Thursday, August 15, 2013

The United States is the 20th Best Country in the World and That isn't So Bad




1. Introduction:


One of my perennial concerns is the relative health and well-being of various countries. For example, I fret a lot about Mexico’s descent into lawlessness and anarchy. There used to be a saying, when the US stole Mexican territory and preyed upon Mexico in other ways as well, "Poor Mexico, so far away from God and so near the United States." Today, this could be reversed: "Poor America, so near Mexico." Could the narco-mayhem south of the border ebb over into the US?

The term "failed state" comes to mind. We know that some countries, for example Somalia, have ceased to be "countries" in any meaningful sense except as a swath of surface on a paper map. Is our next-door neighbor in danger of emulating places such as Somalia? Of approaching disintegration?

But the question is generic: How do different countries stack up, or rank, overall?
 

2. The Annual “Failed State” Index:

One pretty good source   is the  “2013 Failed States Index,”  the “Annual Special Report by Foreign Policy and the Fund for Peace.”

(http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/06/24/2013_failed_states_interactive_map).

This publication scores 178 countries  on twelve indicators that  measure social, economic, political and military variables. The higher a country’s combined score is,  the closer it is to being a “failed state.”

Here are the twelve indicators:


Social: 1. Demographic Pressures, including diseases and food scarcity.
2. Refugees, IDPs (Internally Displaced Persons).
3. Group Grievances, ethnic discrimination.
4. Human Flight and brain drain.

Economic: 5. Uneven Development, inequality.
6. Poverty and Economic Decline, debt, unemployment, per capita GDP.

Pol. & Military: 7. State Legitimacy, corruption, democracy, drug trade.
8. Public Services, crime, education, healthcare, roads.
9. Human Rights, press and political freedom, incarceration, executions.
10. Security Apparatus, riots, coups, rebellions.
11. Factionalized Elites, power struggles.
12. Foreign military intervention, foreign assistance.



As mentioned, the study ranks 178   countries from “best” to “worst.”  The lower a country is on the list, the closer it is to being a failed state. That is, the more it suffers from: demographic and public health problems, poverty and other economic problems, ethnic strife and discrimination, the absence of democracy and self-determination, the absence of the rule of law and of human rights, poorly developed public services, education and transportation, police state practices, and the need for foreign economic and military  intervention.

This index is comprehensive enough to simply say that the list ranks the world’s countries in terms of - essentially - the “best” to the “worst.” From countries in which human life is most felicitous to where it is most hellish.

In Table One,  I list 31 countries of special interest:


Table One: 31 Selected Countries ranked from "Best" to "Worst," i.e. to most "Failed State" status.
Country
Rank
Comment
Finland
1
best country in the world
Sweden
2
Norway
3
Switzerland
4
Denmark
5
Iceland
8
Canada
11
Netherlands
12
Germany
14
France
17
Britain
19
US
20
Singapore
21
best country in Asia
Japan
23
Uruguay
24
best country in Latin America
Italy
32
Hungary
38
Brazil
53
Botswana
58
best country in Africa
Mexico
82
Russia
99
worst country in Europe
India
100
Indonesia
103
Israel/West Bank
110
China
113
Bangladesh
150
Nigeria
163
Pakistan
166
Iraq
168
Afghanistan
172
Somalia
178
worst country in the world

3. The US  and other highlights:

Looking at the report, a few facts jump at us right away: For one thing, European countries are highly over-represented among the "best" countries. All five Scandinavian countries are in the top ten - Finland is number #1, Norway #2, Sweden #3, Denmark #5 and Iceland #8. 
 
  
The United States  is in 20th place. This may cause  simple-minded  jingoists to  stop reading  and throw away this article. 20th place is  unacceptable to those who continue to blindly believe - contrary to   empirical evidence - that life in the US is incomparably better than anywhere else.

However,   if you  bear with me, I’ll show you  that this country’s 20th place, out of 178, is  respectable. Keep in mind that we rank 20th overall, when averaging all twelve indicators. Like other countries, the US has its strengths and its weaknesses. I will shortly point some of these out.

Finland  ranks as the best country in the world overall  - if  6-months long nights and polar freezing conditions don’t bother you.  Switzerland is near the top. Our next-door neighbor Canada ranks quite high as well. The larger Western European countries - Germany, France, Britain - are in the same league as the US, somewhat ahead of the US but not significantly so. Japan is a bit behind the US, but not significantly so. The best Latin American country, Uruguay, is number 24. Italy, delightful to visit, struggles  in 32nd  position, as does my country of birth, Hungary, in 38th place.  The best African country, Botswana, cannot do better than 58. Our southern  neighbor, plagued by drug wars,  is number 82. Russia is the worst European country, at number 99, barely ahead of India, which  is in 100th position.

Israel does poorly at 110, due to its  Palestinian problem.  China may boast to be the world’s  new economic power house, but  it ranks a very poor 113th. Iraq and Afghanistan, the two countries where the US has been waging war over the past decade, are among the world’s very worst countries, at 168 and 172. Finally,  Somalia, at 178, is the worst place on earth. 
 

4. The US and other individual countries’ strengths and weaknesses:
In Table Two, I present the twelve indicators, and I show which countries score the highest and the lowest on each. In addition, I give the results for the US, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands and France.

