Happiness
A Universal Indicator for Development?
Milan Hermes
11229950
Master Thesis
Annette Freyberg-Inan
Second reader: Daniël Mügge
Table of content
Introduction ... 3
1. Global Development and Human Development ... 8
1.1. A Historical overview of the Global Development concept ... 8
1.2. The Basic Needs approach and Capabilities Theory ... 11
1.3. The Human Development Index ... 12
1.4. Millennium Development Goals and Sustainable development goals ... 14
2. Happiness in macroeconomics ... 17
2.1. Happiness in economic theory ... 17
2.2. The Human development approach and the happiness concept ... 20
3. Gross National Happiness in Bhutan ... 23
3.1. Domains and indicators of Gross National Happiness in Bhutan ... 25
3.2. The perfect example? ... 31
4. Implementing happiness in policies ... 33
4.1. Indicators ... 33
4.2. Indices measuring happiness ... 35
4.2.1. World Happiness Reports (WHR) ... 36
4.2.2. Better Life Index (BLI) ... 37
4.2.3. Happy Planet Index (HPI) ... 39
4.2.4. UAE Happiness Index ... 40
4.2.5. Happiness Index of GOA ... 41
4.2.6. South Korea Index ... 41
4.2.7. Venezuela and Ecuador: Happiness ministers ... 42
4.3. Comparing the indices to search for commonalities ... 43
Conclusion ... 49
Introduction
Happiness is an important aspiration for people around the world. Who doesn’t want to be happy? But is there a universal understanding of the concept of Happiness? Do people from different continents and living different ways of life experience happiness in the same way? Happiness is a subjective concept, which makes the pursuit of happiness as a development goal a complicated aspiration.
The Indian professor and Nobel Prize Winner Amartya Sen (1999) divided the subjective concept of happiness into two dimensions. The first is related to a person’s emotions: someone can feel happy or sad at the moment, but this can be different tomorrow. The second concerns a personal judgment about the quality of one’s life, being happy about the life one is living. In this paper, I will focus on the second dimension of happiness, because it is here that the potential lies for happiness
becoming intersubjective, measurable, and employable as a (possibly even universal) indicator of development.
Given that happiness is very important in people’s lives, shouldn’t it then be
incorporated in the development goals of their countries? And if it should, then how can we define and measure happiness? The factor of economic well-being is important in this discussion. Higher incomes can be an indicator of greater happiness, as research shows that people with a high income compared to their compatriots are on average happier (Easterlin 1995). However, this does not mean that raising the income of all in the country will increase the happiness of all. The main reason for this is that material aspirations increase alongside income. Besides, increases of income might not be appreciated unless they improve people’s position relative to others in society. Easterlin
(1995), e.g., argues that money is only a source of happiness in comparison to others, who have less.
In research on national and international development the focus has for a long time lain mainly on economic growth (Bruton, 2001). Measures of happiness or wellbeing have been largely absent (UNDP, 2016). There are two reasons for this: first, there were methodological limitations. Since there is no universal agreement on what happiness means, it is difficult to develop broadly accepted indicators to measure happiness. Moreover, there is the issue of how to gather worldwide data on individual happiness (Veenhoven,1993). The second reason for focusing on economic growth when dealing with development is based on the assumption that economic growth in a country automatically leads to a better life for all. This assumption has, however, been
challenged by scholars, as economic growth can create large differences in income and wealth within a country (Bruton, 2001)
The attempt to measure economic progress on a nationwide basis started only in the 1930s and 40s with the development of the Gross National Product (GNP), which is the measurement of the total value of goods and services produced by the nationals of a country. Some years later, this concept was replaced by the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), which measures the total value of final goods and services produced within a country in a given time period (OECD 2011).
Although the GDP can describe the economic development of a country to an extent, it doesn’t portray every aspect of development of the people. In the last decennia,
scholars like Streeten, Sachs and Sen (Bruton 2001), amongst others, have argued that development can be perceived by other means than just a focus on economic growth.
Especially the discussion about meeting basic needs for everyone and the capability theory, developed by Sen and others, have broadened notions of development.
One country has gone especially far in incorporating happiness in its vision of development, that is the tiny kingdom of Bhutan. In Bhutan, King Wangchuck
introduced the concept of Gross National Happiness in 1972. He noted that happiness and overall wellbeing were the main purpose for the development of the country. He rejected the idea that the development of a country is mainly an economic process. Currently, Bhutan is the only country that employs happiness as the most important indicator for development. Several other countries also research wellbeing or happiness among their populations, but do not include them fully in their development analyses and policies. This led me to wonder whether Bhutan will remain an exception or
whether its approach can be an example for other nations, perhaps even to be employed universally?
The research question of this thesis is therefore: Can and should happiness be universally employed as an indicator for political economic development? The first part of the research question, can happiness be universally employed, deals with the question whether happiness can be defined as an intersubjective, measurable and employable indicator. Analyzing and comparing indicators used in the existing happiness indices may answer this feasibility question, because if we find significant common ground across different uses of happiness indicators around the world, this bodes well for a universal use of such indicators. The next part of the research
question, should happiness be universally employed, is a normative question and deals with the relevance of happiness as an indicator for development. The added value of
using happiness indicators in relation to human development will be argued in this thesis.
The thesis starts with an examination of the concept of global development and the indicators used to measure progress and development so far. Based on that paradigm, the feasibility and relevance of the employment of happiness as a new indicator can be reviewed. Since the second half of the 20th century the heretofore mainly economic concept of development has broadened to include domains like health, education, and employment. This is captured in the term human development. Broadening the concept of development to human development is a first step to introducing human well-being or happiness as an indicator for development. The questions to be answered in this chapter are: what is the contribution of Human development to the political economic concept of Development? How is the human development of a country measured, and are its indicators feasible for connection with and relevant for the happiness concept? It also discusses challenges faced by using indicators for development.
The following chapter deals with the challenges of introducing Happiness as a concept and objective within economics. After establishing the understanding of the Happiness concept, the question to be answered is whether this concept has an added value for the human development approach. Therefore, the main questions to be answered in this chapter are: what distinguishes happiness from the human development concept? Can happiness be an important new concept in the area of development?
The concept and implementation of Gross National Happiness as the main development goal in Bhutan will be analyzed in the third chapter. This provides insight into how happiness as a concept has been operationalized as different indicators for development
on a national level. Can the Bhutanese example inspire us in the quest for universal indicators of Happiness? Are universal indicators feasible?
