The tiny Himalayan kingdom of Bhutan long ago dispensed with the notion of Gross National Product as a gauge of well-being. The king decreed that his people would aspire to Gross National Happiness (GNH) instead.
That kernel of Buddhist wisdom is increasingly finding an echo in international policy and development models, which seek to establish scientific methods for finding out what makes us happy and why.
New research institutes are being created at venerable universities like Oxford and Cambridge to establish methods of judging individual and national well-being. Governments are putting ever greater emphasis on promoting mental well-being -- not just treating mental illness.
"In much the same way that research of consumer unions helps you to make the best buy, happiness research can help you make the best choices," said Ruut Veenhoven, who created the World Database of Happiness in 1999.
The 1960s
When he started studying happiness in the 1960s, Veenhoven used data from social researchers who simply asked people how satisfied they were with their lives, on a scale of zero to 10. But as the discipline has matured and gained popularity in the past decade, self-reporting has been found lacking.
By their own estimate, "drug addicts would measure happy all the time," said Sabina Alkire, of the Oxford Poverty and Human Development Institute, which began work May 30.
New studies add more objective questions into a mix of feel-good factors: Education, nutrition, freedom from fear and violence, gender equality, and perhaps most importantly, having choices.
"People's ability to be an agent, to act on behalf of what matters to them, is fundamental," Alkire said.
But if people say money can't buy happiness, they're only partially right.
Veenhoven's database, which lists 95 countries, is headed by Denmark with a rating of 8.2, followed by Switzerland, Austria, Iceland and Finland, all countries with high per capita income. At the other end of the scale are much poorer countries: Tanzania rated 3.2, behind Zimbabwe, Moldova, Ukraine and Armenia.
The US just makes it into the top 15 with a 7.4 index rating. While choice is abundant in the US, nutrition and violence issues helped drag its rating down.
Wealth counts, but most studies of individuals show income disparities count more. Surprisingly, however, citizens are no happier in welfare states, which strive to mitigate the distortions of capitalism than in purer free-market economies.
"In the beginning, I didn't believe my eyes," said Veenhoven of his data.
"Icelanders are just as happy as Swedes, yet their country spends half what Sweden does [per capita] on social welfare," he said.
In emphasizing personal freedom as a root of happiness, Alkire cited her study of women in the southern Indian state of Kerala, which showed that poor women who make their own choices score highly, compared with women with strict fathers or husbands.
Adrian White, of the University of Leicester, included twice as many countries as Veenhoven in his Global Projection of Subjective Well-being, which also measures the correlation of happiness and wealth. He, too, led his list with Denmark, Switzerland and Austria.
Bhutan, where less than half the people can read or write and 90 percent are subsistence farmers, ranks No. 8 in his list of happy nations. Its notion of GNH is based on equitable development, environmental conservation, cultural heritage and good governance.
US researchers have found other underlying factors: married people are more content than singles, but having children does not raise happiness levels; education and IQ seem to have little impact; attractive people are only slightly happier than the unattractive; the elderly -- over 65 -- are more satisfied with their lives than the young; friendships are crucial.
But the research also shows that many people are simply disposed to being either happy or disgruntled, and as much as 50 percent of the happiness factor is genetic. Like body weight, moods can swing only so much from their natural "set point."
So can you do anything about it? Some educators say you can.
People "can be taught emotional resilience, self control, the habits of optimism, handling negative thoughts and much else," Anthony Seldon, former British prime minister Tony Blair's biographer and the headmaster of Wellington College in Britain, wrote recently in the Financial Times.
Seldon is developing happiness courses, working with the Institute of Well-being at Cambridge which was founded last November.
One recent book seeking to cash in on the well-being craze bears the English title Dutch Women Don't Get Depressed, though it's written in Dutch. Veenhoven says the title is off base: Statistically, women get depressed more often than men, and Dutch women aren't happier than others in the wealthy West.
right combination
Veenhoven says that with the right combination of individual choices and government policy, nations can raise their happiness quotient by as much as 5 percent.
In an influential 2004 academic paper, Martin Seligman, the University of Pennsylvania psychologist credited with launching the positive psychology movement in 1998, and Ed Diener of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, encouraged policymakers to consider more than economic development in their planning.
"Although economic output has risen steeply over the past decades, there has been no rise in life satisfaction during this period, and there has been a substantial increase in depression and distrust," they wrote.
British opposition leader David Cameron recently established a Quality of Life Policy Group to examine ways governments can legislate to boost national contentment levels.
"It's time we admitted that there's more to life than money, and it's time we focused not just on GDP, but on GWB -- general well-being," he said in a speech last year.
Even experts acknowledge the difficulty of assigning numerical scales to feelings, and they are still grappling with how best to refine definitions.
At Cambridge's Institute of Well-being, another group has expanded the standard happiness questionnaire to 50 items, and is incorporating it into a European Social Survey of 50,000 people.
It aims to weigh not only personal feelings ("I'm always optimistic about my future"), but how people function ("I feel I am free to decide for myself how to live my life") and their relationships with others ("To what extent do you feel that people in your local area help one another?").
The idea is to find out how well-being varies across Europe, says the Cambridge proposal, acknowledging that it is more than just measuring smile time.
"Happiness is more complicated than we originally thought," Alkire said.
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
The Hong Kong government on Monday gazetted sweeping amendments to the implementation rules of Article 43 of its National Security Law. There was no legislative debate, no public consultation and no transition period. By the time the ink dried on the gazette, the new powers were already in force. This move effectively bypassed Hong Kong’s Legislative Council. The rules were enacted by the Hong Kong chief executive, in conjunction with the Committee for Safeguarding National Security — a body shielded from judicial review and accountable only to Beijing. What is presented as “procedural refinement” is, in substance, a shift away from
The shifting geopolitical tectonic plates of this year have placed Beijing in a profound strategic dilemma. As Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) prepares for a high-stakes summit with US President Donald Trump, the traditional power dynamics of the China-Japan-US triangle have been destabilized by the diplomatic success of Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi in Washington. For the Chinese leadership, the anxiety is two-fold: There is a visceral fear of being encircled by a hardened security alliance, and a secondary risk of being left in a vulnerable position by a transactional deal between Washington and Tokyo that might inadvertently empower Japan
After declaring Iran’s military “gone,” US President Donald Trump appealed to the UK, France, Japan and South Korea — as well as China, Iran’s strategic partner — to send minesweepers and naval forces to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. When allies balked, the request turned into a warning: NATO would face “a very bad” future if it refused. The prevailing wisdom is that Trump faces a credibility problem: having spent years insulting allies, he finds they would not rally when he needs them. That is true, but superficial, as though a structural collapse could be caused by wounded feelings. Something
RSS