Get documents about "eSSWPArticle2009121145813
Document Sample
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THREE INDICES OF HAPPINESS:
MATERIAL, MENTAL AND SPIRITUAL
SONALI BHATTACHARYA
SYMBIOSIS CENTRE FOR MANAGEMENT& HRD,
PUNE – 411057 MAHARASHTRA
SONALI_BHATTACHARYA@SCMHRD.EDU
Abstract
Every individual in this world seeks to achieve a healthy, wealthy, secured and blissful life as
suggested by Maslow‟ Need Hierarchy. Hindu philosophy as evident from the knowledge of ancient
Vedas realizes three stages of happiness: Materialistic Happiness, Mental Happiness and
Spiritualistic Happiness, almost always in that order. A regression analysis taking Life Satisfaction
Index (as obtained from world data base of happiness between 1995-2005) as the dependent
variable indicated rule of law, voice and accountability, regularity authority as well as economic
freedom indicators (as obtained from heritage foundation database, 1995-2006) as very significant
predictors.
In this paper, an attempt has been made to understand this tri-dimensional concept of happiness
and combining them to arrive at a Composite Index of Happiness. Efforts have been also made to
evaluate performance of various Nations in their persistency to achieve these dimensions of
happiness.
Therefore, political and socio-economic well being as well as law and order and technological
well-being were taken as indicators of Materialistic Well-Being. Average of indexes for World
Bank governance indicators 2008 (World Bank database) was taken as proxy variable of political
well-being. The indicators of economic well-being were taken as price level indexes, domestic and
foreign market indicators, gini‟s index and gross national savings and unemployment rate as well
as fiscal deficit indicators. Social indicators were represented by Education (for All) Development
Index(EDI), gender parity index, environmental well-being as well as family life index.
Life satisfaction Index based on World Database of Happiness was taken as proxy variable for
mental happiness.
Importance given by society to practice of traditional values and virtues like honesty, trust, work
ethics, tolerance and regulation on religion practices were taken as proxy variable for Spiritual
Happiness Indicator.
Most studies has been either in direction of Subjective Well-Being or developmental Well Being .
This paper has been in an effort to combine both the factors and incorporating age old values and
virtues required for reaching higher realm of lasting peace, tranquility and happiness for one and all.
The study shows that mental happiness has significant positive correlation with Materialistic and
Spiritualistic Happiness , perhaps for being the intermediary step but Materialistic has no significant
correlation with Spiritualistic Happiness.
Keywords and Phrases: Happy Planet Index, Subjective Well-Being, Composite Index of Well-
Being, Principle Component Analysis
1. Introduction
Nations world over are in process of change from an era of largely agro-based economy, to
industrialization to post-industrialisation. There has change in aspirations, values, aims and needs of
nations of nations. The increase in the public and private expenditure in the health and insurance
sector has not only increased the life expectancy but has also improved health condition of the
children and the senior citizens of the world at a large.
It bought about a change in social life of individuals. There has been change in economic structure
of the families. In a largely agro-based society the male patriarch is to be sole bread earner. In the
urbanized post-modern set up, to maintain the financial requirement of the family both the patriarch
and matriarch are willingly contributing to the earnings of the family. The children are being left in
the care of crèche, working women are keeping domestic help to aid them in household chores. As a
result the per capita income and expenditure have both increased.
The concern now is that how rapid change in socio-economic, political, demographic set up of the
society extent to which it has contributing and effecting the subjective-well-being of the
individuals. Subjective-well-being has two components: Life Satisfaction (or Mental Happiness)
and Spiritualistic Happiness.
Happiness in all its form is closely linked with aspiration of humanities. The gap between our
aspiration and achievement as compare to others and as evaluated by our own perceived effort
could give us a measure of happiness. An enlightened individual who has got freedom from all
desires remains unmoved (Samabhava) both in a situation of happiness and misery as would be
defined by Materialistic term. In Bhagvat-Gita the Lord Krishna preaches Arjuna to perform duty
without any fear or desire of result (Niskamkarma). True Happiness lies in being complete freedom
from all desires or Moksha
There is however cultural and conceptual differences in interpretation of happiness. Alfatabi (1995)
philosophy which closely resemble Muslim Philosophy of Happiness states:
“nations and citizens of cities attain earthly happiness in the first life and supreme happiness
in the life beyond when four human things are met: theoretical virtues, deliberative virtues,
moral virtues and practical arts” Theoretical virtues refers to understanding of beings through
rational knowledge of science and politics. Deliberative virtues may be referred as the experiential
learning through will or accident. He stresses the need to practice virtuous acts. The more you
practice virtuous acts the more virtuous you become, which will eventually lead you to happiness.
Effective leadership and quality instruction leads to achievement of theoretical virtues whereas
building up of characters leads to achievement of moral virtues.
Buddhism believes in sacrificing of all sensual and materialistic pleasures (Virragata) and
developing a sense of consideration and compassion for all beings leads to ultimate happiness
(Saher,1970). Prescott Allen (Diwedi, 2005) observed that Chinese seek happiness in long life,
riches, love of virtue , health and natural death in old age, French in principles of equality , liberty
and Fraternity, British in heath, wealth and wisdom, Americans in pursual for life, liberty,
materialistic achievement.
Hindu philosophy of Vedas focus on persistent effort towards achieving higher form of happiness:
from wordly happiness to mental happiness and finally to spiritual happiness.
2. Objective
a. To measure and compare the tridimensional concept of happiness: Materialistic,
Mental and Spiritualistic
b. Combine them to arrive at a Composite Index of Happiness.
c. Evaluate performance of various Nations in their persistency to achieve the three
dimensions of happiness.
3. Literature Review
General feeling of happiness is consequence of individual‟s interaction with political, social,
economical, legal, cultural, climatic environment. National Economic Foundation (NEF) founded
by The Other Economic Summit (TOES) derived the Happy Planet Index (HPI) to find relative
composite wellbeing of different nations. HPI was defined as product of Life Expectancy and Life
Satisfaction divided by the Economic Footprint. Diener et al (1995) conceptualized well being as
the frequency of positive and negative emotion and life satisfaction. HPI used Happy life Years
(Veenhoven, 1996) as the measurement of Life expectancy. Happy Life Years is defined as the
degree to which people live long and happily in a certain country in a given period .It is defined as
product life expectancy at birth multiplied by the rating of life satisfaction. Ecological Foot Print
can be defined as the extent to which the biosphere has the capacity to supply goods and services to
meet the ecological demand of human species. The Global Foot print data provides for the footprint
data of 144 nations. For other countries it is computed by measuring the carbon dioxide emission
and other variables.
Life Satisfaction to a marked extent was found to be effected by the culture and values of the
country. Country‟s which give high importance to values such as freedom , equality, loyalty,
creativity and caring are more satisfied in their life than Countries which care about values like
wealth, strong government and safety are the least satisfied ones. National culture also affects the
factors determining the happiness of a nation. A high income nation would prefer freedom of choice
more than low income country where people in general would be satisfied in fulfillment of basic
need of food, water, education, sanitation, health and housing. Western countries are more driven by
Darwin‟s law of “Survival of the fittest” to achieve individualistic goals, whereas eastern countries
would visualize collective goal achievement as satisfaction of life.
Bhutan defined the Gross National Happiness (GNH) as measure of well-being which takes into
account both material and spiritual development of humanity. It was developed on the premise that
good governance, sustainable social economic development, promoting and preserving of cultural
values and maintaining of pleasant environment would lead to satisfaction of life.
Subjective-well-being is closely linked with political wellbeing. Inglehart et al. (2008) found that
globally happiness has increased in the last two decade with economic development, effective
democracy, increase in level of social tolerance and freedom of choice. Purchasing power parity,
Foreign Direct Investment as percentage of GDP, External Debt and unemployment rate are the key
economic indicators of Happiness or Life Satisfaction. Economic wellbeing is augmented by
physical and mental wellbeing. Di Tella et al. (2003) found that unemployment rate, unemployment
benefits and inflation as well as age, gender, educational level, marital status are closely linked
overall satisfaction level. Freedom of choice, as measured by Freedom House is defined in terms of
prevailing Political Rights and Civil Rights in countries. Political Rights may include stability of
government in an electoral system and also fairness of the electoral system. Civil Rights include
women empowerment, freedom of expression and belief including free press, good governance and
low corruption.
Both Civil Rights and Political Rights are measured on a scale of 1-7, (1=High degree of civil and
political right, 7= Least Existence of civil rights and political rights). Civil Rights comprised 4
questions on Electoral Process, 4 questions on Political Pluralism and Participation and 3 questions
on Functioning of Government. The civil liberties questions are grouped into four subcategories:
Freedom of Expression and Belief (4 questions), Associational and Organizational Rights (3
questions), Rule of Law (4 questions), and Personal Autonomy and Individual Rights (4).
A score of 2 on political rights implies existence of violence, corruption and atrocities against
minorities.
According to the data of Freedom House India has a score of 2 in Political Rights and Civil Rights
3. A score 3 in Civil Rights is fairly average. These indicates existence of some restriction in
associations, censorship and political terror. The reasons cited are: Section 144 of the Criminal
Procedure Act which allows authorities to declare emergency, impose curfews and restrict free
assembly and also the provision of ESMA against striking employees. Occasional incidents of
Violence against protesting NGO‟s, police torture against detainees, crime against women,
naxalite killings, terrorist activities also add to civil right violation. India‟s score has remained quite
consistent since the 1970‟s except between the year 1993-to 1995 both civil right and political right
score went up to 4, when India witnessed several multi-crore scams at political level and also the
nation faced the Kargil war. In 1975 the political right score went upto 5 due to declaration of state
of emergency.
An effective democracy (Welzel and Inglehart,2008) should have sufficiently high percentage of
women representation in the government (see Welzel, 2008), and high percentage of women going
to school. Corruption is measured widely by the Transparency Internationals‟ Corruption Perception
Index, though its reliability is highly questionable
There are several indicators of good governance (see, Kaufmann and Kraay, 2008). The Worldwide
Governance Indicator(WGI) is the most widely used indicator takes into account six dimensions of
governance for more than 200 countries. They are:
1. Voice Accountability
2. Political Instability & Violence
3. Government Effectiveness
4. Regulatory Burden
5. Rule of Law
6. Control of Corruption
Freedom of choice (see, Veenhoven, 1999) includes economic and personal freedom. Economic
freedom implies freedom to produce and consume what one wants, freedom of keeping one‟s
earning and freedom of exchange and security of money. Personal freedom includes freedom to
marriage, divorce, abortion or contraception and euthanasia.
