Why Not Gnp (gross National Happiness)?

Why Not GNP (Gross National Happiness)?

Westerners have become so self-absorbed into their own capitalist success, that they have left no room for questioning the supposed 'laws of economics,' and its direct relation to true human satisfaction. Does happiness equate with personal income growth, or even on a macro level does it associate with GDP? The west has assumed such position, but Buddhist Economics can perhaps show us a better way, if not the "right livelihood" as E.F. Schumacher suggests (1973). Imagine if we could see work and leisure as integral parts of our living process, rather than as complete opposites. If work allowed the western man "to display his scale of values and develop his personality," as Buddhist economics argues. In order to do so we must shift back the importance to the worker from the product of work, from goods to people, and from consumption to creative activity. Sure we do not want to become ego-less ants of production, but are we any better of subscribing to purely economic laws of livelihood, where our happiness does not necessarily reside. One must observe Bhutan when debating these seemingly opposite theories. Its king proclaims that 'gross national happiness' is more important than gross national product, as it happiness takes precedence over national economic development. Critics argue, however, that this policy has come at a cost of economic progress. But what if we look at the cradle of the industrial revolution, the quintessential example of early capitalism: Britain? Are they satisfied with their economic progress? The answer is no. "Britain is less happy than in the 1950s - despite the fact that we are three times richer." (BBC News, 2007). While economic theory can be a very powerful tool for a nation's development, one cannot overlook the process of life over simply outputs of production.