held in Paro, Bhutan from 4-6 November 2015€¦ · development is the collective happiness of people, whereby happiness reflects the creation, support and provision of enabling conditions

ThispaperwaspresentedfortheInternationalConferenceonGrossNationalHappinessonGNH,heldinParo,Bhutanfrom4-6November2015

GenderDifferencesinGrossNationalHappinessinBhutan:AnalysisofGNHSurveys

SpecialIssueJournalofPoliticalEcologyonCulture,Power,Degrowth

2015InternationalGNHConference:FromPhilosophytoPraxisandPolicyConferenceProceedings|SubmittedtotheCentreforBhutanStudiesandGNH

StudiesByRituVerma1andKarmaUra

AbstractAt amoment whenmarket-oriented, techno-centric and consumption-led approachesprevailinresponsetootherwisecomplexsocio-culturalandpolitical-economicrealities,innovative concepts from Bhutan present an alternative bearing onequitable,sustainableandholisticdevelopment.Elaborated in1972byHisMajesty JigmeSingyeWangchuck,the4thKingofBhutan,GNHisencodedinBhutan’sconstitution,thedrivingphilosophyitsdevelopmentprocess(Uraetal., inpress;Thinley,2005),andisgainingmomentumasanalternativedevelopmentapproachglobally(SNDP,2013).WhileGNHhas been studied from several angles – social, cultural, economic, political,environmental, philosophical, spiritual, psychological, etc. – there has been littlediscussion regarding gender differences. Recognizing this as a critical gap, this studyseeks to better understand gender differences in Bhutan. It does so through thedisaggregationandanalysisoftheGNHnationwidesurveydata,domainsandindicatorsbygender,triangulationofthefindingswithsecondarydata,andtheircontextualizationwithin contemporary debates of gender and development. We believe that such anexercise is critical, given the disconnects that exist between perceptions of gender‘neutrality’, ‘equality’ based onwomen’s relatively strong position in Bhutan, and theGNHdata,which demonstrate striking differences and statistically significant findingsbetweenandamongwomenandmen.Suchananalysis is also timely, given theRoyalGovernmentofBhutan’seffortstopro-activelyaddressgenderissuesthatcrosscuttheGNH domains and shape changing gender relations, culture and society. The findingshighlight important innovations in the GNH approach that deepen andwiden gender 1Dr. Ritu Verma in an anthropologist of development, international development scholar and civil engineer. She is a researcher with 20 years of experience working in the Himalayas and East and Southern Africa. Dr. Verma has published extensively on issues of political ecology, culture, gender, climate change and critical disconnects in development. Her most recent research on GNH relates to gender differences, degrowth, strategic research gaps, anthropology of development, Buddhism, and culture and development. She is an Associate Professor at Royal Thimphu College, Royal University of Bhutan; director of Out of the Box Research and Action; member of the International Expert Working Group for the Secretariat for a New Development Paradigm, the Royal Government of Bhutan; recent visiting researcher at the Centre for Bhutan Studies and GNH Research; and lead organizer of the international conference Bhutan+10: Gender and Sustainable Mountain Development organized by the National Commission for Women and Children and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forests, Royal Government of Bhutan. She was joined at the conference by 41 of her students studying Buddhist Social Theory.


analyses, while also indicating gaps in gender research, policy-making and actionrequiredtowardswellbeing.Keywords:GNH,Bhutan,development,wellbeing,gender,equality.

WhenwedecomposetheGNHindexbygenderweseethatmenarehappierthanwomen.49%ofmenarehappy,whileonlyonethirdofwomenarehappy,aresultthatisbothstrikingandstatisticallysignificant(Uraetal.,2012a:58).

IntroductionAt amoment whenmarket-oriented, techno-centric and consumption-led approachesprevailinresponsetootherwisecomplexsocio-culturalandpolitical-economicrealities,innovative concepts from Bhutan present an alternative bearing onequitable,sustainableandholisticdevelopment.GrossNationalHappiness(GNH)isaninnovativephilosophy and concept that counters the problematic dominance of gross domesticproduct(GDP)withindevelopment.Areflexive,deliberate,andmiddle-pathapproachtodevelopment, it has been the backbone of development research, policy and livingpractice of theRoyalGovernment ofBhutan since the 1970s (Ura et al., 2015, 2012a,2012b;Thinley2012).Elaboratedin1972byHisMajestyJigmeSingyeWangchuck,the4thKingofBhutan,GNHisencodedinBhutan’sconstitutionandthedrivingphilosophyitsdevelopmentprocess(Ura et al., in press; Thinley, 2005). It is also gaining momentum as an alternativedevelopmentapproachglobally(SNDP,2013),especiallyinlightofcriticaldebatesthatpoint to the numerous failures, negative unintended effects and disconnects ofdevelopment(Mosse,2005;Agrawal,1996;Ferguson,1994).Similarly,GNHprovidesamuch-needed antidote to the narrow framing of the sustainable development goals(SDGs)whichexcludesculturebutshapesmuchofdominantdevelopmenteffortsinthepost-2015developmentera.Mostnotably,GNHisreinforcedbygrowingandcompellingevidence that people’s wellbeing and happiness does not depend only on income,consumptionandgrowthatallcosts(Stiglitzetal.,2009;Piketty,2014).Hence,thereisa fundamentaldisconnectbetweenGDPandwellbeing(Brooks,2013).GNHaddressesthis issue through itsmulti-dimensional nature,whichdistinguishes it from simplisticmeasuresofsubjectivewellbeing,itsholisticconceptualizationofhumandevelopment,anditsusefulnesstopolicymakers(ibid.).ForGNH,economicgrowthisnotanendin


itselfbutameansforholisticdevelopment,giventhatitbalanceseconomicneeds,withemotional,spiritual,cultural,ecological,politicalandsocialneeds.WhileGNHhasbeenstudiedandoperationalizedfromseveralangles–social,cultural,economic, political, environmental, philosophical, spiritual, psychological, etc. – therehasbeenlittlediscussionregardinggenderdifferences.Recognizingthisasacriticalgap,thisstudyseekstobetterunderstandgenderdifferences inBhutan. Itdoessothroughthe disaggregation and analysis of the GNH nationwide survey data, domains andindicators by gender, triangulation of the findingswith secondary data, andtheircontextualizationwithincontemporarydebatesofgenderanddevelopment.Webelievethatsuchanexerciseiscritical,giventhedisconnectsthatexistbetweenperceptionsofgender‘neutrality’,‘equality’basedonwomen’srelativelystrongpositioninBhutan,andthe GNH data, which demonstrate striking differences and statistically significantfindingsbetweenandamongwomenandmen.Suchananalysisisalsotimely,giventheRoyal Government of Bhutan’s efforts to pro-actively address gender issues thatcrosscuttheGNHdomainsandshapechanginggenderrelations,cultureandsociety.Thefindings indicate important innovations in the GNH approach that deepen andwidengender analysis, while also highlighting gaps in gender research, policy-making andactionrequiredtowardswellbeing.ThispaperisacondensedversionofaforthcomingCBSmonographthatanalyzesboththe2010and2015GNHsurvey findings froma gender analytical perspective (VermaandUra,forthcoming).Theinitialfindingsfromthe2010surveywerefirstpresentedattheBhutan+10GenderandSustainableDevelopmentConference(VermaandUra,2012)followed by the International GNH Conference: From Philosophy to Praxis and Policy(Verma and Ura, 2015). At the time of writing, the 2015 GNH findings were in theprocess of being analyzed, hence this paper contains partial analysis from the recentsurvey in 2015, but focuses primarily on the 2010 findings. The paper begins byelaborating GNH conceptually from the lens of gender, and framing it within keydimensions of gender analysis. This is followed by the analysis of the overall GNHfindingsfromthe2010and2015GNHsurveyfindings,aswellasmorespecificanalysisof gender differences in theGNHdomains and indicators from the 2010GNH survey.Thepaperconcludesbyreflectingonthefindingsandsuggestingrecommendationsforaction-oriented development, policy-making, gender analysis and future researchbeyond2015.TheoreticalFraming:GNHandGenderAnalysisThetheoreticalframeworkforthisstudybringstogetherthecentraltenetsofGNHwithkey concepts from critical gender analysis, the anthropology of development, andfeministpoliticalecology.Thesearebroughttogethertoinformandshapetheanalysisof the data in terms of gender differences in GNH.We begin by reviewing the sevenmanifestations of GNH (Verma, forthcoming, in press), before comparing, contrastingandhighlightingtheconvergenceofGNHwithkeyelementsofgenderanalysis.


TheSevenManifestationsofGrossNationalHappinessGNH is many things at once. It is a moral concept, as well as guiding principles forholisticdevelopment,adevelopmentconceptualframework,anindexofmeasurement,policy and project screening tools, individual practice and global influence (Verma,2016,2015,inpress,forthcoming).Giventhismultiplicityofmeaningsandpractice,itisusefultobrieflyovervieweachinturn,beforeelaboratinghowitcross-cutswithgenderanalysis.First, GNH is amoral concept that establishes the foundational influence for its othermanifestations.Althoughasecularmoralconceptthathasinfluencedandbeenadaptedindifferentcountriesaroundtheworld,itisimplicitlyanchoredbyBuddhistprinciples(Verma, 2016, forthcoming; Givel, 2015; Wangmo and Valk, 2012; Tashi, 2004). Itsholisticnature integrates coremoral elementsofBuddhism. Itsmiddle-pathapproachreflects Buddhist principles of avoiding extremes and maintaining a balanced view(GNHC,1999).Hence,GNHbalanceseconomicneedswithspiritualandemotionalneeds,maximizeswellbeingwithminimizingsuffering,andnuancesouterhappinesswithinnerhappiness and material wellbeing with non-material wellbeing. It emphasizes inter-dependence and inter-connectedness of all phenomena through itsmulti-dimensionalnature and equalweighting of all its nine domains,which are themselves inspired byBuddhism (Wangmo and Valk, 2012). Buddhist engagement with happiness is at thecore of GNH. Happiness, in this sense, is distinct from “fleeting, pleasurable and ‘feelgood’moodssooftenassociatedwiththeterm[happiness]...weknowthattrueabidinghappinesscannotexistwhileotherssuffer,andcomesonlybyservingothers, living inharmonywithnature,andrealizingourinnatewisdomandthetrueandbrilliantnatureofourownminds”(Thinley,2012).GNHstrivesfordeeper,moremeaningfulandlong-term attainment of happiness, rather than temporary forms. It focuses on inner-contentment, peace and non-attachment, rather than material comfort and fleetingpleasuresalone.Collectivehappiness,concernandserviceforothers,andharmonywithnature and all sentient beings, distinctly sets GNH apart frommainstream notions ofdevelopment normally concerned with an individualistic and material sense ofhappiness and narrowly defined notions of progress. In Bhutan, the main of goal ofdevelopment is the collective happiness of people, whereby happiness reflects thecreation,supportandprovisionofenablingconditionsbytheState,whereinpeopleareabletopursuewellbeingandattainhappinessinsustainableandbalancedways(Uraetal.,2012a;Ura,2009).WhiletheStatehasanimportantroleinprovidingsuchenablingconditions, individuals also have a responsibility towards the attainment of bothindividualandcollectivehappiness,aswellasinnerandouterconditionsforhappiness.Second,GNHisasetofguidingprinciplesforholisticdevelopment.GNHisfoundedonBhutan’s innovative thinking on development. It dates back to the unification of thecountry in 1729, where the legal code by Zhabdrung Rimpoche declared “if theGovernmentcannotcreatehappiness(dekid)foritspeople,thereisnopurposeforthe


