18
Prepared with support of Tirana, May 2017 The Use of Good Country Index and Social Progress Index in a Comparative Context
Prepared with support of
Tirana, May 2017
The Use of Good Country Index and Social Progress Index in a Comparative Context
This study was done in the framework of the project “Western Balkan CSOs for Global
Development” funded by The Slovak Agency for International Development Cooperation
The views expressed in the Working Paper is that of the author(s) and do not necessarily
represent the views of the points foundation.
Abstract: As the Good Country Index (GCI) and Social Progress Index (SPI) are used to
measure the welfare of humanity and more specifically GCI measure the contribution of each
country to the common good of humanity and SPI is used to measure the social progress of a
country, understanding the differences between countries at different stage of development is a
crucial topic for the young generation and new policymakers. The Good Country Index is
focused on the external effects, in contrast to Social Progress Index showing the level of
development of a single country in benefiting its own citizens. The comparison between Western
Balkan Five (WB5) countries and EU countries of these indexes is a strategic point of this study
as WB5 are focused to be EU members in the future. Analyze for Albania and other WB5
countries will be focused on all components of the indexes aiming to mention the differences for
each of them and to show some findings of these differences to the policymakers. Comparisons
aims to demonstrate the strength and weaknesses of the WB5 as a hole and at an individual level
compared with EU countries.
Key words: GCI, SPI, WB5, Albania, EU
Prepared by:
PhD. SHAHINI, Ledjon
Prof.Asoc. DOSTI, Bernard
PhD. GRABOVA, Perseta
Research team of the Faculty of Economy, University of Tirana
Contents
1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 4
2. Literature Review .................................................................................................................. 5
3. Social Progress Index ............................................................................................................ 6
3.1. Methodology used for Social Progress Index estimation ............................................ 7
4. Good Country Index .............................................................................................................. 7
4.1. Methodology used for Good country Index estimation .............................................. 7
5. Comparative analyzes ........................................................................................................... 8
5.1. Comparisons of Social Progress Index ......................................................................... 9
5.2. Comparisons of Good Country Index ........................................................................ 12
6. Future work.......................................................................................................................... 15
List of Figures
Figure 1: The Social Progress Index Framework ........................................................................... 7
Figure 2: Good Country Index Framework .................................................................................... 8
List of Graphs
Graph 1: SPI score for WB5 countries ........................................................................................... 9
Graph 2: SPI Rank for WB5 countries ........................................................................................... 9
Graph 3: SPI by main indicators for WB5 countries for year 2016.............................................. 10
Graph 4: SPI by group of countries by level of incomes .............................................................. 11
Graph 5: SPI for EU, WB5 countries and Albania for main indicators ........................................ 11
Graph 6: Correlation of SPI with GDP (PPP) per capita .............................................................. 12
Graph 7: GCI rank for WB5 countries .......................................................................................... 12
Graph 8: GCI rank for main components for WB5 countries ....................................................... 13
Graph 9: GCI rank for countries grouped by income level .......................................................... 14
Graph 10: GCI components rank for countries grouped by income level .................................... 14
Graph 11: GCI component points for EU members, WB5 countries and Albania ....................... 15
Graph 12: GCI component rank for EU members, WB5 countries and Albania ......................... 15
The Use of Good Country Index and Social Progress Index in a Comparative Context
pg. 4
1. Introduction
Inequality between developed and developing countries has been intensified continuously. At the
dawn of the industrial era, average real living standards in the richest countries were no more
than three times as great as those of the poorest and nowadays the ratio approaches 100 to 1. So
there is no doubt that today’s developed countries have enjoyed far higher rates of economic
growth averaged over two centuries than today’s developing countries. Referring only to GDP
per capita it looks that divergence between countries is becoming higher and higher. At this point
it is with much interest to compare countries not only from the economic point of view.
Comparisons at different welfare forms are necessary to be analyzed. The study tries to treat two
of the newest indexes related with welfare of humanity; Good Country Index (GCI) and Social
Progress Index (SPI). The study will be focused on a detailed methodological analyze of these
two indexes and in the same time in the performance of different categories of countries.
