Dr David’s critique of Bhutan’s GNH story
Dr David L Luechauer has caused quite a stir in Bhutan with his open criticism of GNH. He taught with the Gaeddu College of Business Studies as a lecturer for a year but had to cut short his two year stint due to his wife’s health concerns. He is teaching at the Krannert School of Management in the USA under Purdue University a global top 50 program. Apart from an extensive academic background Dr David advises major business companies in USA. He talks to The Bhutanese in an in-depth interview.
1. How can our leaders make GNH a better model?
I am not sure they can nor am I sure that it is their job to improve the model. Model building is for academics not leaders. I would argue that leaders should stop worrying so much about whether Bhutan pursues and measures GNH, GNP, or GDP and should focus instead on building the basic infrastructure of the country, putting in place the laws, processes and programs that will force the country and the people to become more self-sufficient and self-reliant and making sure that the foundations of democracy are in place and secure. In my most contrarian moments, I sometimes wish or think that Bhutan should return to being a monarchy and that the King should follow the model Jack Welch used to save General Electric. Bhutan needs to get into the game before telling others how to play the game and right now, Bhutan isn’t even in the stadium.
2. In your article you say that the Brazil GNH conference was a failure of sorts and that Bhutan and GNH’s 15 minutes fame is up. Can you please elaborate?
I was just quoting what I had read reported on a variety of websites which lamented the fact that what emerged from Brazil was a document much toned down from that which was discussed at the United Nations. As for 15 minutes of fame, the clock is ticking. Unless Bhutan could really show that is has something to offer the world beyond platitudes and pronouncements. Bhutan must show that it possesses substantive working models of excellence in education, commerce, health, personal well being, etc. that are directly attributable to the pursuit and practice of GNH. Bhutan simply does not have such levels of excellence to show the world. Hence, to the extent that people, outside a few economists, academics, and environmentalist, who had much interest in Bhutan will soon lose whatever interest they may have had in the country except for being a tourist destination. As I said, Bhutan would have been better to have flown under the radar and not touted GNH until it was ready or could document that it had better schools, hospitals, businesses, products, and overall social living conditions than more developed nations.
3. Your article also says, “Brazil’s GNH conference is only a failure if Bhutan doesn’t learn the simple lesson that both charity and development begin at home.” What did you mean?
I think international aid and international support will be contingent upon other world leaders and people of other nations first seeing that Bhutan is pulling itself up by its own bootstraps. Right now, the consensus among those who care is that the Bhutanese leaders and people must learn the difference between a handout and a hand up. We heard this a lot from those in the medical field who were visiting Bhutan and trying to effect change in Bhutanese medical practices. It’s hard to describe without sounding mean spirited but the attitude many expatriates experience when dealing with Bhutanese and Lisa Napoli documents this fairly well in her book, is “I’m so poor -give me, give me” or “get me out of here.” It’s like a cultural neurosis of looking and waiting for a savior instead of realizing that the answers lie within and at home. It’s time the Bhutanese people understand they must roll up their sleeves and get down to some very hard work at building an economy. It was common knowledge that the least hardworking faculty at GCBS was the Bhutanese faculty! It is strange but whenever we had visitors and we had some very prominent visitors to the college, the Bhutanese faculty were rarely if ever present.
4. GNH has heavy international intellectual backing with people like professor Jeffrey Sach, Joseph Stiglitz etc endorsing GNH. Surely they know something?
Obviously brilliant men with a very clear leftist liberal agenda. You want me to trot out the list of equally famous, equally brilliant right wing economists with their own agenda who would oppose GNH as measure? It is a philosophy, it has its supporters and detractors, show me a philosophy that does not have brilliant minds on both sides of the issue. I will say this, I’d like to see either one of them come and live and teach under the exact same conditions as the faculty at GCBS and see if they are still supporters of GNH.
5. What are the flaws that you see in the current GNH philosophy?
Honestly, I have no particular “quibble” with GNH as a philosophy. My concerns lie in the area of operationalization, Bhutan taking the “lead” in advocating GNH when so much basic work needs to be done home and for the people of Bhutan, and the deleterious effect the pursuit of this model particularly the “happiness” component is and will continue to have on the people of Bhutan.
