The 2010 Gross National Happiness Index : Part II

The 2010 Gross National Happiness Index : Part II

The Centre for Bhutan Studies2011

.

Part II: Understanding Happiness1. National happiness2. Happiness by Dzongkhag3. Happiness by region4. Happiness by gender5. Happiness by age group6. Happiness by marital status7. Happiness by educational level8. Happiness by occupational group9. People’s Stories


A person who has achieved sufficiency in at least 6 of the 9 domains of GNH is classified as “HAPPY”

How is happiness measured?

33 indicators: Sufficiency thresholds

Nine domains: Happiness threshold

GNH Index: 0.737

40.8% of Bhutanese are classified happy after

applying sufficiency and happy threshold.

The value for GNH Index 2010 is 0.743

.

.

Nation

al Po

verty

line 20

07

Multidim

ensio

nal P

overty

Inde

x 201

0

Gross N

ation

al Hap

piness

Inde

x 201

00%

20%40%60%80%

77% 74%

41%

Proportion of people non-deprived/happy

Indicator: Consumption

per capita

Domains: Health,

Education and Living Standards

Domains: Psychological wellbeing, Health, Time use, Culture, Ecology, Community vitality, Good Governance and

Living standards

14%

12%

12%

12%11%

10%

10%

9%

9%Health

Ecological diversity and resilience

Psychological wellbeing

Community vitality

Living standards

Time use

Cultural diversity and resilience

Good Governance

Education

Domain percentage contribution to GNH indexIn which domains do happy people enjoy sufficiency?

14%

12%

12%

12%11%

10%

10%

9%

9%Health



Community vitality

Living standards

Time use


Good Governance

Education

Domain percentage contribution to GNH indexIn which domains do happy people enjoy sufficiency?

Observation 1:

All nine dimensions

contribute to GNH.

Happy people live relatively

balanced lives.

No dimension is

unimportant

14%

12%

12%

12%11%

10%

10%

9%

9%Health



Community vitality

Living standards

Time use


Good Governance

Education

Domain percentage contribution to GNH indexBiggest contributions

Observation 2:

Good Health (14%)

Community (12%)

Ecology (12%), and

Psychological well-being (12%)

Contribute the most to GNH in

2010.

14%

12%

12%

12%11%

10%

10%9%

9%

Health

Ecological di-versity and resi-lience


Community vital-ity

Living standards

Time use


Good Gov-ernanceEducation

Domain percentage con-tribution to GNH index

Biggest contributions

Observation 2:

Good Health (14%)

Community (12%)

Ecology (12%), and

Psychological well-being

(12%)

Contribute the most to GNH in

2010. Disability Mental health Healthy days Self reported

health status0%

10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

89% 86%76% 74%

Percentage of people enjoying suf -ficiency in indicators of Health

• 89% of Bhutanese either do not suffer from long term disability or those who are disable ones are not restricted from doing their daily activities• 86% of Bhutanese have normal mental wellbeing• 76% of Bhutanese have sufficient number of healthy days • 74% of Bhutanese have rated their health as either “good” or “very good”

0%40%80%

89% 86% 76% 74%

Percentage of people enjoying sufficiency in Health

• 89% of Bhutanese either do not suffer from long term disability or those who are disable ones are not restricted from doing their daily activities• 86% of Bhutanese have normal mental wellbeing• 76% of Bhutanese have sufficient number of health days • 74% of Bhutanese have rated their health as either “good” or “very good”

Disability Mental health Healthy days Self reported health status

32%33%34%35%36%37%38%39%40%

39% 39%

36%35%

Percentage of people enjoying suffi-ciency and are happy in indicators of

Health

• Of the Bhutanese who achieved sufficiency levels in disability, 39% are happy (fulfill the happiness threshold) • Of the Bhutanese who have normal mental wellbeing (86), 39% are happy• Of the Bhutanese who have achieved sufficient levels of healthy days, 36% are happy• Of the Bhutanese who have sufficiency in self reported health status , 35% are happy

14%

12%

12%

12%11%

10%

10%

9%9%

HealthEcological di-versity and resiliencePsychological wellbeingCommunity vi-talityLiving standardsTime useCultural di-versity and resilienceGood Gov-ernanceEducation

Domain percentage contribution to GNH index


Observation 2:

Good Health (14%)

Community (12%)

Ecology (12%), and


(12%)

Contribute the most to GNH

in 2010.

