I agree zzm. Much of the data seems to be somewhat arbitrary to me (putting it kindly). For example, Belgium is No. 1 for culture? Nothing against that fine country, but aside from Tin Tin I'm struggling a little to think of their other global cultural exports. OK, Stella Artois, but does that actually count as culture?
Singapore, along with many other countries, is not graded in certain sub-categories, but that seems to give them a 'free pass' and perhaps result in a higher overall grading in a particular area. For example, Prosperity and Equality, where Singapore is ranked 7th, despite being ungraded in two sub-categories (Fairtrade market size and Development assistance). My guess is that it wouldn't score very highly on those two omitted measures. Prosperity, sure, but equality? Maybe not so much. Again, I'm not trying to 'pick on' specific countries, just highlighting areas that don't seem to ring true based on my own experience (subjective though that may be).
On a positive note, the data is well presented, but my concern is how the data was actually compiled in the first place...
Q: How is the Good Country Index compiled?
A: We have used 35 reliable datasets which track the way that most countries on earth behave: there are five of these in each of seven categories, covering the big issues like education, science, war and peace, trade, culture, health, censorship, the environment, freedom, etc. Most of these datasets are produced by the United Nations and other international agencies, and a few by NGOs and other organisations.
These datasets are combined into a common measure which gives an overall ranking, a ranking in each of the seven categories, and a balance-sheet for each country that shows at a glance how much it contributes to the world and how much it takes away.
... Yes, but who actually did the ranking within the groups that they mention? It seems that, in some cases at least, they just asked a few people what they thought, so I wonder how scientific the overall process actually was.
My conclusion - this 'study' is of limited worth, except as a catalyst for discussions on forums, FB, etc. Sadly I fear that much of the discussion may end up being jingoistic and/or xenophobic.