From a philosophical standpoint, if I had to state two major concerns they would simply be. First, there is no consensus on the key variable “happiness.” what it means or how to measure it. Second, it seems to be propelling Bhutan toward socialism at a time when even countries like China are moving toward a more free market capitalistic orientation.
6. The main pitch of Bhutan’s message to the international community is to supplant GDP with GNH and in doing so avoid the dangers of unchecked modernization like climate change, conflict over resources, breakdown of social values etc. What is wrong with that?
The underlying assumption that GNH is needed to do this and your own phrasing of the question, assuming that modernization is currently unchecked. Why do you say unchecked? The last time I looked, many nations of the world were passing and enforcing laws on everything from human rights and environmental protection to consumer/product safety codes. Your question, as is so often the case in the GNH literature, shows no real understanding that a country could measure GDP or GNP and still practice as much or more GNH related principles than Bhutan currently demonstrates. However, at the end of the day, I think politicians of either persuasion put too much emphasis on either GNP or GNH. The real issue is not what we measure but how we behave.
I teach leaders and aspiring leaders around the world, they run everything from small entrepreneurial ventures to fortune 500 companies. Except for the few who have either a background or an inclination toward economics, they never talk about GNP, GDP, and GNH. They are much more concerned with accounting, financial and managerial principles than economic models. If you think GDP drives decision-making in company you are being naïve. GDP or GNP is an economic number reported every few months in the media. It is a point of information to which some may or may not pay attention. Conversely, the business students and leaders I know and work with check the global markets every day and many check those markets numerous times a day. So, you tell me which is more important to decision making in the USA – the GNP numbers or the DOW Jones Average, which is more important in Tokyo their GNP numbers or the Nikkei Index. Those other numbers drive policies and behaviors not the GNP numbers.
7. Despite your criticism hasn’t Bhutan’s international profile increased due to GNH?
GNH is a topic that is getting some press coverage but even that is minor. Honestly, except in some academic circles and a few media outlets there is neither a view of GNH or for that matter Bhutan. I just gave a leadership presentation to 50 Chief Financial Officers of major companies. I was introduced as just having returned from Bhutan. You have to understand, these were men & women, who held the senior financial position in companies worth anywhere from 100 – 500 million dollars. Less than 5 could even place Bhutan on a map (I am not really proud of that but it is a fact). In terms of GNH, the typical response was oh yes, aren’t they the people trying to be happy or something like that. The even fewer who had any substantive knowledge of GNH basically had the same impression – it is nothing more than environmentally friendly socialism. In my experience teaching and lecturing around the world – Business leaders, the people who really create jobs and drive economies, neither knows nor particularly cares about either GNH or Bhutan.
I think the average person on the street that we have met on our travels back home from Bhutan and since we have been home is more interested in the King and Queen than in GNH.
8. The GNH philosophy in part or full is supported by countries like the UK, France, Japan etc where some forms of happiness measurement tools and indicators are being put in place inspired by Bhutan. They must have found something right with GNH?
The presumption that Bhutan has inspired this is not true. Measures of happiness and other forms of social well being go back many decades and reference to such lifestyles can even be found in many ancient holy books and religions. Men and women and even governments have espoused and tried to practice the principles which are at the core of GNH for centuries. Both the Quakers (Society of Friends) and Shakers in the USA advocated and actually practiced much of that which is contained in GNH in 1700’s.
Even the USA practices GNH with the application and enforcement of strict laws on everything from labor practices to trash disposal to civil rights. Measuring things is not the same as doing them. More importantly, however, is measuring the right thing, in the right way, and at the right time.
Measuring happiness in the aggregate is fraught with numerous problems and then attributing much meaning to those results could lead to even more problems. Instead of measuring “happiness” how about we measure significant things like a nation’s degree of tolerance and protection of civil rights, the amount of philanthropy displayed by the populace, the extent to which a nation actually creates and enforces laws that provide: consumer protections, protections for children, basic freedoms of speech and other civil liberties.
