of the not-yet-happy in Community vitality indicators
70%
Work
Sleep
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
<=20
21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 51-55 56-60 61-65
>65
Part III:
Increasing Happiness
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
GNH Index and Policy: concern for Unhappiness
Insufficiencies by Dzongkhag
Insufficiencies by region
Insufficiencies by gender
Insufficiencies by age group
Insufficiencies by marital status
Insufficiencies by occupational group
Policy recommendations
Sustaining GNH
Percentage of not-yet-happy
Note: results are illustrative only
GNH Index
Average insufficiency amongst the not-yet-happy
90%
81%
80%
73%
70%
64%
58%
60%
50%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Never married
Married
Divorced
Separated
Widowed
Contribution of domains to unhappiness by marital status
Widowed
10% 9% 11%
18%
9% 13% 6% 8%
15%
Psychological wellbeing
Health
Separated
10% 9% 11%
16%
11% 13% 8% 9% 14%
Time use
Education
Divorced
11% 7% 13%
16%
9%
14% 8% 8% 14%
Cultural diversity and
resilience
Married
11% 6% 14%
16%
11% 13% 7% 8% 14%
Good Governance
Community vitality
Never married
12% 5% 12% 11%
0%
20%
15%
40%
15%
60%
9% 9% 11%
80%
100%
Ecological diversity and
resilience
Living standards
Contribution of domains to unhappiness by marital status
Widowed
Separated
10% 9% 11%
10% 9% 11%
18%
9% 13% 6% 8%
16%
15%
11% 13% 8% 9% 14%
Psychological wellbeing
The
contrast between
Health
married, divorced,
separated, and widowed
Time use
is not very big.
Education
Divorced
Married
Never married
11% 7% 13%
11% 6% 14%
16%
16%
12% 5% 12% 11%
0%
20%
9%
14% 8% 8% 14%
11% 13% 7% 8% 14%
15%
40%
15%
60%
9% 9% 11%
80%
100%
Widowed and Divorced
Cultural
diversity
enjoy
a little
lessand
resilience
culture.
Good Governance
Never married to show
aCommunity
different profile
vitality of
deprivations
Ecological diversity and
resilience
Living standards
Part III:
Increasing Happiness
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
GNH Index and Policy: concern for Unhappiness
Insufficiencies by Dzongkhag
Insufficiencies by region
Insufficiencies by gender
Insufficiencies by age group
Insufficiencies by marital status
Insufficiencies by occupational group
Policy recommendations
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.
Percentage of not-yet-happy people
GNH Index
Average insufficiency amongst the not-yet-happy people
1
88%
0.9
0.8
69%
0.7
0.6
49%
0.5
37%
0.4
0.3
27%
41%
50%
51%
53%
56%
58%
42%
29%
0.2
0.1
0
.
Contribution of domains to unhappiness by occupational status
Civil servants
12%
Monk/Anim
6%
GYT/DYT member
4%
14%
10%
School…
Trader/Shopkeepe… 12%
Gomchen
6% 8%
Corporate employee
RBG/RBA/RBP
Others
17%
10% 3%
20%
11% 4%
14%
12%
Farmer
11%
National Work Force
11%
10% 5%
House wife
6%
6%
10% 4%
0%
7%
13%
13%
16%
20%
11%
13%
10%
14%
15%
7%
10%
12%
15%
11%
17%
10%
40%
11%
11%
15%
18%
60%
10%
9%
16%
12%
8%
20%
16%
14%
5%
12%
17%
15%
Time use
9%
11%
8%
15%
Health
13%
12%
14%
16%
5%
17%
6%
19%
15%
16%
11%
17%
13%
10%
12%
16%
17%
19%
4% 11%
18%
15%
16%
11%
5%
18%
16%
16%
5%
15%
8%
5%
7%
13%
Unemployed
14%
12%
6%
9%
9%
12%
8%
16%
9%
80%
Psychological
wellbeing
12%
100%
Education
Cultural
diversity and
resilience
Good
Governance
Community
vitality
Ecological
diversity and
resilience
Living
standards
Percentage of the not-yet-happy in some of the Psychological wellbeing indicators
- monk/anim have lowest insufficiencies.
