语言:Afghan Persian or Dari (official) 50%, Pashto (official) 35%, Turkic languages (primarily Uzbek and Turkmen) 11%, 30 minor languages (primarily Balochi and Pashai) 4%, much bilingualism, but Dari functions as the lingua franca
note: the Turkic languages Uzbek and Turkmen, as well as Balochi, Pashai, Nuristani, and Pamiri are the third official languages in areas where the majority speaks them
The 3P Anti-trafficking Policy Index evaluates governmental anti-trafficking efforts in the three main policy dimensions (3Ps), based on the requirements prescribed by the United Nations Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, especially Women and Children (2000).
The three main policy dimensions (3Ps) are:Prosecution of perpetrators of human traffickingPrevention of human traffickingProtection of the victims of human trafficking
Each of the 3P areas is evaluated on a 5-point scale and each index is aggregated to the overall 3P Anti-trafficking Index as the sum (score 3-15).Prosecution Index Score: 1 (no compliance) - 5 (full compliance)Prevention Index Score: 1 (no compliance) - 5 (full compliance)Protection Index Score: 1 (no compliance) - 5 (full compliance)3P Anti-trafficking Policy Index Score: 3 (no compliance for any of the three areas) - 15 (full compliance for all of the three areas)
The 3P Anti-trafficking Policy Index is available for each country and each year and currently includes up to 189 countries for the preiod from 2000 to 2015.
The Bertelsmann Stiftung’s Transformation Index (BTI) analyzes and evaluates the quality of democracy, a market economy and political management in 128 developing and transition countries. It measures successes and setbacks on the path toward a democracy based on the rule of law and a market economy flanked by sociopolitical safeguards. Within this framework, the BTI publishes two rankings, the Status Index and the Management Index. Countries are further categorized on the basis of these status index and management rankings/scores.
For instance, countries are categorized in to 5 groups – viz; 5 or failed, 4 or very limited, 3 or limited, 2 or advanced, and 1 or highly advanced—based on their status index score of 1 to 10. A country with a high score, 8.5 and above, is categorized as highly advanced. A country with a low score, below 4, is categorized as failed. A country is categorized as ‘very limited’ if it has a status index score between 4 and 5.5. A score between 5.5 and 7 means the country is categorized as ‘limited’ and a country is categorized as ‘advanced’ for a score between 7.1 and 8.5.
On the basis of the democratic status ranking, countries are further categorized as 5 or ‘hard - line autocracies,’ 4 or ‘moderate autocracies,’ 3 or ‘highly defective democracies,’ 2 or ‘defective democracies,’ and 1 or ‘democracies in consolidation.’ A country with a democratic status ranking below 4 is categorized as a hard line autocracy. A democratic status score between 4 and 5 means that the country is part of the ‘moderate autocracy’ group. A country is grouped as a ‘highly defective democracy’ for a score between 5 and 6. A country is recognized as a ‘defective democracy’ for a score between 6 and 8, and a score of 8 and above earns a country the status of a ‘democracy in consolidation.’
Countries are also categorized in to 5 groups based on their market economy status ranking. The countries are categorized as ‘rudimentary’ or group 5, ‘poorly functioning’ or group 4, ‘functional flaws’ or group 3, ‘functioning’ or group 2, and ‘developed’ or group 1. A country is recognized as a member of the ‘developed’ group with a market economy status ranking/score of 8 and above. A country is grouped as ‘functioning’ if it has a score between 7 and 8. A market economy status ranking between 5 and 7 means the country is categorized to group 3 or the ‘functional flaws’ group. A score between 3 and 5 means that the country is ‘poorly functioning’ and a score below 3 means the country enjoys a ‘rudimentary’ status.
Based on the management index ranking, countries are categorized as 5 or failed, 4 or weak, 3 or moderate, 2 or good, and1 or very good. A country is categorized as ‘very good’ for a score of 7 and above. It is categorized as ‘good’ for a score between 5.6 and 7, and as ‘moderate’ for a score between 4.4 and 5.5. A score between 3 and 4.3 means a country is categorized as ‘weak,’ and a score below 3 means the categorization of a country as ‘failed.’
