The United Kingdom has been ranked as one of the most stable and prosperous countries in the world, beating the United States, France and even Switzerland in a global assessment of every nation’s achievements and standards.
A one-year investigation and analysis of 235 countries and dependent territories has put the UK joint seventh in the premier league of nations. The top ten comprise also the Vatican, Sweden, Luxembourg, Monaco, Gibraltar, San Marino, Liechtenstein, the Netherlands and the Irish Republic.
The US lies 22nd and Switzerland, normally associated with wealth and untouchable stability, is rated 17th, losing points in the assessment of its social achievements.
As a Brit based in the US, I find such a rating astonishing.
But then I’ve always been something of a cynic where my native land is concerned.
Not that the Swedes or the Dutch can claim that everything in the garden is rosy.
Janes – perhaps, being a British company, there is a bit of bias?
It appears that it was the UN’s criteria not Jane’s. When a result seems odd check the yardstick. We lost points because the state does not have a monopoly on force as it very nearly does in England. I would also posit that stablity is not always a good thing.
According to the article, the rating system “took into account each nation’s political structures.” And the Vatican took top honors for its election system and parliamentary democracy? Well, it did stage a free and fair election for the current ruler, even if the electoral base was a bit narrow.
I posted the following comment on the Times website:
Gun control was a deciding factor in the ranking. I wonder, what other standards might have been used which many might find debatable? As is the problem with all such surveys, this reflects not so much the reality of the world as it does the world view of those giving the survey.
Obviously cultural disintegration wasn’t a factor.
Yes, elves, I know that was one line, but it hardly seesm to need elaboration. Does it?
[i] Not a problem this time. [/i]