Why are countries consistently ranked across "nice" lists?

Question

I have noticed over the last couple of years, that countries that are ranked high on one list that ranks by a property that is favorable, also rank high on other similar lists. For example on

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Country_Index
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Social_Mobility_Index
• https://www.edsys.in/best-education-system-in-the-world/
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality

Finland and Denmark are pretty highly ranked, somewhere around place 10 there is often somewhere Germany. I remember John Oliver saying "Finland is on all the good lists.", so it seems at least I am not the only one with that impression. Now, my questions:

1. Is my observation somewhat justified or am I falling victim to my own confirmation bias when I see those lists (and ignore those lists that are not fitting into my worldview)?
2. If that observation is justified: Has it been researched, what the causes are for this phenomenon?

---

I am not sure if that is the right site to ask this question. If not, please point me to the right one if you can.

Answer 1

It just happens that scoring high in the indexes you listed - progressive policies, social mobility, education and income equality - all require the same two things:

• A productive economy which generates a lot of GDP
• The political will to tap into that GDP through taxation and spend those funds on social politics

So any country which has these two things will have the ability to rank high on all these lists.

Further, there is some causal relation between the metrics measured in those lists mentioned here. A good public education system enables social mobility, and social mobility increases income equality.

But there might still be some confirmation bias in what you consider a "nice list". For example, a neoconservative might consider other "nice lists" like per-capita GDP, countries with low tax rate or military prowess to rate which country they consider "better".

Answer 2

Is my observation somewhat justified or am I falling victim to my own confirmation bias when I see those lists (and ignore those lists that are not fitting into my worldview)?

This does seem to be the case, because your list almost completely ignores individual, political, and economic freedom, so if we were to take it as a value system, we would prescribe totalitarian communism as the optimal social organization. Here are some indices that measure those types of freedom:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_freedom_indices

Examples of countries that have high economic equality but...

...no freedom of the press: China, Vietnam, Egypt

...no moral freedom: China, Myanmar, Algeria

Examples of countries that have low economic equality but...

...high moral freedom: Brazil, South Africa

One of your indices is the Good Country Index, which does seem to be partially taking into account personal freedom, but certainly not enough for my taste. For example, it rates China the same as Argentina, but I prefer to live in a country without genocide. It ranks Mexico the same as Egypt, but Egypt is a brutal dictatorship.

Most people would also prefer to live in a country that is prosperous in absolute terms. So all other things being equal, more people would for example prefer to live in the US rather than Kenya, simply because the lifestyle in the US is richer, even though the two countries are comparable in income equality and individual freedom. Last I heard, unemployment in Kenya was something like 50% or more. The US also has better economic freedom than Kenya, e.g., in Kenya it's very difficult to start your own business, and there is a lot of police corruption.

Answer 3

Political goods tend to reinforce each other. For example countries with good, free or cheap higher education tend also to have high social mobility. Moreover, an informed citizenry can hold the government to account more effectively. Whilst countries with robust welfare systems tend to do well with the overall health of the population.

Hence countries high on one index tend to also be high on others.

Answer 4

Measures

It's mostly because you're looking at lists that measure pretty much the same things. Other lists that measure "niceness" based on different criteria come up with radically different results.

Suicide Rates

For an obvious example, consider suicide rates. Suicide rates give a fairly direct, objective measurement of how many people in that country are severely depressed (and how well their health care system really works when faced with such a challenge). By this measure, Finland and Denmark rank #51 and #89 respectively (note that is looking at suicide rate, so Finland's is the 51^st worst in the world). By this measure, the "nicest" countries are Antigua, Barbados, Grenada, and the Bahamas.

Drug Addiction Rates

Another measure would be to look at the number of people who find their life unhappy enough that they prefer to escape from it by using (and getting addicted to) drugs such as opiates. In this respect, Finland ranks #106 and Denmark 26 (and again this is ranking by rate, so it means Denmark has the 26^th highest rate of opiate addiction of any country on earth). So by this measure, Finland gets a pretty average rating, and Denmark a pretty lousy rating. The happiest country by this measure is Singapore.

Confounding Factors

Statistics like these need to be considered with care. For example, quite a few countries have laws against even attempting to commit suicide, which most likely leads to under-reporting of suicide in those countries. In other cases, people are likely affected by societal norms, such as people in heavily religious countries being rather less likely to use drugs, even if they're not particularly happy.

Summary

Concepts like niceness or happiness are nebulous enough to make them fairly difficult to measure (at best). Nonetheless, effects of peoples' satisfaction with their lives can be measured much more directly than the lists you've looked at even attempt to--and more direct measurements of satisfaction (or lack of it) with life correlate poorly with those you've looked at.

References

https://www.who.int/teams/mental-health-and-substance-use/suicide-data

https://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/WDR2011/StatAnnex-consumption.pdf

Answer 5

What others have said is true, but there's more to it

Many other answers tangentially touch upon what I hope you'll see as the crux of the issue. In particular, Mozibur Ullah got most of what I would say is the cause of the 'consistency' in 'nice country lists': the reinforcement of 'political goods' or more generally, positive feedback loops.

However, the way positive feedback loops are explained can vary widely depending on the theory that you use to understand the issue, or the 'lens' that you use to see the 'consistency' in the 'lists'. Here, I'll show three broad theories of political change. All of them help understand why countries consistently appear in nice lists, but they all differ as to what are the main driving forces.

