How hospitality holds its own in times of Corona

by Dr. Alexander Dill, Basel Institute of Commons and Economics







Hospitality is not only the foundation of every culture and religion but also of every economic exchange. However, the more anonymous international relations become, the less this human quality seems to be honored. Zoom and MS team conferences now often replace face-to-face encounters. In the Corona crisis, not only tourism but also restaurants and business travel have experienced drastic losses. Many companies have slashed their travel budgets, previously the source for many trades. Companies and organizations closed their foreign agencies and branches.

What has not diminished significantly in the Corona crisis, however, is hospitality. In some countries, such as Germany, where it stood at 6.2 points in 2019, it has actually increased to 6.7. France even rose from a meager 5.5 points in 2019 to 6.7 points now.

Nevertheless, the gap between European prosperity states and the Arab and African regions is clear.

The list presented here does not claim to be representative. It shows the results of the World Social Capital Monitor 2019 and 2020 in an overall view. It is striking that the level of hospitality does not correlate with economic strength. Put simply: poverty does not reduce the willingness to invite guests, even strangers.

Each of us will know such examples. If hospitality is to be maintained even in times of crisis and conflict, this will be the basis on which the economy and society can recover.

Together with the other indicators of the World Social Capital Monitor, such as trust and willingness to co-fund public goods and to invest in local businesses, we will therefore continue to have hospitality assessed worldwide.

Let us accelerate this crucial common virtue!

Kommentare deaktiviert für How hospitality holds its own in times of Corona

admin am August 18th 2021 in Allgemein

  How Sustainability got lost in Translation

A new book describes decades of attempts to bring about a change of consciousness
by Alexander Dill

If Immanuel Kant’s (1724-1804) categorical imperative – act as if your own law became law for all – had entered our common sense – we would not have needed the UN Charter in 1945.

Still unknown and not in work: the Charter of the United Nations from 1945

In addition, neither today, we would have to discuss sustainability or public goods that are a logical consequence of self-interest in times of Global interaction. Global warming, loss of biodiversity, wars on commodities and natural capital – the biggest challenges are directly connected with the spirit we use to address them.

Unfortunately, lawmakers and CSR managers do not know Immanuel Kant – and nor do they take their time to assess what buzzwords such as sustainability and public goods are about.

Now Roland Bardy, a retired Manager of BASF, together with three Senior Experts, Arthur Rubens, Raymond Saner and Lichia Yiu, reconstruct decades of approaches on sustainability and public goods in a hardcover print version of 330 pages, available for 67 British Pounds at Cambridge Scholars Publishing, lying in front of me.

In times of spreading information through blogs and PDF, the book reminds us of how education and information once were spread: physically, and after reading proudly presented in the private library.

Between UN Correspondance a rare hardcover book on public goods and sustainable development that I will review here

While public goods and sustainability are concepts driven by experts and scientists including Nobel laureates such as Joseph Stiglitz, the “Contribution of Business” (Title of the book) to these concepts requires translation.

Generations of experts tried to translate sustainability and public goods for the behaviorist brains of lawmakers and businessmen.

This call to the EU Commission went directly in the waste bag

Karl Falkenberg, at the time (2015) Director of the EU Division on Environment, published a  compelling call to his fellow EU bureaucrats. The title “Sustainability Now!” made them throwing the 30-pages-rare-example of a good translation of sustainability in political and economic action immediately in the waste bag. They even removed his paper from the Commission’s website.

On page 74 of our book, the authors admit: “Achieving economic goals is always accompanied by that of social goals.”

Kant would say: “No, economic goals are social goals yet.”

Nevertheless, the divide of ‘economic’ and ‘social’ thinking is a societal reality that drives the discussions on how public goods should deliver to overcome Global crises such as the financial crisis of 2008 or the Corona Pandemia in 2020.

The authors feature dozens of approaches to measuring the impact and the value of the commons, of social and public goods ‘beyond GDP’. All these approaches were published in recommended journals as well as by the World Bank, the UN, and other global institutions.

Instead of complying with useless tax rules – what about complying with your fellas Davos Manifesto?

