UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES SCHOOL OF URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING

Concepts of Gross National Happiness and Happy Planet Index as Good Measures of Quality of Life in Comparison with the Concepts of Human Development Index (HDI) of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)

Submitted to: Dr. Cresencio Montalbo Professor

Submitted by: Vinson P. Serrano Plan 214 Planning Tools and Techniques

April 2012

Gross National Happiness and Happy Planet Index: An Overview1 The Gross National Happiness and the New Economics Foundations Happy Planet Index aims to provide a significant measuring tool to give a substantial correlation on how people achieve their needs without compromising the existing resources in terms of sustainable development. As the Happy Planet Index 2.0 provides data indicating the three main determinant factors, it aims to provide its rating through the following indicators: (1) Life Expectancy, (2) Life Satisfaction, and (3) Ecological Footprint. Is it through the accuracy of these indicators that rankings will be generated and envisions on giving a good vantage point of observation for the world to see similar to the concepts of UNDPs Human Development Index. Based on the data provided by the HPI 2.0, the indicators aim to generalize the efficiency of the economic growth of every nation in relation to the achievement of their goals as a country with respect to the amount of their ecological footprint. This index is illustrating to us the proportion on how much amount of resources does each country spend to provide for its citizens in return of providing them their human needs. Such indicator states that highest ranking countries which are countries that are mostly composed of small islands such as the Dominican Republic, Cuba, Jamaica, and the Philippines. On such note, these countries indicate good measurement of indicators. But on the other hand, the HPI 2.0 does not guarantee that upon getting a high rank on the index means highly economic prosperity in terms of economic growth. Nor does it express the true value and meaning of happiness in terms of human enjoyment of its resources. Looking at the United Nations Development Programme: Human Development Index2 Similarly, the United Nations Development Programme devised a similar index method- the Human Development Index, which is more than just looking on the economic development of a country on a national scale within the three dimensions namely: (1) Long and Healthy Life (2) Education and Knowledge, and (3) Decent Standards of Living. Such index aims to provide us a rank list on human development in comparison to other nations. A few selected indicators as shown on the statistics of Life Expectancy, Adult Literacy Rate, Gross Enrolment Ratio and its percentage on its aggregates on Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary Level, and the Gross Domestic Product. These indicators become the primary basis in arriving with the index factor of every nation in terms of their level of human development. The human development here is viewed on a national scale- determining the development without consideration of other nations to give us a global development perspective.

S. Abdallah et.al. The Happy Planet Index 2.0 Why good lives dont have to cost the Earth E-Report. The New Economics Foundation. 2009. 03/28/2012. Human Development Report 2010 The Real Wealth of Nations: Pathways to Human Development. United Nations Development Programme. 2010. 03/28/2012.
2

UNDPs Human Development Index vis--vis Happy Planet Index Both viewed as scientifically-sound methods of observation to derive on a quantitative analysis of every country in terms of their progress in human development, the UNDPs Human Development Index is not far in relation to the NEFs Happy Planet Index. However, UNDPs HDI was derived to give a concrete relationship of some of its social indicators to the totality of the human development, but neglecting the environmental sustainability and the countrys ecological footprint as opposed to the indicator measurement of the NEFs HPI. As UNDPs HDI geared towards the emphasis of human development, HPI clearly delineate their index as an indicator of human development in relation to the rate of resource consumption as a primary consideration of the totality of human and the planetary well-being. The HPI goals are lined towards the formation of a successful society that both can support good lives without impeding progress that will cost more than enough resources that the Earth can provide. As stated earlier, HPI neither guarantee a secured quality of life in a traditional sense nor does it guarantee the most habitable places in terms of ecologically-sound environment. It only pertains to a quantitative analysis of every component in relation to other countries with varying types of development and resources. As opposed to the HDI, this index is generated to give a quantitative data on the development of a particular country- a data that can be used to measure the state of the country in terms of human development. The HDI defines an indicative ratio that is solely focusing on the social aspects of development, though indicative also in nature like the HPI, but rather does not guarantee the sustainability of the development in view. Nevertheless, both systems provide us a good quality of data that shows the proportionality of the human resources in relation to the environment. As the globe turns its trend towards environmental awareness, the shift of giving primary importance not only to the human development is already moving towards giving the same consideration on the development of the planet at large.

UNDPs HDI and NEFs HPI: Good Measures of Quality of Life? UNDPs HDI and NEFs HPI seemed ideologically devised for us to have a grasp of the level of development that each country has achieved. So far, these indicators directly tells us the importance of accuracy and validity of gathered data for us to verify on the grassroots level if these indices are truly to be considered as good measures of quality of life. By principle, the term quality in itself is subjective in nature thus making it hard to be realized statistically. Yet, subjectivity has been translated in manner of ranking though it should be secured in terms of accuracy that the manner of ranking has been categorically done in arriving with a conclusion.

First and foremost, I think UNDPs HDI is lacking of the concept of enculturation in measuring the human development. Enculturation is defined as the process by which an individual learns the traditional content of a culture and assimilates its practise and values. As described earlier, HDI indicators are composed of all statistical data pertaining only to what can be measured scientifically. It is lacking on the cultural aspect of development of a country- which is also a good indicator of human development looking on its cultural context. HDI indicator generalizes of human development without considering the type of development with respect to a nation. We can say that geographically, countries with varying topographical characteristics may have differences on development, thus resulting to a varying cultural component which affects human development. The same observation has been observed on the HPI wherein the ratio of development versus the ecological footprint generated has been observed, though the quality is hardly being measured though introduced. Though both systems made a radical departure from the world concentrated view of development in terms of the Gross Domestic Product, and I believe that both system needs to identify the cultural value of development, and the type of development that each and every country is undergoing through. However, based on my personal analysis, I think that providing us with these indices may give us a clearer understanding of the quantitative aspect of development. But if these data may be presented in a manner in which it can show its view on cultural significance, and arrive with a certain value that is being given by a particular country on their development, this may be a good quality of life indicator. On my personal judgement, both are good measuring tools of quality of life, but not on the social context of development that deals with the importance of human tradition translated through tangible and intangible heritage and values.