1. INTRODUCTION
The debate on development was consolidated in the post-World War II period, amidst European reconstruction and decolonization processes in Asia, Africa (external link), and Latin America. In this context, economic growth became associated with social progress, making Gross Domestic Product (GDP) the primary indicator of development and consolidating a vision centered on production, income, and industrialization.
Among the theories of this period, Walt W. Rostow (1960) stands out for having conceived development as a linear process composed of stages toward industrialization. His approach is relevant not only for representing the predominant economic thought of the twentieth century, but also for highlighting the limits of assuming a single path toward development. In contrast, Latin American structuralism, represented by Raúl Prebisch, Celso Furtado, and André Gunder Frank, emphasized the inequalities between center and periphery and demonstrated that underdevelopment is tied to the historical and unequal integration of countries into the global economy.
Beginning in the 1970s and 1980s, the understanding that development could not be reduced to economic growth expanded. Amartya Sen (1999) contributed to this shift by defining development as the expansion of human freedoms and capabilities. This perspective influenced the creation of the Human Development Index (HDI) in 1990, which incorporated income, education, and longevity into the analysis of development. Despite representing a significant advance, the HDI remains limited by prioritizing quantitative dimensions and failing to fully capture subjective aspects of well-being.
In this context, indicators focused on happiness and subjective well-being emerged, such as Gross National Happiness (GNH), which broadens the analysis by considering life satisfaction, social relationships, emotional well-being, and environmental sustainability. Its use in this study seeks to complement traditional indicators and expand the understanding of the different dimensions of development. Brazil is used as a case study due to its regional relevance and its combination of progress in GDP and HDI alongside persistent challenges related to inequality and subjective well-being. The analysis of these indicators between 1990 and 2024 allows for the identification of potential divergences and an understanding of different perspectives on national development.
Thus, this research proceeds from the hypothesis that adopting the Happiness Index as a complementary metric provides substantive gains to development analysis by incorporating subjective and qualitative dimensions of the human experience that remain partially invisible to traditional indicators.
2. STUDIES ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIETIES
Studies on the development of societies gained prominence in the post-World War II period, in a context of European reconstruction and decolonization across Asia, Africa, and Latin America. During this period, development was initially associated with economic growth, with Gross Domestic Product (GDP) serving as the main indicator of progress (Escobar, 1995).
In the 1950s and 1960s, modernization theories, particularly that proposed by Walt W. Rostow, conceived development as a linear process through which all societies would pass until reaching the stage of high mass consumption. Structured into five stages—Traditional Society, Preconditions for Take-off, Take-off, Drive to Maturity, and Age of High Mass Consumption—this model placed industrialization, capital accumulation, and output growth at its center, using GDP as the benchmark for measuring economic progress. This perspective was also tied to Cold War rivalries, in which development assumed a strategic role in expanding international influence (Rostow, 1960).
However, the idea of a universal path of development came to be challenged by approaches emphasizing the historical and structural specificities of each society. In this context, Latin American structuralism, developed by ECLAC under the influence of Raúl Prebisch and Celso Furtado, criticized the conception of underdevelopment as merely a prior stage to development. The center-periphery perspective demonstrated that inequalities between countries were related to their historical and unequal integration into the international economy, marked by the dependence of peripheral countries on industrialized centers (Rodríguez, 2009).
Thus, the trajectory of development thought illustrates the limits of a conception based exclusively on economic growth and a linear logic. While GDP remains relevant for assessing the economic dimension, it does not encompass the social, political, cultural, and environmental aspects that also constitute development. Consequently, the need has grown to understand development as a historical, plural, and multidimensional phenomenon capable of incorporating different dimensions of human progress and well-being (Rodríguez, 2009).
2.1 Introduction of the HDI from a Development Perspective
From the 1960s onward, critiques of Rostow's modernization paradigm gained momentum through authors such as André Gunder Frank and Celso Furtado. For Frank (1967), underdevelopment is not a prior stage to development, but a condition historically produced by capitalist expansion and the unequal relationship between center and periphery. Furtado (2000; 2009), in turn, highlighted the internal structures of Latin American economies—such as colonial legacies, income concentration, and productive specialization—advocating for structural transformation, economic diversification, and the strengthening of state capacity.
This debate contributed to broadening the understanding of development beyond economic growth. In this perspective, Amartya Sen (1999) criticizes reducing development to income growth and understands it as the expansion of human freedoms and capabilities. For Sen, income constitutes a means to expand choices, whereas development must be evaluated by the actual conditions people possess to live in accordance with what they value, including access to health, education, decent work, and social participation (Sen, 1999).