What matters is that a government provides people with all the protections to pursue happiness but whether they actually attain happiness or not, is not a concern for the government.
In the final analysis, I am glad those countries are measuring the happiness of their people. The real question will be what they do with the results. Anyone can conduct a study or take a poll, a few people can accurately interpret the results, and even fewer still actually do anything meaningful with the findings.
Case in point, I handed RUB a major and important study that probably has far greater implications and import in the short and long run than whether or not Bhutan pursues GNH. In fact, I would argue that Bhutan’s ability to pursue GNH at all may be largely and ultimately impacted by how it handles its current alcohol and soon to be drug problem at its Universities not to mention among its high school students, unemployed and under employed youth. So far, what I have seen and heard out of RUB in general and GCBS in particular has me alarmed that key officials are locked in denial and ignorance that could prove catastrophic.
It’s not the measure, it’s not the interpretation, the real question is whether or not France & Japan and others who may measure happiness have the political will, the resources, and the social support to do anything meaningful with the results.
9. Has GNH become an intellectual concept?
Yes, it has largely become an elitist concept embraced by fundamentalist environmentalist, left wing liberals, and economists with Marxist, Socialist, Communistic leanings. GNH is discussed in academic hallways, high end political conferences held in swanky resorts or conference centers by people who likely live lifestyles far superior to the average person in the street or in the village. I doubt rather seriously whether or not the average Bhutanese farmer or village cares whether the USA/Bhutan/France/Japan measure GNP, GDP, or GNH.
The literature on GNH drips of socialism which is not a big surprise since most of the economists who seem to be writing about GNH have strong leftist leanings. I am a bit afraid that pushing a socialist or socialistically grounded model of economic development will lead to negative social and economic results that will push Bhutan even further behind the rest of the world in terms of development and standard of living for the people of Bhutan.
In short, GNH is a competing philosophy, a hot topic among a few. It offers nice platitudes to debate and upon which to pass generally meaningless and toothless UN resolutions about which some people can feel good.
10. As an educationist what is your view on the success of the Ministry of Education’s efforts to take GNH to students across the country?
My family and I had the opportunity to meet the minister of education on numerous occasions. I can’t think of a finer man. The only concern I might have is that GNH must be taken and taught as an option not as a command. In short, children should be taught to analyze, assess and be given the freedom to critique GNH as model particularly as they move from grades 6 – 10/12 instead of having GNH forced upon them as a socio, political, cultural and economic imperative.
They should be taught the underpinnings of the model, the way the model impacts behavior, and given an honest and fair perspective on other models of economic development.
Unfortunately, I’ve read two massive handbooks of articles on GNH and they all paint the west or other models as being comprised of people who are miserable, mean-spirited, depressed, anxious, and the like. Nothing could be further from the truth. If GNH is taught as one of many economic models to which a person in Bhutan could subscribe it would be marvelous and acceptance of GNH would be sincere. If GNH is taught as the only acceptable model, then this is nothing more than indoctrination and socialization. It would be antithetical to democracy, but, and through no fault of the Minister’s, I fear this may happening.
11. In your article on GNH you talk of the importance of ‘truth telling to power’ and how there is little of it in Bhutan. Can you please elaborate?
People are very reluctant to speak up and advocate alternative points of view on any number of issues. I saw this all the time with the students at GCBS they were too afraid to confront either professors or administrators about much needed reforms. Conversely, I do give much credit to the press in Bhutan. They are willing to report on less than flattering stories and raise serious questions but even that is done cautiously. You have to understand, from my perspective, the conflict averse nature of the populace leads them into a tacit acceptance of the way things are instead of a passionate commitment to working for how things should or could be. I think people in Bhutan are afraid to say they are not happy, in public forums. Yet observing their behavior you can see they are not happy and that is why there are increasing social problems such as alcoholism, drug use, violence and the like. The real problem, however, is that people say one thing and do another.
12. Will Bhutan stand to benefit in a significant way by propounding GNH to the international community?
At some level it may attract attention and even a few visitors. However, the let down was amazing. Bhutan over promises and under delivers. The more people who come to Bhutan, particularly those who come unscripted and with a sincere desire to help, will likely walk away with the same impression as I. I believe you will sense that while she had much love for the Bhutanese people, Lisa Napoli the author of Radio Bhutan, holds much the same opinion as do I.
