U.S. Ranks 35th in 'Report Card' on World Social Progress; Sudden, Unexpected Shift Forward for Africa
October 26, 2009(PhysOrg.com) -- Sweden and Denmark lead the world in social progress, Afghanistan is at the bottom of the list and the United States ranks 35th among 162 nations, tied with Ireland, Latvia and Hong Kong. Those are among the rankings in the latest Index of Social Progress.
These “world social report” figures, which document global social progress for the last 40 years, were released this week by Richard Estes, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania School of Social Policy & Practice, at the 2009 Globalization Forum at the Penn Institute for Urban Research.
The 12th in a series, the report notes a continuing social decline in the U.S., attributing this to increasing poverty across the nation and a weakened social infrastructure, even for the middle class. Other noteworthy changes include the sudden and unexpected shift forward for Africa as a whole, after more than 30 years of persistent and often overwhelming social decline.
In addition, the report notes steady but uneven progress over the last 40 years in Latin America, due to increasing prosperity among its largest countries, including Brazil, as well as dramatic increases for Asia, especially in China, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and Hong Kong with unparalleled levels of growth and prosperity.
The nations comprising the top 10 are Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Germany, Iceland, Austria, Finland, Italy, France and Luxembourg. The bottom 10 are Afghanistan, Liberia, Chad, Eritrea, Somalia, Angola, Guinea-Bissau, Sierra Leone, the Democratic Republic of Congo and the Central African Republic.
Using data provided to the United Nations, the World Bank and other data-collection bodies by national governments, Estes’ study measures the ability of nations to meet the needs of their residents in terms of health, education, human rights, political participation, population growth, cultural diversity and freedom from “social chaos.” Military spending, unemployment and environmental protection also are among the 41 factors used to tabulate the Weighted Index of Social Progress.
More information: Additional details, as well as charts and graphs, are available at http://www.sp2.upenn.edu/~restes/WSS09.html .
Feb 07, 2010
Therefore countries like Canada, Japan, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Iceland, and Mongolia that are secured by firm military alliances with major powers (and thus draw the benefits of having a strong military presence without having the spending show up directly on their balance sheets) have artificially high rankings due to their artificially low military-spending-to-security ratio.
That's not to say that Denmark and Canada don't spend a lot on their militaries; they spend quite a lot, contrary to popular opinion. It's just that they are far stronger militarily than they would be if they weren't in an alliance.
Of course military spending isn't the only poorly thought out part of this study, so those countries get dragged down by other unfair criteria.
For the most part you compare the u.s. to third world countries. Thats like comparing a mercedes benz to toyota tercel. Get a grip, of course you would prefer it here. Just don't get sick.
And for the record I'll take france over the U.S. any day. 20 years ago, no, but now yes.
Belarus (#29) on the list of Socially Progressive countries. I am sure the authors included the following 'glitches' when considering this shining example of Social Progress & Leadership for all of us:
• Lukashenko (President for life), describes himself as having an 'authoritarian ruling style';
• Western countries have described Belarus under Lukashenko as a dictatorship;
• The Council of Europe barred Belarus from membership since '97 for undemocratic voting & election irregularities in '96,
• The Belarusian gov't is also criticized for human rights violations, actions against NGO's, independent journalists, minorities & opposition politicians (No doubt the part that allowed Belarus to leapfrog ahead of Canada & US.
You get the idea! This one example makes this Study a joke!
There is no justification for the 500 billion dollars that the US spends each year on 'defense'. The US did not reduce military spending a penny when the Wall fell in 1989.
The US addiction to military spending has left the US with an inferior infrastructure and quality of life.
The US faces no credible threat that justifies its military stance or the number of nuclear weapons that it harbors.
It represents the triumph of vested interests.
Seeing as Germany is still number 4 in the list I don't see how one could decry this as 'unfair'. Military spending IS a negative. Supporting violence and death cannot really be termed a positive under any point of view.
Well, me too. Needless to say I'm always am glad when I can leave the US and return home. The pervading atmosphere of fear, paranoia and obsession with superficiality is just too much for me to bear in the long run.
I'm not disputing that excessive military spending is a bad thing. I'm saying that the study doesn't properly account for where the security of some countries comes from.
You can't just say "military spending is bad", and then rank Sweden at the top of the list, despite the fact that its security is greatly enhanced by massive military spending... from its EU allies.
In other words, by having strong alliances with military powers, Sweden is actively helping propagate largescale military spending for its own external security. Even though it isn't directly spending that money, it is *supporting* the spending of that money for military purposes, and benefiting from it. It is unfair not to count that support of military spending against countries like Sweden.
If it weren't for that criteria, France and Germany would be #'s 1 and 2.