2014 Global Retirement Index - E

Transcrição

2014 Global Retirement Index
As an ESOMAR member, CoreData Research complies with the ICC/ESOMAR International Code of Marketing and
Social Research Practice.
Disclaimer
This paper was compiled from primary research and other information available at the time of writing. The information is
believed to be accurate however no representation or warranty express or implied is made as to its completeness and CoreData
Research does not make any warranty to correct any information subsequently found to be inaccurate.
This paper does not constitute investment advice or a business recommendation. This paper may contain the personal views,
standards and opinions of the researchers and third party contributors. The inclusion of this material is not an endorsement by
CoreData Research.
In all cases, people reading this material should attain appropriate professional advice in evaluating its accuracy, currency,
completeness and relevance for their purposes. CoreData Research disclaims any direct or indirect liability or costs arising from
any reliance on the information contained within this publication.
LONDON | BOSTON | SYDNEY | BEIJING | MANILA | SAO PAULO | CAPE TOWN
2
3
Contents
Background ....................................................................................................................................................................5
Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................................................6
Data Highlights ..............................................................................................................................................................7
Methodology ...............................................................................................................................................................10
Constructing the Indicators .....................................................................................................................................10
Framework...................................................................................................................................................................17
The Global Retirement Index 2014 ..............................................................................................................................18
The Best and Worst Performers ..............................................................................................................................19
The Top 30: Year-on-Year Trend ..................................................................................................................................23
The Emerging Economies: Is it getting better for retirees? .........................................................................................54
Performance by Sub-Index ..........................................................................................................................................60
The Health Index .....................................................................................................................................................60
Finances in Retirement Index ..................................................................................................................................63
Quality of Life Index ................................................................................................................................................66
Material Wellbeing Index ........................................................................................................................................69
References ...................................................................................................................................................................72
Appendix ......................................................................................................................................................................73
4
Background
The Natixis CoreData Global Retirement Index is an international comparison tool with an objective of providing a
global benchmark for retirees and future retirees to evaluate and compare the suitability of nations globally in
meeting retirement expectations, needs and ambitions.
Welfare in retirement is an increasingly relevant issue in modern societies as demographic compositions continue
to shift with average ages creeping up relentlessly and the numbers of people finishing their working life
increasing.
In this context, institutions, be they public or private, are having to adapt the products and services they provide in
order to cater not only to an increasing number of retirees, but also to their very different demands and needs.
The Natixis CoreData Global Retirement Index is a multidimensional welfare index, which has been developed
differently to other welfare indices as it has a specific focus on the parameters determining welfare in retirement
and old age.
The index incorporates 20 performance indicators, grouped into four thematic sub-indices, which have been
calculated on the basis of reliable data from a range of international organizations and academic sources and
taking into account the particular characteristics of this demographic group, in order to assess and compare the
level of welfare in retirement in different countries around the world.
The four thematic indices cover key aspects for welfare in retirement: having good health and access to quality
health services, having enough material means to live a comfortable life, having access to quality financial services
(including preserving the value of savings) and living in a clean and safe environment.
This is the second year Natixis Global Asset Management and CoreData have produced the Global Retirement
Index as a guide to the changing decisions facing retirees as they focus on their needs and goals for the future, and
where and how to most efficiently preserve wealth while enjoying retirement.
Broadly speaking, however, the two editions of the Global Retirement Index are deliberately similar in form and
methodology so that a year-by-year comparison may be made which highlights the shifts in quality of life, material
well-being, the quality of financial services and the quality of healthcare services that have taken place over the
last twelve months.
Such comparisons contextualize the score each country receives on the Global Retirement Index (GRI) by enabling
us to maintain a sense of perspective: for instance, if a country has improved its position in the GRI by twenty
places since 2013, this may be an indication of the beginning of an upwards trend in its suitability (and therefore
desirability) as a home for retirement.
The sub-indices provide some insight into which particular national characteristics are driving an improvement or
worsening in each country's position this year, compared with last year.
As the GRI continues to run each year, it is our hope it will be possible to discern ongoing trends in, for instance,
the quality of a nation's financial services sector, thereby enabling retirees to make more informed
advance decisions about their lives in the future.
5
Executive Summary
Shouldering the load: Individuals increasingly responsible for their own financial security in
retirement
The responsibility for financial security in retirement is falling even more heavily on individuals than ever
before and this trend is likely to continue as government resources in countries around the world become
scarcer, according to the 2014 Global Retirement Index. It is becoming increasingly apparent that to
ensure financial security in retirement, individuals need to take personal ownership of their destiny and
view planning and saving for retirement as a serious, conscious and strategic pursuit.
The world’s aging populations will find the greatest financial security for retirees in European countries,
which comprise eight of the top-10 countries among the 150 nations analyzed in the second annual
Global Retirement Index. However, financial security for retirees shows signs of erosion in many
developed nations, including Europe, where governments are facing high debt levels and ongoing
financial pressures. In developing markets, the provision of government services has not kept pace with
economic growth, and income inequality is preventing widespread financial security.
There is, of course, no one-size-fits-all solution to this growing problem. The optimal pension system for
any country must take into account domestic factors such as economic, social, cultural and political
traditions. However, the policies and practices adopted in some regions that rate highly could hold
valuable lessons for other nations that are trying to shore up their systems. Many of the top countries in
this year’s report, for example, have demonstrated a commitment to innovation and have emphasized
simplicity in their retirement scheme’s overall design and structure. Many also have proactive
governments willing to come together to take bold, sometimes unpopular, policy stances in their ongoing
efforts to stabilize retirement security for their citizens.
The bottom line: Employers, governments and individuals – the three legs of the global retirement
savings stool – each have a role to play in improving the state of savings around the world. Employers
need to be more flexible and open to considering programs that can broaden coverage; governments
need to work together to institute meaningful, difference-making reforms; and individuals need to realize
that they can no longer depend on the other two legs of the stool, and instead should focus on the
factors they themselves can control – such as establishing a plan, setting goals and being more engaged.
6
Data Highlights
Leaders and laggards
Eight of the 10 highest-ranked nations are European, including Switzerland, Norway, Austria, Sweden,
Denmark, Germany, Finland and Luxembourg.
“Core” European nations outdo “peripheral” countries that were forced to cut more severely into their
social programs.
Switzerland rose to No. 1 in the world on the retiree financial security scorecard, displacing last year’s top
country, Norway.
th
For the second straight year, the United States ranks 19 of 150 nations. This trails countries such as the
United Kingdom, Korea and the Czech Republic.
New Zealand, Iceland and Korea were among the fastest risers in the report, with each nation moving into
the top 20.
nd
th
o
New Zealand’s rise from 22 to 9 place can mostly be traced to dramatic improvement in the
Finances in Retirement category. Specifically, the country has benefited from lowering tax
pressures, better performance of its bank loans and improved income equality.
o
Iceland (from 23 to 11 ): Iceland’s government deftly steered the nation away from serious
economic damage relating to the fall of three major Icelandic banks. This positive outcome,
combined with low inflation, low interest rates and the world’s best ranking for income equality,
pushed Iceland up the list.
o
Korea (from 27 to 17 ): Korea rates high on the government indebtedness meter, not surprising
given that it was the only developed nation to avoid going into a recession after the 2007 crisis.
The country also has a favorable interest rate environment.
rd
th
th
th
st
Conversely, Japan and Israel both fell from the top 20, and Brazil slipped 21 spots to 61 , trailing such
nations as Ukraine, Belarus and Bahrain.
th
th
th
st
o
Japan (from 15 to 27 ): Japan’s fall in the rankings has been largely due to internal financial
pressures, including high taxes and an above-average level of government debt. Japan’s debt to
GDP ratio is nearly 230%. An increase in bank loan defaults has contributed to Japan’s decline as
well.
o
Brazil (from 40 to 61 ): Economic growth in recent years has not translated into improvement
for the nation’s retirement system, and with slowing GDP growth and rising inflation, the current
climate is unfavorable for retirees.
Sub-Saharan African nations hold all of the bottom-10 places in the report, with Zimbabwe ranking last.
7
Shifts in retiree financial security attributed to fluctuating macro market and economic factors
Macro market and economic factors – most notably government debt, inflation and fiscal policies – are
creating risks that could have a profound influence on financial security for retirees around the globe.
Compounding the challenge, rising demand from aging populations will consume a greater share of
government resources.
This dilemma has contributed to the complexities involved in solving the worldwide crisis in retirement
funding, and underscores the need for more diverse, more stable sources of funding, including personal
savings and investments.
Implications for individuals: More responsibility; re-engineer how they prepare financially for
retirement
While many structural factors determine retirement security, individual savers and investors should focus
on the factors that remain in their control – namely saving for their futures; obtaining and following
professional financial advice; and acting to minimize external risks to the extent possible.
Investors globally are very confident that they are on track to meet their retirement goals, but could it be
misguided confidence?
o
A recent Natixis survey found that 80% believe their investing approach will provide for them in
1
old age
o
At the same time, nearly six in 10 (58%) admit they don’t have a financial plan in place
o
And the majority of financial advisors say their clients are underestimating the amount of income
they will need in retirement, and are overlooking key factors such as rising life expectancies,
2
which could incur additional health-related costs down the road
1
Role of financial advisory community never more critical
Financial advisors have a crucial role to play in addressing at least one aspect of this conundrum.
While they cannot resolve the deep structural challenges some governments face, they are in a position
to drive demand for investing strategies that will give individuals greater control of their own financial
security and deliver durable portfolios that can withstand market fluctuations over time. Research clearly
shows that both investors and advisors are increasingly skeptical that traditional investing strategies can
3
accomplish this in today’s investing environment.
1
Natixis Global Asset Management, Global Survey of Individual Investors, September 2013
Natixis Global Asset Management, Global Survey of Financial Advisors, October 2013
3
Natixis Global Asset Management, Global Survey of Individual Investors, September 2013 & Natixis Global Asset Management,
Global Survey of Financial Advisors, October 2013
2
8
One approach advisors should consider is goals-based investing, which puts the emphasis on what an
individual needs to save to meet their specific goals rather than simply trying to outperform an irrelevant
benchmark. Making it more personal for individuals – and reinforcing that they are key stakeholders in
this process – could help them become more engaged in planning, saving and investing.
Financial advisors can also play a key role in helping individuals understand and plan for evolving trends
that could eventually derail their goals and dreams. Rising life expectancies will mean longer working
careers and higher income targets to be able to live comfortably in retirement. And as people around the
world live longer, and health care costs continue to soar, this could cause significant asset erosion.
Durable Portfolio Construction provides a new approach that can help people pursue their retirement
goals.
As they assume more of the planning and saving responsibility, investors need to think of risk first as they
build durable, diversified portfolios that can manage short-term volatility, pursue long-term growth, and
keep them invested through a variety of market cycles in order to realize their full savings potential.
9
Methodology
The Natixis CoreData Global Retirement Index is a composite welfare index which combines 20 target-oriented
indicators, grouped into four thematic sub-indices.
The four sub-indices cover four relevant considerations for welfare in old age and are:
Health in Retirement Index
Material Wellbeing in Retirement Index
Quality of Life in Retirement Index
Finances in Retirement Index
Constructing the Indicators
The first step in expanding the index is to construct the 20 indicators. These are constructed by selecting and
preparing the raw data obtained from reliable secondary sources, and then transforming it into normalized indices.
In order to create normalized indices, minima and maxima need to be established. As a target-oriented
performance index, the maxima are determined as ideal outcomes. The selection of targets varies from variable to
variable, and will be explored in greater depth later on.
The minima are in fact the opposite, and are defined as lower performance benchmarks, which mark the worst
possible scenario. In some cases they will refer to subsistence minimum levels and in others, simply as the worst
observed value in the sample for that variable.
These indicators are created, following Emerson, et al. (2012) and based on a “proximity-to-target” methodology
by which “each country’s performance on any given indicator is measured based on its position within a range”
established by the lower benchmark and the target, on a scale from 0 to 1, where 0 is equal or lower than the
lower benchmark and 1 is equal or higher than the target.
The general formula to normalize the indicators is then given by:
Indicator =
–
(1)
However, this formula is, in certain cases, adapted to the characteristics of the data for each variable.
4
5
Again, following Emerson et al. (2012) most indicators are transformed into logarithms due to the high level of
skewness of the data. This has the advantage of identifying not only differences between the worst and the best
4
Emerson, J.W., A. Hsu, M.A. Levy, A. de Sherbinin, V. Mara, D.C. Esty, and M. Jaiteh (2012), 2012 Environmental Performance Index and Pilot
Trend Environmental Performance Index. New Haven: Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy.
10
performers, but it more clearly differentiates between top performing countries, allowing to better distinguish
variations among them.
Moreover, using logarithms allows for better identification of differences across the whole scale, distinguishing
between differences in performance which are equal in the absolute but very different proportionally.
Also, logarithmic functions are a better representation of variables which have a decreasing marginal welfare
benefits, such as income.
6
Once the indicators have been created they are aggregated by obtaining their geometric mean to obtain the
7
thematic indices. The geometric mean offers a number of advantages over the arithmetic mean ; this will be
8
discussed later in this chapter .
The four thematic sub-indices are constructed using the indicators in the following way:
1.
The Health in Retirement Index: this sub-index is obtained with the geometric mean of the following
indicators:
a.
Life expectancy at birth Index: obtained using data from the World Bank’s World Development
Indicators 2013. The target for this indicator is the sample maximum which is equal to 82.69