Bhutan needs to get a basic infrastructure in place and demonstrate that is has a self-sufficient economy in place before it even begins to tell the world it has any meaningful operational model for the rest of us to follow. Singapore, Sweden, Finland are places that could advocate GNH as a model for others to follow – but, not Bhutan. Advocating GNH could possibly attract some international development dollars and grants but again that would attract attention and I fear that corruption could be or become an issue with a large influx of grant and aid packages.
13. What is your view on the application of GNH values in Bhutan?
I think the first issue is to build your democracy and get people away from relying so much on the government and on foreign aid.
Concomitantly, Bhutan needs to build a quality infrastructure (hospitals, roads, schools, public toilets); build a large middle class of people who have skills (plumbers, electricians, medical technologists) and purchasing power. Build a culture of self-sufficient, self-reliant and entrepreneurial people who come up with ways to generate internal products and internal demand for those products. Goodness, every time we wanted anything the common refrain was, go to India and buy it.
GNH is a measure nothing more, nothing less. The devi so to speak is in the application. I am a big believer in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.
The pursuit of higher order constructs such as happiness -follows from the meeting of base level needs. My fundamental concern from touring Bhutan and speaking with ordinary people is that Bhutan really has too many people whose base needs are not being met. For example, the living conditions for the majority of the faculty at Gaeddu College of Business Studies (GCBS), which I would estimate to be some of the best living conditions in the country are substandard at best and in many cases are worse than substandard. Gedu was rife with TB. Even basic over the counter medications were unavailable and finding clean and sanitary toilets was a major challenge on almost any trip we took.
Medical care, albeit free, is most problematic. It’s hard to describe just how challenging and difficult the living conditions are for the “average Bhutanese citizen.” Until recently, this probably has not been a problem because the average citizen didn’t know any better. However, the advent of TV and Internet is going to heighten awareness among the populace of how “relatively deprived” they are in comparison to others in the region. Moreover, the “standard” by which one defines base will escalate in the minds of the populace and as those needs go unmet social problems will increase drastically. We already see this at GCBS and in the Capital. Over 30% of the student population already tests for having alcoholism, not social drinking but alcoholism. Sadly, the problem isn’t being created in college as the second semester students report that drinking and drinking heavily beyond socially acceptable or healthy limits starts back in high school. “Happy” and content people do not drink at problem and alcoholic levels.
It is hard to type an answer to this question but it is just imperative that Bhutanese leaders understand just how much basic infrastructure work needs to be done before launching out and telling the rest of the world to follow GNH. Rather than following GNH, I would much rather see Bhutan look at the New Deal program of Franklin Roosevelt and seek to emulate something along those lines. However, even that would be a challenge.
I fear that too much emphasis is being placed on the happiness component of GNH. At this stage of development what Bhutan needs is the development of self-reliance and entrepreneurship. However, as my eldest son experienced in talking with many students about business ideas and start up ideas, they just couldn’t understand. They kept telling him he was simply a money grubber or that the best jobs were in the civil service.
I tried to have groups comprised of five students in my classes generate 25 ideas on how they could make more money than what the government was supplying them by starting up local businesses in and around Gedu (e.g., doing laundry, offering grass mowing services, collecting and selling all the discarded wood and fallen branches as starter fuel for the bukharis, collecting recyclables and selling them, etc were just some of the thoughts that had sprung to my mind.) I couldn’t find one group that could even come up with 10 ideas.
When I finally listed my ideas, the general response was “that would be a lot of work doc” or “we don’t do those kind of jobs.”
This was a particularly tragic line of thinking when we also found out that the typical student at GCBS spends less than two hours a day studying or preparing for class. What do they do with all their time?
A new deal type program would actually require Bhutanese citizens to get out and build roads, build damns, haul away trash, fix toilets, clean increasingly polluted streams and roadside areas but sorry to say, my candid observation is that there is at least two generations of Bhutanese who are content with either letting things decay or are waiting for foreigners to do the real hard work of building the infrastructure the country so desperately needs.