Violence and Social Orders (North et al. 2009)

This text broadly divides two (among other) types of societies: open access and closed access. These ignore the formal political system (for example, a republic or a voting system), since informal norms can keep a system that should be open access as a closed access.

In closed access societies, relationships are personal. So you have to know the king or the lords below or whoever is below them to get political privileges. And those privileges make people want to remain in those positions, as well as have serfs assure some access to the privileges by abiding by the system's norms. That is, broadly and simply, the political part.

If we turn to the economics of the closed access societies, we see that rents are generally accumulated rather than reinvested. This has to do with the incentives put in place: there is plenty of economic protectionism established by the political system I mentioned already.

On the other hand, open access systems are primarily characterized by their impersonality. It is no longer your personal relationship to those in power that determines, for example, your political rights, but your citizenship. That citizenship is vested broadly in society. It doesn't matter who you are; you have the same rights as everyone else. This is enforced by the monopoly of power, where the army or the police respond to the state.

The state has functionaries, of which the government is elected by people who share values that reinforce open access societies. This means there is political responsiveness, so that public goods like labor protections and social protection come to exist.

As to economics, these societies have free trade. This is part of the incentives that make it so that, rather than accumulating, people reinvest.

The effect of these characteristics is both (1) a series of political freedoms and guarantees that make life less risky and more amenable and (2) economic growth so that squalor is not an existential threat anymore.

While the characterizations of these systems are quite detailed in North et al.'s argument, they do establish three key elements that have to be there so that a transition from one system goes on to another: a rule of law that applies to everyone, impersonal organizations (for example, the EFF rather than Julian Assange—kind of thing), and a military that is under the government's control.

So it is these three things that, within this argument, make it so that open access societies occur. These types of societies, I'd say, constitute the nice characteristics you originally noticed.

Why Nations Fail (Acemoglu y Robinson 2012)

This text similarly argues that there are two types of societies, but this time they're 'inclusive' and 'extractive'. These institutions can be found in political and economic institutions. Inclusive political institutions vest the power of a society broadly, so that people's say is responded by the government. This usually goes along with the provision of a series of public goods that make it possible for everyone to participate not only politically, but economically too. In inclusive economic institutions, there are incentives to invest and innovate, which leads to economic growth.

The relationship between political and economic institutions is both one of strong one-way causation and a positive feedback loop. What I mean is that political institutions cause and are reinforced by economic institutions, a relationship where political institutions are always more important.

So, if there are extractive political institutions, where power is concentrated in the hands of a few who defend for their privileges, this will powerfully affect economic institutions. These economic institutions will also be extractive. This means they set up incentives so that there is, instead of investment and innovation, accumulation and protection. That is why this text predicts that China's growth will be unsustainable unless inclusive political institutions occur.

This feedback loop, based on the Why Nations Fail perspective, answers your question: societies which are consistently in nice lists have inclusive politica

Freedom Rising (Welzel 2013)

This book tackles head-on the view presented in Why Nations Fail, among other texts that claim it is institutions that matter most for societies to transform. Instead, this book argues that it is values that ultimately affect institutions.

Values, on their own part, change because of (1) material conditions, (2) education, and (3) social connectivity. In the past, it was the Cold Water condition that made it so that existential conditions weren't as awful. Cold water (1) reduced viral infections, (2) made water navigation possible, and (3) made crop production easier. However, recently, material conditions 'affect' values less and less, compared to education and social connectivity.

However, even while the world is, at large, becoming more educated and more connected, there is still a lag between countries.

Now, how do values affect institutions? Welzel claims it is through collective mobilization. When people value freedom and equality of opportunity more, they mobilize more, so that the government responds to their requests.

This might seem paradoxical given that people all over the world say they want democracy, but this paradox is dissolved when you ask them what they mean by democracy. Surprisingly, loads of people say democracy means 'punishing criminals severely', 'economic growth', 'having religious leaders', or 'having the military step in when the government fails'.

Even more surprisingly, people's values are tied to the kind of institutions that they have regardless of state repression.

So Welzel's answer to your question would be that those countries that consistently appear in nice lists have people with more emancipatory values. Those values are then articulated through actions that, Welzel claims, create the conditions for more future freedom. And they are also articulated through the government, which creates conditions of equality of opportunity and also for citizens to make use of their freedom, which they value. This system reinforces itself, and it gives you another perspective to the question regarding consistency in nice lists.

Conclusion

Out of these three texts, the common denominator that's relevant to your question is the internal reinforcement of elements within the system and the positive feedback loops that reinforce that system over time. This loop is not so evident in North et al.'s work, but it's critical in Acemoglu and Robinson and in Welzel's argument.

This also addresses your question as to whether 'consistently nice' characteristics have been researched. Indeed, they have. And while I admire your caution, I'd say no, you're not falling prey to confirmation bias. There are indeed lots of nice characteristics that are explained by theories that have self-reinforcing mechanisms, mechanisms that will vary depending on which lens you use to understand the problem

Answer 6

One case: New Zealand usually ranks in the top 10 of things like low corruption, quality of life, personal & financial freedom, ... . And while often not top, is usually close enough to top to overall rank first overall from my understanding of what I can see.

I could suggest that that's because NZ is best :-) - but as a NZer I'd be severely biased.
I suspect the NZ national anthem* may give a guide as to why this is so. Some would disagree vehemently, & this factor seems to be declining by the year. (I imagine that some here may feel that such "reasons" have no place in a political site discussion. I'd begi to differ).
[*Maori first - English starts at 1m12s but the Maori is worth listening to.