Fin-Global Development Index
Wednesday, July 9th, 2014 | Religion & Politics
There are lots of different reports that rank nations according to various criteria to tell you who is best at something. Education, healthcare, equality, prosperity, the lists go on. The problem with these lists is that they can be very subjective and so it is difficult to trust which ones are a) accurate and b) measuring something meaningful.
The Fin Global Development Index solves this problem. We have taken 23 different indexes and averaged them to produce a score for each country. This helps prevent bias in any one report from moving a countries position.
Secondly, I took ensure that a fair criteria was used. Rather than measure on the criteria that was used to build the report, I took a simple premise.
We all know that Finland is the happiest, most developed, generally best place in the world. It has an unmatched education system, high social mobility, and achieves such levels of happiness that most of its population manage to not kill themselves even though it is dark, miserable and freezing cold six months of the year.
Therefore, based on this premise, countries were awarded points based on how close they were to Finland in each of the rankings. Having an equal score resulted in zero points, being one place away was one point, and so on. Therefore if Finland ranked 4th in the world, you would earn zero points by being joint-forth, one point for being 3rd or 5th, and so on. The object being to score the lowest amount of points.
Countries represented
A selection of countries were chosen to represent the world. These included a selection of developed nations, as well as developing nations to use as comparisons. The complete list of countries included were:
- Norway
- Sweden
- United Kingdom
- France
- Spain
- Germany
- Estonia
- United States
- Canada
- Australia
- Japan
- India
- China
- Brazil
- Saudi Arabia
Indexes
The following index were used to compile the report:
- GDP (PPP) per capita
- Life expectancy
- Infant mortality
- Press Freedom Index
- Pearson education index
- Education Index
- European Health Consumer Index
- WHO healthcare rankings
- Human Development Index
- World Happiness Report
- Long-term unemployment (OECD)
- Government transparency (OECD)
- Global Slavery Index
- Social Progress Index
- Cancer rate (OECD)
- Health care quality (OECD)
- Suicide rate (OECD)
- Corruption Perceptions Index
- Globalisation Index
- Failed States Index
- International Property Rights Index
- Legatum Prosperity Index
- Alcohol consumption (OECD)
Results
Rank
Country
Score
1
Sweden
7.0
2
Norway
8.3
3
Canada
8.4
4
United Kingdom
10.1
5
Australia
10.6
6
Germany
11.7
7
France
14.1
8
United States
14.8
9
Japan
17.0
10
Spain
17.0
11
Estonia
13.9
12
Brazil
55.9
13
Saudi Arabia
57.9
14
China
81.8
15
India
100.0
Analysis
When plotted as a percentage graph with zero representing a perfect score and India (who scored the highest) representing the worst possible score, most developed countries represent similar levels of development.
Click for a larger version.
The highest ranking countries were Sweden, Norway and Canada. There is a possible bias for Northern Europe to share a similar culture and therefore score better on some of the metrics, or it could simply be that these countries are uniformly excellent (or more likely both).
It is also possible that OECD countries benefited from the inclusion of those lists as because there are less states on there, they may be moved closer together. This is unlikely to have had a large effect, as most non-OECD countries would not score that highly, but will have had some effect.
Conclusion
Northern Europe and Canada are the best places to live. Unless you dislike freezing your balls off, in which case you might want to consider the United Kingdom or Australia. You probably do not want to live in India.
There are lots of different reports that rank nations according to various criteria to tell you who is best at something. Education, healthcare, equality, prosperity, the lists go on. The problem with these lists is that they can be very subjective and so it is difficult to trust which ones are a) accurate and b) measuring something meaningful.
The Fin Global Development Index solves this problem. We have taken 23 different indexes and averaged them to produce a score for each country. This helps prevent bias in any one report from moving a countries position.
Secondly, I took ensure that a fair criteria was used. Rather than measure on the criteria that was used to build the report, I took a simple premise.
We all know that Finland is the happiest, most developed, generally best place in the world. It has an unmatched education system, high social mobility, and achieves such levels of happiness that most of its population manage to not kill themselves even though it is dark, miserable and freezing cold six months of the year.
Therefore, based on this premise, countries were awarded points based on how close they were to Finland in each of the rankings. Having an equal score resulted in zero points, being one place away was one point, and so on. Therefore if Finland ranked 4th in the world, you would earn zero points by being joint-forth, one point for being 3rd or 5th, and so on. The object being to score the lowest amount of points.
Countries represented
A selection of countries were chosen to represent the world. These included a selection of developed nations, as well as developing nations to use as comparisons. The complete list of countries included were:
- Norway
- Sweden
- United Kingdom
- France
- Spain
- Germany
- Estonia
- United States
- Canada
- Australia
- Japan
- India
- China
- Brazil
- Saudi Arabia
Indexes
The following index were used to compile the report:
- GDP (PPP) per capita
- Life expectancy
- Infant mortality
- Press Freedom Index
- Pearson education index
- Education Index
- European Health Consumer Index
- WHO healthcare rankings
- Human Development Index
- World Happiness Report
- Long-term unemployment (OECD)
- Government transparency (OECD)
- Global Slavery Index
- Social Progress Index
- Cancer rate (OECD)
- Health care quality (OECD)
- Suicide rate (OECD)
- Corruption Perceptions Index
- Globalisation Index
- Failed States Index
- International Property Rights Index
- Legatum Prosperity Index
- Alcohol consumption (OECD)
Results
| Rank | Country | Score |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Sweden | 7.0 |
| 2 | Norway | 8.3 |
| 3 | Canada | 8.4 |
| 4 | United Kingdom | 10.1 |
| 5 | Australia | 10.6 |
| 6 | Germany | 11.7 |
| 7 | France | 14.1 |
| 8 | United States | 14.8 |
| 9 | Japan | 17.0 |
| 10 | Spain | 17.0 |
| 11 | Estonia | 13.9 |
| 12 | Brazil | 55.9 |
| 13 | Saudi Arabia | 57.9 |
| 14 | China | 81.8 |
| 15 | India | 100.0 |
Analysis
When plotted as a percentage graph with zero representing a perfect score and India (who scored the highest) representing the worst possible score, most developed countries represent similar levels of development.
Click for a larger version.
The highest ranking countries were Sweden, Norway and Canada. There is a possible bias for Northern Europe to share a similar culture and therefore score better on some of the metrics, or it could simply be that these countries are uniformly excellent (or more likely both).
It is also possible that OECD countries benefited from the inclusion of those lists as because there are less states on there, they may be moved closer together. This is unlikely to have had a large effect, as most non-OECD countries would not score that highly, but will have had some effect.
Conclusion
Northern Europe and Canada are the best places to live. Unless you dislike freezing your balls off, in which case you might want to consider the United Kingdom or Australia. You probably do not want to live in India.