Countries are ranked between 1 and 10 on the basis of the level of difficulty they face. The level of difficulty is further categorized as 5 or negligible, 4 or minor, 3 or moderate, 2 or substantial, and 1 or massive. A score of 8.5 and above means the categorization of the country’s level of difficulty as ‘massive, and a score below 2.5 means the categorization of the level of difficulty faced by the country as ‘negligible.’ The level of difficulty score of 2.5 to 4.4 means a country faces a ‘minor’ level of difficulty and a score between 4.5 and 6.4 means the level of difficulty faced by a country is ‘moderate.’ A country with a score of 6.5 to 8.4 faces a ‘substantial’ level of difficulty.
Data cited at CORRUPTION PERCEPTIONS INDEX 2018 by Transparency International is licensed under CC-BY-ND 4.0. Global Corruption Barometer is the largest world-wide public opinion survey on corruption.
see more at https://www.transparency.org/cpi2018
Transparency International(TI) defines corruption as the abuse of entrusted power for private gain. This definition encompasses corrupt practices in both the public and private sectors. The Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) ranks countries according to the perception of corruption in the public sector. The CPI is an aggregate indicator that combines different sources of information about corruption, making it possible to compare countries. The CPI ranks almost 200 countries by their perceived levels of corruption, as determined by expert assessments and opinion surveys.
The World Bank's Country Policy and Institutional Assessment is done annually for all its borrowing countries. It has evolved into a set of criteria, which are grouped in four clusters: (a) economic management; (b) structural policies; (c) policies for social inclusion and equity; and (d) public sector management and institutions. The number of criteria, currently sixteen, reflect a balance between ensuring that all key factors that foster pro-poor growth and poverty alleviation are captured, without overly burdening the evaluation process. Ratings for each of the criteria reflect a variety of indicators, observations, and judgments. They focus on the quality of each country's current policies and institutions - which are the main determinant of present aid effectiveness prospects. To fully underscore the importance of the CPIA in the IDA Performance Based Allocations, the overall country score is referred to as the IDA Resource Allocation Index (IRAI)
Data cited at: Numbeo
Methodology: The Index has been calculated twice per year by considering latest 36 months.
A). Beginning of the Year and
B). Mid Year
Crime Index is an estimation of overall level of crime in a given city or a country. We consider crime levels lower than 20 as very low, crime levels between 20 and 40 as being low, crime levels between 40 and 60 as being moderate, crime levels between 60 and 80 as being high and finally crime levels higher than 80 as being very high.
Safety index is, on the other way, quite opposite of crime index. If the city has a high safety index, it is considered very safe.
Data cited at: Wendling, Z. A., Emerson, J. W., Esty, D. C., Levy, M. A., de Sherbinin, A., et al. (2018). 2018 Environmental Performance Index. New Haven, CT: Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy. https://epi.yale.edu/
The Environmental Performance Index (EPI) is constructed through the calculation and aggregation of 20 indicators reflecting national-level environmental data. These indicators are combined into nine issue categories, each of which fit under one of two overarching objectives. The two objectives that provide the overarching structure of the EPI are Environmental Health and Ecosystem Vitality. Environmental Health measures the protection of human health from environmental harm. Ecosystem Vitality measures ecosystem protection and resource management. These two objectives are further divided into nine issue categories that span high-priority environmental policy issues, including air quality, forests, fisheries, and climate and energy, among others. The issue categories are extensive but not comprehensive. Underlying the nine issue categories are 20 indicators calculated from country-level data and statistics. After more than 15 years of work on environmental performance measurement and six iterations of the EPI, global data are still lacking on a number of key environmental issues. These include: freshwater quality, toxic chemical exposures, municipal solid waste management, nuclear safety, wetlands loss, agricultural soil quality and degradation, recycling rates, adaptation, vulnerability, and resiliency to climate change, desertification.
Data cited at: Fragile States Index - https://fragilestatesindex.org/
The FSI focuses on the indicators of risk and is based on thousands of articles and reports that are processed by our CAST Software from electronically available sources.