years, and the low performance benchmark is equal to 40 years, a figure observed in the least
developed countries of the World.
b.
Health expenditure per capita Index: obtained using data from World Health Organization’s
(WHO) NHA database. The target set for this indicator is the sample maximum, equal to
$8,361.73 USD, and the low performance benchmark is equal to the sample minimum of US$15.
This indicator is transformed into logarithms, as the marginal returns to extra expenditure are
decreasing.
c.
Physicians per 1,000 people Index: this indicator is calculated using data from the World Bank
(WB) World Development Indicators of 2013. The target set for this index is equal to the sample
maximum, this is 6.723 physicians for every 1,000 people, and the low-performance benchmark
5
Logarithmic form: variables with skewed distributions are transformed into logarithmic form by taking natural logarithms of the values to
make the distribution less skewed. When calculating an indicator we transform into logarithmic form by doing the following:
Where:
t = target or sample maximum
m = minimum benchmark or sample minimum
x = value of the variable
non-logarithmic indicator = (x-m) / (t-m)
take logs
indicator in logarithmic form =[ln(x)-ln(m)] / [ln(t)-ln(m)]
6
Geometric mean is a representation of the typical value or central tendency of a series of numbers calculated as the nth root of the product of
n numbers. Geometric mean = (x1 * x2 *…*xn)1/n
7
Arithmetic mean (or average) is a representation of the typical value or central tendency of a series of numbers calculated as the sum of all
the values in the series and divided by the number of numbers in the series. Arithmetic mean = (x1 +x2 +…+xn) / n
8
See Constructing the Global Retirement Index on page 14.
11
is equal to the sample minimum of 1. This indicator undergoes a logarithmic transformation
when calculated.
2.
d.
Non-insured health expenditure Index: this indicator is included to take into account the level of
expenditure in health that is not insured. The smaller the proportion of expenditure in healthcare
that is uninsured the higher the probability of having access to healthcare. This indicator is
calculated using data on out-of-pocket health insurance as a percentage of total health
expenditure, included in the WHO NHA database. The target for this indicator is equal to 0%,
which means that all of the population is covered by health insurance, and the low performance
benchmark is equal to the sample maximum of 88.14%.
e.
Hospital beds Index: obtained using data on the number of hospital beds for every 1,000 people
included in the WB's World Development Indicators 2013. The sample maximum of 13.7 hospital
beds for every 1,000 people is used as the target, and the sample minimum of 0.13 is used as a
low performance benchmark. This indicator is calculated in logarithmic form.
The Material Wellbeing in Retirement Index: this sub-index measures the ability of a country’s
population to provide for their material needs. The following indicators are aggregated by obtaining their
geometric mean to obtain a single measure.
a.
Income per capita Index: this indicator is calculated using data for the Gross National Income per
Capita from the WB's WDI 2013. The purchasing power parity (PPP) version is used as it provides
a better approximation to the real purchasing power of incomes across countries. The target
used for this indicator is the sample maximum, that is US$81,300, and the low performance
benchmark is equal to US$730, which is equal to US$2 per day which is widely used as a level of
9
income that allows for a minimum subsistence level .
b. Income equality Index: this indicator is included as it has been generally accepted that average
levels of income in a society cannot on their own measure material welfare, and including a
measure of equality ensures that countries with higher and more equally distributed income get
a better score. This index is constructed using the GINI index with data obtained from the World
Bank's World Development Indicators 2013 and completed with data from the CIA World
Factbook and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The target
is set at a score of 24.4, which is the sample minimum. The lower benchmark is set at 64.3, which
is the sample maximum. In the GRI 2013, this indicator was calculated using not only the GINI
index but also a quintile income ratio because data for the GINI index was not available for every
country in the index. However, due to increased GINI index data completeness the use of the
quintile income ratio was no longer necessary.
9
This is the median poverty line for all developing countries, as compared with the $1.25 (PPP) measure, which is the average national policy
line for the poorest 10-20 countries. Source: World Bank, International Comparison Program (ICP) 2005, press release 26th August 2008,
available:
http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2008/09/16/new-data-show-14-billion-live-less-us125-day-progress-againstpoverty-remains-strong. Accessed: 19th November, 2013.
12
c.
3.
Unemployment Index: a measure of unemployment was included in this index, despite the fact
that its focus is on people who have already retired from the labor market. This is because
societies with high levels of unemployment will see their social security systems under pressure
putting in danger the financing and provision of services for the elderly. Moreover, retirees in
countries with low unemployment levels will have a better possibility of complementing their
pension incomes with employment income, which is becoming increasingly necessary and
common. High levels of unemployment are also indicative of a country undergoing economic
problems and it is likely that this will impact the living standards of those in retirement. The
target for this index is 3% unemployment, at this level structural and cyclical unemployment can
be assumed to be 0 and only frictional unemployment persists, which indicates practical fullemployment. The low performance benchmark is set at 60% which is the sample maximum when
excluding one outlier (Zimbabwe, 95%). The data used for this index was sourced from the World
Bank's WDI 2013 and the CIA World Factbook.
Finances in Retirement Index: this sub-index captures the soundness of a country's financial system as
well as the level of returns to savings and investment and the preservation of the purchasing power of
savings. It is calculated as the arithmetic mean of the institutional strength index and the investment
environment index, which is in itself the geometric mean of six indicators of the soundness of government
finances and the strength of the financial system. The rationale behind this construction is that while a
favorable investment environment is extremely important for the finances of retirees, this will only be
long-lasting and stable in the presence of sound institutions, low levels of corruption, strong property
rights and a strong regulatory framework. Hence, good governance is a necessary condition for long-term
financial strength and stability and as such receives an equal weight.
The GRI 2014 doubles the weight of the institutional strength index compared to the GRI 2013, which
attached a weight of only 25% to this aspect. This resulted in countries with high rates of return, but
dubiously better institutions, being ranked above others with lower rates of return but strong property
rights and regulatory frameworks. Also, the sub-index is calculated using a different data set, the World
Bank's Governance Indicators instead of the World Governance Index, due to the fact that it offered more
recent and complete data.
a.
Investment Environment Index: this is calculated as the geometric mean of the following
indicators. It includes a new indicator not used in the GRI 2013, the government indebtedness
index, which has been included as it is a key variable for soundness of government finances and
is becoming increasingly relevant, particularly in the face of rapidly ageing countries with high
levels of debt.
b. Old age dependency Index: this indicator is included because a high dependency ratio poses a
severe threat to the capacity of society to pay for the care of the elderly, as well as risks reducing
the value of savings in the long-run, through several channels such as a fall in asset prices and a
fall in output, among others. This index is calculated using data on old age dependency ratios
from the WB's WDI 2013 and UN stats. The target value is equal to 10%, which reflects healthy
demographics, where for every old age dependent there are 10 people in the working force. The
low performance benchmark is equal to 50%, as it is potentially unsustainable to have less than 2
workers for every old age dependent.
13
c.
Inflation index: this is important due to the fact that high inflation will reduce the purchasing
power of savings and pensions, which can affect retirees disproportionately. The data used is
sourced from the Index of Economic Freedom 2013 and the target is 2%, which is a level of
inflation pursued by major central banks, and considered to be sufficiently close to price stability
and sufficiently far from deflation to provide some buffer from either. The low performance
benchmark is set at the sample maximum of 53.2%.
d. Interest rate Index: this is included as higher interest rates will increase the returns to
investment and saving, and in turn increases the level of wealth of retirees, who tend to benefit
more than other age groups. The data for this indicator is sourced from The Economist, the WB's
WDI 2013 and the OECD.
e.
Tax pressure Index: the importance of this indicator lies in the fact that higher levels of taxation
will decrease the level of disposable income of retirees and affect their financial position. Data
used is the tax burden from the Index of Economic Freedom 2013 which measures the total taxes
collected as percentage of GDP. The data used in the GRI 2013 was from the WB's WDI 2012 and
measured the taxes on income, profits and capital gains as a percentage of GDP, thus the index
was skewed in favor of countries with higher indirect taxes. The target for this index is 0% of
GDP, while the lower performance benchmark was set at the sample maximum of 57.7%% of
GDP.
f.
Bank non-performing loan Index: this indicator captures the strength of the banking system by
looking at the proportion of loans that are defaulted on. The target is set at the sample minimum
of 0.4%, while the lower performance benchmark is set at the sample maximum of 31.7%.
g.
Government Indebtedness Index: captures the soundness and sustainability of government
finances and serves as a predictor of future levels of taxation. The target level is set equal to the
sample maximum of 5.7% and the lower performance benchmark is the sample maximum of
229.8%.
h. Institutional Strength Index: is calculated as the arithmetic mean of the six different dimensions
of the World Bank's Governance Indicators. The target level is set equal to the maximum on the
scale used by the indicators, this is +2.5, while the lower performance benchmark is equal to the
lowest value of the scale, -2.5.
4.
Quality of Life and Environmental Index: this sub-index captures the level of happiness and fulfillment in
a society as well as the effect of environmental factors on the quality of life of individuals. It is constructed
by aggregating the following indicators, where 50% of the sub-index is determined by environmental
factors and the other half by the level of happiness.
a.
Happiness Index: accounts for 50% of the sub-index, it is elaborated on the basis of the Ladder of
Life question from the Gallup World Poll 2012, which asks individuals in different countries about
their level of happiness and satisfaction with past, present and future life. The target is set at the
14
sample maximum, which is an average score of 7.8, and the lower benchmark at the minimum of
2.6.
b. Air pollution Index, Water pollution Index, Biodiversity and habitat Index and Climate change
Index: these indicators measure the environmental quality of a country and the effects of
pollution on humans. They are elaborated using data from the Environmental Performance Index
2012, as well as from the US Energy Information Administration and the World Health
Organization.
Constructing the Global Retirement Index
The four sub-indices are then aggregated into the Global Retirement Index by obtaining their geometric mean. The
geometric mean was chosen over the arithmetic mean as the functional form of the index in order to address the
issue of perfect substitutability between the different indices when using the arithmetic mean.
10
In this sense, Klugman, Rodriguez and Choi (2011) argue that the use of an arithmetic mean is problematic
because it implies that a decrease in the level of one of the sub-indices can be offset by an equal increase in the
level of another sub-index without taking into account the level of each variable. This poses problems from a
welfare point of view, as for example a fall in the level of health cannot be assumed to be offset by an increase in
the level of income on a one-by-one basis and at a constant rate. Thus, perfect substitutability does not apply
when analyzing the effects of different factors on welfare.
The opposite alternative, full complementarity, would also be problematic, as it would assume that the only way of
increasing well-being is by improving two components at the same time (Klugman, Rodriguez and Choi, 2011), and
so for example, an increase in the level of health would have no effect on welfare if it is not accompanied by an
improvement in the other three sub-indices.
In this light, it makes sense to assume that there is some level of complementarity and some level of
substitutability between the different parameters in the index, as on one hand a worsening of one of the indicators
can be partially offset by an improvement of another one, but we can also assume that at least a basic level of
health, financial services, material provision and quality of life is necessary in order to enjoy a good retirement.
In the end, each of the 150 countries is awarded a score between 0% and 100%, for their suitability and
convenience for retirees. A score of 100% would represent the ideal country to retire to, with a great healthcare
system and an outstanding health record, a very high quality of life and a well preserved environment with low
levels of pollution, a sound financial system offering high rates of return and a very high level of material wealth.
10
Klugman, Rodriguez and Choi (2011), “The HDI 2010: New Controversies, Old Critiques”, Human Development Research Paper 2011/1, UNDP,
New York.
15
Material Wellbeing Index
Health Index
Source: Klugman Rodriguez and Choi (2011)
The chart graphically shows the three cases:
1.
2.
3.
Perfect substitutability (lO): where the effect on the GRI score of a unit decrease in one of the sub-indices
can be perfectly offset by a unit increase in another sub-index. For example, the GRI score will not change
after a 1% decrease in the Health Index score if accompanied by a 1% increase in the Material Wellbeing
Index. This assumes that welfare remains unchanged if a decrease in the health of the population is
matched by a proportional increase in their material wellbeing, which is problematic (e.g. If taken to the
extreme it means that the welfare of a society with middle levels of income and good health could be
equal to that of a very rich society affected by a deadly epidemic.)
Perfect complementarity (lf): where the effect on the GRI score of a unit increase in one of the subindices is zero if not accompanied by an equal increase in all the other sub-indices. This means that a 1%
increase in the Health Index would not increase the overall GRI score unless accompanied by a 1%
increase in the other 4 sub-indices. (i.e. Assumes that an increase in health is not an increase in overall
welfare unless material wellbeing, finances and quality of life all increase concurrently.)
Unit-elastic substitution (ln): this is the assumption made in the construction of the GRI by using the
geometric means. It means that the sub-indices become perfect substitutes as their levels approach the
high-end of the scale (100%) and perfect complements as their levels approach the low end of the scale
(0%). As a result, when a country scores very low on one or more sub-indices, an increase to a high score
on another sub-index will result in a less than proportional increase in the overall GRI score. This is
consistent with the assumption that that at least a basic level of health, financial services, material
provision and quality of life is necessary in order to enjoy a good retirement.
The geometric mean also offers an advantage over the arithmetic mean and other aggregation methods in that the
results do not vary due to differences in the scales in which the variables are measured.
16
Framework
Index
Policy Category Weight (%
Sub-Index
of Index)
Life Expectancy Index
Health Expenditure Per
Capita Index
Health Index
Physicians per 1000 people
index
Non-insured health
expenditure index
GEOMEAN
Indicators
Indicator Weight (% of SubIndex)
1 World Bank WDI 2013
Life Expectancy at Birth
Health Expenditure per
GEOMEAN
Capita PPP (Constant 2005
1
USD$)
GEOMEAN
expenditure (% of total
1
health expenditure)
Hospital Beds Index
GEOMEAN
Income Equality Index
GEOMEAN
Hospital Beds per 1,000
GEOMEAN
GINI Index
1
(Current International
1
USD$)
Unemployment Index
Institutional Strength Index
GEOMEAN
0.50
Unemployment (%of total
1
labour force)
Average of World Bank
1
Governance Indicators
Age dependency ratio, old
(% of working age
to total gross loans (%)
Finances in Retirement
Inflation, consumer prices
Index
(% annual)
Finances Sub-Index
World Health Oganisation
NHA Database
World Bank WDI 2013, CIA
World Factbook
World Factbook
World Factbook
World Bank Governance
Indicators 2013
World Bank WDI 2012, UN
GEOMEAN
Stats
population)
Bank nonperforming loans
NHA Database
people
GNI per capita, PPP
Material Wellbeing Index Income per capita Index
World Health Oganisation
Physicians per 1,000 people
Out of pocket health
GEOMEAN
Data Source
GEOMEAN
World Bank WDI 2013
Index of Economic Freedom
GEOMEAN
2013
Latest Data Available
2011
2011
2011, 2010
2011
2011, 2010, 2009
Between 2008 and 2011
depending on Country
2012
Target
Sample Maximum (82.69 years,
Switzerland)
Sample Maximum ($8607.88,
USA)
Low performance
benchmark
40 years
none
$15 USD
natural logarithm
Sample Maximum (6.723, Cuba) 1
0%
Sample Maximum (80.68%,
Myanmar)
Sample Maximum (13.65, Japan) Sample Minimum (0.1, Mali)
Sample Minimum (24.4, Iceland)
Sample Maximum ($81,300,
Qatar)
Statistical transformation
Sample Maximum (Comoros,
64.3)
$730 ($2 per day)
natural logarithm
none
natural logarithm
natural logarithm
natural logarithm
Sample Maximum (60%,
2011
3% Unemployment
Turkmenistan) (excluding
natural logarithm
Zimbabwe, 95%)
2012
Maximum on Scale (2.5)
Minimum on Scale (-2.5)
natural logarithm
2010
10%
50%
natural logarithm
Sample Minimum (0.4%,
Luxembourg)
Kazakhstan)
2012
2012
2%
2013, 2012
20%
0%
Sample Minimum (5.7%,
Madagascar)
Japan)
Belarus)
natural logarithm
natural logarithm
0.50
Real interest rate (%)
Government Debt (% of
GDP)
Tax Burden (% of GDP)
World Bank WDI 2013, The
GEOMEAN