The most recent, the Davos Manifesto (p. 132) of the World Economic Forum from 2020, is part of the book yet. In the conclusion on page 242 the authors even mention the recent COVID-19 crisis, which they see as a catalyst to improve resilience by public goods.

So if such joint intelligence of Nobel laureates, leading scholars, and Global business leaders such as Klaus Schwab, such as the ESG (Environment – Social – Governance) departments of 500 MSCI companies cannot set up a working Global framework for sustainability and public goods in more than three decades – who then?

On page 132 the authors mention the appearance of Greta Thunberg in Davos 2020: “Where in past meetings, anti-capitalists were shunned from the proceedings…at this year’s meeting several of these individuals were welcomed to speak.”
The question asked by the authors is whether this is just one more of the endless accusations of claimants like Greta Thunberg or whether this will have a lasting effect on the  ‘Stop Global Warming!’ commitment that already is part of the voluntary commitments by companies, governments, and IGOs.

In 1945, all countries agreed to fight no more wars. The commitment is still there. And wars still happen.

Better example: the CFC ban in 1987 has been respected by all CFC producing countries and finally led to plugging the ozone hole for a while. To mention: it was a legal ban, not a voluntary commitment.

WEF-Partners such as Lockheed Martin and BAE Systems switch to sustainable arms of mass destruction?

In general, the authors reclaim a mind change in Business towards sustainability and the support of public goods to have happened in Davos 2020. They quote Nobel laureate Milton Friedman in 1970:
“the social responsibility of business is to increase its profits” (p. 136), to demonstrate that the consciousness in Global business finally changed.

The diagram of WEF’s “Circular Economy”, introduced as a disruptive step in the Global business community, describes links to dozens of issues such as ‘the internet of things’ and ‘3D printing’, ‘Aerospace’ and ‘Global Governance’.

One link is missing: the linkage to the taxation needed to finance public goods such as health, social and environmental protection, to finance the courts that decide to which extent private wealth may replace common wealth without damaging the society.

Maybe the WEF experts believe that taxation is part of ‘Global Governance’? Tax justice still remains an entirely National subject.

So, take the Davos Manifesto for true, maybe not the mind-change, the action change is the step to do?



The UN Charter from 1945

Public Goods, Sustainable Development and the Contribution of Business, by Roland Bardy, Arthur Rubens, Raymond Sander and Lichia Yiu, Cambridge Scholars Publishing (Hardcover, 330 pages) , Newcastle upon Tyne, 2021

Sustainability Now! A European Vision for Sustainability, by Karl Falkenberg, European Commission, European Political Strategy Center, July 2016*

*I swear to have never met any employee of the EU having read this.

Kommentare deaktiviert für   How Sustainability got lost in Translation

admin am März 11th 2021 in Allgemein

Better Social Climate under Corona – How Social Goods increase in the midst of the Pandemia

Do social goods increase under Corona? As a result of the World Social Capital Monitor 2020, an increase of social goods could be considered in 26 mostly emerging (we stopped to call them developing) countries. While the survey took place from May to September 2020, we are now able to compare the level of eight social goods between 2019 and 2020.
The first question was „Please characterize the Social Climate of your place“ on a ladder between 10 (excellent) and 1 (poor). As you can see from the chart, we considered a significant increase in ten countries. Any increase between 0 and 0.5 is within the random range of deviation and will therefore not be featured as a change.

Another surprise is the low average deviation for these estimates of the social climate: 1.7 in Congo, 1.5 in Croatia, 1.4 in Austria. The deviation for the questions on austerity measures and taxes, in general,  is much higher, mostly more than two points. So why do people agree on their local social climate in such different environments as the Republic of Congo and Austria?

This is the question of the research on social capital, that Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz once called ‚a tacit knowledge‘.

Our survey happens on the surface of this tacit knowledge. Communities and groups build their social climate and share their social goods without planning it. Recently Rudger Bregmann reclaimed the existence of an altruistic Humankind that explains many collective actions. According to Bregmann, helpfulness is as contagious as a virus.

To seeing Kosovo at the top of any chart is exceptional. But helpfulness increased in Kosovo by 1.4 points from 2019 to 2020.

