UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES

SCHOOL OF URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING

Concepts of Gross National Happiness and Happy Planet Index as Good Measures of

Quality of Life in Comparison with the Concepts of Human Development Index (HDI)

of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)

Submitted to:

Dr. Cresencio Montalbo

Professor

Submitted by:

Vinson P. Serrano

Plan 214 Planning Tools and Techniques

April 2012

Gross National Happiness and Happy Planet Index: An Overview1

The Gross National Happiness and the New Economics Foundation’s Happy Planet

Index aims to provide a significant measuring tool to give a substantial correlation on how

people achieve their needs without compromising the existing resources in terms of

sustainable development. As the Happy Planet Index 2.0 provides data indicating the three

main determinant factors, it aims to provide its rating through the following indicators: (1)

Life Expectancy, (2) Life Satisfaction, and (3) Ecological Footprint. Is it through the

accuracy of these indicators that rankings will be generated and envisions on giving a good

vantage point of observation for the world to see similar to the concepts of UNDP’s Human

Development Index.

Based on the data provided by the HPI 2.0, the indicators aim to generalize the

efficiency of the economic growth of every nation in relation to the achievement of their

goals as a country with respect to the amount of their ecological footprint. This index is

illustrating to us the proportion on how much amount of resources does each country spend to

provide for its citizens in return of providing them their human needs. Such indicator states

that highest ranking countries which are countries that are mostly composed of small islands

such as the Dominican Republic, Cuba, Jamaica, and the Philippines. On such note, these

countries indicate good measurement of indicators. But on the other hand, the HPI 2.0 does

not guarantee that upon getting a high rank on the index means highly economic prosperity in

terms of economic growth. Nor does it express the true value and meaning of ‘happiness’ in

terms of human enjoyment of its resources.

Looking at the United Nations Development Programme: Human Development Index2

Similarly, the United Nations Development Programme devised a similar index

method- the Human Development Index, which is more than just looking on the economic

development of a country on a national scale within the three dimensions namely: (1) Long

and Healthy Life (2) Education and Knowledge, and (3) Decent Standards of Living. Such

index aims to provide us a rank list on human development in comparison to other nations. A

few selected indicators as shown on the statistics of Life Expectancy, Adult Literacy Rate,

Gross Enrolment Ratio and its percentage on its aggregates on Primary, Secondary, and

Tertiary Level, and the Gross Domestic Product. These indicators become the primary basis

in arriving with the index factor of every nation in terms of their level of human

development. The human development here is viewed on a national scale- determining the

development without consideration of other nations to give us a global development

perspective.

1 S. Abdallah et.al. The Happy Planet Index 2.0 Why good lives don’t have to cost the Earth E-Report. The

New Economics Foundation. 2009. 03/28/2012.

2 Human Development Report 2010 The Real Wealth of Nations:

Pathways to Human Development. United Nations Development Programme. 2010. 03/28/2012.

UNDP’s Human Development Index vis-à-vis Happy Planet Index

Both viewed as scientifically-sound methods of observation to derive on a

quantitative analysis of every country in terms of their progress in human development, the

UNDP’s Human Development Index is not far in relation to the NEF’s Happy Planet Index.

However, UNDP’s HDI was derived to give a concrete relationship of some of its social

indicators to the totality of the human development, but neglecting the environmental

sustainability and the country’s ecological footprint as opposed to the indicator measurement

of the NEF’s HPI. As UNDP’s HDI geared towards the emphasis of human development,

HPI clearly delineate their index as an indicator of human development in relation to the rate

of resource consumption as a primary consideration of the totality of human and the planetary

well-being. The HPI goals are lined towards the formation of a successful society that both

can support good lives without impeding progress that will cost more than enough resources

that the Earth can provide.

As stated earlier, HPI neither guarantee a secured quality of life in a traditional sense

nor does it guarantee the most habitable places in terms of ecologically-sound environment. It

only pertains to a quantitative analysis of every component in relation to other countries with

varying types of development and resources. As opposed to the HDI, this index is generated

to give a quantitative data on the development of a particular country- a data that can be used

to measure the state of the country in terms of human development.

The HDI defines an indicative ratio that is solely focusing on the social aspects of

development, though indicative also in nature like the HPI, but rather does not guarantee the

sustainability of the development in view.

Nevertheless, both systems provide us a good quality of data that shows the

proportionality of the human resources in relation to the environment. As the globe turns its

trend towards environmental awareness, the shift of giving primary importance not only to

the human development is already moving towards giving the same consideration on the

development of the planet at large.

UNDP’s HDI and NEF’s HPI: Good Measures of Quality of Life?

UNDP’s HDI and NEF’s HPI seemed ideologically devised for us to have a grasp of

the level of development that each country has achieved. So far, these indicators directly tells

us the importance of accuracy and validity of gathered data for us to verify on the grassroots

level if these indices are truly to be considered as good measures of quality of life. By

principle, the term ‘quality’ in itself is subjective in nature thus making it hard to be realized

statistically. Yet, subjectivity has been translated in manner of ranking though it should be

secured in terms of accuracy that the manner of ranking has been categorically done in

arriving with a conclusion.

First and foremost, I think UNDP’s HDI is lacking of the concept of ‘enculturation’ in

measuring the human development. Enculturation is defined as the process by which an

individual learns the traditional content of a culture and assimilates its practise and values. As

described earlier, HDI indicators are composed of all statistical data pertaining only to what

can be measured scientifically. It is lacking on the cultural aspect of development of a

country- which is also a good indicator of human development looking on its cultural context.

HDI indicator generalizes of human development without considering the type of

development with respect to a nation. We can say that geographically, countries with varying

topographical characteristics may have differences on development, thus resulting to a

varying cultural component which affects human development. The same observation has

been observed on the HPI wherein the ratio of development versus the ecological footprint

generated has been observed, though the quality is hardly being measured though introduced.

Though both systems made a radical departure from the world concentrated view of

development in terms of the Gross Domestic Product, and I believe that both system needs to

identify the cultural value of development, and the type of development that each and every

country is undergoing through.

However, based on my personal analysis, I think that providing us with these indices

may give us a clearer understanding of the quantitative aspect of development. But if these

data may be presented in a manner in which it can show its view on cultural significance, and

arrive with a certain value that is being given by a particular country on their development,

this may be a good quality of life indicator. On my personal judgement, both are good

measuring tools of quality of life, but not on the social context of development that deals with

the importance of human tradition translated through tangible and intangible heritage and

values.