海角大神

The United States remains unmatched by any other large economy when measured by per-person income, but by a new measure of 鈥渟ocial progress,鈥� it鈥檚 way behind 鈥� No. 16 鈥� in delivering a high-quality life to its citizens. That鈥檚 the message of the Social Progress Index, a barometer released this month that offers a window into the well-being of people in 132 nations.

1. What is 'social progress' and why is it important to measure?

For decades, the value of goods and services exchanged (gross domestic product per person) has been used as a proxy for the well-being of average citizens. But for just as long, GDP per capita has been acknowledged as an imperfect benchmark for human progress.

鈥淚f we have the wrong metrics, we will strive for the wrong things,鈥� a trio of prominent economists opined in one report after the 2008 financial crisis.

The new index, put out by a nonprofit group called the Social Progress Imperative, is an attempt to address the problem. It鈥檚 not the only such effort, but it鈥檚 ambitious in its scope, ranking nations on 54 indicators that cover everything from social inclusion to environmental stability and literacy rates.

鈥淚t鈥檚 a measure of what is a good society,鈥� says Michael Green, the group鈥檚 executive director.

2. What are some of this report鈥檚 key findings?

Some nations pull above their weight when it comes to converting dollars of output into social progress. According to the Social Progress Index, these include New Zealand (No. 1) and many European nations but also Costa Rica and a number of South American nations including Brazil and Uruguay.

The US is far from alone in the other camp 鈥� nations where the GDP dollars don鈥檛 seem to be matched by social progress. The world鈥檚 two most populous nations, China and India, are rightly viewed as up-and-comers in economic clout, but the index suggests they aren鈥檛 fully translating that GDP growth into better lives for their citizens.

If the index reveals the gaps between economic and social progress, that doesn鈥檛 mean GDP growth is meaningless. In fact, another big lesson of the results is that the two kinds of progress are closely intertwined.

But societies that lack things such as social inclusiveness and political freedom will lag far behind their potential (Turkey and Russia are examples, the index finds). Those problems may restrain economic growth. They鈥檒l also mean that citizens reap below-normal well-being from the GDP that鈥檚 already on the books.

鈥淲hile higher GDP per capita is correlated with social progress, the connection is far from automatic,鈥� index designer Michael Porter, a Harvard University economist, said in releasing the report.

3. How do these results differ from other comparative indexes?

Similar patterns are visible in the and in the , but the has this distinction: Its components are all non-economic measures of well-being. That can make it useful as a 鈥減urely social鈥� comparison with economic gauges (such as GDP per capita) or blended indexes (such as the United Nations numbers).

4. How is this index created?

The index is a composite of three different scores, each based on numerous underlying data points. The first score is for meeting 鈥渂asic needs,鈥� drawing on nutrition, water, and public safety data.

The other two rungs on the index鈥檚 progress ladder are 鈥渇oundations of well-being鈥� (performance in areas such as public schooling and ecosystem sustainability) and 鈥渙pportunity鈥� (such as personal rights and the society鈥檚 tolerance for diversity). The index has been refined and relaunched after a debut last year.

5. Can the information be put to use in practical ways?

That鈥檚 what the nonprofit group behind it hopes and expects. Mr. Green, the Social Progress Imperative鈥檚 executive director, says some policymakers and nonprofit groups are already looking at the numbers as a guide to needs and priorities.

For each country, components of the index reveal shortcomings and strengths relative to peer nations. The US, for example, could close some gaps by keeping more children in school and improving health (a shortcoming despite world-leading medical expenditures).