Hamartia Antidote
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2013
- Messages
- 35,188
- Reaction score
- 30
- Country
- Location
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/overall-full-list
1) Switzerland
2) Canada
3) UK
4) Germany
5) Japan
6) Sweden
7) US
8) Australia
9) France
10) Norway
11) Netherlands
12) Denmark
13) Finland
14) New Zealand
15) Singapore
16) Italy
17) Luxembourg
18) Austria
19) Spain
20) China
21) Ireland
22) UAE
23) South Korea
24) Portugal
25) India
26) Thailand
27) Russia
28) Brazil
29) Greece
30) Israel
31) Poland
32) Saudi Arabia
33) Mexico
34) Qatar
35) Malaysia
36) Turkey
37) Czech Republic
38) South Africa
39) Indonesia
40) Vietnam
41) Panama
42) Argentina
43) Philippines
44) Peru
45) Egypt
46) Hungary
47) Costa Rica
48) Morocco
49) Croatia
50) Sri Lanka
51) Dominican Republic
52) Chile
53) Slovenia
54) Uruguay
55) Ecuador
56) Bahrain
57) Myanmar
58) Romania
59) Tanzania
60) Latvia
61) Kenya
62) Colombia
63) Bulgaria
64) Tunisia
65) Guatemala
66) Oman
67) Jordan
68) Ghana
69) Azerbaijan
70) Belarus
71) Kazakhstan
72) Bolivia
73) Ukraine
74) Pakistan
75) Angola
76) Lebanon
77) Nigeria
78) Algeria
79) Iran
80) Serbia
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/methodology
Methodology: How the 2017 Best Countries Were Ranked
Behind a country’s wealth and success are the policies that create possibilities, the people that drive the effort and the history that shapes the environment and perspective.
Globalization has expanded a country’s presence beyond its physical borders, and the 2017 Best Countries rankings seek to understand a nation’s worth beyond hard metrics.
The 2017 Best Countries report and rankings are based on how global perceptions define countries in terms of a number of qualitative characteristics, impressions that have the potential to drive trade, travel and investment and directly affect national economies. Eighty nations – up from 60 in the inaugural rankings – were measured in the report.
Ranking the Countries
The study and model used to score and rank countries were developed by Y&R’s BAV Consulting, specifically John Gerzema and Anna Blender, and The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, specifically Professor David J. Reibstein, in consultation with U.S. News & World Report.
A set of 65 country attributes – terms that can be used to describe a country and that are also relevant to the success of a modern nation – were identified. Attributes by nation were presented in a survey of more than 21,000 people from across the globe. Participants assessed how closely they associated an attribute with a nation.
Each country was scored on each of the 65 country attributes based on a collection of individual survey responses. The more a country was perceived to exemplify a certain characteristic in relation to the average, the higher that country’s attribute score and vice versa. These scores were normalized to account for outliers and transformed into a scale that could be compared across the board.
Attributes were grouped into nine subrankings that rolled into the Best Countries ranking: Adventure, Citizenship, Cultural Influence, Entrepreneurship, Heritage, Movers, Open for Business, Power and Quality of Life.
These thematic subrankings were formed by grouping country attributes that had similar global trends in survey responses. Subranking scores for each country were determined by averaging the scores that country received in each of the attributes comprising that subranking.
To determine the weight each subranking score had in the overall Best Countries score, each was correlated to 2014 gross domestic product purchasing power parity per capita, a measure of inclusive prosperity, as reported by the International Monetary Fund. Subrankings that demonstrated a stronger relationship with the wealth metric were weighted more heavily, and all weights were standardized to total 100. This follows the same model as the 2016 Best Countries rankings.
The Movers subranking represents a version of BAV’s BrandAsset Valuator Model of Brand Building, a metric developed by BAV that is predictive of a country’s future growth in terms of gross domestic product purchasing power parity per capita. Instead of one year of data, it was correlated to predicted growth of the metric from 2014 to 2020.
The subrankings, their weights in calculating the overall ranking score and the country attributes factored into each are below. The country attribute scores were equally weighted within each subranking. Subranking weights do not add up to precisely 100.00 due to rounding.
