Here's an article on it from The Globe and Mail
First off, a few comments on it.
Many will probably criticize this study for favouring socialist countries. I would like to ask them how does one rate poverty without favouring socialism?
That being said, I have a few problems with the study. For one, the four criteria by which the countries are measured are more of a little taster of factors that indicate poverty, rather than a comprehensive study of them. It is an interesting cross-section, though.
The long-life measure and the unemployment measures both seem fair to me. The US's low score on the long-life measure surprised me. The high scores on the unemployment measure from the statist European nations definitely support the proposition that a high degree of regulation can resrtict employment. I pause at the literacy measure, but if it uses comparable data, then it also has merit. Even of one disagrees with the standards used, the fact that there are 2x and 2.5x the number of functionally illiterate people in Canada and the US respectively compared to the top spot is concerning. The numbers should be tighter.
The poverty rate index is the one with which I have the biggest problem. The definition is almost arbitrary, since there could a wide difference between the actual standard of living between the lowest classes of different countries. The term "Poverty" is ill-used here. That being said, I think that we can all agree that the smaller the lower class in a country, the better. Calling it a measure of class concentration would have made me much happier.
First off, a few comments on it.
Many will probably criticize this study for favouring socialist countries. I would like to ask them how does one rate poverty without favouring socialism?
That being said, I have a few problems with the study. For one, the four criteria by which the countries are measured are more of a little taster of factors that indicate poverty, rather than a comprehensive study of them. It is an interesting cross-section, though.
The long-life measure and the unemployment measures both seem fair to me. The US's low score on the long-life measure surprised me. The high scores on the unemployment measure from the statist European nations definitely support the proposition that a high degree of regulation can resrtict employment. I pause at the literacy measure, but if it uses comparable data, then it also has merit. Even of one disagrees with the standards used, the fact that there are 2x and 2.5x the number of functionally illiterate people in Canada and the US respectively compared to the top spot is concerning. The numbers should be tighter.
The poverty rate index is the one with which I have the biggest problem. The definition is almost arbitrary, since there could a wide difference between the actual standard of living between the lowest classes of different countries. The term "Poverty" is ill-used here. That being said, I think that we can all agree that the smaller the lower class in a country, the better. Calling it a measure of class concentration would have made me much happier.