The index comparisons will be at some group level of countries; the first one will be between
developed and developing countries and the second comparisons will be between Albania,
Western Balkan Five (WB5)1 countries and EU countries which will be the main focus group of
the analyze. As the GCI and SPI are used to measure the welfare of humanity and more
specifically GCI measure the contribution of each country to the common good of humanity and
SPI is used to measure the social progress of a country, understanding the differences between
countries at different stage of development is a crucial topic for the young generation and new
policymakers. The comparison between WB5 countries and EU countries of these indexes is a
strategic point of this study as WB5 are focused to be EU members in the future. Analyze for
Albania and other WB5 countries will be focused on all components of the indexes aiming to
mention the differences for each of them and to show some findings of these differences to the
policymakers. Comparisons aims to demonstrate the strength and weaknesses of the WB5 as a
hole and at an individual level compared with EU countries.
The GCI and SPI have some advantages compared with most of the international indexes which
are based on the domestic data, or in other words on the performance on domestic climate. GCI
is based on the fact that how countries can balance their duty to their own citizens with their
responsibility to the wider world, while SPI is the only one index that measure the welfare
without taking into consideration the GDP of the country. The GCI try to mention the role of
each country in the global welfare as this is essential for the future of humanity and the health of
our planet. SPI measure the basic human needs of a society and at the same time to find the gaps
for all individuals with their full potentiality. The new idea that these indexes brings needs to be
developed and expend in academic level, policy makers, civil society and all the other groups
that use to have a significant role in the future of their country and multiplicatively even to the
future of the mankind.
At this point analyzes at top down level are necessary to be developed and especially
comparisons between specific countries with many similarities and same objectives is a good
analytical point to be taken in consideration. The indexes will be analyzed in comparison
between countries of different stage of development focusing on the width interval that exists
1 Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Serbia, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
* For Kosovo there are no data so it will be excluded from the analyze
The Use of Good Country Index and Social Progress Index in a Comparative Context
pg. 5
between these groups. At the same time except comparisons treatment, performance analyzes
will take place for its subcomponents at country level mostly focused at Albania and other WB5
countries. The idea is to sign up the differences between counties and to draw attention to those
subcomponents which have been more problematic, giving some detailed description for each
WB5 countries in general and compared with EU countries.
2. Literature Review
According to Peter Economy, today, humanity is facing climate change, economic crises,
terrorism, drug trafficking, slavery, pandemics, poverty and inequality, population growth, food
and water shortages, energy, species loss, human rights, migration, etc. These problems go
across national borders. The problem is the majority of countries behave like separate entities,
like islands. To make progress, this behavior needs to change.
The Good Country Index was developed by Simon Anholt, author of the idea of measuring
nation brands. The Good Country Index shows the cumulative contribution of a very large
number of countries towards the benefit of the world in the technological, cultural, peace-related,
world orderliness, environmental, prosperity, and health wellbeing aspects, thus making up the
seven categories of the Good Country Index. The whole idea of the Good Country Index is based
on the assumption that ordinary people do not benefit from globalization as much as big
corporations do. Therefore, people from around the world should work together not only locally
but also globally. Good countries contribute to the whole planet, making it better, safer, richer,
and fairer and also country-level problems cannot be solved while ignoring the international
context. Countries depend on their international reputation (C. Tan and K. Dramowicz, 2015).
Countries described by the index do not necessarily have to be good for their own citizens,
because the index does not look at the existing infrastructure that makes up the development and
dynamics of countries, but rather focuses only on countries’ external outputs. The Good Country
Index is interested in how much countries are doing; it's not interested on how well countries are
doing.
In contrast, other global indices like Social Progress Index that measure and rank countries in
terms of their existing infrastructure. If we can substitute the category components of the Good
Country Index with other global indices that correspond to the respective category component,
we may be able to use the global indices as proxy indicators to evaluate a country’s ‘goodness’.
Economic growth has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty and improved the lives
of many more over the last half-century. Yet it is increasingly evident that a model of human
development based on economic progress alone is incomplete. A society which fails to address
basic human needs, equip citizens to improve their quality of life, protect the environment, and
provide opportunity for many of its citizens is not succeeding. Inclusive growth requires both
economic and social progress (Porter, M., 2015).
How do we know if a country is thriving? For decades now, Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has
long been the metric used to answer that question. Also, GDP has held significance as a universal
metric over the years. However, with rapid globalization and technology-oriented integration
among countries, this metric has become outdated and does not accurately take into
consideration other aspects like the wellbeing of the residents of a country. The most significant
weakness of GDP is its exclusion of voluntary market transactions. GDP also ignores important
factors like environment, happiness, community, fairness and justice. But these are important
The Use of Good Country Index and Social Progress Index in a Comparative Context
pg. 6
aspects of development. Despite GDP’s success as a key indicator for society, policy makers
have longed questioned the metric’s exclusionary focus on economic factors at the expense of
other social elements. However, a new initiative called the Social Progress Index (SPI) claims to
have created a new way of assessing our society beyond GDP (Macekura, S.
http://thrivingcities.com/blog/social-progress-index-and-long-history-searching-social).