In his address at the convocation of Punjab University, Chandigarh on 7th March, 2007, Former
President of India, Abdul Kalam defined National Prosperity Index as sum total of annual growth
rate of GDP, improvement of overall quality of life by ensuring all citizens the availability of basic
amenities of life and adoption of ancient value system by inculcating value-based education to
children at schools. Easterlin (2001) found happiness is highly correlated with level of income and
human aspiration at various stages of life-cycle.
Another important index is the Legatum Index developed by the Legatum Institute in 2007 which
takes into account economic competitiveness and livability index to constitute the Overall progress
of the nation. LOESS Regression has been used to compute the Index number.
The Global Competitiveness Index as measured by World economic Forum takes into account
twelve pillars of development:
The First Pillar: The public and private institutional framework and the governments interaction
with them.
The Second Pillar: The infrastructural development including roads, railways, ports, airports
and electricity.
The Third Pillar: Macroeconomic Stability which effect the business competitiveness of the
nations.
The Fourth Pillar: Efficiency of the human capital as measured by general conditions of health
and level of education attained.
The Fifth Pillar: Higher Education attainment and success in fields of research and development.
The Sixth Pillar: The good mixture of goods and services to assure efficient supply and demand
condition
The Seventh Pillar: The Efficient Labour market which is flexible in adjusting workforce to
different shifts, different activities at low cost and minimum wage disruption.
The Eight Pillar: Development in financial sector as marked sound banking and financial
institutions. It is further measured. The ease at which an entrepreneurial and innovative projects
initiated to assured to maximize rate of return without political intervention also measures financial
market sophistication of the nations
The Ninth Pillar: Accessibility of technology for the Nation‟s development
The Tenth Pillar: The total market size as determined by the domestic market and volume of
export.
The Eleventh Pillar: The business sophistication of the country as determined by the countries‟
business network and supporting industry
The Twelfth Pillar: Tapping development in technology to bring in innovative practices.
Economies of the countries were divided into 3 stages of economies: Factor Driven, Efficiency
Driven and Innovation Driven according to GDP per capita and percentage of export of primary
goods that form the total export. The developments in the first four pillar correspond to the factor
driven stage, the 5th to 10th pillars correspond to the efficiency building and developments in the 11th
12th pillar are hallmarks innovative stage of economy. The weights were given to various factors
according to its importance to individual countries depending upon its stage of economic
development. The weights were obtained by regressing per capita GDP with of various subindexes
by Maximum Likelyhood regression technique.
Most studies has been either in direction of Subjective Well-Being or developmental Well Being .
There has been very limited or no effort in incorporating measurement of traditional values and
ethics of trust, honesty, loyalty, hard work, work ethics and tolerance in computation of Happiness
Index. There is growing realization of incorporating these age old values which could hold the
family units and the nation together.
As President Obama has said in his first presidential address
“We know Patch work heritage is a strength not a weakness. We are nation of Christians and
Muslims, Jews and Hindus – and non-believers”
4. Sources of Data and Limitation
Happiness
Indicator Indexes Components
Materialistic Political Well Being Voice Accountability Worldwide Governance Indicato
Political Instability & Violence
Government Effectiveness
Regulatory Burden
Rule of Law
Control of Corruption
Economical Well-Being Price Level Index 2005 International Comparision
FDI , Import and Export as % of
GDP World Development Indicators
Unemployment rate ILO Sources
National Gross Saving as % of
GDP World Development Indicators
Index for new start-up business World Bank Doing Business Ind
Social Well-Being EDI UNESCO Institute for Statistics
Health Data World Development Indicators 2
UNICEF, World Health Organis
Gender Parity UNESCO Institute for Statistics
Family Life data UNICEF, UNESCO Institute for
Environmental Pollution CDIAC (Carbon Dioxide Inform
UNICEF,
FAO (Food and Agriculture Org
2005
Technological Cellulars, internet, telephones World Bank. 2007b. World Deve
Patents WIPO (World Intellectual Prope
Percentage expenditure on tertiary
education and research as % of
GDP UNICEF
Law and Order UNICEF, ICPS
Mental
(Life
Satisfaction
) http://worlddatabaseofhappiness
Spiritual Religious Grin and Fike(2006)
Values World Value Survey, 2005
www.worldbank.org/wbi/govern
Note N/A
implies non-
availability
of data
5. Research Methodology
One of the premise behind selecting the indicators is the following analysis:
A regression analysis was carried out on the life satisfaction score based on World Value survey of
28 countries between 1995-2006 with respect to
(i) world governance indicators as obtained by world bank and
(ii) the economic scores as obtained from the freedom house data which takes into account
following parameters:
a. Business Freedom
b. Fiscal Freedom
c. Trade Freedom
d. Government Size
e. Monetary Freedom
f. Property Rights
g. Labour Freedom
h. Freedom from Corruption
The countries were represented as dummy variable in the model
It gave the following result for the best model.
Thus the model was
Std.
Adjusted Error of
R R the
R Square Square Estimate
0.983 0.966 0.96 0.181186
ANOVA table
Sum of Mean
Squares Df Square F Sig.
Regression 121.713 25 4.869 148.302 0
3.28E-
Residual 4.268 130 02
Total 125.981 155
5.1 Indicators of Well-Being
Political Well-Being
Indexes for all the five standardized parameters of World bank governance indicator(for each
country in 2008) was obtained and then the simple arithmetic mean of all the index was taken as
political wellbeing score.
Economic Well-Being
Economic Well Being Index was computed at three steps
First we computed the following indexes to measure the economic development index which is
weighted average of the the following indexes
Price Level Index which is the ratio of purchasing power parity with the market exchange
rate. It gives the measure of cost of goods and services of one country when converted at
prevailing exchange rate, ED1.
Domestic market index which is the index for (% foreign direct investment as percentage of
GDP+ Import as percentage of GDP –Export as percentage of GDP), ED2.
Foreign market index which index for percentage, ED3.
Economic Equality index which is 1-(gini‟s index). ED4.
Employment Rate Index taken as Index for (1-unemployment rate)
Index for gross national saving as % of GDP, ED6.
The source of data for the first four data was World Bank, 2005. The source of data for Gross
National Saving is taken from UNDP
2 1
Then, Economic Developmen t Index (Average of ED 1 , ED 2 , ED 3 , ED 4 and ED 5 ) (ED 6 )
3 3
In the next step, we computed Index for Hindrances for New Start-Up Business. It is the average
of following indexes.
Tariff rate, H1
Individual Income Tax Rate, H2
Corporate Tax Rate, H3.
Inflation (3 year weighted average), H4
Minimum/Average Wage, H5
Days to open a Business, H6.
Index for Hindrances for New Start - Up Business (Average of H1 , H 2 , H 3 , H 4 , H 5 and H 6 )
2
Economic Well - Being Index (Economic Developmen t Index)
3
1
(1 - Index for Hindrances for new Start - Up Business)
3
Social Well-Being
The Components of Social Well Being considered are:
(i) Educational Attainment
(ii) Well Being of Health: Physical, Mental and Nutritional
(iii)Gender Equality
(iv) Family Life Well Being
(i) The UNESCO has set up the 5 millennium goals under the EDI (Education for All
Development Index)
The scores of EDI on a scale of 100 as obtained by taking the arithmetic mean of scores on
total primary national enrolment ratio, adult literacy rate, gender specific EDA and survival
rate to grade 5 has been taken from the Education for All Global Monitoring Report 2009
published by UNESCO are given as below.
(2) Wellbeing of Health: Physical, Mental and Nutritional
Physical Health Well being index was computed by the following steps
Step 1: Computation of Index for Physical Health Effort as the simple arithmetic mean of
following four indexes
Index for total expenditure (public + private) towards health as percentage of GDP for
each country computed as
Expenditur e index of country A
Max (Total Expenditur e on Health as % of GDP) - Expenditur e on Health of nation A
Max (Total Expenditur e on Health as % of GDP) - Min (Total Expenditur e on Health as % of GDP
index for Life expectancy,
index for number of physicians per thousand population
index for average of percentage population getting improved water supply and
sanitation was computed.
Step2: Index for health Deficiency was computed as the simple arithmetic mean for Childbirth
deficiency Index, Early childhood care deficiency index, adult healthcare deficiency index.
Child Birth Deficiency Index
1 3
4
P P23 P33 P43
1
1/ 3
P1 = Infant Mortality Rate Index
P2 = Maternal Mortality Rate Index
P3 = Non immunization Index
P4 = Inefficient Child care Index
Infant Mortality Rate index of countryA (P1 )
Max (Infant Mortality Rate) - Infant Mortality Rate of nation A
Max (Infant Mortality Rate) - Min (Infant Mortality Rate)
Maternal Mortality Rate index of countryA (P2 )
Max (Maternal Mortality Rate) - Maternal Mortality Rate of nation A
Max (Maternal Mortality Rate) - Min (Maternal Mortality Rate)
P3 = Average of Non-immunization index against tuberculosis and non-immunization index
against measles.
Non - immunizati on index against tuberculosis of country A
Max (% non - immunized against tuberculosis ) - % non - immunized against tuberculosis A
Max (% non - immunized against tuberculosis ) - Min (% non - immunized against tuberculosis )
Similarly, non-immunization index against measles was also obtained.
Inefficient Child care Index was obtained in following manner.
Percentage child-birth under unskilled health personnel and percentage underweight children
were converted into indexes by usual method and then average of the two indexes for each
country was taken as P4 value.
Early Childhood care deficiency index was obtained by converting into indexes the
percentage of children who have died under diseases such as diarrhea, HIV/AIDS and malaria
within 5 years of age in every country.
Adult healthcare deficiency index was taken as the simple arithmetic mean of adult (15-49
years) mortality rate and average of indexes of prevalence of HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis
among adults.
The Arithmetic mean of Childbirth index, early childhood care deficiency index and adult
care deficiency index gave the Index for Health Deficiency.
Step 3: Physical Health Well being index for each country was obtained assubtracting the
(2/3) (Index for Physical Health Effort) + (1/3) (1- Index for Health Deficiency )
Mental Health was indicated by the number of deaths due to mental and psychological 14
most commonly neuro-psychological diseases recognized by World Health Organisation.
Nutritional deficiency diseases include protein deficiency malnutrition, iodine, Vitamin A and
Iron deficiency. Deaths per 100,000 population in each country due to diseases were taken as
indicators of mental health and nutitional health inefficiency.