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Positive emotions
Negative emotions
Spirituality
Part III:
Increasing Happiness
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
GNH Index and Policy: concern for Unhappiness
Insufficiencies by Dzongkhag
Insufficiencies by region
Insufficiencies by gender
Insufficiencies by age group
Insufficiencies by marital status
Insufficiencies by occupational group
Policy recommendations
Sustaining GNH
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/House
hold effort
Community effort
• Donations
•Safety
•Community relationship
•Cultural participation
•Wildlife damage
•Driglam Namzha
• 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/House
hold effort
Community effort
• Donations
•Safety
•Community relationship
•Cultural participation
•Wildlife damage
•Driglam Namzha
• 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/House
hold effort
Community effort
• Donations
•Safety
•Community relationship
•Cultural participation
•Wildlife damage
•Driglam Namzha
• Political participation
• Services
• Government
performance
• Fundamental rights
• Literacy
•Schooling
•Knowledge
•Value
•Zorig Chusum skills
•Urban issues
•Ecological issues
Government effort
And so does government
•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/House
hold effort
Community effort
• Donations
•Safety
•Community relationship
•Cultural participation
•Wildlife damage
•Driglam Namzha
• Political participation
• Services
• Government
performance
• Fundamental rights
• Literacy
•Schooling
•Knowledge
•Value
•Zorig Chusum skills
•Urban issues
•Ecological issues
Government effort
GNH is created when different groups
work to do what they do best.
Government/
Meaningful work,
services, products
Corporation/
Private
Community/
Civil society/
Religious
Individual/
Household
Meaningful
relationships, collective
action, models
Sharing, relationships,
authentic self-direction,
shaping own happiness
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
• Knowledge comprises of
4-sub indicators which are
observed to be relatively
low in the country
irrespective of any
demographic characters
Schooling (45%)
Value
(3%)
Education
Knowledge
(93%)
Literacy
(52%)
Weights:
Schooling and
literacy higher
•Knowledge of local legends and folkweights
stories
•Knowledge of local tshechus
• Knowledge of traditional Bhutanese songs
• Knowledge of Constitution
•Knowledge of HIV/AIDS
Education is the highest contributor to unhappiness
Proportion having insufficiency in Education indicators
• Literacy and schooling are
•conventional indicators for
which policies are already in
lined for its advancement
Schooling (45%)
Value
(3%)
Education
Knowledge
(93%)
Literacy
(52%)
Weights:
Schooling and
literacy higher
•Knowledge of local legends and folkweights
stories
•Knowledge of local tshechus
• Knowledge of traditional Bhutanese songs
• Knowledge of Constitution
•Knowledge of HIV/AIDS
Proportion having insufficiency in
Living standard indicators
Percentage of people who lack
sufficiency in housing
Gasa
1%
Household per
capita income (47%)
Haa Trongsa
2%
2%
Tashigang
12%
Housing
(54%)
Punakha
4%
Mongar
10%
•Roofing
•Toilet
•Overcrowding
Samdrup
Jongkhar
7%
3%
Lhuntse
4%
•
Dagana
4%
Chukha
7%
Assets
(26%)
Zhemgang Tsirang
3% Paro 3%
Sarpang
4%
Samtse
11%
Living
standards
Bumthang
2%
Thimphu
6%
Tashi Yangste
5%
Pema Gatshel
5%
Wangdue
Phodrang
5%
Weights:
all equal
Proportion having insufficiency in Good Governance indicators
Gasa
1%
Percentage of people who lack
sufficiency in political participation
TsirangDagana
Tashi Tashigang
2%
3% Yangste 4%
3%
Thimphu
13%
•
Chukha
10%
Samdrup
Jongkhar
6%
Paro
6%
Samtse
5%
Haa
6%
Lhuntse
5%
Pema
Gatshel
4%
Wangdue
Phodrang
4%
Sarpang
4%
Political
Mongar
participation
4%
(43%)
Punakha
4%
Bumthang
4%
Trongsa
5% Zhemgang
5%
Weights:
Higher on services
& participation
Government
performance
(21%)
Good
Governance
Fundamental
rights (38%)
Services
(59%)
Proportion having insufficiency in Good Governance indicators
Percentage of people who lack
sufficiency in services
Government
performance
(21%)
Samdrup
Jongkhar
7%
Samtse
6%
Political
participation
(43%)
•
Good