Government to exist” (Ura et al., 2012a). Defined in 1961 by the 3rd King of Bhutan,Jigme Dorji Wangchuck, it is upheld as a middle path between culture andmodernization,andismeanttocounterthestronghomogenizingeffectsofglobalization(Ura,2005).In1968,hefurtherelaborated,“therewouldbenopointindevelopingourcountryifourpeoplearetosuffer.Afteralltheobjectiveofdevelopmentistomakethepeople prosperous and happy” (Priesner, 1999). Based on these important historicalfoundations,GrossNationalHappinesswasmeaningfullyelaboratedasacentralguidingprinciple by the 4th King of Bhutan, King Jigme SingyeWangchuck, in response to agrowingconcernoverproblematicGDPmetricscommonlyusedtoguidedevelopment.HedeclaredBhutan’spolicytoachieveeconomicself-reliance,prosperityandhappinessfor itspeoplethroughGNH,whichwasunderstoodasbeingmoreimportantthanGDPand thus, economic and techno-centric growth. Following this legacy, the 5th King ofBhutan,JigmeKhesarNamgyelWangchuk,declaredthattheessenceofthephilosophyofGNHcentredonpeace,securityandhappiness;withoutthem“wehavenothing”(RGoB,2008).HefurtherelaboratedthatGNHisdevelopmentwithvalues(Uraetal.,inpress).Third,GNHasadevelopmentconceptualframeworkisbasedontheelaborationoffourpillarsthatshapesdevelopmentthinkingandpracticeinBhutan.Thefourpillarsincludei) the preservation of culture, ii) environmental conservation, iii) equitable andsustainable socio-economic development, and iv) good governance. Holisticdevelopmentcannotbeachievedbyanyofthepillarsontheirown,andthereforetheyare given equalweight and considered holistically together. Such an approach differsfrom sectoral approaches that predominantly dominate development, which despitediscourses that claim otherwise, focus on economic-centric principles of GDP andtechnical interventions.Most notably, the GNH conceptual framework is considerablymore robust and progressive than other dominant conceptual frameworks indevelopment, such as the Mellennium Development Goals (MDGs), the SustainableDevelopmentGoals(SDGs)ortheHumanDevelopmentIndex(HDI),allofwhichexcludeculture. The inclusion of culture not only sets GNH apart from other developmentconceptual frameworks, but also gives it equalweightwithotherdomains.Thin et al.suggest, “this in itself is considered a good practice, in contrast to way culture issometimes marginalized in numerous development frameworks, organizations anddiscourses” (2013:18). The current tendency in development is to advantagemarket-oriented, economic-centred and techno-centric discourses and practices, whiledisadvantaging, devaluing and rendering invisible cultural aspects of development,societiesandlife-as-lived(ibid.).GNHisfurtherelaboratedinitsconceptualizationinafourthareathatisoperationalizedasanindexofmeasurement.TheGNHindexperiodicallymeasureslevelsofhappinessandwellbeing inBhutanapproximatelyevery fiveyears.The index ismadeupofninedomains, rooted in the four pillars, which are aggregated to assess happiness at thenationallevel.TheninedomainsofGNHaselaboratedinfigure1include33indicatorsthatinformtheGNHquestionnaire:i)health(4indicators),ii)education(4indicators),


iii) livingstandards(3indicators), iv)ecologicaldiversityandresilience(4indicators),v)goodgovernance(4indicators),vi)culturaldiversityandresilience(4indicators),vii)timeuse(2indicators),viii)psychologicalwellbeing(4indicators),andix)communityvitality (4 indicators). The 9 domains are equally weighted while the 33 clusteredindicators are relatively equally weighted but with more weight allocated indicatorsconsideredmorereliable(seeUraetal.,2012a,2012bforadetaileddiscussion).Onceaggregated,peoplearedeemedtobehappyif theyachievesufficiency intwo-thirdsofthe indicators, and deeply happy if they achieve it in 77 %; whereas those who areunhappyachieve sufficiency in fewer thanhalf, andmore thanhalfbut less than two-thirdsrespectively(Uraetal.,2012a).

Figure1:NineDomainsofGNH(source:CBS)Fifth,GNHistranslatedintoobjectivesthatprovidestrategicdirectiontoBhutan’slong-term development (GNHC, 2011a). The four pillars give tangible expression to thecentral tenets of GNH, and “they also embody the guiding principles that have beenidentified as being of decisive importance in ensuring our future independence,sovereignty and security” (ibid.:12). The four pillars have been operationalized intopolicyandpracticeintheRoyalGovernmentofBhutan’s10thand11thfive-yearplans.TheGNHIndexisattunedtopolicy-makingasitreflectschangesovertimeinresponseto public action and policy priorities, to reflect strengthening or deterioration in thesocial, cultural and environmental fabric (Ura et al., 2012a). The Index measuresprogressovertime,byregionandsocialgroups,and is thereforerelevant inassessingcurrentaswellas futurehappinessandwellbeing.GNH indicatorsareuseful tools foraccountability and good governance, as they can enable citizens to evaluate and holdaccountabletheirleaders,byassessingwhetherthetargetsshownintheindicatorsarebeingfulfilled(Uraetal., inpress).Theycanalsoassist inbuildingacommonnationalvision as well as planning around them. For example, the GNH policy and project


screening tools, based on the GNH indicators, contribute to policy coherence ofgovernment programmes and projects with GNH principles. They are being used bygovernment agencies such as the GNHC (Gross National Happiness Commission) todeterminewhetherpoliciesandprojectsarealignedwithGNH.Forinstance,GNHpolicyscreeningtoolswereusedtoassesstheNationalYouthPolicy,theNationalForestPolicyandNational HumanResourceDevelopment Policy, resulting in the evaluation that itwasGNH-favourableandwithintheGNHscreeningtoolthreshold(GNHC,2011b).Theysystematically assessed the possibility of Bhutan’s accession to the World TradeOrganization (WTO), resulting in the conclusion that the new policy was not GNHfavourable(ibid.).Given that wellbeing and happiness are both the responsibility of the state and theindividual, a sixth area where GNH influences development is its translation intoindividualpractice.WhiletheState’scentralconcernwithhappinessplaysanimportantkeyroleinensuringenablingconditionsfortherealizationofwellbeing,happinessandenlightenment, it is also important to note the responsibility of individual citizens asactiveparticipantsintheprocess.Hence,theindividualnonethelessplaysanactiverolein their achievement. This role entails understanding the central tenets of GNH, aselaborated above, and putting into practice in everyday life the behaviours, attitudesandpractices that are central to achievinghappiness andwellbeing, both individuallyandcollectively.InBhutan,thecentralmonasticbodyplaysanimportantenablingrolein this process. New NGOs such as the GNH Centre also help individuals and inparticular,foreigntourists,inunderstandingandpracticingGNH.TheseventhmanifestationofGNHcentreson itglobal influence.Whilemostefforts todeepen and implementGNH are focusedwithinBhutan, there have also beennotableefforts incontributing toand influencing internationaldialoguesonwiderconcernsofdevelopment. GNH is considered one viable and living alternative to mainstreamdevelopment, and hence, not only provides an alternative lens for conceptualizingdevelopment,butalsoimportantlessonsfortheimplementationofanalternativevision(Verma, 2015). Over the years, CBS has been at the hear of several scholarly andresearcheffortssharefindingsofGNHontheinternationalstage,throughitsambitiouspublications goals (including the Journal of Bhutan Studies, Conference Proceedings,Monographs, etc.) and holding of periodic international conferences on GNH. Mostnotably,major strideshavebeenmadeby theRoyalGovernmentofBhutan throughatwo-yearproject spear-headedby the Secretariat for theNewDevelopmentParadigm(SNDP).SetupinJune2012,theinitiativeproposedanewdevelopmentparadigmbasedon the principles of Gross National Happiness. The Secretariat is supported by anInternationalExpertWorkingGroup(IEWG),composedofdistinguishedscholars fromaroundtheworldworkingonvariousaspectsofhappiness,wellbeinganddevelopment.The initiative worked towards the translation of GNH into a secular developmentframework (“The New Development Paradigm”) and the elaboration of specificsuggestionsforpolicyobjectivesandstrategiesthatarerelevantbeyondBhutan.Major


activities include the resolution 65/309 on Happiness: Towards a Holistic Approachsubmittedby theRoyalGovernmentofBhutanandunanimouslypassedby theUnitedNations General Assembly on August 25, 2011 (UNGA, 2011), organization of a HighLevelMeetingonWellbeingandHappinessatU.N.Headquarters inNewYork inApril2012, the meeting of the IEWG in January 2013, and the publication of key reportssubmittedtotheUnitedNationsonaNewDevelopmentParadigm(SNDP,2013;RGoB,2012).ConvergencesandDisconnectsofGenderandGNHThe above discussion provides a brief overview of GNH through its sevenmanifestations. While the study and operationalization of GNH has yielded valuableinsightsonmultipledimensionsofdevelopment,therehasbeenlimitedanalysisfromagenderperspective.ThispaperhopestoaddressthisurgentgapintheanalysisofGNH.In order to enable a systematic gendered analysis ofGNH, the central concern of thispaper, we highlight the convergence of GNH and gender analysis, as well as areas ofdisconnectthatrequireattention.Giventhatgenderanalysisoftentakesdifferentformsdependingonthetypesoftoolsorconceptualframeworksthatareadopted2,itisusefultobrieflyoverviewthe foundationsandspecific theoretical framingofgenderanalysisusedforthispaper.Rather than being singular or static, gender analysis has evolved from simplisticapproachessituatedinthe1970sand1980s3thatfocusedonwomen,tomorecomplexapproaches centred on gender power relations over time. Emanating from earlierapproachescommonlyreferredtoas“gendermainstreaming”,sucheffortshaveyieldedweak results, failures and important lessons (Cornwall et al., 2007). Nonetheless,problematicout-datedapproachescontinuetobeusedinmanydevelopmentcontexts,due to problematic conceptualization, resources, commitment, traction, championingand in many contexts, resistance to deeper and meaningful gender transformativechange (Verma and Blaikie; Cornwall et al., 2007). In this context, the needfor“businessasunusual”approachessuchasgenderanalysisthathavethepotentialforaction-oriented gendertransformativechange, aswe elaborate below, has never beenmorepressingorimportant(Verma,2013).Gender analysis, broadly defined, is the systematic examination of power and socialrelations between and amongwomen andmen in varied socio-cultural contexts overtime, focusing on differences in access to resources, multiple roles, workloads,representation,voice,agencyandstatus(ibid.).Theconceptualframeworkusedinthis