Measures of fragility, like Demographic Pressures,Refugees and IDPs and etc., have been scaled on 0 to 10 where 10 is highest fragility and 0 no fragility.
Freedom in the World is Freedom House’s flagship annual report, assessing the condition of political rights and civil liberties around the world. It is composed of numerical ratings and supporting descriptive texts for many countries. Freedom in the World has been published since 1973, allowing Freedom House to track global trends in freedom over more than 40 years. It has become the most widely read and cited report of its kind, used on a regular basis by policymakers, journalists, academics, activists, and many others.
The GID-DB is a database providing researchers and policymakers with key data on gender-based discrimination in social institutions. This data helps analyse women’s empowerment and understand gender gaps in other key areas of development.Covering 180 countries and territories, the GID-DB contains comprehensive information on legal, cultural and traditional practices that discriminate against women and girls.
The aim of the Index is both to capture the multidimensional nature of the quality of life and wellbeing of older people, and to provide a means by which to measure performance and promote improvements. We have chosen 13 different indicators for the four key domains of Income security, Health status, Capability, and Enabling environment. Domain 1: Income security The income security domain assesses people's access to a sufficient amount of income, and the capacity to use it independently, in order to meet basic needs in older age. Domain 2: Health status The three indicators used for the health domain provide information about physical and psychological wellbeing. Domain 3: Capability The employment and education indicators in this domain look at different aspects of the empowerment of older people. Domain 4: Enabling environment This domain uses data from Gallup World View to assess older people's perception of social connectedness, safety, civic freedom and access to public transport - issues older people have singled out as particularly important.
'The TRACE Matrix measures business bribery risk in all countries. Developed in collaboration with RAND Corporation, the TRACE Matrix provides the business community with a powerful new tool for anti-bribery risk assessment. It assesses countries across four domains – Business Interactions with Government, Anti-bribery Laws and Enforcement, Government and Civil Service Transparency, and the Capacity for Civil Society Oversight, including the role of the media – as well as nine sub-domains.
Business interactions with government includes the sub-domains of “contact with government,” “expectation of paying bribes” and “regulatory burden.” These indicators capture aspects of the “touches with government” that TRACE identified as very important for business bribery through regulatory and business interviews they conducted.
Anti-corruption laws enacted by a country and information about enforcement of those laws.
Government and civil service transparency, which includes indicators concerning whether government budgets are publicly available and whether there are regulations addressing conflicts of interest for civil servants.
Information concerning the extent of press freedom and social development, both of which serve as indicators of a robust civil society that can provide government oversight.
The overall country risk score is a combined and weighted score of four domains.
For each of these four "domains" (and related sub-domains), the TRACE Matrix aggregates relevant data obtained from leading public interest and international organizations, including the United Nations, the World Bank and the World Economic Forum. Based on statistical analysis of this information, each country is assigned not only an overall score between 1 and 100—with 100 representing the greatest risk—but also scores for each of the four domains and nine sub-domains.'
DHL released the fifth edition of the DHL Global Connectedness Index (GCI) – a detailed analysis of globalization, measured by international flows of trade, capital, information and people. The new GCI report represents the first comprehensive assessment of developments in globalization across 169 countries and territories since the Brexit referendum in the United Kingdom and the 2016 presidential election in the United States. In spite of growing anti-globalization tensions in many countries, connectedness reached an all-time high in 2017, as the flows of trade, capital, information and people across national borders all intensified significantly for the first time since 2007. Strong economic growth boosted international flows while key policy changes such as US tariff increases had not yet been implemented.
The Global Cybersecurity Index (GCI) is a survey that measures the commitment of Member States to cybersecurity in order to raise awareness.
The GCI revolves around the ITU Global Cybersecurity Agenda (GCA) and its five pillars (legal, technical, organizational, capacity building and cooperation). For each of these pillars, questions were developed to assess commitment. Through consultation with a group of experts, these questions were weighted in order to arrive at an overall GCI score. The survey was administered through an online platform through which supporting evidence was also collected.
One-hundred and thirty-four Member States responded to the survey throughout 2016. Member States who did not respond were invited to validate responses determined from open-source research. As such, the GCI results reported herein cover all 193 ITU Member States.