Economist, OECD
GEOMEAN
2013
GEOMEAN
2013
2012
natural logarithm
natural logarithm
2012
0%
2008
0% of population exposed
100
natural logarithm
2010
10 ug/m3
48.7916
natural logarithm
2011
100% of population with access 36
inverse, natural logarithm
2011
100% of population with access 13
inverse, natural logarithm
Lesotho)
natural logarithm
WHO / UNICEF Joint
Indoor air pollution
Air pollution Index (EPI
2012)
0.5 Monitoring Programme (JMP)
for Water Supply and Sanitation
NASA Goddard Data and
0.125
Particulate matter
0.5 Applications Center; NASA
Socioeconomic Data and
WHO / UNICEF Joint
Access to drinking water
Water Pollution Index
WHO / UNICEF Joint
0.125
Access to sanitation
UNEP World Conservation
Biome protection
Biodiversity and habitat
Quality of life /
index (EPI 2012)
0.125
Marine protection*
0.25 WCMC(2011); VLIZ Maritime
protection***
CO2 per capita
CO2 per GDP
0.25
0.33
0.33
Alliance for Zero Extinction,
The Nature Conservancy
US Energy Information
Administration (IEA)
2011
electricity generation****
Renewable electricity
0.500
Ladder of Life
0.165
0.165
1 Gallup World Poll (2012)
biomes protected
0
none
and exclussive economic zone
0.00000117
natural logarithm
0
none
19588.33059
natural logarithm
1.532823116
natural logarithm
845.3289722
natural logarithm
0
none
protected
2011
100% of critical habitats
protected
1262 kg CO2 eq.(Estimated
2011
value associated with 50%
reduction in global GHG
0.07842 kg CO2 eq. (Estimated
2011
value associated with 50%
reduction in global GHG
0.125
CO2 emissions per
17% weighted average of
10% of country's terestrial seas
Boundaries Geodatabase
Critical habitat
Happiness Index
2010
Wildlife Fund USA
IUCN and UNEP
Environmental Index
Climate Change Index
0.5 Monitoring Centre; World
2011
2011
2012
0 grammes CO2 per KWh
100% electricity from renewable
sources
Sample Maximum (7.8, Canada) Sample Minimum (2.6, Togo)
natural logarithm
17
The Global Retirement Index 2014
A holistic assessment of the life conditions for retirees should not be limited to a "snapshot" at a particular point in
time but, more importantly, should aim to capture the evolution of the key drivers of wellbeing among people of
retirement age. Changes in these drivers reflect not only movements associated with the economic cycle but, more
importantly, underlying fundamental trends in policy, economic development, demographics and environmental
preservation.
We believe the analysis of these different trends is vital to paint an accurate picture of the way in which retiree life
will evolve in the long run, and which particular factors may increase or decrease overall retiree welfare in a
particular nation. One of the important objectives of this report is to identify key factors which may cause shifts in
the fundamental trends mentioned above, (economic development, demographics, policy and environmental
preservation).
The map below shows the overall scores obtained in this year’s Global Retirement Index. The highest performers,
scoring over 70%, are either North American or Northern European nations, with the exception of a minority of
Asian nations, (i.e. Japan, Australia, etc.). In terms of the lower scale, nations scoring 40% and under are
predominantly Sub-Saharan nations, with some Middle Eastern and Southeast Asian countries.
18
The Best and Worst Performers
The group of best performers in this year’s Global Retirement Index is composed of the four Nordic countries,
(Finland, Sweden, Denmark and Norway), four of the six official German-speaking nations (Switzerland,
Luxembourg, Germany and Austria), Australia and New Zealand.
1 Norway
84%
2
Sweden
79%
Germany
79%
Finland 2
78%
7 Luxembourg
78%
Denmark
79%
Austria
81%
1
Switzerland
84%
2
2
Chad 4
27%
Mali
26%
2
Congo, Dem. Rep.
24%
2 Guinea
27%
5 Togo
23%
5 Niger
21%
22 Burundi
22%
4
Zimbabwe
20%
Comoros
21%
1
Lesotho 5
24%
Australia
79%
6
Legend:
Top 10
13
New Zealand
78%
Bottom 10
Generally speaking, these top performing nations are modern industrialized economies with important service
sectors and modern infrastructure. Although these countries do have relatively high tax burdens, their citizens still
benefit from some of the highest income levels per capita, whilst also having narrow income gaps. In addition, the
citizens of these nations benefit from outstanding universal health care systems, and equally government policy is
geared towards ensuring high standards with regards to the environment and overall well-being.
The group of worst performers in this year’s Global Retirement Index is composed uniquely of Sub-Saharan
countries (Chad, Mali, Guinea, Togo, Niger, Burundi, Lesotho, Comoros, Zimbabwe and DR Congo).
In general, these nations lack modern infrastructure with non-existent or underdeveloped health care systems.
These nations have some of the lowest levels of income per capita and are often burdened with substantial
barriers to economic development, such as high levels of inflation and sovereign debt. Furthermore, improvement
in key indicators seems unlikely in the short term due to these chronic economic issues.
In terms of the Health sub-index, the top 30 performers have modern health care systems, which include high
levels of physicians per capita, sustainable health expenditure per capita and high life expectancy. The lowest
overall score is 71% for Cyprus and the UAE, and the best score is 90% for Austria. Similarly in the Quality of Life
19
sub-index, all top 30 countries score above 70% (except for Malta with 60%) and Switzerland tops the sub-index
with a score of 95%. As government policy becomes increasingly focused on issues related to the environment and
pollution, welfare in these countries has reached a relatively high standard, and therefore they tend to perform
well in the Quality of life sub-index.
Rank
Country
Health
Index
Finances in
Retirement
Index
Quality
of Life
Index
Material
Wellbeing
Index
Global
Retirement
Index
1
Sw itzerland
86%
71%
95%
87%
84%
2
Norw ay
86%
66%
89%
97%
84%
3
Austria
90%
63%
86%
89%
81%
4
Sw eden
83%
68%
87%
82%
79%
5
Australia
84%
74%
82%
78%
79%
6
Denm ark
83%
64%
87%
83%
79%
7
Germ any
88%
63%
85%
82%
79%
8
Finland
82%
68%
83%
81%
78%
9
New Zealand
79%
72%
87%
75%
78%
10
Luxem bourg
85%
59%
80%
89%
78%
11
Iceland
85%
60%
85%
83%
77%
12
Belgium
86%
62%
81%
82%
77%
13
Netherlands
86%
56%
83%
86%
77%
14
Canada
79%
69%
83%
76%
77%
15
France
88%
61%
85%
74%
76%
16
Czech Republic
83%
63%
76%
80%
75%
17
Korea, Rep.
77%
68%
71%
83%
74%
18
United Kingdom
81%
58%
87%
72%
74%
19
United States
81%
65%
80%
68%
73%
20
Israel
79%
63%
81%
70%
73%
21
Slovenia
80%
60%
73%
80%
73%
22
Slovak Republic
78%
64%
78%
70%
72%
23
Italy
82%
53%
83%
73%
72%
24
Ireland
82%
63%
78%
65%
71%
25
Cyprus
71%
64%
74%
76%
71%
26
United Arab Em irates
71%
55%
72%
84%
70%
27
Japan
84%
47%
76%
78%
69%
28
Malta
79%
62%
60%
80%
69%
29
Spain
83%
62%
79%
57%
69%
30
Poland
75%
62%
70%
67%
68%
The overall score for the Finances in Retirement sub-index tends to be relatively low due to many of the top 30
nations having low-birth rates and increasing numbers of retirees as a proportion of their population, coupled with
high levels of sovereign debt. For example, the highest score is only 74% for Australia and the lowest is 47% for
Japan. In terms of the Material Wellbeing sub-indices, the best performing nations such as Norway and
Luxembourg tend to have high levels of income per capita and low unemployment. The highest scoring nation is
Norway with 97% and the lowest is Spain with 57%.
20
In this year’s GRI, with exception of Turkmenistan and Haiti, the 30 worst performers are Sub-Saharan nations. Due
to high levels of pollution and little resources in terms of disease prevention, these nations score low in the Quality
of Life sub-index, with most countries scoring under 50%, and the lowest score being 14% for Comoros. Similarly,
with respect to the Health index, scores do not exceed 40% (except for Turkmenistan with 60%) and the lowest
score is 11% for Mali. This is due to an under-developed healthcare system, poor medical infrastructure, and low
levels of physicians per capita, which results in low life expectancy and high infant mortality rates.
Rank
Country
Health
Index
Finances in
Retirement
Index
Quality
of Life
Index
Material
Wellbeing
Index
Global
Retirement
Index
121
Botsw ana
38%
68%
41%
18%
37%
122
Burkina Faso
21%
46%
45%
42%
37%
123
Madagascar
23%
64%
43%
28%
37%
124
Kenya
31%
54%
50%
20%
36%
125
Turkm enistan
60%
35%
57%
14%
36%
126
Sudan
31%
29%
42%
37%
34%
127
Mozam bique
19%
61%
51%
22%
34%
128
Cote d'Ivoire
22%
37%
50%
31%
33%
129
Ethiopia
23%
38%
48%
30%
33%
130
Tanzania
17%
61%
26%
43%
33%
131
Congo, Rep.
30%
64%
38%
16%
33%
132
Benin
23%
46%
36%
31%
33%
133
Malaw i
21%
61%
67%
12%
32%
134
Djibouti
38%
57%
44%
11%
32%
135
Afghanistan
22%
52%
32%
28%
32%
136
Senegal
24%
45%
41%
20%
31%
137
Haiti
37%
57%
34%
11%
30%
138
Liberia
21%
59%
35%
17%
29%
139
Sierra Leone
13%
50%
33%
29%
28%
140
Central African Republic
17%
58%
41%
15%
28%
141
Chad
16%
61%
34%
16%
27%
142
Guinea
20%
33%
43%
18%
27%
143
Mali
11%
43%
35%
26%
26%
144
Lesotho
24%
51%
24%
11%
24%
145
Congo, Dem . Rep.
28%
46%
40%
6%
24%
146
Togo
23%
40%
20%
16%
23%
147
Burundi
20%
34%
44%
8%
22%
148
Niger
15%
43%
36%
8%
21%
149
Com oros
31%
57%
14%
7%
21%
150
Zim babw e
19%
53%
60%
3%
20%
These countries perform equally poorly in the Material Wellbeing sub-index, where only Burkina Faso and Tanzania
score over 40%, and Zimbabwe only scores 3%. The main reasons for such low scores are very low levels of income
per capita and also the highest rates of income inequality in the world. In contrast, with low levels of tax pressures
and overall low age dependency, the performance in the Finances in Retirement sub-index is impressive as seven
nations beat the 60% mark, and Botswana scores the highest with 68%. However, one should bear in mind that
high performance in the Finances in Retirement sub-index does not take into account future political and economic
instability.
21
Regional Perspective
Western Europe maintains its top position in this year’s Global Retirement Index, although it only improved its
overall score in the Quality of Life sub-index, moving from 80% to 83%. In the other sub-indices, its score
worsened, with a drop of 4% in the Finances in Retirement sub-index, and a low Material Wellbeing sub-index
score with only 74% this year. Eastern Europe and Central Asia performed particularly well in this year’s GRI as
their score increased in all but the Material Wellbeing sub-index, where the region’s score dropped by 4% to 62%.
However, it did improve its overall score, with its Global Retirement Index score increasing from 56% last year to
59% this year.
The Middle East and North Africa’s performance was stable in this year’s GRI at 54%. It improved its standing in the
Quality of Life and the Finances in Retirement sub-index, although its performance in the Material Wellbeing index
underwent a substantial drop, from 64% to 57%. The Asia Pacific region remained stable with an overall score of
53%, despite having improved in the Quality of life sub-index by 5% and its score in the Health sub-index by 2%,
although its score in the Material Wellbeing sub-index fell by 6% to 59%.
With an overall score of 74% in this year’s Global Retirement Index, North America is the second top performing
region. It performed especially well in the Material Wellbeing sub-index, second only to Western Europe with 69%,
and it also outperformed its previous score in the Quality of life Index, scoring 81%. Latin America and the
Caribbean dropped to an overall score of 59%, mainly due to a worsening performance in the Material Wellbeing
and the Finances in Retirement sub-indices, where they respectively scored 46% and 60%.
As stated previously, Sub-Saharan Africa’s performance has been particularly poor in this year’s GRI, having
performed worse in the Health sub-index, (scoring 27%), and the Material Wellbeing sub-index, (scoring 26%).
Although Sub-Saharan Africa did manage to improve in the Finances in Retirement sub-index and Quality of Life
sub-indices, it only scores 34% overall, and finishes last by a substantial margin (Asia-Pacific finished second to last
with an overall score of 51%).
22
The Top 30: Year-on-Year Trend
This year’s top 30 performers in the Global Retirement Index are overwhelmingly represented by Europe and
North America. Other regional groups were also represented, such as Asia Pacific, with South Korea, Japan,
Australia and New Zealand. Finally, Israel and the United Arab Emirates were the two nations representing the
Middle East. There were no top performers on the list from either Latin America or Africa.
Score
2014
Score
2013
Difference
in
Score
2
84%
87%
-3%
1
84%
87%
-3%
3
5
81%
81%
0%
Sw eden
4
4
79%
82%
-2%
Australia
5
11
79%
78%
1%
Denm ark
6
8
79%
79%
0%
Germ any
7
9
79%
78%
0%
Finland
8
6
78%
79%
-1%
New Zealand
9
22
78%
73%
5%
Luxem bourg
10
3
78%
82%
-4%
Iceland
11
23
77%
73%
4%
Belgium
12
14
77%
77%
0%
Netherlands
13
7
77%
80%
-3%
Canada
14
13
77%
77%
-1%
France
15
10
76%
78%
-2%
Czech Republic
16
17
75%
74%
2%
Korea, Rep.
17
27
74%
72%
2%
United Kingdom
18
20
74%
74%
0%
United States
19
19
73%
74%
-1%
Israel
20
12
73%
77%
-4%
Slovenia
21
16
73%
76%
-3%
Slovak Republic
22
18
72%
74%
-2%
Italy
23
21
72%
74%
-2%
Ireland
24
48
71%
64%
7%
Cyprus
25
24
71%
73%
-2%
26
30
70%
71%
-2%
Japan
27
15
69%
77%
-7%
Malta
28
26
69%
73%
-3%
Spain
29
25
69%
73%
-4%
Poland
30
36
68%
70%
-1%
Ranking
2014
Ranking
2013
Sw itzerland
1
Norw ay
2
Austria
Country
Difference
in
Ranking
2
The most important move in this year’s GRI is Ireland’s 7% increase to a score of 71%, which placed Ireland in 24th
position up from 48th place in the 2013 GRI. Iceland also increased its score to 77%, ranking 11th in this year’s GRI,
up from 23rd place last year. Both Ireland and Iceland improved their performance in the Finances in Retirement
index, due to positive outcomes regarding the sovereign debt crisis. In terms of worst performers, Japan dropped
7% in its overall score and now ranks 27th down from 15th place in last year’s GRI. Israel was the second worst
performer, dropping from 12th position to 20th in the 2014 GRI. In the case of Japan and Israel, performance in the
Finances in Retirement sub-index was limited by high tax pressures and high levels of government debt.
23
1.
Switzerland
Health
100%
75%
Material
Wellbeing
Finances
50%
2014
2013
Switzerland
Quality of
Life
Global Retirem ent Index
Ranking
Score
Top 30 Average
2014
2013
1
2
84%
87%
2014
2013
6
1
Change
Sub-Index and Indicator Rankings
2014
2013
5
9
Life Expectancy
1
2
Old-Age Dependency
133
133
Health Expenditure per Capita
4
4
Bank Non-Perform ing Loans
6
1
Physicians per Capita
7
8
Inflation
1
1
Health Index
Change
Finances in Retirem ent
Non- Insured Health Expenditure
53
65
Interest Rates
106
82
Hospital Beds per Capita
31
29
Tax Pressure
115
86
2014
2013
6
6
Quality of Life Index
1
1
Well-Being
4
4
Air Pollution
1
1
Change
Governance
Governm ent Indebtedness
Change
95
2014
2013
5
9
Water Pollution
1
1
Incom e Equality
24
41
Biodiversity and Habitat
10
10
Incom e per Capita
5
6
Clim ate Change
28
42
Unem ploym ent
25
21
Change
This year’s Global Retirement Index is topped by Switzerland after moving up one place and marginally overtaking
last year’s highest ranked country, Norway. Interestingly, Switzerland has climbed one place in the rankings
despite having an overall score of 84%, compared to 87% last year, signaling that average scores have gone down
at the top of the rankings. The inclusion of a government indebtedness indicator serves to explain this, as it is
developed country governments that generally have higher levels of debt as a percentage of GDP.
This new indicator, coupled with historically low real interest rates and a rise in the proportion of bank loans that
st
th
are in default relative to other countries in the index, resulted in Switzerland falling from 1 to 6 place in the
Finances in Retirement sub-index. In contrast, decreasing income inequality and rising incomes saw the country
th
th
jump from 9 to 5 place in the Material Wellbeing sub-index.
Improvements in the number of physicians per capita and the proportion of total health expenditure covered by
th
th
insurance resulted in a rise from 9 to 5 place in the Health sub-index, which coupled with a top spot in the
Quality of Life sub-index signal an increasing level of welfare among retirees and future retirees.
24
2.
Norway
Health
100%
75%
Material
Wellbeing
Finances
50%
2014
2013
Norway
Top 30 Average
Quality of
Life
Ranking
Score
2014
2013
2
1
84%
87%
2014
2013
Change
Health Index
2014
2013
Change
4
4
19
4
Life Expectancy
12
11
Old-Age Dependency
129
128
3
3
16
10
Inflation
6
6
16
26
1
44
Interest Rates
116
23
Tax Pressure
54
52
2014
2013
2
2
Well-Being
3
3
Air Pollution
1
1
Water Pollution
1
1
Incom e Equality
64
64
Incom e per Capita
2
2
Clim ate Change
39
49
Unem ploym ent
14
15
Change
143
140
Governance
4
7
98
2014
2013
1
1
3
3
st
Change
Change
nd
While Norway loses one place in the rankings in this year’s Global Retirement Index, going from 1 to 2 place, it is
a country with an extremely high quality of life, an outstanding healthcare system and a sound financial system.
Moreover, it is one of the wealthiest countries in the world (on a per capita basis) with a sovereign wealth fund
worth over $800bn, or nearly twice the value of the country’s annual output.
In fact, and despite its fall in the rankings, Norway sees improvement in a number of indicators and outperforms
the average of the top 30 countries in all 4 dimensions of the GRI, particularly in the Material Wellbeing and the
Quality of Life sub-indices. Norway’s most notable improvements over the last year can be seen in a lower level of
inflation, which prevents the loss of purchasing power of savings, a decrease in the level of unemployment, as well
as notable improvement in the curtailment of factors that lead to climate change, most notably CO2 emissions.
On the other hand, Norway’s ageing population sees it underperform in the Old-Age Dependency indicator, its
ultra-low interest rate environment poses huge challenges for investors to grow their retirement savings and its
high levels of taxation (43% of GDP) hurt disposable incomes and the capacity to put aside savings for retirement.
25
3.
Austria
Health
100%
75%
Material
Wellbeing
Finances
50%
2014
2013
Austria
Quality of
Life
Ranking
Score
Top 30 Average
2014
2013
3
5
81%
81%
2014
2013
Change
Health Index
2014
2013
Change
1
1
35
45
Life Expectancy
15
19
Old-Age Dependency
140
141
8
8
35
28
3
4
Inflation
46
1
27
22
Interest Rates
113
103
7
6
Tax Pressure
141
106
2014
2013
Governance
12
11
8
7
123
Well-Being
11
11
Air Pollution
1
1
Water Pollution
1
1
76
76
Clim ate Change
44
58
Change
2014
2013
3
4
11
14
Incom e per Capita
9
10
Unem ploym ent
25
24
Incom e Equality
Change
Change
th
Austria takes the bronze medal in this year’s Global Retirement Index, up from 5 place in last year’s index. Austria
has a well-developed social market economy and a high standard of living, with an exceptional universal health
care system. In addition, Austria is also one of the wealthiest nations in the European Union with approximately
$44,000 in income per capita.
Austria maintains its top position in the Health sub-index, with impressive figures in the physicians and health