Overall Health Index = (1/2) (Physical Well Being Index) + (1/2) (1-Mental and
Nutritional Ineffectiveness)
© Gender Parity Index
Gender equality Index was taken as the average of gender development Index(GDI) and
gender empowerment measure (GEM) based on the Human Development Report 2008.
Gender Development Index is based on equally distributed life expectancy at birth, equally
distributed education index and equally distributed earned income
GEM is based on percentage of women representation in parliament, extent of economic
participation of women and equally distributed of income.
(d) Family Life Index
Index for Spousal Life was indicated by the average of Index for Divorce rate, index for death
rate due to self inflicted injuries including suicides, index for number of abortions per 1000
population, index for percentage women (age 15-49 years) who think domestic violence to be
proper.
Child life protection index was obtained by taking arithmetic mean for indexes for percentage
child labour, percentage child marriage and percentage children aged 2-14 years who have
ever experienced physiological and psychological punishment as the child life protection
index.
Arithmetic mean of childlife protection index and spousal life index subtracted from one gave
the family life index.
(e) Environmental Well-Being
The extent to which life is being effected by pollution determines the environmental
wellbeing. A pollution free clean air and water and a dense vegetation minimizes occurrence
of communicable diseases and provides a sustainable economic environment. Environmental
Well being Index has been computed by the following method:
Average of per capita emission of Carbon-dioxide, Nitrous gas, Chloro-Fluoro-
Carbon, Sulphur Hexafloride in giga grams per capita were converted into indexes by
usual method and their average was taken Bad Environment Index.
Percentage forest cover was also converted into index
Environmental well being index was obtained by subtracting bad environment index
from 1 and adding it to the index for percentage of land under forest cover.
Technological Well Being
Technological Well-Being Index is the arithmetic mean of all the four indexes
Index for Government expenditure on tertiary education and research development as
percentage of GDP.
Index for percentage of students undertaking education in science, engineering,
manufacturing and construction as percentage of those taking tertiary education.
Index for infrastructure representing science & technology penetration. (telephone
mainline and internet per 1000 people and percentage penetration of electricity)
Index for patents granted per million population
Law and Order Well-Being
Law and Order Situation and criminal justice in a nation gives the overall feeling of security of the
nations. Mean of indexes for number of prisoners and number of homicides per 100,000 population
and average of indexes for estimated deaths per 100,000 population due to violence and war has
been taken as the measure Legal Well-Being
Religious Well Being
Under the direction of Brian Grim, the ARDA‟s Project Manager for International Data, a survey
was carried out to measure the discrimination, prejudice, persecution, warfare, property rights,
forced migration, political, social and religious freedom of various country country, see Grim and
Finke (2006). We took a subset of 95 items out of the questionnaire to measure the religious,
political, civil and social feeling of discrimination faced by the nations. A principal component
analysis with varimax rotation was carried out and first 3 principle components extracted which
explained 40.69% of variation was considered for our analysis (see, Appendix 2). The data sheet
was obtained from The Association of Religion Data Archives
http://www.thearda.com/Archive/Files/Descriptions/IRFAGG.asp
However across countries there is no significant difference found between life satisfaction and
religion dominance though Christians were found to be more satisfied with life than other
Repor t
lif e satisf action score
religion Mean N Std. Deviation
budhist .6033 9 7.176E-02
chris tia .6253 94 .1282
hindu .5400 1 .
jew s .6700 1 .
multirel .5459 17 9.138E-02
mus lim .5862 39 .1020
Total .6060 161 .1178
religions
ANOVA Table
Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
life satisfaction Betw een Groups (Combined) .120 5 .024 1.777 .121
score * religion Within Groups 2.100 155 .014
Total 2.220 160
Value and Ethics Based Well-Being
Value based well-being is estimated as the average of the following values and ethics:
Elite Ethics Index, which is the mean of corporate ethics index (corporate illegal
corruption index and corporate legal index),public sector ethics index, judicial
effectiveness and corporate governance index. The data were obtained from Appendix
of paper: Corruption, Governance and Security: Challenges for the Rich
Countries and the World - by Daniel Kaufmann (September, 2004) – A Chapter in
the Global Competitiveness Report 2004/2005
(www.worldbank.org/wbi/governance/pubs/gcr2004.html).
Work Ethics Index, which is based on the responses of countries to the following
work value related questions according to the World Value Survey,
Please specify for each of the following statements how strongly you agree or
disagree with it! Do you strongly agree, agree, neither agree nor disagree, disagree
or strongly disagree? (Read out and code one answer for each statement):
Agree Neither Disagree Strongly
Strongly disagree
agree
V50. To fully develop your talents, 1 2 3 4 5
you need to have a job.
V51. It is humiliating to receive 1 2 3 4 5
money without working for it.
V52. People who don‟t work 1 2 3 4 5
become lazy.
V53. Work is a duty toward society. 1 2 3 4 5
V54. Work should always come first, 1 2 3 4 5
even if it means less free time.
A cross-tabulation of number of responses from each country for each work ethic
question under the likert scale response was recorded. The Scoring for the likert
scale was done in following manner
Likert Strongly Agree Neither Disagree Strongly
Scale Agree Agree Disagree
Response Nor
Disagree
Scoring 2 1 0 -1 -2
Average Score of each Nation was obtained and converted into indexes by the
usual method.
Trust index, it was based on the responses of the countries on the
following question on world value survey
V23. Generally speaking, would you say that most people can be trusted or that
you need to be very careful in dealing with people? (Code one answer):
1 Most people can be trusted.
2 Need to be very careful.
The percentage of responses from each country who coded the response
with 1 was taken as the trust index.
Tolerance Index was based on the following items in the World Value
Survey Questionnaire
On this list are various groups of people. Could you please mention any that you
would not like to have as neighbors? (Code an answer for each group):
Not
Mentioned mentioned
V34. Drug addicts 1 2
V35. People of a different race 1 2
V36. People who have AIDS 1 2
V37. Immigrants/foreign workers 1 2
V38. Homosexuals 1 2
V39. People of a different religion 1 2
V40. Heavy drinkers 1 2
V41. Unmarried couples living together 1 2
V42. People who speak a different language 1 2
V43. (optional: minority relevant to given country, write 1 2
in):_________
The average of percentages of responses from each country who answered
„1‟ for all these items was taken as the tolerance index.
Life Satisfaction Index
Life Satisfaction index as measured on a scale of 0 to 10 (0 = least satisfied and 10 = most
satisfied) is based on data obtained by New Economic Foundation, a charity foundation by
The Other Economic Summit (TOES) to compute Happy Planet Index.
They consolidated the following databases:
Ruut Veenhoven‟s World database on Happiness between 1995-2005. In which questions of
the following types were asked
“All things considered, how satisfied are you with your life as a whole these days?”
“Suppose the top of the ladder represents the best possible life for you and bottom of
the ladder the worst possible life. Where on the ladder you do you feel you
personally stand at the present time?”
World Health Survey
“ How often do you feel you are unable to control the important things in your life?”
Latinobarometer
“ In general, would you say you are satisfied with your life? Would you say you are
1. Very Satisfied
2. Fairly Satisfied
3. Not very satisfied
4. Not satisfied at all?
Afrobarometer
Average life satisfaction score in most countries measured on a scale of 1-10 as shown an
increasing trend Hungary
9 Greece
Germany
8 France
Finland
7 Estonia
Denmark
6
Czech Re
Cyprus
5
Croatia
Bulgaria
4
Belgium
3 Austria
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
year
5.1 Computation of the Composite Well-Being Index
According to World Value Survey Countries were asked which is the your first choice for
serious problem of their own country the nations put forth their views according to the
following table:
Country/Re gion Ge rm any m er ge d * Most se rious proble m for ow n country: 1st choice Cross tabulation
Count
Mos t serious problem f or ow n country: 1s t choice
Poor
People living Disc riminatio sanitation and
in pov erty n against girls inf ec tious Inadequate Environment
and need and w omen diseases educ ation al pollution Total
Country /Region Italy 586 62 38 123 184 993
Germany Spain 1200 1200
merged Japan 112 52 18 102 763 1047
Mex ico 813 219 89 242 168 1531
S A f ric a 1640 286 552 361 149 2988
A us tralia 699 37 35 256 364 1391
Sw eden 214 288 15 136 320 973
A rgentina 701 20 67 155 34 977
Finland 445 42 26 77 360 950
S Korea 689 114 46 61 290 1200
Poland 787 24 43 68 69 991
Sw itzerland 516 74 34 176 410 1210
Brazil 915 98 163 195 86 1457
Chile 672 62 41 154 62 991
India 1032 283 154 253 84 1806
Slov enia 580 39 19 113 228 979
Bulgaria 704 17 183 35 43 982
Romania 1397 33 123 116 55 1724
China 875 49 157 269 266 1616
Taiw an 594 38 46 126 411 1215
Turkey 664 180 55 375 65 1339
Ukraine 641 39 95 25 180 980
Peru 992 81 70 263 67 1473
Moldov a 863 54 52 40 36 1045
Thailand 975 116 126 181 99 1497
Indones ia 1436 58 81 322 73 1970
V ietnam 1015 76 109 151 105 1456
Serbia 895 71 67 72 66 1171
Egypt 2428 22 231 222 132 3035
Morocco 895 47 96 78 32 1148
Jordan 973 48 74 40 54 1189
Cyprus 298 143 179 176 237 1033
Trinidad and Tobago 628 73 108 106 85 1000
A ndorra 587 75 23 74 234 993
Malays ia 169 156 360 236 261 1182
Burkina Faso 916 130 192 198 74 1510
Ethiopia 626 345 232 221 42 1466
Mali 702 229 240 213 115 1499
Rw anda 1092 102 167 117 26 1504
Zambia 954 148 209 148 30 1489
Germany 882 128 53 589 287 1939
Total 32602 4158 4668 6865 7846 56139
Further, when respondents across countries were asked to rate the importance of family life on
a likert scale (Very Important, Rather Important, Not Very Important, Not at all Important) ,
54529 respondents out of a total of 60352 respondents rated family life to be “very
important”.
Accordingly, a socio-economic index is created as the weighted mean of
(i) Economic Well-Being Index (weights attached = 0.3)
(ii) Family Life Index (weights attached= 0.3)
(iii) Educational Development Index (weight attached =0.2)
(iv) Environmental Well-Being Index (weight attached = 0.1)
(v) Overall Health Index (weight attached = 0.05)
(vi) Gender Equality Index (weight attached =0.05)
In some cases, were information regarding any of the components of the socio-economic
well-being index could not be recorded some relative adjustment in the weight allocation has
been done. For Example: In Nations where there was no record of EDA (Education for All
Development Index) weight allocation of Overall Heath index and gender equality index has
been increased to 0.1 each.