The 2017 publication of the GCI continues to show the commitment to cybersecurity of countries around the world. The overall picture shows improvement and strengthening of all five elements of the cybersecurity agenda in various countries in all regions. However, there is space for further improvement in cooperation at all levels, capacity building and organizational measures. As well, the gap in the level of cybersecurity engagement between different regions is still present and visible. The level of development of the different pillars varies from country to country in the regions, and while commitment in Europe remains very high in the legal and technical fields in particular, the challenging situation in the Africa and Americas regions shows the need for continued engagement and support.
In addition to providing the GCI score, this report also provides a set of illustrative practices that give insight into the achievements of certain countries.
Global Hunger Index, 2018
The Global Hunger Index (GHI) is a tool designed to comprehensively measure and track hunger globally, regionally, and by country. Each year, the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) calculates GHI scores in order to assess progress, or the lack thereof, in decreasing hunger. The GHI is designed to raise awareness and understanding of regional and country differences in the struggle against hunger.
Since 2015, GHI scores have been calculated using a revised and improved formula. The revision replaces child underweight, previously the sole indicator of child under-nutrition, with two indicators of child under-nutrition—child wasting and child stunting—which are equally weighted in the GHI calculation. The revised formula also standardizes each of the component indicators to balance their contribution to the overall index and to changes in the GHI scores over time.
GHI scores are calculated using a three-step process that draws on available data from various sources to capture the multidimensional nature of hunger:
1. Undernourishment: The share of the population that is undernourished (that is, whose caloric intake is insufficient).
2. Child wasting and stunting: The share of children under the age of five who are wasted (that is, who have low weight for their height, reflecting acute under-nutrition).
3.Child Stunting: The share of children under the age of five who are stunted (that is, who have low height for their age, reflecting chronic under-nutrition).
4. Child Mortality: The mortality rate of children under the age of five (in part, a reflection of the fatal mix of inadequate nutrition and unhealthy environments).
Values for the years are taken as per below table.1Global Hunger Index Scores2Proportion of Undernourished in the Population (%)3Prevalence of Wasting in Children Under Five Years(%)4Prevalence of Stunting in Children Under Five Years (%)5Prevalence of underweight in children under five years (%)
Date for above indicators are taken as per below year ranges.
6. "Under-five Mortality Rate(%)" year range has not been specified in source.
GHI Severity Scale
≤ 9.9 low
50.0 ≤ extremely alarming
The GII is a source of insight into the multidimensional facets of innovation-driven growth. Providing 80 detailed metrics for 129 economies in 2019, the GII has become one of the leading references for measuring an economy’s innovation performance. Moving into its 12th edition this year, the GII has evolved into a valuable benchmarking tool that can facilitate public-private dialogue and where policy-makers, business leaders, and other stakeholders can evaluate innovation progress on an annual basis.
Each year the GII presents a thematic component that tracks global innovation. In this year’s edition, it analyzes the medical innovation landscape of the next decade, looking at how technological and non-technological medical innovation will transform the delivery of healthcare worldwide. It also explores the role and dynamics of medical innovation as it shapes the future of healthcare, and the potential influence this may have on economic growth.
Data cited at: Institute for Economics and Peace
The Global Terrorism Index (GTI) is a comprehensive study which accounts for the direct and indirect impact of terrorism in 163 countries in terms of its effect on lives lost, injuries, property damage and the psychological aftereffects of terrorism. This study covers 99.6 per cent of the world’s population. It aggregates the most authoritative data source on terrorism today, the Global Terrorism Database (GTD) collated by the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START) into a composite score in order to provide an ordinal ranking of nations on the negative impact of terrorism. The GTD is unique in that it consists of systematically and comprehensively coded data on domestic as well as international terrorist incidents and now includes more than 140,000 cases.
Note: "Change in score values" have been calculated for 2015 by score in 2015 minus score in 2014 (Score_2015-Score_2014). For rest of the years according to source.
The Human Development Index (HDI) is a summary measure of achievements in three key dimensions of human development: a long and healthy life, access to knowledge and a decent standard of living. The HDI is the geometric mean of normalized indices for each of the the three dimensions.