Adventure (3.24 percent): friendly, fun, pleasant climate, scenic, sexy
Citizenship (16.95 percent): cares about human rights, cares about the environment, gender equality, progressive, religious freedom, respects property rights, trustworthy, well-distributed political power
Cultural Influence (12.93 percent): culturally significant in terms of entertainment, fashionable, happy, has an influential culture, modern, prestigious, trendy
Entrepreneurship (17.42 percent): connected to the rest of the world, educated population, entrepreneurial, innovative, provides easy access to capital, skilled labor force, technological expertise, transparent business
practices, well-developed infrastructure, well-developed legal framework
Heritage (3.17 percent): culturally accessible, has a rich history, has great food, many cultural attractions
Movers (10.00 percent): different, distinctive, dynamic, unique
Open for Business (11.99 percent): bureaucratic, cheap manufacturing costs, corrupt, favorable tax environment, transparent government practices
Power (7.42 percent): a leader, economically influential, politically influential, strong international alliances, strong military
Quality of Life (16.89 percent): a good job market, affordable, economically stable, family friendly, income equality, politically stable, safe, well-developed public education system, well-developed public health system
To arrive at a country’s rank, we first calculated its standardized scores for each of the 65 country attributes. Each country received nine subranking scores by averaging its scores for the country attributes grouped into that subranking. A country’s overall score reflects the weighted sum of its subranking scores. The subranking and overall scores were rescaled so that the top country in each category received a value of 100, and others were calculated as a proportion of that top score. Scores were ranked in descending order.
Additional lists rank the countries on more specific topics, such as the Best Countries for Women and the Best Countries for Education. Groups of relevant country attribute data were used to score and rank countries for these lists, but they do not affect the overall Best Countries score or ranking.
Choosing Survey Participants
To understand how countries are perceived, we endeavored to survey engaged citizens who are broadly representative of the global population, with an emphasis on those who would deem the topic and findings most relevant to their lives.
Self-identification in demographic questions distinguished respondents into three defined groups: informed elites - college educated individuals who consider themselves middle class or higher and who read or watch the news at least four days a week; business decision-makers - senior leaders in an organization or small business owners who employ others; and general public - adults at least 18 years old who were nationally representative of their country in terms of age and gender.
Individuals who were likely to fit these descriptions were targeted and sent the link to an online survey through Lightspeed GMI, a global market research and data collection firm. We aimed to gather an equal share of responses from each type of citizen.
A total of 21,372 individuals from 36 countries in four regions - the Americas, Asia, Europe and the Middle East and Africa - were surveyed. Of the respondents, 12,396 were informed elites and 6,489 were business decision-makers. Some respondents were considered both informed elites and business decision-makers.
Regardless of demographics or participant type, each individual’s responses weighed equally in the results.
Data Source: About the Survey
Survey participants were given a random subset of countries and country attributes to consider. The combinations were presented in a grid form where participants were prompted to check off the characteristics they associated with each country. If a participant indicated that they were not familiar with a country, it was removed from their survey.
Each participant considered about half of the country attributes for about a third of the countries. In this way, each attribute and country pair was reviewed at least 270 times by each of the three types of survey participants in each of the four regions. The more times an attribute-country pair was checked off in the grid, the higher the attribute score was for that country.
In addition to considering countries in terms of attributes, each survey participant was asked to assess their randomly assigned subset of countries in additional engagement and intention metrics, including travel, doing business and general regard.
A set of standard demographic questions helped to screen for global diversity and equal weight among participant groups.
Choosing the Countries to Rank
We narrowed the world’s nations down to a statistically manageable group by comparing the performance of countries in a number of key business, economic and quality of life indicators.
The 80 countries in the 2017 Best Countries rankings had to meet four benchmarks within the last two years for which data are available to be assessed in survey and included in the rankings:
Top 100 countries in terms of gross domestic product in 2015 or 2014, based on World Bank Data
Top 150 countries in the UN's Human Development Index, based on the 2015 or 2014 report
Top 100 countries in terms of foreign direct investment inflows in 2014 or 2013, based on United Nations data
Top 100 countries in terms of international tourism receipts in 2014 or international tourism arrivals in 2013, based on World Bank data
This is a change from the 2016 edition in which countries were required to reach the benchmark in the single most recent year for which data were available to be included in the ranking. Those that did not reach all four of these benchmarks and those that did not report these statistics were not included.
