This is what the index claims to do:

We define prosperity holistically to include both material wealth and quality of life. Rather than replicating other measurements that rank countries by their actual levels of material wealth or life satisfaction, the Index produces a ranking based on the conditions that foster prosperity – that is, the factors that promote economic competitiveness and improved liveability in a given country. We refer to these factors as drivers of prosperity and to those that impede prosperity, as restrainers. The Index endeavours to rank countries according to the strength of these drivers and restrainers, not according to simple measures of income and life satisfaction.

Their Country Rankings Table conveniently divides the factors they used into two categories: those to do with economic competitiveness and those to do with comparative livability.

Singapore ranks first on the economic competitive index, largely due to extremely high scores in ‘economic openness’ and ‘commercialising innovation’. And I do mean extremely: Singapore and Hong Kong get scores of 46 and 47 respectively for economic openness, and the next highest score is 20 (Belgium and Slovakia). I didn’t dig into Legatum’s methodology to find out how heavily economic openness is weighted, but suffice to say that Hong Kong ranks second on the economic competitive index. Clearly this is one factor that favours city states, which because of their lack of natural and human resources have no choice but to open their economies to trade. Singapore, however, is strongly penalised for ‘dependence on commodity exports (presumably refined oil) — in the top 20 countries on the prosperity index, only Singapore and Norway score negatives for dependence on commodity exports, and strong negatives at that.

The index that I find more interesting is the comparative livability index. It will not surprise many that Singapore doesn’t top the tables here. It’s ranked 17. Its biggest negatives are in ‘moderate climate’, ‘time for leisure’, and ‘religious freedom’. Compare HK’s biggest negatives: ‘pleasant environment’, ‘moderate climate’, and ‘family life’. I’m a bit puzzled by why both HK and Singapore get -11 for ‘moderate climate’: doesn’t HK clearly have a more moderate climate than Singapore’s? Anyway, it’s interesting that HK also has the same disparity between high economic competitiveness and comparatively lower livability — #2 for economic competitiveness versus #19 for livability. As noted in the report and summary of this year’s rankings, this seems to a be a common problem for rich Asian states: they tend to rank high on economic competitiveness but low on livability. Other examples are Taiwan which is #5 for economic competitiveness but #37 for livability and Japan which is #4 for economic competitiveness and #22 for livability. Wealthy ‘Western’ countries are more balanced in their economic competitiveness versus livability scores. Australia, the overall top-ranked country, scored 6th for economic competitiveness and 10th for livability. Next comes Austria which scored 9th and 8th in the two categories, then Finland with 12th and 5th.

Despite the disparity between the economic competitiveness and livability rankings, #17 is still not bad — I dare say it is something to be proud of given that Singapore wasn’t exactly given a favourable start etc. Singapore’s extremely low score for ‘time for leisure’, though, I find morbidly fascinating. It’s not just low, it is the lowest score of the 100 countries studied. Here are the countries that received scores of less than -3 on this count: Kuwait -28 (tied with Singapore), Israel -6, South Korea -19, Greece -7. So we’re at the very extreme end of a distribution of scores mostly (for less rich countries) clustered around 0, and mostly positive for rich countries. As one might expect, the very high end of scores for this category is dominated by countries in rich European countries (Denmark 45!!).

Since it’s the university application season, I thought I’d post some things to countervail the notion that “University is not an idealistic place. It’s an institution where we teach students in a practical manner”. Of course, it might be the case that NTU views its mission as purely ‘practical’.* In which case, I shall merely be suggesting that there are better missions to have.

Today’s food for thought, some remarks on education by Colin Diver, the president of Reed College:

Why get an education? Most people answer that question instrumentally. They view education as a means to an end. The end might be to enter a particular profession, to earn a handsome salary, to accumulate power or influence, or to create things (including ideas) of utility or beauty. According to this instrumental view, education is a process of acquiring the knowledge, skills, credentials, or pedigree deemed as prerequisite for attaining a particular status.

There is another view, a radically different view — one that sees education as an end in itself. According to this view, education is a process of self-fulfillment, self-realization, through the cultivation, cherishing, and love of knowledge. People who take this view rarely ignore instrumental thinking entirely. They, too, care about their careers, their respect or recognition in the community, even their pocketbooks. But those things are, to them, secondary. The assumption is that a life truly worth living is a life of inquiry and discovery — a life of pursuing knowledge for its own sake.

There are many young people who hold this second view of education. They are the high school students who get intrinsic pleasure out of solving the puzzles of geometry or calculus, figuring out how to test a scientific or behavioral hypothesis, relishing the beauty, depth, and ambiguity of a great work of art or literature, digging deep into the historical record to explain an event or social phenomenon. If you have that kind of passion for exploration and understanding, this essay is addressed to you.

In today’s competitive, consumerist educational culture, instrumental values predominate. Colleges and universities are evaluated and ranked, and indeed market themselves, primarily as stepping-stones to some extrinsic goal such as career success, wealth, or power. Indeed the emphasis on instrumental values has gone so far as to create the impression that there is no place in higher education for those who care about pursuing knowledge for its own sake.

Such claims, of course, call for further justification. This is just an appetizer for now. But for those JC students who already find themselves described by that third paragraph, who do get intrinsic pleasure out of knowledge, the following is excellent advice:

There are colleges that care deeply about fostering the love of knowledge for its own sake. The question is: How can you find such colleges?

First, a word about how NOT to find such colleges. Don’t rely on one-size-fits-all rankings. Those rankings are invariably dominated by instrumental values. They are primarily measures of institutional wealth, reputation, influence, and pedigree. They do not attempt, nor claim, to measure the extent to which knowledge is valued and cultivated for its own sake. Likewise, you should be wary of recommendations from counselors, relatives, or friends unless you are sure that those counselors, relatives, or friends share your values. If they view education primarily in an instrumental, bottom-line way, their advice is unlikely to steer you in the right direction.

One thing that really strikes me (in a bad way) about the perception of education in Singapore is that evaluations of universities aree almost invariably conducted on completely reputational grounds. If you are applying to college and the advice you’ve received so far has been entirely about which universities are well-known, with no reference to the actual characteristics of universities that facilitate a good education, then please go and read the whole of Colin Diver’s essay. He offers six non-reputational factors that are far, far more indicative of educational quality than reputation. It is of course a plug for Reed College, but it is also a plug for any college that has those factors. And they do exist.**

*I actually have many gripes with the practical-idealistic dichotomy. But more on that next time.

**While I will not plug any specific colleges here (I am not plugging Reed, it just so happens that their president happened to write something which is worth reading), I’m willing to offer suggestions by email, at [my name]@gmail.com.