Behind the Good Country Index

Simon Anholt the co-founder of the Good Country Index has since 2014 been challenging governments around the world to harmonize their domestic with international responsibilities by cooperating and collaborating more without necessarily losing their competitive edge. He shared his views with The Independent’s Ronald Musoke in an email interview

What is the “Good Country Index” all about?

The Good Country Index tries to measure how much each country on earth contributes to the planet and to the human race, relative to its size (measured in GDP). Most indexes measure and compare the performance of individual countries; their economic growth, stability, justice, transparency, good governance, productivity, democracy, freedom, or even happiness. But the Good Country Index tries to measure the impact of policies and behaviours of countries on the whole of humanity and the whole planet as well as what they take away.

What prompted you to come up with this index?

I came up with this index after realizing that the biggest challenges facing humanity today are global and borderless—climate change, economic crisis, terrorism, drug trafficking, slavery, pandemics, poverty and inequality, population growth, food and water shortages, energy, species loss, human rights, and migration— just to mention a few. The only way these challenges can be met is through international efforts (yet) the trouble is that most countries carry on behaving as if they were islands, focusing on domestic solutions to domestic problems. So I felt that measuring the external impacts of countries, rather than continually focusing on their domestic performance, was one good way to start people thinking a bit differently.

Why should governments be interested in collaborating internationally rather than looking inwards?

More collaborative behaviour can provide tangible and immediate benefits, thanks to cultural cross-fertilisation. The process of teaming up with others facing similar problems to find and implement shared solutions is almost always more productive than tackling those problems alone. Another striking example of the potential for enlightened self-interest in international relations comes from the study of national image and its role in stimulating economic growth. Each year since 2005, I have been polling a sample of 25,000 people around the world to measure their unprompted perceptions of 50 countries and 50 cities in what is now called the National Brands Index and City Brands Index. Analysis of the NBI database reveals that the countries which are perceived to contribute more to the common good of humanity gain the most trust and approval worldwide, and in consequence tend to get the most tourists, talent, investors and consumers for their goods and services. In other words, if a nation wants to do well, it has to do good.

How do countries score what they score on the index?

I use 35 reliable datasets which measure how countries affect the world outside their own borders. There are five of these in each of the seven categories, covering the big issues like education, science, war and peace, trade, culture, health, censorship, the environment, and freedom. Most of these datasets are produced by the United Nations system 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 that country contributes to the world and how much it takes away. The performance indicators are measured per GDP (in US dollars), to correct for the size of each country’s economy, and create a level playing field.

What exactly do you look at when analyzing a country’s contribution in the categories?

The 35 datasets I use to create the seven sub-rankings include measurements such as the number of foreign students studying in a country (according to UNESCO); each country’s exports of periodicals, scientific journals and newspapers according to the International Trade Centre (ITC); the number of accumulated Nobel prizes assigned to countries based on the laureates’ country of birth as well as country of institutional affiliation at the time of the award; the value of UNESCO dues in arrears as a percentage of the country’s contribution (this is a negative indicator); freedom of the press (based on mean score for Reporters without Borders and Freedom House index as a negative indicator); the number of peacekeeping troops sent overseas for UN missions; the attributed number of casualties of international organised violence according to the Uppsala Conflict Data Programme /Peace Research Institute Oslo (UCDP/PRIO) and this also is a negative indicator. I also look at total exports of weapons and ammunition according to ITC (a negative indicator) ; the number of refugees hosted and the number of refugees overseas (according to UNHCR); the number of UN treaties signed; the country’s ecological footprint (according to the Global Footprint Network); the country’s compliance to multilateral environmental agreements on hazardous waste and other chemicals; renewable energy share in the total final energy consumption; the number of aid workers and volunteers sent overseas (according to the United Nations Volunteers); the average transaction of sending remittances from each country; development cooperation contributions (aid according to Development Initiatives); food aid funding (according to WFP) relative to the size of the economy; humanitarian aid contributions according to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA) relative to the size of the economy; as well as international health regulations compliance according to the World Health Organization (WHO).