How we did it
These rankings are not scientific, just a way to show which countries playing in the World Cup do best across our range of indicators.
We think inequality is a ‘bad thing’, so countries do better the more equal they are, and the more women they have in government. Similarly, we don’t like climate change, so countries do better the less carbon dioxide they emit per person.
We like to cheer for the underdog, so countries do better in our rankings the poorer they are. Similarly, we give an extra boost of support for the countries which have qualified for the World Cup despite having lots of people going hungry every day.
We think dying in childbirth is a ‘bad thing’; the higher maternal mortality, the worse a country does in our rankings.
We think rich countries should meet their commitments to spend 0.7 per cent of their national income on aid. So the more a rich country gives in aid the better they do.
In contrast, the more money spent on the military, the worse a country scores.
For the final two statistics (life expectancy and happiness) we thought both high and low scores were reasons to support a team, so left them out of contributing to our rankings. We want to support happy countries, but would it be good if an unhappy country won to give them a boost? As underdog supporters, we like cheering for teams with a low life expectancy, but a high life expectancy is a good thing we want to support too.
Each indicator is weighted the same. If there are no statistics available for a country on a certain measure, of if it does not apply to them (such as a poor country giving aid) it makes no contribution to their ranking.
The result? Four rich European countries are in the top ten (The Netherlands, Spain, Germany, Switzerland), whilst high poverty South Africa is down at 28. Ghana is one of three African countries in the top five, along with Latin American Paraguay and Honduras.
So why does Ghana come out on top? It spends very little on the military and has very low carbon emissions. It’s a poor country with a lot of hunger. The West African country is mid-table for equality and women in government, and only scores badly on maternal mortality.
And why does the USA come so low? It’s the richest country with the highest carbon emissions and the largest military spending. It also scores poorly due to its high level of inequality and the low level of aid it gives. Despite being so rich, it only comes mid-table on maternal mortality. The USA is also mid-table for women in government.
England is quite low down too. Like the US it scores badly for its high carbon emissions, high military spending and high inequality. It does well on maternal mortality and women in government, but several countries do better. In comparison, Germany also does badly on high carbon emissions. But it spends a lot less than England on the military, and is one of the most equal countries taking part in the World Cup. Germany’s maternal mortality is very low, and number of women in government is very high.
But this is just our view. Compare the teams and decide who you want to cheer for.
A very big disclaimer
‘Who should I cheer for?’ does not in any way represent WDM’s official view on the policies pursued by the countries featured, nor should it be taken as an overall ranking of how ‘good’ or ‘bad’ countries are (though the countries who give the most aid should be applauded and those who give the least condemned). It is intended to be a fun and interesting way to think about serious issues. Please take it in that spirit.