This conception influenced the creation in 1990 of the Human Development Index (HDI) by the UNDP, developed by Mahbub ul Haq and Amartya Sen. In addition to the economic dimension, the indicator came to consider aspects related to health and education, measured respectively by life expectancy, years of schooling, and gross national income per capita. In this way, the HDI represented an advance in the measurement of development by incorporating fundamental dimensions of human well-being (UNDP, 1990).
In summary, the contributions of Frank and Furtado demonstrated the limits of the linear conception of development and highlighted the importance of historical and economic structures. Sen expanded this critique by shifting the focus to human freedoms and capabilities, while the HDI institutionalized part of this perspective by bringing health, education, and income together into a single metric. Thus, the understanding that development is a multidimensional phenomenon was consolidated, demanding indicators capable of capturing different aspects of population living conditions.
3. NEW PARADIGM: THE HAPPINESS INDEX
Although the Human Development Index (HDI) represented an advance by overcoming a strictly economic view of development through the integration of income, education, and health, its approach still presents limitations. Because it relies predominantly on quantitative and objective indicators, the HDI does not directly address subjective, socio-cultural, and environmental dimensions, such as life satisfaction, well-being, social relationships, and sustainability. Therefore, while it broadens the understanding of development, its isolated use tends to oversimplify an inherently multidimensional phenomenon (UNDP, 1990; Sen, 1999; Stiglitz; Sen; Fitoussi, 2009).
Beginning in the 2000s, these limitations stimulated the development of new metrics focused on well-being and quality of life. Richard Layard (2005) highlights that, beyond a certain income level, GDP growth produces limited effects on happiness, while factors such as social relationships, mental health, security, and purpose exert a greater influence on well-being. Along the same lines, Tim Jackson (2009) questions the idea of unlimited economic growth and proposes a conception of prosperity based on “living better,” considering the balance between economy, society, and the environment (Layard, 2005; Jackson, 2009).
In this context, the Gross National Happiness (GNH) Index stands out. Developed in Bhutan in the 1970s, it proposes a holistic view of development across nine dimensions, including health, education, living standards, governance, community vitality, cultural diversity, ecological resilience, time use, and psychological well-being (Ura; Alkire; Zangmo; Wangdi, 2012, p. 13). The Bhutanese experience contributed to the internationalization of happiness as a legitimate dimension of development, especially following the adoption by the UN of Resolution 65/309 in 2011, which recognizes the importance of well-being and happiness in public policy (United Nations, 2011).
This movement contributed to the creation and strengthening of instruments such as the World Happiness Report, the OECD Better Life Index, and complementary UNDP indicators, such as the Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index, the Gender Inequality Index, and the Multidimensional Poverty Index (Onu, 2012; Pnud, 2010). In countries such as New Zealand, Canada, and Finland, the well-being perspective also began to influence policy design and public budgeting.
Thus, the evolution of indicators demonstrates a progressive broadening of the very conception of development: from economic growth, through the incorporation of income, health, and education into the HDI, to metrics that consider subjective, social, cultural, and environmental dimensions. In this sense, the contemporary debate does not necessarily seek to replace traditional indicators, but rather to complement them with instruments capable of capturing aspects of well-being that remain partially invisible in conventional metrics, contributing to a more comprehensive understanding of human development in the twenty-first century.
4. BRAZIL AND THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
An analysis of Brazilian development between 1990 and 2025 demonstrates a trajectory marked by the transformation of economic and social public policies and by the gradual expansion of the very understanding of development. In the 1990s, the country prioritized macroeconomic stabilization, economic opening, and productive modernization. The reforms initiated under the Collor administration and, subsequently, the implementation of the Real Plan contributed to controlling inflation and achieving greater economic stability, although they also revealed limitations related to growth, external dependence, and the persistence of social inequalities (Bresser-Pereira, 2007; Giambiagi; Além, 2016).
Beginning in the 2000s, this perspective broadened, with greater coordination between economic growth and social inclusion. During the 2003–2017 period, income transfer policies, minimum wage valorization, employment expansion, and programs such as Bolsa Família, Fome Zero, the Growth Acceleration Program (PAC), and Minha Casa Minha Vida contributed to improvements in social conditions. In this context, the HDI gained importance by complementing GDP and incorporating dimensions related to income, education, and health. Between 2000 and 2015, Brazil's index rose from 0.687 to 0.755, demonstrating advances in human development (PNUD, 2015; Bresser-Pereira, 2007).
