Do you have to be a goody-goody to identify strongly with helping others?

No! People who feel a great deal of freedom and control of their own lives identify strongly with helping others even if they don’t see themselves as goody-goodies. People with strong feelings of individual agency identify strongly with the proposition ‘it is important to help the people nearby’ even if they don’t identify at all with the proposition ‘it is important to always behave properly’.


Before I present a chart showing this, I should provide some background information. I ended my last post wondering whether people who feel little freedom in their own lives might tend to be more likely to engage in anti-social activities if they give high priority to having a good time and feel little control over their own lives. However, when I looked at World Values Survey data on people who identify strongly with the proposition ‘it is important to this person to have a good time’ I found that they tend to identify much more strongly than average with helping others, even when they feel little control over their own lives. (I am basing these observations on cross-tabulations for about 80,000 respondents in 57 countries from the 2005 Survey.)

So, I decided to see if this is also true of people who identify strongly with the proposition ‘it is important for this person to be rich’. It is. It is also true of people who identify strongly with ‘being very successful’, ‘thinking up new ideas and being creative’, ‘being adventurous and taking risks’, ‘looking after the environment’, ‘living in secure surroundings’, ‘tradition’ and ‘always behaving properly’. It seems that people who identify strongly with just about any proposition about the importance of a particular value in their own lives tend to identify strongly with helping others, even when they feel little control over their own lives.

It is hardly surprising that people who identify strongly with the proposition ‘it is important to this person to always behave properly’ would identify with helping others. What about those who see themselves as being a bit naughty – the people who say that proposition ‘is not like me, or not at all like me’? I gave the answer in the first paragraph. It is also shown in the chart below.

I’m not sure of the implications of the finding that people who do not see themselves as giving importance to behaving properly tend nevertheless to identify strongly with helping others if they have strong feelings of personal agency. Perhaps feelings of personal freedom and control of their lives help individuals to behave responsibly even when they prefer to see themselves as being fallible rather than virtuous. This deserves further study.

How much do we know about the relationship between freedom and human flourishing?

I have been thinking about this subject for a long time. I have blogging about various aspects of it for more than 3 years and I have just written a conference paper entitled ‘Some Observations on the Relationship between Freedom and Well-Being’. Yet I still don’t feel as though I know enough about the relationship between freedom and individual flourishing.


My interest in this topic stemmed partly from the questioning by some influential people of the economist’s traditional assumption that adult individuals of sound mind are the best judges of their own interests. There seems to have been an increasing tendency to question whether people make good use of opportunities available to maintain or improve their well-being and that of their families. There seems to be increasing support for paternalistic restrictions on freedom in an effort to discourage behaviour that is harmful to health (e.g. smoking) and financial well-being (e.g. gambling).

A priori reasoning can take us some distance in establishing the importance of self-direction and autonomy to human flourishing. As discussed in the paper referred to above, a strong case can be made that humans are creatures that cannot fully flourish unless they are responsible for the way they live their lives. Respect for individual autonomy also provides the basis for social cooperation. It is difficult to help other people to flourish – or even to live in peace with them – if we do not respect their autonomy.

Empirical analysis of the relationships between various aspects of freedom and dimensions of well-being also suggest a positive relationship between freedom and well-being. At a subjective level, feelings of individual agency – feelings about the amount of freedom and control that people have over the way their lives turn out – are closely related to life satisfaction. There is evidence that feelings of individual agency are influenced by institutions relating to democracy, freedom of expression and economic freedom. There is also evidence of a positive relationship between economic freedom and various subjective and objective measures of well-being.

The paper also looks at evidence on the question of whether strong feelings of individual agency are associated with more selfish behaviour. It concludes that, if anything, the opposite seems to be the case.

So, we have strong grounds to argue that self-direction and autonomy are important and that people do tend, in general, to make good use of the opportunities available to improve their well-being and that of their families.

Why do we need to know more than that about the relationship between freedom and flourishing?

One important reason has to do with way many of us tend to respond to the fact that some people use the opportunities available to them in ways that are harmful to their own well-being or that of other people. We often have tendency to support policy responses that seek to reduce temptations of vulnerable people, by restricting freedom, rather than to consider why such people have become vulnerable and how they might be helped to resist temptations. (I use the words ‘us’ and ‘we’ in this context because of my previous support for policies that I thought would reduce availability of harmful drugs when my children were in their teens.) I think that we tend to resort too readily to paternalistic interventions that attempt to remove temptations because we don’t know enough about what makes people vulnerable to temptations or how their vulnerability is affected by the institutional environment.