According to its creators, Michael Porter, Scott Stern, and Michael Green, SPI offers a “robust
and holistic measurement framework for national social and environmental performance that can
be used by leaders in government, business, and civil society to benchmark success and
accelerate progress.” Its creators envision “a world in which social progress sits alongside GDP
as a core benchmark for national performance,” and they view SPI as the main tool to “guide
strategy for inclusive growth”.
SPI is based on three fundamental pillars: basic needs for survival; access to the building blocks
to improve living conditions, and access to opportunity to pursue goals and ambitions. SPI also
reframes the fundamentals about development by taking into consideration not just GDP but also
inclusive, sustainable growth that will lead to a significant improvement in people’s lives. SPI
can best be described as a complementary index to GDP and can be used along with GDP to
achieve social progress.
The SPI is being used not just at the national level, but by regional and municipal authorities as
well. The European Union, states such as Para in Brazil, along with cities like Bogota and Rio de
Janeiro in Latin America and Somerville in the U.S. state of Massachusetts, are starting to use
the SPI as a measure of development success (Amit K. and Abhishek S.,
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/social-progress-index-a-work-in
progress/article8617023.ece).
In conclusion, SPI can bring substantial betterment in the policy discourse on development. With
the move to getting it introduced at a sub-national level, the index is expected to help
development practitioners and other stakeholders in analyzing well-being in a better manner.
Ideally, the development project should start with a bottom-up approach, from a grass-root level
to city, then from cities to State and, finally, from States to Union.
3. Social Progress Index
The development of a country focused solely on economic development, can’t be considered a
comprehensive development. A society which does not take into account the improvement of the
essential needs of its citizens, their standard of living and the environment protection and doesn’t
create new opportunities for its own citizens can’t be considered a complete development. Most
of development indicators, until know, are based on GDP as the main one. In these
circumstances it is important to have some indexes which are not based on GDP or at the same
components as it has been estimated. SPI measures the social progress without depending on
GDP, or better saying it is referred on outcoming indicators rather then input indicters as GDP
dose. From the time when Simon Kuznets (1934) treated the concepts of GDP estimation in his
book “National Income”, GDP has been a reference for measuring the economic strength and
GDP per capita as a measure of welfare.
Recent developments are viewing more and more that countries that are growing very fast are
not necessarily showing the same performance in social development. Countries such as China or
India even that though has shown rapid growth in per capita income, it can’t be said the same for
The Use of Good Country Index and Social Progress Index in a Comparative Context
pg. 7
social progress and also even for countries like Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, or Saudi Arabia
whom have high GDP per capita are performing much lower on social progress.
At this point SPI provides an invaluable instrument for policymakers to see the most immediate
needs to improve the society. In this way SPI serves as a guide in determining the focus areas for
sustainable growth of the country.
3.1. Methodology used for Social Progress Index estimation
The Social Progress Index is composed on three dimensions and each of them is composed by
four components. The components are composed by different number of indicators, but in total
are used 52 indicators for composing 12 components.
Figure 1: The Social Progress Index Framework
Source: Report of SPI 2016
4. Good Country Index
Modern development is facing many new phenomena like as climate change, financial crises,
terrorism, drug trafficking, population growth, food and water shortages, human rights and so
many other problems which can’t be seen in an individual way from a country. All these
problems are internationally related and is needed a global consensus for their solution. To have
a clear picture for the countries that are doing well in the global welfare is necessary to have
some concrete references. GCI gives exactly this opportunity for all policymakers to have a clear
view on the fact of the country contribution.
4.1. Methodology used for Good country Index estimation
GCI is composed from seven main indicators each of them with five sub-components. For each
of the indicators the values ranging from 0 to 1, where the nearest values to zero shows a better
performance of the country. The value of each main indicator is a simple average of its one sub-
component and based on that is done the country ranking for each main indicator. The overall
GCI rank is produced as a simple average of the country position for all main indicators. In the
figure below are shown all components of the GCI framework.