In another question, in the world value survey, respondents were asked about what should be
most important aim of their country the responses are as given below:
Country/Re gion Ge rm any m e rge d * Aim s of country: firs t choice Cr os stabulation
Count
A ims of c ountry : f irs t c hoice
People have Try ing to
A high level A strong more s ay make our
of ec onomic def enc e about how cities more
grow th f orc es things beautif ul Total
Country /Region Italy 598 22 322 50 992
Germany Spain 533 101 440 88 1162
merged USA 560 394 230 44 1228
Japan 510 92 314 136 1052
Mex ico 801 91 478 157 1527
S A f ric a 1815 287 644 203 2949
A us tralia 737 166 435 48 1386
Sw eden 673 16 270 35 994
A rgentina 575 77 254 51 957
Finland 206 88 638 62 994
S Korea 707 72 294 127 1200
Poland 593 49 312 16 970
Sw itzerland 472 37 522 164 1195
Brazil 850 140 379 91 1460
Chile 575 75 279 51 980
India 799 230 223 362 1614
Slov enia 538 26 375 58 997
Bulgaria 753 42 102 47 944
Romania 1269 129 138 111 1647
China 707 354 127 374 1562
Taiw an 856 124 52 190 1222
Turkey 851 205 152 115 1323
Ukraine 737 67 162 19 985
Peru 885 71 412 90 1458
Ghana 1076 208 175 72 1531
Moldov a 706 69 170 96 1041
Thailand 1008 319 123 40 1490
Indones ia 1569 114 150 70 1903
V ietnam 1001 170 138 153 1462
Serbia 860 97 169 41 1167
Egypt 2276 419 265 88 3048
Morocco 766 151 149 103 1169
Jordan 812 244 57 59 1172
Cyprus 648 195 147 48 1038
Trinidad and Tobago 521 105 283 89 998
A ndorra 251 4 607 133 995
Malays ia 767 217 133 61 1178
Burkina Faso 990 213 175 115 1493
Ethiopia 1099 168 144 67 1478
Mali 946 322 116 119 1503
Rw anda 395 668 278 166 1507
Zambia 1012 167 250 55 1484
Germany 1210 49 646 91 1996
Total 35513 6854 11729 4355 58451
Based on the above survey result, Material well-being index was obtained by taking
weighted mean of the following indices
(i) Economic Well-Being Index (weight = 0.4)
(ii) Political Well-Being Index (weight = 0.3)
(iii) Law and Order Well-Being Index(weight = 0.2)
(iv) Technological Well-Being Index (weight =0.1)
Spiritual Well-Being Index is obtained as the average of Religious Well-Being Index and
Value and Ethics Index.
The Composite Well-Being Index is obtained as the average of Material Well-Being Index,
Spiritual Well-Being Index and Life Satisfaction Index (see, Appendix 1)
6. Data Analysis
7.1 Interrelationship Between the Three Indices : Materialistic (Developmental),
Mental (Life Satisfaction), Spiritual
(i) Correlation Analysis
Cor relations
Developmen Spiritual lif e
tal w ellbeing w ellbeing satisf action
index index index
Spearman's rho Developmental Correlation Coef f ic ient 1.000 .131 .576**
w ellbeing index Sig. (2-tailed) . .097 .000
N 168 161 166
Spiritual w ellbeing index Correlation Coef f ic ient .131 1.000 .254**
Sig. (2-tailed) .097 . .001
N 161 161 159
lif e satisf action index Correlation Coef f ic ient .576** .254** 1.000
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .001 .
N 166 159 166
**. Correlation is s ignif icant at the .01 lev el (2-tailed).
Belarus
.9 Barbados
Bangladesh
.8
Bahrain
Bahamas
.7
Azerbaijan
.6 Austria
Australia
.5
life satisfaction index
Armenia
.4 Argentina
Angola
.3
Algeria
.2 Albania
.3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9
Developmental wellbeing index
(ii) Scatter Plot: Life Satisfaction Vs Spiritual Well-Being index
Belarus
.9 Barbados
Bangladesh
.8
Bahrain
Bahamas
.7
Azerbaijan
.6 Austria
Australia
.5
life satisfaction index
Armenia
.4 Argentina
Angola
.3
Algeria
.2 Albania
.2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9
Spiritual wellbeing index
(iii)
Linear Regression Analysis to test whether Material(Developmental) Well-Being Index and
Spiritual Well-Being Index are determinants of Life Satisfaction Index (by Step-Wise
Regression Technique) gave us following result.
Variables Enter ed/Re m ovead
Variables Variables
Model Entered Remov ed Method
1 Stepw ise
(Criteria:
Probabilit
Developm y-of -F-to-e
ental nter <=
.
w ellbeing .050,
index Probabilit
y-of -F-to-r
emove >=
.100).
2 Stepw ise
(Criteria:
Probabilit
y-of -F-to-e
Spiritual
nter <=
w ellbeing .
.050,
index
Probabilit
y-of -F-to-r
emove >=
.100).
a. Dependent Variable: lif e s atis f ac tion index
Model Sum m ary
Adjusted Std. Error of
Model R R Square R Square the Estimate
1 .596 a .356 .352 9.414E-02
2 .614 b .377 .369 9.287E-02
a. Predictors: (Constant), Developmental w ellbeing index
b. Predictors: (Constant), Developmental w ellbeing
index, Spiritual w ellbeing index
ANOVAc
Sum of
Model Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression .768 1 .768 86.651 .000 a
Residual 1.392 157 8.863E-03
Total 2.160 158
2 Regression .814 2 .407 47.183 .000 b
Residual 1.346 156 8.626E-03
Total 2.160 158
a. Predictors: (Constant), Developmental w ellbeing index
b. Predictors: (Constant), Developmental w ellbeing index , Spiritual w ellbeing index
c. Dependent Variable: lif e s atisf action index
a
Coe fficients
Standardi
zed
Unstandardiz ed Coef f icien
Coef f icients ts
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Cons tant) .216 .042 5.109 .000
Developmental
.620 .067 .596 9.309 .000
w ellbeing index
2 (Cons tant) .164 .047 3.473 .001
Developmental
.597 .066 .574 8.987 .000
w ellbeing index
Spiritual w ellbeing index .125 .054 .148 2.308 .022
a. Dependent Variable: lif e satisf action index
Excluded Variables
b
Collinearit
y
Partial Statistics
Model Beta In t Sig. Correlation Tolerance
1 Spiritual wellbeing index .148 a 2.308 .022 .182 .978
a. Predictors in the Model: (Constant), Matarialistic wellbeing index
b. Dependent Variable: life satisfaction index
The results show both material well-being index and spiritual well-being index are good
indicators of the Life Satisfaction Index. Significant positive correlation exits between life
satisfaction index and developmental well-being index and also life satisfaction index and
spiritual index.
(iii)Interrelationship between subindices of material Well-being Index
Cor relations
social and
ec onomic political law and order sc ience and
w ellbeing w ell-being w ell-being technologic al
index index index w ell being
social and ec onomic Pearson Correlation 1.000 .566** .025 .559**
w ellbeing index Sig. (2-tailed) . .000 .752 .000
N 168 164 168 168
political w ell-being index Pearson Correlation .566** 1.000 .170* .686**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 . .029 .000
N 164 164 164 164
law and order w ell-being Pearson Correlation .025 .170* 1.000 .096
index Sig. (2-tailed) .752 .029 . .215
N
168 164 168 168
sc ience and Pearson Correlation .559** .686** .096 1.000
technologic al w ell being Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .215 .
N 168 164 168 168
**. Correlation is s ignif icant at the 0.01 lev el (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is s ignif icant at the 0.05 lev el (2-tailed).
There is significant positive correlation between political well-being index and
(i) socio-economic well-being index, (at 0.01 level of significance)
(ii) science and technological well-being index (at 0.01 level of significance)
(iii) law and order well-being index (at 0.05 level of significance)
There is significant correlation between socio-economic well-being index and science and
technological well-being index (at 0.01 level of significance)
Interrelationship between indicators of socio-economic wellbeing
Cor relations
ec onomic Environment Overall
w ell being f amily lif e EDA al w ell being Health Index
ec onomic w ell being Pearson Correlation 1.000 .315** .595** -.142 .067
Sig. (2-tailed) . .000 .000 .068 .410
N 168 168 119 167 153
f amily lif e Pearson Correlation .315** 1.000 .574** -.139 -.089
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 . .000 .073 .273
N 168 168 119 167 153
EDA Pearson Correlation .595** .574** 1.000 -.036 .017
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 . .699 .859
N 119 119 119 119 109
Environmental w ell being Pearson Correlation -.142 -.139 -.036 1.000 -.174*
Sig. (2-tailed) .068 .073 .699 . .033
N 167 167 119 167 152
Overall Health Index Pearson Correlation .067 -.089 .017 -.174* 1.000
Sig. (2-tailed) .410 .273 .859 .033 .
N 153 153 109 152 154
**. Correlation is s ignif icant at the 0.01 lev el (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is s ignif icant at the 0.05 lev el (2-tailed).
7. Conclusion and Suggestions
Though in general the richer and economically more developed countries score higher in the
Composite Well-Being Index, but the wealthiest countries are not necessarily the best
performer of Composite well-being index. Political, freedom, voice and accountability, rule of
law a corruption free environment are strong indicators of material wellbeing.
Our analysis also shows significant positive correlation of 0.300 (at 0.01 level of significance)
between Family Life Index and Life Satisfaction Index. Families (households) are the units of
Nation. Safe, secured, happy and healthy childhood with high family values would bring
confident, virtuous citizens of tomorrow.
Family Life Index has significant positive correlation with both economic well-being and
EDI. Life satisfaction (Mental Well Being) have also strong positive correlation (+0.475)
with EDI. Attainment of moral based EDUCATION FOR ALL is the need of the hour. With
improvisation of health facilities with development science and technology, educational
attainment seems to be single most concern of most societies. With increase in socio-
economic development there is evident of little concern in Elimination of pollution.
Political stability with corruption free, democratic form of government and strong rule of law
is likely to bring socio-economic as well as technological well-being as evident from high
positive correlation of political well-being with both socio-economical and technological well
being. Freedom with self sustained economy is likely bring happiness in all dimension.
