Introducing the Index,
Nathan Gamester, Programme Director for the Legatum Prosperity Index, explained that its strength lies in the incorporation of both economic and wellbeing factors in its data analysis. Merging these two means the Legatum Institute is able to produce a “more complete picture of national prosperity than any other tool of its kind” he believed.
The Index, produced by the
Legatum Institute, benchmarks 142 countries around the world in eight distinct sub-indices: economy; education; entrepreneurship and opportunity; governance; health; personal freedom; safety and security and social capital.
Technological, infrastructure and connectivity has driven global growth in all these categories for the first time, Gamester explained, though the UK has fallen in six of the eight factors measured.
Additionally many Asian countries have been overtaking the UK and USA in economically over the last five years, often due to their savings policies, and India has been overtaken by Bangladesh in almost all categories.
Gamester noted some of the difficulties associated with data comparability, noting how adding in around 30 countries to the Index last year had been a particular challenge.
Asked whether the data had highlighted any key, underlying driver of prosperity, Gamester pointed to entrepreneurship and opportunity as being particularly important, as well as good governance.
Brendan Burchell, Head of Sociology at the University of Cambridge, argued that the factors of wellbeing could be separated out further.
Instead of focusing simply on the factors of satisfaction, quality of life also has to be key, he said, noting the importance of distinguishing between someone having a job and someone having a good job.
“If we are just trying to drive up satisfaction, we are always going to be frustrated” argued Burchell.
Jules Evans, Policy Director for the Centre for the History of the Emotions at Queen Mary, University of London, warned of the danger of importing our own values into the supposedly objective measures.
He said the rise of the “politics of wellbeing” had come into fashion recently, but that this is innately difficult to measure objectively.
He suggested measurements of wellbeing are more recognisable on a local level.
Chairing the meeting,
Jeffrey Gedmin, President and CEO of the
Legatum Institute
, asked how to get the balance right between identifying key drivers whilst also recognising that different countries will have different drivers.
Evans believed that participation and wisdom are both key drivers to wellbeing that governments could hope to encourage.
Len Shackleton, Professor of Economics at the University of Buckingham, and former Dean of Westminster Business School, welcomed the general trend of prosperity increasing around the world.
He argued that the question of whether government is actually part of the solution or the problem “remains to be discussed”, as there are likely many countries with populations that would prefer their governments to have as little involvement in their lives as possible.
Shackleton noted that there had been suggestions recently that it was wellbeing and happiness may well be increased without strong economic growth. He argued that the last five years have acted as a test to this theory, and pointed to how the UK’s drop in the Index demonstrated it was not the case.
Burchell warned against short term wins for population happiness that could potentially lead to dramatic unhappiness in the long term, and pointed to ignoring climate change as the best example of this.
Asked about the balance between what government or individuals can do to shape their own wellbeing, Evans argued that governments can provide “wisdom in a non-coercive way” to help individuals.
He agreed with Gedmin that community groups can have a “huge role to play” in bringing people together and improving societies’ wellbeing.
Asked how the index of personal freedom is produced, as there are traditionally huge differences between expectations and actualities in these kinds of subjects.
Gamester explained that factors including perceptions of personal freedom, tolerance towards immigrants and measures of civil liberties and free choice are all used.
A member of the audience queried whether national laws are being focused on too much, at the expense of ignoring existing corruption.
There seems to be an impasse between how the better educated are sometimes more inclined to rate their own living circumstances lower, another audience member suggested.
“With education we bring higher expectations, and it is very difficult to fill those” agreed Burchell. He therefore advocated focusing on slightly more objective indicators.
Shackleton noted that education’s link to economic growth is variable, but said it does still tend to increase wellbeing.
Asked to comment on a perceived paradox of how the Index was largely being welcomed, even though a number of policy experts had specific issues with their own key area.
Gamester argued that in using both the objective and subjective data types in the Index, it helped to balance out the possible, and potentially unavoidable, fluctuations in the data comparability.