good society index v3 7sep10
TRANSCRIPT
Good Society Index for the 20 Richest Societies
Ron Anderson , University of Minnesota, USA
& Foundation for Compassionate Societies
Ron Anderson University of Minnesota
1
Modified from a Presentation at the International Society for Quality of Life Studies
Florence, Italy, July 23, 2009
Conceptual Framework
• The model of ‘good society’ is comes from:– The Good Society by Robert Bellah
and associates– See also:
• Toward a Caring Society by S and P. Oliner
• Acts of Compassion by R. Wuthrow
September 6, 2010 Ron Anderson – [email protected] 2
How can we measure characteristics that reflect a ‘good society?
• Thirty-two social Indicators were selected that reflect: – the degree of social well-being and ill-being in affluent
countries– or whether the social institutions tend to reduce suffering
or increase it
• These 32 indicators fall into 8 components.
September 6, 2010 Ron Anderson – [email protected] 3
A Good Society Index
Eight Components* (& Sample Indicators)
Income & work equality (Income equality/disparity)
Child Well-Being (Often eating with parents)
Safety (Few homicides)
Health (Life expectancy)
Non-Violence (Low arms exports)
Integrity & Social Justice (Corruption-free organizations)
Democracy & Freedom (Freedom of the Press)
Compassion (Social expenditures, also hosting refugees)
September 6, 2010 Ron Anderson – [email protected] 4
*For a total of 32 indicators
Countries in the Good Society Index, 2010
September 6, 2010 Ron Anderson – [email protected] 5
*Rich countries with tiny populations were not included.
The Twenty Most Affluent* Countries
Australia Germany Portugal
Austria Ireland Spain
Belgium Italy Sweden
Canada Japan Switzerland
Denmark Netherlands United Kingdom
Finland New Zealand United States
France Norway
Calculation of the Good Society Index
Steps
1. Locate the statistic (e.g., % or mean) for each country for any given indicator
2. Calculate standard scores (z-scores) by subtracting each county statistic, x, from the mean of all countries, and dividing the result by the standard deviation of all countries
3. Re-standardize each z-score to give each set of scores a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15, just like an intelligence test score
4. After this is done for all the indicators in a component set, e.g., health, then the mean of all non-missing scores is calculated for each country, to produce the component index score.
5. The Compassion Action Index is the mean for each country of all nine component scores.
September 6, 2010 Ron Anderson – [email protected] 6
A Glimpse at the Scores for 20 countries & 8 Components
Com
pone
nts
of a
Goo
d So
ciet
y In
dex
1. W
ork
& I
nco
me
Equ
ity
Inde
x
2. C
hild
Wel
l-be
ing
Inde
x
3. S
afet
y In
dex
4. H
ealt
h In
dex
5. N
on-V
iole
nce
Inde
x
6. I
nteg
rity
and
Soc
ial J
ustic
e In
dex
7.D
emoc
racy
& F
reed
om I
ndex
8. C
ompa
ssio
n In
dex
Ove
rall
(ave
rage
) Goo
d S
ocie
ty I
ndex
Australia 92 98 104 102 99 98 104 86 98
Austria 108 104 104 98 106 96 98 109 103
Belgium 112 106 85 104 103 105 107 108 104
Canada 90 93 96 104 108 105 95 102 99
Denmark 118 117 97 100 101 99 116 106 107
Finland 114 115 93 97 102 106 110 101 105
France 111 97 101 103 84 100 85 98 97
Germany 106 98 109 96 98 102 104 109 103
Ireland 99 91 96 102 111 99 95 97 99
Italy 87 98 107 103 98 111 84 93 98
Japan 95 103 104 120 113 101 86 104 103
Netherlands 105 106 105 105 101 99 114 108 105
New Zealand 92 88 91 97 111 93 108 98 97
Norway 101 114 107 108 102 102 115 113 107
Portugal 90 91 114 95 106 108 92 102 100
Spain 94 95 113 100 100 105 96 89 99
Sweden 115 114 107 104 108 100 120 124 111
Switzerland 99 109 101 112 104 105 98 106 104
United King. 88 96 104 97 94 94 89 91 94
United States 75 75 76 59 56 72 85 82 72
This index is the sum of the eight component indexes..