As well Albania, Serbia, and Bosnia noted an increase in helpfulness. The Corona crisis seems to evoke and to accelerate shared social goods and virtues. For decades young people are leaving the Western Balkans. The European Union welcomes their cheap labour. To building up sustainable communities in the Western Balkans requires all social goods in one: interpersonal trust, willingness to co-finance public goods, willingness to invest in local small enterprises and cooperatives, helpfulness, friendliness and hospitality,

The Western Balkans division of the European Union rejected to consider our 2019 report on the six Western Balkan countries.

Now the World Social Capital Monitor 2020 with the great news on increasing social goods is published within the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals Partnerships.

You can download the 49 printer-friendly pages as a PDF here.



Kommentare deaktiviert für Better Social Climate under Corona – How Social Goods increase in the midst of the Pandemia

admin am Oktober 16th 2020 in Allgemein

28 new Funds to Financing Development

Since two years, the Basel Institute of Commons and Economics picked up the invitation to contribute to the UN Inter Agency Task Force on Financing for Development (UN IATF on FfD) that is composed by major IGOs and UN units you can assess here.

In 2017 we started our work by making a business case for SDG 16 Peace. In 2018 we published broadly recognized figures on the costs and sources to financing the UN Goals. The tables in our Policy Paper have been quoted in the Wikipedia articles on the Sustainable Development Goals in English and German.
UNESCO, in their Paper on SDG 4 Education,  wrote a paragraph on our comparison of the Global Indices with the result of finding entire redundancy by using GDP related indicators only. You find the UNESCO quote of our study on page 18/19. So the question for our 2020 Policy Paper was: Will we continue to enlighten the UN-IGO-SDG Community by smart questions on measuring and understanding the UN Goals?
The answer was ’no‘.

Instead we took the input we’ve got through the World Social Capital Monitor 2019 and created a set of currently 28 new Funds to Financing Development that expresses an entire paradigm change in Financing Development at a Global level:

  • all 17 UN Goals and their interlinkages are considered together in each of the Funds
  • the Funds do not attend any political change or political obedience from the countries covered
  • the Funds use the Euro as the benchmark currency, not the US Dollar
  • the Funds address Small and Middle Enterprises (SMEs) and cooperatives
  • the Funds expressively enhance the establishment of local cooperative and governmental banking
  • the Funds consider the local specific priorities and needs
  • the Funds invite local administrations and stakeholders to join the Investment Committee

If you’d like to browse the 28 Funds with a total of € 142 billion and covering 150 countries in alphabetic order, you can do that here by download from the IATF on FfD website (3 MB size and 33 pages).
Our thanks go the colleagues from the IATF on FfD for allowing us to share our expertise the third year now!

Kommentare deaktiviert für 28 new Funds to Financing Development

admin am Januar 5th 2020 in Allgemein

How to finance the 17 UN Goals

On July 9th 2019 three scientists focussed on the SDGs process, Wolfgang Obenland from the Global Policy Forum, Stefan Brunnhuber from the Initiative Finance for Future and Alexander Dill, expert delivering to the UN Inter Agency Taskforce on Financing for Development (UN IATF on FfD) published their suggestions on how to finance the 17 UN Goals.

The presentation (German) has been broadcasted by the German Television Phoenix including the discussion with the Press. (50 minutes in total)

Let’s try a summary: Wolfgang Obenland („Highjacking the SDGs“), made his focus on lowering the transaction costs – the damage – created e.g. by subsidies for carbon production and non-sustainable agriculture, military and unhealthy behavior. He gave the example that protecting agricultural soils today will be much more economical than recovering them in the future.

Stefan Brunnhuber (‚A mechanism that can change the World, TEDx TALK‘) reclaimed collective repression among decision-makers in the SDGs process, that they feel to being a too-big-challenge. His idea is that the Central Banks may provide the funding of an estimated two to six trillion per year in the remaining time before Climate Change terminates the perspectives to do any better.

Alexander Dill (‚The SDGs are Public Goods‘) addressed the World’s biggest IGO, the European Union and demanded to invest another € 320 bn per year in addition to the current EU budget of € 160 bn annual. To fundraise this enormous amount Dill suggested to dramatically lower the current spendings of € 320 bn on military in the EU and to release a SDG bond through the European Investment Bank EIB. This ‚biggest investment in Europe’s history‘ (Dill) should include as well the neighborhood countries of the EU such as Egypt, Ukraine, Turkey and Iran.