In the cities, the work ethic and entrepreneurial spirit is tragically low. The Minister of Labor even reported in a speech/talk delivered to GCBS faculty that he could not find students to fill seats in the many vocational schools because they were told by their parents that such jobs were not prestigious enough or too much hard work. In a sense, these parents were telling their kids it was better to be unemployed than to do real work, the type of work that actually builds nations, builds wealth, etc. The government will soon learn that it can’t provide for the growing number of unemployed youths in the country and that many are unemployed in a sense by choice because they simply do not want to do the type of jobs which need to be done. All this emphasis on happiness is also breeding a sense of laziness or entitlement which the nation simply can’t afford. I would recommend having a program where college students have to do two years of “labor work” around the country before they get their free tuition and stipends. I would also recommend that all Bhutanese College Administrators come to the USA and study in Berea College.
14. You claim that countries such as Singapore, Sweden, USA, Finland, Denmark, Netherland, Germany and etc are closer to GNH than Bhutan. Please elaborate?
Seriously, look at the policies, the laws the actual practices in everything from waste disposal and collection, to employee rights, to civil liberties. Singapore is much cleaner than Bhutan. Finland currently boasts the best education practices in the world. For all its faults, the USA demonstrates a concern for the well being of its own citizens as much or more than any nation I have ever visited. You know, we are not all miserable in the West and as nations all of the above are among the first to be on the scene anytime there is a catastrophe anywhere in the world whether it happens to friend or foe. Bhutan could pick the best practices from all of them and seek to emulate and then surpass them. Simple things like child safety laws which are in place in all of those places, are non-existent in Bhutan, so how can Bhutan claim to have any great concern for the well being of its children.
_________________
Explanation on reactions
Its not about the Kings
While some may consider much of what I have written to be “critical” of Bhutan, rest assured that I have nothing but praise for the Bhutanese press / media. You do your country, you do your people and you do your leaders a tremendous service. I would rank the Bhutanese media establishment as a rising and shining star in the industry and suggest it to be a point of pride to which your young democracy could point to the rest of the world!
Second, I would like to the thank the 100’s of Bhutanese people and other’s around the world who have taken the time to write to me personally, post electronic responses to the editorials on your respective sites, and to post both my work and their responses to numerous social media sites such as Facebook. While not every reader agrees with my sentiments and observations as my wife currently says the average is about 87% in favor and 13% opposed. In general, the Bhutanese responses clearly demonstrate that it is still possible in civil societies for people to disagree without being disagreeable. Moreover, those of you who support my work have clearly demonstrated to your leadership that is possible to speak truth to power which was the thesis of the editorial which started the avalanche of emails to my inbox.
In reflecting upon that which has been posted and published, I find that there is a couple of points which need to be clarified and upon. The most important of which may be the following.
My family and I were afforded two occasions to not only meet but to converse with the Fourth King and His Majesty the King as well as Her Majesty, Jetsun Pema. On each occasion, we were well aware that our family was experiencing a privilege and an enjoying a luxury that many Bhutanese citizens would never enjoy namely, the chance to actually interact and engage with their Kings and the Queen.
The memory of those encounters and exchanges will last a lifetime for they are two of the finest, most humble, most articulate, most intelligent and most service oriented men we have ever met.
Indeed, the Fourth King took time to learn about the cancer impacting my wife which was necessitating our early return and assisted in obtaining some medicine which we were not aware about and may prove most helpful in her recovery.
We are indebted to His Majesty Jigme Singye Wangchuk for his generosity and thoughtfulness.
Thus, to those who think my writings on GNH are opposed to either His Majesty or that those remarks in some way imply a lack of regard for the Bhutanese Royal family, nothing could be farther from the truth.
In fact, it has largely been my operating assumption that both the Fourth King and His Majesty have much better and more important things to do for themselves, their family and the people of Bhutan than to worry about the writings of a few academics, media pundits and others with the time and inclination to engage in public discourse about GNH.
