Because the data in the 35 indicators which make up the Good Country Index are collected in different forms and at different times for different reasons, it’s impossible to focus the Index on any single year – some indicators report on things which have happened during the previous year, a few of them are constantly updated, and some of them relate to behaviours which may have taken place up to a decade earlier. For this reason, we’ve used mostly 2011 data (with the exception of 1 indicator) to provide a baseline for the latest edition of the Good Country Index (Edition 1.1). It’s as close as the available data allows to a complete portrait of the world at any point in time. For the earlier edition (Edition 1.0) we’ve used mostly 2010 data.
The methodology is exactly the same but we’ve replaced seven of the thirty-five datasets with ones that do a better job of measuring each country’s global impact:
1. In the Peace and Security category, we’re using a new dataset to measure Internet Security.
2. In the World Order category, we’ve replaced Population Growth with Birth Rate.
3. In the Planet and Climate category, we’ve replaced four out of the five indicators:
o Ecological Footprint (per GDP$) has replaced Biocapacity Reserve
o Reforestation Since 1992 replaces Hazardous Waste Exports
o Hazardous Pesticides Exports replaces Water Pollution
o Consumption of Ozone-Depleting Substances replaces Other Greenhouse gas emissions
4. In the Health and Wellbeing category, International Health Regulations Compliance replaces Drug Seizures.
For this reason, any changes in a country’s ranking in these four categories since the previous edition of the Good Country Index may be wholly or partly the result of these modifications, rather than any change in the country’s real performance.
In future editions of the Good Country Index, we will continue to include better data whenever we find it, which means that direct comparisons between one edition and another won’t be straightforward: but we feel that this is a worthwhile price to pay for a constantly improving study.
The second edition of the Good Country Index is called the Good Country Index 1.1 rather than the 2016 Good Country Index, since we're focused as much on continuing to improve the approach as updating the data. In this latest edition, some indicators have been replaced and it is based largely on 2011 data.
How can you rank Germany/Russia/UK/USA so high? Have you ever even HEARD of Hitler/Stalin/the British Empire/Hiroshima?
The Good Country Index cannot be, and does not attempt to be, a historical overview of each country's contribution to humanity and the planet. It can only focus on a single point in time, or else the data becomes overwhelming. Consider: it took a small team of volunteer statisticians and researchers two years to collect, verify and process the 2010 data for 125 countries which underpins the first edition of the Good Country Index. If we had also included 2009, that would have taken another two years. To include 2008 would have taken us six years ... and so on.
And good global statistics of the kind we're using only go back a couple of decades anyway, so to examine, measure and account for the roots and causes and origins of today’s world would be a 99.9% subjective exercise.
Of course, understanding a country also means understanding its history: as George Santayana said, those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. But how would we even begin to put a reliable numerical score on the past actions of 163 countries, no matter how strong our feelings and opinions about them might be?
Exactly how many points should we take away from the Germans of today for the Holocaust, two generations after the crimes of their parents, grandparents and great-grandparents? How many points should we deduct from Britain for the British Empire, or from India for its own Chola Empire six hundred years earlier? How many points should we give the Greeks for their country’s contribution to human wisdom two thousand years ago, and is it right that present-day Iran should take all the credit for what the Persians achieved five thousand years ago? Do we give more points to the Italians for the poetry of Virgil or deduct more points for the crucifixion of Christ by the Romans? Shouldn’t we penalise the entire Western world for slavery? Is it right to mark down the whole South African nation for the crime of apartheid?
These are all discussions which are well worth having, but they can't ever be resolved - and especially not by a relatively simple, entirely unfunded, data-driven index. The Good Country Index can only answer one simple question about countries: what are they doing for humanity now? Having an answer to that question is a useful contribution to the discussion, but it certainly doesn't intend to resolve it.
What about the recent scandal/invasion/attack/war/policy/election in country x? Surely they should be at the bottom of the Good Country Index because of that?
The Good Country Index doesn’t react to specific events because there’s usually no objective way of measuring their impact on the world. Many behaviours – such as wars, for example – will, in time, be reflected in the data sources that the Good Country Index is based on (the UCDP-PRIO Armed Conflict Dataset in the case of wars) and so they will be accounted for in future updates. But as yet we have no reliable mechanism for reacting to one-off episodes. We’re working on this, and suggestions are gratefully received.