• 96% of Bhutanese have never been victims of crime• 93% of Bhutanese report good family relationship• 76% of Bhutanese report good community relationship• 46% of Bhutanese have sufficiency in donations (time & money)

Donati

ons (t

ime &

mon

ey)

Commun

ity rel

ation

ship

Family

Safet

y 0%

30%60%90% 46% 63%

93% 96%

Percentage of people having suffi-ciency in indicators of Community

vitality

14%12%

12%

12%11%

10%

10%9%

9%

HealthEcological diversity and resiliencePsychological wellbeingCommunity vi-talityLiving standardsTime useCultural diversity and resili-enceGood Gov-ernanceEducation



Observation 2:

Good Health (14%)

Community (12%)

Ecology (12%), and


(12%)


in 2010.

• 39% of Bhutanese who report good family relationship are happy• 27% of Bhutanese who have good community relationship are happy• 21% of Bhutanese who have sufficiency in donations (time & money) are also classified happy

Donations (time & money)

Community relationship

Family Safety 0%10%20%30%40%

21%27%

39% 40%

Percentage of people who are happy & have sufficiency in indicators of Com-

munity vitality

14%

12%

12%

12%11%

10%

10%

9%9%

HealthEcological di-versity and resiliencePsychological wellbeingCommunity vi-talityLiving standardsTime useCultural di-versity and resilienceGood Gov-ernanceEducation



Observation 2:

Good Health (14%)

Community (12%)

Ecology (12%), and


(12%)


in 2010.

• 83% of Bhutanese have sufficiency in life satisfaction• 65% of Bhutanese report low negative emotions•59% of Bhutanese report high positive emotions• Only 53% of Bhutanese have sufficiency in spirituality

Spirit

uality

Positi

ve em

otion

s

Negati

ve em

otion

s

Life s

atisfa

ction

0%20%40%60%80% 53% 59% 65%

83%

Percentage of people who have sufficiency in Psychological wellbeing indicators

• 83% of Bhutanese have sufficiency in life satisfaction• 65% of Bhutanese report low negative emotions•59% of Bhutanese report high positive emotions

•53% of Bhutanese have sufficiency in spirituality

Spirit

uality

Positiv

e emoti

ons

Negativ

e emoti

ons

Life sa

tisfac

tion

0%40%80%

53% 59% 65% 83%

Percentage of people who have suffi-ciency in Psychological wellbeing in-

dicators

Not at all1%

Somewhat7%

Moderately40%

Very52%

How spiritual do you consider yourself to be?

Not at all2% Rarely

7%

Occasionally34%Regularly

57%

Do you consider Karma in the course of your daily life?

• 83% of Bhutanese have sufficiency in life satisfaction• 65% of Bhutanese report low negative emotions•59% of Bhutanese report high positive emotions• 53% of Bhutanese have sufficiency in spirituality

Spirit

uality

Positiv

e emoti

ons

Negativ

e emoti

ons

Life sa

tisfac

tion

0%40%80%

53% 59% 65% 83%

Percentage of people who have suffi-ciency in Psychological wellbeing in-

dicators Not at all6%

Rarely11%

Occa-sionally

34%

Regu-larly49%

How often do you recite prayers?

Not at all82%

Rarely7%

Occasionally6%

Regularly5%

How often do you practice meditation?

14%

12%

12%

12%11%

10%

10%

9%

9%Health



Community vitality

Living standards

Time use


Good Governance

Education

Domain percentage contribution to GNH indexLowest contributionsObservation 3:

Happy Bhutanese did

not necessarily have high education

(9%).

Nor did they score equally high in Good Governance

(9%).

.

Value

Spea

k nati

ve la

ngua

ge

Disabili

ty

Urbaniz

ation

issue

s

Life s

atisfa

ction

Health

y day

s

Self r

eport

ed he

alth s

tatus

Sleep

Commun

ity re

lation

ship

Artisan

skills

Positi

ve em

otion

s

Politic

al pa

rticipa

tion

Spirit

uality

Housin

gWork

Schoo

ling

Know

ledge

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%Percentage of people enjoying sufficiency

Bhutanese enjoy highest sufficiency in value, safety, native language, family, mental health, etc.

Value

Family

Mental

healt

h

Spea

k nati

ve la

ngua

ge

Health

y day

s

Self r

eport

ed he

alth s

tatus

Govern

ment p

erform

ance

Wildlife

damag

e (Rura

l)

Househ

old pe

r cap

ita in

come

Ecolog

ical is

sues

Litera

cy

Commun

ity re

lation

ship

Housin

g

Driglam

Namzha

Servi

ces

Donati

ons (

time &

mon

ey)

Know

ledge

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%

Percentage of people who are happy & have suffi-ciency

The indicators in which happy people still often lack sufficiency were knowledge, participation in festivals, donations, having more than 6 years of schooling, enjoying government services, participating politically, and believing in the practice of Driglam Namzha.