Data cited at: Heritage Foundation
Economic freedom is the fundamental right of every human to control his or her own labor and property. In an economically free society, individuals are free to work, produce, consume, and invest in any way they please, with that freedom both protected by the state and unconstrained by the state. In economically free societies, governments allow labor, capital and goods to move freely, and refrain from coercion or constraint of liberty beyond the extent necessary to protect and maintain liberty itself.
Economic Freedom Scores: Range and level of freedom
70–79.9:- Mostly Free
60–69.9:- Moderately Free
50–59.9:- Mostly Unfree
The mission of the Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) is to provide the public with a reliable and convenient reporting mechanism to submit information to the FBI concerning suspected Internet-facilitated criminal activity and to develop effective alliances with industry partners. Information is processed for investigative and intelligence purposes for law enforcement and public awareness.
The Logistics Performance Index overall score reflects assessments of a country's logistics based on efficiency of the customs clearance process, quality of trade- and transport-related infrastructure, ease of arranging competitively priced shipments, quality of logistics services, ability to track and trace consignments, and frequency with which shipments reach the consignee within the scheduled time. The index ranges from 1 to 5, with a higher score representing better performance. Data are from Logistics Performance Index surveys conducted by the World Bank in partnership with academic and international institutions and private companies and individuals engaged in international logistics. 2011 round of surveys covered more than 6,000 country assessments by nearly 1,000 international freight forwarders. Respondents evaluated eight markets on six core dimensions using a scale from 1 (worst) to 5 (best). The markets are chosen based on the most important export and import markets of the respondent's country, random selection, and, for landlocked countries, neighboring countries that connect them with international markets. Scores for the six areas are averaged across all respondents and aggregated to a single score using principal components analysis. Details of the survey methodology and index construction methodology are in Connecting to Compete 2012: Trade Logistics in the Global Economy (2012).
This Dataset contains Indicators related to IC Development Index and Tables from "Measuring the Information Society Report 2018, Volume 1"
For Indicators for other ICT Development data please refer: https://knoema.com/ITUKIICT2019/global-ict-developments
Data cited at: Open Data Watch https://opendatawatch.com/
Topic: Open Data Inventory (ODIN) data
Score Type Options: Three sets of scores are available: raw, weighted, or standardized. Raw scores have values between 0 and 1 as recorded in the original assessment; subscores are simple totals. Weighted scores use a predefined weighting matrix; subscores are simple totals. Standardized scores are scaled from 0 to 100; subscores are weighted averages.
Passport Index is an interactive tool, which collects, displays and ranks the passports of the world.
You can discover the world’s passports on a map, by country name, by Passport Power Rank and even by the color of their cover.
Visa Free Score
Passports accumulate points for each visa free country that their holders can visit without a visa, or they can obtain a visa on arrival.
Passport Power Rank
Passports are ranked based on their Visa Free Score. The higher the Visa Free Score, the better the Passport Power Rank.
The country list is based on the 193 UN member countries and 6 territories (Macao, Kosovo, etc.) for a total of 199. Territories annexed to other countries such as Norfolk Island, French Polynesia, etc. are excluded. Data is based on research from publicly available sources, as well as information shared by government agencies.
Gibney, Mark, Linda Cornett, Reed Wood, Peter Haschke, and Daniel Arnon. 2016. The Political Terror Scale 1976-2015. Date Retrieved, from the Political Terror Scale website: http://www.politicalterrorscale.org.
Political Terror Scale Levels
1 - Countries under a secure rule of law, people are not imprisoned for their views, and torture is rare or exceptional. Political murders are extremely rare.
2 - There is a limited amount of imprisonment for nonviolent political activity. However, few persons are affected, torture and beatings are exceptional. Political murder is rare.
3 - There is extensive political imprisonment, or a recent history of such imprisonment. Execution or other political murders and brutality may be common. Unlimited detention, with or without a trial, for political views is accepted.
4 - Civil and political rights violations have expanded to large numbers of the population. Murders, disappearances, and torture are a common part of life. In spite of its generality, on this level terror affects those who interest themselves in politics or ideas.