Kommentare deaktiviert für How to finance the 17 UN Goals

admin am Juli 11th 2019 in Allgemein

First results from the World Social Capital Monitor 2019

While most of the IGO’s and States still believe that the UN SDGs are nothing but a National audit, the indicators used to track the progress of the SDGs come from the National Statistics Offices. They lay around 15 years behind with their GDP agenda. Therefore we started to assess new indicators within our UN SDGs Partnership Project, the World Social Capital Monitor. Please mail us to get the full Monitor:

See here a first presentation of the Global willingness to co-finance public goods by taxes. Why that? The SDGs have to be financed as well and according to our studies published at the UN IATF on FfD, almost only public budgets are available to cover the costs. And these budgets entirely depend on social goods such as solidarity, trust, helpfulness, and this indicator: ‚How would you estimate the willingness to co-finance public goods at your place?‘ (on a ladder between 10 high and 1 low).

China (collective vote of the University of the Chinese Academy of Sciences) 10.0*
Finnland 8.5
Zambia, Cyprus 8.0
Rwanda 7.9
Somalia 7.5
Belgium 7.3
India 7.2
USA 7.1
Slovakia 7.0
United Kingdom 6.8
Rep. Korea, Turkey, Tanzania 6.6
Laos, Namibia 6.5
Germany, Russia 6.4
Cambodia 6.3
Ethiopia 6.0
Central African Republic 5.8
Mali, Kosovo 5.6
Nepal 5.3
Pakistan 5.2
France, Czech Republic 5.1
Italy 5.0

Kommentare deaktiviert für First results from the World Social Capital Monitor 2019

admin am Juli 4th 2019 in Allgemein

„This is a damned dangerous game!“ – Horst Teltschik on NATO’s threat to Russia

Since Crimea returned to Russia, NATO – driven by the United States – is imposing ongoing threats on Russia. While few European leaders keep good relations with Russia (reducing it on the person of ‚Putin‘) – sanctions and boycotts damage not only Russia but at first Ukraine and neighboring countries such as the Balkans, the Baltic, Bulgaria, Poland, Romania and Greece. The damage of the NATO politics is at around € 400bn per year only in trade. If we include the damage caused by the military expenditures of the NATO countries we may easily reach € 1.5 trillion per year.
This is almost collateral damage in times where countries have to collaborate to address Climate Change and Poverty within the 17 UN Goals.

Horst Teltschik, a former advisor of Germany’s Chancellor Helmut Kohl, advocates the good relations between Germany and Russia that resulted in the German reunification. Teltschik is a Member of Board of the Basel Institute of Commons and Economics since 2015 yet. The Institute is proud that Teltschik’s new book „Russian Roulette“ will appear on March 21st.

Now Germany’s SPIEGEL in the print version published an interview with Mr. Teltschik that we offer for download here.

Unfortunately the interview is not available in public and open access. We hope that SPIEGEL will continue to consider our work nevertheless – and to promoting peace and reconciliation with our honourable neighbor, that suffered so much on the hostility of its neighbors in World War II.


Kommentare deaktiviert für „This is a damned dangerous game!“ – Horst Teltschik on NATO’s threat to Russia

admin am März 15th 2019 in Allgemein

A letter to us from the Kilimanjaro smallhold farmers

On Tuesday, February 19th, in the midst of our Social Capital Monitor in Africa, we received this letter:

„Hello The Social Climate Matters, am Stephano Msuya working in the agricultural sector, experienced in agricultural projects in the Kilimanjaro region. I work at the network of smallholder farmers‘ groups of Tanzania (, we are strongly looking for donors who will support us to reduce the challenges which are facing smallholding farmers in Kilimanjaro region. In case your organization has that capacity to finance us or you may connect us with possible funders, it will be a great contribution to our transformational journey in the agricultural sector.“

Stephano is a Field Officer of the National Networks of Farmers Groups in Tanzania for the Kilimanjaro region.