expenditure per capita indicators, and a higher relative life expectancy compared to last year’s figures, (an increase
rd
from 80 years to 81 years of age). In terms of the Material Wellbeing sub-index, Austria is now in 3 place and
substantially outperforms the average of the top 30 nations in this category, due to high income equality and low
levels of unemployment, (around 4% in 2014).
Although Austria’s financial system is somewhat burdened with tax and inflationary pressures, it has enabled
Austrian retirees to benefit from one of the best health care systems.
26
4.
Sweden
Health
100%
75%
Material
Wellbeing
Finances
50%
2014
2013
Sweden
Quality of
Life
Ranking
Score
Top 30 Average
2014
2013
4
4
79%
82%
2014
2013
Change
Health Index
2014
2013
Change
15
17
Life Expectancy
9
8
Old-Age Dependency
13
12
13
12
Inflation
1
1
30
31
Interest Rates
88
100
63
61
Tax Pressure
2014
2013
5
4
Well-Being
4
4
Air Pollution
1
1
Water Pollution
1
1
Change
14
9
146
147
5
16
147
79
Governance
2
3
64
Incom e Equality
2014
2013
14
12
12
1
89
89
Incom e per Capita
8
11
Clim ate Change
38
43
Unem ploym ent
66
71
Change
Change
th
Although Sweden’s overall score has decreased to 79%, it still manages to maintain 4 position in this year’s Global
Retirement Index. Sweden is a prime example of the Nordic model, a competitive, export-oriented and capitalist
economy, with a universal welfare system. Sweden’s universal health care system, with high levels of physicians
per capita, (close to 4 per 1,000 people), and high life expectancy, (around 82 years), making it one of the top
health care systems in this index.
With regards to material wellbeing, Swedes benefit from high levels of income equality and one of the highest
levels of income per capita in the EU with around $42,000 per capita. However, in order to sustain a generous
welfare state, tax pressures have substantially increased, which have impacted the Finances in Retirement subindex, (the tax burden as a percentage of GDP is estimated at 46% in 2014).
th
In terms of the Quality of Life sub-index, Sweden takes the 5 position, as policy makers continue to focus their
efforts on important environmental concerns such as climate change. Overall, Sweden performs extremely well as
th
its worst position over the four sub-indices is 15 place in the Health sub-index.
27
5.
Australia
Health
100%
75%
Material
Wellbeing
Finances
50%
2014
2013
Australia
Quality of
Life
2014
2013
5
11
79%
78%
2014
2013
Ranking
Score
Top 30 Average
Change
Health Index
2014
2013
Change
11
22
2
13
Life Expectancy
8
4
Old-Age Dependency
119
119
14
15
20
20
10
32
Inflation
33
51
43
45
Interest Rates
98
46
43
42
2014
2013
18
25
Well-Being
8
8
Air Pollution
1
1
Water Pollution
1
1
Change
Tax Pressure
89
147
Governance
10
10
28
Incom e Equality
2014
2013
19
15
48
45
27
27
Incom e per Capita
12
16
Clim ate Change
130
121
Unem ploym ent
42
33
th
Change
Change
th
Australia has increased its ranking in this year’s Global Retirement Index, from 11 to 5 place. Australia is one of
the fastest growing developed economies in the world, with a strong services and commodities industry.
Australians benefit from a strong welfare system, high income equality but unlike other large economies Australia
has extremely low levels of unemployment, (approximately 5% in 2014).
nd
Australia’s performance in the Finances in Retirement sub-index puts it into 2 place, with low tax pressures and
low levels of inflation, 2.4% in 2014. In addition, improvements in the number of physicians per capita, (an increase
from 3 to 4 physicians per 1000 people in 2014), and stability in the total health expenditure covered by insurance
nd
th
resulted in a rise from 22 place to 11 place in the Health sub-index.
In terms of the Quality of Life sub-index, Australia has improved its standing, with high indicators of well-being and
water and air pollution.
28
6.
Denmark
Health
100%
75%
Material
Wellbeing
Finances
50%
2014
2013
Denmark
Quality of
Life
Ranking
Score
Top 30 Average
2014
2013
6
8
79%
79%
2014
2013
Change
Health Index
2014
2013
Change
12
14
26
47
Life Expectancy
27
28
Old-Age Dependency
139
135
6
6
52
52
25
24
Inflation
21
40
15
15
Interest Rates
100
95
Tax Pressure
49
47
2014
2013
3
8
Well-Being
1
1
Air Pollution
1
1
Water Pollution
1
1
70
Clim ate Change
67
Change
148
148
Governance
5
2
92
2014
2013
10
10
Incom e Equality
4
6
70
Incom e per Capita
11
9
82
Unem ploym ent
67
57
th
Change
Change
th
In this year’s Global Retirement Index, Denmark has increased its standing from 8 to 6 place, even though its
overall score has remained at 79%. Considered a modern market economy, Danish people also benefit from
extensive government welfare measures and comfortable living standards. As shown in the Material Wellbeing
sub-index, Denmark has extremely low levels of income inequality whilst possessing one of the highest levels of
income per capita, with approximately $40,000 per capita.
th
In terms of its financial system, Denmark has increased its ranking in the Finances in Retirement to 26 place, with
a reduction of inflation (2.3% to 0.5% from 2013 to 2014), and overall lower levels of governance. With regards to
the Health sub-index, Denmark also improves its ranking, with one of the most favorable levels of health
expenditure per capita coupled with a high number of physicians per capita, (3.5 physicians per 1000 people in
2014).
Denmark is famous for being one of the ‘happiest’ nations on the planet. This is reflected in the Quality of Life subindex where it now ranks third, with a top spot for the well-being indicator.
29
7.
Germany
Health
100%
75%
Material
Wellbeing
Finances
50%
2014
2013
Germany
Quality of
Life
Ranking
Score
Top 30 Average
2014
2013
7
9
79%
78%
2014
2013
Change
Health Index
2014
2013
Change
2
3
41
51
Life Expectancy
21
22
Old-Age Dependency
149
148
9
9
39
42
18
20
Inflation
18
1
12
13
Interest Rates
114
103
6
5
Tax Pressure
132
71
2014
2013
Governance
14
15
11
12
Well-Being
25
25
Air Pollution
1
1
Water Pollution
1
1
Incom e Equality
Change
131
2014
2013
13
13
19
12
1
1
Incom e per Capita
15
14
Clim ate Change
88
95
Unem ploym ent
50
49
th
Change
Change
th
Germany has increased its ranking in this year’s Global Retirement Index from 9 to 7 place. Germany is the
largest economy in Europe, with an important service sector and a strong export-oriented economy specializing in
high-end manufactured goods. In conjunction with strong economic fundamentals, it also has a top welfare and
health care system.
In this year’s report, Germany has performed extremely well in the Health sub-index, with improvements in almost
nd
every indicator, such as the number of physicians per capita and insured health expenditure, it is now in 2 place.
Germany also improves its standing in the Quality of Life sub-index, as German policy has continued to focus on
environmental issues, having also increased its performance with regards to climate change.
In terms of the Finances in Retirement sub-index, although increased tax pressures could hinder economic
prosperity, low levels of inflation and sustainable government debt, (82% of Debt to GDP ratio in 2014), have
st
contributed to increasing Germany’s standing to 41 position, which outperforms the average of the top 30
nations.
30
8.
Finland
Health
100%
75%
Material
Wellbeing
Finances
50%
2014
2013
Finland
Top 30 Average
Quality of
Life
Ranking
Score
2014
2013
8
6
78%
80%
2014
2013
Change
Health Index
2014
2013
Change
18
18
Life Expectancy
25
24
Old-Age Dependency
15
16
35
34
Inflation
31
1
Non-Insured Health Expenditure
40
36
Interest Rates
110
103
22
20
Tax Pressure
2014
2013
16
19
Well-Being
8
8
Air Pollution
1
1
Water Pollution
1
1
Incom e Equality
88
88
Incom e per Capita
17
15
Clim ate Change
81
90
Unem ploym ent
68
71
Change
12
11
145
142
2
1
142
105
Governance
1
1
95
2014
2013
15
14
7
5
th
Change
Change
th
Finland loses two places in the rankings in this year’s Global Retirement Index, going from 6 to 8 place. It is a
country with an overall high quality of life, and although its ranking in Finances in Retirement and Material
Wellbeing sub-indices have decreased, it still maintains a great healthcare system and a sound financial system.
Despite being the only Nordic nation to be part of the Eurozone, Finland still manages to offer a comfortable
situation to retirees and future retirees, with low levels of inflation and other indicators such as positive results for
bank non-performing loans. In addition, as a mixed economy, Finland has one of the highest levels of income per
capita, and is one of the best performers worldwide in terms of income equality. Thus, in both the Finances in
Retirement and Material Wellbeing sub-indices, Finland outperforms this year’s average of top 30 performers.
In terms of the Health sub-index, Finland’s performance is similar to other Nordic nations, with an overall good
performance in health care services and expenditure. However, Finland’s most notable improvement has been in
th
the Quality of Life sub-index, where it increased its position to 16 .
31
9.
New Zealand
Health
100%
75%
Material
Wellbeing
Finances
50%
2014
2013
New Zealand
Quality of
Life
Ranking
Score
Top 30 Average
2014
2013
9
22
78%
73%
2014
2013
Change
Health Index
2014
2013
Change
26
10
5
88
Life Expectancy
17
15
Old-Age Dependency
118
116
21
21
16
94
45
40
Inflation
54
54
9
8
Interest Rates
73
61
Tax Pressure
69
2014
2013
6
5
Well-Being
15
15
Air Pollution
1
1
Water Pollution
1
1
46
Clim ate Change
65
Change
120
149
Governance
3
4
62
2014
2013
26
25
Incom e Equality
35
63
46
Incom e per Capita
27
26
64
Unem ploym ent
53
43
nd
Change
Change
th
New Zealand improves its overall score to 78%, moving it from 22 into 9 position in this year’s Global
Retirement Index. New Zealand is considered to be a free market economy, particularly dependent on
international trade and also one of the top nations for ease of doing business. In this year’s Finances in Retirement
th
th
sub-index with a move from 88 place to 5 place, due to a lowering of tax pressures and increased performance
on various indicators such as bank non-performing loans.
New Zealand remains relatively stable in the Material Wellbeing sub-index, even though it substantially improves
on income equality and still retains a high ratio of income per capita. Nonetheless, it has suffered increases in
unemployment levels since the 2008 crisis. In terms of the Quality of Life sub-index, New Zealand continues to
outperform the top 30 average, with policies remaining focused on environmental issues.
th
Finally, with regards to the Health sub-index, New Zealand falls to 26 place, although it does have a good health
care system, it experienced lower indicators compared to last year, with deceases in physicians per capita and life
expectancy.
32
10. Luxembourg
Health
100%
75%
Material
Wellbeing
Finances
50%
2014
2013
Luxembourg
Quality of
Life
Ranking
Score
Top 30 Average
2014
2013
10
3
78%
82%
2014
2013
Change
Health Index
2014
2013
Change
8
6
Life Expectancy
16
21
Old-Age Dependency
2
2
40
37
Inflation
33
38
11
10
Interest Rates
118
103
26
25
Tax Pressure
2014
2013
23
18
Well-Being
18
18
Air Pollution
1
1
Water Pollution
1
1
Incom e Equality
1
1
Incom e per Capita
3
1
135
114
Unem ploym ent
38
24
Clim ate Change
rd
Change
71
19
117
121
1
1
134
136
Governance
8
5
24
2014
2013
2
2
13
7
Change
Change
th
Luxembourg has seen its ranking move from 3 to 10 place in this year’s Global Retirement Index. Luxembourg is
rd
one of the most prosperous economies in the world, the 3 highest income per capita in the world, and an
outstanding health care system. However, Luxembourg’s banking industry, the largest sector of its economy, was
severely hit by the global financial crisis, which still hinders the pre-crisis economic prosperity.
Nonetheless, Luxembourg still maintains its excellent performance in the Material Wellbeing sub-index, with
relatively low levels of unemployment, (5% in 2014), and remaining one of the most equal nations in terms of
income. Similarly, Luxembourg outperforms the top 30 average in the Health sub-index, with high life expectancy
and impressive figures for health expenditure per capita.
33
11. Iceland
Health
100%
75%
Material
Wellbeing
Finances
50%
2014
2013
Iceland
Quality of
Life
Ranking
Score
Top 30 Average
2014
2013
11
23
77%
73%
2014
2013
Change
Health Index
2014
2013
9
7
Life Expectancy
3
8
17
66
102
112
112
17
98
94
24
15
Inflation
54
87
36
34
Interest Rates
56
79
23
23
2013
10
3
Well-Being
20
20
Air Pollution
1
1
Water Pollution
1
1
54
54
Clim ate Change
49
29
Old-Age Dependency
2014
Change
Change
Tax Pressure
132
127
Governance
13
33
139
2014
2013
9
20
1
17
Incom e per Capita
22
25
Unem ploym ent
60
59
Incom e Equality
Change
Change
th
Iceland increased its overall score to 77%, and is now ranked 11 in this year’s Global Retirement Index. Although
Iceland witnessed the systemic collapse of its 3 major commercial banks, the government has been able to limit
serious economic damages, and in fact, with sustainable levels of sovereign debt, has improved the financial
soundness of the country. This is best represented by Iceland’s performance in the Finances in Retirement subnd
th
index, where it moved from the 102 to the 66 position, with a reduction in the inflation rate from 5.4% to 3.9%
from 2013 to 2014.
In terms of the Health sub-index, Iceland has a top health care system and other positive indications such as high
life expectancy. Although Iceland’s ranking decreased in the Quality of Life sub-index, its relative performance is
still strong with regards to pollution and environmental concerns, such as climate change.
Iceland’s economic situation has improved substantially since the global financial crisis, and continues to perform.
Icelanders benefit from one of the highest levels of income equality in the world, and also high levels of income
th
per capita. This places Iceland 9 on the Material Wellbeing sub-index, and thus outperforms the top 30 average.
34
12. Belgium
Health
100%
75%
Material
Wellbeing
Finances
50%
2014
2013
Belgium
Quality of
Life
Ranking
Score
Top 30 Average
2014
2013
12
14
77%
77%
2014
2013
Change
Health Index
2014
2013
Change
6
12
50
38
Life Expectancy
24
23
Old-Age Dependency
138
144
10
10
37
30
12
30
Inflation
41
37
39
44
Interest Rates
96
97
15
16
2014
2013
21
15
Well-Being
20
20
Air Pollution
1
1
Water Pollution
1
1
Change
Tax Pressure
146
142
Governance
17
18
138
Incom e Equality
2014
2013
12
22
9
32
40
40
Incom e per Capita
16
13
Clim ate Change
113
93
Unem ploym ent
60
69
Change
Change
th
Belgium is now 12 in this year’s Global Retirement Index. Belgium is a typical modern economy within the
European Union, possessing a universal health care system and generally a high quality of life. In terms of its
financial soundness, issues over sovereign debt have been of concern since the beginning of the global financial
crisis, which are reflected in the drop in the Finances and Retirement, as Belgium slips under the top 30 average of
best performers.
Belgium substantially increased its standing in both the Health and Material Wellbeing sub-indices, with most
indicators having risen. Notably, unemployment in Belgium has been decreasing whilst income inequality has
substantially improved, (close to a 20% reduction in the income gap). In terms of the Health sub-index, Belgium
has performed extremely well, particularly increasing the number of physicians per capita from 3 to 4 per 1,000
people between 2013 and 2014.
The Quality of Life sub-index remained relatively stable with a decline in the climate change indicator. However,
the potential threat for retirees is financial, and whether the government can reduce debt and tax pressures.
35
13. Netherlands
Health
100%
75%
Material
Wellbeing
Finances
50%
2014
2013
Netherlands
Quality of
Life
Ranking
Score
Top 30 Average
2014
2013
13
7
77%
80%
2014
2013
Change
Health Index
2014
2013
Change
7
5
86
43
Life Expectancy
13
15
Old-Age Dependency
131
129
5
5
42
28
37
35
Inflation
18
1
2
1
Interest Rates
118
103
34
34
Tax Pressure
139
124
2014
2013
7
8
13
10
Well-Being
4
4
Air Pollution
1
1
Water Pollution
1
1
29
29
Clim ate Change
127
101
Change
Governance
Change
113
2014
2013
6
6
Incom e Equality
20
28
Incom e per Capita
10
8
Unem ploym ent
32
26
Change
In the top 30 for the Quality of Life, Health, and Material Wellbeing sub-indices, the Netherlands is often
celebrated for the quality of life of its citizens. Its major fall in the rankings has come probably as a result of its
significant drop in the rankings in the Finances in Retirement sub-index, from 43 in 2013 to 86 this year.
The Netherlands’ credit rating has remained high in 2014, at AAA across the main rating agencies, but the
proportion of bank loans in default has increased relative to other countries and interest rate conditions and tax
pressures have worsened (although their governance ranking has improved drastically). This has led to a seven
place drop in the overall GRI rankings but, at number 13, it remains a very good place to retire to, with high health
expenditure per capita, low air and water pollution, and a high rank in the well-being indicator.
There has recently been much debate, as in many developed Western nations, about whether the Netherlands’
provision of the state pension from the age of 65 is sustainable given its high Old-Age Dependency ratio (reflected
in the rankings for that indicator). The speed with which the government’s financial situation deteriorates will be
relevant to those coming to retire in the country, but currently the Netherlands remains towards the top of the list.
36
14. Canada
Health
100%
75%
Material
Wellbeing
Finances
50%
2014
2013
Canada
Quality of
Life
Ranking
Score
Top 30 Average
2014
2013
14
13
77%
77%
2014
2013
Change
Health Index
2014
2013
Change
28
28
Life Expectancy
14
13
Old-Age Dependency
7
7
57
57
Inflation
23
1
20
23
Interest Rates
103
103
55
55
Tax Pressure
118
128
2014
2013
9
9
14
16
1
1
Air Pollution
1
1
Water Pollution
27
1
Well-Being
Change
Governance
Incom e Equality
8
17
122
120
3
5
Change
133
2014
2013
25
23
38
37
83
83
Incom e per Capita
13
12
Clim ate Change
98
100
Unem ploym ent
64
64
Change
Canada has been very consistent in the ranking of this year’s Global Retirement Index, maintaining the same
overall score of 77%, and only dropping 1 place. Canada has increased both its ranking in the Quality of Life and
the Finances in Retirement sub-indices, where it has also outperformed the average 30 top performing nations.
Retirees in Canada benefit from a top healthcare system and other positive related outcomes such as a life
expectancy, (81 in 2014), and universal health coverage. Canada also performs well in the Quality of Life sub-index,
th
due to policy makers increased focus on environmental issues, thus pushing Canada into 14 position in this subindex.
However, Canada’s performance in the Finances in Retirement sub-index is particularly outstanding, as it has
increased its ranking. Thanks partly to the wealth derived from natural resources, the Canadian economy has
prospered in recent times. This has had positive effects on retiree life, as the Canadian government has been able
to fund generous social security programs.
37
15. France
Health
100%
75%
Material
Wellbeing
Finances
50%
2014
2013
France
Quality of
Life
Ranking
Score
Top 30 Average
2014
2013
15
10
76%
78%
2014
2013
Change
Health Index
2014
2013
Change
3
2
58
46
Life Expectancy
11
10