The economic crises of 2015–2016 and, subsequently, the COVID-19 pandemic, however, exposed structural vulnerabilities and demonstrated that economic and social progress does not occur linearly. Even in the face of economic contraction and rising inequalities, policies such as Auxílio Emergencial highlighted the importance of social protection in maintaining basic living conditions. The subsequent recovery of the HDI also demonstrates the capacity of certain public policies to produce social effects even under adverse circumstances (Ipea, 2021; Giambiagi; Além, 2016). In more recent years, the debate on development has increasingly incorporated issues related to sustainability, governance, and quality of life, especially through the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of the 2030 Agenda.
This trajectory demonstrates that Brazilian development cannot be understood through a single metric. GDP reveals economic dynamics, the HDI highlights progress in fundamental dimensions of human development, and well-being indicators can help observe subjective aspects of social experience that remain less visible in traditional indicators (Sachs, 2004; Jackson, 2009). Thus, the Brazilian trajectory reveals a progressive broadening of ways of understanding development. The country moved from a predominantly economic perspective toward an approach that came to incorporate social, human, and environmental dimensions. In this sense, GDP, HDI, and well-being indicators should not necessarily be seen as competing metrics, but rather as instruments capable of revealing different aspects of the same reality, allowing for a broader analysis of the advances, limits, and challenges of contemporary Brazilian development.
4.1 Happiness and well-being in Brazil: data and perspectives
From 1990 to 2025, Brazil traversed a scenario characterized by economic instability, successive financial crises, periods of recession, and, more recently, the social and health impacts resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. Even in this adverse context, traditional development indicators such as GDP and HDI showed relatively moderate variations, maintaining a structural growth trajectory over time. GDP, shown in Figure 1, despite fluctuations produced by boom-and-bust cycles, demonstrates positive long-term performance. The volatility observed from the 1990s onward, marked by severe crises such as those of 1999, 2015–2016, and 2020, reveals structural weaknesses in the economy, but it does not prevent the indicator from displaying an overall trend of recovery and progress (Ibge, 2024).
The HDI follows a similar pattern. As shown in Figure 2, Brazil sustained continuous progress in the index between 1990 and 2022, with significant improvements especially between 2000 and 2015. This growth was driven by gradual advances in education, health, and poverty reduction, reflecting the country's capacity to foster social progress even during periods of macroeconomic instability (Pnud, 2024). However, when looking at subjective well-being indicators, such as life satisfaction, trust in institutions, and future outlook, different trends emerge. Figures 3 and 4, based on data from the World Happiness Report (ONU 2012-2024), show a sharp drop both in Brazil's ranking and in the values of its happiness index. While GDP and HDI maintained positive trajectories, subjective well-being deteriorated significantly in recent decades (Índice Mundial de Felicidade, 2025).
Figure 1 - Annual GDP growth rates in Brazil by presidential administration (1956-2022)
The chart displays the annual variations in Brazilian Gross Domestic Product (GDP) from 1956 to 2022, highlighting growth averages associated with different presidential administrations. Strong volatility is noticeable from the 1990s onward, marked by economic crises, recession, and significant contractions in 2015–2016 and 2020. The downward trend in growth rates over recent decades highlights structural fragility in the Brazilian economy.
Figure 2 - Evolution of Brazil's Human Development Index (HDI) and world average (1990-2022)
The chart presents the trajectory of the Brazilian HDI compared to the world average between 1990 and 2022. A continuous upward trend is observed in Brazil, with sharper advances between 2000 and 2015 and a slowdown from 2016 onward, reflecting economic crises and the impacts of the pandemic. Despite downturns, the index maintained a positive trajectory, demonstrating social progress even during periods of instability.
Figure 3 - Evolution of Brazil's ranking and Happiness Index (2013- 2024)
Índice mundial de felicidade, 2025
The table presents the variation in Brazil's ranking in the World Happiness Report and the respective happiness index between 2013 and 2024. A trend of progressive decline in Brazil's international ranking is observed, falling from 16th place in 2015 to 49th in 2023 and 44th in 2024. In parallel, the numerical index also decreases, dropping from values close to 6.9 in 2015 to 6.1–6.2 in 2023–2024. These data indicate a deterioration in subjective well-being in the country, despite continued economic growth and moderate advances in objective social indicators.
