Criticism of Gross National Happiness

Criticism of Gross National Happiness (GNH) encompasses a range of objections raised by academics, human rights organizations, journalists, and Bhutanese diaspora communities against the development philosophy first articulated by Bhutan's Fourth King, Jigme Singye Wangchuck, in 1972. While GNH has attracted international admiration as an alternative to GDP-based measures of progress, critics contend that it functions variously as a propaganda tool, a nation-branding exercise, and a mechanism for deflecting scrutiny of the Bhutanese government's human rights record — particularly the ethnic cleansing of over 100,000 Lhotshampa (Nepali-speaking Bhutanese) in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

The Ethnic Cleansing Contradiction

The most fundamental criticism of GNH concerns the historical context in which it was elaborated as state policy. The Fourth King coined the term in 1972; the systematic expulsion of the Lhotshampa population began in the late 1980s and continued through the mid-1990s. Between 1988 and 1993, the Bhutanese government enacted a series of measures — including the 1985 Citizenship Act, the 1988 census that reclassified thousands of southern Bhutanese as "non-nationals," and the Driglam Namzha cultural code mandating Ngalop dress and customs — that culminated in the forced departure of over 100,000 people, roughly one-sixth of the country's population at the time.^[1]

Human Rights Watch documented that Bhutanese security forces expelled people after making them sign forms renouncing claims to their homes, and that authorities confiscated property, closed Nepali-language schools, and subjected Lhotshampa communities to arbitrary detention and violence.^[1] Critics argue that a government that carried out ethnic cleansing cannot credibly claim to measure national "happiness" — or that the expulsion itself was an exercise in engineering a more culturally homogeneous population whose "happiness" could then be more easily managed and reported.

As André Naffis-Sahely wrote in The Baffler in 2025, "Bhutan has largely gotten away with an attempt at ethnic cleansing, and its bright, orange-robed image remains mostly untainted." He noted that GNH's fourth pillar — the preservation and promotion of Bhutanese culture — provided conceptual justification for the exclusion and expulsion of non-Buddhist minorities.^[2]

GNH as Propaganda and Nation Branding

A significant strand of criticism characterizes GNH as primarily a branding exercise rather than a genuine policy framework. GNH has been described by critics, including human rights organizations, as "a propaganda tool used by the Bhutanese government to distract from ethnic cleansing and human rights abuses."^[3] The concept functions simultaneously as a domestic governance philosophy, a tourism marketing device ("Happiness is a Place" was Bhutan's tourism slogan until 2022), and a soft power instrument that has given Bhutan outsized influence in international forums relative to its size and economic weight.

Foreign Policy magazine published an article in 2010 titled "Ethnic Cleansing in the Kingdom of Happiness," highlighting the contradiction between Bhutan's international image and the reality experienced by expelled Lhotshampa.^[4] Academic Benjamin Mason Meier and Averi Chakrabarti, writing in the Health and Human Rights Journal, argued that GNH prioritizes "collective happiness (of the majority citizens) over individual freedoms (of minority populations)," creating what they termed "the paradox of happiness."^[5]

Some scholars have noted that GNH "has evolved over the last decade through the contribution of western and local scholars to a version that is more democratic and open," suggesting that the philosophy as promoted internationally differs meaningfully from the version originally deployed by the monarchy. Critics argue this evolution itself demonstrates GNH's flexibility as a branding tool adaptable to different audiences.

Measurement Problems and Exclusions

The GNH Index, developed by the Centre for Bhutan Studies using the Alkire-Foster multidimensional measurement method, surveys approximately 8,000 randomly selected households every five years across 9 domains, 33 indicators, and 124 variables. Critics have raised several methodological concerns:

Population coverage: The survey covers only Bhutanese citizens. The over 100,000 Lhotshampa expelled from the country — and the approximately 6,500 who remain in refugee camps in Nepal — are excluded entirely. Non-citizen residents and migrant workers are similarly not surveyed. With a population of approximately 787,000 at the time of the 2022 survey, the sample of 8,000 represents roughly 1% of inhabitants.
Self-selection through expulsion: By expelling its unhappiest and most marginalized populations, Bhutan mechanically improved its GNH scores. As critics have noted, a "happiness index" that first removes unhappy people is measuring something other than genuine national wellbeing.
Sufficiency threshold: The GNH Index classifies anyone achieving sufficiency in 66% or more of weighted indicators as "happy." The 2022 survey found that 48.1% of Bhutanese met this threshold — meaning that by Bhutan's own measure, a majority of the population is "not yet happy."^[6]
World Happiness Report discrepancy: On the UN World Happiness Report, which uses the Gallup World Poll, Bhutan has ranked around 95th out of 156 countries — far from the "happiest country" image popularly associated with it. In 2018, Bhutan's ranking fell from 84th to 97th. Bhutan has been excluded from some editions of the report due to incomplete data.^[7]