Table Two : How do various countries score on separate indicators of socio-economic and political well-being?
1. Demo-graphic
pro-blems
2. Refu-gees (IDP)
3. Group Grie-vances, discrim-ination
4. Flight, brain drain
5. Uneven dev., Inequa-lity
6.pov-erty, econ. decline
7.state legiti-
macy
8. Public services
deterio-ration
9. Human rights, rule of law
10.
Security apparatus,
police
11. Factio-nalized  elites
12. Exter-nal inter-vention
Best
Iceland
New Zealand
Iceland
US
Finland
Luxem-bourg
Sweden
Luxembourg
Nether-lands
Iceland
Switz-erland
New Zealand/
US
Worst
Congo (D.R.)
Sudan
Iraq
Haiti
Angola
Haiti
North Korea
Chad
Somalia
Somalia
Sudan
Sudan
US
3.0 (23rd )
2.3 (26th)
4.2 (39th)
1.0 (1st)
4.8
(36th)
3.2 (15th)
2.3 (21st)
2.4
(23rd)
3.2 (35th)
2.2
(17th )
3.9 (37th )
1.0
(1st)
Canada
18th
19th
11th
12th
15th
3rd
11th
17th
15th
13th
16th
1st
Ger-
many
9th
58th !
44th !
16th
24th
10th
9th
12th
13th
18th
14th
11th
Nether-
lands
23rd
29th
32nd
15th
9th
19th
8th
5th
1st
11th
10th
12th
France
19th
22nd
81st!
9th
28th
38th
20th
8th
19th
 21st
13th
10th

Table Two shows what the strengths and the weaknesses of the United States are: This country ranks number one on attracting immigrants and benefitting from other countries’ brain drain. We are also the least likely to depend on foreign intervention, either economic or military. 

On the other hand, there is in America a substantial amount  of ethnic inequality and discrimination (rank: 39),  there is much  power struggle between our various  elites (rank: 37), a high degree of economic inequality (rank: 36) and human rights violations (rank: 35). These are the four aspects of American society which need the greatest improvement.


5. On the whole, small countries  are the best countries:
I said earlier that I would demonstrate that the US’ 20th place ranking is nothing to be ashamed of. You see, the factor which correlates most strongly with a country’s ranking is its size! (in population, of course). While the correlation is not perfect, it is very strong.

Every single one of the world’s thirteen highest ranked countries  is either very small, or relatively small.  Canada and Australia are  large only in  area. Their populations are 35 million and 22 million, respectively. That is  less than California. The other top thirteen  countries  range  in population from 300,000 (Iceland) to 17 million (Netherlands).

In addition, there are six other countries which also  rank higher than the US. Only three of them are  mid-sized countries: Slightly ahead of the US are Germany (#14), France (#17) and  Great Britain (#19).

Table Three  lists the nine  largest (by population) countries of the world.


Table Three: Large Countries Are Bad Countries - Except the US.

Country
Population
rank, in terms of quality
China
1.36 billion
113
India
1.23 billion
100
United States
317 million
20
Indonesia
237 million
103
Brazil
194 million
53
Pakistan
184 million
166
Nigeria
174 million
163
Bangladesh
153 million
150
Russia
143 million
99

Table Three  shows that the  rankings of the world’s largest  countries range from mediocre to terrible - with one exception: the United States. 

It is more difficult to provide a large country with a good  government and with a high quality of life than it is to do so for a small country. Large countries  inevitably have large pockets of backwardness and dysfunction, which   set them back. For example, the South has always been an albatross around the neck of the  United States.  Despite this, America  as a whole ranks relatively high.  There are  regions in the United States - the two coasts, Minnesota, etc - where the quality of life equals those of Scandinavia, regions which dwarf the size of Scandinavian countries.

It is more reasonable to compare the United States - or North America, of which the US makes up 90% -  with  Europe. When we do that, The United States and North America rank somewhat higher than does Europe.

6. How do the world’s Continents rank?

Table Four classifies the world’s 178 countries into six regional/continental groups: Africa, Asia, Oceania, Latin America, Europe, and North America. It also divides the world’s countries into three groups: the top 60, the middle 59 and the worst 59. It then shows the proportion of "good," "mediocre," and "bad" countries in each region.
                 
Table Four: The Six Continental Regions Ranked: North America is the Best
Africa
Asia (incl. Mideast)
Oceania
Latin Am.
Europe
North Am.
Total
worst 59 countries
35 (66%)
20 (43%)
2 (25%)
2 (7%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
59
mid 59 countries
15 (28%)
16 (35%)
4 (50%)
16 (55%)
8 (20%)
0 (0%)
59
best 60 countries
3 (6%)
10 (22%)
2 (25%)
11 (38%)
32 (80%)
2 (100%)
60
total
53
46
8
29
40
2
178

Table Four  shows that North America is by far the best continent: All of it consists of  the “world’s best countries” category. In second position is Europe, 80% of whose countries are among the world’s best, 20% among the world’s mediocre countries, and none among the world’s worst. In third place is Latin America, where 38% of the countries are among the world’s best, 55%  in the “middle of the pack,” and 7% among the world’s worst. Oceania follows. There, a quarter of the countries are among the world’s best, half among the world’s “medium” quality countries, and a quarter among the world’s worst. Asia is the world’s second most problematic continent: only  22% of Asian countries are among the world’s best. 35% are in the middle of the pack, and 43% are among the world’s worst.  Finally Africa: Only 6% of African countries are among the world’s best, 28% are in the middle group, and two thirds of all African countries are among the world’s worst countries. Table Five sums this up:
 



Table Five: The World’s Major Regions/Continents Ranked From Best to Worst


Continent/Region
Rank - from best to worst
North America
1
Europe
2
Latin America
3
Oceania
4
Asia
5
Africa
6

7. In Conclusion: The object of this exercise has been to offer a quick, fact-based picture of the relative position of the various countries and regions of the world in terms of the overall quality of life. Simply, in which countries and  on which continents do people  live happy, non-violent, prosperous and free lives, and  where do they not? 

Most international comparisons and generalizations  are based on prejudice, stereotypes, nationalism and subjective taste. While this article does not claim  profound scholarship, most of the  comparisons and generalizations I have  presented are fact-based. Hopefully this is an improvement. leave comment here