American economic dominance

[wally]

Here's the link to the actual study by the Wharton School of business at the University of Pennsylvania. The methodology is explained starting on page 6:

https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Best-Countries-Index-2026.pdf

As far objectivity is concerned, all data is subjective—humans are incapable of being objective. So, the "data" compiled in the index is not invalid because it is based primarily on surveys.

"The attributes were grouped into ten thematic factors that formed the basis of the Best Countries rankings: Adventure, Agility, Cultural Influence, Entrepreneurship, Heritage, Movers, Open for Business, Power, Quality of Life, and Social Purpose. Each country's score for a given factor was determined by averaging the scores it received across the attributes comprising that factor.

To determine the weight assigned to each factor in the overall Best Countries score, the factors were correlated with 2025 gross domestic product (GDP) at purchasing power parity (PPP) per capita. This measure, reported by the World Bank, provides an indicator of inclusive prosperity that is comparable across countries. The standardized correlations were then used as the weights assigned to each factor in the overall rankings."

Wharton probably just borrowed the algorithm for college football playoff rankings and then renamed a few of the variables.

[Goatnapper'96]

You mock me, but you also can't refute me.

I refute that pretty teeth ought to be public responsibility!

[Jeff Lebowski]

As I see it, this isn't about the quality or reliability of the data. It's about what is the study actually measuring. That's all you can draw reliable conclusions from. I didn't dig into the methodology as Pelado seems to have, but if it asked people outside the US to answer about their perceptions of all these countries then this data shows the US has an image problem internationally. Whether it is true or not that the US is actually worse to live in than China, that is not what this data actually measured, so you can't draw that conclusion from this data, as it was not designed to answer that. Trump has worked hard to do things that would result in hurting our reputation, so this result isn't surprising to me.

Any rational and even remotely objective person who has been to both America and China knows that this is an absurd comparison. Not to mention anyone who values basic human rights.

[Pelado]

As I see it, this isn't about the quality or reliability of the data. It's about what is the study actually measuring. That's all you can draw reliable conclusions from. I didn't dig into the methodology as Pelado seems to have, but if it asked people outside the US to answer about their perceptions of all these countries then this data shows the US has an image problem internationally. Whether it is true or not that the US is actually worse to live in than China, that is not what this data actually measured, so you can't draw that conclusion from this data, as it was not designed to answer that. Trump has worked hard to do things that would result in hurting our reputation, so this result isn't surprising to me.

Exactly. The stated goal in the methodology is "To understand how countries are perceived."

The study was not designed to determine which country has the highest standard of living, has the most individual rights, is the safest, or is the most economically dominant. It's all about understanding perception.

Tooblue - there are around 100 counties on the list and the survey asked each respondent about 1/3 of the list. Their targeted respondents were "engaged citizens who are broadly representative of the global population." While it's certainly possible that all 15k respondents had personal experiences in each of the 30+countries they were asked about, it is not likely.

It's much more likely that their sample consists primarily of people who have not traveled extensively since that is more representative of the global population.

[BlueK]

You are giving Trump way too much credit. Iran has known about this "tool" of theirs for many decades. Every major world geopolitics strategist was talking about how they would manipulate control of the strait if it came to large-scale conflict. Trump's failing (hubris, if you can imagine!) was thinking that somehow he would avoid the consequences that literally every expert was predicting. The irony, however, is that the more Iran uses this tactic the more likely that the international community demands some kind of shipping solution that bypasses Iranian control, and that would be decidedly bad for Iran by removing perhaps their largest negotiating chip for any relevance that they want to have in asserting the control they want on the rest of the Middle East. In fact, if you took away Iran's control over Hormuz, I think that would HAVE to put everything they got into developing nukes to retain any leverage over their neighbors as they have to date.

Meh, but what do I know?

Here's the link to the actual study by the Wharton School of business at the University of Pennsylvania. The methodology is explained starting on page 6:

https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Best-Countries-Index-2026.pdf

As far objectivity is concerned, all data is subjective—humans are incapable of being objective. So, the "data" compiled in the index is not invalid because it is based primarily on surveys.