5 - Terror has expanded to the whole population. The leaders of these societies place no limits on the means or thoroughness with which they pursue personal or ideological goals.
The Public Investment Management index captures different ex ante and ex post dimensions of various stages of the investment process. It is a composite index of the efficiency of the public investment management process for 71 countries. It records the quality and efficiency of the investment process across four consecutive stages: project appraisal, selection, implementation and evaluation. The index allows for benchmarking against the performance of different country groups and across regions, and provides a new dataset that could be utilized for cross-country analysis.
Data cited at: The Quality of Government Institute; Teorell, Jan, Stefan Dahlberg, Sören Holmberg, Bo Rothstein, Natalia Alvarado Pachon & Richard Svensson. 2018. The Quality of Government Standard Dataset, version Jan18. University of Gothenburg: The Quality of Government Institute, http://www.qog.pol.gu.se doi:10.18157/QoGStdJan18
In the QoG Standard TS dataset, data from 1946 to 2018 is included and the unit of analysis is country-year (e.g. Sweden-1946, Sweden-1947 and so on).
Data cited at: The World Justice Project (WJP)
The World Justice Project (WJP) Rule of Law Index® is a quantitative assessment tool designed by the World Justice Project to offer a detailed and comprehensive picture of the extent to which countries adhere to the rule of law in practice.
Factors of the WJP Rule of Law Index include:
1. Constraints on Government Powers
2. Absence of Corruption
3. Open Government
4. Fundamental Rights
5. Order and Security
6. Regulatory Enforcement
7. Civil Justice
8. Criminal Justice
(Data is collected for a 9th factor, Informal Justice, but it is not included in aggregated scores and rankings. This is due to the complexities of these systems and the difficulties in measuring their fairness and effectiveness in a matter that is both systematic and comparable across countries.)
Every year WJP collects data from representative samples of the general public and legal professionals to compute the index scores. The data, once collected, are carefully processed to arrive at country-level scores. The respondent level data is first edited to exclude partially-completed surveys, suspicious data, and outliers. Individual answers are then mapped on to the 44 sub-factors of the index. Answers are coded so that all values fall between 0 (least rule of law) and 1 (most rule of law), and aggregated at country level using the simple, or unweighted, average of all respondents.
2012-2013 values given for year 2013 and 2017-2018 given for year 2018.
Data cited at: Social Progress Index https://www.socialprogress.org/download
The Social Progress Index is a new way to define the success of our societies. It is a comprehensive measure of real quality of life, independent of economic indicators. The Social Progress Index is designed to complement, rather than replace, economic measures such as GDP.
Each year, Social Progress Imperative conducts a comprehensive review of all indicators included in the Social Progress Index framework to check data updates (which frequently include retroactive revisions) and whether new indicators have been published that are well-suited to describing social progress concepts. Such a review necessitates a recalculation of previously published versions of the Social Progress Index, as any removal or additions of indicators to the framework or changes due to retroactive revisions in data from the original data sources prevent comparability between previously published versions of the Social Progress Index and the 2019 Social Progress Index. Therefore, using the 2019 Social Progress Index framework and methodology, we provide comparable historical data for additional five years of the Social Progress Index, from 2014 to 2018.
Data cited at: "Annual Survey of Mining Companies: 2016"@Fraser Institute
The Fraser Institute Annual Survey of Mining Companies was sent to approximately 4,100 exploration, development, and other mining-related companies around the world. Several mining publications and associations also helped publicize the survey. The survey, conducted from October 9, 2012, to January 6, 2013, represents responses from 742 of those companies. The companies participating in the survey reported exploration spending of US$6.2 billion in 2012 and US$ 5.4 billion in 2011.
The Global Opportunity Index (GOI) answers a pressing need for information that's vital to a thriving global economy like what policies can governments pursue to attract foreign direct investment (FDI), expand their economies, and accelerate job creation, everything multinational companies, other investors, and development agencies need to know before making large-scale, long-term capital commitments.
