I’ve been to Norway, Australia, and Iceland and they are all among my favorite nations, but are they really the three best places to live, as is implied by the latest Human Development Report from the United Nations? Here’s a brief blurb from the U.K.’s Daily Mail:
The UN list, which saw Norway retain its status as the world’s most desirable place to live, ranks sub-Saharan African states afflicted by war and Aids as the worst. Data collected prior to the global economic crisis showed people in Norway, Australia and Iceland had the best living standards… The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) index was compiled using 2007 data on GDP per capita, education, and life expectancy, and showed marked differences between the developed and developing world. …Liechtenstein has the highest GDP per capita at $85,383 in a tiny principality home to 35,000 people, 15 banks and more than 100 wealth management companies. People were poorest in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where average income per person was $298 per year. Five countries – China, Venezuela, Peru, Colombia and France – climbed three or more places from the previous year, driven by greater earnings and longer life expectancy. China, Colombia and Venezuela also scored better due to improvements in education.
I’m very skeptical of the U.N. report. I strongly suspect migration patterns would show more Norwegians, Australians, and Icelanders emigrating to the United States rather than vice-versa. And the ratio presumably would be even more lopsided if it included unsuccessful residency requests. Isn’t that a more accurate measure of the best place to live? In any event, the U.N. report actually does have some interesting pieces of information. It turns out that two tax havens, Liechtenstein and Luxembourg, are the two richest nations. This suggests these places are doing something right, but in the upside-down world of international economic policy, low-tax jurisdictions are being pressured by high-tax nations to adopt bad policy (see here for more information).
“I strongly suspect migration patterns would show more Norwegians, Australians, and Icelanders emigrating to the United States rather than vice-versa.”
I found that rather doubtful, and a quick check reveals that at least in the case of Norway nearly twice as many Americans immigrate to Norway as the number of Norwegians emigrating to the USA.
The statistics from the Norwegian bureau of statistics are public and can be found in English here:
http://www.ssb.no/english/subjects/02/02/20/innvutv_en/
The numbers appear have been even for many years, and then changed over the last decade.
Notice that you’d expect it to be far easier for a Norwegian to move to the USA than the other way around. English is taught in school from a young age in Norway, TV and Hollywood provides at least a shallow insight in the US culture.
An American emigrating to Norway, on the other hand, starts from scratch.
Yet still the flow is Americans to Norway, in spite of language.
[…] The United States may not have the freest economy in the world. And America may not be the best place to live. But we do have the most hotties, at least according to a poll of British travelers that was linked […]
KEEPING AMERICA COMPETITIVE AND IMPROVING OUR STANDARD OF LIVING – IMMIGRATION, AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO FOREIGN AID?
READ ON:
http://economicsforliberty.wordpress.com/2010/03/30/immigration-reform-an-alternative-to-foreign-aid-small-steps-toward-a-balanced-budget/
Norway has a unique endowment: Oil ! Actually, lots of oil and very few people.
Norway could be, on average, more desirable than the US, but no political implications can be made without taking into consideration the unique Norwegian endowment of oil. This endowment is unique in the world, comparable only in magnitude to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.
Norwegian GDP includes an enormous amount of almost free oil wealth from the North Sea. If you divide Norwegian net oil profit (that is oil sell price minus extraction costs) by the small number of Norwegians, you will see that oil profit is of the order of $30,000/year per Norwegian! (not sure what it would be at current oil prices but it is still a very large number). Nobody comes close to that, not even Saudi Arabia. As a reference, the equivalent oil profit for Americans is under $1,000 per year per capita, an almost negligible amount. That is why Norway jumps so far ahead of the otherwise similar Scandinavian countries.
So using Norway, as an implied endorsement to more socialism, is no different than pointing to relatively high standards of living in Kuwait as an endorsement for monarchy.
For political purposes a comparison between the US and France is more appropriate. Actually, in my view, a comparison between Spain/Greece and the US (whose citizens have comparable average competence) is a better test for the economic effectiveness of various political environments.
In terms of which place is better to live, however, the oil of Norway is close to irrelevant.
Because the oil income is saved in a sovereign wealth fund. Every financial aspect of Norways standard/quality of living are sustained from the non-oil economy.
Hi Paul, Unfortunately the eieodxtipn does not have a daily diary in English. But we will try to make some sum-up posts here along the way.