Old-Age Dependency
141
140
11
11
55
50
27
23
Inflation
15
1
5
3
Interest Rates
99
102
13
11
2014
2013
9
9
Well-Being
22
22
Air Pollution
46
46
Water Pollution
1
1
35
Clim ate Change
51
Change
Tax Pressure
144
108
Governance
21
19
134
2014
2013
28
24
Incom e Equality
28
19
35
Incom e per Capita
19
18
63
Unem ploym ent
88
79
Change
Change
th
France loses five places in this year’s Global Retirement Index, pushing it to the 15 place. It is a country of
extremes as it is one of the top ranked nations for its health care system and quality of life, whilst having one of
the lowest ranked financial systems, especially when compared to other western nations.
With an increase in tax pressures and old-age dependency, the French economy has also suffered losses in
th
purchasing power. This is reflected in the Finances in Retirement sub-index where France dropped from the 46
th
position to the 58 . In addition, the income gap has widened and unemployment remains at 9.3% from 2013 to
th
2014, which moves France to the 28 place in the Material Wellbeing sub-index.
However, France manages to maintain its spot on the podium for the Health sub-index, with a special mention to
th
its high life expectancy and social security system especially favorable to retirees. France also maintains 9
position for Quality of Life, which reflects government policy towards the environment.
38
16. Czech Republic
Health
100%
75%
Material
Wellbeing
Finances
50%
2014
2013
Czech Republic
Quality of
Life
Ranking
Score
Top 30 Average
2014
2013
16
17
75%
74%
2014
2013
Change
Health Index
2014
2013
Change
14
12
34
61
Life Expectancy
35
34
Old-Age Dependency
128
123
31
29
60
58
17
17
Inflation
23
24
10
9
2014
2013
Governance
31
33
40
40
Well-Being
Air Pollution
1
1
Water Pollution
26
34
Change
1
1
Interest Rates
104
103
Tax Pressure
129
74
27
27
Incom e Equality
Change
77
2014
2013
16
17
5
1
32
32
Incom e per Capita
35
35
Clim ate Change
117
110
Unem ploym ent
56
52
Change
The GRI ranking of the Czech Republic has improved slightly since last year, going from 17 in 2013 to 16 this year.
In every sub-index except for Health, its position has improved. Despite what some are calling a stagnating
economy, and an increase in regressive taxation (VAT has increased from 20% to 21% in the last year), the country
st
th
has improved on its 2013 Finances in Retirement ranking, moving from 61 to 34 place. This has been largely due
to an improvement in its Governance indicator.
From a certain perspective, the Czech Republic’s position is sustainable: they have low levels of inflation, tax
pressure has increased relative to other states but this will presumably help to finance the government in the
longer term, and current government indebtedness is relatively low. On the other hand, the Old-Age Dependency
th
ranking is high (ranked 128 ) and interest rates have remained suppressed, hurting savers. In terms of living in the
Czech Republic, although physicians and hospital beds per capita are relatively high compared with other
countries, the indicators for well-being and life expectancy suggest less than impressive statistics on these issues.
39
17. Republic of Korea
Health
100%
75%
Material
Wellbeing
Finances
50%
2014
2013
Korea, Rep.
Quality of
Life
Ranking
Score
Top 30 Average
2014
2013
17
27
74%
72%
2014
2013
Change
Health Index
2014
2013
Change
35
34
11
65
Life Expectancy
18
14
Old-Age Dependency
103
101
28
30
12
14
59
56
Inflation
54
55
75
68
Interest Rates
81
89
3
3
2014
2013
43
44
Well-Being
44
44
Air Pollution
51
51
Water Pollution
41
37
63
63
Clim ate Change
124
109
Change
Tax Pressure
103
107
Governance
35
107
53
2014
2013
11
6
33
22
Incom e per Capita
25
24
Unem ploym ent
17
17
Incom e Equality
Change
Change
Financially, the Republic of Korea has significantly improved its rankings. From a position of 65 on the Finances in
Retirement index in 2013, it has jumped over 50 places to sit at number 11 this year, partly because of a relatively
high ranking in the Government Indebtedness indicator and an improvement in interest rates relative to others in
the index. It has remained approximately static or fallen in rank for every other sub-index, but its improvement in
financial circumstances has been enough to take South Korea up ten places overall, from 27 to 17 in the GRI.
As the only developed nation to have avoided going into economic recession after the 2007 financial crisis, South
Korea was expected to have a high ranking in the Government Indebtedness indicator. However, improvement in
the interest rate indicator was unexpected given a reduction in real interest rates from 2.7% to 1.7% over the
period.
Despite high levels of income per capita and relatively low unemployment levels compared to other nations, South
Korea does not impress in terms of quality of life, with water pollution worsening relative to other nations and its
th
rank on the Well-Being indicator remaining constant at the moderately impressive position of 11 .
40
18. United Kingdom
Health
100%
75%
Material
Wellbeing
Finances
50%
2014
2013
United Kingdom
Quality of
Life
Ranking
Score
Top 30 Average
2014
2013
18
20
74%
74%
2014
2013
Change
Health Index
2014
2013
Change
22
21
77
77
Life Expectancy
19
17
Old-Age Dependency
135
136
16
14
52
48
41
39
Inflation
63
57
8
7
Interest Rates
117
103
60
52
Tax Pressure
130
143
2014
2013
Governance
16
17
4
6
132
19
19
Air Pollution
1
1
Water Pollution
1
1
Well-Being
Change
2014
2013
31
26
Incom e Equality
56
56
1
1
Incom e per Capita
18
17
Clim ate Change
84
87
Unem ploym ent
71
62
Change
Change
th
The United Kingdom gained two spots in this year’s Global Retirement Index, bringing it to the 18 place. The UK
has been relatively stable in comparison to last year’s performance, with a satisfactory health care system and a
mediocre financial system for retirees. The UK’s overall score remains at 74% on the GRI Index.
The United Kingdom manages to improve substantially on the Quality of Life sub-index as it continues to maintain
nd
the top spot for multiple sub-indices (i.e. water pollution and air pollution). The UK’s 22 place in the Health subindex remains satisfactory with an effective universal health care system and reasonable health expenditure for
retirees.
However, high tax pressures and increasing inflation have affected retirees’ current income and purchasing power,
th
whilst also increasing pressure on the UK pension system. This puts the UK in 77 position for the Finances in
Retirement sub-index, one of the lowest rankings for a western nation. Added to this, income inequality still
remains high and unemployment remains at 7.8% from 2013, increasing the UK’s ranking to 31 on the Material
Wellbeing sub-index.
41
19. United States
Health
100%
75%
Material
Wellbeing
Finances
50%
2014
2013
United States
Quality of
Life
Ranking
Score
Top 30 Average
2014
2013
19
19
73%
74%
2014
2013
Change
Health Index
2014
2013
Change
21
23
22
28
Life Expectancy
33
32
Old-Age Dependency
116
115
1
1
50
54
52
48
Inflation
27
1
10
11
Interest Rates
107
86
58
60
2014
2013
24
26
15
15
Well-Being
Change
Tax Pressure
102
112
Governance
18
21
141
Air Pollution
1
1
Water Pollution
36
30
Incom e Equality
2014
2013
36
38
81
91
52
52
Incom e per Capita
6
7
Clim ate Change
121
118
Unem ploym ent
84
81
Change
Change
th
With a ranking of 19 place in the GRI overall, the United States has remained relatively static over the past year,
perhaps due to increasing economic stability – even in the face of political uncertainty and a period of government
shutdown. The national and international press has spent much time and energy decrying the US debt burden,
which is reflected in the Government Indebtedness indicator where the country underperforms most of it peers
coming in at position 141. Inflation rates have almost doubled since 2013, from 1.6% to 3.9%, and as a
consequence the US has dropped 26 places in the Inflation indicator.
Despite its reputation as the land of opportunity, as well as having one of the highest incomes per capita (with a
th
st
ranking of 6 for this indicator), the United States places relatively low for income equality, at 81 place – although
this has improved ten places since last year. Life expectancy is also relatively low compared to other advanced
rd
Western nations (ranked 33 , dropped 1 place since 2013), and although health expenditure is high relative to
other countries, this is not matched by a competitive number of physicians or hospital beds per capita. As one of
the largest and most liberal nations, however, such considerations may not be as important to individual retirees
as culture or liberty – as one of the most politically free countries, the US may have other appealing characteristics.
42
20. Israel
Health
100%
75%
Material
Wellbeing
Finances
50%
2014
2013
Israel
Quality of
Life
Ranking
Score
Top 30 Average
2014
2013
20
12
73%
77%
2014
2013
Change
Health Index
2014
2013
Change
25
27
40
5
Life Expectancy
10
7
Old-Age Dependency
107
107
29
27
26
8
33
18
Inflation
41
48
46
61
Interest Rates
85
76
52
47
2014
2013
20
20
Well-Being
8
8
Air Pollution
47
47
Water Pollution
1
1
Change
Tax Pressure
125
129
Governance
40
13
126
Incom e Equality
2014
2013
34
31
79
83
72
72
Incom e per Capita
29
27
Clim ate Change
112
102
Unem ploym ent
48
46
Change
Change
th
Israel dropped 8 places in this year’s Global Retirement Index and is now in 20 position. Although, Israel’s overall
score decreased to 73%, it has managed to maintain satisfactory positions in the Health and Quality of Life subth
th
index with a respective ranking of 25 and 20 position.
Having suffered similar economic ailments to other western European nations, Israel has been let down by its
th
th
financial system as it dropped from 5 to 40 on the Finances in Retirement sub-index. Since the global financial
crisis, Israel’s middle class has become poorer as income inequality and unemployment remain high. In addition,
high levels of sovereign debt (approximately 80% of debt to GDP ratio) are putting further pressure on the
pensions system and continue to affect retiree finances.
On a positive note, Israel has managed to maintain a strong Quality of Life sub-index, with a strong well-being
indicator, especially in view of the current political instability. This should continue to increase over time as the
Israeli government continues to invest in renewable energies, especially solar power.
43
21. Slovenia
Health
100%
75%
Material
Wellbeing
Finances
50%
2014
2013
Slovenia
Quality of
Life
Ranking
Score
Top 30 Average
2014
2013
21
16
73%
76%
2014
2013
Change
Health Index
2014
2013
Change
23
24
64
15
Life Expectancy
26
25
Old-Age Dependency
130
131
25
24
81
45
49
46
Inflation
1
1
13
12
Interest Rates
80
77
36
35
2014
2013
37
35
Well-Being
44
44
Air Pollution
64
64
Water Pollution
30
30
Incom e Equality
41
41
Incom e per Capita
30
29
Clim ate Change
92
81
Unem ploym ent
77
51
Change
Tax Pressure
136
63
Governance
26
28
93
2014
2013
17
21
2
23
Change
Change
Slovenia has placed in the top thirty on both the Health sub-Index, and the Material Wellbeing index – on the
latter, it has actually improved its position by four places since 2013, largely due to an increase in income equality
(a 6% reduction in the income gap between 2013 and 2014) a measure which has been associated with happier
populations.
Its Finances in Retirement position, on the other hand, has suffered greatly – although it tops the rankings for the
indicator for Inflation, Tax Pressure relative to other nations has increased dramatically, and its rankings in terms
of the proportion of bank loans in default has also worsened. These problems can mostly be seen as issuing from a
high dependency on foreign trade, which suffered during and after the financial crisis and an export sector
struggling to recover from a reduction in demand from its European export partners.
Despite these challenges, Slovenia’s low relative inflation rankings suggest at the very least that the cost of living
seems set to remain low.
44
22. Slovak Republic
Health
100%
75%
Material
Wellbeing
Finances
50%
2014
2013
Slovak Republic
Quality of
Life
Ranking
Score
Top 30 Average
2014
2013
22
18
72%
74%
2014
2013
Change
Health Index
2014
2013
Change
32
35
27
22
Life Expectancy
46
48
Old-Age Dependency
108
106
30
28
61
60
34
31
Inflation
57
1
57
63
Interest Rates
92
84
17
16
Tax Pressure
112
52
2014
2013
Governance
33
32
30
23
44
44
Well-Being
Change
88
2014
2013
33
33
8
4
Air Pollution
1
1
Water Pollution
25
1
30
30
Incom e per Capita
33
34
Clim ate Change
97
79
Unem ploym ent
103
101
Incom e Equality
Change
Change
Although it has fallen four places in the GRI overall, the Slovak Republic remains a strong choice for retirement at
number 22 in our rankings. Life expectancy has improved slightly relative to other countries and health
expenditure per capita remains in the top 30. Until the financial crisis, the Slovak Republic had one of the fastestgrowing economies in Europe, benefitting from Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) from a number of European
th
countries and the US. In more recent years, it has necessarily suffered from a fall in investment from the US (its 8
largest investor) and major European nations such as Italy and France.
Although the Slovak Republic has only fallen five places in the Finances in Retirement sub-index, its relative
positions in the Inflation and Tax Pressure indicators have suffered the most, dropping 56 places for Inflation.
While its Old-Age Dependency ratio relative to other developed Western democracies is fairly competitive, its
position in the Bank Non-Performing Loans and Government Indebtedness indicators suggests that even if the
economy is not currently suffering much, it will over the next few years unless the government can find solutions
to their debt problems.
45
23. Italy
Health
100%
75%
Material
Wellbeing
Finances
50%
2014
2013
Italy
Quality of
Life
Ranking
Score
Top 30 Average
2014
2013
23
21
72%
74%
2014
2013
Change
Health Index
2014
2013
Change
19
20
101
68
Life Expectancy
5
3
Old-Age Dependency
148
149
18
20
78
64
23
22
Inflation
23
1
44
41
Interest Rates
76
74
46
46
2014
2013
15
13
Well-Being
35
35
Air Pollution
1
1
Water Pollution
1
1
Incom e Equality
16
16
Incom e per Capita
23
21
Clim ate Change
73
76
Unem ploym ent
82
71
Change
Tax Pressure
145
135
Governance
42
41
144
2014
2013
30
29
36
61
Change
Change
rd
Italy dropped two positions in this year’s Global Retirement Index; ranking it 23 . Italy follows the trend of other
western European nations, with high rankings in Health and Quality of Life sub-indices, but struggles when
analyzing the sustainability of retiree finances. Although Italy has improved steadily in the income equality
Indicator, it is still struggling with a higher rate of unemployment which is now at 12%.
With high life expectancy and relatively low health care costs, Italian retirees also benefit from a high number of
physicians per capita. In addition, Italy has almost maintained its ranking in the Quality of Life sub-index, with low
levels of pollution and a strong commitment to the environment.
However, since the outbreak of the sovereign debt crisis in Europe, Italy has faced serious economic and financial
difficulties, with a surge in private debt and high interest on government debt. This has put huge pressure on
public pension systems and has generally affected retiree pension plans. Italy dropped from 68 to 101 on the
Finances in Retirement sub-index.
46
24. Ireland
Health
100%
75%
Material
Wellbeing
Finances
50%
2014
2013
Ireland
Quality of
Life
Ranking
Score
Top 30 Average
2014
2013
24
48
71%
65%
2014
2013
Change
Health Index
2014
2013
20
10
Life Expectancy
23
20
12
Well-Being
Change
43
130
Old-Age Dependency
109
109
13
95
70
32
27
Inflation
1
21
25
Interest Rates
74
63
57
32
2014
2013
29
28
11
11
Change
Tax Pressure
111
133
Governance
15
145
142
2014
2013
44
41
45
47
Air Pollution
1
1
Water Pollution
32
29
113
113
Incom e per Capita
21
20
Clim ate Change
75
89
Unem ploym ent
105
97
Incom e Equality
Change
Change
Ireland has performed exceptionally well in the Global Retirement Index, as it increased its overall score to 71%
th
and is now in 24 place. As a modern European economy, Ireland had experienced continuous GDP growth and
relative economic prosperity for over 20 years, until the bursting of the Irish property bubble, and the consequent
issues of high private and government debt.
However, Ireland has made huge improvements, increasing their ranking by 87 in the Finances of Retirement subindex, thanks to low levels of inflation and sustainable budget deficits. In terms of the Material Wellbeing subindex, Ireland’s performance remains relatively stable, as income per capita remains high, but unemployment has
increased and may be a cause for concern.
Ireland’s performance in the Quality of Life sub-index also remains relatively stable, although it has seen
improvement in the climate change indicator. In terms of the Health sub-index, Ireland’s ranking has decreased,
partially due to a drop in hospital beds per capita from 5 to 3 per 1000, and a decreased relative life expectancy.
47
25. Cyprus
Health
100%
75%
Material
Wellbeing
Finances
50%
2014
2013
Cyprus
Quality of
Life
Ranking
Score
Top 30 Average
2014
2013
25
24
71%
73%
2014
2013
Change
Health Index
2014
2013
Change
44
44
32
33
Life Expectancy
30
26
Old-Age Dependency
106
104
27
31
73
61
Inflation
41
43
Interest Rates
94
64
44
44
115
114
48
42
2014
2013
34
32
Well-Being
35
35
Air Pollution
1
1
Water Pollution
1
1
Change
Tax Pressure
107
131
Governance
23
24
121
Incom e Equality
2014
2013
23
18
21
25
71
71
Incom e per Capita
28
23
Clim ate Change
120
107
Unem ploym ent
68
40
Change
Change
Cyprus remains high in the GRI rankings for 2014, with a small decrease in score leading to a fall of one place –
from 24th to 25th. Although it has dropped several places in the Material Wellbeing index, due to a fall in income
per capita relative to other nations, and an increase in unemployment from 6.2 to 7.7%. Cyprus has actually
improved its ranking in the Finances in Retirement index, with tax pressure relative to other nations decreasing,
and a positive appraisal of financial governance (although it has fallen 30 places in the rankings for the interest
rates indicator). However, this might be due to the fact that the effects of the banking crisis and subsequent
bailout this year has not yet sifted through the data underpinning the index.
For instance, the Tax Pressure indicator will surely worsen in the coming months following the EU bailout deal
signed by Cyprus earlier this year which included a tax on deposits above 100,000 Euros. It is possible that, for
those with significant wealth, this is not the best place to ensure its security. On the other hand, from the
perspective of quality of life, we can see that Cyprus would probably make a very pleasant retirement home: it is a
popular tourist destination and has the warmest annual temperatures in the European Mediterranean, although
rainwater shortages have caused problems in recent years.
48
26. United Arab Emirates
Health
100%
75%
Material
Wellbeing
Finances
50%
2014
2013
United Arab Emirates
Quality of
Life
Ranking
Score
Top 30 Average
2014
2013
26
30
70%
72%
2014
2013
92
14
Change
Health Index
2014
2013
45
46
Life Expectancy
40
37
32
Change
Old-Age Dependency
1
1
33
65
62
62
59
Inflation
26
37
Interest Rates
81
75
Tax Pressure
9
1
2014