The preceding question will be answered in the fourth chapter by reviewing,
comparing, and combining indicators of happiness used by international agencies and some national initiatives of different countries around the world. What are the most important and commonly shared measurements used to inform us about happiness in various countries?
Finally, my conclusions regarding the feasibility and the relevance of the
implementation of happiness as a universal indicator for development will be discussed in the concluding chapter.
1.
Global Development and Human Development
According to the UNDP, “human development - or the human development approach - is about expanding the richness of human life, rather than simply the richness of the economy in which human beings live. It is an approach that is focused on people and their opportunities and choices” (UNDP, 2016). This chapter will consider the different concepts of and debate around global development and especially human development. The questions to be answered in this chapter are: what can the human development concept mean and what is its added value? How is the human
development of a country measured, and are its indicators feasible for connection with and relevant for the happiness concept?
1.1. A Historical overview of the Global Development concept
The first attempts to measure welfare and progress of a country as a whole and in comparison to other countries have been focused on money. Kuznets and Gilbert developed a system of national income accounting, the so-called “Gross National Product” (GNP), in 1947. The GNP is the sum of all consumption, investment, and government spending by a country’s nationals, whether within or outside the national territory. Since the 1990s, the GNP has for most purposes been replaced by the “Gross Domestic Product” (GDP). The national GDP measures all consumption, investment, and government spending within a country, plus exports minus imports, regardless of the citizenship of the consumers or investors (Stanton, 2007).
The Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and its growth emerged as the leading indicators of national progress in many countries, although the GDP was never intended to be used as a measure of wellbeing (UNDP, 2016). Political economists investigated quality of life based on the idea that economic aspects, such as income, wealth, and employment, are important goals for a good life, both on the individual and on the societal level. Reducing material poverty then became an important goal of economics.
In this way, political economy gained its ethical status in the modern period. The science of economics became known as the “science of wealth,” with the “hope that poverty and ignorance may gradually be extinguished” and “that all should start in the world with a fair chance of leading a cultured life, free from the pains of poverty and stagnating influences of excessive mechanical toil.” (Bruni,
Zamagni, 2016)
In the last few decades, however, doubts have arisen about the moral value of
economic growth and the ethical basis of progress measured as such. This is not a new phenomenon. Critiques on the values of modernity and the market economy have existed since their beginnings and were shared by Marxists and others, especially during deep and long economic and social crises (Bruni, Zagmani, 2016).
However, in the 1970s and 80s the debate on international economic development addressed questions regarding the measurement of progress and welfare of nations as well. Many authors noted conceptual problems with using GDP or GNP per capita as a measure of human wellbeing. As Hicks and Streeten expressed the main critiques:
National income accounts: 1) only register monetary exchanges; 2) equate goods with commodities that are not “goods” but “bads,” like nuclear weapons, the production of which tends to lower social welfare; 3) count both addictions and cures, or “anti-bads,” like the costs of cleaning up petroleum spills; 4) treat natural resources as free and limitless; 5) place no value on leisure-time; 6) ignore freedom and human rights; and (7) ignore the distribution of income within the society. (See also UNDP, 1990)
In short, measuring development as GDP or GDP growth has it limitations, even from a purely economic point of view.
Another critique of the use of GDP and other macroeconomic indicators is that these macroeconomic indicators are not as objective and universally valid as often
perceived. Mügge (2015), for example, reveals the political origins and biases of these indicators. GDP, for instance, is measured differently per country in order to justify or support certain national policies. “Macroeconomic indicators are political
both in their origins – the choices for or against particular formulas to calculate them – and in their consequences – their use in public policy and the debates surrounding it” (Mügge 2015). To understand the meaning and usefulness of
indicators, the background of the indicators should be known and their potential political biases revealed.
In addition to the critiques on the limitations of the GDP and on the supposed objectivity of macroeconomic indicators, the general connection between economic growth and development has increasingly been disputed. Differences between rich and poor countries were for years described in terms of developed countries versus underdeveloped, or developing countries. It was widely thought that other countries can help ‘to develop’ underdeveloped countries with economic aid impulses (Stiglitz,
gross domestic product (GDP) of those countries. Development economist Jeffrey Sachs disputed the conflation of economic growth with development or progress (Sachs 2006). The main assumption behind that proposition has been that economic growth will automatically “trickle-down” and spread its benefits across society, also reducing poverty. However, this theory has not proved to be correct, since many countries with growth per capita also experienced growing inequality (Stiglitz, 2002). New approaches were needed to place greater emphasis on issues like the
(re)distribution of growth as well as employment, and on the question whether people’s basic needs were increasingly met.
1.2. The Basic Needs approach and Capabilities Theory
Within international organizations, alternative measures of development began to be considered, since the GDP does not address and measure such developments that are important for people’s wellbeing. From 1976 onwards, the International Labor Organization began publishing its work on the “basic needs” approach to
development, as an objective for poverty alleviation. Basic needs for everyone were taken to include an adequate level of both consumption and essential services, like health care or primary education. Employment was both a means and an end, and participation in decision making was also included (Stanton 2007).
The contributions of Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum were also essential for broadening notions of what development means. They introduced the “capabilities” approach to human wellbeing, focusing attention on what human beings can do, instead of what they have. Moving the discussion away from utility and towards “capabilities” allowed Sen and Nussbaum to distinguish means like money from ends like well-being or freedom (Stanton, 2007). Besides, Sen included in his theory the
undernourishment, escapable morbidity and premature mortality, as well as the freedoms that are associated with being literate and numerate, enjoying political participation and uncensored speech” (Sen, 1999) The capability theory is based on
the notion that members of a society should have the rights and capacity to participate fully in life.
For neo-classical economists, wellbeing is individual utility, a mental state. For Sen and Nussbaum, both wellbeing and freedom are important, and utility is not adequate as a measure of wellbeing, as Sen argued:
The ends and means of development call for placing the perspective of freedom at the center of the stage. The people have to be seen, in this perspective, as being actively involved - given the opportunity - in shaping their own destiny, and not just as passive recipients of the fruits of cunning development programs. The state and the society have extensive roles in strengthening and safeguarding human capabilities. This is a supporting role rather than one of ready-made delivery
(Sen, 1999).