"The attributes were grouped into ten thematic factors that formed the basis of the Best Countries rankings: Adventure, Agility, Cultural Influence, Entrepreneurship, Heritage, Movers, Open for Business, Power, Quality of Life, and Social Purpose. Each country's score for a given factor was determined by averaging the scores it received across the attributes comprising that factor.

To determine the weight assigned to each factor in the overall Best Countries score, the factors were correlated with 2025 gross domestic product (GDP) at purchasing power parity (PPP) per capita. This measure, reported by the World Bank, provides an indicator of inclusive prosperity that is comparable across countries. The standardized correlations were then used as the weights assigned to each factor in the overall rankings."

Everything has an agenda attached to it. It is a fallacy to dismiss something merely because it has an agenda.

As I see it, this isn't about the quality or reliability of the data. It's about what is the study actually measuring. That's all you can draw reliable conclusions from. I didn't dig into the methodology as Pelado seems to have, but if it asked people outside the US to answer about their perceptions of all these countries then this data shows the US has an image problem internationally. Whether it is true or not that the US is actually worse to live in than China, that is not what this data actually measured, so you can't draw that conclusion from this data, as it was not designed to answer that. Trump has worked hard to do things that would result in hurting our reputation, so this result isn't surprising to me.

[tooblue]

Let's explore the methodology a bit more:









Their purpose was to identify how countries are perceived. They targeted particular types of people around the world and the actual survey respondents were all self-selected. The data was based on how many times the respondents associated an attribute with a country - even though the vast majority of the respondents likely had no personal experience with the vast majority of countries upon which they were opining.

The "objective" part of the methodology you quoted above is just the adjustments they did to the data to determine how much weight to give each factor.

By the way, interesting dismissal of any possible use for objective data. If we want to know the truth about anything, the best way to find it is to ask 15k people and average their responses.

So, they shouldn't target particular types of people? All people, everywhere, are particular types of people. It is a fallacy to argue that because a study targeted particular groups of people, its data is therefore invalid.

Objective data is: measurable, observable and verifiable ... and everything that is measurable, observable and verifiable is subject to the subjectivity of the measurer, observer and verifier.

And how do we know that "the respondents likely had no personal experience with the vast majority of countries upon which they were opining." They did target a particular type of people who may well know a good deal about the countries upon which they answered the survey.

[Pelado]

Here's the link to the actual study by the Wharton School of business at the University of Pennsylvania. The methodology is explained starting on page 6:

https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Best-Countries-Index-2026.pdf

As far objectivity is concerned, all data is subjective—humans are incapable of being objective. So, the "data" compiled in the index is not invalid because it is based primarily on surveys.

"The attributes were grouped into ten thematic factors that formed the basis of the Best Countries rankings: Adventure, Agility, Cultural Influence, Entrepreneurship, Heritage, Movers, Open for Business, Power, Quality of Life, and Social Purpose. Each country's score for a given factor was determined by averaging the scores it received across the attributes comprising that factor.

To determine the weight assigned to each factor in the overall Best Countries score, the factors were correlated with 2025 gross domestic product (GDP) at purchasing power parity (PPP) per capita. This measure, reported by the World Bank, provides an indicator of inclusive prosperity that is comparable across countries. The standardized correlations were then used as the weights assigned to each factor in the overall rankings."

Let's explore the methodology a bit more:

A set of 73 country attributes – terms that can be used to describe a country that are also relevant to the success of a modern nation – were identified. Various attributes and nations were presented in a survey of 15,131 people from across the globe from December 15, 2025 to late February 24, 2026. Participants assessed whether they associated an attribute with a nation.

Each country was scored on each of the 73 country attributes based on a collection of individual survey responses. The more a country was perceived to exemplify a certain characteristic in relation to the average, the higher that country’s attribute score, and vice versa. These scores were transformed into a scale that could be compared across the board.

Choosing Survey Participants

To understand how countries are perceived, we endeavored to survey engaged citizens who are broadly representative of the global population, with an emphasis on those who would deem the topic and findings most relevant to their lives.