Our study was based on secondary data. We would have liked to take into account
individual‟s adjustment level to changing stress level of the competitive world. Though Gall
Up Poll carried out survey on quality and quantity of time spent on leisure apparently there is
more research required to be done physiological and psychological impact and adjustment on
dealing with the competitive world.
8. References
Alfarabi, AN (1995).“Tahsil al Sa‟ada.” (Attainment of Happiness) Ed. Ali- Abu Melehem.
Beirut .
Diwedi, OP (2005) Integrating the Human and Eco-System WellBeing.In Proceedings of
Global Blues and Sustainable Development, IPSA, Florida.
http://www.patelcenter.usf.edu/assets/pdf/IPSA-Dwivedi.pdf
Easterlin, R A (2001). Income and Happiness: Towards a Unified Theory, The Economic
Journal, 111 (July), 465-484
Grim, Brian J. and Roger Finke (2006). "International Religion Indexes: Government
Regulation, Government Favoritism, and Social Regulation of Religion." Interdisciplinary
Journal of Research on Religion 2
Inglehart R., Foa R., Peterson C. and Welzel, C (2008). Development, Freedom and Rising
happiness: A Global Perspective (1981-2007) Perspective of Psychological Science , 3(4),
264-285.
Kaufmann, D. and Kraay, A. (2008). Governance Indicator: Where are we and where are
we going? Ed: Oxford University Press
Kaufmann, D. and Kraay, A. (2008). Growth Without Governance. Working Paper from
World Bank.
Saher, P J (1970). “Happiness and Immortality”. London: George Allen and Unwin.
Tella, Di, Rafael, MacCulloch, R J and Oswald, A J (2003). The Macroeconomics of
Happiness, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 85(4), 809-827.
Veenhoven, R (1996). Happy Life Expectancy: A Comprehensive Measure of Quality of
Life in Nations, Social Indicators Research, 39, 1-58.
Veenhoven, R. (1999).Quality of Life in Individualistic Society: A Comparisons of 43
Nation in Early 1990’s. Social Indicator Research,48, 157-186.
Veenhoven, R. (2005) Is Life Getting Better: How Long and Happy People Live in
Modern Society, European Psychologist,10, 330-343
Welzel, C (2008). Effective Democracy, Mass Culture, Quality of Elites: Human
Development Perspective, IJCS, 43(3-5), 269-289
Welzel, C and Inglehart, R (2008). The Role of Ordinary People in Democratization,
Journal of Democracy,19(1), 126-140.
APPENDIX: COMPOSIE INDEX OF HAPPINESS ( Red= Lowest, Yellow= Moderate, Green=High in
Happiness)
Gen La
der w
Equ an
ality d Et
Econ Ind Soci Poli Or Mat Reli hic
omic Ov ex al tical de Scienc erial giou s Com
Well eral and Wel r e Wel s & Spir posit
- environ l Eco l W &Tech l- Well Va itual e
Bein mental He nmi Bei ell nology Bei Bein lue Wel Life Well
g Family E well- alth c ng Be Well- ng g In l Satisf Bein
Count Inde Life D being Ind Inde Ind in Being Inde scor de Bei action g
ry x index A index ex x ex g Index x e x ng Index Index
Weight 0. 0.0
s 0.3 0.3 2 0.1 5 0.05 0.3 0.2 0.1
Paragu 0. 0.62 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.1
ay 0.41 0.76 94 9 0.68 0.38 7 0.31 0.59 .. 6 0.16 0.38
Zimba 0. 0.73 0.5 0.8 0.3
bwe 0.43 0.35 84 6 0.53 0.20 4 0.17 0.46 .. 6 0.36 0.33 0.38
Ugand 0.60 0.6 0.54 0.8 0.2
a 0.42 0.15 2 0.39 0.41 4 0.08 0.46 .. 9 0.29 0.47 0.41
Angola 0.75 0.4 .. 0.8 0.2
0.41 0.59 7 0.54 0.32 2 0.15 0.49 .. 8 0.28 0.48 0.42
Central 0.69 0.34
Africa
n
Republ 0.6 0.9 0.1
ic 0.40 0.36 6 0.45 0.23 5 0.00 0.43 0.63 5 0.39 0.45 0.42
Zambi 0.80 0.5 0.43 0.9 0.2
a 0.41 0.71 7 0.47 0.45 0 0.05 0.51 .. 7 0.27 0.49 0.42
Niger 0. 0.56 0.5 0.35 0.9
0.44 0.13 47 8 0.37 0.38 4 0.00 0.45 0.37 .. 0.37 0.45 0.42
Belaru 0. 0.66 0.8 0.82 0.7 0.1
s 0.64 0.63 97 6 0.72 0.34 4 0.34 0.58 0.46 7 0.31 0.40 0.43
Malaw 0. 0.83 0.6 0.45 0.9 0.3
i 0.44 0.65 74 0 0.61 0.44 3 0.01 0.56 0.19 7 0.28 0.46 0.43
Congo 0.84 0.61 0.7
0.28 0.54 .. 0.50 0.19 3 0.00 0.40 0.58 .. 0.58 0.33 0.44
Tanzan 0.65 0.55
ia
(Unite
d
Republ 0.5 0.8 0.2
ic of) 0.49 0.20 7 0.44 0.47 6 0.19 0.51 .. 6 0.26 0.55 0.44
Ethiopi 0. 0.56 0.6 0.43 0.8 0.3
a 0.50 0.38 60 3 0.49 0.36 8 0.14 0.49 .. 7 0.37 0.47 0.45
Armen 0. 0.54 0.8 0.59 0.9 0.2
ia 0.55 0.86 97 6 0.74 0.49 5 0.07 0.64 0.45 2 0.33 0.37 0.45
Canad 0.57 0.7 0.89 0.8
a 0.61 0.82 6 0.57 0.25 3 0.00 0.42 .. .. .. 0.49 0.46
Bangla 0. 0.53 0.7 0.52 0.9 0.1
desh 0.45 0.38 75 3 0.51 0.33 6 0.20 0.52 0.42 5 0.29 0.57 0.46
Georgi 0.70 0.8 0.40 0.8 0.1
a 0.51 0.81 3 0.65 0.48 4 0.21 0.59 0.58 7 0.37 0.41 0.46
Moldo 0. 0.52 0.8 0.63 0.8 0.4
va 0.54 0.68 95 1 0.68 0.43 3 0.17 0.58 .. 4 0.44 0.35 0.46
Mali 0. 0.51 0.4 0.38 0.9 0.3
0.45 0.52 57 2 0.50 0.46 5 0.01 0.53 .. 3 0.33 0.53 0.46
Nigeri 0. 0.66 0.6 0.49 0.9 0.2
a 0.45 0.75 73 0 0.62 0.28 3 0.23 0.54 0.32 8 0.30 0.55 0.46
Lesoth 0. 0.00 0.6 0.54 0.6
o 0.44 0.78 79 0 0.58 0.47 5 0.15 0.52 0.45 .. 0.45 0.43 0.47
Kenya 0. 0.53 0.7 0.53 0.8 0.3
0.47 0.55 82 0 0.59 0.38 7 0.25 0.55 0.30 4 0.32 0.56 0.47
Burun 0. 0.53 0.6 0.38 0.6 0.6
di 0.42 0.36 76 7 0.49 0.28 3 0.06 0.41 0.75 9 0.72 0.30 0.48
Pakista 0. 0.84 0.6 0.46 0.9 0.1
n 0.49 0.69 65 6 0.62 0.31 7 0.27 0.56 0.70 9 0.45 0.43 0.48
Algeri 0. 0.47 0.8 0.52 0.9 0.3
a 0.51 0.71 89 1 0.66 0.39 0 0.46 0.60 0.31 5 0.33 0.52 0.49
Sri 0.65 0.7 0.55 0.9 0.3
Lanka 0.53 0.69 1 0.49 0.44 0 0.23 0.53 .. 2 0.32 0.61 0.49
Madag 0.69 0.6 0.46 0.9 0.2
ascar 0.44 0.67 2 0.57 0.50 4 0.13 0.58 0.41 0 0.31 0.58 0.49
Rwand 0. 0.58 0.5 0.43 0.5 0.3
a 0.38 0.75 71 9 0.59 0.46 9 0.00 0.49 0.73 3 0.53 0.44 0.49
Bulgar 0. 0.64 0.8 0.72 0.9 0.3
ia 0.56 0.79 96 7 0.74 0.57 2 0.34 0.69 0.37 2 0.35 0.43 0.49
Turkm ..
enistan 0.7 0.6
0.51 0.69 8 0.64 0.28 4 0.06 0.47 0.60 .. 0.60 0.40 0.49
Moza 0.76 0.36
mbiqu 0. 0.5 0.9 0.1
e 0.42 0.46 62 5 0.51 0.46 4 0.16 0.55 0.59 8 0.39 0.54 0.49
Gambi 0.72 0.6 0.47 0.9 0.4
a 0.41 0.65 9 0.56 6 0.23 0.44 0.53 1 0.47 0.57 0.49
Samoa 0.64 0.75 0.9
0.45 0.90 .. 0.65 3 0.13 0.46 0.33 .. 0.33 0.69 0.49
Cambo 0. 0.81 0.6 0.49 0.8 0.3
dia 0.45 0.62 78 8 0.61 0.37 9 0.31 0.50 0.68 1 0.50 0.51 0.50
Cote d 0.7 0.41 0.9 0.1
Ivoire 0.44 0.55 0.67 6 0.42 0.37 1 0.17 0.56 0.65 5 0.40 0.56 0.50
Ukrain 0.52 0.7 0.62 0.7 0.4
e 0.58 0.72 9 0.63 0.44 7 0.34 0.57 0.75 2 0.59 0.36 0.51
Lao 0.87 0.60
People'
s
Democ
ratic
Republ 0. 0.9
ic 0.43 0.68 75 .. 0.61 0.38 5 0.01 0.55 0.43 0.43 0.54 0.51
Costa 0.74 0.8 0.77 0.8
Rica 0.54 0.89 4 0.71 0.24 7 0.24 0.44 0.64 .. 0.64 0.45 0.51
Bosnia 0.70 ..
