This is a paper that I did for Comp II

1. Money, Policy, and the Pursuit of Happiness: Is America Choosing the Right Thing?
Law making is a huge part of life in most civilized countries. It is difficult to survive in a
country where laws do not exist, because they are necessary to make sure that the population
runs as smoothly as possible. The country of Bhutan has put into effect a policy for law making
called Gross National Happiness. It is a policy that changed how they made laws. I want to
discuss the Gross National Happiness Policy in more detail, how it could go too far, and how
Bhutan stops this from happening; then I want to take a look at America and Gross Domestic
Product, standard of living, and how America can learn from Bhutan. Ultimately, I think that
America can learn from Bhutan in many ways. By taking parts of the Gross National Happiness
policy and making it work for us, we can improve our own government.
Bhutan is a small country located between India and China. It has a population of about
970,000 and the capital of this small country is Thimpu. Gross National Happiness was
introduced to Bhutan in the year 1972 when King JigmeSingyeWangchuck became ―concerned
about the problems afflicting other developing countries that focused only on economic growth‖
(Revkin) so he came up with a system called Gross National Happiness.
According to The Geography of Bliss, ―with Gross National Happiness the official policy
of the government of Bhutan, every decision, every ruling, is supposedly viewed through this
prism.‖ (Weiner 78) So how exactly does the Gross National Happiness policy work? Well each
law that needs to be passed is sent through a screening tool. This screening tool measures 26
different factors about each piece of legislation. The legislation is ranked on a scale of one to
four on each category. If the score is a one the legislation will impact Bhutan in a negative way,
if given a two the legislation’s effect on Bhutan is not known, if the legislation is given a three it
will not affect Bhutan at all, and if the piece of legislation is given a four it will help Bhutan in a

2. positive way. The score of one to four is given on all factors that include things such as
corruption, gender equality, information, learning, and health. If the score on any factor is less
than a two, the people in control of Bhutan will try to make alternate suggestions. (National
Happiness Tool)
Gross National Happiness is a great sounding idea, but if you look at it from a smaller
point of view, could it be misconstrued? In the book Justice: What’s The Right Thing To Do,
Michael Sandel, professor at Harvard talks about a cabin boy, and when the greatest happiness
principle can go wrong. While stranded on a boat in the middle of an ocean, three people decided
to take the life of a cabin boy, after they were found they were arrested and tried for murder, ―the
strongest argument for the defense is that, given the dire circumstances, it was necessary to kill
one person in order to save three. Had no one been killed and eaten, all four would likely have
died. Parker, weakened and ill, was the logical candidate, since he would soon have died
anyway. And unlike Dudley and Stephens, he had no dependents. His death deprived no one of
support and left no grieving wife or children,‖ (Sandel 32)
As concerned citizens, one has to wonder how much would have been suffered because
of this. Sandel goes on to further explain the consequences of such an act. In any lawful
argument you can’t just stop at the ―what happened?‖, you have to look past at the ―what if‖
scenarios. Sandel explains that, ―first, it can be asked whether the benefits of killing the cabin
boy, taken as a whole, really did outweigh the cost.‖ (Sandel 32) This is true, on the surface
because three lives were spared instead of none, it looks nice and gift wrapped, killing the cabin
boy was the right thing to do, but if you look deeper you will see that this is not the case. Further
you can see that, ―allowing such a killing might have bad consequences for society as a whole—
weakening the norm against murder,‖ (Sandel 32) if people see that people get away with a

3. murder because they needed it for a greater amount of people to survive it would put less value
on your life, and more value on your life as a part of a group.
Bhutan, though, doesn’t seem to have this problem. How can they make a Gross National
Happiness policy, without someone trying to twist and conform this into a way to do what they
want in life. According to a study done, Bhutan has a low homicide rate, killing only 4.4 people
per 100,000 by homicide (Cole and Gramajo) As mentioned in an article about Gross National
Happiness, is the subtle challenge of the change in meaning to the original Gross National
Happiness Policy, ―As was argued earlier the concept has been a reflection of a particular
cultural consciousness rather than an academic construct. This was the concept’s strength in the
past, when all policy-makers were products of the traditional Bhutanese system with a strong
consciousness of this identity. It may, however, rapidly become a weakness, once civil servants
with primarily western education begin to lose this intuitive link to the indigenous set of values,‖
(Priesner 45) This is an important statement, because like everything policies, change when they
are given to new people.
The biggest struggle Bhutan has in keeping Gross National Happiness the way it is, is
changing governments and people in it. This says a lot about keeping killing rates down, because
it is all about who has a certain set of rules. Not everyone will take what you say for exactly what
it means, some people will exaggerate it to mean that you can kill just because it will benefit
more than one person, and some will think rationally and use their best moral judgment when
thinking about things like murder or stealing. It is up to the leaders of Bhutan to make sure they
are carrying out the original goals of Bhutan’s Gross National Happiness Laws, and make sure
that they don’t abuse those laws or let other citizens of Bhutan abuse these laws. Like Sandel
highlighted, not only must you think about the consequences for that person, you have to think

