The Economist has a lively graphic showing the relationship between country GDP per person and the 'social progress index'.
It's comments begin:
"It has long been said that economic output is too narrow a gauge by which to measure the progress of nations. One of the earliest alternative indicators of progress, the UN’s Human Development Index, was first compiled in 1990 and combines wealth, education and life expectancy to give a broader comparison of living conditions in one country relative to another. But in recent years a plethora of new indices that go “beyond GDP” have emerged. One is the Social Progress Index (SPI), by the Social Progress Imperative, an American think-tank, ... which eschews GDP entirely and focuses on 53 social and environmental output indicators under three headings: basic needs, the foundations of well-being and opportunity. ..."
... and end by highlighting why a few countries do well and badly. For example:
"The United States comes 19th, owing to poor scores on personal safety, health and environmental quality."
"Oil- and resource-rich Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates are the worst of the 35 underperforming nations, and fall spectacularly below the average owing to closed and restrictive cultures and poor scores on religious tolerance and personal freedom."
Many in the USA, I imagine, might like to argue that this is the sort of price you have to pay for freedom – or Freedom! It's hard to say what the others would argue. Of greater interest in all this is probably the idea of the SPI itself.
Responses
Thanks for this. It's been a while since I've read some new numbers on these metrics. Gus Speth has a really nice (although getting a bit dated) treatment of this kind of work in his 'Bridge at the End of the World' book. Recommend.