and
Herzeg 0.8 0.9 0.1
ovina 0.45 0.94 5 0.69 0.43 7 0.19 0.62 0.63 9 0.41 0.51 0.51
India 0. 0.43 0.7 0.59 0.9 0.4
0.51 0.76 79 1 0.65 0.48 6 0.30 0.63 0.32 5 0.38 0.54 0.52
Burkin 0.65 0.36
a Faso 0. 0.6 0.9 0.3
0.48 0.55 54 3 0.53 0.46 6 0.02 0.54 0.73 5 0.54 0.47 0.52
Egypt 0. 0.49 0.7 0.28 0.9 0.3
0.53 0.69 88 7 0.64 0.45 7 0.37 0.62 0.61 0 0.45 0.48 0.52
Maced 0.58 0.72
onia
(TFYR 0.8 0.9 0.2
) 0.48 0.80 5 0.63 0.48 3 0.26 0.61 0.68 4 0.46 0.49 0.52
Swazil 0. 0.85 0.5 0.53 0.8
and 0.50 0.79 85 4 0.69 0.43 1 0.06 0.58 0.57 .. 0.57 0.42 0.52
Chile 0. 0.59 0.8 0.69 0.9 0.3
0.55 0.94 97 1 0.77 0.48 4 0.49 0.57 .. 8 0.38 0.63 0.53
Ecuad 0. 0.69 0.7 0.61 0.8 0.1
or 0.45 0.83 92 8 0.71 0.33 2 0.33 0.58 0.71 8 0.45 0.56 0.53
Russia 0.55 0.67
n
Federa 0.7 0.5 0.3
tion 0.57 0.42 9 0.42 0.39 3 0.24 0.42 0.74 0 0.52 0.65 0.53
Ghana 0. 0.63 0.7 0.53 0.9 0.3
0.50 0.56 71 2 0.59 0.54 5 0.34 0.62 6 0.36 0.62 0.53
Djibou 0.50 0.7 0.50 0.9
ti 0.39 0.83 0 0.47 0.42 6 0.05 0.51 0.61 .. 0.61 0.48 0.54
Jamaic 0. 0.64 0.7 0.65 0.7 0.3
a 0.52 0.79 89 7 0.71 0.51 4 0.36 0.62 0.28 3 0.30 0.70 0.54
Iran 0.50 0.56
(Islami
c
Republ 0. 0.7 0.8 0.4
ic of) 0.50 0.87 88 8 0.71 0.32 9 0.56 0.61 .. 1 0.41 0.60 0.54
Slovak 0. 0.75 0.8 0.75 0.9 0.3
ia 0.58 0.79 97 4 0.76 0.68 2 0.37 0.73 .. 6 0.36 0.54 0.54
China 0.59 0.8 0.64 0.4 0.2
0.42 0.74 2 0.48 0.44 2 0.45 0.51 0.51 8 0.40 0.72 0.54
Azerba 0. 0.54 0.8 0.59 0.8
ijan 0.62 0.87 95 1 0.76 0.38 9 0.10 0.61 0.53 .. 0.53 0.49 0.54
Syrian 0.49 0.57
Arab
Republ 0.7 0.9
ic 0.43 0.70 6 0.55 0.36 7 0.49 0.57 0.55 .. 0.55 0.51 0.54
Latvia 0. 0.73 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.3
0.57 0.64 97 9 0.71 0.68 0 0.22 0.67 0.67 3 0.50 0.47 0.55
Benin 0. 0.61 0.6 0.44 0.9
0.45 0.55 64 6 0.54 0.47 3 0.10 0.55 .. .. .. 0.54 0.55
Eritrea 0. 0.58 0.7 0.43 0.9
0.48 0.58 62 3 0.56 0.28 4 0.34 0.53 0.67 .. 0.67 0.44 0.55
Togo 0. 0.52 0.6 0.46 0.9
0.38 0.45 69 7 0.50 0.33 4 0.07 0.49 0.67 .. 0.67 0.49 0.55
Nicara 0. 0.50 0.7 0.61 0.8 0.2
gua 0.51 0.64 80 4 0.62 0.40 7 0.24 0.57 0.68 3 0.45 0.63 0.55
Sierra 0.52 0.31
Leone 0.4 0.8
0.40 0.50 0 0.45 0.35 1 0.03 0.45 0.65 .. 0.65 0.55 0.55
Philipp 0. 0.71 0.7 0.65 0.8 0.1
ines 0.54 0.80 89 3 0.72 0.42 8 0.37 0.63 0.59 9 0.39 0.64 0.55
Poland 0. 0.91 0.8 0.75 0.8 0.3
0.53 0.84 98 1 0.77 0.63 9 0.30 0.71 0.40 3 0.36 0.59 0.55
Occupi 1.00 0.68
ed
Palesti
nian
Territo 0. 0.9
ries 0.40 0.35 91 .. 0.53 4 0.22 0.42 0.70 .. 0.70 0.54 0.55
Guinea 0.89 0.37
- 0.5 0.9
Bissau 0.44 0.50 9 0.55 0.32 2 0.02 0.50 0.63 .. 0.63 0.54 0.56
Indone 0. 0.75 0.7 0.58 0.9 0.4
sia 0.49 0.82 93 3 0.72 0.40 6 0.20 0.62 0.32 7 0.39 0.66 0.56
Moroc 0. 0.62 0.7 0.47 0.9 0.3
co 0.46 0.76 74 4 0.64 0.49 2 0.37 0.62 0.61 7 0.49 0.56 0.56
South 0.63 0.66
Africa 0. 0.6 0.5 0.3
0.44 0.92 90 5 0.72 0.62 0 0.34 0.61 0.64 6 0.50 0.57 0.56
Peru 0. 0.65 0.7 0.71 0.9 0.3
0.46 0.79 93 2 0.70 0.45 1 0.29 0.63 0.70 1 0.50 0.56 0.56
Maurit 0. 0.66 0.7 0.65 0.9 0.3
ius 0.52 0.92 95 6 0.76 0.68 0 0.46 0.73 0.74 2 0.53 0.43 0.56
Bolivia 0. 0.78 0.7 0.61 0.9
0.44 0.62 92 4 0.65 0.35 5 0.25 0.58 0.57 .. 0.57 0.55 0.57
Argent 0. 0.54 0.8 0.77 0.8 0.2
ina 0.51 0.91 96 6 0.75 0.47 8 0.41 0.66 0.60 0 0.40 0.65 0.57
Croatia 0. 0.66 0.8 0.74 0.9 0.2
0.52 0.92 99 2 0.77 0.61 6 0.36 0.72 0.55 4 0.40 0.59 0.57
Hondu 0. 0.71 0.7 0.65 0.8 0.1
ras 0.51 0.82 89 3 0.72 0.42 6 0.28 0.61 0.60 6 0.38 0.72 0.57
Hunga 0. 0.93 0.8 0.73 0.9 0.3
ry 0.58 0.65 98 3 0.74 0.70 2 0.27 0.72 0.47 9 0.43 0.57 0.57
Venez 0.74 0.70
uela
(Boliv
arian
Republ 0. 0.7 0.7 0.2
ic of) 0.53 0.68 93 9 0.70 0.28 2 0.39 0.54 0.65 1 0.43 0.74 0.57
Lithua 0. 0.68 0.8 0.74 0.8 0.3
nia 0.56 0.94 97 4 0.79 0.69 2 0.34 0.72 0.70 4 0.52 0.47 0.57
Maurit 0. 0.59 0.55 0.9
ania 0.45 0.77 70 .. 0.58 0.44 5 0.01 0.56 0.63 .. 0.63 0.53 0.57
Maldiv 0. 0.54 0.7 0.59 0.8
es 0.57 0.45 91 3 0.61 0.50 3 0.10 0.57 0.49 .. 0.49 0.66 0.57
Equato 0.74 0.71
rial 0.6 0.9
Guinea 0.38 0.55 3 0.53 0.31 1 0.02 0.49 0.71 .. 0.71 0.52 0.57
Roman 0. 0.72 0.7 0.66 0.9 0.4
ia 0.56 0.56 97 9 0.68 0.55 1 0.27 0.65 0.71 1 0.56 0.52 0.58
Korea 0.77 0.73
(Repub
lic of) 0. 0.7 0.9 0.5
0.62 0.82 98 6 0.78 1 0.77 0.57 0.63 2 0.58 0.58 0.58
Czech 0.62 0.77
Republ 0. 0.8 0.9 0.3
ic 0.60 0.79 98 6 0.76 0.71 1 0.40 0.74 .. 5 0.35 0.64 0.58
Trinida 0.38 0.80
d and
Tobag 0. 0.7 0.7 0.3
o 0.57 0.73 94 2 0.69 0.57 8 0.52 0.66 .. 8 0.38 0.69 0.58
Chad 0. 0.55 0.6 0.37 0.8 0.3
0.38 0.40 41 3 0.42 0.79 8 0.47 0.77 .. 1 0.31 0.65 0.58
Guinea 0. 0.64 0.6 0.41 0.8
0.43 0.52 61 8 0.53 0.22 8 0.39 0.49 0.73 .. 0.73 0.51 0.58
Viet 0. 0.70 0.7 0.64 0.9 0.4
Nam 0.44 0.51 90 4 0.60 0.47 3 0.35 0.60 0.65 1 0.53 0.61 0.58
Guate 0. 0.69 0.7 0.68 0.7 0.1
mala 0.47 0.71 82 4 0.66 0.40 6 0.42 0.58 0.76 9 0.47 0.70 0.58
Uzbeki 0.51 0.7 0.70 0.8
stan 0.50 0.89 7 0.65 0.30 8 0.05 0.53 .. .. .. 0.64 0.58
Yemen 0. 0.50 0.6 0.34 0.9
0.51 0.74 64 6 0.60 0.34 5 0.18 0.55 .. .. .. 0.62 0.58
Kyrgy 0.52 0.63
zstan 0. 0.7 0.8
0.51 0.84 98 7 0.72 0.35 1 0.14 0.57 0.53 .. 0.53 0.66 0.59
Brazil 0. 0.79 0.8 0.65 0.7 0.2
0.45 0.85 90 0 0.72 0.50 7 0.41 0.63 0.75 7 0.51 0.63 0.59
Haiti 0.52 0.5 .. 0.9
0.40 0.59 7 0.50 0.27 5 0.19 0.49 0.73 .. 0.73 0.55 0.59
Nepal 0. 0.56 0.6 0.50 0.9
0.44 0.64 74 6 0.58 0.33 4 0.15 0.54 0.69 .. 0.69 0.55 0.59
Mexic 0. 0.53 0.7 0.72 0.8 0.3
o 0.52 0.82 96 7 0.72 0.50 3 0.33 0.64 0.58 2 0.45 0.69 0.59
Panam 0. 0.73 0.7 0.71 0.7 0.2
a 0.53 0.95 94 8 0.78 0.55 7 0.36 0.67 0.53 5 0.39 0.72 0.59
El 0.57 0.63
Salvad 0. 0.7 0.6 0.4
or 0.52 0.88 87 2 0.72 0.51 7 0.36 0.61 0.61 1 0.51 0.66 0.59
Jordan 0.49 0.8 0.76 0.9 0.5
0.50 0.86 4 0.64 0.59 5 0.53 0.68 0.63 7 0.60 0.51 0.60
Bhutan 0.86 0.7 0.60 0.9
0.33 0.79 2 0.49 0.60 7 0.06 0.58 0.46 .. 0.46 0.76 0.60
Libyan 0.88 ..