4. about the consequences (good or bad) that it makes for society, and I think that is what Gross
National Happiness is all about.
Now, let’s take a trip to the United States, where Gross Domestic Product seems to reign
supreme. A countries, ―gross domestic product, or G.D.P., is routinely used as shorthand for the
well-being of a nation,‖ (Revkin) In America, are you happy is usually associated with how
much money one has. This can’t be the only thing that determines happiness though because,
―recent research into happiness, or subjective well-being, reveals that money does indeed buy
happiness. Up to a point. The point, though, is surprisingly low: about fifteen thousand dollars a
year. After that, the link between economic growth and happiness evaporates. Americans are on
average three times wealthier than they were half a century ago, yet we are no happier.‖ (Weiner
76) If money doesn’t buy us happiness, why is America such a Gross Domestic Product loving
country?
Wouldn’t it make more sense for our laws to take in to consideration the overall
happiness of our country versus what would make the people with the most money the happiest?
The way we measure our standard of living is a big role player in why gross domestic product
takes such a major role. In order to find out who is living above, around, or under standard of
living, we use Average GDP per Capita, it ―tells us how big each person’s share of GDP would
be if we were to divide the total into equal portions.‖ (Ledger 5) It doesn’t take into
consideration a lot of things such as unpaid work or the distribution of wealth but it is a starting
place to find what our standard of living is. By looking at this, I consider this an invalid way to
determine the happiness of a country or what the standard of living in a country is. Average GDP
has a lot of gaps in it, so the next question to ask is how can America become more like Bhutan

5. in our search for happiness and law. As Americans, do we want money to rule our laws or do we
want our own happiness to do so?
Bhutan decided that they did not want to follow the path of other countries around them,
in letting Gross Domestic Product rule their laws and their happiness. Is it possible for the United
States to do the same thing? Revkin thinks that we can, ―Around the world, a growing number of
economists, social scientists, corporate leaders and bureaucrats are trying to develop
measurements that take into account not just the flow of money but also access to health care,
free time with family, conservation of natural resources and other noneconomic factors.‖
(Revkin) This is a good start to making laws and policies that not only consider you are happy
because of your money, or laws that benefit they happy with money over the people who don’t
have the money. If the laws of a state are meant to make the people that are happy with money,
more happy, it would in turn make those who are unhappy and without money more unhappy.
As a nation, I think it is our duty to take a good look at our laws, like Bhutan did, and
discover if there are ways that we can make our country happier. I believe the only thing we can
do is take the first step, and there is an organization trying to do this. ―In the spring of 2009, the
Gross National Happiness American Project was born. The concept of Gross National Happiness
dates back to the birth of the United States when the framers of the Declaration of Independence
guaranteed the American people a government that protects our ―unalienable Rights,‖ among
which are ―life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.‖‖ (About GNHUSA) The framers of our
constitution meant for the laws to have at least some form or shape of creating Gross National
Happiness. The problem in America is that the people with the least amount of money (that
happen to be the majority) aren’t thought of enough while the laws are made. If Gross National
Happiness is something that Americans want, we first much change the rules that the people with

6. the most money get the laws they want first (or we must elect better people who will do this for
us.)
In conclusion, I think we should take a step back and think about what as a country we
want to do. Do we want to continue to make laws that benefit the wealthy minority, more than
they do the lower to middle class majority? Or do we want to reform our laws and make them
more democratic; by saying does this really provide the most people the most happiness? We
have taken an in depth look at Bhutan and how they changed their country to promote better
legislation making, and then we took a look at the United States where money buys happiness
even if it really doesn’t. No one ever said being truly happy was easy, but I think if we take a
good look at our laws we can start to make a truly happy America.

7. Works Cited
“About GNHUSA."Gnhusa.org. Gross National Happiness USA.Web. 10 Apr. 2012
Cole, Julio H., and Andrés M. Gramajo. "Homicide Rates in a Cross-Section of Countries:
Evidence and Interpretations." Population and Development Review 35.4 (2009): 749-76.
Print.
"Gross National Happiness Policy Screening Tool."Gnhc.gov.bt. Gross National Happiness
Commission.Web. 27 Mar. 2012.
"How To Measure "Standard of Living"" The Ledger (2003): 5-8. Bostonfed.org. Federal
Reserve Bank of Boston.Web. 9 Apr. 2012.
Priesner, Steven. "Gross National Happiness – Bhutan’s Vision of Development and Its
Challenges." Gross National Happiness: A Set of Discussion Papers (1999): 24-52. Print.
Revkin, Andrew C. "A New Measure of Well-Being from a Happy Little Kingdom." The New
York Times. 4 Oct. 2005. Web. 27 Mar. 2012.
Sandel, Michael J. "The Greatest Happiness Principle/Utilitarianism." Justice: What's the Right
Thing to Do? London: Penguin, 2010. 31-56. Print.
Weiner, Eric. "Bhutan: Happiness Is a Policy." The Geography of Bliss: One Grump's Search for
the Happiest Places in the World. New York: Twelve, 2008. 76-78. Print.