The aggregate living standard is a function of the level and distribution of living standards across the whole population, measured in some way. A very high living standard of a small part of the population can make a big contribution to an aggregate measure, but can be misleading. In a country as poor as Bhutan, standard of living has to focus on basic human survival needs. These are adequate food, shelter and health for everyone. To this I would add education. and access to knowledge and art to enhance the quality of life.
Taking the statistics on money incomes from various parts of the country does not reflect standard of living. For example, it doesn’t reflect other sources of non-cash goods and services, nor does it reflect variation of needs among people, particularly health needs. As examples: good climate obviates the need for expensive shelter arrangements; good genes and good habits might reduce the pressure on health services; the availability of clean water, clean air, park and recreation facilities; the contribution of old people to the upbringing of children, and help from children with the care of old, sick people – all these would not be measured in cash income. In poorer economies the tradition of three generations living together in one house must have its drawbacks (!), but it is a very economic and mutually supportive way of life, sllowing mothers to work and offering an education of a sort to children.
My own reaction to the nine criteria for Gross Human Happiness is that it is a noble effort, very much in the Epicurian tradition. But it is fiendishly difficult to organize and measure. Also, I have a visceral dislike of verbiage that assumes a long word to be more persuasive than a short one. This might seem petty, but as soon as someone uses the word “utilize” for the old Anglo-Saxon version – use – I immediately smell a rat. The write-up used by the (Western) consultants to the king of Bhutan remind me of wool being pulled over eyes.
Notwithstanding the above, it is a very interesting experiment, and stumbles towards what really needs to be measured.
The authors of the Bhutan study must surely owe a debt to a book published in the mid-1970s: “The Joyless Economy: The Psychology of Human Satisfaction,” by Tibor Scitovsky. The study as so well-presented in your recent posts seems to track Scitovsky’s main ideas of almost 40 years ago. Scitovsky studied at Cambridge before going to Stanford.
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibor_Scitovsky
2. http://www.amazon.com/The-Joyless-Economy-Psychology-Satisfaction/dp/0195073479
3. (A few reviews.) http://www.amazon.com/product-reviews/0195073479/ref=acr_dpx_hist_5?ie=UTF8&filterBy=addFiveStar&showViewpoints=0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibor_Scitovsky
http://www.amazon.com/The-Joyless-Economy-Psychology-Satisfaction/dp/0195073479
http://www.amazon.com/product-reviews/0195073479/ref=acr_dpx_hist_5?ie=UTF8&filterBy=addFiveStar&showViewpoints=0
From Anthony Loukes:
Epicurus would probably point out that one person’s happiness is another person’s misery. For instance, I have no doubt that the ultra-orthodox in Israel are really happy that Palestinian women and children in Gaza are being indiscriminately killed in the current over-reaction. Palestinians are less happy. Extreme fundamentalist christians are delighted to find a new way of stopping working women using birth control in the United States; the rest of us are certainly not.
Did Epicurus really see happiness as a zero sum game. The Bhutanese certainly seem to be trying to improve the happiness of the whole population. According to their website, the first prime minister said: ” We have now distinguished the ‘happiness’ in GNH from the fleeting, pleasurable ‘feel good’ moods so often associated with that term..we know that true abiding happiness cannot exist while others suffer…”. So the Israelis and fundamentalists are not truly happy but only getting a fleeting mood of feeling good. Unfortunately they are addicted to it and, like all addictions, they just need a bigger and bigger dose to get the same effect. In Buddhist terms they are grasping and ignorant and can only escape suffering and get on the path to enlightenment by being aware of the state they are in and developing wisdom and compassion, virtues not generally held by these people, nor by the leaders of Hamas.