Most countries measure success by how fast they grow, how much they produce, and how competitive they are on paper. GDP goes up, the trend line on the graph is pretty steep, and politicians pat themselves on the back. But that way of measuring success quietly skips over a more uncomfortable question.

“Are our people, 

actually, 

happy?”

Not productive. Not wealthy. Not competitive, but happy.

But there is one country that does answer that question.

That nation is the Kingdom of Bhutan.

Even on the very surface level, Bhutan is already quite out of the ordinary. It’s tucked away in the Himalayas, surrounded by mountains and forests that feel almost completely untouched by modern development. 70% of the country is forested and that percentage is baked into their national constitution. The modernised cities are small little patches here and there, and 500 year old Buddhist cultural traditions shape their daily lives (Royal Government of Bhutan, 2008). They have a myriad of social services like free healthcare, education, shelter, counselling and more (Ura et al., 2012).

One Bhutanese citizen said: 

“I don’t have much money, but I have time for my family, and I am not afraid of getting sick.” 

Life there just moves slower. Caring for your community is what makes life worth living, not deadlines or consumerist pleasures.

Bhutan didn’t just end up like this out of pure coincidence. 

It was the 1970s, and Bhutan, like a lot of other reserved east asian countries at the time, were beginning to open themselves up to the modern age. Roads were being built, structured institutions were forming, and massive development in Bhutan was all but unavoidable. The leader at this specific point in time; Jigme Singye Wangchuck, was a breath of fresh air compared to most modern day politicians.

He wasn’t some rich, sedentary man with a head of white hair sitting in his luxury mansion, who knows nothing of his people or the real world. The words you could best use to describe him were sweet, noble, and modest. You would think a 16 year old ascending into the title of the Dragon King would let fame and money get to his head like any other kid would in his situation. But he was different. He treated himself like a normal Bhutanese person; he would bond with the community just as much, work just as hard, and get around just like normal. (Munro, 2016). 

One day, his advisors came to him with a question most leaders would answer just about the same way.

“How will you grow the economy?”

While your Trumps, Modhis, or Thatchers wouldn’t take more than a second to talk about industry, exports, and GDP, Jigme said something completely unexpected. A country’s GDPs importance paled in comparison to its citizens' real quality of life. So he proposed something wildly different to the status quo, polar opposite to the lingua franca of success in modern society. 

The Gross National Happiness Score.

Wangchuk's reasoning behind this was that economic growth didn’t mean a thing if your citizens were running around like headless chickens being stressed, disconnected or struggling to find real meaning in their lives (Thinley, 2007). 

Ask a second grader what Happiness is, it’ll be having a live-in butler to prepare them happy meals, or a fridge full of popsicles. Ask a 75 year old war veteran, it might be to live life without second guessing yourself. The general consensus among scientists is that real Happiness isn’t just fleeting moments of pleasure and dopamine, or constant joy and happy go-luckyness. It’s content, wellbeing and consistent mental health. 

Therefore, all of the criteria of the GNH score are targeted at achieving these states of mind.

The GNH score, despite what it sounds it’s actually a highly structured framework; not some vague slogan, and it guides how Bhutan is run. It’s built on 4 main pillars: Sustainable development, environmental conservation, cultural preservation, and good governance. These pillars are then broken down into nine measurable domains, including mental wellbeing, health/medical, education, use of time, community vitality, and ecological balance (Centre for Bhutan Studies, 2016).

Every major policy is assessed against these criteria, and every decision has to have a delicate balance of each of these criteria. The government conducts national happiness surveys to make sure that the citizens reciprocate their decisions. Bhutan isn’t perfect, and it still faces challenges, but the GNH was undoubtedly a net positive for the quality of life in the country.

This bucketload of positives make you ask why can’t other countries just do the same thing. Apply that same framework, create their own utopia. But as you dig a little deeper, you’ll realize why they don’t. It’s because Bhutan’s situation is so incredibly unique, even before the wacky GNH policy, that it’s just plain irresponsible to say, or think that any other country could adapt these policies for themselves. 

Right?

Sure, maybe a country with a larger population and a larger population won’t exactly be able to follow the GNH. But in my opinion, a few tweaks could make it work.

Firstly, you’d have to figure out your goals. Do a little bit of market research on what’s making your citizens unhappy and happy. What keeps people safe and healthy? What gaps are there that prevent people from living meaningful lives? For example, in the US about 30 Million people are uninsured, and 1 in 10 households experience food insecurity (U.S. Census Bureau, 2023). 

Second, you’d never be able to pass a bill this immense without some proof it works. Choose a state, city, or province to test out some GNH policy. Make this place your lab rats, except rather than injecting them with toxic chemicals, throw in some free healthcare clinics, community education initiatives, or local environmental projects. Make sure to track everything using the surveys in step one.

Now that you have some real traction, try slowly working this mindset into everything you can. Infrastructure projects, economic incentives, and social programs should be evaluated for their effect on life satisfaction, health, and equality. 

At this point the only real doubters would be the people who, quite rightfully, complain about how we can hand out all these amenities without tearing through our finances. Funding can easily come from reallocation and reinvestment; In the US it would cost 20 billion dollars a year to solve homelessness completely (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2023), but they already spend double to triple that on foreign aid, and ten times that on defence!

There’s one issue. This plan isn’t completely clear cut. There will always be corporate lobbyists that will spend billions making sure that defence won’t get cut, and a million different technical holes in this idea. 

At the end of the day though, if more of our leaders and politicians would shift their focus to their people rather than their pockets. Maybe, we could have another Jigme Wanchuk, one that doesn’t just change Bhutan, but the whole world.

Up Next