According to Sen, capabilities are the abilities to do certain things, utilize what one obtains in the way that one desires, and be who one wants to be. Goods, on the other hand, are merely things that one possesses. Capabilities allow people to use goods in ways that are meaningful to them.
1.3. The Human Development Index
Based on this approach, the UNDP published the first Human Development Report in 1990 and presented the concept of “Human Development” as progress towards greater human well-being. “Human development” within the HDR consisted of three important elements: access to health, to education, and to goods. Empowered by these and other capabilities, individuals can achieve their desired state of being (UNDP, 1990).
The Human Development Index (HDI) is the core of the Human Development
Report, since it measures and compares human development combining indicators for the three important human capabilities: health, education, and a decent standard of living.
Health (H) is represented by life expectancy (LE), education by literacy (LIT) and school enrollment (ENR) (the literacy and school enrollment indices are combined in a weighted average as the education (E) index), and standard of living by GDP per capita (Y). The value for each of these components is transformed into an index using a
normalization formula in which the actual value is compared to a stylized range of values across all countries (Stanton, 2007).
From its inception, the Human Development Index has been criticized. Based on these comments, the UNDP has adapted its methodology over the years. The main points of critique on the HDI were: poor data, wrong indicators, and wrong measurements of per capita income and other indicators, of which some have been refined during the last years. In response to the critiques the UNDP has stressed that the HDI is not a static measure, allowing the organization to improve the measurement of human
development over time. Despite all its shortcomings, the HDI has been important in the field of applied development economics. It is an alternative to GDP per capita, since it measures different elements of development for comparison across both countries and time (Stanton 2007).
1.4. Millennium Development Goals and Sustainable development
goals
Besides the measurement of human development, the UN has also set goals for the promotion and enhancement of human development.The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) were an ambitious program of the United Nations to rid the world of extreme poverty (Saith, 2006). They consisted of eight international development goals for the year 2015 that were established following the Millennium Summit of the
United Nations in 2000. All 189 United Nations member states at that time, and at least 22 international organizations, committed to helping to achieve the following
Millennium Development Goals by 2015 : 1.) eradicate extreme poverty and hunger, 2.) achieve universal primary education, 3.) promote gender equality and empower women, 4.) reduce child mortality, 5.) improve maternal health, 6.) combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other diseases , 7.) ensure environmental sustainability, and 8.) develop a global partnership for development.
Each goal had specific targets, and dates for achieving those targets. The main mission of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), under which the Goals were placed, was to invest money into countries that were having problems with extreme poverty. The UNDP cooperated with international organizations like the World Bank and the IMF to provide the necessary financial means. Every five years a report of the UNDP was issued to show the progress towards completing the Goals. The struggling countries were helped by international organizations and agencies of the United Nations with technical and financial support (Sachs, J. & McArthur, J., 2005).
In those 15 years, the MDGs were especially successful in reducing income poverty, providing much needed access to water and sanitation, driving down child mortality, improving education and drastically improving maternal health. Moreover, huge improvements were made in combatting HIV/AIDS and other treatable diseases such as malaria and tuberculosis. The other goals were less successfully addressed.
After 2015, 17 Sustainable Development Goals for 2030 (SDGs) replaced the MDGs. On September 25th 2015, the UN member countries adopted a set of goals to end poverty, protect the planet, and ensure prosperity for all as part of a new sustainable development agenda. Each goal has specific targets to be achieved over the next 15 years. Based on the experiences and achievements of the MDGs, new targets were set. More than the MDG’s, which can be considered as a poverty alleviation programme, the SDGs focus, besides on poverty reduction, more on sustainability and safety, on improving life for future generations, and are important for all nations (UNDP, 2017).
Coming back to the question what Human Development contributes to the political economic concept of Development: Human development is an important addition to the concept of economic development. It is an approach that uses multiple dimensions and non-monetary measures of well-being to assess development. Besides, it
emphasizes the importance of freedom and opportunity for people as well as the role of nation states in facilitating them. Moreover, it acknowledges that people can convert their capabilities into wellbeing and development in different ways.
Improvements regarding the human development of a nation are measured and ranked in the yearly Human Development Index, which focuses on health, education and income. As such the index covers important elements which may contribute to happiness for people. The question is whether these are the leading aspects for happiness? And what distinguishes happiness from the human development concept? The following chapter deals with the challenges of introducing happiness as a concept within economics and as an objective in the area of development.
2.
Happiness in macroeconomics
As established in the previous chapter, the discourse on development has changed over the last couple of decades. Through the development of the concept of human
development a broader set of criteria and indicators is used to measure the development of a country. But although one may measure, e.g., the life expectancy in a country, information on whether people are happy with their lives is missing in the Human development indices. This chapter will look at how happiness as a concept has developed over the last decades. Essential is to understand what actually is meant by happiness, or wellbeing, as others call it. After establishing the understanding of the Happiness concept, the question to be answered is whether this concept has an added value for the human development approach. Therefore, the main questions to be answered in this chapter are: what distinguishes happiness from the human
development approach? Can happiness be an important new concept in the area of development?
2.1. Happiness in economic theory
For a long time, happiness was an unknown concept in economic theory. A term broadly used in neo-classical economics to define human well-being is “utility”. “Utility” in economics means the satisfaction derived or expected to be derived from the consumption of goods and services (Clark, 2005). The concept was first used Bentham’s ‘Introduction to morals and legislation’ in 1789. “Bentham argues that the moral quality of action should be judged by its consequences on human happiness and in that line he claims that we should aim at the ‘greatest happiness for the
This concept has severe limitations, according to Stanton (2007), although it has for a long period been the most important concept to measure human welfare in
economics:
“The usefulness of the “utility” concept as deployed in neo- classical thought suffers from some severe limitations. In the absence of inter- personal
comparability, the utility of individuals cannot be aggregated in order to consider social welfare, nor can it be compared in order to consider distribution. While a theory of well-being that can address neither aggregate welfare nor inequality seems of little practical or conceptual use, this modern definition of utility has nonetheless been the dominant measure of human welfare used in mainstream economic theory since the 1930s” (Stanton, 2007).
Interest in research on happiness or well-being of individuals was not very strong in the 19th century and the first part of the 20th century. That had to do, according to Veenhoven (2015), with the prevailing role of churches and strong ideologies in which the happiness of an individual was not a priority. The increased attention for happiness, during the last decennia of the 20th century, was closely related to major socioeconomic developments, like the steady growth of the standard of living, the absence of war in Western countries and the weakening of the role of churches and strong ideologies.