The Use of Good Country Index and Social Progress Index in a Comparative Context
pg. 8
Figure 2: Good Country Index Framework
Source: Authors Work
The same procedure used in the country GCI estimation is used in our study to create some
ranking even for some group of countries. So to create the value of index for group of countries
like as the WB5 or countries by income level has been used the bottom-up approach. This is in
consistence with the method used for each country. This allows us to make some analytical
comparisons about the position of different countries compared with averages of different group
of countries.
5. Comparative analyzes
The main objective of this part is to make some comparisons of different group of countries,
referring the main objective of the project. The comparisons are done separately for each of
indexes in a detailed level showing the main differences between individual countries or by
different categories of countries.
The methodology used in this study is based on the same rules applied for each country. This is
in consistence with the methodological point of view of each of the indexes. The findings are
based on statistical data analyzes and methodologies. The necessity of methodology treatment is
very important to know the procedures of how these indexes are estimated and which are the data
used for each of them.
In case of this indexes as they are new one and in the main time, the Albanian users are not so
familiar with these two indexes it brings as an important point their methodological treatment. It
is the right time to have a clear understanding of these indexes because the process of
globalization has to be understood not only in the concept of power but also in the basic concept
that term welfare means.
The Use of Good Country Index and Social Progress Index in a Comparative Context
pg. 9
5.1. Comparisons of Social Progress Index
Referring to the SPI by year it can be seen that WB5 in general have been improved. But if we
analyze by individual countries not only they do not show an improvement over the years also
their tendency are different. The country that has performed better in 2016 is Serbia and worst
one is Bosnia & Herzegovina. The same situation has been even in the previous years.
Graph 1: SPI score for WB5 countries
Source: SPI database and authors work
From 134 countries that have this index, WB5 countries are ranked in the interval 40-70 during
three years. The best rank has been from Serbia in 2014 in the 41st position and the worst one
from Bosnia & Herzegovina in 2016 in the 69th position.
Graph 2: SPI Rank for WB5 countries
Source: SPI database and authors work
48
61
53
49
41
52
59
48
53
45
52
69
55
57
47
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Albania Bosnia and
Herzegovina
Montenegro Macedonia Serbia
2014 2015 2016
The Use of Good Country Index and Social Progress Index in a Comparative Context
pg. 10
Referring three dimensions of human basic needs, foundation of wellbeing and opportunity for
the year 2016 the best ranking position from the WB5 countries is Serbia which is ranked 47th
with 71.55 points. The worst ranked for the same year is Bosnia & Herzegovina in the 69
position with 69.78 points.
Graph 3: SPI by main indicators for WB5 countries for year 2016
Source: SPI database and authors work
The SPI regarding the group of countries by level of income shows that the countries with upper
income are ranked in the 54 position with 69.62 points. The lower income countries are ranked in
the 127 position with 42.09 points. There is a difference of 73 position between upper income
and lower income countries.
The graph below shows a comparison of EU, WB5 and Albania about three main indicators of
SPI. Basic human needs is the indicator where WB5 is ranked better, not only compared to
Europe and Albania, but also compared to the other two indicators. Regarding this indicator
WB5 is ranked in the 86.9th position, while Europe in ranked in the 85.6th position.
The Use of Good Country Index and Social Progress Index in a Comparative Context
pg. 11
Graph 4: SPI by group of countries by level of incomes
Source: SPI database and authors work
Albania compared to WB5 and Europe is in the between with 86.1 points. The position of WB5
is not the same for the foundations of wellbeing indicator. Compared to Europe and Albania it is
ranked in the worst position with 71.0 points. Albania is ranked 74.1th and the best ranked is
Europe in the 83.7th position. While for the last indicator, opportunity, the gap between WB5 and
Europe is bigger. Still Albania is ranked better than WB5, 49.1 and 48.0 respectively. Europe is
ranked 72.8th, 24.8 positions better than WB5. In average the best ranked is Europe with 76.7
points and the worst one is WB5 with 68.6 points. Albania in average is better ranked than WB5
even thought the deference is not that big, just 1.2 ahead.
Graph 5: SPI for EU, WB5 countries and Albania for main indicators
Source: SPI database and authors work
The Use of Good Country Index and Social Progress Index in a Comparative Context
pg. 12
The data regarding Social Progress Index and GDP PPP per capita for the WB5 don’t show a
correlation. Still can be noticed that Bosnia & Herzegovina is worsted ranked for both indicators.
Montenegro is the country with the best position regarding GDP (PPP) per capita but we cannot
say the same for SPI index. Serbia is the country with the best position regarding SPI. In the
other hand Albania compared to the other countries is the second country ranked better after
Serbia but its GDP (PPP) per capita is not in the same position.