2Several conceptual tools, have been conventionally used for the analysis of gender in development by various organizations, including the Harvard Analytical Framework, Moser Framework, Gender Analysis Matrix, Capacities and Vulnerabilities Analysis Framework, Women’s Empowerment Framework, etc.; this paper engages in what is termed the “social relations” framework (see March et al., 1999). 3 In general, conceptual frameworks have evolved from positivist, largely ineffective and weak approaches encapsulated in Women in Development (WID), Women and Development (WAD) and Gender and Development (GAD) approaches from the 1970s to the 1980s (see Sweetnam, 2012; Leach, 2007; Rathgeber, 2005; Parpart and Marchand, 1995).


paper is founded in feminist political ecology and is concerned with analysis withinhouseholds, communities (Nightingale,2003)andbetween individuals, including theirroles inshapinggenderedidentitiesanddifferences. Insuchapost-structural framing,gendercross-cutswithmultipledomainsofdifferencesuchasclass,maritalstatus,age,life-cycle positioning, occupation, location, etc. (Nightingale 2006; Mackenzie 1995;Verma 2001). It problematizes the conceptualization of women and men as flat andclosed homogenous categories, and instead emphasizes the lived exeriences and thediversityandmultipleidentitiesofwomenandmenthatarefluidandchangeovertime(VermaandKhadka,inpress).Moving beyond from out-dated gender “mainstreaming” approaches, gendertransformativechangegoesbeyond identifyingandexploring thesymptomsofgenderequality, and addresses socially constructed norms, attitudes, and relations of powerthat underlie them (Verma, 2013). It is committed to rigorous gender analysis,organizational change, capacity and institutional strengthening, and ensuring genderpositive impact through meaningful participation of women and men in leadership,policy and decision-making processes and institutions. (ibid.). Gender analysis, aselaboratedwithinsucha framework,considersseveral importantmutuallysupportiveelements. As outlined on the right-side of figure 2 below, these include gendereddimensionsof access todevelopment resources, access todevelopment resourcesandservices, land ownership, control over the proceeds of labour, division of labour,decision-making, room to maneuver, strength of social institutions, gender basedviolence,genderedidentities,andrepresentationandvoice.

Figure2:JuxtapositionofGNHDomainsandKeyElementsofGenderAnalysis


The juxtaposition of GNHwith gender analysis illustrates thatGNH containswithin itseveral key elements that are also important for gender analysis. To begin with, theconceptual frameworkofGNH includesapillar that focusesexplicitlyon theequitablenatureofsustainablesocio-economicdevelopment.Thefocusonequityiswell-alignedwiththecentraltenetsofgenderanalysis.GenderanalysisiscongruentwithmanyoftheGNH domains. For instance, gender-disaggregated time use highlights the genderdivision of labour and in particular, women’s uncounted, invisible and undervaluedwork in reproductive, productive, community and care spheres (Kabeer, 1994). Thisinvisibilityhasbeenpointedoutbymanyeminentfeministsasamissingbutimportantdimension innational systemsof accounts (Waring and Steinem,1989).Many genderindices around the world fail to take into account time use, including the WorldEconomicForum’sGlobalGenderGapIndex(GGGI), theOECD’sSocial InstitutionsandGender Index (SIGI), and UNDP’s Gender Development Index (GDI) and the GenderInequality Index (GII)4. Time use is one of the innovative domains of GNH, therebydemonstrating its progressive nature. Other congruences include land ownership andcontrol over the proceeds of labour with GNH’s living standards domain; access todevelopment resources with GNH’s education and health domains; access to naturalresourceswithGNH’secologicaldiversityandresilience;representationandvoicewithGNH’s good governance domain; strength of social institutions and gender-basedviolence with GNH’s community vitality; gendered identities with GNH’s culturaldiversityandresilience.Giventhatgenderisacross-cuttingissueacrossalldomainsandindicators, GNH illustrates its in-built ability to measure gender inequalities throughgenderdisaggregateddatacollectedinthenationalsurveys.There are also exist some disconnects between the two conceptual frameworks. Forexample,GNHlackselementssuchasdecision-makingandroomtomaneuverthatareimportant to gender analysis in understanding intra-household dynamics. Conversely,theinclusionofpsychologicalwellbeinginGNHisanelementthatiscommonlymissingfromgenderanalysis,butneedstobeconsideredasthediscussionofkeyGNHfindingsbelow demonstrate. These issues also point to methodological gaps that can beattributed to the heavy reliance of surveys in the case of GNH. Gender analysis thatfocusesprimarilyonstatisticaldataprovides importantdataonthebreadthofgenderissuesbetweenwomenandmenatthenationallevel,buttendstolackrichdepthofdatathat is thehallmarkofgenderanalysis throughqualitativeandethnographicmethods.Such methods are often used in scholarly and academic work to understand gender

4 GII measures gender equality in three areas of human development including reproductive health, empowerment and economic status; GDI measures gender disparities three basic dimensions of human development including health, knowledge and living standards using the same component indicators as in the HDI; the SIGI index measures five dimensions of discriminatory social institutions that affect women’s lives: discriminatory family code, restricted physical integrity, son bias, restricted resources and assets, and restricted civil liberties; and the GGGI measures gender gaps on economic, political, education and health criteria.


power relations (sometimes in tandemwithquantitativedata, toensurebothbreadthand depth of understanding), the richness of women’s and men’s everyday livedexperiences,andinparticulargenderstruggles,negotiationsandresistancesatmultiplelevelsandscales,fromtheindividualtothehousehold,communityandnation.GenderDifferencesinOverallGNHFindingsOverall findings refer tonationally aggregated levels of happiness, as capturedby theGNHindex.WhenwecompareoverallgenderdifferencesintheGNHindexin2010and2015,someimportantfindingsemerge.In2010,thenationalGNHsurveyresultedinaGNHindexof0.743.Intermsofgender,theGNHindexwas0.704forwomencomparedto0.783formen,therebydemonstratingadifferenceof0.079(approximatelyan11.2%difference).In2015,thenationalGNHsurveyresultedinaGNHindexof0.756,aslightimprovementfrom2010.Intermsofgender,the2015GNHindexwas0.730forwomenand0.793formen.Thedifferencebetweenwomenandmenwas0.063(approximatelya8.6%difference).Hence,thegendergapclosedbyonly2.6%.In2010,41%ofpeopleinBhutanwerehappyandin2015,43.4%ofpeopleinBhutanwerehappy(asstatedearlier,peoplearedeemedtobehappyiftheyachievesufficiencyintwo-thirdsof the indicators)5. Incomparingthedecompositionof theGNHindexbygenderin2010and2015,wenotethatmenwerehappierthanwomeninbothsurveyyears.In2010,49%ofmenwerehappy,whileonly33%ofwomenwerehappy,“aresultthatisbothstrikingandstatisticallysignificant”(Uraetal.,2012a:58).In2015,51%ofmenwerehappy,comparedto39%ofwomen.Thisisasignificantgendergap.Duringthistimeperiod,whilemen’shappinessincreasedby2%,women’shappinessincreasedby6%.Overall,women’sGNHincreasedfasterthanmen’s2010-2015,reducingthegapin gender differences in happiness somewhat during this period. However, mencontinue to be happier thanwomen in both survey years, which points to persistentgenderinequalities.Theexistenceofpersistentgenderinequalitiesinhappinessoverthefive-yearperiodisan importantoverall findingof theGNHsurveys. It is significantbecause it challengesearlier discourses of gender “neutrality” (that no gender issues exist) or of gender“equality”inBhutan(theexistenceequalitybetweenwomenandmenintermsoftheirvalue, treatment, opportunities andbenefits in society) (Verma andUra, forthcoming;CEDAW, 2009a; Crins, 2008). Whether it is a gender revolution that is needed, or agenderevolution(VermaandGurung,inpress),itisclearthatgenderinequalitiesmustbe urgently addressed. In this regard, the shift from the earlier position articulatedabove, to one of growing recognition and action by the Royal Government of BhutanthroughitsvariousMinistriesandCommissionsaswellasbycivilsocietyorganizations,has been rapid. Policy shifts, gender responsive action and accelerated research on

5When comparing happiness, the GNH survey considers different levels of happiness as follows: people who are deeply happy (77% to 100%), people who are extensively happy (66% to 76%), people who are narrowly happy (50% to 65%) and people who are unhappy (0% to 49%).


genderissueshavemadegreatstridesinashortperiodoftime.Oneimportantexampleis the recent Cabinet of Bhutan’s endorsement of sixmonths of paidmaternity leavealongwithsixmonthsofflexi-timeforwomeninthecivilservice,whorepresent34.4%ofatotalof26,699civilservants(Pokhrel,2015).AnotherexampleistheparliamentofBhutan’spassingoftheDomesticViolencePreventionAct(ParliamentofBhutan,2013),an important step in addressing the growing number of registered gender-basedviolence cases in Bhutan (Wangmo, 2013; RENEW, 2007).Many other examples existand are coming into force as the Royal Government of Bhutan becomes increasinglyaware, cognizant and committed to addressing gender inequalities that have beenhighlighted through national and international research and dialogue over time(CEDAW, 2009a, 2009b). In this regard, the GNH survey plays an important role inproviding statistically relevant and significant data towards this goal. In contributingtowardsthisaim, theCentre forBhutanStudiesandGNHresearch includedapanelatthe6thInternationalConferenceonGNHinNovember2015ongenderissues,wherethispaperwasalsopresented(CBS,2015).GenderdifferencesinGNHarefurtherunpackedbelow through detailed analysis of the various GNH domains and indicators. It isimportanttonotethatwhilethispaperstressedgender,someofthegraphspresentedbelowfromthe2010surveyarearticulatedintermsofsex(i.e.biologicaldifferences)assignifiedbymaleandfemaledifferences.Thisisanissuewediscussfurtherbelow.GenderDifferencesbyGNHDomainsandIndicatorsWhen the GNH data is further disaggregated by the nine domains elaborated earlier,moredetailedinformationaboutgenderdifferencesemerges.Inthispaper,wefocusouranalysis of gender differences in theGNHdomains and indicators in the 2010 survey(for a more comprehensive discussion that includes both the 2010 and the 2015surveys, refer to Verma and Ura, forthcoming)6. As illustrated in figure 3, genderdifferencesaregreaterincertaindomains:wheremenseemtobefairbetterindomainssuchaseducation,psychologicalwellbeingandcommunityvitality,theoppositeistruefor domains such as living standards and ecological diversity and resilience, wherewomen seem to do better. At this level of aggregation, there are less significantdifferencesindomainssuchastimeuse,healthandgoodgovernance.