2013
Governance
41
43
40
60
Well-Being
15
15
Air Pollution
55
55
Water Pollution
37
38
Incom e Equality
26
26
Incom e per Capita
14
5
Clim ate Change
147
126
Unem ploym ent
24
20
Change
Change
1
118
18
2014
2013
8
5
32
43
Change
With a 2% increase in its GRI score, UAE has risen four places in the rankings to sit more comfortably inside the top
30 countries for retirement in 2014. Nevertheless, in only one of the sub-indicators does it fall within the top 30:
Material Wellbeing, given its high income per capita. The UAE has also jumped twenty places in the Quality of Life
index, but this is less due to improvement in its own indicator rankings and more due to, presumably, a worsening
in other countries’ positions.
Given that the UAE has not performed particularly well on any of the indicators in the Health or Quality of Life subindices, from a certain perspective it would not be a desirable place to retire to. However, when we look at the
Finances in Retirement sub-index a little more closely, we can see that even though the UAE has fallen 78 places in
the rankings for this, the indicators tell a somewhat hopeful story. It tops the rankings in the Old-Age Dependency
and Inflation indicators, suggesting that it will not face the same problems as many other developed nations in the
future. Tax Pressure has increased, but it is still ranked in the top 10 for this, and its Governance ranking has
improved by 51 places. The UAE government is also not especially indebted, compared to other nations in the GRI.
49
27. Japan
Health
100%
75%
Material
Wellbeing
Finances
50%
2014
2013
Japan
Quality of
Life
Ranking
Score
Top 30 Average
2014
2013
27
15
69%
77%
2014
2013
Change
Health Index
2014
2013
Change
10
8
125
36
Life Expectancy
2
1
Old-Age Dependency
150
150
19
18
26
11
55
53
Inflation
28
19
Interest Rates
118
72
Tax Pressure
113
1
Governance
19
58
1
1
2014
2013
Change
32
29
Well-Being
44
44
Air Pollution
1
1
Water Pollution
1
1
Incom e Equality
58
58
Incom e per Capita
20
19
Clim ate Change
91
92
Unem ploym ent
33
29
Change
148
2014
2013
20
11
49
31
Change
Although its overall score of 69% is only 8% lower than its score from last year, Japan has fallen twelve places in
the rankings since 2013, and has fallen in the rankings for 10 of the indicators of the Health, Finances in
Retirement, Quality of Life and Material Wellbeing sub-indices. Although Japan has beat the Top 30 Average in two
of the sub-indices (Health, and Material Wellbeing), perhaps unsurprisingly it has performed badly in the Finances
in Retirement sub-index. In particular the introduction of the Government Indebtedness indicator has shunted
Japan down the rankings in this sub-index with a Debt to GDP ratio of close to 230%. In addition as its poor
performance in the rankings for the Interest Rates and Tax Pressure indicators, after a year in which the Japanese
government has had to take drastic action to attempt to bring interest rates up – with limited success.
Japan has such a wide range of scores across indicators: it is at the top of the rankings for air and water pollution
(with some of the cleanest skies and oceans), as well as life expectancy (almost) and hospital beds per capita.
However, with more than double the proportion of defaults on bank loans since 2013, and having fallen 112 places
in the indicator for tax pressure, overall Japan has not managed to stand out as somewhere to retire.
50
28. Malta
Health
100%
75%
Material
Wellbeing
Finances
50%
2014
2013
Malta
Quality of
Life
Ranking
Score
Top 30 Average
2014
2013
28
26
69%
73%
2014
2013
Change
Health Index
2014
2013
Change
29
28
44
50
Life Expectancy
6
12
Old-Age Dependency
125
118
26
26
67
63
30
28
Inflation
17
1
77
70
Interest Rates
89
90
40
37
2014
2013
71
46
Well-Being
51
51
Air Pollution
1
1
Water Pollution
1
1
Change
Tax Pressure
137
141
Governance
22
20
120
Incom e Equality
2014
2013
18
15
15
7
98
98
Incom e per Capita
31
30
Clim ate Change
146
88
Unem ploym ent
52
48
Change
Change
With relatively little movement in the overall rankings, Malta has performed fairly well in 2014, although it has
fallen two places since 2013: it remains in the top 30 countries to retire to overall, and its score has fallen by only
4% (half that of Japan’s score decrease).
Although it has remained in the top 30 countries in the Health and Material Wellbeing sub-index, as well as leading
the world in terms of the cleanliness of its air and water, the main way in which Malta’s overall score has been
protected since 2013 is due to its relatively stable position in the Finances in Retirement sub-index. Government
th
indebtedness is at 102 place, but it has improved in the rankings for tax pressure and governance.
Over 30% of Malta’s GDP comes from tourism, and whereas austerity measures in many European countries have
prevented people from travelling further afield for their holidays, it may have increased the number of Europeans
travelling as far as Malta. This has perhaps buffered Malta’s rankings for income per capita and unemployment
against the effects of a still-recovering European economic area, although the fact that much of Malta’s debt is
held in domestic banks is the primary factor contributing to their relative stability in the financial crisis.
51
29. Spain
Health
100%
75%
Material
Wellbeing
Finances
50%
2014
2013
Spain
Quality of
Life
Ranking
Score
Top 30 Average
2014
2013
29
25
69%
73%
2014
2013
Change
Health Index
2014
2013
Change
16
19
48
25
Life Expectancy
4
6
Old-Age Dependency
134
134
20
19
62
53
Inflation
27
1
Interest Rates
68
68
8
9
45
46
56
55
2014
2013
27
22
40
40
Air Pollution
1
1
Water Pollution
24
1
Well-Being
Change
Tax Pressure
122
84
Governance
28
29
116
Incom e Equality
2014
2013
65
63
54
48
47
47
Incom e per Capita
24
22
Clim ate Change
77
74
Unem ploym ent
121
114
Change
Change
th
In this year’s Global Retirement Index, Spain loses four places in the rankings, and is now in 29 position. Spain is a
country that benefits from a high quality of life, and a top healthcare system. Spanish retirees benefit from one of
the highest life expectancies and physicians per capita.
In terms of the Spanish economy, politicians still face major challenges, namely one of the highest levels of
unemployment in Western Europe coupled with high levels of private debt. This is reflected in Spain’s substantial
th
th
drop in the Finances in Retirement sub-index, from 25 to 48 , with an increase in the inflation rate from 1.8% to
2.1% in 2014. These particular economic issues are continuing to impact public retirement systems, and are likely
to further affect future retirees’ quality of life.
As stated previously, Spain has a top and universal healthcare system that has outperformed the average of the
top 30 nations. It is particularly useful for keeping healthcare costs low for retirees. Spain also does well in the
Quality of Life sub-index, where Spain maintains its rankings in Well-Being and Air Pollution.
52
30. Poland
Health
100%
75%
Material
Wellbeing
Finances
50%
2014
2013
Poland
Quality of
Life
Ranking
Score
Top 30 Average
2014
2013
30
36
68%
70%
2014
2013
Change
Health Index
2014
2013
Change
39
37
46
58
Life Expectancy
42
39
Old-Age Dependency
114
114
38
35
68
67
58
52
Inflation
61
49
49
49
Interest Rates
76
96
Tax Pressure
123
78
Governance
29
31
14
13
2014
2013
49
37
Well-Being
51
51
Air Pollution
1
Water Pollution
Clim ate Change
1
43
9
9
125
104
Change
Incom e Equality
Change
107
2014
2013
38
36
41
46
Incom e per Capita
41
40
Unem ploym ent
89
81
Change
th
Although Poland’s overall score decreases to 68%, its ranking in this year’s Global Retirement Index is now in 30
position. Despite Poland’s recent economic slowdown, it has been one of the fastest growing economies in the
European Union. It has performed well in the Finance in Retirement sub-index, ranking now at 46, however it does
face high levels of government debt, and inflation is becoming a growing concern.
Poland’s ranking in the Health sub-index has been negatively affected, as almost all indicators have worsened,
th
pushing it down to 39 position. The ranking in the Quality of Life sub-index has significantly decreased with a
negative impact on climate change.
However, in terms of the Material Wellbeing sub-index, Poland continues to perform similarly with good levels of
income per capita and increasing income equality. The only real concern in this sub-index is the recent relative
increase in unemployment to 9.6%.
53
The Emerging Economies: Is it getting better for retirees?
One cannot talk about future trends in retiree welfare without paying special attention to the World’s emerging
powers. Not only do these countries account for a rapidly increasing share of GDP, due to above average “catchup” economic growth, but will also be home to an increasing proportion of the World’s retirees in the next 50
years.
The catchily-named BRIC nations (Brazil, Russia, India and China) have been touted as the World powers of the
future with their economies projected to account for more than half (52.36%) of global output in Purchasing power
1
2
parity (PPP) terms by 2060 (Johansson, et al., 2012) , an increase from 29.55% in 2010. Export-oriented growth
strategies and a commodities boom have underpinned fast economic growth in the BRICs in recent years, but as
their economies converge with those of their developed counterparts these growth strategies might become
unsustainable and domestic demand will have to play a more important role in their economic models.
BRIC GDP as a % of Global GDP in 2060 vs. 2010
2060
2010
29.55%
52.36%
*Note: This is a projected number for 2060 and it is subject to change.
As a potentially crucial part of this convergence process, emerging economies will have to consider implementing
some sort of safety in order to reduce the level of inequality generated by rapid economic growth, increase future
economic potential and reduce the need to save for “a rainy day”, thus increasing consumption.
The provision of old-age insurance, in the way of pensions and healthcare for retirees, is most probably going to be
one of the priorities, and therefore one of the pillars, of any new welfare state. This will undoubtedly play a major
role in determining the level of welfare of retirees in these countries and ultimately their desirability as retirement
destinations.
While the retirement issue might not seem a pressing one, as the BRIC nations have young populations relative to
their developed country counterparts, this is likely to change rapidly given decreasing fertility rates and higher life
expectancy, which will result in a demographic inflection point and rapidly ageing populations.
1
Purchasing power parity is a component of some economic theories and is a technique used to determine the relative value of different
currencies.
2
Johansson, Å., et al. (2012), "Looking to 2060: Long-Term Global Growth Prospects: A Going for Growth Report", OECD Economic Policy
Papers, No. 3, OECD Publishing.
54
In fact, old-age dependency ratios are projected to increase dramatically over the coming 50 years in all 4
countries. China is projected to have 49 retirees for every person of working age by 2060, compared to just 13.1 in
2015. India’s old-age dependency ratio is projected to triple from 8.3 to 23.6 over the same period, while Brazil will
see a jump from 11.6 to 44.3 retirees per person of working age.
Old-Age Dependency Ratio
50
China
40
India
20
Russian Federation
Age
30
10
Brazil
0
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
2055
2060
Year
This rapid population ageing is also reflected in the median age of their populations, which represents the point
where 50% of the population are below that age and the other 50% above that age. By 2060 China will have a
median age of 46.9 years, up from 36 years in 2015. Brazil will see an increase from 31.2 years in 2015 to 46.7
years in 2060, while India will see its median age increase to 38.9 years from 26.9 years.
Median Age
50
China
45
India
35
Russian Federation
Age
40
30
Brazil
25
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
2055
2060
Year
Given the demographic weight of these countries, their rapid population ageing will result in them being home to
an increasing proportion of the world’s retirees. These demographic trends clearly illustrate how relevant the issue
of retiree welfare will be in the BRIC nations in the coming years and the enormous impact that their policy choices
and economic performance will have on global retiree welfare.
55
1.
Brazil
Health
100%
75%
Material
Wellbeing
Finances
50%
2014
2013
Brazil
Quality of
Life
Ranking
Score
Top 30 Average
2014
2013
61
40
60%
66%
2014
2013
Change
Health Index
2014
2013
Change
58
58
70
21
Life Expectancy
76
75
Old-Age Dependency
87
91
51
51
47
40
69
63
Inflation
95
84
68
64
Interest Rates
51
5
70
66
2014
2013
19
21
Well-Being
22
22
Air Pollution
61
61
Water Pollution
70
71
42
42
Clim ate Change
32
16
Change
Tax Pressure
126
114
Governance
54
53
113
2014
2013
108
100
138
141
Incom e per Capita
62
63
Unem ploym ent
80
69
Incom e Equality
Change
Change
st
Brazil dropped 21 places in this year’s Global Retirement Index and is now in 61 position. Although, there have
been slight improvements in the Quality of Life sub-index, where Brazil is now in the top 20, the overall picture
seems mediocre.
Even though Brazil was able to profit from sustained economic growth in recent years, policy makers have
struggled to improve the financial system, especially for retirees. With continued fears of slowing GDP growth and
inflation rising from 5% to 6.6% in 2014, the current economic climate is unfavorable to retirees. As shown above,
Brazil’s ranking collapsed from 21 to 70 in the Finances in Retirement sub-index. In terms of the Material Wellbeing
sub-index, Latin American nations, in particular Brazil and Mexico tend to display high levels of income inequality.
th
On a more positive note, Brazil has increased its ranking to 19 on the Quality of Life sub-index, and fares better
than China and India in the Health sub-index, with respectable levels of health expenditure per capita.
56
2.
Russia
Health
100%
75%
Material
Wellbeing
Finances
50%
2014
Russian Federation
2013
Quality of
Life
Ranking
Score
Top 30 Average
2014
2013
50
70
62%
57%
2014
2013
Change
Health Index
2014
2013
38
52
Life Expectancy
96
95
42
52
4
80
69
4
2014
2013
72
70
Well-Being
64
64
Air Pollution
61
61
Water Pollution
79
68
Change
Change
102
126
Old-Age Dependency
110
111
63
66
Inflation
111
102
Interest Rates
100
103
Tax Pressure
110
48
Governance
109
111
Incom e Equality
Change
6
2014
2013
45
45
94
94
66
66
Incom e per Capita
37
39
Clim ate Change
139
117
Unem ploym ent
54
58
Change
th
Russia performed well in this year’s Global Retirement Index, gaining 20 positions and putting in 50 place. This
st
places Russia as the highest performing BRIC nation, followed by Brazil, in 61 place. Although Russia has not
managed to outperform the top 30 countries in the Health sub-index, it has substantially increased its standing by
th
the amount of available care given to patients (4 position for physicians and hospital beds per capita).
Economic growth and low levels of sovereign debt have helped increase Russia’s financial soundness and
particularly its standing in the Finances in Retirement sub-index. However, tax pressures and high inflation do
remain problems that continue to affect Russian people and more specifically Russian retirees. In terms of the
Quality of Life sub-index, the environment and climate change have not been hot topics amongst Russian policy
nd
makers; therefore Russia takes the 72 position.
In terms of overall welfare the Russian Federation does rank better than other BRIC nations, with lower levels of
government indebtedness, and an increase in the level of income per capita from $19,240 to $22,720 in 2014.
57
3.
India
Health
100%
75%
Material
Wellbeing
Finances
50%
2014
2013
India
Quality of
Life
Top 30 Average
2014
2013
Ranking
104
101
Score
46%
49%
2014
2013
128
20
Change
Health Index
2014
2013
105
117
Life Expectancy
107
108
111
Old-Age Dependency
1
1
109
39
23
96
83
Inflation
116
129
133
134
Interest Rates
118
70
116
2014
2013
131
126
Well-Being
82
82
Air Pollution
150
150
Water Pollution
104
106
104
Clim ate Change
86
Change
Change
Tax Pressure
11
109
Governance
86
16
115
2014
2013
53
82
Incom e Equality
55
53
104
Incom e per Capita
102
100
53
Unem ploym ent
20
83
Change
Change
th
India is the worst ranking BRIC nation in this year’s Global Retirement Index, in 104 place. The main upset being
th
th
its performance in the Finances in Retirement sub-index where it dropped from 20 to 128 place. In addition it
continues its mediocre performance in the Health and Quality of life sub-indices.
Although there had been consensus around India’s potential as an economic power house amongst emerging
market nations, it has been overshadowed by slowing growth, lack of investment in infrastructure, and overall
poverty is not decreasing. The Health sub-index may have improved slightly, but there are still very low levels of
health expenditure and the amount of physicians per capita decreased to 0.65 per 1,000 people. Pollution and
environmental concerns are low in India, and similarly to China, severely affect populations of the larger
metropolises where there are extremely high levels of water and air pollution.
Surprisingly, India performs well on the income equality measure as it easily outperforms all the other BRICs. In
th
addition, India also enjoys has the lowest levels of unemployment as it is ranked 20 .
58
4.
China
Health
100%
75%
Material
Wellbeing
Finances
50%
2014
2013
China
Quality of
Life
Ranking
Score
Top 30 Average
2014
2013
69
73
57%
57%
2014
2013
Change
Health Index
2014
2013
Change
60
74
62
64
Life Expectancy
51
72
Old-Age Dependency
92
93
79
81
7
5
67
70
Inflation
80
59
79
84
Interest Rates
111
103
44
40
Tax Pressure
77
85
2014
2013
Governance
93
99
113
111
33
Well-Being
98
98
Air Pollution
145
145
Water Pollution
88
97
Change
Incom e Equality
2014
2013
55
47
104
92
61
61
Incom e per Capita
79
78
Clim ate Change
133
91
Unem ploym ent
28
23
Change
Change
Although China’s overall score remains at 57%, it now ranks at 69. China has performed particularly well in the
Health sub-index, as the Chinese government increased spending in this sector. China increased its rankings in 4 of
the 5 Indicators in the Health index, which places it just behind Brazil in terms of health care.
Similarly to Russia and Brazil, sustained economic growth and investment in infrastructure has been beneficial to
retirees. The Finances in Retirement sub-index is almost on par with the average of the top 30 performers, a truly
impressive result for one of the top emerging economies. In terms of Material Wellbeing, income inequality is
continually increasing, and similarly to other emerging economies is one of the most important threats to future
retirees. However, Chinese retirees are able to benefit from relatively low tax pressures.
The most serious threat to Chinese ranking in the Global Retirement Index is the continued disregard towards the
environment and pollution by policy makers. China is one of the worst-ranking nations for air pollution and climate
change, which can deteriorate the life of retirees, especially the inhabitants of larger metropolises.
59
Performance by Sub-Index
The Health Index