“This gave way to more positive goals, such as health and happiness. Another factor
was the development of a multiple-choice-society in which individuals can choose how to live their life and therefore get interested in what way of life will be most satisfying.” (Veenhoven 2015)
The growing interest in happiness triggered empirical research on quality of life as well. At the university of Rotterdam, for example, a department on ‘Social Conditions for Human Happiness’ was established in 2001. Prior to this, in his Happiness in
survey studies. The book is about the degree to which people evaluate their life-as-a-whole positively, shortly called 'happiness' or 'life-satisfaction.' This was measured through surveys, where respondents were asked to value their life on a 0-10 scale. Veenhoven argues that the average level of happiness in a country is an indicator of the livability of a nation. Like physical and mental health, it denotes the degree to which people flourish in a society (Veenhoven, 1994).
One may question, however, whether these economists of happiness have developed a proper alternative to the limitations of the utilitarian approach. Bruni and Zagmani have argued that these scholars use the terms happiness, subjective well-being, satisfaction, utility, well-being, and welfare interchangeably. Used in that way “happiness research
in Economics takes reported subjective well-being as a proxy measure for utility”
(Bruni, Zagmani, 2016).
Bruni and Zagmani argue that happiness used as a utilitarian concept ignores the old discussions about the meaning and nature of human happiness. Especially the social dimension is ignored. They were inspired by Aristotle in their search to include
happiness in economic thinking. The Aristotelian meaning of Eudaimonia entails much more than the English word happiness: it is the ultimate end, the best, noblest, and most pleasant thing that humans can realize in the world. All the other good things, including wealth, are only means for reaching happiness and living a good life. As the philosopher Martha Nussbaum writes: “Happiness is something like flourishing human
living, a kind of living that is active, inclusive of all that has intrinsic value, and complete, meaning lacking in nothing that would make it richer or better.” (Bruni,
Bruni & Zagmani claim that subjective happiness is certainly important, but it alone is not sufficient to evaluate the goodness of life: the evaluation of well-being cannot be entrusted solely to self-evaluation: An Aristotelian-inspired approach would say that it
is important what we feel but even more, what we do with our freedom, rights, and capabilities that contribute to human flourishing even though they are associated with suffering and pain (Bruni, Zagmani, 2016).
This call for an extension of the measurement of individual happiness to the
measurement of ‘a good life’ touches upon the challenge to formulate what a good life for all actually means and how it can be enhanced. It calls for the formulation of more development indicators, based on generally shared, even universal notions of what people value in life.
2.2. The Human development approach and the happiness concept
Although the human development approach has formulated criteria which might increase the happiness of people, there is an important difference between the concepts of human development and happiness. While human development is a conceptual approach, providing people with opportunities to lead lives “they have reason to value”, subjective well-being is an individual judgment, which can be empirically studied. This means that happiness or life satisfaction is not necessarily the same as human development. The fact that someone feels happier, for example, does not necessarily mean they have more to feel genuinely happy about (Hall, J., Helliwell, J., 2014).Nevertheless, in reality, key determinants for human happiness are also central to the human development concept. Hall (Hall, J., Helliwell, J., 2014) has compared studies on happiness with measurements within the Human Development Index. He found that higher values of the human development index correlate with higher life evaluations. Secondly, there were strong links between higher life evaluation and key measures of human development, like higher job satisfaction and more effective government, and moderately strong links between higher life evaluations and greater freedom of choice and lower inequality. So, despite differences in approach and criteria, there certainly is an overlap in the two concepts; they may complement each other:
While increases in human development are – by definition – desirable, the broadness of the concept means it is not possible to measure completely the extent of human development across a society. On the other hand, while one can measure changes in subjective wellbeing across a population, one cannot, without further analysis, know how it could be improved. The two approaches thus offer views of development which could complement one another (Hall, J., Helliwell, J., 2014).
When comparing happiness research with the human development approach, one can distinguish three important differences.
The main difference between the two approaches lies within the value of subjective measurements. The latter are too often neglected in the study of human development, while they may provide governments and policy makers with valuable insights on the appreciations and concerns of people. Happiness research assesses individuals’ views on their lives, including amongst other aspects, views on their embedding in society and the positive and negative effects of society on their lives. In this way, “subjective
well-being data can provide an important complement to other indicators already used for monitoring and benchmarking countries’ performance, for guiding people’s
Secondly, the formulation of what “a good life” for all actually means, and how it can be enhanced, is essential for the measurement of happiness. It emphasizes the need for new development indicators, based on universal notions of what people value in life. The happiness research assesses new domains in the concept of development, including negative developments, like environmental pollution. The formulation of relevant indicators is still in progress, but several attempts have been made to capture them in indices. Although health, education and income (the human development criteria) are important aspects of a good and happy life, they are not the only ones. This will be further analyzed in chapter 4.
Thirdly, the notion of a better life, not only for the present generation but also for future generations, is a new view and criterion, as we will see in the example of Bhutan as well. Enriching human development with the measurement of happiness following the example of Bhutan would draw more attention to sustainability and the way people deal with global challenges affecting their lives now and in the future.
In the next chapter, we will look into Bhutan, as this was the first country that formulated happiness as a holistic development goal for the country and worked out domains and indicators for measuring it. The question here will be whether the
different domains and indicators seem only relevant for the happiness perceived in this specific country or can it be a guide for a holistic measurement of happiness which might be employed universally.
3.
Gross National Happiness in Bhutan
Bhutan developed the concept of Gross National Happiness as a goal for national development already before the concept of human development became widespread. In this chapter, two questions will be answered that can give insight into the development of happiness as an indicator of development. Firstly, how is Gross National Happiness as a development indicator implemented in Bhutan? Secondly, is there evidence that the Bhutanese example may help in the quest for a universal definition? In these questions lies the foundation of a possible universal happiness indicator, as lessons learnt from Bhutan might show the direction for the rest of the world in order to make happiness a universal indicator for development.