72
94
97
97
98
98
99
99
99
100
103
103
103
104
104
105
105
107
107
111
0 50 100 150
United States
United Kingdom
New Zealand
France
Italy
Australia
Ireland
Canada
Spain
Portugal
Germany
Austria
Japan
Belgium
Switzerland
Finland
Netherlands
Denmark
Norway
Sweden
A Good Society Index
September 6, 2010 Ron Anderson – [email protected] 9
Top Tier Middle Tier Bottom TierSweden Japan United States Norway Australia United KingdomDenmark Canada New Zealand
GermanyAustriaPortugal
Note: The remaining countries are all in continental Europe and fall into the Middle Tier.
Country Tiers below are Based upon Rankings on the Good Society Index and the Similarity of
Inter-correlations among Eight Index Components
Income & Work Index Indicators
September 6, 2010 Ron Anderson – [email protected] 10
Indicator Data Used Source
Income equality Ratio of income of richest 10% to poorest 10% (reversed)*
United Nations Human Development Program, 2009
Low adult poverty Percent of adults living below 50% of median income (reversed)
Luxembourg Income Study, 2004
Minimum wageMinimum wage as ratio to median wage
OECD Employment Outlook, 2010
Government spending for workers as percent of GDP
Includes active spending, e.g., job retraining
OECD Employment Outlook, 2010
*Reversed means to make larger values lower on a scale and vice versa. For example, subtracting a percent from 100, reverses the values.
75
87
88
90
90
92
92
94
95
99
99
101
105
106
108
111
112
114
115
118
0 50 100 150
United States
Italy
United Kingdom
Canada
Portugal
Australia
New Zealand
Spain
Japan
Ireland
Switzerland
Norway
Netherlands
Germany
Austria
France
Belgium
Finland
Sweden
Denmark
Work/Income Equity Index
Child Well-Being Index Indicators
September 6, 2010 Ron Anderson – [email protected] 12
Indicator Data Used Source
Low child povertyPercent of children living below poverty line (reversed)
OECD Income Distribution Database, 2005
Low percent living in single-parent families
Percent of children age 11, 13,15 in single-parenting (rev.)
OECD Family Database, mid-2000s
Low % of children often eating evening meal with parents
Age 15 self-report (reversed)UNICEF Innnocenti Report Card, 2007 and OECD PISA
Few births to teensBirths per 1,000 mothers age 15-19 (reversed)
UN Demographic Yearbook, 2007
75
88
91
91
93
95
96
97
98
98
98
103
104
106
106
109
114
114
115
117
0 50 100 150
United States
New Zealand
Ireland
Portugal
Canada
Spain
United Kingdom
France
Italy
Germany
Australia
Japan
Austria
Belgium
Netherlands
Switzerland
Norway
Sweden
Finland
Denmark
Child Well-Being Index
Safety Index Indicators
September 6, 2010 Ron Anderson – [email protected] 14
Indicator Data Used Source
Low homicide rate Homicide rate (reversed)UN Office on Drugs and Crime, 2010
Crime VictimizationPercent adults victimized in last 12 months (reversed)
OECD Society at a Glance, 2009
Low suicide rate Suicide rate (reversed) OECD, Health Database, 2010.
Few road fatalitiesRoad fatalities per million population (reversed)
OECD, Factbook, 2008.
September 6, 2010 15
Health Indicators
September 6, 2010 Ron Anderson – [email protected] 16
Indicator Data Used Source
Life Expectancy Life expectancy at birth, 2007 OECD Factbook, 2010.
Low incidence of AIDS AIDS rate (reversed)OECD, Health at a Glance, 2009
Low obesityPercent obese age 15+ (reversed)
OECD Factbook, 2010.
