potentials for monitoring, communication and innovation, since more people know
about the drivers of current challenges.
These paradigm-shifting and change-inducing effects have also been summarized by Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel Prize-winning economist and head of the
commission mentioned above, in a presentation to the Australian Productivity
Commission:
Part of the objective of rethinking our measurement systems is to generate a
national and global dialogue:
• On what we care about
• Whether what we are striving for is achieving what we care about
• And whether this is reflected in our metrics (Stiglitz 2010: 15).
However, these sociocultural benefits are still not reaped in many indicator
schemes, as many examples of rather technocratic sustainable development strategies show. In a major research endeavor between 2012 and 2013, the Bertelsmann
Foundation and the Canada-based International Institute of Sustainable
Development (IISD) developed an extensive criteria set for the analysis of 35 sustainable development strategies from around the world. They found that the best
practice examples included those that have a clear mission statement or Leitbild
connecting the otherwise abstract goal of sustainability with culturally vibrant local
notions of what constitutes a good life.
The top examples here were the GNH Index from Bhutan, the Buen Vivir (Good
Living) social philosophy in South American countries like Bolivia and Ecuador
and the Finnish vision of “quality of life within sustainable societies.” In general
terms the importance of linking sustainable development ideas with notions of
quality of life was a common theme among the successful examples (Bertelsmann
Stiftung 2013: 15–16).
A review of the Bhutanese case follows, as it was the most successful strategy in
the Bertelsmann/IISD study and served as a pioneering example in UN high-level
roundtables for a “new development paradigm” for the post-2015 development
agenda and its SDGs. It highlights how a development goal different from that of
GDP has played out since the 1970s.
The development aim of GNH was set out in 1972 by Bhutan’s fourth king,
Jigme Singye Wangchuck. He presented it as the logical outcome of the legal code
which sealed the unification of Bhutan in 1729, and stated that, “if the government
cannot create happiness (‘dedidk’) for its people, there is no purpose for the government to exist” (Ura et al. 2012: 6). This is not very different from the US
Constitution of 1776, which declares “life, freedom and the pursuit of happiness” to
be the basic rights of each individual and their protection to be the duty of the state.
However, Bhutan has made this duty an explicitly monitored and societal endeavor
instead of the individualized consequence of high economic growth.
Before the creation of their indicator system, Bhutan’s general idea was
understood as being “development with values” that were conducive to promoting
collective happiness by the creation “of enabling conditions where people are able
4.3 Pioneering Governments: Beyond GDP Measures as Development Frames
133
about the drivers of current challenges.
These paradigm-shifting and change-inducing effects have also been summarized by Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel Prize-winning economist and head of the
commission mentioned above, in a presentation to the Australian Productivity
Commission:
Part of the objective of rethinking our measurement systems is to generate a
national and global dialogue:
• On what we care about
• Whether what we are striving for is achieving what we care about
• And whether this is reflected in our metrics (Stiglitz 2010: 15).
However, these sociocultural benefits are still not reaped in many indicator
schemes, as many examples of rather technocratic sustainable development strategies show. In a major research endeavor between 2012 and 2013, the Bertelsmann
Foundation and the Canada-based International Institute of Sustainable
Development (IISD) developed an extensive criteria set for the analysis of 35 sustainable development strategies from around the world. They found that the best
practice examples included those that have a clear mission statement or Leitbild
connecting the otherwise abstract goal of sustainability with culturally vibrant local
notions of what constitutes a good life.
The top examples here were the GNH Index from Bhutan, the Buen Vivir (Good
Living) social philosophy in South American countries like Bolivia and Ecuador
and the Finnish vision of “quality of life within sustainable societies.” In general
terms the importance of linking sustainable development ideas with notions of
quality of life was a common theme among the successful examples (Bertelsmann
Stiftung 2013: 15–16).
A review of the Bhutanese case follows, as it was the most successful strategy in
the Bertelsmann/IISD study and served as a pioneering example in UN high-level
roundtables for a “new development paradigm” for the post-2015 development
agenda and its SDGs. It highlights how a development goal different from that of
GDP has played out since the 1970s.
The development aim of GNH was set out in 1972 by Bhutan’s fourth king,
Jigme Singye Wangchuck. He presented it as the logical outcome of the legal code
which sealed the unification of Bhutan in 1729, and stated that, “if the government
cannot create happiness (‘dedidk’) for its people, there is no purpose for the government to exist” (Ura et al. 2012: 6). This is not very different from the US
Constitution of 1776, which declares “life, freedom and the pursuit of happiness” to
be the basic rights of each individual and their protection to be the duty of the state.
However, Bhutan has made this duty an explicitly monitored and societal endeavor
instead of the individualized consequence of high economic growth.
Before the creation of their indicator system, Bhutan’s general idea was
understood as being “development with values” that were conducive to promoting
collective happiness by the creation “of enabling conditions where people are able
4.3 Pioneering Governments: Beyond GDP Measures as Development Frames
133