Arab
Jamahi 0.7 0.8
riya 0.49 0.28 6 0.53 0.41 6 0.59 0.57 0.66 .. 0.66 0.57 0.60
Domin 0.64 0.66
ican
Republ 0.8 0.8 0.2
ic 0.45 0.72 1 0.60 0.47 8 0.55 0.61 0.74 4 0.49 0.70 0.60
Gabon 0.94 0.7 .. 0.8
0.40 0.72 1 0.64 0.44 4 0.25 0.58 .. .. .. 0.62 0.60
Comor 0.51 0.7 0.57 0.8
os 0.27 0.73 3 0.50 0.30 6 0.10 0.47 0.76 .. 0.76 0.57 0.60
Colom 0. 0.80 0.8 0.64 0.9
bia 0.48 0.47 91 3 0.62 0.32 7 0.09 0.50 0.72 .. 0.72 0.59 0.60
Sloven 0. 0.88 0.8 0.77 0.9 0.3
ia 0.60 0.82 99 1 0.79 0.74 7 0.43 0.78 .. 8 0.38 0.66 0.60
Estoni 0. 0.49 0.8 0.76 0.7 0.6
a 0.61 0.65 98 4 0.70 0.77 8 0.35 0.70 .. 1 0.61 0.51 0.61
Turkey 0. 0.53 0.8 0.58 0.9 0.4
0.53 0.90 91 0 0.73 0.53 4 0.26 0.67 0.74 5 0.60 0.56 0.61
Cuba 0. 0.62 0.8 0.76 0.6
0.74 0.70 98 7 0.77 0.41 6 0.43 0.61 0.60 .. 0.60 0.63 0.61
Botsw 0. 0.60 0.7 0.60 0.8 0.5
ana 0.46 0.87 87 2 0.70 0.70 3 0.24 0.68 0.71 2 0.62 0.54 0.61
Kazak 1. 0.42 0.7 0.66 0.7
hstan 0.54 0.73 00 9 0.69 0.44 2 0.08 0.56 0.70 .. 0.70 0.58 0.61
Tonga 0. 0.73 0.56 0.9
0.47 0.90 97 .. 0.68 0.48 5 0.03 0.61 0.55 .. 0.55 0.69 0.62
Solom 0.54 ..
on 0.9
Islands 0.48 0.00 .. 0.35 0.41 7 0.01 0.46 0.71 .. 0.71 0.69 0.62
Sao 0.50 0.63
Tome
and #DI
Princip 0. 0.9 V/0
e 0.48 0.81 86 .. 0.60 0.45 3 0.11 0.57 .. .. ! 0.67 0.62
Urugu 0. 0.53 0.7 0.70 0.8 0.4
ay 0.51 0.66 96 3 0.67 0.68 8 0.45 0.69 0.64 5 0.54 0.63 0.62
Namib 0. 0.63 0.6 0.62 0.7 0.5
ia 0.42 0.77 87 5 0.66 0.60 9 0.18 0.62 0.70 0 0.60 0.65 0.62
Thaila 0.76 0.6 0.65 0.8 0.4
nd 0.57 0.74 9 0.67 0.49 2 0.38 0.62 0.73 8 0.61 0.65 0.62
Bahrai 0. 0.35 0.8 0.76 0.9 0.5
n 0.47 0.90 96 4 0.72 0.64 6 0.53 0.72 0.29 8 0.43 0.72 0.63
Papua 0.78 ..
New 0.6 0.8
Guinea 0.58 0.80 1 0.52 0.37 9 0.02 0.50 0.75 .. 0.75 0.63 0.63
Fiji 0. 0.78 0.7 0.74 0.9
0.63 0.80 92 7 0.77 0.47 4 0.13 0.65 0.57 .. 0.57 0.67 0.63
Tajikis 0. 0.71 0.7 0.68 0.8
tan 0.55 0.70 97 4 0.71 0.33 7 0.18 0.58 0.71 .. 0.71 0.61 0.63
Spain 0. 0.62 0.7 0.89 0.9 0.3
0.56 0.80 99 3 0.75 0.74 3 0.58 0.76 0.53 5 0.44 0.70 0.63
Albani 0. 0.65 0.8 0.80 0.9
a 0.50 0.86 95 1 0.74 0.46 2 0.13 0.63 0.81 .. 0.81 0.46 0.63
Leban 0. 0.54 0.8 .. 0.8
on 0.47 0.90 89 4 0.68 0.36 9 0.60 0.62 0.66 .. 0.66 0.64
United 0.51 0.85
States 0.7 0.6 0.4
0.55 0.65 7 0.60 0.82 2 0.62 0.67 0.59 4 0.52 0.74 0.64
Saint 0.81 ..
Vincen
t and
the
Grenad 0. 0.7
ines 0.51 0.80 90 .. 0.71 0.72 5 0.08 0.66 0.55 .. 0.55 0.72 0.64
Cyprus 0. 0.54 0.76 0.9 0.4
0.62 0.68 99 .. 0.72 0.75 7 0.27 0.73 0.60 2 0.51 0.69 0.64
Senega 0. 0.97 0.7 0.49 0.9
l 0.48 0.72 64 1 0.65 0.47 3 0.16 0.60 0.78 .. 0.78 0.56 0.65
Portug 0. 0.62 0.8 0.82 0.9 0.5
al 0.52 0.84 97 4 0.75 0.75 4 0.52 0.77 .. 7 0.57 0.61 0.65
Italy 0. 0.63 0.8 0.84 0.9 0.3
0.58 0.87 99 1 0.78 0.65 5 0.53 0.75 0.62 9 0.50 0.69 0.65
Guyan 0.89 0.6 0.65 0.8
a 0.45 0.79 8 0.66 0.45 2 0.22 0.59 .. .. 0.72 0.65
Congo 0.81 0.35
(Demo
cratic
Republ
ic of 0.7 0.8 0.4
the) 0.41 0.42 3 0.50 0.65 8 0.48 0.70 0.60 2 0.51 0.75 0.65
Seyche 0. 0.66 .. 0.8
lles 0.50 0.59 97 .. 0.64 0.57 5 0.22 0.62 0.61 .. 0.61 0.74 0.66
Greece 0. 0.60 0.9 0.82 0.9 0.4
0.55 0.91 98 0 0.78 0.66 6 0.63 0.77 0.74 2 0.58 0.63 0.66
Belize 0.86 0.7 0.51 0.6
0.43 0.59 8 0.59 0.52 3 0.12 0.53 0.69 .. 0.69 0.76 0.66
Surina 0.63 0.7 0.68 0.7
me 0.33 0.85 3 0.49 0.51 8 0.26 0.53 0.71 .. 0.71 0.73 0.66
Tunisi 0. 0.55 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.5
a 0.45 0.85 90 7 0.70 0.59 8 0.49 0.68 0.73 7 0.65 0.64 0.66
New 0.59 0.88
Zealan 0.7 0.9 0.5
d 0.58 0.74 6 0.65 0.94 1 0.53 0.78 0.37 5 0.46 0.74 0.66
Germa 0.61 0.8 0.89 0.9 0.4
ny 0.59 0.79 5 0.69 0.87 6 0.69 0.80 0.50 3 0.46 0.72 0.66
France 0. 0.59 0.7 0.87 0.9 0.4
0.56 0.77 99 4 0.74 0.78 6 0.64 0.79 0.69 0 0.54 0.66 0.66
Kuwait 0. 0.27 0.8 0.89 0.9
0.55 0.87 94 1 0.72 0.63 4 0.57 0.72 0.58 .. 0.58 0.72 0.67
Mongo 0. 0.53 0.7 0.56 0.8
lia 0.47 0.70 95 9 0.66 0.48 1 0.31 0.60 0.75 .. 0.75 0.67 0.67
United 0.50 0.86
Kingd 0. 0.7 0.9 0.4
om 0.55 0.65 99 4 0.69 0.88 4 0.58 0.79 0.61 5 0.53 0.71 0.68
Saudi 0.65 0.30
Arabia 0. 0.5 0.9
0.63 0.80 88 1 0.71 0.51 4 0.48 0.67 0.63 .. 0.63 0.73 0.68
Israel 0. 0.48 0.8 0.66 0.8 0.6
0.56 0.84 98 5 0.74 0.65 9 0.64 0.73 0.66 4 0.65 0.67 0.68
Qatar 0.30 0.8 0.63 0.9
0.59 0.93 0 0.56 0.69 8 0.46 0.67 0.69 .. 0.69 0.70 0.69
Saint 0. 0.63 0.59 0.7
Lucia 0.51 0.80 94 .. 0.63 0.72 8 0.14 0.64 0.73 .. 0.73 0.70 0.69
United 0.30 0.79
Arab
Emirat 0. 0.8 0.8 0.6
es 0.49 0.87 96 1 0.71 0.71 7 0.64 0.74 0.52 8 0.60 0.74 0.69
Malays 0. 0.47 0.7 0.68 0.9 0.5
ia 0.53 0.90 97 5 0.74 0.65 1 0.61 0.73 0.70 1 0.60 0.74 0.69
Oman 0.43 0.63
0.49 0.90 0. 0.7 0.71 0.66 0.9 0.49 0.72 0.63 .. 0.63 0.73 0.70
89 9 7
Japan 0.83 0.8 0.76 0.9 0.5
0.64 0.81 4 0.74 0.80 8 0.62 0.80 0.75 9 0.67 0.62 0.70
Nether 0.60 0.91
lands 0. 0.9 0.5
0.59 0.81 99 .. 0.69 0.91 4 0.58 0.80 0.60 1 0.55 0.75 0.70
Austral 0.51 0.8 0.91 0.9 0.4
ia 0.58 0.83 1 0.67 0.90 4 0.61 0.79 0.77 4 0.61 0.73 0.71
Belgiu 0. 0.55 0.7 0.89 0.9
m 0.60 0.86 98 7 0.77 0.83 6 0.53 0.80 0.60 .. 0.60 0.73 0.71
Malta 0. 0.46 0.8 0.71 0.9 0.5
0.50 0.90 96 5 0.74 0.83 6 0.26 0.76 0.75 1 0.63 0.75 0.71
Switze 0. 0.48 0.7 0.89 0.9 0.5
rland 0.66 0.85 98 2 0.78 0.95 6 0.67 0.85 0.42 4 0.48 0.82 0.72
Domin 0. 0.81 .. 0.7
ica 0.49 0.90 82 .. 0.71 0.71 9 0.41 0.70 0.73 .. 0.73 0.73 0.72
Swede 0. 0.62 0.6 0.94 0.9 0.4
n 0.62 0.69 98 8 0.73 0.94 6 0.75 0.84 0.67 6 0.57 0.77 0.73
Camer 0.74 0.6 0.51 0.9 0.6
oon 0.43 0.61 9 0.44 0.91 5 0.64 0.75 .. 9 0.69 0.76 0.74
Barbad 0. 0.49 0.7 0.75 0.7 0.6
os 0.43 0.90 94 9 0.71 0.80 8 0.82 0.76 0.75 9 0.72 0.73 0.74
Saint 0.63 ..