00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9

1

0.8070.7950.7830.7750.7730.7710.7700.7700.7530.7520.7370.7360.7340.7320.7120.7080.6980.6980.6840.655

GNH Index by dzongkhag (district)

Paro

Sarpa

ng

Dagan

aHaa

Thim

phuGasa

Tsiran

g

Puna

kha

Zhem

gang

Chukha

Wangd

ue Ph

odran

g

Samtse

Bumtha

ng

Monga

r

Pema G

atshe

l

Tashi

gang

Lhunts

e

Tashi

Yang

ste

Trong

sa

Samdru

p Jon

gkhar

0.5

0.55

0.6

0.65

0.7

0.75

0.8

0.85

0.9

Upper boundary

Confidence intervals of district level GNH indices

Paro

Sarpa

ng

Dagan

aHaa

Puna

kha

Thim

phuGasa

Tsiran

g

Chukha

Zhem

gang

Wangd

ue Ph

odran

g

Bumtha

ng

Monga

r

Samtse

Pema G

atshe

l

Tashi

gang

Lhunts

e

Tashi

Yang

ste

Trong

sa

Samdru

p Jon

gkhar

0.50.550.6

0.650.7

0.750.8

0.850.9

Upper boundary

Confidence intervals of district level GNH in-dices

The GNH Index is relatively equal. There are not many significant differences. A larger sample would give higher

definition.

Paro

Sarpa

ng

Dagan

aHaa

Puna

kha

Thim

phuGasa

Tsiran

g

Chukha

Zhem

gang

Wangd

ue Ph

odran

g

Bumtha

ng

Monga

r

Samtse

Pema G

atshe

l

Tashi

gang

Lhunts

e

Tashi

Yang

ste

Trong

sa

Samdru

p Jon

gkhar

0.50.550.6

0.650.7

0.750.8

0.850.9

Upper boundary

Confidence intervals of district level GNH in-dices

But we might divide Dzongkhags into roughly 3

groups.

Paro

Sarpa

ng

Dagan

aHaa

Puna

kha

Thim

phuGasa

Tsiran

g

Chukha

Zhem

gang

Wangd

ue Ph

odran

g

Bumtha

ng

Monga

r

Samtse

Pema G

atshe

l

Tashi

gang

Lhunts

e

Tashi

Yang

ste

Trong

sa

Samdru

p Jon

gkhar

0.50.550.6

0.650.7

0.750.8

0.850.9

Upper boundary

GNH Index by Dzongkhags

Higher GNH Lower GNH

Samdrup Jongkhar

probably has the lowest GNH

Index

GNH index map by district

Higher GNH Index Lower GNH Index

GNH Index by district

GNH Index by district

Low GNH Index High GNH Index

Higher GNH Index Lower GNH Index

Percentage of happy people by district

Lower percentage of happy people

Higher percentage of happy people

Paro

Sarpa

ng

Dagan

aHaa

Puna

kha

Thim

phuGasa

Tsiran

g

Chukha

Zhem

gang

Wangd

ue Ph

odran

g

Bumtha

ng

Monga

r

Samtse

Pema G

atshe

l

Tashi

gang

Lhunts

e

Tashi

Yang

ste

Trong

sa

Samdru

p Jon

gkhar

00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9

GNH Index Per capita Income (BLSSR 2007)GNH ranks districts differently than per capita income

Paro

Sarpa

ng

Dagan

aHaa

Puna

kha

Thim

phuGasa

Tsiran

g

Chukha

Zhem

gang

Wangd

ue Ph

odran

g

Bumtha

ng

Monga

r

Samtse

Pema G

atshe

l

Tashi

gang

Lhunts

e

Tashi

Yang

ste

Trong

sa

Samdru

p Jon

gkhar

00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9


Thimphu is not ranked most

highly in GNH.

Paro

Sarpa

ng

Dagan

aHaa

Puna

kha

Thim

phuGasa

Tsiran

g

Chukha

Zhem

gang

Wangd

ue Ph

odran

g

Bumtha

ng

Monga

r

Samtse

Pema G

atshe

l

Tashi

gang

Lhunts

e

Tashi

Yang

ste

Trong

sa

Samdru

p Jon

gkhar

00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9


Thimphu is not ranked most

highly in GNH.

