Monitoring Policy Making at the United Nations |
| ||||||||||||
Nations & States - Global Policy Forum The World Economic and Social Development
March 18, 2000
Ranking List
North America and the Caribbean
11. Canada
21. The United States
33. The Bahamas
40. Barbados
49. Trinidad and Tobago
57. St. Kitts and Nevis
58. Dominica
60. Antigua and Barbuda
63. Cuba
72. St. Vincent and Grenadines
76. Grenada
79. St. Lucia
80. Jamaica
112. The Dominican Republic
170. Haiti
Central and South America
53. Chile
54. Uruguay
56. Argentina
68. Venezuela
71. Panama
73. Suriname
78. Costa Rica
81. Mexico
82. Columbia
83. Guyana
90. Brazil
93. Belize
94. Ecuador
100. Peru
106. Paraguay
110. El Salvador
121. Bolivia
129. Honduras
134. Nicaragua
137. Guatemala
West Europe
1. Norway
3. Switzerland
4. Monaco
5. Sweden
6. Denmark
7. Liechtenstein
8. San Marino
9. Luxemburg
10. Finland
12. The Netherlands
13. Iceland
14. Belgium
15. France
16. Austria
18. Germany
19. The United Kingdom
22. Ireland
24. Italy
26. Spain
29. Andorra
30. Malta
36. Cyprus
42. Greece
48. Portugal
East Europe
32. Estonia
34. Czech Republic
35. Slovenia
41. Slovak Republic
44. Bulgaria
45. Belarus
46. Hungary
50. Croatia
51. Latvia
52. Lithuania
55. Russia
59. Poland
65. The Ukraine
67. Georgia
69. Yugoslavia
77. Macedonia
84. Armenia
87. Romania
96. Moldova
104. Bosnia and Herzegovina
126. Albania
The Middle East, Northern
Africa and Central Asia
25. Kuwait
27. Qatar
31. Bahrain
37. Israel
39. The United Arab Emirates
62. Oman
70. Saudi Arabia
75. Lebanon
85. Kazakhstan
89. Kiygyzstan
92. Jordan
95. Libya
97. Tunisia
105. Turkmenistan
108. Turkey
109. Uzbekistan
116. Morocco
118. Syria
120. Algeria
122. Iran
125. Egypt
128. Tajikistan
131. Iraq
136. Azerbaijan
150. YemenThe Far East, South East Asia
and the Indian Subcontinent
2. Japan
23. Singapore
28. Taiwan
38. South Korea
43. Brunei
64. Malaysia
86. Thailand
102. North Korea
113. China
115. Sri Lanka
117. Mongolia
119. The Philippines
127. Indonesia
133. The Maldives
138. Vietnam
148. India
158. Pakistan
160. Laos
162. Bhutan
163. Myanmar
165. Nepal
168. Bangladesh
173. Cambodia
188. Afghanistan
West Africa
101. Gabon
140. Cape Verde
141. Congo Republic
142. Equatorial Guinea
145. Sao Tome e Principe
147. Cameroon
149. Denegal
151. Côte d'Ivoire
152. The Gambia
153. Nigeria
154. Liberia
155. Ghana
157. Mauritania
161. Togo
166. Benin
171. Guinea-Bissau
174. Sierra Leone
176. Guinea
177. Mali
186. Burkina Faso
190. Niger
East and Central Africa
146. Djibouti
156. Kenya
169. Central Africa
175. Uganda
178. Sudan
180. Tanzania
181. Chad
182. Burundi
183. Eritrea
184. Somalia
187. Ethiopia
189. Rwanda
191. Democratic Republic of Congo
Southern Africa
66. Seychelles
74. Mauritius
98. South Africa
111. Namibia
114. Botswana
130. Swaziland
143. Zimbabwe
144. Lesothu
159. Zambia
164. The Comoros
167. Madagascar
172. Angola
179. Malawi
185. Mozambique
Oceania
17. Australia
20. New Zealand
47. Nauru
61. Palau
88. Fiji
91. Tuvalu
99. Micronesia
103. Tonga
107. Samoa
123. The Solomon Islands
124. Papua New Guinea
132. The Marshall Islands
135. Vanuatu
139. Kiribati
Table created by Kai Müller note 1: The above ranks are determined by a system that combines dozens of numbers on each country over four years, giving the highest and lowest for each country less priority. These were the measurements used (in order of similarity to the displayed [aggregate] ranking): Telephones, Infant Mortality, PC Income, PC Exports, Televisions, Daily News Papers, Electricity produced, Old/young population, Life Expectancy, Literacy, International Reserves Less Gold, Birth Rate, Radios, Urban Population, Consumer Prices, Export/Import Ratio.
