The UK think (-and-do) tank New Economics Foundation has recently published its Happy Planet Index, which aims to present an alternative to established indicators of well-being that are mostly confined to economic raw data.

Uzbekistan comes in third of all Central Asian and former Soviet republics (only Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan have higher ratings) and is also way ahead of all G8 countries.

It goes without saying that this piece of news was picked up by the government-controlled media in Tashkent (HT: Nathan).

Let’s have a look at the methods behind compiling such an index - and whether it can really act as a credible alternative to established indicators with whose help the performance of nations can be compared.

First off, how does Uzbekistan score in other rankings? The World Bank and the IMF rate countries according to the most straightforward, but arguably, most simplistic way: How much money does a citizen dispose of? GDP per capita, either adjusted for local prices (purchasing power parity) or in simple exchange rate terms, puts Uzbekistan in 145th and 153th place respectively.

In 1990, Pakistani economicst Mahbub ul Haq developed the Human Development Index, combining both economic indicators (GDP per capita) with measures of life expectancy and education (literacy rates). The HDI has become popular throughout the years and quickly became the standard measure of the UNDP.

In HDI terms, Uzbekistan can score considerably better. In 2005, Uzbekistan had an HDI of 0.694, putting it in 111th place. In an alternative measure to the HDI, the Human Poverty Index (which ranks countries according to the incidence of poverty), Uzbekistan even comes in 101st place.

Nevertheless, even the HDI’s two alternative measures, health and education, are in one way or another directly correlated to available income of a given household or community. The Happy Planet Index of the NEF, which builds on the GNH (Gross National Happiness) measure pioneered in the kingdom of Bhutan, therefore tries to incorporate other measures that can give evidence of the quality of our lives.

The Happy Planet Index equals: Life Satisfaction multiplied by Life Expectancy divided by the Ecological Footprint

The results of the study shake conventional thinking on the ranking of nations, a sport so popular in international organisations, a sport that helps us define countries in need of large-scale international assistance (and mainstream economic policies).

However, to the traveller of Central Asia, it is a question why the normal (and somewhat intuitive) hierarchy is being reversed. In terms of economic data (GDP per capita PPP), this would be: Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan - within the HPI, however: Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan.

For Uzbekistan, it is worth looking at the components of the HPI in a little more detail:

Life Satisfaction: It is not clear from the NEF report on how many surveys their values for the Central Asian nations are based. The authors of the World Database of Happiness (University of Rotterdam), the source for NEF’s data on life satisfaction, have only conducted one survey in Uzbekistan. Nevertheless, the validity of such data is being defended by the NEF report’s authors:

Most academics working on well-being are satisfied that ratings of life satisfaction within a country or culture are acceptably valid. An individuals’s self-reported life satisfaction correlates with reports from loved ones, with how often they experience good moods, and even the likelihood they will commit suicide later on in their life (…) As well as being valid, self-reports of life-satisfaction seem to be reliable. In other words, people tend to give the same patterns of response over time, and when slightly different question wordings are used.

Other surveys can verify these findings for Uzbekistan. Some while ago, James reported of an event titled “What We Have Learned from Public Opinion Polling in Central Asia”, in which findings from different polls were presented:

Surprisingly, general satisfaction is the highest in Uzbekistan, and the lowest in Kyrgyzstan. However, Uzbeks find it harder to provide basic necessities for their families.

Life Expectancy: Taking into account low general income, the surprisingly good life expectancy patterns are typical of countries of the former Soviet Union. Uzbekistan has the highest life expectancy of all Central Asian nations, a fact that is making the World Health Organisation think that problems exist when collecting this data:

The WHO estimates (…) are four years lower than the official LE figures of 70.0 years (2002) for both sexes, 72.5 years for women and 67.6 years for men. The difference is mostly due to under-registration of child mortality.

According to WHO calculations a person born in Uzbekistan in 2003 can expect to live 66 years on average: 68 years if female and 63 years if male.

The ecological footprint measures how much land surface is required to sustain a given population at present levels of consumption. Although countries with similar GDP per capita like the US and Germany differ widely on their footprint (e.g. due to the differing efficiency with which resources are being used, think of public transport etc.), it is clear that more consumption and higher GDPs result in a bigger ecological footprint. Therefore, Uzbekistan’s good rating in this category is related to its low per capita GDP. This indicator is thus global and does not incorporate the domestic environmental situation.

It is also important to note that Footprint does not attempt to quantify how himan impact erodes nature’s capacity to regenerate. It says nothing of diminishing biodiversity, chlorofluorocabons (CFC) or soil degradation, and as such should not be interpreted as an indicator of ecological viability.

In Uzbekistan, the ecological situation is difficult to say the least. The decade-long cotton monoculture has degraded large proportions of arable soil, the Aral Sea disaster affects most parts of Western Uzbekistan.

The bottom line should be that while scoring considerably better in the HPI than in any other index, this good positioning is not a result of good policies the Uzbek government is pursuing. While this may sound very intuitive, it is important to have a look at why a country like Uzbekistan is doing so well in such a ranking. It is good and surprising to see that life satisfaction is undetteredly good. It is also indisputably good that Uzbeks can live - on average - longer than their Central Asian neighbours.

There are countries that have adopted strategies to enhance their ranking in the HPI. Think of Bhutan, a country which has to have - according to its constitution - at least 60% of its area covered with forests. The elevation of happiness as the main indicator for judging government’s policies sounds utopian. And although more and more academics within development economics regard these alternative measures as valuable tools for analysing sustainable development, it is difficult to derive concrete policy recommendations from them.

Uzbekistan’s government might find the HPI a useful tool in diverting attention away from its dismal economic policies. Because interestingly, the HPI is also positively correlated with economic well-being, although only up to a certain point: The positive relationship between GDP per capita and HPI peaks at around $5,000 (roughly $14 a day) - after that, the ecological footprint becomes less sustainable and life satisfaction drops as well. In other words, “at a national level, the most significant gains in well-being seem to be made at low-to-moderate levels of income”.

Uzbekistan’s (also Tajikistan’s and Kyrgyzstan’s) good positions in the HPI largely derive from their Soviet heritage: Life expectancy is good on average thanks to good basic medical provisions. But unfortunately, the collapse of the command economy has kept average consumption down in the long run, thus making the countries’ ecological footprint so small. The only indicator shaped by Central Asians themselves, and not their governments, is that they are disproportionately happier than their post-Soviet peers.