6 The forthcoming monograph by CBS will analyze findings of domains and indicators from both GNH surveys and provide comparative analysis over time.


Figure3:GenderdifferencesintheGNHdomains(Source:CBS,2010)WhentheGNHdata is furtherdisaggregatedbythe33clusteredindicators,asdefinedearlier,morefine-graineddifferencesanddetailedpatternsbygenderemerge.Figure4highlightsthesedifferencesineachofthe33indicators,demonstratingthatmenachievegreaterhappiness in18 indicators,womenachievegreaterhappiness in13 indicators,and2 indicators remainmoreor lessneutral. Somegenderdifferences are significant(negativeemotions,worktime,sleeptime,politicalparticipation,etc.),whileothersarelesssignificant(family,assets,culturalparticipation,etc.).

0% 2% 4% 6% 8%

10% 12% 14% 16%

Psychological wellbeing

Health

Time use

Education

Cultural diversity and resilience Good Governance

Community vitality

Ecological diversity and resilience

Living standards

Male Female


Figure4:GenderDifferencesintheGNHIndicators(Source:CBS,2010)Below,wepresenttheanalysisdifferentiatedbythenineGNHdomains,andfocusonasampling of selected indicators where gender differences are significant or raisechallenging research and policy questions. We begin with the domains that areconsideredmoreconventionalandappearinotherinternational indicesofgenderanddevelopment (i.e. education, health, governance, living standards), before turning toinnovativedomains for theanalysisof genderdifferences (i.e. ecologicaldiversityandresilience, community vitality, time use, cultural diversity and resilience) and thatexpandthefieldininnovativeways(i.e.psychologicalwellbeing).The domain of education encompasses four indicators including schooling, literacy,value and knowledge. Differences in literacy by gender indicate 62.82% illiteracy forwomenand40.19%formen,asillustratedinfigure5.StudiesbytheNationalStatisticsBureauandtheRoyalGovernmentofBhutanfurther indicatethat literacy is lower forwomeninalllevelsofeducation(i.e.overall,youth,adult)(NSB,2010;CEDAW,2009).

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

100%

Life

satis

fact

ion

Posi

tive

emot

ions

N

egat

ive

emot

ions

Sp

iritu

ality

Se

lf re

port

ed h

ealth

stat

us

Hea

lthy

days

D

isab

ility

M

enta

l hea

lth

Wor

k Sl

eep

Scho

olin

g L

itera

cy

Valu

e K

now

ledg

e A

rtis

an sk

ills

Spea

k na

tive

lang

uage

C

ultu

ral p

artic

ipat

ion

Dri

glam

Nam

zha

Gov

ernm

ent p

erfo

rman

ce

Fund

amen

tal r

ight

s Se

rvic

es

Polit

ical

par

ticip

atio

n

Don

atio

ns (t

ime

& m

oney

) C

omm

unity

rel

atio

nshi

p Fa

mily

Sa

fety

E

colo

gica

l iss

ues

Res

pons

ibili

ty to

war

ds e

nvir

onm

ent

Wild

life

dam

age

(Rur

al)

Urb

aniz

atio

n is

sues

A

sset

s H

ouse

hold

per

cap

ita in

com

e H

ousi

ng

Male Female Percentage of Bhutanese having sufficiency by gender


Figure5:LiteracybyGender(Source:CBS,2010)The indicator of schooling or educational attainment demonstrates that women havelowerattainmentthanmenacrossalllevelsofeducationfromprimarytopost-graduate,as illustrated in figure 6. The one area where women outnumber men is no formaleducation,whichindicatesthatmorewomenlackaccesstoeducationthanmen.

Figure6:EducationalAttainmentbyGender(Source:CBS,2010)Both sets of indicators highlight that women are disadvantaged when it comes toeducationacrossalllevels.Thedifferentialsaregreater,however,intheundergraduateandpost-graduatelevels.Thispointstogreatergenderdifferencesatthetertiarylevel,with higher drop-out and lower retention rates for women, as supported by studiescarriedoutby theGNHCand theRoyalGovernmentofBhutan (GNHC,2001;CEDAW,2009a, 2003). It is useful tonote thatBhutanhas twodifferent systemsof education:formal education for laypeople, andmonastic education (anarea that theGNHsurveydoes not include). Given that Buddhism, as guided by the central monastic body,

40.19%

59.81% 62.62%

37.38%

Source: GNH Survey 2010 Source: GNH Survey 2010

Male Female

Illiterate LiterateGraphs by Sex of the respondent

Literacy by sex

69.2 10.3 5.0 8.2 4.90.3

2.00.2

56.2 17.9 6.6 8.3 4.81.3

3.81.0

0 20 40 60 80 100Percent

Female

Male

Source: GNH Survey 2010

Educational attainment by sex

No formal education Primary education (VI)LS education (VIII) MS education (X)HS education (till degree 2nd yr) Diploma/CertificateBachelors Degree Post Graduate


influences Bhutan in many aspects of life, it is worth considering gender differenceswithin this sector.Genderdifferenceswithinmonastic education aremore significant,with98.33%ofboysandmenenrolled,and1.67%ofgirlsandwomenenrolled(MoE,2010; GNHC, 2010). Such differences require more in-depth study in the future.Upcoming researchmight also consider gender differences in language skills, as non-fromaleducationaims toachieve literacy indzongkhaof theentirepopulation (RGoB,2003).Another importantarea forresearch isgender-biasedattitudesandnormsthataffect education. In this regard, an important question in the 2010 survey focused ongender-basedattitudes,asillustratedinfigure7.

Figure7:GenderedAttitudesTowardsEducation(Source:CBS,2010)Theresponsestothequestion“aneducationisimportantforaboythanagirl”indicatesthatgenderbiasesthatadvantageboysclearlyexist,whereinterestingly,womenseemtoupholdsuchbiasesslightlymorethanmen(18.8%womenversus15.5%menagreeto thestatementthataneducation is important foraboythanagirl).Futureresearchwillneedtoqualifythesebiases,aswellasfocusonthevariousfactors,experiencesandreasons why women drop out of tertiary education, and the effect this has on otherdomainsandindicators.ThesecondGNHdomainofhealthconsidersfourindicatorsthatincludementalhealth,self-supported health status, healthy days and long-term disability; these wereinvestigated in the 2010GNH SurveyQuestionnaire by 38 questions (CBS, 2010).Welookcloselyatthefirsttwo,aswellasanadditionalquestionregardinggenderaccesstohealthfacilities.Figure8illustratesdifferencesinmentalwellbeingbygender.Whiletheoverall levels of normal mental wellbeing are high (89.6% for men and 82.45% forwomen),theratioofwomentomeninareasofsomeandseverementaldistressindicatesomeworryingtrends.Giventhatmentalwellbeingisanareawhereoveralllevelshavedecreased from 2010 and 2015, further research in this area will be important. For


instance, the women to men ratios for “some mental distress” and “severe mentaldistress” experienced are approximately 3:2 and 2:1 respectively. These indicatesignificantgenderdifferences.

Figure8:MentalWellbeingbyGender(Source:CBS,2010)Whenmentalwellbeingisanalyzedbymaritalstatus,anotherimportantareaofgenderanalysis,wefindthatseverementalstressissufferedmostbythosewhoareseparatedor widowed, among categories that include those who have never beenmarried, aremarried, divorced, separatedorwidowed.Overall, 11.8%of thosewhoare separated,17.4%ofthewidowed,5%ofthedivorced,4.3%ofmarriedand2.9%ofnevermarriedpopulations experienced severe mental distress. The tendency of those who areseparated,widowed,anddivorcedtoexperiencebothsevereandsomementaldistressraisesconcernsaboutthesesectorsofthepopulationthatneedtobeexploredfurther.

Figure9:MentalWellbeingbyMaritalStatus(Source:CBS,2010)

82.4 10.8 6.8

89.6 7.1 3.3

0 20 40 60 80 100Percent

Female

Male

GHQ-12


Mental wellbeing (GHQ-12) by sex

Normal mental wellbeing Some mental distressSevere mental distress


Whenweanalyzeself-reportedstresslevelsbygender,womenexperienceverystressfulandmoderatestressfullivesmorethanmen(13.56%vs.8.89%and14.07%vs.12.31%respectively).

Figure10:Self-ReportedStressbyGender(Source:CBS,2010)Several factors can be attributed to higher levels of stress in women, including theirdisadvantaged position in terms of time-use, governance, psychological wellbeing,culture,aswellasotherissuesrelatedtohealth,suchasalcoholabuseandgender-basedviolence, which are discussed below. Albeit the existence of universal health care interms of modern and traditional medicine in Bhutan, gender differences are furthercompounded by access to health care services based on waiting time. As detailed infigure11belowwhichshowthatwomenreport11.4%verydifficultyand38.9%littledifficulty,whilemenreport8.7%verydifficultyand37.4%littledifficulty inaccessinghealthcare.Thecategoryofhighdifficulty (verydifficult) requiresattentionbyhealthcare officials in the future, including the need for gender-specific health services andinfrastructure in the future, based on the lack of a mammogram facilities and earlydetectioncentres,adequatematernitywards,geriatricservicesandsanitationfacilitiesforwomen, and inparticular, adolescentgirls attending school (TarayanaFoundation,2009).

13.56 14.07 29.78 42.59

8.89 12.31 30.95 47.85

0 20 40 60 80 100Percent

Female

Male

Stress


Self-reported stress level by sex

Very stressful Moderately stressfulSomewhat stressful Not at all stressful


Figure 11: Difficulty in Accessing Health Care Services by Gender (Source: CBS,2010)Thedomainofgovernance ismeasuredusing the indicatorsof political participation,politicalfreedom,governmentperformanceandservicedelivery.Whentheindicatorofpoliticalparticipationatthelocallevel(attendanceinzomdue,orcommunitymeetings)isanalyzedbygender,thedataindicatesthatwomenattend52.9%whereasmenattend67.8%ofthetime(seefigure12).

Figure12:AttendanceinZomduebyGender(Source:CBS,2010)Otherstudiesshedlighttothetypesofmeetingswomenandmenparticipatein,andthequality of participation in terms of leadership roles. For instance, when womenparticipate in localmeetings, their participation is often associatedwithminorwork,hearingpublicmessages,collectingcontributionsforcommunityfestivals,etc.(Yangden,2009).On theotherhand,men’sparticipation in suchmeetings is associatedwith thediscussion and decision-making of more substantial issues (ibid.). Hence, there is adistinctpowerdifferentialintermsofthequalityofgenderedparticipationatthislevel.

