In addition to GDP, another important indicator of social development is the various "happiness" indicators. Pen, fun, and www.biquge.info

The purpose of the happiness indicator is to measure the level of well-being more directly. Freedom and wealth may be important conditions for happiness, but if the latter is the ultimate goal, why not just ask respondents how happy they are and compare the happiness of people across countries?

The Gallup World Poll asked respondents about their "experiences of everyday life" – whether they were well-rested, respected, free from pain, and constantly thinking – to rate their overall life satisfaction1, but this approach took no social and ethical considerations into account.

In the survey, Israel once again received a high score (8th place). But it is doubtful that Israelis can really enjoy life with a clear conscience at a time when Israel is oppressing its neighbor Palestine and making life for Palestinians miserable.

South Korea scored lower in the survey (only 56th), but one of the reasons for this is that most Koreans work hard and sacrifice their own well-being for the sake of their family members (Hong Kong and Singapore score even lower at joint 81st, for similar reasons).

South Koreans don't choose a more relaxed, carefree (i.e., more selfish) lifestyle, so they deserve points?

Canada and the U.S. score high (8th and 14th respectively), but should they still score so high if they choose an environmentally unsustainable lifestyle and are very happy with it?

And how many Americans or Canadians have worried that if China's and India's per capita carbon dioxide emissions rise to the same level as their consumption, the natural world will face serious challenges?

Similar to the Gallup World Poll, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's (OECD) Better Life Index measures subjective happiness. The same problem is with the index3: social and ethical considerations are not included in the index system at all. Again, the bias of "individualism" is worthy of vigilance, as policy recommendations based on it may be unethical.

In order to overcome these shortcomings, people are constantly exploring a more comprehensive happiness index. One of the most influential is the Gross National Happiness Index (GNH), which was inspired by the Buddhist country of Bhutan. The Bhutan Research Centre, in collaboration with Canada's International Development Research Centre, developed the Gross National Happiness (UHD) and applied it to Bhutanese research, "where happiness is defined differently from mainstream Western concepts. Happiness is multifaceted – not just subjective well-being, nor is it just about personal happiness.

Thimphu, the capital of Bhutan. The Bhutanese government has been closing the tourism industry in order to protect the country's natural features and avoid contamination by foreign influences.

The pursuit of happiness is a collective act, despite the fact that individuals are capable of feeling happiness deeply". Thus, the Gross National Happiness Index measures national happiness in nine dimensions: mental health, time use, collective vitality, cultural diversity, ecological sustainability, living standards, health care, education, and good governance.

While Gross National Happiness (Gross National Happiness) is clearly better than previous indices because it takes into account the social and ethical dimensions of human well-being, it is not without its flaws. First, the coverage of Gross National Happiness is too broad to measure in other countries.

As Ian Morris puts it, indicators of human development should adhere to "a basic criterion, which is to find quantifiable indicators that are small and manipulative". 5 In addition, the Gross National Happiness Index is too closely linked to Bhutan's Buddhist tradition to be generalized to other countries: it even measures "the spiritual heights a person achieves in self-prayer, as well as the frequency with which he contemplates 'karma', prays, and meditates."

Gross National Happiness, on the other hand, does not take into account all the key social relations related to human well-being. It does not measure a country's relations with other countries. It can be said that in today's world, no country can and should not achieve complete self-sufficiency. Bhutan itself has come under fire for deporting 100,000 ethnic Nepalis illegally residing in its territory and stripping them of their Bhutanese citizenship. 7 In addition, the Gross National Happiness Index does not take into account family relationships. In most, if not all, cultures, the family is a source of happiness and moral obligation. Therefore, an index of human prosperity should also take into account family relationships. Gross National Happiness measures the "fundamental right to vote", but is the right to vote really more fundamental than a happy family life?

The Happy Planet Index (HPI) also measures the level of happiness and takes into account the social and moral dimensions, while deliberately selecting only three indicators in order to be applicable to a wider range of cultural contexts.

The index "draws on global data on individual life satisfaction, life expectancy and ecological footprint to identify countries that best provide long-term happiness for their occupants, without compromising future generations". 8 The Happy Planet Index has its merits because under this index, high-income countries have to be deducted for their larger ecological footprint9 (more resource consumption). For example, in the 2012 report, the United States ranked only 105th out of 151 countries.

However, the Happy Planet Index also suffers from problems that are common to other happiness indices. Since the index relies on a subjective judgment of happiness, if society is filled with people who are ambitious (not satisfied with the status quo) and who work hard at least partly for the sake of their families, the country's score decreases: South Korea is again ranked lower, at 63rd.

By contrast, Thailand, known as the "City of Smiles," is ranked 20th, thanks in part to the country's high score on personal satisfaction with life. 10 However, family relationships may not be the same when family relationships are taken into account in scoring an individual's satisfaction with life.

In addition, the Happy Planet Index does not measure the relationship between countries. We can easily blame the United States for militarism, but what if the high military spending of the United States provides a guarantee of a happy life for the European welfare state, should we continue to blame?

Any indicator of human well-being should take into account the ability of societies to provide peaceful environments for their people.

Another reason for Singapore's low score is that Singaporeans generally have high expectations of the government, and if the government does not perform well enough, the public can easily feel "unhappy".

Individual satisfaction with life is measured by the Gallup Global Survey's Ladder of LifeQuestionintheGallupWorldPoll. The questionnaire asks people to answer where they are on the ladder of well-being (NeweconomicsFoundation, TheHappyPlaIndex:2012Report:AglobalIndexofSustainableWellbeing, 2012, p.7.). Ambitious people tend to choose a lower step than those who enjoy life and are satisfied with the status quo.

There is also a more controversial (and more initial) view that "hard capitalism" in the United States allows for more innovation than relatively egalitarian welfare states such as Sweden (suggesting that "soft capitalist" countries are free-riding on the United States, because innovation drives both global economic growth rates) (to be continued). )