Dagana and Zhemgang do much better in

GNH than income.

Where do the happy people live?

Thimphu and Chukha are home to the highest number of happy people….And unhappy people!

They are big dzongkhags.

Next: Samtse & Sarpang

Gasa TrongsaPema Gatshel Lhuntse HaaTashi Yangste

BumthangZhemgangPunakha

Dagana

Tsirang

Samdrup Jongkhar

Wangdue Phodrang

Mongar

TashigangParoSarpang

Samtse

Chukha

Thimphu

GasaTrongsaPema GatshelLhuntseHaaTashi YangsteBumthangZhemgangPunakhaDaganaTsirangSamdrup JongkharWangdue PhodrangMongarTashigangParoSarpangSamtseChukhaThimphu

Samdrup Jongkhar

Tashi Yangste

Tashigang

Mongar

Samtse

Chukha

Punakha

Gasa

Haa

Sarpang

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Health

Time use

Education


Good Governance

Community vitality


Living standards

Domain contribution to happiness by Dzongkhag

The composition of happiness changes a little across Dzongkhags. Thimphu is better in education & living

standards, but worse in community vitality

00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9

1Paro Samdrup Jongkhar

Percentage of people having sufficiency

Psychological wellbeing Health Time

useEducation Cultural

diversity and resilience

Good Governance

Community vitality


Living standards

Paro and Samdrup differ most in work time,

fundamental rights, services, income, housing and wildlife

damage .


.

UrbanNational

Rural

0.5

0.55

0.6

0.65

0.7

0.75

0.8

0.85

0.9

0.790

0.7370.726

GNH Index by region

.

UrbanNational

Rural

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%50%

41%

37%

Percentage of happy people50% of urban

dwellers are happy as per GNH criteria

.


Health

Time use

Education

Cultural diversity and resilienceGood Governance

Community vitality


Living standards

0%

10%

20%

RuralUrbanNational

Percentage contribution of domains to GNH Index Contribution of domains to happiness by region In rural areas,

Community vitality, Cultural diversity and

Good Governance contribute more to

happiness

Living standards, Education and Health

contribute more to happiness in urban

areas

00.20.40.60.8

1

Rural UrbanPercentage of Bhutanese having sufficiency by region

Psychological wellbeing Health

Time use Educatio

n


Good Governance

Community vitality


Living standards

00.20.40.60.8

1



Time use Educatio

n


Good Governance

Community vitality


Living standards

Urban areas have higher sufficiency in

Health, Education, and Living standards.

00.20.40.60.8

1



Time use Educatio

n


Good Governance

Community vitality


Living standards

Rural areas have higher sufficiency in Community,

Culture, & much of Governance.


FemaleNational

Male

0.66

0.68

0.7

0.72

0.74

0.76

0.78

0.8

0.704

0.737

0.783

GNH Index by gender

Men are happier than women.

Female National Male0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%

33%

41%

49%

Percentage of happy people

Psychological wellbeingHealth

Time use

Education

Cultural diversity and resilienceGood Governance

Community vitality


Living standards

0%

10%

20%

MaleFemale

Women seem to do better in living stan-dards and ecology.

Men and women are about the

same in health, time

use, gov-ernance, and

culture.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Male FemalePercentage Bhutanese having sufficiency by sex

Psychological wellbeing Health Educatio

nCultural diversity and resilience

Good Governance

Community vitality


Living standards


15-17

18-21

22-25

26-29

30-33

34-37

38-41

42-45

46-49

50-53

54-57

58-61

62-65

66-69

70-73

74-77

78-81

82-85 >85

5.2

5.4

5.6

5.8

6

6.2

6.4

6.6

6.8 Psychic Happiness level by age group

On a scale of zero to 10, I consider myself: 0 (Not a very happy per-son)------10 (Very happy person)

15-17

18-21

22-25

26-29

30-33

34-37

38-41

42-45

46-49

50-53

54-57

58-61

62-65

66-69

70-73

74-77

78-81

82-85 >85

0.5

0.55

0.6

0.65

0.7

0.75

0.8

GNH Index Happiness levelPsychic Happiness

Age group analysis of GNH Index and Psychic Happiness variable


Never married

Married Divorced Separated Widowed0.000

0.100

0.200

0.300

0.400

0.500

0.600

0.700

0.8000.791

0.747 0.7210.661

0.625

GNH Index by marital status

Never married

Married Divorced Separated Widowed0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%

50%

42%36%

27%

19%

Percentage of happy people

Never m

arried

Married

Divorce

d

Sepa

rated

Widowed

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

8% 10% 11% 11% 12%11% 12% 13% 11% 12%11% 9% 8% 8% 6%

12% 11% 10% 11% 8%

Contribution to happiness by marital statusHealth


Living standards

Time use


Education

Community vitality

Cultural diversity and resi-lience

Good Governance


No form

al ed

ucatio

n

Primary

educa

tion (

VI)

LS ed

ucatio

n (VII

I)

MS edu

cation

(X)

HS edu

cation

(till d

egree

2nd..