11.4 38.9 49.7

8.7 37.4 53.9

0 20 40 60 80 100Percent

Female

Male


Difficulty in accessing health care services due to waiting time by sex

Very difficult A little difficultNot difficult at all

32.2%

67.8%

47.1%52.9%

Male Female

No YesSource: GNH Survey 2010

Attended 'Zomdue' by sex


This finding supports that of other studies indicating a high degree of under-representation of women in elected positions in local governance institutions. Forinstance, in 2010, low levels of representation and near invisibility of women’sleadershipiscapturedbydatathatindicates4%ofwomeninGYT(villagelevel),2.5%atDYT(districtlevels)andonlyonewomanout205gups(villagemayors)(Tshomoetal.,2010). Inorder toaddress thesegaps in the future,bothwomen’spracticalaswellasstrategic needs will require urgent attention. The controversial nature of debates onaffirmative action in Bhutan - that are otherwise operationalized in neigbouringcountriessuchasNepal,IndiaandBangladesh-pointtosomedegreeofresistanceandstigmas regarding women’s leadership by both women and men to gendertransformative change. The GNH data further provides important information aboutgendered stigmas through its question regarding agreement to the statement “on thewhole,menmakebetterleadersthanwomendo”,asillustratedinfigure13(CBS,2010).The2010 survey results, indicating that31.5%ofwomenand28.9%ofmenagree tothisstatement,highlightstheexistenceofgender-biasedsocio-culturalattitudeswhichhinder women’s participation in governance and leadership roles. Future researchneeds to deepen understanding of such attitudes and stigmas through in-depthqualitativeresearch.

Figure13:GenderedAttitudesTowardsLeadership(Source:CBS,2010)TheGNHdomainof living standards includes assets,housingandhousehold income.Wefocusontheindicator,assets,andinparticular,landownership,aswellasdatafromotherstudiesregardingpositionlevelwithinthecivilservice.Whengenderdifferencesinlandownershipbyregistrationareanalyzed,theGNHdataindicatesthatbothwomenandmen have strong positions in terms of land ownership. Figure 14 illustrates that54.02% of men and 45.98% of women report land ownership registration. Thesefindingsaresignificant,indicatingthatwomeninBhutanenjoyaverystrongpositionintermsoflandownership.Thispositionisstrongerthanotherdevelopingcountriessuch


asChile,EcuadorandPanama,wherewomen’slandholdingsareconsideredthehighest(i.e.landholdingsexceed25percent)(FAO,2011)7.

Figure14:GenderDifferencesinLandOwnershipRegistrationbyGenderThis strongpositionofwomen in relation tomen is related to the fact thatBhutan ischaracterized by both matrilineal and patrilineal communities. Hence, ownership bygenderalsovariessub-regionallybydzongkhags (ordistricts),ashighlightedbyfigure15 below. Future research will need to address gendered land ownership within acontext of rapid cultural change, where matrilineal land inheritance sometimesdisadvantages women in Bhutan (Pain and Pema, 2004), and whereby matrilinealrelations may be weakening in the face of gender-biased globalization, media anddevelopment (VermaandBanda, 2011). Itmay alsowant to explorewithmoredetaildifferent elements of ownership in pastoral areas where livestock, rather than land,playsanimportantroleindefininggenderrelations.

7 According to the FAO, women’s share in agricultural land holdings in Southern and South-Eastern Asia is approximately 12 per cent (2011).

Female 45.98%

Male 54.02%

Land ownership registration by gender

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Wan

gdue

Lh

uent

se

Puna

kha

Tron

gsa

Bum

than

g Pa

ro

Thim

phu

Mon

gar

Ha

Gas

a Tr

ashi

Yan

gtse

Zh

emga

ng

Tras

higa

ng

Dag

ana

Chh

ukha

Pe

mag

atsh

el

Sarp

ang

Sam

drup

Ts

irang

Sa

mts

e

Land ownership registration by gender

Female Male


Figure15:LandOwnershipRegistrationbyGenderandDzongkhag(District)In Bhutan, one of themost aspired sectors for formal employment is the Royal CivilService,whichcurrentlyprovidesbothstatusandsecuritytoaworkforceof26,699civilservants(Pokhrel,2015).However,thereexistsignificantgenderdifferenceswhenthesectorisexaminedbypositionlevel,whichareinvariablylinkedtopoweranddecision-making. Figure 16 illustrates graphically data from the GNH Commission, wherebywomen are poorly represented in “EX” and “ES” positions (executive and executiveservicerespectively),normallyregardedaswell-remuneratedandhighstatuspositionswithnotableresponsibilitiesandleadership(i.e.foreveryoneEX1women,thereare27EX1men).Whilethereisgreaterparityin“P”and“S”positions(professionalandservicepositionsrespectively)disparitiesexist in“O”positions(operations),normallytypifiedby occupations such as drivers, cleaners, maintenance staff, etc. This suggests a“sandwich” effect, wheremen occupymost positions at the executive and operationslevels. Of concern are gender differences in executive positions, which carry higherstatus, decision-making and remuneration in the civil service. This suggests theexistence of a glass ceiling, an invisible barrier that restricts women from obtaininghigher-level positions in institutions may also exist in other sector as well. This willrequire in-depth research in the future both in regards to the civil service, privatesectorsandotherinstitutions,whichcantaketheformofagenderaudit(aparticipatoryprocess identifying gender challenges and ways to overcome them withinorganizations),and/orqualitativeresearchtodeepentheGNHsurvey.

Figure16:GenderRatiosbyPositionLevelintheRoyalCivilService(Source:GNHCommission,2012)The domain of ecological diversity and resilience is composed of four indictorsincludingecological issues,responsibilitytowardstheenvironment,wildlifedamageinrural contexts and urbanization issues. When we examine gender differences in

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

EX1

EX2

EX3

ES1

ES2

ES3 P1

P2

P3

P4

P5

S1

S2

S3

S4

S5

O

1 O

2 O

3 O

4

Rat

io

Position level

Male-female ratio for civil servants by position level, Bhutan, 2012


responsibility towards the environment and wildlife damages, some variations bygenderemerge.

Figure 17: Responsibility Towards the Environment by Gender (Source: CBS,2010)Figure 17 illustrates that 86.33% of men and 81.47% of women feel responsibilitytoward theenvironment,whereas13.67%ofmenand18.53%ofwomendonot.Thisindicates approximately a 5% difference in both possibilities, whereby men feel agreater responsibility towards the environment. This finding supports the findings inthetimeusedomainfurtherbelow,wheremenindicategreatertimespentthanwomenon agriculture, forestry and livestock activities, which normally requires substantialengagement with natural resources and local environments. However, women’sengagementinhouseholdmaintenancewheretheyspendadisproportionateamountoftimealsorequiresmanagementofnaturalresourcesandlocalenvironments,suchasthecollectionofwater,firewood,food,etc.

Figure18:ExperienceofWildlifeDamagebyGender(Source:CBS,2010)

0.00%10.00%20.00%30.00%40.00%50.00%60.00%70.00%80.00%90.00%100.00%

Male Female

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

Male Female


Figure18 indicates thatwomenhavegreaterexperiencetowildlifedamagethanmen,whereby60.91%ofwomenand55.04%ofmenreportedsuchexperiences.Thismaybeattributedtodamagecausedbywildlifetohouseholdgardensorwatercollectionpointswherewomenmayplayagreaterrole, inaddition to their roles inagricultureand/orpastoralism. In agricultural contexts, women play an important role in transplantingrice, fodder collection, household water management, etc. (ADB, 2014). In pastoralcontexts, indigenousgrazingrights forcattleandyak,elaboratemanagementschemesfor sharing and access to pastures, and rotating herds between different householdsexistwhichpromotesocio-culturalrelations,cooperation,reciprocityandcivicvirtueinremote areas of Bhutan (Leaming, 2004). Within these contexts, women play animportant role in terms ofmanaging animal products such asmilk, cheese,meat, yakhair, skin andwool, etc. andplay a central role in tradewith villages in the lowlands(Dey and Gyelthshen, 2010). However, limited information is available regarding theextent towhich extension services aremade available towomen,which constitutes agapinresearchinthisdomain,aswellasknowledgeintermsofeducation(ADB,2014).The indicator of community vitality is composed of four indicators, including socialsupport,communityrelationships, familyandvictimofcrime.Whenanalyzingthe lastindicator, we analyze the reporting of being a victim of crime in the past 12months(figure19)andsafetyfromhumanharm(figure20).

Figure19:VictimsofCrimebyGender(Source:CBS,2010)Whiletherearefewrespondentswhoreportedbeingavictimcrime,withmenreporting3.4%andwomenreporting4.4%,therearegreaternumberofrespondentswhoreportbeing rarely safe,withwomen reporting 24.8% andmen reporting 13.6%.Moreover,21.1%ofmencompared to29.2%reportedbeingusuallysafe,and65.3%ofmenand46%ofwomenreportingalwaysbeingsafe.

3.4%

96.6%

4.4%

95.6%

Male Female

Yes NoSource: GNH Survey 2010

Been a victim of crime in the last 12 months


Figure20:SafetyfromHumanHarmbyGender(Source:CBS,2010)Theseresultspointtothefactthatwomenarelesssafe,andtodifferencesbetweenwhatmightbeperceivedasa“crime”andsafetyfromhumanharm.Thepossibilitythatthisdimension of the GNH survey may be under-reported may reflect wider beliefs thatsafetyfromhumanharmordomesticviolenceisidentifiedwithphysicalabuse,andnotpsychologicalorsexualabuse(RGoB,2003).Anotherfactormaybethatsuchcrimesareoftenconsidered“private issues”or“familymatters”,withmanywomennotreportingviolenceduetosocietalnormsthatpromoteacultureofsilence,orbecausetheyarenotaware of their rights, or that it is a “crime” under law (NCWC, 2010; RENEW, 2007;RGoB, 2003). Other studies suggest that factors that contribute to crime and lack ofsafetymay be associated to both forms of emotional and physical violence includingalcohol abuse, extra-marital affairs, financial matters (i.e. money matters or a thriftypartner), disputes over children, jealousy, a high social life, and “missedmobile calls”fromeitherknownorunknownnumbersperceivedasaformofragging(NCWC,2010;RENEW,2007;RGoB,2003).Forinstance,theGNHsurveylooksatgenderdifferencesinalcoholconsumption8(figure21),andindicatesalcoholconsumptionlevelsof49.7%formenand32.8%forwomen.

8The indicator of alcohol consumption is investigated under the health domain in the GNH Survey and Index.