When we checked their website, we saw that it was in Kiswahili and at the same day sent them a blueprint version to create the Kiswahili version of the World Social Capital Monitor. It took Stephano only one day to send us the Kiswahili version. It took us three days to bring it online and here it is.
See here a wonderful film on how MVIWATA helps Tanzanian farmers:

Kommentare deaktiviert für A letter to us from the Kilimanjaro smallhold farmers

admin am Februar 23rd 2019 in Allgemein

Interactions between Common Global Goals – make your choice

Imagine a group of people discussing and agreeing on 17 common goals. In general they will sort of voting on the goals with the most support across the group. So their goals are in fact a chart on what they favor. But one thing they never do is to thinking on the dependencies and interactions between the goals. You can see that in every local administration budget where measures and limits on spending are confronted with the projects they want to fund. One of the two doesn’t fit at the end. Goals collide.
Now imagine 193 countries agreeing on the 17 Global Goals, called the Sustainable Development Goals. Let’s have a look at them:

Of course none of us would find any of them irrelevant or useless. But after two years within the process to promoting these goals – let’s call them the Global Goals – some goals achieve much more support and funding than others. The reasons for that choice are different, but two motivations can be mentioned:
1) Choosing Global Goals that a government or an organization can easily meet and achieve without any extra intellectual, political or financial efforts, e.g. of course the crops industry feels to ‚fighting hunger‘ (Goal 2). Rich OECD countries implement compliance and governance to achieving goals 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 13, 14 and 15.
2) Choosing Global Goals were you can attend funding from donors. This choice quickly leads to a couple of goals such as 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15.
As we can see, both motivations lead to the choice of the same goals. But unfortunately the 17 Global Goals as well have an interaction between them. ‚Zero Hunger‘ (Goal 2) is even a goal that requires to eliminating poverty (Goal 1) and social inequality (Goal 10) before and as well to achieving peace (Goal 16) of course. On top Goal 17 is about financing all the Global Goals. To achieving any of them without any extra funding is out of reach.
To better understanding these interactions we created the first UN Goals Impact Matrix, that you can download here.

Even if you won’t share all of the estimates lying behind this matrix you will being inspired by playing a bit with it.
We therefore provide a MS Word version here so that you fill it out by yourself.
The paradox thing is, that the Global Goals with the highest impact are the ones with the lowest support. So the funding and support moves to the low impact, which we explained before by the motivation.

So how can we create any motivation to considering Goals 10, 11, 16 and 17 as well? If we don’t, the Global Goals will fail.

Kommentare deaktiviert für Interactions between Common Global Goals – make your choice

admin am Februar 23rd 2018 in Allgemein

Highly topical in 2018: the five principles of peaceful coexistence

It was 63 years ago, exactly on April 29th 1954, when India’s first prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru, and China’s first premier, Zhou Enlai, signed a treaty that has been since recommended as the Panchsheel Treaty. It contained a few mutual and common rules that are called the five principles of peaceful coexistence. At the time the Charter of the United Nations (link to the original version)  that is supposed to containing the same principles had become effective for nine years yet. But within this period the American and French wars in Korea and Vietnam questioned the UN Charter.

Still agreeing on peaceful co-existence: China’s Xi Jinping and India’s Narendra Modi (AP photo from Hindustantimes)

So when the Chinese President Xi Jinping and his colleague Prime Minister Narendra Modi met in September 2017 on the occasion of the BRICS meeting in China’s Xiamen, remembering the Panchsheel Treaty was a rare sample of successful bilateral agreements that have never been broken or put in question.
And these are the five principles:

  1. Mutual respect for each other’s territorial integrity and sovereignty.
  2. Mutual non-aggression.
  3. Mutual non-interference in each other’s internal affairs.
  4. Equality and cooperation for mutual benefit.
  5. Peaceful co-existence

    Understanding the paradox of rules: Lao-Tzu

    While other international agreements, beside the UN Charter from 1945 e.g. the Helsinki Act from 1975 or the Minsk Protocol from 2015 failed to bringing enduring peace, the five principles appear astonishing highly topical. The Basel Institute of Commons and Economics therefore started to adopt them as a base for other bilateral agreements on peace and reconciliation.
    In a broadcast from May 1954 Nehru said: ‚If these principles were recognized in the mutual relations of all countries, then indeed there would hardly be any conflict and certainly no war.‘ In any case they shift the issue of peace from entirely complicated rules that cause endless violations to a couple of clear basic rules.
    It was the Chinese philosopher Lao-Tzu (6th century B.C.) who discovered the paradox of law and rules long before Immanuel Kant’s (1724-1804) Categorical Imperative when he considered:
    The more rules and regulations,
    The more thieves and robbers.
    Today’s peacemakers may being inspired by such thoughts.