Figure 4 - Trajectory of Brazil's ranking in the World Happiness Index (2016–2024)
World Happiness Index, 2025
The graph presents Brazil's evolution in the World Happiness Report between 2016 and 2024. The line highlights a worsening trend in the country's international ranking: after occupying relatively high positions in 2016 (17th) and 2017 (22nd), Brazil recorded successive declines, reaching 40th place in 2023 and 50th in 2024. The numerical rise in the ranking represents a loss of position, indicating a lower level of subjective well-being. The upward trajectory of the curve reflects the growing gap between economic growth and levels of satisfaction, institutional trust, and perceived quality of life among the population. This contrast reveals an increasing disconnect between economic progress, objective social advancement, and the lived experience of the population.
In other words, GDP growth and HDI improvements have not translated into equivalent gains in perceived quality of life. This divergence demonstrates that development, when assessed solely through traditional metrics, becomes insufficient to capture broader dimensions of human well-being, reinforcing the need to incorporate subjective and multidimensional indicators to understand the trajectory of contemporary Brazilian development (UNDP, 2024; IBGE, 2024; World Happiness Index, 2025).
The consolidation of the Happiness Index as an instrument for planning and assessing Brazilian development requires overcoming the economistic logic that still underpins public policy formulation. Drawing on Amartya Sen's (1999) perspective, development should be understood as a process of expanding substantive freedoms, which encompass both material living conditions—such as income, education, and health—and the intangible dimensions of human well-being, such as a sense of belonging, emotional security, civic participation, and dignity. Thus, happiness, as an expanded measure of development, reflects not only what individuals possess, but what they can effectively be and do in their lives (Sen, 1999).
In this sense, the implementation of a National Happiness Index (INF) in Brazil could represent an institutional response to the limitations of traditional indicators. Inspired by Bhutan's experience with the Gross National Happiness (GNH) index, the INF would aim to integrate subjective, social, and environmental dimensions of well-being, complementing existing metrics such as GDP and HDI. Its application would enable the Brazilian state to more comprehensively measure the impact of public policies on the population's perceived quality of life and guide long-term strategies that prioritize human flourishing over mere economic accumulation (Ura; Alkire; Zangmo; Wangdi, 2012).
As Stiglitz, Sen, and Fitoussi (2009) argue, combining objective indicators and subjective perceptions makes it possible to understand how people live and not just how much they produce, redirecting the focus of development policies toward the effective well-being of the population and the construction of a more humane and sustainable model of prosperity (Stiglitz, Sen, Fitoussi, 2009). In terms of opportunities, Brazil has a relevant comparative advantage: it possesses a history of institutional innovation and social policies—such as Bolsa Família, the SUS, and the municipal HDI itself—that can serve as a foundation for integrating the new index. The linkage between environmental sustainability, social justice, and collective well-being also aligns with the country's growing engagement with the international agendas of the UN, the 2030 SDGs, and the well-being economy.
Thus, the implementation of a Happiness Index in Brazil not only refines and complements established policies, but also helps bridge the gap between material progress and the population's subjective experience. By reconciling economic progress with social well-being, the country consolidates a more inclusive, sustainable development paradigm oriented toward the promotion of human dignity in its entirety.
5. FINAL CONSIDERATIONS
The analysis throughout this study demonstrates that the understanding of development has undergone significant transformations in recent decades. The exclusive focus on economic growth, characteristic of the post-World War II period, proved insufficient to explain the complexity of contemporary challenges. Latin American structuralist authors, such as André Gunder Frank and Celso Furtado, had already emphasized that development is not a linear path, but a process marked by structural inequalities. Later, Amartya Sen expanded this debate by stressing that progress must be assessed through the expansion of substantive freedoms and real opportunities in life. In this context, the Human Development Index represented an advance by integrating essential elements such as income, education, and health, although it remains limited by not incorporating subjective dimensions of well-being.
The analyzed data highlight this limitation: while GDP and HDI made progress in Brazil between 1990 and 2024, levels of happiness and life satisfaction declined. This divergence shows that material progress has not been accompanied by equivalent improvements in individuals' subjective experience. Thus, instruments such as the Happiness Index emerge as analytical alternatives capable of broadening the understanding of development by incorporating emotional, social, and environmental factors that do not appear in traditional indicators.
In the Brazilian context, the usefulness of this metric lies in its ability to reveal qualitative aspects of well-being that GDP and HDI fail to capture. This is not about advocating its adoption as a substitute, but about recognizing that different metrics illuminate different dimensions of reality. A plurality of instruments allows for a more complete understanding of development and contributes to more balanced analyses of the country's achievements and vulnerabilities.
Therefore, this study concludes that development in the twenty-first century requires an expanded perspective capable of integrating objective and subjective indicators. GDP and HDI remain essential, but the inclusion of complementary metrics, such as well-being, provides analytical rigor for understanding the challenges and possibilities of contemporary Brazil.