24.8 29.2 46.0

13.6 21.1 65.3

0 20 40 60 80 100Percent

Female

Male


Safety from human harm

Rarely safe Usually safe Always safe


Figure21:CurrentAlcoholConsumptionbyGender(Source:CBS,2010)Otherstudiessuggestthatratesofalcoholconsumptionmaybemorepronouncedwithadirect relationship to gender-based violence. A survey undertaken by RENEW, forinstance, indicatesthat92%ofbothwomenandmenreportedthatexcessivedrinkingcausesviolence,andmoreover,theproblemmightbemoreseriousinruralareas,withapproximately45%of verbal conflicts resulting fromalcohol abuse (2007).While theGNH survey looks at the links of alcohol consumption within the domain of health,future researchwillneed toexplore relationswith communityvitality.Whilemuchofthediscussionherehasbeenonthe indicatorofvictimofcrime,genderdifferences insocial support, community relationships and family are important for an in-depthunderstandingofgenderrelations.Thiswillrequirein-depthqualitativeresearchinthefuture,giventhesensitivenatureoftheseissues.Thedomainoftimeuse investigates two indicators includingofsleepingandworkinghours.In the GNH survey, hours of work, non-work and sleep time were disaggregated bygender.Theresult, as illustrated in figure22, indicates that regardlessof location (i.e.urbanorrural,townsorvillages),womenworklongerthanmen,averaging8hours21minutesinadaywhereas,menonaverageonlyworkfor7hours31minutes.Intermsofnon-workorleisuretime,menenjoyapproximatelyeighthoursofleisure,ascomparedtowomenwho only enjoy approximately seven hours. The overall allocation ofworktime is longer for women, where work includes household, productive, incomegenerationandcommunitywork(Kabeer,1994).

32.8 67.2

49.7 50.3

0 20 40 60 80 100Percent

Female

Male


Current alcohol consumption by sex

Yes No


Figure22:GenderDifferences inWork,Non-WorkandSleepTime (Source:CBS,2010)Similar findingsemergewhen timespent indifferentoccupationsand typeofwork iscomparedbygender,wherebywomenexpendgreatertimeandwork,comparedtomen,regardlessofoccupation,withtwoexceptionsdiscussedbelow(figure23).Asperfigure23below,thegreatestgenderdifferencesoccurinhouseholdmaintenancework,careoffamilymembers andproducing craftswherewomen spenddisproportionate time.Ontheotherhand, livestockrearing, forestryandbusinessand tradeareactivitieswheremenspendadisproportionateamountoftime.Whilemenalsoexpendtimeincooking,careoffamilymembers,theircontributionsareshorterintimeexpended;thereverseistrue for women engaging in work related livestock, forestry/horticulture andbusiness/trade.

Figure23:GenderDifferencebyOccupationandTypeofWork(Source:CBS,2010)GenderdifferencesintimeusesignificantlycontributesinoverallgenderdifferencesinGNH,aswellasinfluenceotherdomains.Forinstance,intermsofhouseholdwork,girls

7:31 8:06 8:22 8:21

7:04

8:34

0:00

1:12

2:24

3:36

4:48

6:00

7:12

8:24

9:36

work nonwork sleeptime

Tim

e (h

ours

)

Male

Female

0:00

0:28

0:57

1:26

1:55

2:24

2:52

3:21

Tim

e (h

ours

)

Male Female


take on more domestic work than boys, which influences to low access to formaleducation (GNHC, 2001). Pregnant women continue to carry out demanding physicalwork late into their pregnancies, resuming work almost immediately after delivery,which contributes to lower health levels aswell as to the gender time-use imbalance(ibid.).Furthermore,womencarryoutadisproportionateamountof“voluntary”labour,such as community work to repair roads (ADB, 2014), which further adds to theirmultiple labour burdens. Gender differences in time use and working time haveimplications on the quality of jobswomen are able to get, in addition to perceptionsabout gender roles and theway their triple occupations tend to discriminate againstthem(RGoBetal.,2013).Greater research is requiredunder thisdomain,whereveryfewsystematicstudiesareavailable,withtheexceptionofstudiesthattendtofocusonagriculture as the major economic and productive activity (GNHC, 2001). Futureresearchisrequiredtoanalyzepastoralworkandactivities,aswellaswhatisnormallyperceivedaswomen’s“invisible”workofhousehold,reproductiveandcommunitywork.When women’s multiple occupations are taken into account, policy-making may alsowant to reviewwhether paidmaternity leave and day care are adequate, and ensurethatnewlawscomingintoeffect(discussedearlier)mustapplytoallsectors,fromcivilservicetoprivateentities.The domain of psychological wellbeing is composed of 3 indicators including lifesatisfaction,emotionalbalance(positiveandnegativeemotions)andspirituality.Whenweanalyzethesecondindicatorbygender,wespecificallyfocusonnegativeemotions,which include anger, fear,worry, selfishness and jealousy.As figure24demonstrates,whenaskedhowoftenpeople feltangry in thepast fewweeks,2.7%ofmenreportedthattheyfeltangryoftenand37.3%sometimes,whencomparedto7.9%ofwomenand49.5%who felt angry often and sometimes respectively. Hence, the fact that womenexperiencedangeroftenthreetimesmorethanmenishighlysignificant.

7.9 49.5 17.8 24.8

2.7 37.3 22.3 37.6

0 20 40 60 80 100Percent

Female

Male

Anger


Experience of anger by sex

Often SometimesRarely Never


Figure24:ExperienceofAngerbyGender(Source:CBS,2010)Althoughthequestionregardingmentalwellbeingwasdiscussedunderthedomainforhealth (figure9), it isworthnotingagain that thosewhoarewidowed, separatedanddivorcedexperiencegreater levelsofsevereandsomementaldistressthanthosewhoaremarried or single. Conversely, thosewho experience normalwellbeing tend to benevermarriedormarried.Althoughrequiringfurtherresearch,possiblereasonsforthecorrelationbetweenfailedandcurtailedmarriagesandseveretosomementaldistressarelikelyrelatedtoemotionalupheaval,contextspecificsocialstigmas,concernsand/orincreasedworkloadsandchildcare,lossoflandandproperty,etc.,andtheseneedtobeinvestigatedintermsofgender.Furthermore,psychologicalwellbeingshapeshappinessin several other domains. TheGNH survey identifies links between anger and greaterunhealthy days and less leisure time (and hence, less time for spiritual practices andmeditationwhichcancalmthemindanddiminishanger).Otherstudiessuggestgenderlinkages between anger and fear affectinghealth andoverallwellbeing (WangmoandValk,2012),andlowerhappinesslevelsinwomenandlowersatisfactionwithfinancialstatus (Zangmo, 2008). Of all the domains, psychological wellbeing is the leastresearched.Similarly,itisalsounder-researchedfromagenderperspective(Uraetal.,in press), with limited secondary data available, and thus, will require particularresearchattentioninthefuture.The domain of cultural diversity and resilience encompasses four indicators ofartisanal skills, proficiency in native language, cultural participation and driglamnamzha(thewayofharmonybasedonBuddhistprinciplesofrespectandcompassionfor all sentient beings, or Bhutanese norms in regards to socio-cultural conductpertaining to etiquette, dress, behaviour, conventions in formal settings, etc.). Whenexaminingthelastindicator,responsestofoursurveyquestionsregardingcoreculturalvalueshighlightdifferentformsofgenderculturalattitudesandbiases.Wehaveearlierdiscussed gender differences in attitudes towards education (i.e. the first questionrelatingtowhethereducation ismore important forboysthangirlscaptured in figure7), as well as gendered attitudes towards leadership (i.e. the second question as towhether men make better leaders than women as captured in figure 13). We nowanalyze the third question related to gender attitudes towards domestic/householdwork (figure 23), and the fourth question of gender attitudes towards the issue ofwhether women carry drip (impurities or pollution) (figure 24), where significantgenderdifferencesemerge.


Figure25:GenderAttitudesTowardsDomestic/Housework(Source:CBS,2010)Figure 25 illustrates that 58.4%ofmen and 66.9%ofwomen agree to the statement“womenaremoresuitedfordomestic/houseworkthanmen”,whiletheinverseistruein terms of 30.3% of men and 25.0% of women disagreeing to the same statement.Surprisingly,womenindicateagreaterbiasintermsofupholdingstereotypesregardingthis gender division of labour. Other studies confirm that women are regarded andthemselvesperceivetheirrolesasbeingtiedtothehouseholdandcarework,aswellasbeing “physically weaker and sexually more vulnerable” which negatively influencestheir access to formal education, employment and other opportunities (Yangden,2009:106;RGoB,2003:5).

Figure26:GenderedAttitudesTowardsDrip(Source:CBS,2010)Althoughgenderdifferences in thestatement “womentend tocarry ‘drip’”arenotbig(figure26), the fact thatoverall79.2%ofmenand81.8%ofwomenbelievethis tobetrue is revealing.These last two surveyquestion results reveal a greatdeal about the

66.9 8.0 25.0

58.4 11.3 30.3

0 20 40 60 80 100Percent

Female

Male


...Women are more suited for domestic/housework than men% agreeing to the statement...

Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree

81.8 8.0 10.1

79.2 9.8 11.1

0 20 40 60 80 100Percent

Female

Male


...Females tend to carry 'drip'% agreeing to the statement...

Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree


relationbetweenculturalbeliefs thatunderlie thegenderdivisionof labourrelegatingmultiple occupations towomen (householdwork, carework, income generation, andnatural resource management especially in rural areas), and social stigmas thatattributewomenasbeingpollutedorimpure.Commonlyheldculturalstigmasinfluencereligiousbeliefsandpracticessuchaskerabgu(thedifferenceofninerebirthsbetweenwomenandmen) and restrictionsonwomen fromentering thegoenkhang (the innersanctumofaBuddhist temple).AlthoughnoBuddhistmanuscriptsandtextsclaimthebiologicalinferiorityofwomen(Crins,2008),culturalnormsandstigmasinfluencethepractice of Vajrayana Buddhism in Bhutan that uphold the belief in men’s superiorstatus to women (NCWC, 2008). A recent survey further highlights these trends,whereby65%ofwomenpraytoberebornasmenintheirnextlife,43%ofrespondentsconsider women inferior tomen, and 35% of families considers women less capablethan men (NCWC, 2008). Such cultural beliefs further influence gender biases thatadvantagemen in terms of first being served food, sitting order, cultural rites, publicspeaking, higher status in society (ibid.), as well as decision-making, politicalparticipation, and educational and employment opportunities. When highly reveredcultural norms of conduct, normally seen as “gender neutral”, regarding duty andobligationwithin social interactions and gender relations are seen to be violated, therepercussionsforwomenaremoresevereandsocietyislessforgivingtowardswomenthanmen(NCWC,2008).Forinstance,therearedouble-standardsandgreatersocietalexpectationsforwomenupholdthevalueofloyaltyandfidelitythanmen(ibid.).Whatthesefindingsindicateistheurgentneedforfurtherresearchinthedomainofculture,butwhichrequiresethnographicandqualitativeresearchoverlongerperiodsoftimetounderstand changes over time. While the GNH survey in 2010 included severalquestionsongenderattitudesandstigmas,the2015surveydidnot.Itisimperativethatthe next GNH survey re-introduces these omitted questions, as well as deepens andexpandsthemtoincludequestionsregardingtheinter-relatedgenderedexperiencesofdiscrimination,mobility,decision-making,agencyandroomtomaneuver.Conclusion:ReflectionsandRecommendationsThegreateststrengthoftheGNHsurveyisitsholisticnature.Asdiscussedearlier,itismore progressive than other development indicators around the world. Its focus onhappinessandwellbeingsets isapart fromnarrowdevelopment indicators thateitherfocusoneconomic-centric‘progress’oronalimitednumberofconventionaldomains.InGNH,alldomainsareheldinequalweightandarerecognizedasbeinginter-connected,thereby enabling an analysis of the complexity of gender experiences. Through thedisaggregationofitsdomainsandindicators,theGNHsurveyillustratesthebreadthofgenderissuesanddifferencesinBhutan.Furthermore,thestatisticalrepresentationandsignificanceofthesurveyshighlightstheimportanceofthefindingsovertime.ThedataspeaksvolumesaboutgenderrelationsinBhutan.The GNH surveys demonstrate that gender gaps in happiness have closed somewhatbetween2010and2015.Asweanalyze the2015 findings in comparison to the2010


