Social Progress Index

The index combines three dimensions

1. Basic human needs
2. Foundations of well-being
3. Opportunity

Each dimension includes four components, which are each composed of between three and five specific outcome indicators. The included indicators are selected because they are measured appropriately, with a consistent methodology, by the same organization across all (or essentially all) of the countries in the sample. Together, this framework aims to capture a broad range of interrelated factors revealed by the scholarly literature and practitioner experience as underpinning social progress.

Two key features of the Social Progress Index are:[2]

1. the exclusion of economic variables
2. the use of outcome measures rather than inputs

Social Progress Imperative evaluated hundreds of possible indicators while developing the Social Progress Index, including engaging researchers at MIT to determine what indicators best differentiated the performance of nations. The index uses outcome measures when there are sufficient data available or the closest possible proxies.[2]

In 2010, a group of global leaders from the social sector sought to develop a better measure of a country's level of development and, by extension, better understand its development priorities. Funded by private foundations and under the technical guidance of Professors Michael Porter from Harvard Business School and Scott Stern from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the group formed Social Progress Imperative and launched a beta version of the Social Progress Index for 50 countries in 2013 to measure a comprehensive array of components of social and environmental performance and aggregate them into an overall framework.

This work was influenced by the contributions of Amartya Sen on social development, as well as by the recent call for action in the report Mismeasuring Our Lives by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress.[3] The Social Progress Index was released in 2014 for 133 countries with a second version in 2015.[2]

On 11 July 2013, Social Progress Imperative's chairman and professor at Harvard Business School, Michael Porter, addressed the United Nations 6th Ministerial Forum for Development and discussed the Social Progress Index.[2]

In addition to the global Social Progress Index, the methodology used to create it has been adapted to measure social and environmental performance in smaller areas, such as the Amazon region of Brazil.[4] Other projects include a Social Progress Index for the Municipality of Guatemala City.[5] Fundacion Paraguaya has integrated elements of the Social Progress Index into its Poverty Stoplight tool. The national government of Paraguay is setting a target for Social Progress Index performance alongside GDP targets.

The Guardian reported that the European Commission had agreed to partner with Social Progress Imperative to create a social progress index for the European Union.[6] The EU Social Progress Index was published in October, 2016.

A similar index, although with some differences compared to the nation list (and therefore not directly comparable), has been published for the individual U.S. states.[7][8]

Color key:

Very high →

Tier 1

Tier 2

Tier 3

Tier 4

Tier 5

Tier 6

→ Very low

Country	2019[9]
	Rank	Score
Norway	1	90.95
Denmark	2	90.09
Switzerland	3	89.89
Finland	4	89.56
Sweden	5	89.45
Iceland	6	89.29
New Zealand	7	88.93
Germany	8	88.84
Canada	9	88.81
Japan	10	88.34
Netherlands	11	88.31
Australia	12	88.02
United Kingdom	13	87.98
Ireland	14	87.97
France	15	87.79
Luxembourg	16	87.66
Spain	17	87.47
Portugal	18	87.12
Belgium	19	86.77
Austria	20	86.40
Slovenia	21	85.80
Italy	22	85.69
South Korea	23	85.61
Czech Republic	24	84.36
Estonia	25	83.98
United States	26	83.62
Singapore	27	83.23
Cyprus	28	83.14
Malta	29	82.63
Greece	30	82.48
Israel	31	81.44
Lithuania	32	81.30
Poland	33	81.25
Costa Rica	34	80.65
Slovakia	35	80.43
Latvia	36	80.42
Chile	37	80.02
Croatia	38	79.21
Hungary	39	78.77
	40
Uruguay	41	77.77
Argentina	42	76.86
Bulgaria	43	76.17
	44
Romania	45	74.81
Malaysia	46	74.17
Panama	47	73.96
Belarus	48	73.90
Brazil	49	72.87
Jamaica	50	72.58
Tunisia	51	72.33
Ecuador	52	71.88
Serbia	53	71.59
Albania	54	71.57
Mexico	55	71.51
Georgia	56	71.34
Peru	57	71.31
Montenegro	58	71.16
Armenia	59	71.14
Colombia	60	70.31
UAE	61	69.84
Russia	62	69.71
Jordan	63	69.57
Qatar	64	69.37
Sri Lanka	65	69.09
Oman	66	69.08
Macedonia	67	68.92
	68
Kazakhstan	69	68.20
Moldova	70	67.58
Turkey	71	67.49
Thailand	72	67.47
South Africa	73	67.44
Cuba	74	67.42
Suriname	75	67.27
Bhutan	76	67.26
Paraguay	77	67.20
Dominican Republic	78	67.15
Algeria	79	67.06
Ukraine	80	66.97
Kyrgyzstan	81	66.64
Morocco	82	66.04
	83
Botswana	84	65.58
Indonesia	85	65.52
Iran	86	65.15
	87
El Salvador	88	64.65
China	89	64.54
Saudi Arabia	90	63.95
Fiji	91	63.85
Guyana	92	63.74
Bolivia	93	63.66
Philippines	94	63.40
Ghana	95	61.75
Egypt	96	61.71
	97
Honduras	98	60.31
Nepal	99	60.23
Uzbekistan	100	59.83
Guatemala	101	59.67
India	102	59.10
Nicaragua	103	58.97
Senegal	104	58.59
	105
Turkmenistan	106	55.57
Tajikistan	107	54.92
Bangladesh	108	54.11
Kenya	109	53.51
Rwanda	110	52.96
The Gambia	111	52.90
Tanzania	112	52.96
Myanmar	113	52.65
	114
Swaziland	115	51.21
Benin	116	51.07
Ivory Coast	117	50.56
Malawi	118	50.52
Cambodia	119	50.36
Laos	120	49.34
Nigeria	121	49.20
Sierra Leone	122	49.09
Togo	123	48.58
Lesotho	124	48.44
Pakistan	125	48.20
Djibouti	126	48.05
Cameroon	127	48.04
	128
North Korea	129	46.95
Liberia	130	46.67
Zimbabwe	131	46.58
Mali	132	45.98
R. Congo	133	45.67
Ethiopia	134	45.41
Mozambique	135	45.39
Madagascar	136	43.58
Angola	137	42.58
Mauritania	138	42.45
	139
Sudan	140	41.59
Guinea	141	40.59
Burundi	142	39.09
Afghanistan	143	38.60
Papua New Guinea	144	38.59
Democratic Republic of Congo	145	36.77
Eritrea	146	31.61
Chad	147	28.79
Central African Republic	148	28.05
South Sudan	149	24.44

From an econometric stand point, the Index appears to be similar to other efforts aimed at overcoming the limitation of traditional economic measure such as the gross domestic product (GDP). One major criticism is that although the Social Progress Index can be seen as a superset of indicators used by earlier econometric models such as Gross National Well-being Index 2005, Bhutan Gross National Happiness Index of 2012, and World Happiness Report of 2012, unlike them, it ignores measures of subjective life satisfaction and psychological well-being. Other critics point out that "there remain certain dimensions that are currently not included in the SPI. These are the concentration of wealth in the top 1 percent of the population, efficiency of the judicial system, and quality of the transportation infrastructure."[10]

Some critics argue for caution. Though words such as “inclusive capitalism” are now bandied around increasingly to signal a new age, free from ideological battlegrounds between public and private, much of what the organization’s founders say about it confirms that the index is about more “business inclusive” than “inclusive capitalism.”[11]

• Official website