I think we also need a better understanding of the causes of anti-social activities, such as those associated with binge drinking, if we are to avoid attempts to deal with such problems without further restricting the liberty of innocent people. It might be helpful to know, for example, to what extent people behave irresponsibly because of the feeling that nothing they do has much effect on the way their lives turn out, in combination with of the priority they give to having a good time. It might also be useful to know whether such feelings and attitudes are more prevalent in some countries than others and, if so, why.

Postscript 1
I am intending to add postscripts to keep track of findings of additional research on this topic.

I now reject the hypothesis implicit in the last paragraph above. When I looked (here) at World Values Survey data on people who identify strongly with the proposition ‘it is important to this person to have a good time’ I found that they tend to identify much more strongly than average with helping others, even when they feel little control over their own lives. It seems that people who identify strongly with just about any proposition about the importance of a particular value in their own lives tend to identify strongly with helping others, even when they feel little control over their own lives.

As noted above, strong feelings of individual agency tend not to be associated with selfish behaviour. Further research (reported in the post linked above) suggests that people who have strong feelings of individual agency tend to identify strongly with the proposition ‘it is important to help the people nearby’, even if they don’t identify at all with the proposition ‘it is important to always behave properly’.

Does identification with helping the people nearby have a positive effect on the social fabric? Findings reported in another post suggest that people who identify with helping the people nearby have less tolerant attitudes toward corruption, are also less tolerant of social security and tax fraud, and fare evasion on public transport.

Where to from here? The general question I want to explore further is whether feelings of agency interact with various beliefs and values in ways that might help to explain self-destructive and anti-social behaviours. For example, do people with low feelings of agency generally tend to have more cynical attitudes toward factors leading to wealth and success in life and is this associated with different attitudes toward helping others, corruption and desirable child qualities?

Postscript 2
I have discussed the question of whether attitudes towards success, wealth accumulation and competition are  linked to feelings of individual agency in this post.

Why do some people use the opportunities available to them in ways that are harmful to their own well-being or that of other people? In my view view the best place to look for an answer is in terms of their sense of identity and the satisfaction they obtain from acting in accordance with their sense of identity. Various posts with the 'Identity' label are relevant in this context.

From a public policy perspective it is important to ask how government actions are likely to impact on an individual's sense of identity. For example, are they likely to encourage the individuals to perceive themselves as productive members of society.

From the perspective of individual self-improvement it is relevant for everyone to ask themselves what kind of person they want to be. Steven Stosny has an interesting post on this topic on the Psychology Today blog.

How does Bhutan beckon?

‘Bold Bhutan Beckons’, by Tim Fischer and Tshering Tashi, was first published in 2009. I almost bought a copy then. I had just written a review article about Bhutan’s gross national happiness (GNH) objective and was naturally interested in Tim Fischer’s views on Bhutan – since he is a fellow Australian and former leader of the National Party. Anyhow, the moment passed and I didn’t think again of buying the book until a couple of weeks ago when I had it in my hand in a bookshop in Thimphu. As soon as I flipped through the pages I knew that I had to read it.

In his introduction, Tim Fischer mentions that when he and his friend Tshering Tashi (a businessman and writer who lives in Thimphu) were talking about joint authorship of this book, someone warned him that joint book writing was ‘possibly a guaranteed way to spoil a friendship’. That might have been good advice, but the way Tim and Tshering have written the book seems to have been designed to reduce the potential for conflict. Rather than attempting to write jointly, they have each made separate contributions to the book and have told readers who wrote each chapter.

One of the highlights of the book, in my view, is the discussion of Zhabdrung Ngawang Namgyal, whom Tshering describes as the founder and conscience of Bhutan. Tim tells the story of how two Jesuits visited Bhutan in 1627, when Zhabdrung was a young king. Zhabdrung offered them hospitality and apparently allowed them to attempt to convert local people to Christianity. Zhabdrung might have been confident that the Jesuit’s proselytising efforts would be unsuccessful, but he also claimed to be respectful of individual liberty in other contexts. Tshering notes that many times the king told his lamas that ‘though they are most submissive, everyone is his own master to do what he likes’ (p 25). It is not clear from the book, however, whether Zhabdrung’s acknowledgement that everyone is his own master extended to their use of what he described as ‘the evil, stinking, poisonous weed named tobacco’ (p 29).

