4 December 2025, NIICE Commentary 12001
Dibya Deep Acharya
Traditionally, international relations (IR) has mostly equated state success with power of the tangible, the harder ideas, such as economic output. Yet, there are some leaders and scholars who argue for the latter, the importance of the intangible in state success, ideas such as the significance of citizen well-being.
Bhutan’s ideologies could be an example of such leadership: its king famously declared, “Gross National Happiness is more important than Gross National Product,” which shows how people-centric their governance philosophy truly is. While mainstream IR has often sidelined subjective well-being, the roots of this concept run deeper than just Buddhist philosophy and the ethos of welfare societies, such as people-first, can be seen even during the Athenian democratic times.
Defining Happiness for IR
This paper, excluding the nuances, the depth and complexities of what ‘philosophical happiness’ truly means and can mean, defines (for IR) this aspect as merely the intangible, emotional and elemental side of economic development implemented and achieved through policy and governance of local, state or global structures. Meaning, this element focuses on psychological and social well-being alongside and complementing material gains.
So, what can happiness mean for a country? Perhaps it means people-driven governance that explicitly treats citizens’ spiritual, social, economic, intangible and emotional needs as not just national goals but national interest in itself. For Bhutan, this element of development is enshrined in its law: (Article 9 of its 2008 Constitution mandates that the state shall strive to create conditions for pursuing Gross National Happiness).
The Politicisation of Economic Metrics
Superseding the ideas of GNP (Gross National Product), the birth of GDP and its dominance as a metric came, and it came not through accident. Following the end of World War II, leading economic powers, particularly the United States and the United Kingdom, promoted GDP as a universal standard through the Bretton Woods institutions.
Over time, through lobbying, norm-setting, universal acceptance, worldwide economic use and international conditionalities, GDP became synonymous with success. Governments today routinely campaign on growth promises, yet this "rat race" of economic growth often fails to bring society together. As one review of World Finance notes, GDP simply “does not reflect economic inequality or sustainability”. This is because, in practice, economic growth, numerical outputs, and growth metrics in general usually hide deep social problems like inequality.
Due to such limitations, many economists have now started to argue that GDP alone is an inadequate measure of progress. It must be supplemented by human-centred indicators. Otherwise, policymakers risk neglecting the very aspects of life that people care most about. Nobel laureate Robert Kennedy in 1968 had warned that GNP “does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education or the joy of their play”. Thus, what finds the deeper social issues, what highlights inequalities, what brings the rat of humans in the rat race of economic terminologies? These are some questions GDP and such metrics fail to answer.
Gross National Happiness
Gross National Happiness (GNH) was pioneered in the 1970s by Bhutan’s leadership as a necessary rejection of ‘growth-at-all-costs’. Such an idea was not Western in origin but rooted in Vajrayana Buddhist principles that prioritised the "humanness" of the state. The GNH idea is built upon four main pillars:
- Sustainable Socioeconomic Development
- Environmental Conservation
- Cultural Preservation
- Good Governance
These pillars are supported by nine other domains, of such include psychological well-being, use of time, and community vitality.
Adapting Happiness as an Idea
The United Nations, spurred by Bhutan’s proposal, adopted resolutions that encouraged states to measure well-being, while the OECD has compiled the "Better Life Index" to report on mental health and social support alongside traditional economic data. Examples of Happiness implementation can especially be seen in welfare societies, particularly in New Zealand and Scandinavia. New Zealand introduced a "Well-being Budget" in 2019. Similarly, Middle Eastern countries have also adopted the ideas of happiness into their policies. The United Arab Emirates appointed a Minister of State for Happiness to embed positivity into government culture.
The United Kingdom has an All-Party Parliamentary Group on Wellbeing Economics. Moreover, such ideas of happiness in action can be seen through the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) ideology of ‘leaving no one behind’, as well. Among other examples, Nepal too believes in the ideas of human-centric development as enshrined in its 16th plan (“Prosperous Nepal, Happy Nepali”). The elements of happiness for Nepal’s 16th plan include:
- Well-being and decent life
- Safe, civilised and just society
- Healthy and balanced ecology
- Good governance
- Comprehensive democracy
- National unity, security and dignity
However, such ideas for Nepal remain in rhetoric and not in action. In the contemporary political landscape, the relevance of these concepts become more relevant, amplifying the demand for good governance and anti-corruption mechanisms, particularly after the Gen-Z movement.
In the Context of IR Studies
In practice and in theory, happiness in IR rhetoric is an untapped potential and can enter IR theory in several ways, some of which include:
Use in Research: Researchers can use data provided by happiness metrics to analyze state satisfaction, stability and emotional well-being (For example: societies with high social trust and cohesion (often linked to happiness) tend to experience less internal conflict).
Use in diplomacy: Prioritising human well-being may shift foreign aid and trade negotiations toward human-centred outcomes (such as funding schools or hospitals rather than just infrastructure projects).
Use in multilateral settings: Happiness becomes a unifying metric system that connects diverse issues like climate change, health, inequality and education under the umbrella of human welfare.
Use in Structure and Identity: Using happiness metrics can create structural identity and opportunities to capitalise on soft power (Bhutan is a prime example of such a case).
Use in Economic Diplomacy: Economic diplomacy can expand its horizons towards Economic Development, and more, where nations can engage directly with people through people-centric developmental partnerships.
The debate thus,
Ultimately, the inclusion of happiness in IR brings an end to the binary debates of capitalism versus socialism or the left versus the right. Integrating happiness into mainstream IR would provide and bring a different perspective of ideology that isn’t ‘political alignment’ or ‘beliefs and perceptions’ of people, rather it’d be a tool to amplify human growth and development.
In the words of Nobel laureate Amartya Sen, “Development must be judged by the expansion of human freedoms and capabilities”, and thus, happiness-based approaches are such ‘value-neutral tools’ that encourage all sides to remember the people at the centre.
Perhaps not through the Bhutanese way, nor the Scandinavian way, but a multilaterally accepted way, can happiness be used as a tool of development in IR and IR studies. Happiness fundamentally should matter in IR studies.
Dibya Deep Acharya is a student at DIRD pursuing a Master's in IR and is also a Section Officer at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Nepal.