findingsinfine-graineddetail,ofimportancewillbetheexaminationofsignificantgainsandlosses,andtheexplorationoffactorsthathavecontributedtothem(VermaandUra,forthcoming). Overall, men continue to be happier than women in Bhutan. This is ofgreatconcern.Themosturgentworkneededistheanalysisofwheregenderdifferenceshavewidenedover time, and to investigate the reasons that contribute to this gendergap (ibid.). For instance, of the2010GNH survey findingswehave elaborated,wheregender differences are greatest is negative emotions, work, leisure time, schooling,literacy,politicalparticipation,safetyfromhumanharmandwildlifedamage,alltothedisadvantageofwomen.Wherethereisgreaterequalityisassets,andmorespecificallylandtenure.Inthisregard,Bhutandemonstratesgreaterequalitythanotherdevelopingcountries (FAO, 2011), as well as developed ones. Although excluded from the 2015survey questions, critical questions centering on gender-biased cultural attitudes andstigmasrelatedtoeducation,politicalleadership,householdwork,andwhetherwomencarry drip (impurities), reveal a great deal about cultural beliefs. These questions arecentraltounderstandinggenderrelations,andneedtobeincludedinthenextsurvey,aswell as expanded to include questions regarding gendered experiences ofdiscrimination, agency, mobility, decision-making and room to maneuver. The GNHsurveyalsoneedstobestrengthenedconceptuallytoconsistentlyconsiderdifferencesingender,thatis,betweensocio-culturalcategoriesofwomenandmen,ratherthansex,whichareconsideredbiologicaldifferencesbetweenmaleandfemale(throughoutthispaper, differences in sex have been illustrated in the figures from CBS, but shouldindicategender).Mostimportantly,whiletheGNHsurveydemonstratesthebreadthofgenderissues,therearegapsinunderstandingoftheexplanatoryfactorsthatresultinthosedifferences.Inthisregard,ethnographicandqualitativeresearchisimperativeinthe future, to nuance and deepen the GNH findings. This is especially the case forindicatorswheremoresensitiveissuesareexplored,suchasnegativeemotions,safetyfromhumanharm,andpoliticalparticipation.The GNH survey aggregates findings across the country and illustrates that socio-culturalperceptionsthatdisadvantagewomenexist.Thisisimportantbecausewomen’sstatusvariesgreatlyaccordingtoculturalcontextwithinthecountry(RGoB,2003).Forinstance, women in the northern and eastern regions of the country enjoy greaterfreedomandstatuscomparedtothoseinsouthernBhutanwheregenderandcasteplaysamajorroleindeterminingstatus(ibid.).Animportantfactorshapinggenderrelationsis marriage, and in Bhutan, many forms of marriage exist, including polygamy,polyandry, aswell asmatrilineal, patrilineal, patrilocal andmatrilocal contexts,whichvaryaccordingtoregionwithinthecountry.Suchdifferencesplayanimportantroleinshaping marital and gender relations, as well as related issues such as the genderdivision of labour, ownership of land, etc. In Bhutan, relations of trust, reciprocity,knowledge, cooperation and (Lemming, 2004) are not only at the heart of socialinstitutionsbutalsogenderrelationscharacterizedbynegotiation,exchange,accesstoresources,identity,statusandmostimportantly,contestationandresistanceasthebasisfor change. Hence, future research will need to further explore these dimensions as


important avenues for negotiating resources that meet women’s and men’s needs,support their livelihoods and create room for them tomaneuver (Verma,2001). Suchinvestigations are best explored through ethnographic and qualitative research inrelationtotheGNHsurvey.While gender differences in GNH continue to persist in Bhutan, great strides maderecentlyincluderesearchundertakenbytheRoyalGovernmentofBhutan,NCWC,GNHC,NSB,MoE,NEC,RENEW,TarayanaFoundation,CEDAW,etc.Progresshasbeenrapidandresponsive,asBhutanhasrecentlyadoptedgendertransformativemeasuressuchasthedomestic violence bill, the expansion of maternity leave for women, and notions ofequality in its statutory lawsand the constitution.However, there is still theneed forgreater work as Bhutan works towards gender equality. For instance, the recentmaternityleavebillneedstoincludethenationasawhole,ratherthanthecivilservicealone,intermsofalawthatappliestoallworkingcitizensacrossallsectors,includingpaternity leave for men. Affirmative action, as mentioned earlier, provokes heateddebates and resistance in Bhutan, indicating that research on gendered culturalattitudesdiscussedaboveareapriorityareainthenearfuture. Itwillbeimportanttostrengthen gender transformative change that includes gender analysis research,actionable policies, gender positive impact, organizational change, and capacity andinstitutional strengthening. Hence, not only is gender transformative research andchanges in policies required, but also initiatives that strengthen women’s leadership,professional capacities, scholarship opportunities, award recognition, and createpositiverolemodelsforyounggirlsandwomen.Here,thefocusisonwomen,aslongasgenderpowerrelationsdisadvantagethemintermsofdevelopmentandhappiness.As the expanding literature on gender issues in Bhutan indicates, there has been atendency of research to focus on “women’s issues”, rather than gender or the powerrelationsthatunderliethem.Ontheotherhand,whilemuchofbroadergenderanalysistends to focus on practical and/or strategic needs of women and men, few studiesconsider wellbeing and happiness or spiritual needs (Verma and Ura, forthcoming).With somenotablegapsbetween the two fieldsof studydiscussedearlier, conceptualframingsthatbringtogetherthestudyofgenderanddevelopmentwithhappinessandwellbeingarescarce.InthecontextofBhutan,theyarebothscarceaswellaslimitedinscope and conceptualization (ibid.). In the conceptual framework of this study, weconsider the way development, gender, happiness and wellbeing are mutuallyconstituted(ibid.).Wealsonotethepotentialavenues,andcriticalneedtoexpandgenderanalysiswithinthe context of development. As discussed earlier, GNH expands gender analysis toinclude issues ofwellbeing and happiness in innovativeways. In doing so, it expandsgender analysis beyond the duality of practical and strategic needs and interests, tohighly pertinent and important dimensions of life: wellbeing and spiritual-culturalneeds. Such needs and interests take into account the importance of gender social


relations and institutions for wellbeing and happiness. They also pay discerningattention to psychological wellbeing. The domains of community vitality, culturaldiversity and resilience, time use (and more specifically, leisure time and work/lifebalance) and psychological wellbeing are themost under-studied dimensions of GNH(Uraet al., inpress), and therefore, requiregreatest attentionand resources in futureresearch.Forifhappinessisnotonlybasedonmaterialwealthandindividualpleasure,but also the inner state of themind, as the GNH philosophy is predicated upon, thenpolicy-makingneedstofocusattentiontoitsholisticnature,includingspiritualpracticesanddevelopmentservicesthatcultivategenerosity,ethics,meditation,patience,wisdom(WangmoandValk,2012),andultimately,equanimity,compassionandloving-kindnessingenderrelations.

ReferencesADB (2014).BhutanGender EqualityDiagnostic of Selected Sectors,MandaluyongCity,

Philippines:AsianDevelopmentBank.Agrawal, A. (1996). Poststructuralist Approaches to Development: Some Critical

Reflections.PeaceandChange,21(4):464-477.

Brooks.J.S.(2013).AvoidingtheLimitstoGrowth:GrossNationalHappinessinBhutanasaModelforSustainableDevelopment,inSustainability,5:3640-3664.

CBS (2015). Program for International Conference on Gross National Happiness,November 4-6, 2015, Paro Garden Palace Lawn, Bhutan, Thimphu: Centre forBhutanStudiesandGNHResearch.

CBS (2010). The Second Gross National Happiness Survey: Questionnaire, April 2010,Thimphu:CentreforBhutanStudiesandGNHResearch.

CEDAW (2009a). Concluding observations of the Committee on the Elimination ofDiscriminationAgainstWomen -Bhutan, CEDAW/C/BTN/CO/7,NewYork:UnitedNations.

CEDAW (2009b). Responses to the list of issues and questions with regard to theconsideration of the seventh periodic report – Bhutan,CEDAW/C/BTN/Q/7/Add.1,NewYork:UnitedNations.

CornwallA,HarrisonE,WhiteheadA. (2007).GenderMythsandFeministFables:TheStruggle for InterpretivePower inGenderandDevelopment, inDevelopmentandChange,38(1):1-20.


Crins,R.(2008).Meetingthe“Other”:LivinginthePresent,GenderandSustainabilityinBhutan,Eburon:EburonDelft.

Crins,R.(2004).ReligionandGenderValuesinaChangingWorld,inTheSpiderandthePiglet: Proceedings of the First International Seminar on Bhutan Studies, Ura,KarmanadKinga,Sonam(editors),Thimphu:Centre forBhutanStudiesandGNHResearch,p.581-597.

Dey,D.andGyeltshen,T.(2010).TaskofTribalWomeninPastoralEconomyandEcologyin Eastern Himalayas: A Case Study on Bhutanese Brokpas, Proceedings ofInternationalConferenceofIAFFE2010,UniversityofNebraska,Lincoln,USA.

FAO(2011).WomeninAgriculture:ClosingtheGenderGapforDevelopment,TheStateofFoodandAgriculture,Rome:FAO.

Ferguson, J. (1994). The Anti-Politics Machine: "Development", Depoliticization, andBureaucraticPowerinLesotho,Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress.

Givel, M., (2015). Mahayana Buddhism and Gross National Happiness in Bhutan, inInternationalJournalofWellbeing,5(2),14-27.