Zhabdrung stressed the virtues of perseverance and self-discipline. He quoted his teacher who said: ‘If you do not work hard you will not find sweet food. If you do not know the taste of suffering, you will not know the taste of happiness’. Zhabdrung’s achievements include the building of seven dzongs (combining the functions of fortresses and monasteries) built in strategic locations in different parts of the country. The first was built in 1629 at Simtokha, about 5 km south of Thimphu (the capital city) on the road to Paro and Phuentsholing. The photo below was taken from the road from Thimphu to Punakha.

The Punakha dzong, shown in my last post, was also built by Zhabdrung.

Another highlight of the book is Tim Fischer’s discussion of road-building in Bhutan in the 1960s. While we were being driven along the relatively good road from the international airport at Paro to Thimphu, my fellow passengers were discussing the fact that Bhutan was virtually closed to the outside world before the major road construction effort that occurred about 50 years ago. The idea that road construction in Bhutan began only when I was in my final years at school resonated much more strongly a few days later, however, when I was being driven over the narrow, winding mountain road from Thimphu to Punakha. This road barely copes with the amount of traffic using it, but I was impressed with the regard to safety of most of the drivers and with the signaling system that drivers use to let following vehicles know that it is safe to pass. (The left indicator means that it is safe and the right indicator means that it is unsafe. Vehicles drive on the left hand side of the road.)

Since I have already distracted myself away from reviewing the book, this might be an appropriate opportunity to present some photos I took on the road from Thimphu to Punakha.

This is my guide, Nado Richen, who was most helpful. After my return to Australia, Nado emailed a fact sheet to me to ensure that I understood what he had been saying. Nado was concerned that his command of English was not strong enough to answer some of my questions.

Bhutan is very keen on use of hydro power - and not just for electricity generation. This photo shows a water-powered prayer wheel.

These are the Druk Wangyal Chortens -108 stupas at Dochula pass (3050m) a popular place, with panoramic views. Stupas are spiritual monuments offering observers a direct experience of inherent wakefulness and dignity.These stupas were built by the eldest Queen Mother, Her Majesty Ashi Dorji Wangmo Wangchuk, in honor of soldiers who fought in the 2003 low-intensity border conflict to expel Indian militants. The Indian militants had been threatening Bhutanese sovereignty by using camps in Bhutan as a base to pursue their revolutionary aims in India. Tshering Tashi wrote a chapter discussing the conflict in ‘Bold Bhutan Beckons’.

Prayer flags at a lake in the Royal Botanical Park at Lamperi.

This truck is typical of those passed on the road from Thimphu to Punakha. The prayer wheel in Nado’s car is shown in the foreground and is reflected in the windscreen.

Some cows on the road near Punakha.

Rice fields near Punakha.

Now, where was I before I interrupted myself? I was writing about Tim Fischer’s account of road building in Bhutan in the 1960s. Tim was helped in writing this story by his discussions with Hardy Pradhan, an Australian engineer who worked on the first roads in Bhutan. The roads were built with the help of Indian expertise but the labour involved was largely a national effort by Bhutanese people. All Bhutanese were apparently expected to work on the project for 33 days.

Another highlight of the book, for me, was Tshering’s account of his meeting with Tsham Penjor, whom he describes as the great hermit. I know little about hermits, but some aspects of the story did not surprise me. I had expected that any person who had spent most of his life in solitary meditation would have little attachment to material things. The part of the story that surprised me is that despite his solitary life, Tsham is apparently a warm, hospitable and happy person.

Tshering argues that the pursuit of materialism and the desire to be admired respected and noticed brings with it a great deal of uncertainty. He suggests that ‘it is in the simplicity of people like Tsham Penjor that the truth and greatness really live’. Through the example of his life Tsham ‘reminds us that the mountains have the power to liberate humans from this uncertainty’ (p 78).

Is that why Bhutan beckons? Is it the challenge to spend more time on our mountains – geographical or metaphorical - aiming to live in harmony with nature and our neighbours and to seek goodness and enlightenment? That seems to me to be an important part of the story. Tim Fischer has another important part of the story in his suggestion that Bhutan acts as a magnet because its culture, customs and traditions survive to this day in a careful blend with modernity (p 19). For me, the main attraction is that the Bhutanese people are taking charge of the blending process themselves, individually and collectively, with the aim of building a happier society.

Postscript 1:

In thanking me for this review, Tshering Tashi has reminded me that Bhutan may also be the last bastian for many endangered animals. He has written about this in the book. He has also written an article in Kuensel about the blue bear, which is believed to be extinct.