Individuals who were likely to fit these descriptions were targeted and sent the link to an online survey powered by the Kantar Profiles Audience Network

Survey participants were given a random subset of countries and country attributes to consider. The combinations were presented in a grid form where participants were prompted to associate countries with various characteristics. If a participant indicated they had not heard of a country, it was removed from their survey. Each participant considered about half of the country attributes for roughly a third of the countries. The more times an attribute-country pair was checked off, the higher the attribute score was for that country.

In addition to considering countries in terms of attributes, each survey participant was asked to respond to a set of questions gauging perceptions of the state of the world today on a variety of topics, including world events, the economy, the environment, technology, leadership and social issues.

Their purpose was to identify how countries are perceived. They targeted particular types of people around the world and the actual survey respondents were all self-selected. The data was based on how many times the respondents associated an attribute with a country - even though the vast majority of the respondents likely had no personal experience with the vast majority of countries upon which they were opining.

The "objective" part of the methodology you quoted above is just the adjustments they did to the data to determine how much weight to give each factor.

By the way, interesting dismissal of any possible use for objective data. If we want to know the truth about anything, the best way to find it is to ask 15k people and average their responses.

[tooblue]

These lists/ranking are often done by people with an agenda. Fun to see, but take with a giant grain of salt.

Everything has an agenda attached to it. It is a fallacy to dismiss something merely because it has an agenda.

[tooblue]

Still based on *subjective* perceptions as expressed in surveys and not on any objective data.

Here's the link to the actual study by the Wharton School of business at the University of Pennsylvania. The methodology is explained starting on page 6:

https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Best-Countries-Index-2026.pdf

As far objectivity is concerned, all data is subjective—humans are incapable of being objective. So, the "data" compiled in the index is not invalid because it is based primarily on surveys.

"The attributes were grouped into ten thematic factors that formed the basis of the Best Countries rankings: Adventure, Agility, Cultural Influence, Entrepreneurship, Heritage, Movers, Open for Business, Power, Quality of Life, and Social Purpose. Each country's score for a given factor was determined by averaging the scores it received across the attributes comprising that factor.

To determine the weight assigned to each factor in the overall Best Countries score, the factors were correlated with 2025 gross domestic product (GDP) at purchasing power parity (PPP) per capita. This measure, reported by the World Bank, provides an indicator of inclusive prosperity that is comparable across countries. The standardized correlations were then used as the weights assigned to each factor in the overall rankings."

[Jeff Lebowski]

The smart move is to place subjective views about living in countries in a realistic context. They can be pretty important and can modify one's perception of objective data. It is ridiculous to argue that the US is not a good place to live for many people. Most of the objective data points to it being one of the best. But the subjective perception of the US also frames and modifies peoples' attitudes about living there. Despite the popular perception, the US does not have the most upward economic mobility in the world, based on objective data. And for a country with such lofty founding ideals, that continues to be a glaring deficiency for too many people.

These lists/ranking are often done by people with an agenda. Fun to see, but take with a giant grain of salt.

[Northwestcoug]

The smart move is to place subjective views about living in countries in a realistic context. They can be pretty important and can modify one's perception of objective data. It is ridiculous to argue that the US is not a good place to live for many people. Most of the objective data points to it being one of the best. But the subjective perception of the US also frames and modifies peoples' attitudes about living there. Despite the popular perception, the US does not have the most upward economic mobility in the world, based on objective data. And for a country with such lofty founding ideals, that continues to be a glaring deficiency for too many people.

[Jeff Lebowski]

It says it's based on perceptions from people across 33 countries. So what this is really showing is how badly MAGA has damaged our standing and reputation around the world. That's still not a good thing even if it's not accurate in reality in terms of standard of living. An anecdotal example of this is how surprised the international visitors for the World Cup were to find out it's nice here.

Yes. Exactly.

[BlueK]

It says it's based on perceptions from people across 33 countries. So what this is really showing is how badly MAGA has damaged our standing and reputation around the world. That's still not a good thing even if it's not accurate in reality in terms of standard of living. An anecdotal example of this is how surprised the international visitors for the World Cup were to find out it's nice here.

[Jeff Lebowski]

China over the US? Lol.

[Pelado]

Still based on *subjective* perceptions as expressed in surveys and not on any objective data.