Olson's theory applied to Bhutan's accession to WTO

The following article that I wrote was published by KUENSEL on 7th August 2010.


It is a common view among both decision makers and general public, at least at the back of their mind, that the reason why Bhutan hasn’t yet joined World Trade Organization (WTO) is because of ideological differences between social scientists and the capitalist economists. It is perceived that while most economists advise Bhutan to join WTO, social scientists do not favour the idea of Bhutan joining WTO. However, it can be argued that if we go by the truest concepts of economics, even the economists would rather advocate against joining WTO without necessarily agreeing to the ideologies of social scientists.

The argument here is solely based on Mancur Olson’s theory of collective action from his first book titled ‘The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups’ written in 1965. Mancur Olson (1932-1998) was a leading American economist and social scientist. His theory of collective action is based on the economists’ core assumption of rational choice, wherein an activity is determined by cost-benefit analysis.

His theory challenges the common assumption that when interests existed in a society, groups with special concerns or interests would naturally form organizations to represent those interests. Based on the rational choice assumption, Olson reasons that participation in a group to represent an interest is neither rational nor natural unless the desired objective is maximized with a minimal cost of achieving it. Therefore, if the cost far surpasses benefit, and the organization exists, the rational thing an individual or a group ought to be doing in this case is to be a free-rider. He explains that, however, those individual or a group with higher stake in the common interests will join an organization even if the cost is higher because without their participation, the organization to represent their interests will not come into existence.

WTO was formed by a group of countries in achieving their common interest of accessing global market, which is being moderately achieved. However, the major players or beneficiaries of WTO are the developed countries and the common interest has never been fairly distributed. Therefore, it is in the interest of those countries with high stake to keep the organization functioning and keep persuading non-member countries to join them.

Nevertheless, we have benefited a lot from the fierce global market competition among WTO members. The prices of goods and services have become cheaper, especially in the area of information and communication technology, which helped Bhutan’s socio-economic development by many folds.

Having said that, should Bhutan join WTO? The answer is straight NO going by Olson’s logic of collective action. Joining the league of WTO involves costs. Apart from financial costs, other important costs include losing control over regulations of important areas such as environment, markets, immigration, agriculture, etc. Most importantly, it can have political costs too. Therefore, following Olson’s theory of collective action based on rational choice and self-interest, it would not be rational for Bhutan to join WTO. It makes little sense for Bhutan to accept the costs when we have the choice of not bearing the costs and availing the benefits of cheaper goods and services without being a WTO member. The rational choice for Bhutan in this situation is to be a free-rider by not joining WTO, reaping the benefits of global competition without having to abide by WTO rules.

The above argument is solely based on one theory. There could be many other theories, cases, logics, evidences which could feed into our policy decisions. This can help decision makers to look at one issue from various perspectives. Bhutanese public policies and decisions should gradually move away from normative reasoning.

-Sonam Tobgyal

Cutting down working hours for happiness

How one uses time is an important factor for both collective and individual happiness. In general, one works for long hours either to accomplish his/her basic needs or to fulfill the requirements of employment rules.

While former one pertains to economic dimension, which calls for more complex economic interventions, the latter one can be directly addressed by government policy on time use as follows:

1. Office hours- Reduce office hours from 8 hours to 7 hours (9:30 am to 4:30 pm)

While we claim that our development approach is different from capitalist countries, we are still following their working hours of 8 hours. If we are serious about the time use (one of GNH dimensions) in relation to time spent with family and reducing work related stress, cutting down woking hours from 8 hours to 7 hours will have huge impact on relationship with family, stress level and other social aspects.

2. Maternity leave- Increase maternity leave from 3 months to 6 months

The most integral aspect of GNH concept is to put people at the center stage in the policy making process as opposed to that of capitalist world where financial cost-benefit analysis determines the decision making process.

We may not be able to afford social welfare system similar to Scandinavian countries, where paid maternity leave starts from 10 to 12 months. Nevertheless, our stress on balancing material wellbeing and social wellbeing justifies enough to increase the current system of maternity leave from 3 months to 6 months.

Costa Rica looks to Bhutan for happiness

Secretary of GNH Commission is in Costa Rica to give an address on GNH concept and to share Bhutan's experiences.

Please visit the link below for more details:
Costa Rica looks to Bhutan for happiness

Episode 91: Within Our Reach: Tim Costello on International Aid

Episode 91: Within Our Reach: Tim Costello on International Aid

Posted using ShareThis

Episode 90: The Cost of A Life: Peter Singer on Ending World Poverty

Episode 90: The Cost of A Life: Peter Singer on Ending World Poverty

Posted using ShareThis