The GOI considers economic and financial factors that influence investment activities as well as key business, legal and regulatory policies that governments can modify to support and often drive investments. Overall, it tracks countries’ performance on more than 50 variables aggregated in five categories, each measuring an aspect of a country’s attractiveness for investors: (1) its economic performance; (2) the ability for investors to access financial services; (3) the cost of doing business; (4) the level of support its institutions provide to businesses; and (5) the extent to which its institutions, policies, and legal system facilitate international integration.
The Global Slavery Index, the flagship report of the Walk Free Foundation. The Global Slavery Index estimates the number of people in modern slavery in 167 countries. It is a tool for citizens, non government organisations, businesses and public officials to understand the size of the problem, existing responses and contributing factors, so they can build sound policies that will end modern slavery. The Global Slavery Index answers the following questions: What is the estimated prevalence of modern slavery country by country, and what is the absolute number by population? How are governments tackling modern slavery? What factors explain or predict the prevalence of modern slavery?
Government Response Rating by Country
A - 70 to 79.9
BBB - 60 to 69.9
BB - 50 to 59.9
B - 40 to 49.9
CCC - 30 to 39.9
CC - 20 to 29.9
C - 10 to 19.9
D - <0 to 9.9
To identify the healthiest countries in the world, Bloomberg Rankings created health scores and health-risk scores for countries with populations of at least 1 million. The risk score was subtracted from the health score to determine the country''s rank. Five-year averages, when available, were used to mitigate some of the short-term year-over-year swings.
Levels of restrictions on religion
Government Restrictions Index
Very high- 6.6 to 10.0
High- 4.5 to 6.5
Moderate - 2.4 to 4.4
Low- 0.0 to 2.3
Social Hostilities Index
Very high- 7.2 to 10.0
High- 3.6 to 7.1
Moderate- 1.5 to 3.5
Low- 0.0 to 1.4
Data cited at: UN E-Government Knowledgebase - https://publicadministration.un.org/egovkb/en-us/
1. The EGDI is based on a comprehensive Survey of the online presence of all 193 United Nations Member States, which assesses national websites and how e-government policies and strategies are applied in general and in specific sectors for delivery of essential services. The assessment rates the e-government performance of countries relative to one another as opposed to being an absolute measurement. The results are tabulated and combined with a set of indicators embodying a country’s capacity to participate in the information society, without which e-government development efforts are of limited immediate use. Although the basic model has remained consistent, the precise meaning of these values varies from one edition of the Survey to the next as understanding of the potential of e-government changes and the underlying technology evolves. This is an important distinction because it also implies that it is a comparative framework that seeks to encompass various approaches that may evolve over time instead of advocating a linear path with an absolute goal.
2. E-Government Development Index-EGDI
Very High-EGDI (Greater than 0.75)
High-EGDI (Between 0.50 and 0.75)
Middle-EGDI (Between 0.25 and 0.50)
Low-EGDI (Less than 0.25)
Note: In recent years, Doing Business introduced improvements to all of its indicator sets. In Doing Business 2015, Resolving Insolvency introduced new measures of quality, while Getting Credit and Protecting Minority Investors broadened their existing measures. In Doing Business 2016, Dealing with Construction Permits, Getting Electricity, Registering Property and Enforcing Contracts also introduced new measures of quality, and Trading across Borders introduced a new case scenario to increase the economic relevance. In Doing Business 2017, Paying Taxes introduced new measures of post-filing processes and Starting a Business, Registering Property and Enforcing Contracts added gender components. For the details on the Doing Business methodology changes, please view the Ease of Doing Business metrics.
Each methodology expansion was recalculated for one year to provide comparable indicator values and scores for the previous year. Rankings are calculated for Doing Business 2019 only. Year-to-year changes in the number of economies, number of indicators and methodology affect the comparability of prior years.
Data cited at: Charities Aid Foundation
CAF World Giving Index 2018 :
This ninth edition of the CAF World Giving Index presents giving data from across the globe over a five year period (2013-2017). The CAF World Giving Index 2018 includes data from 146 countries that was collected throughout 2017. A full explanation of the methodology used is included in the appendices.
