Which countries set the best examples to the rest of the world? Which ones would we do best to copy, to emulate and to admire for their foresight, hard work and long-term conscience? Which countries would have humanity survive gleaming into a clean, happy, bright future?
And who are tardy on humanitarian issues, science or development? Which nations and cultures cling to barbarian ethics on gender and sexual equality? Who is holding us back?
The Social and Moral Development Index is a compilation of relevant statistics on a wide range of issues which are put into a database-driven formula which calculates points per country. The country's overall score is an average of all the datasets that a country appears in. So, countries don't get penalized for lack of data about them.
The result is a shortlist of countries that beat all the others. Be the best!
| Overall Results:
Best: Denmark, Sweden, Norway
Regions: Scandinavia, Baltic States and Europe3
Worst: Tuvalu, Solomon Islands, Palestine
Regions: Micronesia, Melanesia and Australasia3 |
|---|
| Constituent Data Sets: Human Rights & Tolerance |
|---|
| 1. Human Rights Watch Comments | Best: France, Germany, UK
Worst: 10-country draw |
| 2. Nominal Commitment to HR | Best: Argentina, 12-country draw
Worst: Kiribati, Bhutan, 4-country draw |
| 3. HR Treaties Lag | Best: Ecuador, Uruguay, Tunisia
Worst: Palestine, Marshall Islands, Palau |
| 4. Personal, Civil & Economic Freedom | Best: Hong Kong, Switzerland, New Zealand
Worst: Libya, Yemen, Iran |
| 5. Press Freedom | Best: Finland, Netherlands, Norway
Worst: Eritrea, N. Korea, Turkmenistan |
| 6. Slavery | Best: Japan, Canada, Taiwan
Worst: N. Korea, Eritrea, Burundi |
| Constituent Data Sets: Gender Equality |
|---|
| 7. Gender Inequality | Best: Switzerland, Denmark, Netherlands
Worst: Yemen, Niger, Chad |
| 8. Year Women Can Vote | Best: Saudi Arabia, Vatican City, New Zealand
Worst: Kuwait, Qatar, 2-country draw |
| Constituent Data Sets: Prejudice |
|---|
| 9. Anti-Semite Opinions | Best: Laos, Philippines, Sweden
Worst: Iraq, Yemen, 2-country draw |
| 10. LGBT Equality | Best: Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden
Worst: Syria, Somalia, Saudi Arabia |
| > > > Details and Commentary on these data sets |
|---|
|
|---|
| Overall Results:
Best: Hong Kong, Singapore, Maldives
Regions: Scandinavia, Asia and Europe4
Worst: S. Sudan, Nigeria, Equatorial Guinea
Regions: Africa, Micronesia and Polynesia4 |
|---|
| Constituent Data Sets: Health |
|---|
| 1. Life Expectancy | Best: Hong Kong, Japan, Italy
Worst: Swaziland, Lesotho, Sierra Leone |
| 2. Alcohol Consumption | Best: 5-country draw
Worst: Moldova, Lithuania, Czechia |
| 3. Fertility Rate | Best: Hong Kong, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Malta
Worst: Niger, Somalia, Zambia |
| 4. Smoking Rates | Best: Guinea, Solomon Islands, Kiribati
Worst: Montenegro, Belarus, Lebanon |
| 5. Suicide Rate | Best: Grenada, Haiti, Egypt
Worst: Lithuania, Russia, S. Korea |
| 6. Food Aid, Health Contributions & WHO Compliance | Best: Sweden, Ireland, Denmark
Worst: Angola, St Vincent & Grenadines, Mauritania |
| 7. Overweight Adults | Best: Vietnam, India, Bangladesh
Worst: Nauru, Palau, Cook Islands |
| Constituent Data Sets: Children's Health |
|---|
| 8. Adolescent Birth Rate | Best: N. Korea, S. Korea, Switzerland
Worst: Niger, Mali, Angola |
| 9. Infant Immunizations 2011-2015 | Best: China, Hungary, Uzbekistan
Worst: Equatorial Guinea, S. Sudan, Somalia |
| > > > Details and Commentary on these data sets |
|---|
|
|---|
| Overall Results:
Best: Finland, Belgium, Denmark
Regions: Scandinavia, Baltic States and Europe
Worst: Equatorial Guinea, Madagascar, Djibouti
Regions: Africa, Melanesia and Micronesia |
|---|
| Constituent Data Sets: Modernity and Education |
|---|
| 1. Research and Development | Best: S. Korea, Israel, Japan
Worst: Lesotho, 3-country draw |
| 2. Secondary Education | Best: 6-country draw
Worst: Chad, Niger, Burkina Faso |
| 3. Length of Schooling | Best: Australia, Belgium, Finland
Worst: S. Sudan, Eritrea, Niger |
| 4. Intellectual Endeavours | Best: Ukraine, Czechia, Hungary
Worst: Angola, Iraq, Bolivia |
| 5. Maths, Science & Reading | Best: Singapore, Hong Kong, Japan