My concern and focus has never and would never be at the Royal level. My concern lies at the political level. If I am faulted for being inappropriately harsh on anyone in the power structure of Bhutan, one could infer that my writings are an indictment of the Prime Minister and the current ruling majority party. I will accept that accusation with the simple reply, welcome to democracy and freedom of the press in action.
But, I will not stand for any accusation or respond to those who would subscribe to the erroneous belief that in some way I or my family does not hold The Fourth King, His Majesty the King as well as Her Majesty Jetsun Pema in the highest regard.
Indeed, the Luechauer family would argue that the Royal Family in Bhutan sets a standard far above that which is currently practiced by many other Royal Families and Clans around the world.
I would also like to make it abundantly clear that I have no philosophical issue with GNH. My concern is, was and will be in the day-to-day implementation and political operationalization of the concept. I am extremely worried about the grandiose, arrogant and self-serving way the concept has been branded, marketed and sold to the people of Bhutan and to the rest of the world. I worry about the overt and covert means by which GNH is being socialized, indoctrinated and unquestioningly imposed upon the Bhutanese people without a fair and balanced portrayal of the limits, flaws, in congruencies, myths and negative consequences this approach may have on their wellbeing and advancement.
Moreover, I worry that the Bhutanese people are also being falsely led to believe that all in the west is bad, that many of in the west are rich but “unhappy”, and that somehow it is the pursuit or measure of GDP that is the cause of these problems. Here is a newsflash, we aren’t all bad, we aren’t all unhappy and most of the word’s issues have more to do with human nature than the pursuit or measure of GDP.
I cringe whenever I read that GNH is a great, noble, or even new/novel model of economic development that was somehow discovered by the Bhutanese. GNH is neither great nor noble it simply is GNH. Any concept that needs an adjective in front of it such as great or noble to give it distinction or credibility is not a philosophy worth pursuing. The enduring and great philosophies of the world democracy, justice, altruism, freedom, charity, capitalism, self-reliance, self-sufficiency do not need to be prefaced with adjectives.
I am also rather weary of the constant references to the notion that GNH was discovered in Bhutan. GNH is not new and was not invented in Bhutan. True, the actual term GNH was coined by the King but the actual notion of pursuing models of economic growth that are culturally, socially, environmentally, spiritually healthy and sustainable have been promulgated and advanced for millennia. My limited understanding of Buddha’s teachings and Buddhist principles which predate those of Christ provide more thorough and compelling economic models than that which is being proclaimed by the new age GNH philosophers. In offering GNH as a model, political leaders should not act as if they have discovered fire or invented the wheel.
I have merely attempted to caution the GNH politicos in Bhutan that the utmost in restraint should be exercised in advancing GNH as a philosophy for the world to follow when it is patently clear that even the most fundamental tenets and basic principles of the theory have yet to grasped and implemented in Bhutan. I am arguing that Bhutan’s leaders should be spending much more time taking care of the people of Bhutan instead of trotting around the region or globe promoting GNH; I suspect the people of Bhutan feel the same.
Finally, I am fully aware that Bhutan currently is a third world country with an LDC designation. I do not expect Bhutan to be perfect. On the same hand, I am not the one promising Bhutan as either the destination of happiness or the last Shangri La as is currently proclaimed in much of the tourism marketing surrounding the country.
I would suggest that if political and other leaders want to “open the doors to Bhutan” they had better be much more realistic about the conditions those who enter will find when they arrive. All is not well and all are not happy in Bhutan and it is preposterous for a segment of Bhutanese leadership to advertise and proclaim otherwise. In fact, my experience living and working in the most progressive, educated and densely populated region of Bhutan is that the nation is trending more toward decay and the dysfunctions associated with modernization than it is toward the ideals, hope and promise of GNH.
I sincerely wish the political and educational leaders of Bhutan would look at the signs and signals and realize that severe storms are looming on the horizon which threatens the social, political, environmental, and economic wellbeing of the people. Indeed, the very existence of this Royal Kingdom could be in jeopardy. It would be a tragedy of unspeakable proportions if the unchecked and unquestioned pursuit and promulgation of GNH came at the price of losing an independent Bhutan.
(This is four part series published by The Bhutanese in September 2012)