Kommentare deaktiviert für Highly topical in 2018: the five principles of peaceful coexistence

admin am Oktober 30th 2017 in Allgemein

How Ghana did the fastest social study ever been conducted and published some days later

While doing the first open access survey in history, the World Social Capital Monitor, finding partners in all countries creates amazing and inspiring stories. The most recent one is the one of Rachel Boadu, 20, from the town of Kumasi in Ghana where she studies Social Sciences at the University of Ghana. Only a week ago Rachel (who we contacted through Researchgate)  started to spreading our questionnaire among young people across Ghana via Smartphone.
She was that successful that after three days she had several hundreds of respondents from 50 Ghanaian cities and more than fifty qualitative statements.
So we decided to creating the fastest Social Capital Report ever being published today. Why that? If we are capable to achieving results that quick we have to share and spread them right now.
Social sciences are not for the drawers only.
So you can have a look at the amazing Social Capital of Ghana with a 837kb PDF file now.
Congrats Rachel to your great study and the passion and speed you’re spreading it!


Kommentare deaktiviert für How Ghana did the fastest social study ever been conducted and published some days later

admin am September 2nd 2017 in Allgemein

„The Assange case ended my UN career“ – the case of Nils Melzer and SDG 16

by Dr Alexander Dill, Basel Institute of Commons and Economics

One of the main problems of cooperation in the World Security Council is that NATO countries believe they are the only ones defending democracy and human rights. Although NATO as a supranational military alliance actually already contradicts the multilateral UN Charter of 1945 in principle, i.e. it is strictly speaking an illegal organisation according to UN standards, NATO members as the main donor countries to the UN can nevertheless exert pressure on the UN at will.

This has been the case for some time now for the UN Special Rapporteur on torture, the Swiss Nils Melzer, 51, father of two daughters (8 and 11): His expert opinion on the case of the Australian investigative journalist Julian Assange resulted in the statement that Assange was being tortured mentally and physically in prison in Great Britain. He should be released immediately, not extradited to the United States.

Melzer on July 17th 2021 in BLICK:  „The Assange case ended my UN career“

This is a screenshot from the Blick article. I linked to the article.

Media in NATO countries rarely report on the Assange case. The governments of Germany, France, Italy, and the Netherlands remain silent. The Norwegians even withdrew a funding commitment for the office of the UN torture commissioner.

The Swiss tabloid Blick has now published a report by Rebecca Wyss that goes into more detail about how and why Nils Melzer’s advocacy for human rights is being made so difficult.

The article, although published only a few hours ago, is not a lead story, but hidden far in the back. Blick even allows commentary.

The article is well researched and also contains this passage:

„The special rapporteur goes far. He also gives an interview to questionable media such as the Russian propaganda channel RT.

Why, Mr Melzer?

„Because RT was the only media interested in the Assange case. The Western media ignored him.“

For critics, this is further proof that the UN official is an Assange activist, as the „Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung“ recently called him.And in the „NZZ“ a criminal law professor even portrayed him as a conspiracy theorist.“

As the global project manager of a UN partnership project, the World Social Capital Monitor, I too gave interviews to RT Deutsch. One of the interviews was dubbed into Russian and received 666,000 views, 14,900 likes and 1795 comments.

But I also gave interviews to Phoenix, Deutschlandfunk and Tagesschau.

Without publicity, the UN goal number 16 Peace, adopted by all 193 states in 2015, will never be achievable.

For example, it is completely unknown to the public that projects in Germany and Switzerland that pursue this UN goal 16 Peace are usually not even allowed to apply for funding for it unless they equate peace with the NATO doctrine.

Blick deserves thanks for bringing to public attention a concern that is also largely ignored and therefore rejected by the Swiss government.

