A comparative “report card” wellbeing assessment of 22 countries in the Global Flourishing Study

Abstract

When evaluating how countries are faring, there is a widespread tendency to rely on single metrics or indices, whether objective (e.g., GDP) or subjective (e.g., life evaluation). However, flourishing is multidimensional, and societies invariably do better in some ways and less so in others (even if some places get more things “right” than others), so any comprehensive assessment must be multifaceted. We demonstrate this by evaluating 22 countries in the Global Flourishing Study (GFS) on 77 self-reported flourishing-related indicators in the GFS (involving 207,919 participants) together with 34 national-level objective indicators. The results paint a complex picture. For a start, there was only a relatively modest positive correlation between self-reported flourishing (per an index involving 12 GFS items) and objective flourishing (per a seven-indicator index created for this paper), with an r of 0.32 when using individual-level GFS data which fell to just 0.15 when using country means. Using these indices, we could also situate countries along two axes: low-to-high subjective flourishing and low-to-high objective flourishing. Some places did relatively well on both indices (e.g., Poland), some mainly just on the subjective index (e.g., Indonesia), some just on the objective one (e.g., Japan), and some on neither (e.g., South Africa). There were also common interpretative themes, including economic development not only being somewhat “uncoupled” from subjective flourishing, but potentially even a hinderance (e.g., by destabilizing other important components, such as community or tradition). Yet we reiterate that all places are a complex balance of strengths and weaknesses, as conveyed in a country-specific “report card” featuring their top five of each, both subjective and objective, taking inspiration from the way an educator might convey student progress with an encouraging yet constructively critical eye (while also recognizing, with humility, that our approach is not the only way to “grade” a country). The results will be useful to all seeking to better understand and promote flourishing at a societal level.