note 2: This table is not intended for predicting any future changes and does not claim that there have been no changes since then. The statistics used stem from 'The World Almanac and Book of Facts -' 1995, 96, 97, and 98. The Editorial Director is Robert Famighetti, Senior Editor is Lori Wiesenfeld, and publisher is Primedia Reference Inc. (Mahwah, NJ). Such statistics are almost always wrong (since they may be based on censusses and estimates) but rarely significantly off. Further sources of errors are: The personal ideology of the editors, unrepresentative sample populations, guess-timates, missing numbers, typoes and purposeful deceit by the country in question. None of these have been very evident here. Another source of argument is when countries have a large non-citizen population and the statistics include or exclude the non-citizens and dual citizens.
note3: When having a high rank on this index, a country is enjoying relatively less scarcity (more of an abundance), this does not mean however that everything else is okay. Many of the wealthiest countries have high crime rates, bad records on ethical behaviour, little remaining protected forests and high greenhouse gas producing rates (the top 10 worst carbondioxide emitters per capita includes the US, Canada, Australia, Kazakhstan, Singapore, UAE, Qatar and the US Virgin Islands). These rankings exclude many measurements (such as freedoms and human rights) and only partially compensates for the tendency of aggregates to inflate numbers because of the very rich and for differing consumer habits because of culture (Some gulf countries are said to be extremely wealthy but to choose to abstain from having so many electronic devices, perhaps in order to buy more jewelry or other matters; it is also commonly known that Europeans pay more taxes and spend more on quality travel, art, food, clothing and decoration, while Americans spend more on getting their children through university and on quality houses, lawyers and medicine). There is also a big debate on the way things (particularly per capita income!) can be measured in several different ways, with very different outcomes.
note 4: Countries will rank very differently in each criteria used. (this is merely a sort of average) In addition they will move around a lot from one year to the next. When a country moves in one direction one year, it does not often move in the same direction again the next year, let alone at the same pace. The countries coming closest to showing an upward tendency over time are: Iran, China, Turkey, South Africa, Jordan, Argentina, Australia, Norway, Singapore, South Korea, Kenya and Slovenia. The countries coming closest to showing a downward tendency over time are: all the former Soviet republics (particularly Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan and Georgia), Bosnia, Liberia, Cuba and Madagascar, and Japan.
note 5: It is widely believed (since there is only one interest rate per country), there is a choice on whether to bring inflation or unemployment under control, however only few countries have a very high one and a very low the other (Tajikistan: 2.4% unempt. 65% infltn.; Kenya: 35% unempt. 1.6% infltn). Most countries can be viewed as having either low unemployment and low inflation (South Korea 1.9% unempt. 5% infltn) or high unemployment and high inflation (Yugoslavia 36% unempt. 79% infltn.)
note 6: One thing that comes out of these comparative studies is a realization for some that the US is not the only advanced democracy any more. In fact, given its custom of making candidates seek funding from businesses in the form of contributions (often with strings attached), it is not the most democratic country at all.
note 7: It is important not to attach value assumptions to this index. Improving their rank is not the only thing countries are interested in - indeed happiness is often found in simplicity rather than in having too much 'junk' lie around you and too many dangers to worry about. This is an index of wealth, of (materialistic) economic development. It says nothing about friendship, peace, the ability to be lazy and successful anyway. Indeed the wealthiest countries can be said to be extremely competitive (even when it comes to just finding a friend). It is assumed that most countries would not mind improving their score - since this means having more of everything - but we must remember that, when wealthy - every person and every culture has its own list of things they get more of, its own priorities (making cross comparisons quite difficult).
note 8: No single country can be said to be significantly richer or poorer than all others (Each year produced a different first and a different last place). Therefore no coutry can be called genetically superior or inferior to all others and it is impossible to say which country needs the most/least outside help in sorting out its problems and which has the largest excess that should go into helping other countries or even where to draw the line between rich and poor nations. This is particularly so since every country has a few people who are so wealthy, a share of their wealth could fund any number of fantastic projects.
note 9: All measurements are per capita, that is, they indicate the average living conditions one may expect to see in that country. They therefore do not give bigger countries a systematic advantage or disadvantage to smaller ones in terms of their rank. For an example of what one may do to determine economic importance (and this might not be the best way but it gives a rough idea of how many times as strong than the other, a country's military, sporting and other might is) one may take this list - the GDP multiplied by the per capita income
Economic Importance, 1998 (GDP x PC Inc) figures in quadrillion people dollars
1. USA 197.9
2. Japan 57.1
3. Germany 26.0
4. The United Kingdom 22.2
5. Italy 20.4
6. France 20.2
7. Canada 16.9
(G7)
8. Australia 9.0
9. Spain 8.1
10. South Korea 7.7
11. China 6.5
12. Brazil 6.0
13. The Netherlands 5.9
14. Mexico 5.6
15. Russia 4.2
16. Taiwan 3.9
17. Belgium 3.8
18. Sweden 3.6
19. Switzerland 3.6
20. Austria 2.9
21. Thailand 2.9
22. Indonesia 2.5
23. Denmark 2.4
24. Argentina 2.3
25. India 2.1
(source: Moneghetti, The World Almanac and Book of Facts 1998)More Tables and Charts