In 1972 King Jigme Singye Wangchuck of Bhutan stated in a speech that he considered Gross National Happiness more important than Gross National Product (Wangchuck, 2000). This was the starting point of the debate on Gross National Happiness (GNH) in Bhutan. Happiness as a goal in life was not uncommonly talked about in Bhutan, as it relates to the Buddhist culture and philosophy of the country. In his speech, the king tried to emphasize that the economic development of the country should not come at the cost of the populations’ traditional values. Afterwards, the king used the term more often in connection to economic
development. These references, however, remained rather vague, as Gross National Happiness was not yet operationalized and not integrated into the governmental agenda. It was a broad vision still, rather than an elaborated strategy. One of the main reasons for the delay was the difficulty of defining and measuring Gross National Happiness. Although there was broadly based support for the vision and
goals of the Gross National Happiness concept in Bhutan, the translation into a state policy with domains and indicators was a long process.
Before discussing the formalization and implementation of Gross National Happiness as a development goal in Bhutan, it is important to consider the importance of Happiness within its culture. The culture of Bhutan is shaped around values learnt from Buddhism. Bhutan is the only country in the world that has Buddhism as its official state religion. More specifically the state religion of Bhutan is Mahayana Buddhism. This school within Buddhism acknowledges that everyone can reach the state of enlightenment. This specific focus of the Bhutanese state religion creates the expectation that the government should help in creating a place where people can reach the state of enlightenment (Givel, 2015). Bhutanese believe that law and culture are inherently Buddhist and cannot be separated from it (Whitecross, 2007).
The Buddha’s thinking on achieving happiness by escaping suffering is explained in the Four Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path. Buddha believed that people in pursuit of sensual pleasures and possessions would inevitably become unhappy, due to the disappointment coming with the loss of material goods and the envy of others. Happiness is the ultimate goal in life, and true happiness means eliminating one’s cravings within this world. Givel (2015) explains this further: "According to Mahayana Buddhist beliefs, happiness and compassion arise from awareness of suffering in the self and in others (achieved by removing the distraction of immediate suffering and through education).” Enlightenment is in a sense true happiness. Happiness is, however, not only related to individual well-being but also to social harmony (Hall, J., Helliwell, J., 2014). This background helps explain the smooth introduction and the support for Gross National Happiness as state policy in this specific country.
3.1. Domains and indicators of Gross National Happiness in Bhutan
In 2005 the Royal Government of Bhutan issued extensive research on Gross National Happiness (GNH), in order to operationalize it and to develop structural measurements and indicators for the concept. The process started with the formulation of the conditions and framework of the concept itself. The Gross National Happiness concept should be holistic, balanced, collective, sustainable and equitable. Holistic was defined (Ura, 2012) as recognizing all the aspects of people’s needs. The term balanced stands for balancing every different domain within the attributes of GNH. Collective means that happiness should be viewed as an all-encompassing collective phenomenon. Sustainable signifies that the pursuit of happiness should be facilitated for both the current and future generations.
Equitable is used for ensuring there is a reasonable and fair distribution of happiness. This meant that the entire population as well as the future population should have the possibility to achieve happiness in all its factors. Important is that happiness was defined as “the creation of enabling conditions where people are able to pursue wellbeing in sustainable ways” (Ura, 2009).
After establishing the meaning of happiness, several surveys were conducted with a variety of indicators ranging from 72 up to 640 indicators. The difficulty of having that many indicators was that the Bhutanese were not able to balance them out according to the before mentioned framework. In 2010, the Centre for Bhutan Studies formulated the final domains and indicators of Gross National Happiness. There are nine domains articulated for Gross National Happiness and 33 indicators. This was the result of drastically decreasing and combining the number of indicators of the years before. Table one below shows all domains and indicators (Ura et al, 2012).
As mentioned before, ‘balanced’ was one of the conditions of the Gross National Happiness concept. For this reason, the nine domains are all equally weighted. Another important result of the search for balance within the GNH index is the combination of subjective and objective measurements. The feelings people have are equally important as statistic measurements that indicate happiness. This is part of the process of trying to make the GNH index holistic. The idea of combining subjective and objective
measurements was based on the work of Amartya Sen (Ura et al,2012). Each domain will now be reviewed and further explained.
Psychological wellbeing is an intrinsically valuable and desired state of being (Diener et al. 1997). The indicators related to it provide an indication of how satisfied people are with aspects of their lives and an evaluation of the feelings and emotions people encounter on a frequent basis. As this is a very diverse and rather subjective topic, the indicators for the domain are structured in the same manner. The four indicators (life satisfaction, positive emotions, negative emotions and spirituality) use subjective and self-reported data to measure a person’s psychological wellbeing (Ura et al, 2012). The measurement in Bhutan was done through a national survey addressing this topic. This was the first time this kind of survey was conducted (Burns, 2011).
Regarding the domain of health, the Bhutanese consider physical and mental health as equally important. With regard to mental health, social circumstances, emotional status and spiritual aspects are taken into account as well. The different indicators (self-reported health, healthy days, disability, mental health) encompass all these different elements associated with health (Ura et al, 2012). Three aspects of the healthcare system are different in Bhutan compared to other countries. First, the healthcare system
diseases (even mental diseases) is widespread within the country and very developed even in places where roads are yet to be built. Finally, medical aid is free of charge. The result of this is that medical statistics, like maternal deaths and infant death rates, are improving greatly. This is the main measurement for this domain. The final ten percent of this domain is self-reported health, which is part of the subjective indicators (Burns, 2011).
Time use is added as a domain based on the assumption that balance between leisure and work will improve people’s wellbeing. Fleming and Spellerberg (1999) explain that “the value of time-use information lies in the fact that time is the ultimate resource and unlike other resources, time is shared equally by everyone”. Thus, every person has the capability of using the same amount of time as everyone, which makes their use of time an indicator of how they value their happiness (Ura et al, 2012). In recognizing how people use their time, insight can be obtained in the full productive capacities of a person (Burns, 2011).
Education is one of the domains that, due to the holistic approach, are more
elaborated than one might expect. Aside from the common measurement of formal education, the government of Bhutan also wanted to focus on traditional knowledge, common values and skills. Also, the even less ordinary subjects creative writing and expression were included in the domain. This resulted in the four indicators literacy, schooling, knowledge and values. Values are the values learnt from Buddhism predominantly. Traditional values as distinguishing right from wrong are learnt in schools as well. In this sense the concept of education was extended to life skills to capture the creation of “good human beings” (Ura, 2009).