Performance in the Health sub-index has actually remained fairly static over the last year; most movements in the
rankings, both in the top and bottom 30, have been small (with a few exceptions). This may be because
improvements in health provision and, especially, life expectancy tend to take place slowly over a number of years,
so that scores in this sub-index will not show drastic changes. At any rate, this year Austria remains at the top.
Country
Ranking
2014
Ranking
2013
Difference
in
Ranking
Health Index
2014
Health Index
2013
Difference
in
Score
Austria
1
1
90%
90%
0%
Germ any
2
3
88%
87%
1%
France
3
2
88%
88%
0%
Norw ay
4
4
86%
85%
1%
Sw itzerland
5
9
86%
84%
1%
Belgium
6
12
86%
83%
3%
Netherlands
7
5
86%
85%
0%
Luxem bourg
8
6
85%
85%
0%
Iceland
9
7
85%
85%
0%
-1%
Japan
10
8
84%
84%
Australia
11
22
84%
81%
3%
Denm ark
12
14
83%
83%
0%
Greece
13
16
83%
83%
1%
Czech Republic
14
13
83%
83%
0%
Sw eden
15
17
83%
82%
0%
Spain
16
19
83%
82%
0%
Cuba
17
15
83%
83%
0%
Finland
18
18
82%
82%
0%
Italy
19
20
82%
82%
0%
Ireland
20
10
82%
83%
-2%
United States
21
23
81%
81%
0%
United Kingdom
22
21
81%
81%
0%
Slovenia
23
25
80%
80%
0%
Portugal
24
24
80%
80%
0%
Israel
25
27
79%
79%
0%
New Zealand
26
11
79%
83%
-4%
Croatia
27
30
79%
78%
1%
Canada
28
29
79%
78%
1%
Malta
29
28
79%
78%
0%
Estonia
30
31
78%
78%
1%
In fact, of the top 20 from last year, only one country has dropped out of the top 20, and it is also the country with
th
th
the largest drop in the top 30, of 15 places: New Zealand, which has fallen from 11 place in 2013 to 26 place this
year. This is largely driven by small falls in the life expectancy and number of physicians per capita indicators.
th
th
Ireland has also fallen significantly, from 10 place to 20 – remaining in the top 20, and improving its overall
performance in the GRI, but still decreasing its Health sub-index score by 2%, mostly due to the relative number of
physicians and hospital beds per capita.
60
There is more movement in the bottom 30 countries in the Health sub-index. Although the number of countries
who have improved their rankings (15 of them) is greater than the number who have fallen in rank (9), the most
dramatic movement has been negative: those countries which moved more than 5% all experienced a drop in their
rankings, from Chad and the Central African Republic (a decrease in score of 8%) to Tanzania (a decrease of 27%).
Country
Ranking
2014
Ranking
2013
Difference
in
Ranking
Health Index
2014
Health Index
2013
Difference
in
Score
Mauritania
121
130
29%
25%
4%
Congo, Dem . Rep.
122
136
28%
23%
6%
Nigeria
123
129
28%
28%
0%
Ghana
124
127
28%
29%
-1%
Zam bia
125
114
28%
40%
-13%
Yem en, Rep.
126
126
27%
30%
-3%
Uganda
127
119
27%
37%
-10%
Lesotho
128
116
24%
39%
-14%
Senegal
129
134
24%
23%
1%
Myanm ar
130
135
24%
23%
1%
Cam eroon
131
123
24%
35%
-12%
Madagascar
132
133
23%
23%
0%
Ethiopia
133
140
23%
22%
1%
Benin
134
141
23%
21%
2%
Togo
135
139
23%
22%
0%
Cote d'Ivoire
136
144
22%
20%
2%
Afghanistan
137
146
22%
17%
4%
Burkina Faso
138
138
21%
22%
-2%
0%
Malaw i
139
143
21%
20%
Liberia
140
147
21%
17%
4%
Burundi
141
122
20%
36%
-16%
Guinea
142
142
20%
21%
-1%
Mozam bique
143
145
19%
18%
1%
Zim babw e
144
120
19%
36%
-18%
Tanzania
145
107
17%
45%
-27%
146
131
17%
25%
-8%
Chad
147
132
16%
24%
-8%
Niger
148
148
15%
13%
3%
Sierra Leone
149
149
13%
10%
3%
Mali
150
150
11%
6%
5%
Five countries have maintained their positions in the bottom 30: the Republic of Yemen, Burkina Faso, Niger, Sierra
Leone, and Mali – although we can see that Niger, Sierra Leone and Mali have actually improved on their Health
index scores since 2013, suggesting perhaps that Health outcomes are improving in some overall sense, too.
None of the western or European, more economically developed countries are in the bottom 30 on the Health subindex: with the exceptions of Myanmar/Burma, the Republic of Yemen, and Afghanistan, they are all in Africa. With
Health index scores as low as 11%, compared to Austria’s 90% at the other end of the scale, the health conditions
of people living in bottom-30 countries should be very distressing from a humanitarian perspective. Needless to
say, scores such as these make all of these countries highly off-putting as retirement locations.
61
Overall, in the Health sub-index, countries in the top and bottom 10 show quite a lot of movement, mostly down
the ranks, but 6 have remained in constant positions – Norway, for instance, has remained in fourth place, and
st
Austria in 1 .
The map below shows how concentrated both the top and bottom 10 countries are: all of the top 10 are in
western Europe, except for Japan due to its impressive life expectancy and topping the rankings for the hospital
beds per capita indicator. North America is presumably excluded from the top 10 due to the low life expectancy of
people in the US, and Canada’s relatively low ranking in the physicians and hospital beds per capita indicators.
All of the bottom 10 countries in the Health sub-index, on the other hand, are in Africa. In fact, as pointed out
above, 27 of the bottom 30 countries are.
HEALTH INDEX: TOP 10 AND BOTTOM 10 PERFORMERS
Iceland 2
85%
Norway
86%
1
Germany
88%
Netherlands 2
86%
2 Luxembourg
85%
Belgium
86%
1 France
88%
4
6
Austria
90%
Japan 2
84%
Chad 15
16%
Switzerland
86%
Mali
11%
Central African 15
Republic
17%
Tanzania 38
17%
Guinea
20%
Zimbabwe 24
19%
Sierra Leone
13%
Niger
15%
19 Burundi
20%
Mozambique
19%
2
6
Legend:
Top 10
Bottom 10
62
Finances in Retirement Index
The Finances in Retirement sub-index shows some interesting changes in 2014 as compared with 2013. This is
partly because its construction has changed since last year. As mentioned earlier, this is the first year data on
Government Indebtedness has been included as an indicator – this has caused some movement in the rankings
overall.
Secondly, in order to deliver more robust rankings in the sub-index overall, and to more accurately reflect sound
financial institutions and frameworks instead of merely high rates of return, the institutional strength index’s
weight in the calculation of the Finances in Retirement index has been doubled for 2014.
Finances in
Retirement
Index 2014
Finances in
Retirement
Index 2013
Difference
in
Score
34
76%
67%
8%
13
74%
73%
0%
3
8
73%
75%
-2%
Bahrain
4
94
73%
51%
21%
New Zealand
5
88
72%
53%
18%
Sw itzerland
6
1
71%
83%
-12%
Singapore
7
3
71%
80%
-9%
Canada
8
17
69%
72%
-3%
Mauritius
9
6
69%
76%
-7%
Botsw ana
10
81
68%
56%
12%
Korea, Rep.
11
65
68%
60%
8%
Finland
12
11
68%
74%
-6%
Malaysia
13
54
68%
63%
4%
Sw eden
14
9
68%
74%
-6%
Panam a
15
2
68%
81%
-14%
Mexico
16
16
67%
72%
-5%
Peru
17
12
67%
73%
-7%
Trinidad and Tobago
18
115
67%
44%
23%
Norw ay
19
4
66%
79%
-12%
Estonia
20
29
66%
69%
-3%
Uruguay
21
10
65%
74%
-8%
United States
22
28
65%
69%
-4%
Indonesia
23
49
65%
64%
1%
Cam eroon
24
90
65%
52%
13%
Madagascar
25
108
64%
45%
20%
Denm ark
26
47
64%
65%
-1%
Slovak Republic
27
22
64%
70%
-6%
Guatem ala
28
42
64%
66%
-2%
Colom bia
29
27
64%
69%
-6%
Zam bia
30
121
64%
43%
21%
Ranking
2014
Ranking
2013
Chile
1
Australia
2
Costa Rica
Country
Difference
in
Ranking
For these reasons, as well as the fact that internationally, economies have been undergoing a lot of change, with
high inflation rates in some countries, and some others taking drastic measures to pull up low interest rates (such
63
as Japan). The top 30 displays an interesting range of countries: for once, Chile, rather than a Western European or
North American country, has topped the rankings of a sub-index, jumping 33 places since 2013.
Finances in
Retirement
Index 2014
Finances in
Retirement
Index 2013
129
49%
40%
8%
7
48%
75%
-27%
Ranking
2014
Ranking
2013
Ukraine
121
El Salvador
122
Country
Difference
in
Ranking
Difference
in
Score
Ghana
123
98
47%
50%
-3%
Tajikistan
124
120
47%
43%
5%
Japan
125
36
47%
67%
-20%
Burkina Faso
126
123
46%
42%
4%
Pakistan
127
135
46%
38%
8%
India
128
20
46%
71%
-25%
Benin
129
80
46%
56%
-10%
Congo, Dem . Rep.
130
138
46%
35%
11%
Tunisia
131
76
45%
57%
-12%
Senegal
132
48
45%
65%
-20%
Argentina
133
73
43%
58%
-15%
Niger
134
84
43%
54%
-11%
Mali
135
82
43%
56%
-12%
Cam bodia
136
105
42%
46%
-4%
Algeria
137
149
42%
27%
15%
Cuba
138
134
41%
38%
3%
Togo
139
92
40%
52%
-12%
Nepal
140
148
39%
28%
11%
Uzbekistan
141
142
38%
32%
6%
Ethiopia
142
141
38%
32%
6%
Kazakhstan
143
96
37%
51%
-14%
Cote d'Ivoire
144
103
37%
48%
-11%
Myanm ar
145
133
36%
39%
-4%
Turkm enistan
146
144
35%
31%
3%
Burundi
147
127
34%
41%
-7%
Belarus
148
122
33%
43%
-10%
Guinea
149
145
33%
31%
2%
Sudan
150
143
29%
32%
-3%
The range of scores at the top of the Finances in Retirement, as well as overall, has decreased: while in 2013 the
highest score achieved was 83%, and the lowest was under 27% (a range of 56), in 2014 the top score achieved
was 76% and the lowest 29% (a range of only 49), suggesting that the countries which had better finances have, on
average, gotten worse, and the worse ones slightly better.
The bottom 30 in the Finances in Retirement sub-index mostly consist of those which have fallen over the last year;
24 of these countries have slid down the ranks, while six have been promoted upwards. All of those in the bottom
30 in the Finances in Retirement sub-index are developing countries, except for Japan and Ukraine; the former fell
th
th
89 places from 36 place in 2013 to 125 position this year, and the latter has actually improved its ranking since
th
st
2013, when Ukraine was at 129 place. Now it is at 121 .
64
Japan has not experienced the greatest fall in the Finances in Retirement sub-index: El Salvador has dropped from
th
nd
7 place in 2013 to 122 place this year (a fall of 115 places), a difference of score of 27% with last year. India and
Senegal have also experienced a difference in their score on the sub-index of 25% and 20% respectively compared
with last year.
Taking a look at the world’s top 10 and bottom 10 most and least desirable places to retire to, in terms of their
finances, we can see that, in this sub-index, the top 10 are a little better spread out than in the Health index. There
are two African countries in the top 10 (Botswana and Mauritius), two Latin American (Costa Rica and Chile) and
only one country in Europe (Switzerland).
Of the bottom 10 countries in the sub-index, although many are in Africa (five of ten), one is in Europe (Belarus),
and three in Asia (Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan).
It is interesting to see the differences between the Finances in Retirement sub-index and the overall GRI rankings:
six of the countries in the top 10 in the Finances in Retirement sub-index are not even in the top 30 in the GRI.
FINANCES IN RETIREMENT INDEX: TOP 10 AND BOTTOM 10 PERFORMERS
9
Belarus 26
33%
Canada
69%
Kazakhstan 47
37%
5 Switzerland
71%
Uzbekistan
38%
2 Turkmenistan
35%
1
Bahrain
90
73%
5
Costa Rica
73%
Sudan 7
33%
4 Guinea
33%
Myanmar 12
36%
4
1
Ethiopia 1
38%
Singapore 4
71%
41 Cote d'Ivoire
37%
33
Legend:
Chile
76%
20 Burundi
34%
Mauritius 3
69%
Australia 6
11
74%
Botswana
71
68%
Top 10
83
New Zealand
72%
Bottom 10
65
The Quality of Life sub-index is especially interesting because, from a particular perspective, if one has sufficient
wealth and security, then the things measured on the Quality of Life sub-index are the ones which one will
experience directly, such as well-being, air and water pollution, and climate change (potentially disastrously).
Difference
in
Ranking
Quality of Life Quality of Life
Index 2013
Index 2014
Difference
in
Score
Ranking
2014
Ranking
2013
Sw itzerland
1
1
95%
92%
3%
Norw ay
2
2
89%
87%
2%
Denmark
3
8
87%
82%
5%
United Kingdom
4
6
87%
83%
4%
Sw eden
5
4
87%
85%
2%
New Zealand
6
5
87%
84%
2%
Costa Rica
7
11
86%
82%
5%
Austria
8
7
86%
83%
3%
France
9
9
85%
82%
3%
Iceland
10
3
85%
86%
-1%
Germany
11
12
85%
80%
5%
Venezuela, RB
12
14
84%
79%
5%
Netherlands
13
10
83%
82%
1%
Canada
14
16
83%
79%
4%
Italy
15
13
83%
80%
3%
Finland
16
19
83%
78%
5%
Belize
17
17
83%
79%
4%
Australia
18
25
82%
75%
7%
Brazil
19
21
82%
76%
6%
Israel
20
20
81%
78%
3%
Belgium
21
15
81%
79%
2%
Panama
22
24
81%
75%
6%
Luxembourg
23
18
80%
78%
2%
United States
24
26
80%
74%
6%
Colombia
25
31
80%
72%
8%
Chile
26
27
79%
74%
5%
Spain
27
22
79%
76%
3%
Ecuador
28
30
79%
72%
7%
Ireland
29
28
78%
73%
5%
Slovak Republic
30
23
78%
76%
2%
Country
In this sub-index, it seems as though movement in the top 30 has been roughly positive in terms of scores across
the board, no country’s score has improved by more than 8% (six places), or fallen by more than seven places.
Switzerland and Norway top the sub-index for the second year in a row, with scores of 95% and 89% respectively.
The top 30 has a range of countries from different regions and with different levels of economic development – as
we might expect, given that many countries with relatively low economic development levels are considered to be
‘untouched’ in terms of natural beauty, and have temperate or even tropical climates. In the top 30 this year such
66
countries are Ecuador, Chile, Colombia, Panama, Brazil, Belize, Venezuela, and Costa Rica. Some of these countries
may receive high scores for well-being despite having a long way to go before they are the ideal retirement
country.
The last 30 countries in the Quality of Life sub-index have all (except for one – Libya) gained in terms of their score
in this index; however, in terms of movement up and down the rankings, the bottom 30 has a roughly equal
number of improvers and those who fell through the ranks.
Country
Ranking
2014
Ranking
2013
Difference
in
Ranking
Quality of Life Quality of Life
Index 2014
Index 2013
Difference
in
Score
Burundi
121
133
44%
33%
Djibouti
122
121
44%
37%
11%
7%
Mauritania
123
136
44%
31%
12%
Madagascar
124
138
43%
31%
13%
Guinea
125
132
43%
33%
10%
Sudan
126
120
42%
37%
6%
Botsw ana
127
117
41%
38%
4%
128
135
41%
32%
9%
Senegal
129
124
41%
35%
5%
Congo, Dem. Rep.
130
131
40%
33%
6%
India
131
126
39%
35%
5%
Nepal
132
127
39%
35%
5%
Congo, Rep.
133
134
38%
33%
5%
Bosnia and Herzegovina
134
123
38%
36%
2%
Yemen, Rep.
135
137
37%
31%
6%
Syrian Arab Republic
136
129
37%
34%
3%
Libya
137
118
37%
38%
-1%
Benin
138
130
36%
33%
3%
Niger
139
140
36%
28%
8%
Mali
140
145
35%
23%
12%
Liberia
141
143
35%
25%
10%
Haiti
142
139
34%
29%
5%
Chad
143
141
34%
26%
8%
Sierra Leone
144
146
33%
23%
9%
Afghanistan
145
147
32%
21%
12%
Iraq
146
142
30%
25%
4%
Tanzania
147
144
26%
23%
3%
Lesotho
148
150
24%
12%
12%
Togo
149
148
20%
19%
2%
Comoros
150
149
14%
13%
1%
No country’s score changed by more than 13% (Madagascar), and those towards the very bottom of the list have
tended to remain in fairly stable positions, although all of the bottom 10 have improved their score in this index by
at least a percentage point, and 12% in the case of Afghanistan and Lesotho.
Tragically, many of the countries in the bottom 30 are, or have recently been, war zones – for instance, the
th
th
th
th
Democratic Republic of Congo (in 130 place), Libya (137 ), Syria (136 ) , and Iraq (146 ), which suggests that
political and social upheaval is captured in this sub-index largely through the Wellbeing indicator.
67
Overall the range of scores achieved on the Quality of Life sub-index has increased from 79% in 2013 to 81% this
year - but on average the worse-off countries have higher average scores than before, and so do the topperforming countries, so that while inequality may have slightly increased, it is encouragingly not due to a
decrease in the least well-off countries’ scores.
When we map the performance of the top and bottom 10 in this sub-index, we can see that although the top 10
countries are, as usual, concentrated around Western Europe, there is an outlier in Costa Rica – and also New
Zealand (although this is less surprising as New Zealand is a highly developed country).
Those in the bottom 10 are, predictably by now, mostly focused in Africa, or otherwise in countries which have
recently gone through wars, such as Iraq and Afghanistan.
QUALITY OF LIFE INDEX: TOP 10 AND BOTTOM 10 PERFORMERS
Norway
89%
Sweden
87%
1
7 Iceland
85%
2
United Kingdom
7
87%
Denmark
87%
Austria 1
86%
France
85%
Iraq
30%
Switzerland
95%
4
Afghanistan
32%
3 Haiti
34%
4
5
2
Chad 2
34%
Costa Rica
86%
2
Tanzania 3
26%
Sierra Leone
33%
2
Comoros
14%
Liberia
35%
1
Togo
20%
Lesotho
24%
1
2
Legend:
Top 10
1 New Zealand
87%
Bottom 10
68
The Material Wellbeing sub-index mostly measures things such as individual incomes, the availability of jobs
(unemployment levels) and income inequality. For the second year running, Norway and Luxembourg top the
st
nd
rankings in this index, coming in at 1 and 2 place with scores of 97% and 89% respectively. Because this measure
tends to judge only, or primarily, unemployment and income levels, small, oil-rich states such as the United Arab
Emirates and Kuwait come into the top 10.
It is presumably income inequality, relative to other countries, and high unemployment levels which kept the
United States and the United Kingdom out of the top 30 in 2014. Just over half (16 countries) of the top 30 have
fallen through the ranks, although in no instance by more than nine places (Japan). Two countries rose by more
th
st
th
nd
than 10 places – Qatar (15 places, from 36 to 21 place) and Saudi Arabia (17 places, from 39 to 22 ).
Country
Ranking
2014
Ranking
2013
Difference
in
Ranking
Material
Wellbeing
Index 2014
Material
Wellbeing
Index 2013
Difference
in
Score
Norw ay
1
1
97%
97%
-1%
Luxem bourg
2
2
89%
95%
-5%
Austria
3
4
89%
90%
-1%
Kuw ait
4
3
89%
93%
-5%
Sw itzerland
5
9
87%
88%
-1%
Netherlands
6
6
86%
88%
-3%
Belarus
7
6
84%
88%
-4%
-5%
8
5
84%
89%
Iceland
9
20
83%
81%
2%
Denm ark
10
10
83%
86%
-3%
Korea, Rep.
11
6
83%
88%
-5%
Belgium
12
22
82%
80%
3%
Germ any
13
13
82%
85%
-3%
Sw eden
14
12
82%
85%
-4%
Finland
15
14
81%
84%
-3%
Czech Republic
16
17
80%
84%
-5%
Slovenia
17
21
80%
81%
-1%
Malta
18
15
80%
84%
-4%
Australia
19
15
78%
84%
-5%
-7%
Japan
20
11
78%
85%
Qatar
21
36
77%
73%
5%
Saudi Arabia
22
39
77%
72%
6%
Cyprus
23
18
76%
83%
-7%
Cuba
24
19
76%
82%
-5%
Canada
25
23
76%
80%
-4%
New Zealand
26
25
75%
77%
-2%
Rom ania
27
27
74%
76%
-2%
France
28
24
74%
79%
-6%
Kazakhstan
29
28
73%
76%
-3%
Italy
30
29
73%
76%
-3%
69
Scores have not changed significantly; the greatest increase or decrease was by 7% in the case of Japan and
Cyprus. However, it does seem as though countries in the top 30 mostly have lower scores than last year, certainly
on average.
The last thirty countries in the Material Wellbeing sub-index have mostly seen their scores fall, quite dramatically,
since last year – the greatest difference in scores since last year has been 43%, Botswana’s score, but many others
came in with a difference of 40% (Mali) or 28% (Niger, Senegal). Only 19 countries’ rankings fell, however, due to
the poor performance of certain other countries, 11 countries were able to hold their position in the rankings from
last year, or improve it.
Material
Wellbeing
Index 2014
Material
Wellbeing
Index 2013
Difference
in
Score
125
30%
41%
-11%
120
30%
44%
-14%
123
136
29%
34%
-6%
124
121
28%
42%
-14%
Ranking
2014
Ranking
2013
Mauritania
121
Ethiopia
122
Sierra Leone
Nigeria
Country
Difference
in
Ranking
Madagascar
125
135
28%
35%
-7%
Afghanistan
126
132
28%
36%
-8%
Mali
127
56
26%
66%
-40%
Mozam bique
128
146
22%
18%
4%
Zam bia
129
128
21%
38%
-17%
Senegal
130
111
20%
48%
-28%
Kenya
131
140
20%
30%
-10%
Nam ibia
132
147
18%
8%
10%
Botsw ana
133
76
18%
61%
-43%
Guinea
134
127
18%
39%
-21%