GNHC (2011a). Bhutan 2020: A Vision for Peace, Prosperity and Happiness, Thimphu:

GrossNationalHappinessCommission.GNHC. (2011b). Gross National Happiness Policy Screening Tools. Powerpoint

Presentation.Thinmphu:GNHC.GNHC (2010). Gender Statistics Bhutan 2010, Thimphu, Gross National Happiness

Commission,RoyalGovernmentofBhutan.GNHC (2001). Gender Pilot Study – Bhutan, Thimphu: Gross National Happiness

Commission,RoyalGovernmentofBhutan.GNHC (1999). Seventh Five Year Plan (1992-1997): Main Document. Thimphu: Royal

GovernmentofBhutan.Kabeer, N. (1994). Reversed Realities: Gender Hierarchies in Development Thought,

London:Verso.LeachM.2007.Earthmothermythsandotherecofeministfables:Howastrategicnotion

roseandfell.DevelopmentandChange38(1):67–85.Leaming,L.(2004).OneBigHappyFamily?GrossNationalHappinessandtheConceptof

Family inBhutan, inGrossNationalHappiness andDevelopment:Proceedingsof


theFirstInternationalSeminaronOperationalizationofGrossNationalHappiness,660-679,Thimphu:CentreforBhutanStudiesandGNHResearch.

Mackenzie,F(1995a)‘Afarmislikeachildwhocannotbeleftunguarded:Gender,land

andlabourincentralprovince,Kenya.’IDSBulletin26(1):17–23

March, C., Smyth, I. and Mukhopadhyay, M. (1999). A Guide to Gender AnalysisFrameworks,London:Oxfam.

MOE,(2010).AnnualEducationStatistics2010.Thimphu:RoyalGovernmentofBhutan.Mosse, D. (2005) Cultivating Development: An Ethnography of Aid Policy and Practice,

PlutoPress:LondonandAnnArbor.

Pain, A. and Pema, D. (2004). The Matrilineal Inheritance of Land in Bhutan, inContemporarySouthAsia,13(4):421-435.

NCWC(2010).AStudyontheSituationofViolenceAgainstWomeninBhutan,Thimphu:NationalCommissionforWomenandChildren,RoyalGovernmentofBhutan.

NCWC (2008). Study of Gender Stereotypes and Women’s Political Participation(Women in Governance), Thimphu: National Commission for Women andChildren,RoyalGovernmentofBhutan.

Nightingale,AJ(2006)Thenatureofgender:Work,genderandenvironment.InstituteofGeography,OnlinePaperSeries:GEO-030.Scotland:UniversityofEdinburgh

NightingaleAJ (2003) ‘Nature-societyanddevelopment: Social, cultural andecologicalchangeinNepal.’Geoforum34(2003):525–40.

NSB(2014).StatisticalYearbookofBhutan,Thimphu:NationalStatisticsBureau,RoyalGovernmentofBhutan.

Parliament of Bhutan (2013). Domestic Violence Prevention Act, Thimphu: RoyalGovernmentofBhutan.

Parpart JL,MarchandME.1995.Exploding thecanon:An introduction/conclusion. In:

Marchand ME, Parpart JL, editors. Feminism / Postmodernism / Development.London,UKandNewYork,NY:Routledge,pp1–41.

Picketty,T.(2014).CapitalintheTwenty-FirstCentury,BelknapPress.Pokhrel,N.(2015).CabinetEndorsesSixMonthsMaternityLeave, inKuensel,December

16,2015,Thimphu:Kuensel.


Priesner, S. (1999). Gross National Happiness: Bhutan’s Vision of Development and itsChallenges.TheCentreforBhutanStudies,Thimphu.

RathgeberE.M.(2005).GenderandDevelopmentasaFugitiveConcept.CanadianJournal

ofDevelopmentStudies26:579–591.

RENEW(2007).ViolenceAgainstWomen,Thimphu:RENEW.RGoB,(2012).TheReportoftheHigh-LevelMeetingonWellbeingandHappiness:Defining

aNewEconomicParadigm.NewYork:ThePermanentMissionoftheKingdomofBhutan to the United Nations. Thimphu: Office of the Prime Minister, RoyalGovernmentofBhutan

RGoB (2003). Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against

Women:AnUpdated Summaryof theReport of theKingdomofBhutan, Thimphu:RoyalGovernmentofBhutan.

RBoB, NCWC, and World Bank. (2013). Bhutan Gender Policy Note. Thimphu: Royal

GovernmentofBhutanSNDP(2013).Happiness:TowardsaNewDevelopmentParadigm:ReportoftheKingdom

ofBhutan,Thimphu:Secretariat foraNewDevelopmentParadigmandtheRoyalGovernmentofBhutan.

Stiglitz,J.E.,Sen,A.,andFitoussi,J.(2009).ReportbytheCommissionontheMeasurement

of Economic Performance and Social Progress, Paris: Commission on theMeasurementofEconomicPerformanceandSocialProgress.

SweetnamC.(2012).Introduction.Gender&Development20(3):389–403.TarayanaFoundation(2009).AlternativeReportforBhutan:FortheCommitteeonthe

Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, 44th CEDAW Session, 2009,Thimphu:TarayanaFoundation.

Tashi,KhenpoP.(2004).TheRoleofBuddhisminAchievingGrossNationalHappiness,

in Gross National Happiness and Development, Proceedings of the FirstInternational Seminar on Operationalization of Gross National Happiness,Thimphu:CentreforBhutanStudiesandGNHResearch,483-495.

Thin, T., Verma, R. and Uchida, Y. (2013). ‘Culture, Development and Happiness’, in

ReportonWellbeing&Happiness:ContributionstowardstheRGOB’sNDPReportbyIEWGmembersoftheWellbeing&HappinessWorkingGroup,Thimphu:Secretariat


for theNewDevelopmentParadigmandTheCentre forBhutanStudiesandGNHResearch.

Thinley,LyonchhenJigmiY.(2012).WhatisGrossNationalHappiness?,Thimphu:Centre

forBhutanStudiesandGNHResearch.Thinley,J.Y.(2005).WhatisGNH?,KeynoteSpeechdeliveredon21.6.2005byMinisterof

Home and Cultural Affairs, the Royal Government of Bhutan, 2nd InternationalConferenceonGNH,Halifax,Canada.

Tshomo, Tashi, Tshomo, Tashi, Wangmo, Tandin, and Patel, S.S. (2010), The Gender

DivideinBhutan:OpinionsontheStatusofWomenSplitAlongGenderLinesAmongCollegeStudents,Trashigang:SherubtseCollege.

UNGA (2011). Resolution adopted by the General Assembly, 65/309. Happiness:

TowardsaHolisticApproachtoDevelopment,Sixty-fifthSession,Agendaitem13,NewYork:UnitedNations.

Ura,K.(2009).AProposalforGNHValueEducation,Thimphu:CentreforBhutanStudies.Ura,K. (2005).TheBhutaneseDevelopmentStory.Thimphu:Centre forBhutanStudies

andGNHStudies.Ura,K.,Verma,R.,Phuntsho,T.,Zangmo,T.,Chophel,D.(inpress).HolisticDevelopment

withValues:StrategicResearchAgenda-CentreforBhutanStudiesandGNH(2016-2025),Thimphu:CBS.

Ura, K., Alkire, S., Zangmo, T. andWangdi, K. (2015).GNH in 2015: Some Preliminary

Findings,Thimphu:CentreforBhutanStudiesandGNHResearch.Ura,K.,Alkire, S., Zangmo,T. andWangdi,K. (2012a).AShortGuide toGrossNational

HappinessIndex,Thimphu:CentreforBhutanStudiesandGNHResearch.Ura,K.,Alkire,S.,Zangmo,T.andWangdi,K.(2012b).AnExtensiveAnalysisofGNHIndex,

Thimphu:CentreforBhutanStudiesandGNHResearch.Verma,R.(forthcoming).TheSevenManifestationsofGrossNationalHappinessinBhutan.Verma,R. (in press). GrossNationalHappiness:Meaning,Measure andDegrowth in a

Living Development Alternative, in Journal of Political Ecology, Special Issue onCulture,Power,Degrowth.


Verma, R. (2016). GNH and Varjrayana Buddhism, paper to be presented at theInternationalConference

Verma, R. (2015). Exploring Gross National Happiness as a Holistic Development

Alternative,paperpresentedat theCentre for IndiaandSouthAsiaColloquiumSeries,UCLA,November16,2015.

Verma, R. (2013). Gender Transformative Change in the Hindu Kush Himalayas,

Kathmandu:ICIMOD.Verma, R. and Banda, M. (2011). Bringing Confusion and Turbulence to CalmWaters:

Women’s Struggles for Access to Justice and Land Rights in Patrilineal andMatrilineal Communities in Malawi, Background Paper and Case Study, inProgressoftheWorld’sWomen:InPursuitofJustice,NewYork:UNIFEM.

Verma, R. and Blaikie, P.J. (2014). New Knowledge Meets Old Problems: Exploring

Disconnects in Environmental Research and Policy in the Himalayas, Panel onRituals of Development – theMagic of aModernising Project, ASA Conference,Edinburgh,June19-22.

Verma, R. and Gurung, M. (in press). Bhutan+10 International Conference Proceeding:

GenderandSustainableMountainDevelopmentinaChangingWorld,Kathmandu:ICIMOD.

Verma,R. andUra,K. (forthcoming),GenderDifferences inGrossNationalHappiness in

Bhutan,CBSMonograph,Thimphu:CentreforBhutanStudiesandGNHResearch.Verma,R.andUra,K.(2015),GenderDifferencesinGrossNationalHappinessinBhutan:

Analysis of the GNH Surveys, paper presented at GNH International Conference:FromPhilosophytoPolicyandPraxis,November3-6,2015,Paro,Bhutan.

Verma, R. and Ura, K. (2012), Gender Dimensions of GNH, paper presented at

Bhutan+10:GenderandSustainableMountainDevelopment inaChangingWorldconference,October15-19,2012,Thimphu,Bhutan.

Walcott, S.M., 2011, One of a Kind: Bhutan and the Modernity Challenge, in National

Identities,13(3):253-265.Wangmo,T(2013).“TheLawofContention–BhutanandtheDomesticViolenceBill”,in

theRaven,March2013,Thimphu:TheRavenMagazine.Wangmo., T. and Valk, J. (2012). Under the Influence of Buddhism: The Psychological

Well-beingIndicatorsofGNH,inJournalofBhutanStudies,26:53-81.


Waring,M.,andSteinem,G. (1988).IfWomenCounted:ANewFeministEconomics. San

Francisco:Harper&Row.Yangden,T.(2009).Gender,CultureandDevelopment:IntheParadigmofGrossNational

Happiness in Bhutan, Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Sociology Programme, School ofSocialandPoliticalSciences,UniversityofCanterbury.

Documents

held in Paro, Bhutan from 4-6 November 2015€¦ · development is the collective happiness of people, whereby happiness reflects the creation, support and provision of enabling conditions