Cultural diversity and resilience are considered needed to preserve the identity of Bhutan and to maintain it over the years. The philosophy behind the idea is the assumption that being included in the culture and identity of the country makes a person happy. The commitment to culture is also written in the constitution of Bhutan, where in section 1 article 4 it is stated that the government ‘shall endeavour to preserve, protect and promote the cultural heritage of the country’ (Royal Government of Bhutan, 1999). The indicators, zorig chusum skills (artisan skills), cultural participation,
speaking the native language, and driglam namzha (ethics, including formal language to address the royal family and formal dress codes) represent the cultural heritage the government is trying to protect (Ura et al, 2012).
Good governance is generally the key for supporting most other domains and indicators of happiness. Good governance thus also means implementing the right policy to improve happiness (Wyss, 2015). In the Bhutanese constitution, Article 20 states: “The Government shall protect and strengthen the sovereignty of the Kingdom, provide good governance, and ensure peace, security, wellbeing and happiness of the people.” To fulfill most of the promises made by the government and to incorporate the individual level the following indicators were formulated: political participation, services, governance performance, fundamental rights. The first two indicators weigh 40 percent each, while the latter two both weigh 10 percent. This is because the individual participation and opinions are valued higher in this domain than the global statistics in this area (Ura et al, 2012).
Community vitality focuses on the social capital of the country. Social networks and relationships create a community, and a vital community can be described as: “a group of people who support and interact positively with other individuals […] based on a
sense of cohesion amongst the members providing social support to one another” (Ura et al, 2012). Having a vital community to improve happiness is measured through the following indicators: donations in time and money to the community, safety,
community relationship and family.
Ecological diversity and resilience are domains and indicators that are not commonly measured as part of development. They show the commitment the government of Bhutan and its people have to preserving the environment of their country. As the country is mountainous and for 70 percent covered with forests, the Bhutanese have a strong connection with nature. Bhutan included this in its view on human development and thus also in the GNH index. The indicators (wildlife damage, urban issues,
responsibilities towards environment and ecological issues) are all based around protecting the environment (Ura et al, 2012). Two examples of set targets in this domain are: the forest coverage cannot be lower that 60% of the whole country, and in certain valleys the electric cables must be placed underground in order the preserve the distinctive fauna of that area. This makes Bhutan a frontrunner regarding environmental efforts around the world (Burns, 2011).
Living standard measures the material welfare of the Bhutanese people. It includes the measure of income per capita. Next to that, assets and housing are indicators that are created for this domain. The government acknowledges the effects possessions can have on happiness. Although the values of these indicators are slowly rising along with the increase of GDP, Bhutanese citizens still live in many cases in income poverty (Ura et al, 2012).
3.2. The perfect example?
After an extensive implementation process, Bhutan was finally able to use the Gross National Happiness index. As said before, the idea of the Bhutanese government and its researchers was to make this index as holistic as possible. Bates (2009) believes that, although happiness can never be perfectly measured, the Gross National Happiness index is the best approach so far by using such a wide range of variables. While Bhutan might have found a framework for measuring happiness in its country, could it also work outside of Bhutan? Tshoki Zangmo of the Centre of Bhutan Studies said the following on the matter:
“The desire for happiness is universal, and sustainable happiness is multi-dimensional, not just dependent on money. The ultimate outcome of policies should be to increase the welfare of the people, not just economic growth. And that’s what we’re measuring. GNH is a more holistic and completely different approach.” (Chen, 2015).
Or as Burns (2011) puts it: “Bhutan thus offers us a case example, not of an idealized philosophy, but of a practical, scientific approach for creating a political environment conducive to the pursuit of happiness”.
One may conclude that Bhutan has operationalized the concept of happiness in a feasible and measurable way and according to the preliminary conditions of being holistic, balanced, collective, sustainable and equitable. The question to be answered is whether the indicators used are universal applicable and relevant. The Bhutanese case is based on the country’s culture and Buddhist religion. Indicators like social harmony, cultural identity, and Buddhist values are emphasized and receive more attention than fundamental rights, governance performance and the rights of minorities. In the next chapter other indices will be reviewed. Comparing the Bhutanese indicators with others will clarify where used indicators might be universally applicable.
4.
Implementing happiness in policies
In this chapter the actual implementation of happiness as a development indicator in national and global policies will be reviewed. Has Bhutan’s initiative, the Gross National Happiness policy, been adopted in other countries, possibly in other forms? Various gradations of implementation will be reviewed, in order to assess whether the happiness indicators used are measurable, employable and could be universal indicators of development. The reviewed policies are: international encouragement by the United Nations, regulation by regional supranational institutions and national-level policies.
4.1. Indicators
In the chapter on happiness in macroeconomics, I have argued that the happiness research has changed and enriched the discourse on development. It has changed it because happiness research assesses individuals’ views on their lives. Reported subjective well-being is measured on a scale of 1-10 and the calculated average in a nation will be an indication of the livability of that nation (Veenhoven 1994). It might be difficult to grant subjective indicators a universal character, as self-reported
happiness can be culturally determined. As Mügge (2015) has explained, such indicators could contain political biases and cultural differences. The very word Happiness or Well-being might have a different meaning in different languages. And the importance of living a happy life might be different per culture as well. So what are we actually measuring when asking respondents whether they are happy about their life? Is the indicator biased through cultural differences?
raised the question whether these data represented actual differences in happiness, or were influenced by a cultural bias? Veenhoven tested for such a bias by using different words for happiness and assessing the influence of doing so on the results. He concluded that cultural bias seems to have limited effect. The differences between countries stemmed from real differences in material living conditions and political freedom, amongst others factors.
This result is important in the quest for universal indicators. It suggests that happiness indicators might indeed be universally applied. Cultural differences are often a reason for difficulties in implementing policies globally, but if we can argue that happiness can, at least on a basic, common-denominator level, mean the same thing across different cultures, this creates the possibility of defining happiness or life satisfaction universally through indices, such as those which are examined below.