Kitts
and 0.7
Nevis 0.55 0.90 .. 0.70 0.72 0 0.74 0.71 0.76 .. 0.76 0.74 0.74
Finlan 0. 0.80 0.6 0.92 0.9 0.5
d 0.63 0.80 99 5 0.78 0.95 5 0.80 0.87 .. 9 0.59 0.77 0.74
Baham 0. 0.73 0.8 0.79 0.6
as 0.67 0.84 92 1 0.79 0.78 6 0.49 0.73 0.73 .. 0.73 0.77 0.74
Iceland 0. 0.57 0.7 0.92 0.9 0.8
0.59 0.78 99 7 0.75 0.97 9 0.60 0.85 0.39 5 0.62 0.78 0.75
Ireland 0. 0.45 0.8 0.84 0.9 0.6
0.63 0.80 98 0 0.75 0.89 7 0.56 0.82 .. 7 0.67 0.76 0.75
Singap 0.63 0.8 0.84 0.8 0.8
ore 0.64 0.85 1 0.72 0.95 4 0.64 0.81 0.66 5 0.76 0.69 0.75
Austria 0. 0.69 0.8 0.84 0.9 0.7
0.60 0.89 99 7 0.80 0.91 6 0.62 0.85 0.60 3 0.67 0.78 0.76
Luxem 0.56 0.94
bourg 0. 0.7 0.9 0.7
0.65 0.71 99 6 0.75 0.95 2 0.64 0.83 0.70 5 0.73 0.76 0.77
Norwa 0. 0.42 0.7 0.94 0.9 0.8
y 0.67 0.79 99 5 0.76 0.93 7 0.62 0.84 0.65 6 0.76 0.74 0.78
Denma 0. 0.49 0.7 0.92 0.9 0.9
rk 0.64 0.58 99 4 0.70 0.95 7 0.63 0.82 0.54 0 0.72 0.82 0.79
Appendix 2: Principal Component Analysis Output of Religious Indicators
Political and Religious
Religious tolerance ReligiousDiscri
Rotated Component Matrix Freedom index mination index
Component
1 2 3
Bahai (WCD 2005) -7.38E-02 6.44E-03 -4.42E-02
Buddhist (WCD 2005) -2.07E-02 0.141 -4.07E-02
Chinese Universist (WCD 2005) 0.103 -2.06E-02 -4.76E-02
Christian (WCD 2005) -8.66E-02 -3.35E-02 5.51E-03
Confucianist (WCD 2005) 4.55E-02 -4.42E-02 -5.01E-02
Ethnoreligionist (WCD 2005) 3.17E-02 -0.114 8.24E-02
Hindu (WCD 2005) 0.111 -2.07E-03 0.19
Jew (WCD 2005) -2.21E-02 -4.33E-03 -4.68E-02
Muslim (WCD 2005) 1.04E-02 8.15E-03 -5.48E-02
Spiritist (WCD 2005) -6.19E-02 4.58E-02 -7.00E-02
2005 Freedom of the Press (Freedom House, 2005) 0.655 -5.14E-03 6.57E-02
2000 Political Typology (Freedom House's "Democracy's Century"
Report 0.474 1.32E-02 0.102
1950 Political Typology (Freedom House's "Democracy's Century"
Report) 0.116 -0.179 -7.93E-02
1900 Political Typology 0.227 -0.117 0.149
2005 Political Rights 0.644 -1.93E-02 0.104
2005 Civil Liberties 0.637 -7.71E-03 0.126
Goverment Regulation of Religion Index 0.933 0.176 0.174
Does the government interfere with an individual's right to worship? 0.761 9.51E-02 0.122
How is freedom of religion described? 0.836 0.266 5.92E-02
Does the government generally respect the right to freedom of
religion in practice? 0.852 0.148 0.114
Does the government policy contribute to the generally free practice
of religion? 0.771 0.163 0.144
Are foreign and other missionaries allowed to operate? 0.794 7.93E-02 7.17E-02
Is proselytizing, public preaching, or conversion limited or restricted? 0.752 0.147 0.325
Government Favoritism of Religion Index 0.222 0.928 0.162
Does the government fund some things related to religion? 0.229 0.786 0.11
To what extent is there a favored (or established) religious brand? 0.305 0.613 0.26
How does the government subsidize (including in-kind) religion? 0.283 0.78 0.122
What is the nature of government funding to the religious sector? 6.73E-03 0.846 5.43E-02
Government Funding of Religion Index (0-12: Schools, buildings,
clergy, media, charity, religious work) 9.41E-02 0.686 0.15
Does the government fund religious education? -8.19E-03 0.693 8.05E-02
Does the government fund religious buildings 0.119 0.526 0.155
Does the government fund clergy salary or benefits? 7.98E-02 0.564 0.223
Does the government fund religious print or broadcast media? 7.13E-02 0.343 3.71E-02
Does the government fund religious charity or public service work? 2.34E-03 0.262 -5.36E-02
Does the government fund religious practice or mission work? 0.123 0.172 9.16E-02
Social Regulation of Religion Index 0.622 0.24 0.308
Societal attitudes toward other or nontraditional religions are reported
to be… 0.465 8.78E-02 5.64E-02
What are the social attitudes towards conversions to other religions? 0.589 0.174 0.462
Do traditional attitudes and/or edicts of the clerical establishment
strongly discourage proselytizing (trying to win converts)? 0.501 0.217 0.39
Do established or existing religions try to shut out new religions in
any way? 0.448 0.238 0.168
What is the situation regarding social movements in relation to
religious brands in the country? 0.477 0.194 0.151
Is there a constitution? 0.11 7.19E-02 5.44E-03
Does the constitution provide for freedom of religion? 0.38 0.114 0.194
Are the relationships among religions in society generally amicable? 0.579 0.12 0.115
Was there a change in the status of respect for religious freedom? 0.248 6.83E-02 1.37E-03
What is mentioned about social tensions? 0.122 -3.95E-03 0.187
Do people face hassles if they do not belong to the dominant religion
of the country? 0.322 0.22 7.06E-02
Were there any land or property disputes? 0.297 7.40E-02 -2.44E-02
Were there any religiously-related land or property disputes? 0.142 6.38E-02 0.16
Does the report say the government promotes interfaith
understanding? 1.86E-02 -7.35E-02 -0.129
What is the nature of government or public holidays? 3.14E-02 3.19E-02 0.287
Does the government require religions to register? 0.391 -7.87E-02 4.05E-02
Is religious literature or broadcasting limited or restricted? 0.479 4.61E-02 0.211
Do laws take into account a person's religion? 0.396 0.144 0.494
According to the report, are there laws regulating daily life based on
(biased towards) religion? 0.428 0.231 0.649
Is blasphemy prohibited by law? 0.296 0.212 0.639
According to the report, does it say there were reports of religious
prisoners or detainees? 0.636 -0.141 7.62E-02
Are people, based on religious identity or activity, discriminated
against? 0.527 0.139 -1.46E-02
Are people put into prison based on religion? 0.748 -5.39E-02 7.43E-02
Does the state (i.e. the government) defer to religious authorities on
life issues? 0.311 0.298 0.73
Are allegations reported of discrimination in education, housing
and/or employment based on religion? 0.405 0.219 0.141
When a person sells or buys land or property, do laws or practices
benefit or discriminate based on religion? 0.368 0.274 0.214
Do legal rights of males and females have anything to do with
religion? 0.358 0.212 0.816
Do divorce rights and/or adultery's legal status have anything to do
with religion? 0.241 0.171 0.787
Has there been any harassment of minority religious groups? 0.404 0.121 3.71E-02
Is there a government bureau that supervises religions? 0.4 0.256 7.41E-02
Do government or security authorities harass or allow harassment
based on religious brand? 0.739 2.50E-02 0.133
Are there activities reported that promote tolerance and
understanding between adherents of different religions -0.144 2.53E-02 -2.40E-02
Are social movements reported that have religious agendas 0.155 6.72E-02 5.54E-02
Are tensions related to religion reported 0.253 0.105 1.28E-02
According to the report, is there an organized interfaith dialog -0.113 -3.72E-02 0.109
Does the report mention cases of vandalism towards religious
properties or cemeteries by citizens 6.37E-02 0.175 -3.89E-02
Are certain parts of the country or its cities strongly associated with
certain religions 7.40E-02 -2.58E-02 0.221
Are certain parts of the country or its cities strongly associated with
certain religions 0.362 9.94E-02 5.25E-02
Does the report mention that societal discrimination is more likely to
be based upon ethnic bias than upon religious prejudice? 4.16E-02 -2.38E-02 -3.00E-02
were there reports of derogatory graffitti being put on religious
properties -3.07E-02 0.186 -0.255
What is the highest level of restriction reported 0.69 0.377 0.179
Estimate the number of people who are physically abused 0.574 9.36E-03 0.14
Is ethnic identity related to religious affiliation 0.244 8.78E-02 -6.98E-02
Country's largest religion by % 0.447 -4.02E-02 0.182
Govt. favoritism of religion index 0.202 0.919 0.146
Govt. regulation of religion index 0.918 0.166 0.192
Social Regulation of Religion index 0.601 0.223 0.342
Poltical Typology(Freedom's house) 0.49 8.08E-03 0.11
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