Graph 6: Correlation of SPI with GDP (PPP) per capita
Source: SPI database and authors work
5.2. Comparisons of Good Country Index
Referring to the GCI of the WB5 countries the tendencies are different for different countries.
Even in this indicator Serbia is better ranked compared to the other countries. Albania is the
country with the worst position and the gap compared to the average ranking of WB5 is also
large. As a group the WB5 countries are ranked in the 68th position.
Graph 7: GCI rank for WB5 countries
Source: GCI database and authors work
109 74 55 65 48
68
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Albania Bosnia and
Herzegovina
Montenegro Macedonia Serbia
GCI Rank WB5 rank
The Use of Good Country Index and Social Progress Index in a Comparative Context
pg. 13
The data shows that there is no country that is better in all components compared to each other
and also the tendency of different countries varies for the the main components of GCI. Science
and Technology in the component in which Albania is the country with the worst ranking
position compared to the other WB5 countries. While the best ranked county about this
component is Bosnia and Herzegovina in the 25th position. Peace and security is the component
where all countries are not well-ranked and also is the component where WB5 it’s worst ranked.
While prosperity and equality is the component where WB5 is better ranked compared to other
components. The best ranked country about this component is Macedonia in the 27th position.
Graph 8: GCI rank for main components for WB5 countries
Source: GCI database and authors work
GCI by income level in another indicator that shows that countries with upper income are ranked
better compared to the other groups of countries. The gap between the upper income and upper
medium income countries for this indicator is very large, 71 position better for the upper income
countries. While the gap between upper medium income countries, lower medium income and
lower income is smaller, is about 20 positions.
The Use of Good Country Index and Social Progress Index in a Comparative Context
pg. 14
Graph 9: GCI rank for countries grouped by income level
Source: GCI database and authors work
The data shows that the upper income countries are better-ranked than the other groups of
countries except for the component peace and security. For this component the lower income
countries are ranked better compares to the other groups of countries. Prosperity and equality is
another component where lower income countries are better ranked than upper medium income
countries and lower medium income.
Graph 10: GCI components rank for countries grouped by income level
Source: GCI database and authors work
From a comparison between Europe, WB5 and Albania regarding the main component of Good
Country Index can be easily noticed that Europe has a better rank in all components except
prosperity and equality in which all three have the same ranking position. Health and wellbeing
is the component where the difference between Europe and WB5 is bigger. The component
where Albania is better ranked than WB5 is culture even thought the difference is very small.
49
30
84
34
35
40
32
81
82
98
79
85
14
7
89
10
6
11
2
86
10
8
10
6
14
3
88
10
7
14
1
82
11
3
13
3
96
13
2
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Science &
Technology
Culture Peace and
Security
World Order Planet and
Climate
Prosperity
and Equality
Health and
Wellbeing
Upper Income Upper Medium Income Lower Medium Income Lower Incime
The Use of Good Country Index and Social Progress Index in a Comparative Context
pg. 15
Graph 11: GCI component points for EU members, WB5 countries and Albania
Regarding the GCI ranking position the gap is considerable between Europe and WB5 and even
bigger between Europe and Albania. Albania has also a big gap with WB5, which are ranked in
the 68th position and 109th respectively. Europe is better ranked and its position is 16th. Graph 12: GCI component rank for EU members, WB5 countries and Albania
Source: GCI database and authors work
6. Future work
Referring analyzes done in this paper, with high interest will be some empirical analyzes for both
indexes related with the size of a country (geography, population). This will give us a better
20
15
85
21
17
38
26
54
56
13
9
66
87
51
12
1
12
1
51
14
8
11
8
87
49
12
6
16
68
109
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Science &
Technology
Culture Peace and
Security
World Order Planet and
Climate
Prosperity and
Equality
Health and
Wellbeing
EU Countries WB5 Albania
Eu Rank WB5 Rank Albania Rank
The Use of Good Country Index and Social Progress Index in a Comparative Context
pg. 16
understanding which countries have to improve more their performances for the humanity
welfare.
References
8 Impressive Truths from Simon Anholt and the Good Country Index,
http://www.inc.com/peter-economy/8-impressive-truths-from-simon-anholt-ted-and-the-
good-country-index.html
Geovisualization and analysis of the Good Country Index, C Tan and K Dramowicz, 9th
Symposium of the International Society for Digital Earth (ISDE)
5–9 October 2015, Halifax, Canada
Why Social Progress Matters, https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/economic-
development-social-progress-index-by-michael-porter-2015-04
The Social Progress Index and the Long History of Searching for the “Social”, S.