Domestic Contradictions

Critics point to a growing gap between GNH rhetoric and conditions within Bhutan itself:

Youth unemployment and brain drain: Youth unemployment has exceeded 29% in recent years. More than 65,000 Bhutanese — approximately 9% of the population — live or work abroad, primarily in Australia. Between January and September 2024 alone, 13,406 Bhutanese students enrolled in Australian universities. Civil servants account for nearly half of all migrants; in 2024, 70% of voluntary civil service resignations came from education and health sectors. In March 2025, the Ministry of Education announced plans to rehire retired teachers to fill 1,126 vacancies, with some schools having gone months without subject teachers.^[8]

Mental health crisis: Suicide is among the top six causes of death in Bhutan, with rates of approximately 11.4 per 100,000 people. The WHO reported that the country loses a life to suicide approximately every 90 hours. Depression incidence more than tripled during the COVID-19 pandemic, from 9 per 10,000 in 2019 to 32 per 10,000 in 2021. Nearly half of adolescents have been found to have some form of mental disorder.^[9]

Domestic violence: A 2017 nationwide study found that 44.6% of women and girls experienced intimate partner violence at least once in their lifetime. Earlier surveys found that approximately 70% of women believed they deserved to be beaten under certain circumstances.^[10]

Economic crisis: Prime Minister Tshering Tobgay acknowledged in 2024: "Seen from the successes of the social progress area, we have failed economically." One in eight Bhutanese was struggling to meet basic food needs. Economic growth averaged just 1.7% over the five years preceding the 2024 election.^[11]

Press Freedom and Political Prisoners

Bhutan's press freedom ranking has declined sharply, from 33rd globally in 2022 to 152nd in 2025, placing it in Reporters Without Borders' "very serious" category. Journalists report difficulties accessing government information, with ministries requiring written questions and response times of up to six months. Foreign journalists are not permitted to conduct independent reporting in southern districts previously home to the Lhotshampa population.^[12]

In April 2025, six UN human rights experts called on Bhutan to release 32 individuals imprisoned for decades after protesting the treatment of the Nepali-speaking minority. The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention found in 2024 that at least three detentions were arbitrary under international law. The experts reported conditions of severe torture, inadequate food and water, and denial of family contact. The Bhutanese government did not respond to these communications.^[13]

Media Complicity and Western Reception

A recurrent criticism concerns the role of international media in perpetuating an uncritical narrative about Bhutan. NPR reported in 2018 that "inside Bhutan, some residents say the country's having difficulty living up to the glowing brand," with one resident describing GNH as "expensive, tiring, and making a lot of us cynical."^[14] Critics argue that Western journalists, granted limited and controlled access to Bhutan, often reproduce the government's preferred narrative without investigating contradictions.

The "Last Shangri-La" framing — widely used in travel journalism and adopted in Bhutan's own tourism marketing — has been criticized for orientalizing the country and creating a romanticized image that obscures both historical injustices and contemporary challenges. Scholars note that Bhutan's high-value, low-volume tourism policy, which until 2022 required daily fees of $200-250, functioned in part as a mechanism for controlling the flow of visitors and limiting independent observation.

Defenders and Evolving Debate

Proponents of GNH argue that it represents a legitimate critique of GDP-based development models and has influenced wellbeing measurement globally, including through the OECD Better Life Index and the UN's Sustainable Development Goals framework. They note that GNH was never intended to claim Bhutan is the "happiest country" but rather to orient policy toward holistic wellbeing. The Centre for Bhutan Studies has acknowledged that the 2022 survey found only 48.1% of the population classifiable as "happy," framing this as evidence of the index's honesty rather than its failure.

In 2024, the Tobgay government introduced "GNH 2.0," acknowledging the need to place greater emphasis on economic development while retaining the broader GNH framework. Whether this represents a substantive shift or a rebranding remains a subject of debate among observers.

Criticism of Gross National Happiness

The Ethnic Cleansing Contradiction

GNH as Propaganda and Nation Branding

Measurement Problems and Exclusions

Domestic Contradictions

Press Freedom and Political Prisoners

Media Complicity and Western Reception

Defenders and Evolving Debate

See Also

References

Test Your Knowledge

Help improve this article