Besides an indicator for life satisfaction, the formulation of other development indicators is needed, based on universal notions of what people value in life. The happiness research assesses new domains in the concept of development. The formulation of indicators is still in progress, but several attempts have been made to capture them in indices. Although health, education and income (the human
development criteria) are important aspects of a good and happy life, they are not the only ones. The indices employed usually combine subjective and conceptual
4.2. Indices measuring happiness
An important boost for the implementation of happiness as a development indicator in international policies was the High-Level Meeting of the United Nations on Happiness and Well-being, chaired by the prime minister of Bhutan in 2011. This is the direct result of the efforts made by the Bhutanese to introduce their idea of happiness worldwide. An important outcome of that meeting was the formulation of resolution 65/309 by the General Assembly in July 2011. In that resolution, the United Nations invited their Member States to give more importance to happiness and well-being in determining how to achieve and measure social and economic development. The resolution said that “the pursuit of happiness is a fundamental human goal” and invited member states to “pursue the elaboration of additional measures that better capture the importance of the pursuit of happiness and well-being in development with a view to guiding their public policies.” The resolution notes that the GDP indicator was not designed to and does not adequately reflect the happiness and well-being of people in a country, and “unsustainable patterns of production and consumption can impede sustainable development.” (General Assembly UN, 2011). The resolution was adopted without a vote.
Another result of this meeting was the release of regular World Happiness Reports by the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network (SDSN), launched in 2012. These reports are based on the Guidelines on Measuring Subjective Well-being developed by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and will now be looked at in more detail.
4.2.1. World Happiness Reports
(WHR)The World Happiness Reports survey the state of global happiness. The first report was published in 2012. Multidisciplinary experts across fields like economics, psychology, survey analysis, national statistics, health and public policy assess the quality of life of the different nations. Since then, three reports have been published in 2013, 2015 and 2016. The fifth edition will be released on the UN International Day of Happiness on 20 March 2017.
The latest report from 2016 lists 156 countries on a happiness index. It shows how ‘happy’ people are about their lives in a country, compared to other countries, based on indicators which are constantly re-evaluated. In the 2016 report, eight indicators were formulated to measure the happiness in a country. These were:
1. GDP per capita: the information is taken from the World Development Indicators (WDI) released by the World Bank
2. Healthy life expectancy at birth: based on data from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the World Development Indicators (WDI).
3. Social support: measures whether the respondent feels whether there are people around to count on when needed.
4. Freedom to make life choices: deals with the felt freedom of the respondent to choose what to do with his or her life.
5. Generosity: measures contributions to charities in relation to the GDP per capita 6. Perceptions of corruption: measures respondents’ perception on the spread of corruption throughout the government and within businesses
7. Positive affect: measures positive emotional experiences of the day before 8. Negative affect: measures negative emotional experiences of the day before
Besides, a special role was given to the measurement and consequences of inequality in the distribution of well-being among countries and regions (Helliwell, J., Layard, R., Sachs, J., 2016).
The reports are based on surveys conducted on individuals within a country as well as on indicators from other surveys, like GDP and Health expectancy. Besides these two objective measures, the WHR distinguishes three main classes of subjective measures of well-being: life evaluations, positive affect and negative affect. Regarding life evaluations, respondents have to assess their satisfaction with their current lives on a 0 to 10 scale (Cantril ladder). This is supported by a range of positive and negative experiential questions and one about the extent to which the respondents feel they have a purpose or meaning in their lives. (Helliwell, J., Layard, R., Sachs, J., 2016).
4.2.2. Better Life Index (BLI)
The OECD Better Life Index measures 11 topics which were identified as essential to well-being. These are defined in terms of material living conditions (housing, income, jobs) and quality of life (community, education, environment, governance, health, life satisfaction, safety and work-life balance). Some of the indicators are divided into subcategories:
1. Housing consists of: Dwellings without basic facilities; Housing expenditure and Rooms per person
2. Income is measured by Household net adjusted disposable income and Household net financial wealth
3. Jobs is defined by: Labour market insecurity, Employment rate, Long-term unemployment rate
5. Education is defined by: Educational attainment, Student skills and Years in education
6. Environment is defined by Air pollution and water quality 7. Health is based on Life expectancy and Self-reported health
8. Governance and civic engagement: stakeholder engagement for developing regulations and Voter turnout
9. Life satisfaction is based on the individual’s self-reported Life satisfaction
10. Safety is based on individuals’ felt safety when walking alone at night as well as the homicide rate
11. Work-life balance is assessed by employees working long hours, and the reported time devoted to leisure and personal care.
The Better Life Index is an interactive web-based tool, comparing well-being across the OECD countries, as well as the Russian Federation and Brazil, and is updated every year. It is interesting that the Index has no total ranking but users may use the data and define a ranking according to their preferences for ranking indicator. For instance, if one is mainly interested in material living conditions, one may create a ranking only based on those indicators. So, the Better Life Index itself does not rank the indicators in relation to well-being. For the purpose of capturing happiness, it is important to look at all the indicators used, as all these indicators are considered relevant for wellbeing. The index combines objective indicators with subjective indicators.
For most of the indicators EU and national statistics are used as well as other OECD research. For the subjective indicators like Quality of support network, perceived water quality, life satisfaction and safety, the Gallop World Poll is used.
4.2.3. Happy Planet Index (HPI)
The Happy Planet Index is calculated for a given country by combining:
1. Life expectancy: healthy life expectancy at birth, information taken from WHO
2. Experienced well-being: the average of all responses to the question how respondents value their life at this moment (Gallup World Poll)
3. Inequality: Scholars such as John Rawls and Anthony Atkinson argued that social welfare is dependent on the distribution of an outcome, not just the average. Within the HPI, the inequality is based on the outcome of the inequalities in life expectancy and inequalities in experienced wellbeing in a country. The average life expectancy score as well as the average experienced well-being of countries is adjusted downwards to a greater extent where the distribution is more unequal, and to a lesser extent where the distribution is more equal. The outcome is presented in a percentage of inequality. 4. The Ecological Footprint measures the average amount of land needed, per head of population, to sustain a typical country’s consumption patterns. It includes the land required to provide the renewable resources people use, the area occupied by infrastructure, and the area required to absorb CO2 emissions. It measures the
consumption per head of population, not production. Ecological Footprint is expressed using a standardized unit: global hectares. This indicator is taken from the National Footprint Accounts from the Global Footprint Network.
4.2.4. UAE Happiness Index
The United Arab Emirates introduced in 2014 an own happiness index to measure their citizens’ happiness. President Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan said that he wanted to make the country the happiest place in the world. This was supported by the vision of the government that the happiness of individuals is the basis of a stable, productive and
safe society and should play a pivotal part in the development of the country (Wam,
2016).
