BANTAY
GOBYERNO
Ike
Señeres
The Kingdom of Bhutan
has taken the lead of using “Gross National Happiness” (GNH) as a measure of
success in governance, seemingly in place of, or parallel to using “Gross
National Product” (GNP) and perhaps even the “Gross Domestic Product” (GDP).
Strictly speaking, and as far as the Bhutanese government is concerned, GNH is
only a philosophy that guides them; meaning to say that it is not really an
objective economic measure.
As it is used
by Bhutan, the GNH includes an index which is used to measure the collective
happiness and well being of a population. Despite the fact that GNH to them is
not really an objective economic measure, they turned it into a goal that is
instituted into their Constitution.
By
definition, the GDP only includes domestic production. Once foreign production
by a country’s citizens and corporations are included, the more applicable
measure is GNP. However, in the context that it is used by Bhutan, they
seemingly do not differentiate much between the GDP and the GNP. Nonetheless,
it is very clear that when GNH was first mentioned by a former King of Bhutan
in 1972, he said that GNH is more important than GNP. In theory, a country’s
GDP could be greater than its GNP, but what usually happens is that its GNP is
greater than its GDP. In the context of the GNH however, the GDP appears to be
more relevant, because it measures the happiness and well-being of a domestic
population, as it was first implemented in Bhutan.
As I
see it, it is possible for both GDP and GNH to co-exist in parallel to each
other, the former being an objective economic measure and the latter being a
social measure, more in the context of being a social philosophy. However, in
better times, GNH could become an ideology that will be advocated by a
political party, later on adopting it as public policy once it gains political
power. In the meantime however, many countries and local governments have
adopted the philosophy by using a technical measure now known as the “GNH
Index”. Even without capturing political power however, many advocates of GNH
have already succeeded in valuing collective happiness as the goal of
governance, “by emphasizing harmony with nature and traditional values” (quoted
from Wikipedia).
In its
present form, the GNH Index is guided by its 4 pillars and its 9 “domains of
happiness”. The 4 pillars are (1) sustainable and equitable socio-economic
development, (2) environmental conservation, (3) preservation and promotion of
culture and (4) good governance. The 9 domains are (1) psychological wellbeing,
(2) health, (3) time use, (4) education, (5) cultural diversity and resilience,
(6) good governance, (7) community vitality, (8) ecological diversity and
resilience, and (9) living standards. It is interesting to note here that good
governance is mentioned twice, both as a pillar and as a domain. It is also
interesting to note that resiliency is mentioned twice, both in the case of
cultural diversity and in the case of ecological diversity. Actually, culture
and environment are also mentioned twice both as a domain and as a pillar.
What is
even more interesting is that “time use” is mentioned as a domain, seemingly
sticking out as novel concept among all the other usual subjects. As I
understand it, this idea would mean being able to make good use of one’s time,
for whatever purpose one would want to, including time for family, time for
recreation and time for education, among others.
At the
outset, I would say that the two major stumbling blocks to this in the case of
the Philippines are the lack of fast transports and the lack of traffic
solutions, two problems that are profoundly related to each other. From another
perspective, this could also be related to the time needed in earning a living
to buy food for the day, or perhaps the time needed to get some water for one’s
daily needs. The irony here is that the poor people are the ones who may have
lesser time for themselves.
In the
past, there have been some debates about the need to focus on more concrete
goals, instead of the seemingly abstract GNH goals. Over the years however, GNH
seems to have won in the debates, and there are now more adherents than ever.
Perhaps the reason for that is there are actually many ways of measuring GNH
outcomes in concrete terms. As a matter of fact, I believe that the Human
Development Index (HDI) and the Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) could be
directly correlated with the GNH Index. As it has already happened, the GNH
Index is now directly correlated to a Gross National Wellness (GNW) framework
that recently emerged. The GNW framework measures 7 dimensions namely (1)
economic, (2) environmental, (3) physical, (4) mental, (5) work, (6) social,
and (7) political.
No comments:
Post a Comment