We can only hope that Blick will in future also take an interest in political prisoners in Spain and Germany, where there are supposedly no political prisoners.



Kommentare deaktiviert für „The Assange case ended my UN career“ – the case of Nils Melzer and SDG 16

admin am Juli 17th 2021 in Allgemein

How the Global indices cheat emerging and developing countries

Since the Basel Institute of Commons and Economics published the first Global Index Benchmark in 2011, another seven years passed – and nothing changed in the methodology, the bias and the unilateralism of the major indices. None of the institutions reacted to the Excel we updated in 2016 again. While journals in Development Economics and -Studies refused to publish the results, we published them within the MPRA of the Munich University: 

In the meanwhile, a new Index entered our Global Index Benchmark,  the so-called SDG Index of the German Bertelsmann Foundation. Therefore we were capable to update our Global Index Benchmark in December 2018 and here you can download the Excel.
You may quickly think: this is for experts only. Unfortunately, this is true. So when we send the results to Ministries for Development or to Development Agencies they don’t know to read it and never consider the results of course.

But there may be political reasons as well: the results of the Global Index Benchmark are questioning the entire database of the Official Development Assistance (ODA) as well as the financial instruments of the UN, the IMF, the World Bank, and the Development Banks.

We can demonstrate this with three charts.

Since decades the same 20 countries lead all Global indices. But whom does that help?

On the first chart (see image left) we see a comparison of the Top-20-countries in the Global Index Benchmark of 10 indices with their ranking in the Bertelsmann SDG Index.
While the SDG Index is composed of the same indicators the other indices use – GDP, life expectancy, education time, digitalization, health – the difference is very small – especially when we know, that 151 countries are considered in the Global Index Benchmark.
Smaller controversies in the joint scores of the indices can only be found in the cases of Australia, New Zealand and Luxembourg, that are blamed for less ecological compliance by the Happy Planet Index, that ranked e.g. Australia at rank 105 only.
We may consider as well: all the countries are OECD countries and ten of them are small countries with a population of fewer than 10 million inhabitants.
And 15 of them are direct neighbors at the northern hemisphere.


When we make the case of these findings we often hear that that’s exactly what the task of the indices and their rankings is, which is to provide the best practice for the emerging and developing countries who are the pupils in the World’s school of development. But even in school, we need common standards to assess the performance of the pupils.
Do the indices provide a common standard?

In statistics, we can assess the existence of a common standard by the mean average deviation of the scores of the ten indices. Will they agree in the same extent on the winners as well on the losers?

As we can see in the chart (image on the right) the average deviation to nominate the ten winners of all Global assessments is 9.75. That means: among 151 countries we include, the difference in identifying the Top-ten-countries is only 10 ranks.
By looking at the chart we may as well recognize the fact, that there is only one country with a bigger population among the top ten.
We may summarize: ‚The smaller, the better‘, which gives place to explain the societal and economic success of smaller countries by social cohesion, shared social values and perceptions and of course a high level of non-material assets such as interpersonal trust, helpfulness and the willingness to co-finance the public goods.
All these assets are indicators in the World Social Capital Monitor that will be published in March 2019 first and that you can test here:


The crucial question is now: do the experts from UN, WEF, Transparency International, World Bank, IMF, and other IGOs assess the countries at the end of the ranking with the same deviation? If yes, we may criticize the outcome but had to consider nevertheless certain objectivity and rationalism in the scores.

So we look at the last ten ranks of the Global Index Benchmark (image left). While there are nevertheless three countries still with an affordable mean average deviation (Mauritania, Sudan, and Yemen), the average more than doubles now from 9.75 ranks to a deviation of 22.47 ranks!
So the experts agree more whom to praise then whom to blame. While the experts, of course, come from countries among the top-twenty, we may consider: the Global indices favor a few OECD countries where they come from.
Only with this knowledge, you can explain why the Russian Federation (92) ranks three places behind! Ukraine (89), or why Turkey (81) ranks behind South Africa (77), or Brazil (62).
It’s time to throw the old indices overboard and to start assessing countries by assets they have on their own and that they can, therefore, improve by themselves.




Kommentare deaktiviert für How the Global indices cheat emerging and developing countries

admin am Dezember 30th 2018 in Allgemein