Avoidable hospital admissions for congestive heart failure (CHF)
Avoidable admissions for CHF (reversed)
OECD, Health at a Glance, 2009
Non-Violence Index Indicators
September 6, 2010 Ron Anderson – [email protected] 18
Indicator Data Used Source
Contributions to peaceIndex of Contributions to Global Peace
Economist Intelligence Unit, 2008
Total Armed Forces per capita
Total Armed Forces per capita (reversed)
The Military Balance, 2010
Low defense spending per person
Per capita spending for defense in 2008 (reversed)
The Military Balance, 2010
Low arms exports per person
Arms exports per capita, 2009 (reversed)
Stockholm Int’l Peace Research Institute, 2010
Integrity & Justice Indicators
September 6, 2010 Ron Anderson – [email protected] 20
Indicator Data Used Source
Corruption-free organizationsCorruption Perceptions Index, 2009
Transparency International
Corporate Social Responsibility
Index of Corporate Social Responsibility
Scand. J. of Management 25 (2009), 10-22.
Low prison populationsPrisoners per 100,000 persons in 2009 (reversed)
OECD Factbook, 2010
Protection of Citizens from Surveillance
International Privacy Index Privacy International, 2007
72
94
94
96
98
99
99
99
100
100
101
102
102
105
105
105
105
106
108
111
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
United States
New Zealand
United Kingdom
Austria
Australia
Ireland
Netherlands
Denmark
France
Sweden
Japan
Norway
Germany
Canada
Spain
Switzerland
Belgium
Finland
Portugal
Italy
Integrity & Social Justice Index
Democracy & Freedom Index Indicators
September 6, 2010 Ron Anderson – [email protected] 22
Indicator Data Used Source
Democracy Index Democracy rating by nationEconomist Intelligence Unit, 2008
Turnout in national electionsPercent voting in most recent parliamentary/congressional elections
International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, 2010
Freedom of the press Index of Freedom of the PressFreedom House, Global Press Freedom, 2009
Women members of Parliament/Congress
Percent of members who are women in 2009
UN Statistics Division
Compassion Index Indicators
September 6, 2010 Ron Anderson – [email protected] 24
Indicator Data Used Source
Kindness & helpfulness of peers
Percent of children age 11, 13, 15, who reported kind peers
Health Behavior of School age Children study, 2001
Refugees hosted per citizenRefugees hosted per 1,000 citizens
UM Refugee Agency Statistical Yearbook, 2008
Government aid to developing countries
Index of Aid to Developing Countries, 2009
Center for Global Development, Commit. To Development Index
Government social spending as percent of GDP
Government social expenditures in 2005
OECD Factbook, 2010
One indicator is amount of “Aid to Developing Countries” without strings attached.
The index takes into account the quality as well as quantity of the aid given. For instance, military aid is weighted much less than unencumbered economic assistance.
September 6, 2010 Ron Anderson – [email protected] 25
Four Conclusions
1. Quality of life (Good Society) differences among affluent societies obviously can not be explained by economics (wealth and Income) alone. How people, and their politicians, view their responsibilities for each other, their commitment for compassionate action, and the meaning of others in their society also determines to what extent all have an opportunity for social well-being or participation in a ‘good society.’
2. Consistent with numerous comparative analysts (such as Lindert
(2004), Pontusso (2005), and Kenworthy (2004)) the Nordic countries topped the Good Society Index. Countries like the USA, where neo-liberal economics predominate, did very poorly on all dimensions of the Index. One can point to the weakness of several of the indicators, but it is difficult to dismiss the overall profile of the results. These results confirm that it is not necessary for an affluent society to be a ‘bad society.’
September 6, 2010 Ron Anderson – [email protected] 27
Conclusions
1. It may be surprising to some that the United States falls at or near the bottom of each of the ‘Good Society’ dimensions. On prison rates, obesity, murders, and defense spending, the USA is not just higher, but two to three times higher than the next highest nation. These measures of the national character were not randomly selected, but chosen to reflect the ‘good society’ framework. At a minimum, the results give reason to pause for serious reflection.
4. Most of the countries clustered around the middle range of the
continuum of indicators for the ‘Good Society’. That few of the countries scored at extremely high points on the indicators suggests how challenging it is for a rich society to remain a ‘Good Society.’ We who enjoy the comfort of living in these ‘rich’ societies should not forget about the many millions who live with us but struggle daily from homelessness, discrimination, and even hunger.
September 6, 2010 Ron Anderson – [email protected] 28