CAF World Giving Index ranking and scores:
The method used to calculate CAF World Giving Index scores remains identical to previous years. In order to establish a rounded measure of giving behavior across the world, the CAF World Giving Index relies on a simple averaging of the responses from the three key questions asked in each country. Each country is given a percentage score and countries are ranked on the basis of these scores.
Full version of the Index is available at: https://knoema.com/SDSNWHP2019/world-happiness-index-2019-full-version
The World Happiness Report is a landmark survey of the state of global happiness that ranks 156 countries by how happy their citizens perceive themselves to be. In 2019, World Happiness Report focuses on happiness and the community: how happiness has evolved over the past dozen years, with a focus on the technologies, social norms, conflicts and government policies that have driven those changes.
The World Happiness Report is a landmark survey of the state of global happiness that ranks 156 countries by how happy their citizens perceive themselves to be. In 2019, World Happiness Report focuses on happiness and the community: how happiness has evolved over the past dozen years, with a focus on the technologies, social norms, conflicts and government policies that have driven those changes.
The Range of Score to Access the Press Freedom.
From 0 to 15 points: Good
From 15.01 to 25 points: Fairly good
From 25.01 to 35 points: Problematic
From 35.01 to 55 points: Bad
From 55.01 to 100 points: Very bad
Note: Negative value is available for 2012 only and it represents the country in top*
The press freedom index that Reporters Without Borders publishes every year measures the level of freedom of information in nearly 180 countries. It reflects the degree of freedom that journalists, news organizations and netizens enjoy in each country, and the efforts made by the authorities to respect and ensure respect for this freedom. It is based partly on a questionnaire that is sent to our partner organizations (18 freedom of expression NGOs located in all five continents), to our network of 150 correspondents, and to journalists, researchers, jurists and human rights activists. The 179 countries ranked in this year’s index are those for which Reporters Without Borders received completed questionnaires from various sources. Some countries were not included because of a lack of reliable, confirmed data. A score and a position are assigned to each country in the final ranking. They are complementary indicators that together assess the state of press freedom. In order to make the index more informative and make it easier to compare different years, scores will henceforth range from 0 to 100, with 0 being the best possible score and 100 the worst. The index reflects the situation during a specific period. This year’s index is based solely on events between the start of December 2012 and the end of November 2013. It does not look at human rights violations in general, just violations of freedom of information. The index should in no way be taken as an indication of the quality of the media in the countries concerned.
*In order to have a bigger spread in the scores and increase the differentiation between countries,
this year’s questionnaire had more answers assigning negative points. That is why countries at
the top of the index have negative scores this year. Although the point system has produced a
broader distribution of scores than in 2010, each country’s evolution over the years can still be
plotted by comparing its position in the index rather than its score. This is what the arrows in the
table refer to – a country’s change in position in the index compared with the preceding year.
Restrictions apply: https://www.scimagojr.com/aboutus.php
Citation: SCImago, (n.d.). SJR — SCImago Journal & Country Rank [Portal]. Retrieved Date you Retrieve, from http://www.scimagojr.com
SCImago Journal Rank: It expresses the average number of weighted citations received in the selected year by the documents published in the selected journal in the three previous years, --i.e. weighted citations received in year X to documents published in the journal in years X-1, X-2 and X-3.
H Index: The h index expresses the journal's number of articles (h) that have received at least h citations. It quantifies both journal scientific productivity and scientific impact and it is also applicable to scientists, countries, etc.
Total Documents: Output of the selected period. All types of documents are considered, including citable and non citable documents.
Total Cites (3years): Number of citations received in the seleted year by a journal to the documents published in the three previous years, --i.e. citations received in year X to documents published in years X-1, X-2 and X-3. All types of documents are considered.
Self Cites: Number of journal's self-citations in the selected year to its own documents published in the three previous years, --i.e. self-citations in year X to documents published in years X-1, X-2 and X-3. All types of documents are considered.
Cited Documents: Number of documents cited at least once in the three previous years, --i.e. years X-1, X-2 and X-3
Cites per Document (2 years): Average citations per document in a 2 year period. It is computed considering the number of citations received by a journal in the current year to the documents published in the two previous years, --i.e. citations received in year X to documents published in years X-1 and X-2.