Collectively, the 80 countries in the report account for about 95 percent of global gross domestic product and represent more than 80 percent of the world’s population. They span the globe, covering Africa, Asia, Central America, Eurasia, Europe, the Middle East, North America, Oceania and South America.
Methodology FAQ
Some of the country attributes reflect more unfavorable aspects of a country. Could high scores on these attributes help raise a country’s score or rank?
Scores for the negative country attributes - bureaucratic and corrupt - were inverted when calculated into the sub-ranking and overall scores. In this way, the countries that were the most closely associated with these attributes performed worse.
Were there ties?
No, scores were calculated in relation to each other in a way that did not allow for ties.
Could survey participants answer about their country of residence or citizenship?
Yes. Survey participants could answer about any country that was randomly assigned to them as long as they did not indicate that they were not familiar with that country.
The survey refers to 65 country attributes, but there are not that many listed.
Correct. Eight country attributes were not included in any of the sub-rankings and therefore do not factor into the overall Best Countries score or rank. These data may be used in additional analysis.
This methodology mentions a group of 80 countries and a group of 36 countries. What’s the difference?
Eighty countries were reviewed in a survey to create these rankings. People from 36 countries answered that survey. In many cases, countries overlapped, but the survey was fielded in some countries that were not ranked and vice versa.
Why are a few rankings missing some countries?
In the Best Countries to Invest In and Best Countries to Start a Career, we thought it was best to compare survey responses between two types of participants. Countries with low initial scores were excluded from the list as the comparison would create misleading results. Neither of these lists affect the overall Best Countries scores or ranking.
Where can I learn more about the study and the model?
See the answers to some frequently asked questions here, and contact pr@usnews.com to reach U.S. News. Our partners advise governments, corporations and NGO’s on nation branding including bespoke country analysis and other reports. Professor David Reibstein can be reached at reibstein@wharton.upenn.edu. John Gerzema is at jgerzema@bavconsulting.com and Anna Blender is at ablender@bavconsulting.com. For more information see http://bavconsulting.com/nationbranding.
1) Switzerland
2) Canada
3) UK
4) Germany
5) Japan
6) Sweden
7) US
8) Australia
9) France
10) Norway
11) Netherlands
12) Denmark
13) Finland
14) New Zealand
15) Singapore
16) Italy
17) Luxembourg
18) Austria
19) Spain
20) China
21) Ireland
22) UAE
23) South Korea
24) Portugal
25) India
26) Thailand
27) Russia
28) Brazil
29) Greece
30) Israel
31) Poland
32) Saudi Arabia
33) Mexico
34) Qatar
35) Malaysia
36) Turkey
37) Czech Republic
38) South Africa
39) Indonesia
40) Vietnam
41) Panama
42) Argentina
43) Philippines
44) Peru
45) Egypt
46) Hungary
47) Costa Rica
48) Morocco
49) Croatia
50) Sri Lanka
51) Dominican Republic
52) Chile
53) Slovenia
54) Uruguay
55) Ecuador
56) Bahrain
57) Myanmar
58) Romania
59) Tanzania
60) Latvia
61) Kenya
62) Colombia
63) Bulgaria
64) Tunisia
65) Guatemala
66) Oman
67) Jordan
68) Ghana
69) Azerbaijan
70) Belarus
71) Kazakhstan
72) Bolivia
73) Ukraine
74) Pakistan
75) Angola
76) Lebanon
77) Nigeria
78) Algeria
79) Iran
80) Serbia
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/methodology
Methodology: How the 2017 Best Countries Were Ranked
Behind a country’s wealth and success are the policies that create possibilities, the people that drive the effort and the history that shapes the environment and perspective.
Globalization has expanded a country’s presence beyond its physical borders, and the 2017 Best Countries rankings seek to understand a nation’s worth beyond hard metrics.
The 2017 Best Countries report and rankings are based on how global perceptions define countries in terms of a number of qualitative characteristics, impressions that have the potential to drive trade, travel and investment and directly affect national economies. Eighty nations – up from 60 in the inaugural rankings – were measured in the report.
