Going beyond Bhutan’s happiness index

Paradigm shifts are not easy to accept. As a student of economics, it was even harder to understand why we were constantly being lied to and fed distorted ideas which have nothing to do with reality. Maybe that is why even after the absolute failure of popular economic ideas like “human development via economic growth” and the “trickle-down effect”, many economists failed to accept counter-arguments which are more realistic and depict human nature better.

Prosperity or development is the core problem of economics. Alternate routes are discussed to solve this problem. Today, we live in a commercialised world where the maximisation of material wealth is supposed to be the apex of development. Humans have succeeded in raising their living standards by many folds. Today an average person is living a way more comfortable life than the kings and queens of the past. The type of material facilities available in today’s world to all, like electricity, internet, ACs, transport, healthcare and education, are far more advanced than before. If material wealth and the improvement in the standard of living were the ways to real human satisfaction, then two phenomena should have been observed — first, an average person today should have been happier and more content as compared to the royals of the past; and second, the rich should have always been happier and content as compared to the poor. Evidence actually contradicts both these accounts.

This failure of increase in material wealth and comfort to produce human satisfaction and contentment can be explained step wise. First, when someone gets an upward boast in his or her standard of living it brings a surge of happiness. With the passage of time, this change becomes normality. Thus that sudden happiness no more exists. According to the set point theory every time we get accustomed to a new level of satisfaction, a drop in this level makes us unhappy, whereas remaining on the same new set point makes us indifferent after some time.

Secondly even when we are on the same set point and someone else achieves a set point higher than ours, we become sad. This is because of the concept of comparative utility. We see ourselves in comparison to others around us. If a person earns Rs50,000 and lives in a locality where others earn less than him, he feels rich. But if he earns the same amount and lives in a locality with others earning more than him, he feels poor and discontented. This means that if one in a community reaches a higher set point, others will increase in discontent. This rat race of winning in materialism creates a persistent dissatisfaction in society, because one constantly compares oneself to others and very strenuous efforts and sacrifices are needed to reach higher set points.

In the 1970s, Richard Easterlin found that the wealthier nations of the world were actually struggling with higher suicide rates, depression, alcoholism, and crime and a drop in life-satisfaction indicators. The only way to get out of this vicious cycle of competitive materialism is to admit that “money does not buy happiness”, therefore it should be rejected as the yardstick of measuring success. More so, countries like Bhutan even shifted from the Gross National Product (GNP) per capita to the Gross Happiness Index (GHI). However, this is also a mistake because happiness is not something that can be achieved by striving for it. True happiness for humans exists in family and friends. Maintaining good relationships comes with compassion and consideration for each other. Contentment is only going to be achieved through sharing and humane principles instead of fostering competition.

Published in The Express Tribune, December 4^th, 2019.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.