.

Diploma/C

ertific

ate

Bache

lors D

egree

Post

Gradua

te0

0.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9

1

GNH Index and percentage of happy people by educational levelPercentage of happy people GNH Index

No form

al ed

ucatio

n

Primary

educa

tion (

VI)

LS ed

ucatio

n (VII

I)

MS edu

cation

(X)

HS edu

cation

(till d

egree

2nd y

r)

Diploma/C

ertific

ate

Bache

lors D

egree

Post

Gradua

te0%

10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Contribution of domains to happiness

Living standardsEcological diversity and resilienceCommunity vitalityGood GovernanceCultural diversity and resi-lienceEducationTime useHealthPsychological wellbeing

No form

al ed

ucatio

n

Primary

educa

tion (

VI)

LS ed

ucatio

n (VII

I)

MS edu

cation

(X)

HS edu

cation

(till d

egree

2nd y

r)

Diploma/C

ertific

ate

Bache

lors D

egree

Post

Gradua

te0%

10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Contribution of domains to happiness

Living standardsEcological diversity and resilienceCommunity vitalityGood GovernanceCultural diversity and resi-lienceEducationTime useHealthPsychological wellbeing

As education increases, contribution of living standards & education to happiness increases; governance and culture decrease


00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9

1

GNH Index and percentage of happy people by occu-pational statusPercentage of happy people GNH Index

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100% Contribution of domains to happinessLiving standardsEcological di-versity and resi-lienceCommunity vital-ityGood GovernanceCultural diversity and resilienceEducationTime useHealthPsychological wellbeing


Who is Happy? Some real people

(minor details have been changed)

One happy person in the GNH survey was

a married woman aged 35 living in rural Haa. She is a housewife who has completed primary school. Again, she achieved sufficiency in over 90% of the domains. She said she still suffered from selfishness and jealousy, and did not donate very much time/money. She was concerned about littering and the absence of good waste disposal, as well as floods, and did not know any zorig chosum skill.

When asked what contributed most to her happiness she said:

• Having sufficient income• Being in good relation with

the husband• When everyone is in good

health.

Another happy person in the GNH survey was

a young man aged 22 who lived in rural Sarpang and was never married. He is a farmer who finished primary school. His only deprivations were that wildlife damaged his crops, and that he did not know about his political rights.

When asked what contributed most to happiness he said:

• A peaceful environment• Enough money• No suffering• Good health• Good relations with my

friends.


a widowed gomchen aged 70 living in rural Thimphu. He had no formal education, and was deprived in education, housing, sleep and did not participate politically.

He observed that getting good agricultural products from the land contributes to happiness.


a married woman farmer aged 44 living in rural Tongsa. She was illiterate, and was deprived from wildlife damage to her crops, and thought she never felt forgiveness among the positive emotions – yet was happy.

She mused that she felt happy when she was able to do her household work, when she was harvesting potatoes, and as she wove.


a married shopkeeper aged 37 living in urban Bumthang. He has finished 10th class, and meditates and prays regularly. He enjoys sufficiency in nearly every indicator. But he did mention that at the moment he only rarely experiences calmness and contentment. He also lacked some knowledge and did not think Driglam Namzha was terribly important.


a married corporate employee aged 35 living in urban Chukha. He has completed 10th class, and has achieved sufficiency in nearly all indicators. He was a bit sleep deprived, and did not feel a deep sense of belonging to his community, but was overall very satisfied with his life.

When asked what contributed most to happiness he said:

• To be healthy• To meet basic needs• To have peace in the

family• To be religious

Our final happy person in the GNH survey is

an unmarried young woman aged 26 living in

urban Tashigang. She completed a bachelor’s degree and is a civil servant living alone. She scores highly across domains, although she misses a sense of belonging. When asked what contributes to her happiness she replied: Love, Family, Friends, Education, and Enough money.

.

The 2010 Gross National Happiness Index : Part II

The Centre for Bhutan Studies2011

.

Documents

The 2010 Gross National Happiness Index : Part II