Ranking the Countries
The study and model used to score and rank countries were developed by Y&R’s BAV Consulting, specifically John Gerzema and Anna Blender, and The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, specifically Professor David J. Reibstein, in consultation with U.S. News & World Report.
A set of 65 country attributes – terms that can be used to describe a country and that are also relevant to the success of a modern nation – were identified. Attributes by nation were presented in a survey of more than 21,000 people from across the globe. Participants assessed how closely they associated an attribute with a nation.
Each country was scored on each of the 65 country attributes based on a collection of individual survey responses. The more a country was perceived to exemplify a certain characteristic in relation to the average, the higher that country’s attribute score and vice versa. These scores were normalized to account for outliers and transformed into a scale that could be compared across the board.
Attributes were grouped into nine subrankings that rolled into the Best Countries ranking: Adventure, Citizenship, Cultural Influence, Entrepreneurship, Heritage, Movers, Open for Business, Power and Quality of Life.
These thematic subrankings were formed by grouping country attributes that had similar global trends in survey responses. Subranking scores for each country were determined by averaging the scores that country received in each of the attributes comprising that subranking.
To determine the weight each subranking score had in the overall Best Countries score, each was correlated to 2014 gross domestic product purchasing power parity per capita, a measure of inclusive prosperity, as reported by the International Monetary Fund. Subrankings that demonstrated a stronger relationship with the wealth metric were weighted more heavily, and all weights were standardized to total 100. This follows the same model as the 2016 Best Countries rankings.
The Movers subranking represents a version of BAV’s BrandAsset Valuator Model of Brand Building, a metric developed by BAV that is predictive of a country’s future growth in terms of gross domestic product purchasing power parity per capita. Instead of one year of data, it was correlated to predicted growth of the metric from 2014 to 2020.
The subrankings, their weights in calculating the overall ranking score and the country attributes factored into each are below. The country attribute scores were equally weighted within each subranking. Subranking weights do not add up to precisely 100.00 due to rounding.
Adventure (3.24 percent): friendly, fun, pleasant climate, scenic, sexy
Citizenship (16.95 percent): cares about human rights, cares about the environment, gender equality, progressive, religious freedom, respects property rights, trustworthy, well-distributed political power
Cultural Influence (12.93 percent): culturally significant in terms of entertainment, fashionable, happy, has an influential culture, modern, prestigious, trendy
Entrepreneurship (17.42 percent): connected to the rest of the world, educated population, entrepreneurial, innovative, provides easy access to capital, skilled labor force, technological expertise, transparent business
practices, well-developed infrastructure, well-developed legal framework
Heritage (3.17 percent): culturally accessible, has a rich history, has great food, many cultural attractions
Movers (10.00 percent): different, distinctive, dynamic, unique
Open for Business (11.99 percent): bureaucratic, cheap manufacturing costs, corrupt, favorable tax environment, transparent government practices
Power (7.42 percent): a leader, economically influential, politically influential, strong international alliances, strong military
Quality of Life (16.89 percent): a good job market, affordable, economically stable, family friendly, income equality, politically stable, safe, well-developed public education system, well-developed public health system
To arrive at a country’s rank, we first calculated its standardized scores for each of the 65 country attributes. Each country received nine subranking scores by averaging its scores for the country attributes grouped into that subranking. A country’s overall score reflects the weighted sum of its subranking scores. The subranking and overall scores were rescaled so that the top country in each category received a value of 100, and others were calculated as a proportion of that top score. Scores were ranked in descending order.
Additional lists rank the countries on more specific topics, such as the Best Countries for Women and the Best Countries for Education. Groups of relevant country attribute data were used to score and rank countries for these lists, but they do not affect the overall Best Countries score or ranking.
Choosing Survey Participants
To understand how countries are perceived, we endeavored to survey engaged citizens who are broadly representative of the global population, with an emphasis on those who would deem the topic and findings most relevant to their lives.
Self-identification in demographic questions distinguished respondents into three defined groups: informed elites - college educated individuals who consider themselves middle class or higher and who read or watch the news at least four days a week; business decision-makers - senior leaders in an organization or small business owners who employ others; and general public - adults at least 18 years old who were nationally representative of their country in terms of age and gender.