Macekura, http://thrivingcities.com/blog/social-progress-index-and-long-history-searching-
social
The Use of Good Country Index and Social Progress Index in a Comparative Context
pg. 17
Annex 1: Good Country Index indicators Overall GCI Main Indicators Sub Indicators
Overall Rank
Contributions to
Science &
Technology
International students
Journal exports
International publications
Nodel prizes
Patents
Contributions to
Culture
Creative goods exports
Creative services exports
UNESCO dues in arrears as % of contribution
Freedom of movement, i.e. visa restrictions
Press freedom
Contributions to
International Peace
and Security
Peacekeeping troops
Dues in arrears to UN peace keeping budgets as % of contribution
International violent conflict
Arms exports
Internet security (2014)
Contributions to
World Order
Charity giving
Refugees hosted
Refugees generated
Birth rate
UN Treaties signed
Contributions to
Planet and Climate
Ecological footprint
Reforestation since 1992
Hazardous pesticides exports
CO2 emissions
Ozone
Contributions to
Prosperity and
Equality
Open trading
UN volunteers abroad
Fairtrade market size
FDI outflows
Development assistance
Contributions to
Health and
Wellbeing
Food aid
Pharmaceutical exports
Voluntary excess donations to the WHO
Humanitarian aid donations
International Health Regulations Compliance
Annex 2: Social Progress Index indicators
Dimension Component Indicator name
Basic Human
Needs
Nutrition and Basic
Medical Care
Undernourishment (% of pop.)
Depth of food deficit (calories/undernourished person)
Maternal mortality rate (deaths/100,000 live births)
Child mortality rate (deaths/1,000 live births)
Deaths from infectious diseases (deaths/100,000)
Water and
Sanitation
Access to piped water (% of pop.)
Rural access to improved water source (% of pop.)
Access to improved sanitation facilities (% of pop.)
Shelter Availability of affordable housing (% satisfied)
The Use of Good Country Index and Social Progress Index in a Comparative Context
pg. 18
Access to electricity (% of pop.)
Quality of electricity supply (1=low; 7=high)
Household air pollution attributable deaths (deaths/100,000)
Personal Safety
Homicide rate (deaths/100,000)
Level of violent crime (1=low; 5=high)
Perceived criminality (1=low; 5=high)
Political terror (1=low; 5=high)
Traffic deaths (deaths/100,000)
Foundations of
Wellbeing
Access to Basic
Knowledge
Adult literacy rate (% of pop. aged 15+)
Primary school enrollment (% of children)
Lower secondary school enrollment (% of children)
Upper secondary school enrollment (% of children)
Gender parity in secondary enrollment (girls/boys)
Access to
Information and
Communications
Mobile telephone subscriptions (subscriptions/100 people)
Internet users (% of pop.)
Press Freedom Index (0=most free; 100=least free)
Health and Wellness
Life expectancy at 60 (years)
Premature deaths from non-communicable diseases (probability of dying)
Obesity rate (% of pop.)
Suicide rate (deaths/100,000)
Environmental
Quality
Outdoor air pollution attributable deaths (deaths/100,000)
Wastewater treatment (% of wastewater)
Biodiversity and habitat (0=no protection; 100=high protection)
Greenhouse gas emissions (CO2 equivalents per GDP)
Opportunity
Personal Rights
Political rights (1=full rights; 7=no rights)
Freedom of speech (0=low; 2=high)
Freedom of assembly/association (0=low; 2=high)
Freedom of movement (0=low; 4=high)
Private property rights (0=none; 100=full)
Personal Freedom
and Choice
Freedom over life choices (% satisfied)
Freedom of religion (1=low; 4=high)
Early marriage
Satisfied demand for contraception (% of women)
Corruption (0=high; 100=low)
Tolerance and
Inclusion
Tolerance for immigrants (0=low; 100=high)
Tolerance for homosexuals (0=low; 100=high)
Discrimination and violence against minorities (0=low; 10=high)
Religious tolerance (1=low; 4=high)
Community safety net (0=low; 100=high)
Access to Advanced
Education
Years of tertiary schooling
Women's average years in school
Inequality in the attainment of education (0=low; 1=high)
Number of globally ranked universities (0=none; 10=most highly ranked)
Percent of tertiary students enrolled in globally ranked universities