Liberia
135
143
17%
23%
-6%
Chad
136
122
16%
42%
-25%
Congo, Rep.
137
112
16%
47%
-31%
Togo
138
129
16%
38%
-22%
South Africa
139
126
15%
40%
-25%
140
124
15%
41%
-27%
Turkm enistan
141
149
14%
7%
6%
Malaw i
142
130
12%
37%
-24%
Djibouti
143
143
11%
23%
-12%
Haiti
144
142
11%
24%
-13%
Lesotho
145
137
11%
34%
-23%
Burundi
146
134
8%
35%
-27%
Niger
147
131
8%
36%
-28%
Com oros
148
145
7%
20%
-13%
Congo, Dem . Rep.
149
148
6%
8%
-2%
Zim babw e
150
150
3%
2%
1%
70
All of the countries listed in the bottom 30 are developing countries, and most are in Africa (apart from three:
Haiti, Turkmenistan, and Afghanistan). That over half of the countries in Africa are in the bottom 30 in the Material
Wellbeing sub-index, and most countries in the bottom 30 have worsening scores, should suggest that even if
Quality of Life may be improving on this continent, it seems that in economic terms, people’s conditions are
worsening.
The range between the top score in the Material Wellbeing index and the bottom one is 94, signaling an extreme
difference of material wealth between the richest and poorest countries.
When viewed on a world map, we can see the by now familiar concentration of the top 10 countries in the subindex in North and West Europe – although two of the top 10, Kuwait and the UAE, are in the Middle East. Most
countries in Western Europe who are in the top 10 have improved their position in the rankings, whereas most
countries in the bottom 10 have clearly worsened their score to arrive there.
Africa, for instance, is a continent of red dots and downwards-pointing arrows, to indicate that all of these
countries have fallen in relative material well-being. Those countries relying for their only sources of income on
tourism, aid, or trade with other affected countries will have suffered worse in the aftermath of the slow and
tentative recovery of Western Europe and North America since 2007.
MATERIAL WELLBEING INDEX: TOP 10 AND BOTTOM 10 PERFORMERS
Norway
97%
11 Iceland
83%
Denmark
83%
Netherlands
86%
Belarus 1
84%
Luxembourg
89%
Austria
89%
1
Kuwait
89%
4
1
United Arab 3
Emirates
84%
Switzerland
87%
8
2 Haiti
11%
Turkmenistan
14%
Congo, Dem. Rep. 1
3%
Zimbabwe
3%
Comoros
3
7%
16 Niger
8%
Malawi 12
12%
12 Burundi
8%
4
Djibouti
11%
6
Lesotho 8
11%
Legend:
Top 10
Bottom 10
71
References
Central Intelligence Agency (2013), The World Factbook. Accessible online at:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html
Dasgupta, P. and Weale, M. (1992), “On Measuring the Quality of Life”, World Development, Vol. 20:1, pp. 119131.
Economist, The (2013), Markets & Data. http://www.economist.com/markets-data
Emerson, J.W., A. Hsu, M.A. Levy, A. de Sherbinin, V. Mara, D.C. Esty, and M. Jaiteh (2012), 2012 Environmental
Performance Index and Pilot Trend Environmental Performance Index. New Haven: Yale Center for Environmental
Law and Policy.
Johansson, Å., et al. (2012), "Looking to 2060: Long-Term Global Growth Prospects: A Going for Growth Report",
OECD Economic Policy Papers, No. 3, OECD Publishing.
Klugman, Rodriguez and Choi (2011), “The HDI 2010: New Controversies, Old Critiques”, Human Development
Research Paper 2011/1, UNDP, New York.
Miller, T., Holmes, K.R. and Feulner, E.J. (2013), 2013 Index of Economic Freedom. Washington, DC: The Heritage
Foundation and Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (2013), OECD.Stat. http://stats.oecd.org/
Seth, S. (2009), “A Class of Association Sensitive Multidimensional Welfare Indices”, OPHI Working Paper No. 27.
UNDP (2007): Measuring Human Development. A primer. Guidelines and tools for statistical research, analysis and
advocacy. New York.
U.S. Energy Information Administration (2013), International Energy Statistics. Washington, DC.
http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm
World Bank (2013), World Development Indicators 2013. Washington, DC.
http://databank.worldbank.org/data/download/WDI_excel.zip
World Bank (2013), Worldwide Governance Indicators, 2013 Update. Washington, DC.
http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/wgidataset.xlsx
World Health Organization (2013), National Health Accounts 2013. Geneva, Switzerland.
World Health Organization and UNICEF (2013), WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Program for Water Supply and
Sanitation. Geneva and New York. http://www.wssinfo.org/
Xavier, Ferraz, Marc, Escosteguy and Moriguchi (2003), “Elderly people’s definition of quality of life”, Revista
Brasileira de Psiquiatria, Vol 25:1, pp. 31-39.
Zahava, G. and Bowling, A. (2004), “Quality of life from the perspectives of older people”, Ageing and Society, 24,
pp. 675-691.
72
Appendix
FULL RANKINGS: GRI 2014
Rank
Country
Health
Index
Finances in
Retirement
Index
Quality
of Life
Index
Material
Wellbeing
Index
Global
Retirement
Index
1
Sw itzerland
95%
87%
84%
Norw ay
86%
0%
86%
71%
2
66%
89%
97%
84%
3
Austria
90%
63%
86%
89%
81%
4
Sw eden
83%
68%
87%
82%
79%
5
Australia
84%
74%
82%
78%
79%
6
Denm ark
83%
64%
87%
83%
79%
7
Germ any
88%
63%
85%
82%
79%
8
Finland
9
New Zealand
82%
0%
79%
0%
68%
0%
72%
0%
83%
0%
87%
0%
81%
0%
75%
0%
78%
0%
78%
0%
10
Luxem bourg
11
Iceland
85%
0%
85%
0%
59%
0%
60%
0%
80%
0%
85%
0%
89%
0%
83%
0%
78%
0%
77%
0%
12
Belgium
86%
62%
81%
82%
13
Netherlands
86%
56%
83%
86%
77%
0%
77%
14
Canada
79%
69%
83%
76%
77%
15
France
88%
61%
85%
74%
76%
16
Czech Republic
83%
63%
76%
80%
75%
17
Korea, Rep.
77%
68%
71%
83%
74%
18
United Kingdom
19
United States
81%
0%
81%
0%
58%
0%
65%
0%
87%
0%
80%
0%
72%
0%
68%
0%
74%
0%
73%
0%
20
Israel
21
Slovenia
79%
0%
80%
0%
63%
0%
60%
0%
81%
0%
73%
0%
70%
0%
80%
0%
73%
0%
73%
0%
22
Slovak Republic
64%
0%
53%
78%
0%
83%
72%
Italy
78%
0%
82%
70%
23
73%
72%
24
Ireland
82%
63%
78%
65%
71%
25
Cyprus
71%
64%
74%
76%
71%
26
71%
55%
72%
84%
70%
27
Japan
84%
47%
76%
78%
69%
28
Malta
29
Spain
79%
0%
83%
0%
62%
0%
62%
0%
60%
0%
79%
0%
80%
0%
57%
0%
69%
0%
69%
0%
30
Poland
31
Qatar
75%
0%
72%
0%
62%
0%
56%
0%
70%
0%
68%
0%
67%
0%
77%
0%
68%
0%
68%
0%
32
Croatia
33
Estonia
79%
0%
78%
60%
0%
66%
70%
0%
59%
62%
0%
65%
67%
0%
67%
34
Portugal
80%
60%
66%
63%
67%
35
Uruguay
78%
65%
66%
56%
66%
36
Chile
62%
76%
79%
51%
66%
37
Costa Rica
64%
73%
86%
47%
66%
38
Panam a
39
Greece
67%
0%
83%
0%
68%
0%
51%
0%
81%
0%
73%
0%
51%
0%
59%
0%
66%
0%
65%
0%
40
Kuw ait
69%
52%
57%
89%
65%
73
Rank
Country
Health
Index
Finances in
Retirement
Index
Quality
of Life
Index
Material
Wellbeing
Index
Global
Retirement
Index
65%
0%
63%
71%
0%
67%
58%
0%
75%
66%
0%
56%
65%
0%
65%
65%
0%
65%
0%
41
Singapore
42
Mexico
43
Hungary
44
Lithuania
78%
0%
77%
0%
56%
0%
62%
0%
56%
0%
64%
0%
71%
0%
57%
0%
45
Saudi Arabia
62%
50%
72%
77%
65%
46
Cuba
41%
0%
68%
66%
0%
70%
76%
0%
60%
64%
0%
64%
47
Malaysia
83%
0%
58%
48
Rom ania
74%
56%
53%
74%
63%
49
Latvia
50
Russian Federation
71%
0%
76%
60%
0%
53%
63%
0%
59%
59%
0%
64%
63%
0%
62%
51
Ecuador
59%
61%
79%
51%
62%
52
Trinidad and Tobago
53
Bulgaria
60%
0%
73%
67%
0%
58%
54%
0%
51%
67%
0%
68%
62%
0%
62%
54
Mauritius
57%
69%
60%
61%
62%
55
Turkey
56
Thailand
69%
0%
50%
60%
0%
62%
58%
0%
67%
59%
0%
65%
61%
0%
61%
57
Bahrain
66%
73%
48%
58%
60%
58
Argentina
59
Belarus
76%
0%
76%
43%
0%
33%
73%
0%
61%
54%
0%
84%
60%
0%
60%
60
Ukraine
69%
49%
56%
68%
60%
61
Brazil
62
Belize
65%
0%
54%
59%
0%
63%
82%
0%
83%
40%
0%
44%
60%
0%
60%
63
Peru
64
Venezuela, RB
55%
0%
55%
67%
0%
49%
70%
0%
84%
48%
0%
53%
60%
0%
59%
65
Albania
56%
54%
71%
55%
59%
66
Mongolia
67
Jordan
63%
0%
66%
58%
0%
60%
52%
0%
55%
62%
0%
52%
58%
0%
58%
68
Azerbaijan
59%
63%
46%
66%
58%
69
China
70
Moldova
65%
0%
66%
60%
0%
54%
46%
0%
51%
59%
0%
58%
57%
0%
57%
71
Vietnam
53%
54%
62%
59%
57%
72
Lebanon
68%
0%
61%
51%
0%
63%
54%
0%
57%
53%
0%
45%
56%
0%
56%
73
Dom inican Republic
74
Serbia
75
El Salvador
70%
0%
58%
51%
0%
48%
48%
0%
74%
56%
0%
46%
56%
0%
55%
76
Kazakhstan
69%
37%
49%
73%
55%
77
Jam aica
78
Algeria
49%
0%
59%
56%
0%
42%
71%
0%
60%
46%
0%
57%
55%
0%
54%
79
Nicaragua
44%
56%
70%
49%
54%
80
Libya
64%
56%
37%
64%
54%
74
Rank
Country
Health
Index
Finances in
Retirement
Index
Quality
of Life
Index
Material
Wellbeing
Index
Global
Retirement
Index
81
Iran, Islam ic Rep.
53%
55%
52%
56%
54%
82
Philippines
46%
62%
61%
48%
54%
83
Guatem ala
47%
64%
74%
38%
54%
84
Bolivia
53%
59%
70%
38%
54%
85
Tunisia
59%
45%
56%
55%
53%
86
Sri Lanka
43%
59%
51%
61%
53%
87
Kyrgyz Republic
61%
50%
54%
48%
53%
88
Egypt, Arab Rep.
56%
51%
45%
61%
53%
89
Paraguay
52%
63%
58%
42%
53%
90
Georgia
60%
61%
47%
45%
53%
91
Colom bia
43%
64%
80%
35%
53%
92
Indonesia
33%
65%
64%
54%
52%
93
Arm enia
60%
61%
46%
44%
52%
94
Macedonia, FYR
46%
37%
51%
Lao PDR
70%
0%
35%
0%
59%
95
56%
63%
54%
51%
96
Tajikistan
Morocco
47%
0%
61%
0%
47%
97
52%
0%
44%
0%
56%
0%
50%
0%
51%
0%
50%
0%
98
Honduras
99
42%
0%
67%
0%
61%
0%
52%
0%
33%
0%
44%
0%
49%
0%
49%
0%
100
Uzbekistan
101
Guyana
59%
0%
42%
0%
49%
0%
48%
0%
Pakistan
55%
0%
55%
0%
55%
0%
41%
0%
102
38%
0%
56%
0%
46%
0%
103
India
105
Bangladesh
40%
0%
32%
0%
37%
0%
39%
0%
48%
0%
47%
0%
104
53%
0%
46%
0%
58%
0%
49%
0%
46%
0%
44%
0%
Iraq
51%
44%
0%
30%
60%
0%
51%
0%
106
53%
0%
52%
49%
44%
107
Cam bodia
34%
42%
48%
53%
44%
108
Cam eroon
24%
65%
48%
49%
44%
109
Angola
30%
55%
45%
43%
42%
110
Ghana
28%
47%
50%
43%
41%
111
Nam ibia
49%
52%
62%
18%
41%
112
Uganda
27%
61%
51%
32%
40%
113
Rw anda
30%
63%
46%
30%
40%
114
Nepal
35%
39%
39%
47%
40%
115
South Africa
116
Zam bia
53%
0%
28%
0%
63%
0%
64%
0%
50%
0%
67%
0%
15%
0%
21%
0%
40%
0%
39%
0%
117
Yem en, Rep.
27%
51%
37%
40%
38%
118
Mauritania
29%
55%
44%
30%
38%
119
Nigeria
28%
51%
50%
28%
38%
120
Myanm ar
24%
36%
61%
38%
38%
36%
0%
53%
0%
48%
0%
70%
0%
38%
0%
46%
0%
75
Rank
Country
121
Botsw ana
122
Burkina Faso
123
Madagascar
124
Kenya
125
Turkm enistan
126
Sudan
127
Mozam bique
Health
Index
Finances in
Retirement
Index
Quality
of Life
Index
Material
Wellbeing
Index
Global
Retirement
Index
38%
0%
21%
0%
68%
0%
46%
0%
41%
0%
45%
0%
18%
0%
42%
0%
37%
0%
37%
0%
23%
0%
31%
0%
64%
0%
54%
0%
43%
0%
50%
0%
28%
0%
20%
0%
37%
0%
36%
0%
60%
0%
31%
0%
35%
0%
29%
0%
57%
0%
42%
0%
14%
0%
37%
0%
36%
0%
34%
0%
19%
0%
22%
0%
61%
0%
37%
0%
51%
0%
50%
0%
22%
0%
31%
0%
34%
0%
33%
0%
38%
0%
61%
48%
0%
26%
30%
0%
43%
33%
0%
33%
128
Cote d'Ivoire
129
Ethiopia
130
Tanzania
23%
0%
17%
131
Congo, Rep.
30%
64%
38%
16%
33%
132
Benin
23%
46%
36%
31%
33%
133
Malaw i
21%
61%
67%
12%
32%
134
Djibouti
38%
57%
44%
11%
32%
135
Afghanistan
22%
52%
32%
28%
32%
136
Senegal
24%
45%
41%
20%
31%
137
Haiti
37%
57%
34%
11%
30%
138
Liberia
21%
59%
35%
17%
29%
139
Sierra Leone
13%
50%
33%
29%
28%
140
17%
58%
41%
15%
28%
141
Chad
16%
61%
34%
16%
27%
142
Guinea
20%
33%
43%
18%
27%
143
Mali
Lesotho
43%
0%
51%
0%
35%
0%
24%
0%
26%
0%
11%
0%
26%
144
11%
0%
24%
0%
145
Congo, Dem . Rep.
146
Togo
28%
0%
23%
0%
46%
0%
40%
0%
40%
0%
20%
0%
6%
0%
16%
0%
147
Burundi
148
Niger
20%
0%
15%
0%
34%
0%
43%
0%
44%
0%
36%
0%
8%
0%
8%
0%
149
Com oros
150
Zim babw e
31%
0%
19%
57%
0%
53%
14%
0%
60%
7%
0%
3%
24%
0%
24%
0%
23%
0%
22%
0%
21%
0%
21%
0%
20%
76
GRI 2014 VS. GRI 2013
Country
Sw itzerland
Ranking
2014
Ranking
2013
1
2
Difference
in
Ranking
Score
2014
Score
2013
Difference
in
Score
84%
87%
-3%
-3%
Norw ay
2
1
84%
87%
Austria
3
5
81%
81%
0%
Sw eden
4
4
79%
82%
-2%
Australia
5
11
79%
78%
1%
Denm ark
6
8
79%
79%
0%
Germ any
7
9
Finland
8
6
2
79%
78%
0%
78%
79%
-1%
New Zealand
9
22
78%
73%
5%
Luxem bourg
10
3
78%
82%
-4%
Iceland
11
23
77%
73%
4%
Belgium
12
14
77%
77%
0%
Netherlands
13
7
77%
80%
-3%
Canada
14
13
77%
77%
-1%
France
15
10
76%
78%
-2%
Czech Republic
16
17
75%
74%
2%
Korea, Rep.
17
27
74%
72%
2%
United Kingdom
18
20
74%
74%
0%
United States
19
19
73%
74%
-1%
Israel
20
12
73%
77%
-4%
Slovenia
21
16
73%
76%
-3%
Slovak Republic
22
18
72%
74%
-2%
Italy
23
21
72%
74%
-2%
Ireland
24
48
71%
64%
7%
Cyprus
25
24
71%
73%
-2%
26
30
70%
71%
-2%
Japan
27
15
69%
77%
-7%
Malta
28
26
69%
73%
-3%
Spain
29
25
69%
73%
-4%
Poland
30
36
68%
70%
-1%
Qatar
31
50
68%
64%
4%
-3%
Croatia
32
35
67%
70%
Estonia
33
43
67%
66%
1%
Portugal
34
32
67%
71%
-4%
Uruguay
35
34
66%
70%
-4%
Chile
36
37
66%
68%
-2%
Costa Rica
37
31
66%
71%
-5%
Panam a
38
29
66%
72%
-6%
Greece
39
33
65%
70%
-4%
Kuw ait
40
39
65%
67%
-2%
77
GRI 2014 VS. GRI 2013
Country
Ranking
2014
Ranking
2013
Difference
in
Ranking
Score
2014
Score
2013
Difference
in
Score
Singapore
41
28
65%
72%
-7%
Mexico
42
42
65%
66%
-1%
Hungary
43
45
65%
66%
-1%
Lithuania
44
38
65%
67%
-3%
-1%
Saudi Arabia
45
46
65%
65%
Cuba
46
54
64%
63%
1%
Malaysia
47
49
64%
64%
-1%
Rom ania
48
58
63%
62%
1%
Latvia
49
65
63%
58%
5%
Russian Federation
50
70
62%
57%
5%
Ecuador
51
51
62%
64%
-2%
Trinidad and Tobago
52
85
62%
54%
8%
Bulgaria
53
61
62%
60%
2%
Mauritius
54
44
62%
66%
-4%
Turkey
55
59
61%
62%
0%
Thailand
56
63
61%
59%
2%
Bahrain
57
92
60%
52%
8%
Argentina
58
41
60%
66%
-6%
Belarus
59
47
60%
65%
-5%
Ukraine
60
72
60%
57%
3%
Brazil
61
40
60%
66%
-6%
Belize
62
56
60%
62%
-2%
-2%
Peru
63
57
60%
62%
Venezuela, RB
64
64
59%
59%
0%
Albania
65
55
59%
63%
-4%
Mongolia
66
103
58%
47%
11%
Jordan
67
60
58%
61%
-3%
Azerbaijan
68
93
58%
52%
6%
China
69
73
57%
57%
0%
Moldova
70
76
57%
56%
1%
Vietnam
71
79
57%
55%
2%
Lebanon
72
53
56%
63%
-7%
Dom inican Republic
73
69
56%
58%
-1%
Serbia
74
75
56%
56%
-1%
El Salvador
75
52
55%
64%
-8%
Kazakhstan
76
66
55%
58%
-3%
Jam aica
77
68
55%
58%
-3%
Algeria
78
98
54%
49%
5%
Nicaragua
79
95
54%
52%
2%
Libya
80
88
54%
53%
1%
78
GRI 2014 VS. GRI 2013
Country
Iran, Islam ic Rep.
Ranking
2014
Ranking
2013
81
86
Difference
in
Ranking
Score
2014
Score
2013
Difference
in
Score
54%
54%
0%
Philippines
82
82
54%
54%
0%
Guatem ala
83
62
54%
59%
-6%
Bolivia
84
71
54%
57%
-4%
Tunisia
85
74
53%
56%
-3%
Sri Lanka
86
91
53%
52%
1%
-2%
Kyrgyz Republic
87
78
53%
55%
Egypt, Arab Rep.
88
94
53%
52%
1%
Paraguay
89
67
53%
58%
-5%
Georgia
90
89
53%
53%
0%
Colom bia
91
77
53%
55%
-2%
Indonesia
92
84
52%
54%
-1%
Arm enia
93
80
52%
54%
-2%
-3%
Macedonia, FYR
94
81
51%
54%
Lao PDR
95
100
51%
49%
2%
Tajikistan
96
117
51%
39%
11%
Morocco
97
87
50%
53%
-2%
Honduras
98
97
49%
50%
-1%
-2%
99
96
49%
51%
Uzbekistan
100
105
49%
47%
2%
Guyana
101
83
48%
54%
-6%
Pakistan
102
107
48%
46%
2%
103
102
47%
47%
0%
-3%
India
104
101
46%
49%
Bangladesh
105
112
44%
43%
1%
Iraq
106
115
44%
40%
5%
Cam bodia
107
108
44%
45%
-1%
Cam eroon
108
106
44%
46%
-2%
Angola
109
129
42%
35%
7%
Ghana
110
111
41%
43%
-2%
Nam ibia
111
131
41%
35%
6%
Uganda
112
104
40%
47%
-7%
-4%
Rw anda
113
109
40%
44%
Nepal
114
118
40%
39%
1%
South Africa
115
99
40%
49%
-10%
Zam bia
116
110
39%
44%
-4%
Yem en, Rep.
117
132
38%
34%
4%
Mauritania
118
136
38%
32%
6%
Nigeria
119
120
38%
38%
0%
Myanm ar
120
121
38%
38%
0%
79
GRI 2014 VS. GRI 2013
Country
Ranking
2014
Ranking
2013
Difference
in
Ranking
Score
2014
Score
2013
Difference
in
Score
-15%
Botsw ana
121
90
37%
52%
Burkina Faso
122
123
37%
37%
0%
Madagascar
123
135
37%
33%
4%
-6%
Kenya
124
113
36%
42%
Turkm enistan
125
142
36%
29%
7%
Sudan
126
133
34%
34%
1%
Mozam bique
127
138
34%
30%
3%
Cote d'Ivoire
128
126
33%
36%
-3%
Ethiopia
129
134
33%
33%
1%
Tanzania
130
116
33%
40%
-7%
Congo, Rep.
131
127
33%
36%
-3%
Benin
132
124
33%
37%
-4%
Malaw i
133
119
32%
38%
-6%
Djibouti
134
122
32%
38%
-6%
Afghanistan
135
144
32%
28%
4%
Senegal
136
114
31%
40%
-9%
Haiti
137
130
30%
35%
-6%
Liberia
138
146
29%
26%
4%
Sierra Leone
139
147
28%
24%
4%
140
128
28%
36%
-8%
Chad
141
137
27%
32%
-4%
Guinea
142
140
27%
30%
-4%
Mali
143
145
26%
26%
-1%
Lesotho
144
139
24%
31%
-7%
Congo, Dem . Rep.
145
149
24%
22%
2%
Togo
146
141
23%
30%
-7%
Burundi
147
125
22%
36%
-14%
Niger
148
143
21%
29%
-8%
Com oros
149
148
21%
22%
-2%
Zim babw e
150
150
20%
19%
1%
80
This communication is for information only. Analyses of the survey referenced herein are as of October 24, 2013. There can be
no assurance that developments will transpire as may be forecasted in this material. This material may not be distributed,
published or reproduced, in whole or in part. Although Natixis Global Asset Management believes the information provided in
this material to be reliable, it does not guarantee the accuracy, adequacy or completeness of such information.
In the EU (ex UK): Distributed by NGAM S.A., a Luxembourg management company authorized by the CSSF, or one of its branch
offices. NGAM S.A., 51, avenue J.F. Kennedy, L-1855 Luxembourg, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.
In Switzerland: Provided to Qualified Investors by NGAM, Switzerland Sàrl.
In the UK: Approved for use by NGAM UK Limited, authorized and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority.
In the DIFC: Distributed in and from the DIFC financial district to Professional Clients only by NGAM Middle East, a branch of
NGAM UK Limited, which is regulated by the DFSA. Registered office: Office 603 - Level 6, Currency House Tower 2, PO Box
118257, DIFC, Dubai, United Arab Emirates.
In Singapore: Provided by NGAM Singapore (name registration no. 5310272FD), a division of Absolute Asia Asset Management
Limited, to Institutional Investors and Accredited Investors for information only. Absolute Asia Asset Management Limited is
authorized by the Monetary Authority of Singapore (Company registration No. 199801044D) and holds a Capital Markets
Services License to provide investment management services in Singapore. Address of NGAM Singapore: 10 Collyer Quay, #1407/08 Ocean Financial Centre, Singapore 049315.
In Taiwan: This material is provided by NGAM Securities Investment Consulting (Taipei) Co., Ltd., a Securities Investment
Consulting Enterprise, regulated by the Taiwan Financial Supervisory Commission of the R.O.C. Registered address: 16F-1, No.
76, Section 2, Tun Hwa South Road, Taipei, Taiwan, Da-An District, 106 (Ruentex Financial Building I), R.O.C., license number
2012 FSC SICE No. 039, Tel. +886 2 2784 5777.
In Japan: Provided by Natixis Asset Management Japan Co., Registration No.: Director-General of the Kanto Local Financial
Bureau (kinsho) No. 425. Content of Business: The Company conducts discretionary asset management business and
investment advisory and agency business as a Financial Instruments Business Operator. Registered address: 2-2-3
Uchisaiwaicho, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo.
In Hong Kong: This document is issued by NGAM Hong Kong Limited and is provided solely for general information only and
does not constitute a solicitation to buy or an offer to sell any financial products or services.
In the United States: Furnished by NGAM Distribution, L.P., 399 Boylston St., Boston, MA 02116.
Natixis Global Asset Management consists of Natixis Global Asset Management, S.A., NGAM Distribution, L.P., NGAM Advisors,
L.P., NGAM S.A., and NGAM S.A.’s business development units across the globe, each of which is an affiliate of Natixis Global
Asset Management, S.A. The affiliated investment managers and distribution companies are each an affiliate of Natixis Global
Copyright © 2013 NGAM Advisors, L.P. – All rights reserved.
775523
81

2014 Global Retirement Index - E

Transcrição

Documentos relacionados

M1008.M120 - Encombrement Moyen modèle d`optique.SLDDRW

BANCO DO ESTADO DO RIO GRANDE DO SUL S.A.

September 26, 1963 Mr. Vlttorlo Caaerlnl President Keren

Notice to the Market Banco do Estado do Rio Grande do Sul S/A

Presentation - Investors

2015 GLOBAL RETIREMENT INDEX

Mental health promotion in the workplace A summary of - EU-OSHA

Simply Serving Sao Simply Serving Sao

Route 21 Casa Cantiga holiday resort mountainbike Lagoa do Cao

via varejo sa notice of extraordinary general meeting

Curriculum Vitae