The kingdom of Bhutan, nestled in the Himalayas, is not going to increase its efforts to rake… The kingdom of Bhutan, nestled in the Himalayas, is not going to increase its efforts to rake in tourism dollars. It isn’t going to clear away its lush forests to make way for heavy industry.

Household incomes in Bhutan are among the world’s lowest, but changing that hasn’t been a priority for King Jigme Singye Wangchuck. Rather than focus on raising the kingdom’s gross domestic product, he has worried about increasing its gross national happiness.

More importantly, he seems to be accomplishing his goal. Bhutan is not Utopia, but by refusing to treat money as some sort of cure-all, the kingdom is on the right path. The country has been changing policies since the current king assumed his title in 1972; only recently are Western countries paying attention. It’s about time.

Bhutan’s evolution is a remarkable one; it seems to have found solutions to problems still plaguing wealthier nations. In Bhutanese hospitals, patients who are not acutely ill can choose between Western and traditional treatments. Life expectancy is now 19 years longer than it was in 1984.

In 1960, Bhutan didn’t have a public education system. Now, teachers move back and forth between urban and rural areas to ensure all students have access to the best available educators.

Approximately 9,000 tourists visit the country yearly. That number is kept small to minimize the environmental damage tourism often brings. Bhutan further cares for its ecosystem by mandating that 60 percent of the land remain forested.

The kingdom is about to develop a constitution and elected government, and is linked up to television and Internet, but by focusing on policies such as these it hasn’t joined in the proverbial rat race. Like many Latin American countries, emphasis is placed on quality of life, not quantity of possessions.

Western countries are wise to take notes on Bhutan’s attitudes. Studies show that once people have a certain yearly income – the specific number depends on the location – more money doesn’t necessarily make them happier.

Yes, increasing productivity levels is an important issue for governmental economists to worry about. Money is important, without a doubt. There is more to life than just dollar signs, though, and the first step toward improving the level of well-being in this or any country is being cognizant of this fact.

Quantifying happiness is no easy task, and researchers have their work cut out for them. If Gross National Happiness becomes an accepted term, though, the work will pay off. A healthy, contented population is far more desirable than a relatively wealthy but unsatisfied one.

Most people readily admit money does not buy happiness, but that does not stop them from hoping for a raise. There’s nothing wrong with striving for wealth, but money must not be treated as the ultimate measure of success. Happiness, after all, has no price tag.