The development process of the UAE index took about two years, and the first survey among UAE citizens was launched in December 2016. Around 14,000 people were invited to participate in the survey (Wam, 2016). To further underline the
government’s ambition to improve happiness within the country, the United Arab Emirates appointed Ms. Ohood Al Roumi as Minister of Happiness in February 2016. (Peters, M., 2016).
The main indicators of the UAE Happiness index as mentioned at the time of the launch of the survey are formulated in broad terms: happiness, positivity, quality of life, education, learning, healthcare, society, culture, environment, infrastructure, government services, living standards and work (UAE interact, 2016). In order to compare these indicators with the Gross National Happiness index, they would need to be more precise and clear. However, it can be seen that the current set of indicators includes almost all of the indicators of the Gross National Happiness Index. And like in the GNH, indicators related to freedom of choice and corruption are not
4.2.5. Happiness Index of GOA
In India, the local government of Goa announced the development of a Happiness Index for the state in 2012. The government started to design the Index in early 2016. The first survey is planned to be carried out in March 2017 (Chief Minister, 2016). The indicators to be used are not identified yet; however, it is stated that the Happiness index will make use of the Gross National Happiness index of Bhutan. This emphasizes the importance of the Bhutanese example in the quest for a universal definition.
4.2.6. South Korea Index
South Korea was scaled to be among the lowest countries of the OECD on the world happiness index in 2016. The news was circulated via the main broadcast agencies in Korea and pushed the government to speed up the process of policy development on the issue. The governmental decision to focus on happiness had already been made in 2013 (Korea Times, 2017). The government has created the idea of a ‘Government 3.0’ and creating a nation where everybody is happy. The formulated strategies in the national happiness program are: “on-demand” employment and welfare, creative education, national security from crime and disaster and social integration. A sustainable environment is part of the strategy of national security from disaster (Mangahas, M., 2016). Because this program is still in its infancy, there is not more we can say about it at this time.
4.2.7. Venezuela and Ecuador: Happiness ministers
Two other countries aside from the above mentioned have created a ministry for happiness: Venezuela and Ecuador. The formal objective of the ministries is to enhance happiness, but in the economic and political contexts in which the ministries were established they were not conceived as useful instruments by the people
(Associated Press, 2013). The creation of the ministry of Supreme Social Happiness in Venezuela came at time when there was an enormous shortage of food and other goods. The new Minister was tasked with the 51 poverty-reduction programs which had been set up by former president Chavez. President Maduro received much criticism, since this was not considered to be an adequate answer to the severe economic crisis, safety problems, inflation and food shortage Venezuela was facing (Associated Press, 2013). Since 2013 the socio-economic situation in the country has only deteriorated.
In Ecuador, Freddy Ehlers became the minister of well-being in 2013. The population was skeptical and saw it as a move of extra useless bureaucracy without achieving a thing. John Helliwell (Wyss, 2015), one of the researchers of the World Happiness report, argued that creating a ministry post is not necessary for increasing the quality of life of a nation. Most of the indicators set up by the World Happiness report ‘can be achieved through good governance and can’t be decreed’.
4.3.
Comparing the indices to search for commonalities
Since the UN declaration on happiness, initiated by Bhutan, more countries have shown interest in including happiness as a goal for development. These initiatives are still in an initial phase, so their results are still mostly unclear. Nevertheless, the examples show that where the happiness ambitions are at the core of the national planning process, with the development of indexes, this might generate more effect than appointing a Minister for happiness or wellbeing. These ministers were perceived as an inadequate excuse for failure in other areas, or as an addition to the bureaucracy.
The different indices introduced new domains in the concept of development,
including negative developments, and combined subjective and conceptual indicators in comparing the different domains or indicators. In table 2, indicators that are used in the global and national indices are compared to search for commonalities. This table will be analyzed by posing the following guiding questions: which domains are deemed important and do they actually measure the same things? Where are the differences between the indices? What are the differences between national and international indicators?
Table 2: Indicators used in global and national indices
GHR WHR BLI HPI UAE SKorea
Health
x
x
x
x
x
Education
x
x
x
x
x
Income
x
x
x
x
x
Work- Live balance
x
x
Community
x
x
x
x
x
Governance
x
x
x
x
Cultural Diversity
x
x
Life satisfaction
x
x
x
x
x
Spirituality
x
Environment
x
x
x
x
Housing
x
x
Jobs
x
x
Freedom of choice
x
Inequality
x
Safety
x
x
Corruption
x
Which domains are deemed important and are they actually measuring the same things? Before comparing the different global indices, one has to notice that the focus per index differs: the WHR focuses more on individual perceived life-satisfaction, the BLI on basic needs and the HPI on the environment. Nevertheless, they all aim to measure the good life.
The most common indicators, which are shared among the different indices, also have a strong correlation with the indicators of the human development index. This holds true for the indicators health, education and income. This underlines again the importance of these indicators in people’s lives. In the researched indices, the measurement of health, education and income is mainly based on the measurements conducted for the human development index. Nevertheless, there are some
differences. In the World Happiness Report, health is based on life expectancy, while the Gross National Happiness Index includes child mortality and other specific medical statistics like mental health. Gross National Happiness adds subjective indicators as well, by also measuring self-reported health.
With regards to income, the Gross National Happiness index uses more holistic criteria than the human development index. It looks at per capita income within the broader domain of living standards. The BLI mentions employment as a specific criterion as well.
Education is measured similarly in every index. The difference only lies within the Gross National Happiness index, where knowledge of traditional values of the country is added as an indicator.
Life satisfaction is included in almost every index. This is not part of the human development index and a recognition of the fact that self-reported well-being matters. When measuring happiness, it is important to know how individuals assess their own lives, independent of their material and immaterial possessions.
Four indicators, health, education, income and life satisfaction, together form the cores of the indices. There are three other important indicators that appear in most of the indices as well: Governance, community and environment.
Government relates to good governance, the functioning of government services, trust in the government and the notion of a transparent and accountable government. Although the perceived corruption within the government is measured separately within the World Happiness Report, this indicator does address the performance of the government everywhere. This is achieved by using UNDP indicators as well as the subjective assessment of the prevalence of corruption by the government
It is interesting to notice that most of the used indicators in the WHR are similar to the subcategories of the indicators of Gross National Happiness (GNH), but not to the main categories. With regards to Community, social support is measured, which is mentioned as a subcategory of community vitality in GNH. Generosity is another subcategory of community vitality within GNH, measuring one’s donation of money in relation to income.