Postscript 2:

I neglected to mention that my main reason for visiting Bhutan was to attend a conference on 'Happiness and Economic Development'. Some of the conference presentations are now available on this site.

How should a libertarian view the pursuit of happiness in Bhutan?

I was pondering this question last week on my first visit to Bhutan. Some readers may wonder why anyone who loves liberty would actually need to ponder this question. It is obvious that such a person could not support a law requiring citizens to wear national dress, particularly when this law means that ethnic minorities with a different cultural heritage are expected to wear the traditional attire of the majority of the population. Nor could anyone who loves liberty support a law specifying that any person found with more than the permissible quantity of tobacco products for personal consumption ‘shall be guilty of the offense for smuggling’.

My pondering has focused on the issue of whether such restrictions of liberty are central to Bhutan’s Gross National Happiness (GNH) objective. My conclusion is that I don’t think they are. While GNH seems to be mentioned whenever the government does anything in Bhutan, restrictions of liberty seem to me to be more appropriately attributed to the historical legacy of isolation from the rest of the world, the reasons that the Druk majority have had to fear that they might lose their cultural identity and political independence, and the history of paternalistic government that is greatly respected by a high proportion of the people (and which has generally deserved that respect).

It seems to me that attributing restrictions of liberty in Bhutan to GNH would be as silly as attributing the recent riots in Britain to its Westminster system of government, or the existence of a relatively high prison population in the US to the ideals expressed in its Declaration of Independence. Principles deserve to be considered on their merits, even though the claims to moral leadership of the countries that espouse those principles are often impaired to some extent by bad policies and policy outcomes.

The following remarks of the current king of Bhutan, his majesty Jigme Khesar Namgyel Wangchuck, seem relevant in this context:

‘GNH acts as our National Conscience guiding us towards making wise decisions for a better future. It ensures that no matter what our nation may seek to achieve, the human dimension, the individual’s place in the nation, is never forgotten. It is a constant reminder that we must strive for a caring leadership so that as the world and country changes, as our nation’s goals change, our foremost priority will always remain the happiness and wellbeing of our people – including the generations to come after us’.

The GNH concept originated in the early 1970s in a remark by the former king that ‘Gross National Happiness is more important than Gross National Product’. Systematic efforts have been made over the last decade or so to specify the objective clearly, to measure GNH and to incorporate relevant criteria in government decision-making.

The central idea behind Bhutan’s GNH objective is to integrate environmental conservation, promotion of cultural activities and good governance with economic growth and modernization. This idea has gained considerable international support. The UN General Assembly recently adopted by acclamation a resolution sponsored by Bhutan inviting countries ‘to pursue the elaboration of additional measures that better capture the importance of the pursuit of happiness and well-being in development with a view to guiding their public policies’. Bhutan has been invited to convene a panel discussion on the theme of happiness and well-being during the Assembly’s next session, which begins in September.

While offering its view of the pursuit of happiness to the rest of the world, the government of Bhutan does not claim to have resolved all the problems of economic development and social change. For example, public literature about GNH acknowledges that Bhutan faces problems associated with rural-urban migration, youth alienation and substance abuse.

One possible area of concern about pursuit of GNH is whether attempts to integrate environmental and cultural concerns with economic development will reduce economic freedom and constrain economic opportunities available to Bhutanese people. I’m not sure how restrictive the project approval processes might be, but it seems to involve a weighing up of the good and bad effects of individual projects. This approach seems to me to have potential to enable approval of a larger number of good projects than would the process in Australia of requiring projects to jump a series of environmental and/or social impact hurdles imposed by different levels of government. The inclusion of a good governance criterion should also help to ensure that projects are not held up by corrupt officials or narrowly focused interest groups.

Although the Heritage Foundation’s index suggests that Bhutan has a relatively low level of economic freedom (a ranking of 103 among the 179 countries ranked) it is not clear that its ranking is adversely affected by the pursuit of GNH. Bhutan’s economic freedom ranking is considerably higher than that of neighbouring countries such as India (124), China (135) and Nepal (146) whose governments do not have GNH as an explicit objective. I don’t see why pursuit of GNH in Bhutan would not be consistent with greater economic freedom than at present.

I thoroughly enjoyed my visit to Bhutan. I think it would be hard for anyone to visit the country without ending up with a great deal of respect for the peaceful people who inhabit this country. The people are so kind that the dogs even seem to feel safe sleeping on the roads. I don’t like the paternalistic restrictions on liberty in Bhutan but I think that there is a fair chance that the government will decide, before long, that such policies are actually inimical to individual flourishing and to GNH.