Governance
Services
(59%)
Gasa Sarpang
Thimphu Haa
2%
3%
3%
3%
Pema
Tashi
Gatshel
Yangste
7%
5%
Paro
5%
Lhuntse
6%
Tsirang
6%
Dagana
6%
Fundamental
rights (38%)
Wangdue
Phodrang Zhemgang
6%
6%
Weights:
Higher on services
& participation
Bumthang
5%
Punakha
5%
Chukha
5%
Tashigang
5%
Mongar
Trongsa 5%
5%
Proportion having insufficiency in Good Governance indicators
Government
performance
(21%)
Political
participation
(43%)
Good
Governance
Percentage of people who lack
sufficiency in fundamental rights
Sarpang Tsirang Haa
1%Gasa 2% 4%
Punakha
2%
4%
Samdrup
Jongkhar
Zhemgang
Pema
9%
4%
Gatshel
8%
Samtse
Services
(59%)
•
Lhuntse
8%
Bumthang
7%
Fundamental
rights (38%)
Chukha
5%
Dagana
5%
Paro
5%
Tashigang
6%
Weights:
Higher on services
& participation
5%
Thimphu
6% Tashi
Yangste
5%
Wangdue
Phodrang
Trongsa
5%
Mongar 5%
5%
Percentage of people who lack
sufficiency in cultural
participation
Proportion having insufficiency in
Cultural diversity and resilience indicators
Percentage of people who lack
sufficiency in cultural participation
Thimphu
6%
Dagana
6%
•
Gasa
Sarpang
2% Tashigang Tashi
3%
Yangste
4%
4%
Pema
Chukha
Gatshel
7%
Samtse
4%
7%
Trongsa
4%
Wangdue
Phodrang
6%
Haa
Bumthang
5%
5%
Samdrup
Zhemgang Jongkhar
5%
5%
•
Urban
26%
Rural
74%
Speak native
language
(5%)
Paro
5%
Mongar
5%
Lhuntse
5%
Tsirang
Punakha 5%
Cultural
participation
(67%)
5%
Weights: Higher on
language and participation
Cultural
diversity
and
resilience
Driglam
Namzha
(40%)
Artisan
skills
(38%)
Proportion having insufficiency in
Community vitality indicators
Percentage of people who lack
sufficiency in donations (time & money)
Gasa Tashigang
Dagana
4%
2%
4%
Donations
(time &
money) (54%)
Thimphu
8%
Chukha
8%
Samdrup
Jongkhar
6%
Sarpang
4%
Pema
Gatshel
5%
Tashi
Yangste
5%
•
Samtse
6%
Family (7%)
Community
vitality
Paro
6%
Safety
(4%)
Bumthang
5%
Mongar
5%
Community
relationship
(37%)
Punakha
5%
Weights: Higher on
donations and safety
Tsirang
4%
Haa
5%
Trongsa
5%
Lhuntse
5%
Wangdue
Phodrang
Zhemgang 5%
5%
Proportion having insufficiency in
Community vitality indicators
Percentage of people who lack
sufficiency in community relationship
GasaTsirang Sarpang
1% 3%
3% Mongar Lhuntse
4%
4%
Thimphu
Tashigang
10%
4%
Donations
(time &
money) (54%)
Samdrup
Jongkhar
7%
Family
(7%)
Community
vitality
Safety
(4%)
Tashi
Yangste
4%
Chukha
8%
•
Dagana
5%
Bumthang
6%
Community
relationship
(37%)
Paro
6%
Trongsa
5%
Weights: Higher on
donations and safety
Zhemgang
5%
Haa
5%
Samtse
5%
Pema
Gatshel
5%
Punakha
5%
Wangdue
Phodrang
5%
Proportion having insufficiency in
Community vitality indicators
Percentage of people who lack sufficiency
in donations (time & money)
Gasa Tashigang
Dagana
2%
4%
4%
Donations
(time &
money) (54%)
Thimphu
8%
Chukha
8%
Samdrup
Jongkhar
6%
Family
(7%)
Community
vitality
Safety
(4%)
Community
relationship
(37%)
Weights: Higher on
donations and safety
•
Sarpang
4%
Pema
Gatshel
5%
Tashi
Yangste
5%
Samtse
6%
Paro
6%
Mongar
5%
Punakha
5% Trongsa
5%
Tsirang
4%
Bumthang
5%
Haa
5%
Lhuntse
5%
Wangdue
Phodrang
5%
Zhemgang
5%
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 Happiness
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
GNH Index and Policy: concern for Unhappiness
Insufficiencies by Dzongkhag
Insufficiencies by region
Insufficiencies by gender
Insufficiencies by age group
Insufficiencies by marital status
Insufficiencies by occupational group
Policy recommendations
Sustaining GNH
100%
Value
Safety
Speak native language
Family
Disability
Mental health
Urbanization issues
Responsibility towards environment
Life satisfaction
Government performance
Healthy days
Assets
Self reported health status
Ecological issues
Sleep
Negative emotions
Community relationship
Fundamental rights
Artisan skills
Driglam Namzha
Positive emotions
Wildlife damage (Rural)
Political participation
Household per capita income
Spirituality
Literacy
Housing
Donations (time & money)
Work
Services
Schooling
Cultural participation
Knowledge
Percentage of people enjoying sufficiency
120%
How do we sustain what we already have?
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
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 Studies
2011