Worst: Dominican Rep., Algeria, Kosovo |
| 6. Religiosity | Best: Estonia, Sweden, Denmark
Worst: Bangladesh, Niger, 4-country draw |
| 7. IQ | Best: Singapore, Hong Kong, S. Korea
Worst: 6-country draw |
| Constituent Data Sets: Technology and Information |
|---|
| 8. Internet Users | Best: Iceland, Faroe Islands, Norway
Worst: Eritrea, Timor-Leste (E. Timor), Burundi |
| 9. Freedom On The Internet | Best: Estonia, USA, Germany
Worst: Iran, Cuba, China |
| 10. IT Security | Best: Belize, Ireland, Luxembourg
Worst: USA, Russia, India |
| 11. IPv6 Uptake | Best: Belgium, Germany, Switzerland
Worst: 59-country draw |
| > > > Details and Commentary on these data sets |
|---|
|
|---|
| |
|---|
| Constituent Data Sets: National Culture |
|---|
1. Personal Charitability
(World Position, 2013-2016) | Best: Myanmar (Burma), USA, New Zealand
Worst: Burundi, Yemen, China |
| 2. Corruption (2012-2016) | Best: Denmark, New Zealand, Finland
Worst: Somalia, N. Korea, Afghanistan |
| 3. Happiness | Best: Finland, Norway, Denmark
Worst: Burundi, Central African Rep., S. Sudan |
| 4. Creativity and Culture | Best: Belgium, Netherlands, Estonia
Worst: Libya, Congo, DR, Rwanda |
| 5. Open Trading, Aid and Development | Best: Ireland, Denmark, Sweden
Worst: Equatorial Guinea, Brazil, Papua New Guinea |
| Constituent Data Sets: Peace Versus Instability |
|---|
| 6. Global Peace Index | Best: Iceland, Denmark, New Zealand
Worst: Somalia, Afghanistan, Sudan |
| 7. Peacekeeping and Security | Best: Samoa, S. Africa, Tunisia
Worst: Guinea-Bissau, Marshall Islands, Tonga |
| 8. Refugees and UN Treaties | Best: Austria, Germany, Netherlands
Worst: Brunei, Tonga, Fiji |
| 9. Impact of Terrorism | Best: 13-country draw
Worst: Afghanistan, Iraq, Nigeria |
| Constituent Data Sets: The Natural Environment |
|---|
| 10. Forest Area Change 1990-2015 | Best: Iceland, Bahrain, Uruguay
Worst: Togo, Nigeria, Uganda |
| 11. Environmental Performance | Best: Switzerland, France, Denmark
Worst: Burundi, Bangladesh, Congo, DR |
| 12. Energy to GDP Efficiency | Best: Hong Kong, Sri Lanka, Panama
Worst: Serbia, Trinidad & Tobago, Zimbabwe |
| 13. Convention on Biological Diversity | Best: USA, Vatican City, 30-country draw
Worst: Andorra, Palestine, S. Sudan |
| 14. Rational Beliefs on the Environment | Best: Argentina, Greece, Brazil
Worst: Turkmenistan, Albania, Haiti |
| Constituent Data Sets: Economic Inequality and Poverty |
|---|
| 15. Inequality in Life Expectancy | Informational only |
| 16. Income Inequality (Gini Coefficient) | Best: Ukraine, Belarus, Slovenia
Worst: S. Africa, Namibia, Zambia |
| 17. Multidimensional Poverty | Best: Armenia, Ukraine, Serbia
Worst: Niger, S. Sudan, Chad |
| > > > Details and Commentary on these data sets |
|---|
|
|---|
5. Results: All Countries From Best to Worst
For a complete list of results, see: What is the Best Country in the World? An Index of Morality, Conscience and Good Life.
6. Methodology
The Social and Moral Development Index combines a large number of data sets into a single formula. It's not a simplistic ranking system - for most data sets, each country is given points according to where it sits on the scale ranging from the best country, to the worst country, on a scalar (and not linear) basis. The worst country in any given data set gets 0 points, and the best gets 100 points, and everyone else gets a portion of those points according to how close to the top they sit. It pays to be as good as possible. The points are not summed to form a total, because this would unfairly give advantages to countries that appear in most data sets - most data are not fully comprehensive. Each country gains a final score which is an average of its points from all datasets.
When it comes to presenting the results, charts show the best 5 countries marked with a green number, and the worst 5 marked with a red one. If there is a tie, then, the markers extend for as long as the tie continues. Sometimes the actual points are calculated to many significant figures, but, the results are only shown for 3 s.f. and in these cases, it might look like the flags do not extend enough. To view the data in more detail hover over any row to view the precise points awarded.