Bhutan’s happiness index as inspiration for Estonia: MA thesis by Dronashish Goswami

University of Tartu Asia Centre scholarship recipient Dronashish Goswami explores Bhutan’s happiness index as inspiration for Estonian well-being policy.

We are pleased to announce that the University of Tartu Asia Centre scholarship in the Faculty of Science and Technology was awarded to Dronashish Goswami for the MA thesis "Well-being and Sustainability in Estonia: Understanding Development Policies of Estonia through Bhutan's Gross National Happiness (GNH)“.

The master thesis explores whether and how the Gross National Happiness (GNH) framework developed in Bhutan can inform and enhance Estonia’s policy approach to sustainable development and well-being. Dronashish Goswami completed the thesis at the international MA porgramme Environmental Governance and Adaptation to Climate Change held jointly by the Institute of Ecology and Earth Sciences, University of Tartu and the Estonian University of Life Sciences. Thesis supervisor was Anton Shkaruba.

Read below an interview with the author about the choosing of the topic as well as most surprising findings.

What was your main trigger whilst choosing this topic for your thesis on the Bhutan’s gross national happiness (GNH) index?

My decision to focus on Bhutan’s Gross National Happiness (GNH) framework originated from a convergence of personal experience and academic curiosity. During my Bachelor’s degree in Bhutan, I was deeply struck by how GNH guided government policies and daily life, an entirely different paradigm from the GDP-centric models I had previously studied. Conversations with the people there revealed that happiness, cultural preservation, and environmental stewardship were not abstract ideals but practical policy goals evaluated in real time. That experience planted the seed for my master’s research.
At the same time, I recognized Estonia’s reputation as a global leader in digital governance and economic innovation. Here in Tartu, I wondered whether Estonia’s data-driven policy apparatus might benefit from the rich, multidimensional perspective of GNH. Discussions and brainstorming sessions with my supervisor Dr. Anton Shkaruba, further refined this idea, helping me to frame a clear research question: How can the principles of GNH inform and enrich sustainability and well-being policies in a context as different as Estonia’s?

What challenges did you face during your research, and how did you overcome them?

One of the biggest challenges I faced was securing access to high–level policymakers in both Bhutan and Estonia. In both, many senior officials had very tight schedules and limited windows for interviews, and in Estonia, I encountered initial hesitancy around discussing policy transfer from a small Himalayan kingdom. To overcome this, I leveraged personal introductions through academic networks with Bhutanese colleagues, and I reached out to Estonian professors who further connected me with policymakers.
Another significant challenge was combining qualitative insights from interviews with quantitative policy analysis. I navigated this by adopting a mixed‑methods content analysis approach using thematic analysis to isolate key interview themes and frequency counts to provide indicative, per‑interview metrics. Throughout, I regularly checked back with my supervisor for feedback and engaged in peer‑review sessions with my colleagues, which helped refine both my coding methodology and my interpretation of the results.

Were there any surprising or unexpected discoveries in your research?

During my research, I was pleasantly surprised to discover how much overlap there was in the challenges faced by policymakers in both Bhutan and Estonia, despite their very different cultural and governance contexts. For example, I expected subjective well-being measures to be a uniquely Bhutanese concern, but Estonian officials also voiced frustration over the difficulty of capturing psychological health and community cohesion in their quantitative frameworks. Equally unexpected was the extent to which both contexts recognized the importance of stakeholder involvement, Bhutan through its decentralized GNH surveys and community forums, and Estonia via its strong e‑governance platforms.

Considering your findings then what are the three most important lessons from your thesis that we in Estonia could use?

Based on my findings, first, create localized “Well‑Being Desks” in municipalities, staffed by data analysts and community liaisons, to translate national well‑being goals into concrete local actions and ensure grassroots voices inform policy decisions. Second, introduce annual self‑reported well‑being surveys similar to Bhutan’s GNH index to capture dimensions like mental health and social cohesion that standard economic metrics miss. Embedding those surveys within Estonia’s existing e‑governance infrastructure would ensure efficient data collection and analysis. Thirdly, establish a cross‑sectoral National Well‑Being Council modeled on Bhutan’s commission to embed holistic indicators into budgeting and performance reviews, thereby ensuring that ministries balance economic objectives with cultural preservation, environmental stewardship, and citizen happiness.

What advice would you give to other students or researchers interested in this field?

I would encourage any student or researcher drawn to this field to stay curious and deeply immerse yourself in both the quantitative and qualitative dimensions of well-being. Don’t be afraid to embrace methodological messiness. Seek out mentors and peers who can challenge your assumptions and spark new ideas. Finally, remain open to cross‑cultural learning: studying different national experiences will not only broaden your perspective but also reveal practical adaptations you can apply in diverse contexts.

Thank you!

Interview after the graduation ceremony in 2025
Questions: Evelyn Pihla

Full thesis and abstract