Individuals who were likely to fit these descriptions were targeted and sent the link to an online survey through Lightspeed GMI, a global market research and data collection firm. We aimed to gather an equal share of responses from each type of citizen.
A total of 21,372 individuals from 36 countries in four regions - the Americas, Asia, Europe and the Middle East and Africa - were surveyed. Of the respondents, 12,396 were informed elites and 6,489 were business decision-makers. Some respondents were considered both informed elites and business decision-makers.
Regardless of demographics or participant type, each individual’s responses weighed equally in the results.
Data Source: About the Survey
Survey participants were given a random subset of countries and country attributes to consider. The combinations were presented in a grid form where participants were prompted to check off the characteristics they associated with each country. If a participant indicated that they were not familiar with a country, it was removed from their survey.
Each participant considered about half of the country attributes for about a third of the countries. In this way, each attribute and country pair was reviewed at least 270 times by each of the three types of survey participants in each of the four regions. The more times an attribute-country pair was checked off in the grid, the higher the attribute score was for that country.
In addition to considering countries in terms of attributes, each survey participant was asked to assess their randomly assigned subset of countries in additional engagement and intention metrics, including travel, doing business and general regard.
A set of standard demographic questions helped to screen for global diversity and equal weight among participant groups.
Choosing the Countries to Rank
We narrowed the world’s nations down to a statistically manageable group by comparing the performance of countries in a number of key business, economic and quality of life indicators.
The 80 countries in the 2017 Best Countries rankings had to meet four benchmarks within the last two years for which data are available to be assessed in survey and included in the rankings:
Top 100 countries in terms of gross domestic product in 2015 or 2014, based on World Bank Data
Top 150 countries in the UN's Human Development Index, based on the 2015 or 2014 report
Top 100 countries in terms of foreign direct investment inflows in 2014 or 2013, based on United Nations data
Top 100 countries in terms of international tourism receipts in 2014 or international tourism arrivals in 2013, based on World Bank data
This is a change from the 2016 edition in which countries were required to reach the benchmark in the single most recent year for which data were available to be included in the ranking. Those that did not reach all four of these benchmarks and those that did not report these statistics were not included.
Collectively, the 80 countries in the report account for about 95 percent of global gross domestic product and represent more than 80 percent of the world’s population. They span the globe, covering Africa, Asia, Central America, Eurasia, Europe, the Middle East, North America, Oceania and South America.
Methodology FAQ
Some of the country attributes reflect more unfavorable aspects of a country. Could high scores on these attributes help raise a country’s score or rank?
Scores for the negative country attributes - bureaucratic and corrupt - were inverted when calculated into the sub-ranking and overall scores. In this way, the countries that were the most closely associated with these attributes performed worse.
Were there ties?
No, scores were calculated in relation to each other in a way that did not allow for ties.
Could survey participants answer about their country of residence or citizenship?
Yes. Survey participants could answer about any country that was randomly assigned to them as long as they did not indicate that they were not familiar with that country.
The survey refers to 65 country attributes, but there are not that many listed.
Correct. Eight country attributes were not included in any of the sub-rankings and therefore do not factor into the overall Best Countries score or rank. These data may be used in additional analysis.
This methodology mentions a group of 80 countries and a group of 36 countries. What’s the difference?
Eighty countries were reviewed in a survey to create these rankings. People from 36 countries answered that survey. In many cases, countries overlapped, but the survey was fielded in some countries that were not ranked and vice versa.
Why are a few rankings missing some countries?
In the Best Countries to Invest In and Best Countries to Start a Career, we thought it was best to compare survey responses between two types of participants. Countries with low initial scores were excluded from the list as the comparison would create misleading results. Neither of these lists affect the overall Best Countries scores or ranking.
Where can I learn more about the study and the model?
See the answers to some frequently asked questions here, and contact pr@usnews.com to reach U.S. News. Our partners advise governments, corporations and NGO’s on nation branding including bespoke country analysis and other reports. Professor David Reibstein can be reached at reibstein@wharton.upenn.edu. John Gerzema is at jgerzema@bavconsulting.com and Anna Blender is at ablender@bavconsulting.com. For more information see http://bavconsulting.com/nationbranding.
Last edited:
