Luxembourg stands out as the European leader in quality of life for 2025, achieving a score of 220 on the Quality of Life Index. The Netherlands follows closely behind with 211 points, while Albania and Ukraine rank at the bottom with scores of 104 and 115 respectively. This index provides a thorough assessment of living conditions across Europe, reflecting various factors that shape the overall well-being of populations and extending beyond purely economic metrics. Understanding the quality of life index The quality of life index is a multifaceted measure that incorporates factors such as purchasing power, pollution levels, housing affordability, cost of living, safety, healthcare quality, traffic conditions, and climate, to measure the overall quality of life of a Country. Higher overall index scores indicate better living conditions. However, in subindexes such as pollution, cost of living, and traffic commute time, lower values correspond to improved quality of life. Challenges affecting life satisfaction Despite the fact that European countries register high levels of life quality by for example leading the ranking of happiest countries in the world, life satisfaction across the European Union has been on a downward trend since 2018. The EU's overall life satisfaction score dropped from 7.3 out of 10 in 2018 to 7.1 in 2022. This decline can be attributed to various factors, including the COVID-19 pandemic and economic challenges such as high inflation. Rising housing costs, in particular, have emerged as a critical concern, significantly affecting quality of life. This issue has played a central role in shaping voter priorities for the European Parliamentary Elections in 2024 and becoming one of the most pressing challenges for Europeans, profoundly influencing both daily experiences and long-term well-being.

In 2023, Uruguay and Chile had the highest Digital Quality of Life index in Latin America and the Caribbean region, at **** and **** points on a scale from zero to one, respectively. In comparison, Venezuela and Honduras scored the lowest index among the presented countries. The index ranks the quality of digital wellbeing in a country.

Quality of Life Index (higher is better) is an estimation of overall quality of life by using an empirical formula which takes into account purchasing power index (higher is better), pollution index (lower is better), house price to income ratio (lower is better), cost of living index (lower is better), safety index (higher is better), health care index (higher is better), traffic commute time index (lower is better) and climate index (higher is better).

Current formula (written in Java programming language):

index.main = Math.max(0, 100 + purchasingPowerInclRentIndex / 2.5 - (housePriceToIncomeRatio * 1.0) - costOfLivingIndex / 10 + safetyIndex / 2.0 + healthIndex / 2.5 - trafficTimeIndex / 2.0 - pollutionIndex * 2.0 / 3.0 + climateIndex / 3.0);

For details how purchasing power (including rent) index, pollution index, property price to income ratios, cost of living index, safety index, climate index, health index and traffic index are calculated please look up their respective pages.

Formulas used in the past

Formula used between June 2017 and Decembar 2017

We decided to decrease weight from costOfLivingIndex in this formula:

index.main = Math.max(0, 100 + purchasingPowerInclRentIndex / 2.5 - (housePriceToIncomeRatio * 1.0) - costOfLivingIndex / 5 + safetyIndex / 2.0 + healthIndex / 2.5 - trafficTimeIndex / 2.0 - pollutionIndex * 2.0 / 3.0 + climateIndex / 3.0);

The World Happiness 2017, which ranks 155 countries by their happiness levels, was released at the United Nations at an event celebrating International Day of Happiness on March 20th. The report continues to gain global recognition as governments, organizations and civil society increasingly use happiness indicators to inform their policy-making decisions. Leading experts across fields – economics, psychology, survey analysis, national statistics, health, public policy and more – describe how measurements of well-being can be used effectively to assess the progress of nations. The reports review the state of happiness in the world today and show how the new science of happiness explains personal and national variations in happiness.

The scores are based on answers to the main life evaluation question asked in the poll. This question, known as the Cantril ladder, asks respondents to think of a ladder with the best possible life for them being a 10 and the worst possible life being a 0 and to rate their own current lives on that scale. The scores are from nationally representative samples for 2017 and use the Gallup weights to make the estimates representative. The columns following the happiness score estimate the extent to which each of six factors – economic production, social support, life expectancy, freedom, absence of corruption, and generosity – contribute to making life evaluations higher in each country than they are in Dystopia, a hypothetical country that has values equal to the world’s lowest national averages for each of the six factors. They have no impact on the total score reported for each country, but they do explain why some countries rank higher than others.

Quality of life index, link: https://www.numbeo.com/quality-of-life/indices_explained.jsp

Happiness store, link: https://www.kaggle.com/unsdsn/world-happiness/home

Countries where people live for a long time, as a rule, provide their citizens with high-quality medical care and help them lead a healthy lifestyle. On the contrary, in countries with low life expectancy, there are usually economic difficulties, poverty and lack of access to health services.

Estonia and Lithuania had the highest Digital Quality of Life index in Central and Eastern Europe in 2023, at **** and *** points on a scale from zero to one, respectively. In comparison, Bosnia and Herzegovina scored the lowest among the presented CEE countries. The index ranks the quality of digital wellbeing in a country.

According to the Digital Quality of Life Index, Singapore had the highest digital quality of life among countries in the Asia-Pacific region in 2023. In comparison, Cambodia scored the lowest among the assessed Asia-Pacific countries in 2023, reaching **** index points.

The Social Progress Index ranks countries based on the well-being and quality of life of their citizens, considering factors such as access to education, healthcare, human rights, and environmental sustainability.

According to the survey, as of February 2023, four out of the six countries in the Gulf Cooperation Council ranked amongst the top ** in the world for expatriate quality of life. Qatar and the United Arab Emirates topped the list for quality of life, whereas Saudi Arabia and Kuwait came last in the region. Quality of life; an amalgamation of many metrics Since quality of life is dependent on many indicators, it can give us a good insight into many aspects of state welfare policies and services. Saudi Arabia, where the number of foreign workers in the private sector topped *** million, also ranked as having one of the region's lowest quality of life for expatriates. Qatar, which had the second-highest quality of life for expatriates living in the GCC, was ranked as one of the most challenging countries in the region for ease of settling in. The UAE and Qatar, both of which ranked the highest in the survey, also have the highest average salaries and living standards in the region. Foreign workers are a key pillar of the GCC economy Countries in the GCC all have sizable expatriate populations for which their economies are heavily reliant. Roughly ********** of the workforce in the GCC is foreign. Although the share of foreign workers in the GCC has slightly decreased in recent years, they still considerably outweigh the local workforce. Most of these workers comprise the unskilled portion of the occupational category in the GCC. However, with diversifying investments and programs such as Vision 2030, countries have seen a rise in the number of skilled foreign workers.

According to a survey from 2020, Thailand was the country where people had a higher quality of life among the selected Asia Pacific countries, with 35 percent of the respondents achieving a relatively high quality of life, based on the methodology of the survey. In comparison, 72 percent of respondents in Hong Kong had a relatively low quality of life.

Harmonized data file as the basis for comparative analysis of quality of life in the Candidate Countries and the European Union member states, based on seven different data sets, one Eurobarometer survey covering 13 Candidate Countries with an identical set of variables conducted in April 2002, the other six Standard Eurobarometer of different subjects and fielded in different years, each with another set of questions identical with the CC Eurobarometer. Selected aggregate indicators of quality of life ... describing the social situation in the EU15 and Candidate Countries.

The countries are tentatively grouped according to affinities following a families of nations logic. The indicators were drawn from various sources, mainly provided by supranational organisations. They are grouped into six categories and recorded in the technical report (page 12 ff.):
(1) economy and employment;
(2) health;
(3) population and family;
(4) inequality and social problems;
(5) modernisation;
(6) political system.

Most indicators refer to the year 2000. Deviations from this rule are explained in the list of indicators, together with definitions, coding, and sources. The indicators are added to the harmonized EB data file for all 28 countries in order to provide an opportunity for multi-level analysis. Selected comprehensive indicators and relevant indices have been defined and constructed for quality of life and subjective well-being as well as for poverty and deprivation measures.

The CC-Eurobarometer contains several questions on the perceived income situation of a household and on the availability or lack of certain consumer goods. It also provides information on the perception of social integration and general acceptance.
(Source: Alber, Jens; Böhnke, Petra; Delhey, Jan; Fliegner, Florian; Gauckler, Britta; Habich, Roland; Keck, Wolfgang; Kohler, Ulrich; Nauenburg, Ricarda; Schiller, Sabine: Quality of Life in the European Union and the Candidate Countries. Technical Report. Results of data inspection, establishing a harmonized data file, recoding procedure and preparation of analysis. Hand-out for the first researchers’ meeting, Brussels, 4-5 March 2003.).

The European Quality of Life survey (EQLS) examines both the objective circumstances of European citizens' lives, and how they feel about those circumstances, and their lives in general. It looks at a range of issues, such as employment, income, education, housing, family, health and work-life balance. It also looks at subjective topics, such as people's levels of happiness, how satisfied they are with their lives, and how they perceive the quality of their societies. The survey is carried out every four years.The European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (Eurofound) commissioned GfK EU3C to carry out the survey. The survey was carried in the 27 European Member States (EU27), and the survey was also implemented in seven non-EU countries. The survey covers residents aged 18 and over. A selection of key findings from the 2010/11 data released in July 2013 are presented in this briefing: The socio-economic position of Londoners in Europe: An analysis of the 2011 European Quality of Life Survey. For the purposes of the rankings in this report, London is treated as a 35th European country.The themes covered in the analysis below are: volunteering, community relations, trust in society, public services ratings, well-being, health, wealth and poverty, housing, and skills and employment. The tables following the analysis on page 4 show figures and rankings for: - London, - rest of the UK, - Europe average, - the highest ranked country, and - the lowest ranked country. Internet use data for all European NUTS1 areas included in spreadsheet. Note figures based on low sample sizes marked in pink.

The World Happiness Report is a landmark survey of the state of global happiness. The first report was published in 2012, the second in 2013, the third in 2015, and the fourth in the 2016 Update. The World Happiness 2017, which ranks 155 countries by their happiness levels, was released at the United Nations at an event celebrating International Day of Happiness on March 20th. The report continues to gain global recognition as governments, organizations and civil society increasingly use happiness indicators to inform their policy-making decisions. Leading experts across fields – economics, psychology, survey analysis, national statistics, health, public policy and more – describe how measurements of well-being can be used effectively to assess the progress of nations. The reports review the state of happiness in the world today and show how the new science of happiness explains personal and national variations in happiness.

The happiness scores and rankings use data from the Gallup World Poll. The scores are based on answers to the main life evaluation question asked in the poll. This question, known as the Cantril ladder, asks respondents to think of a ladder with the best possible life for them being a 10 and the worst possible life being a 0 and to rate their own current lives on that scale. The scores are from nationally representative samples for the years 2013-2016 and use the Gallup weights to make the estimates representative. The columns following the happiness score estimate the extent to which each of six factors – economic production, social support, life expectancy, freedom, absence of corruption, and generosity – contribute to making life evaluations higher in each country than they are in Dystopia, a hypothetical country that has values equal to the world’s lowest national averages for each of the six factors. They have no impact on the total score reported for each country, but they do explain why some countries rank higher than others.

As of 2024, South Africa and Morocco scored highest in the Digital Quality of Life index in Africa, with **** points each. Mauritius and Egypt followed closely with scores of **** points and **** points, respectively. African countries ranked significantly lower compared to other regions, with South Africa ranking 66th, while DR Congo came last in the 120th place.

Using a multilevel modelling approach to analyse a novel dataset of academic publications at all business schools in 11 European countries, this paper finds that the influence of organisational- and country-level contextual factors on researchers varies considerably based on the type of institution and the development level of the country they are located in. At the organisational-level, we find that greater spatial connectivity–operationalised through proximity to nearby business schools, rail stations, and airports–is positively related to scientific research volume and public dissemination (news mentions). While this result is significant only for high-income countries (above EU-average 2018 GDP per capita), this is likely because the low-income countries (below EU-average 2018 GDP per capita) examined here lack a ‘critical mass’ of well-connected universities to generate observable agglomeration effects. At the country-level, the results indicate that in high-income countries, less prestigious schools benefit from higher rates of recent international immigration from any foreign country, providing a direct policy pathway for increasing research output for universities that aren’t already well-known enough to attract the most talented researchers. In low-income countries, recent immigration rates are even stronger predictors of research performance across all levels of institutional prestige; more open immigration policies would likely benefit research performance in these countries to an even greater extent. Finally, the paper’s results show that, in low-income countries, a composite measure of a country’s quality of life (including self-rated life satisfaction, health, working hours, and housing overcrowding) is positively related to research outcomes through its interaction with school prestige. This suggests that the lower a country’s quality of life, the more researchers are incentivised to produce higher levels of research output. While this may in part reflect the greater disparities inherent in these countries’ economic systems, it is noteworthy–and perhaps concerning–that we have observed a negative correlation between country-level quality of life and research performance in low-income countries, which is particularly felt by researchers at less prestigious institutions.

In 2024, the average life expectancy for those born in more developed countries was 76 years for men and 82 years for women. On the other hand, the respective numbers for men and women born in the least developed countries were 64 and 69 years. Improved health care has lead to higher life expectancy Life expectancy is the measure of how long a person is expected to live. Life expectancy varies worldwide and involves many factors such as diet, gender, and environment. As medical care has improved over the years, life expectancy has increased worldwide. Introduction to health care such as vaccines has significantly improved the lives of millions of people worldwide. The average worldwide life expectancy at birth has steadily increased since 2007, but dropped during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 and 2021. Life expectancy worldwide More developed countries tend to have higher life expectancies, for a multitude of reasons. Health care infrastructure and quality of life tend to be higher in more developed countries, as is access to clean water and food. Africa was the continent that had the lowest life expectancy for both men and women in 2023, while Oceania had the highest for men and Europe and Oceania had the highest for women.

COVID-19 Trends MethodologyOur goal is to analyze and present daily updates in the form of recent trends within countries, states, or counties during the COVID-19 global pandemic. The data we are analyzing is taken directly from the Johns Hopkins University Coronavirus COVID-19 Global Cases Dashboard, though we expect to be one day behind the dashboard’s live feeds to allow for quality assurance of the data.Revisions added on 4/23/2020 are highlighted.Revisions added on 4/30/2020 are highlighted.Discussion of our assertion of an abundance of caution in assigning trends in rural counties added 5/7/2020. Correction on 6/1/2020Methodology update on 6/2/2020: This sets the length of the tail of new cases to 6 to a maximum of 14 days, rather than 21 days as determined by the last 1/3 of cases. This was done to align trends and criteria for them with U.S. CDC guidance. The impact is areas transition into Controlled trend sooner for not bearing the burden of new case 15-21 days earlier.Reasons for undertaking this work:The popular online maps and dashboards show counts of confirmed cases, deaths, and recoveries by country or administrative sub-region. Comparing the counts of one country to another can only provide a basis for comparison during the initial stages of the outbreak when counts were low and the number of local outbreaks in each country was low. By late March 2020, countries with small populations were being left out of the mainstream news because it was not easy to recognize they had high per capita rates of cases (Switzerland, Luxembourg, Iceland, etc.). Additionally, comparing countries that have had confirmed COVID-19 cases for high numbers of days to countries where the outbreak occurred recently is also a poor basis for comparison.The graphs of confirmed cases and daily increases in cases were fit into a standard size rectangle, though the Y-axis for one country had a maximum value of 50, and for another country 100,000, which potentially misled people interpreting the slope of the curve. Such misleading circumstances affected comparing large population countries to small population counties or countries with low numbers of cases to China which had a large count of cases in the early part of the outbreak. These challenges for interpreting and comparing these graphs represent work each reader must do based on their experience and ability. Thus, we felt it would be a service to attempt to automate the thought process experts would use when visually analyzing these graphs, particularly the most recent tail of the graph, and provide readers with an a resulting synthesis to characterize the state of the pandemic in that country, state, or county.The lack of reliable data for confirmed recoveries and therefore active cases. Merely subtracting deaths from total cases to arrive at this figure progressively loses accuracy after two weeks. The reason is 81% of cases recover after experiencing mild symptoms in 10 to 14 days. Severe cases are 14% and last 15-30 days (based on average days with symptoms of 11 when admitted to hospital plus 12 days median stay, and plus of one week to include a full range of severely affected people who recover). Critical cases are 5% and last 31-56 days. Sources:U.S. CDC. April 3, 2020 Interim Clinical Guidance for Management of Patients with Confirmed Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19). Accessed online. Initial older guidance was also obtained online. Additionally, many people who recover may not be tested, and many who are, may not be tracked due to privacy laws. Thus, the formula used to compute an estimate of active cases is: Active Cases = 100% of new cases in past 14 days + 19% from past 15-30 days + 5% from past 31-56 days - total deaths.We’ve never been inside a pandemic with the ability to learn of new cases as they are confirmed anywhere in the world. After reviewing epidemiological and pandemic scientific literature, three needs arose. We need to specify which portions of the pandemic lifecycle this map cover. The World Health Organization (WHO) specifies six phases. The source data for this map begins just after the beginning of Phase 5: human to human spread and encompasses Phase 6: pandemic phase. Phase six is only characterized in terms of pre- and post-peak. However, these two phases are after-the-fact analyses and cannot ascertained during the event. Instead, we describe (below) a series of five trends for Phase 6 of the COVID-19 pandemic.Choosing terms to describe the five trends was informed by the scientific literature, particularly the use of epidemic, which signifies uncontrolled spread. The five trends are: Emergent, Spreading, Epidemic, Controlled, and End Stage. Not every locale will experience all five, but all will experience at least three: emergent, controlled, and end stage.This layer presents the current trends for the COVID-19 pandemic by country (or appropriate level). There are five trends:Emergent: Early stages of outbreak. Spreading: Early stages and depending on an administrative area’s capacity, this may represent a manageable rate of spread. Epidemic: Uncontrolled spread. Controlled: Very low levels of new casesEnd Stage: No New cases These trends can be applied at several levels of administration: Local: Ex., City, District or County – a.k.a. Admin level 2State: Ex., State or Province – a.k.a. Admin level 1National: Country – a.k.a. Admin level 0Recommend that at least 100,000 persons be represented by a unit; granted this may not be possible, and then the case rate per 100,000 will become more important.Key Concepts and Basis for Methodology: 10 Total Cases minimum threshold: Empirically, there must be enough cases to constitute an outbreak. Ideally, this would be 5.0 per 100,000, but not every area has a population of 100,000 or more. Ten, or fewer, cases are also relatively less difficult to track and trace to sources. 21 Days of Cases minimum threshold: Empirically based on COVID-19 and would need to be adjusted for any other event. 21 days is also the minimum threshold for analyzing the “tail” of the new cases curve, providing seven cases as the basis for a likely trend (note that 21 days in the tail is preferred). This is the minimum needed to encompass the onset and duration of a normal case (5-7 days plus 10-14 days). Specifically, a median of 5.1 days incubation time, and 11.2 days for 97.5% of cases to incubate. This is also driven by pressure to understand trends and could easily be adjusted to 28 days. Source used as basis:Stephen A. Lauer, MS, PhD *; Kyra H. Grantz, BA *; Qifang Bi, MHS; Forrest K. Jones, MPH; Qulu Zheng, MHS; Hannah R. Meredith, PhD; Andrew S. Azman, PhD; Nicholas G. Reich, PhD; Justin Lessler, PhD. 2020. The Incubation Period of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) From Publicly Reported Confirmed Cases: Estimation and Application. Annals of Internal Medicine DOI: 10.7326/M20-0504.New Cases per Day (NCD) = Measures the daily spread of COVID-19. This is the basis for all rates. Back-casting revisions: In the Johns Hopkins’ data, the structure is to provide the cumulative number of cases per day, which presumes an ever-increasing sequence of numbers, e.g., 0,0,1,1,2,5,7,7,7, etc. However, revisions do occur and would look like, 0,0,1,1,2,5,7,7,6. To accommodate this, we revised the lists to eliminate decreases, which make this list look like, 0,0,1,1,2,5,6,6,6.Reporting Interval: In the early weeks, Johns Hopkins' data provided reporting every day regardless of change. In late April, this changed allowing for days to be skipped if no new data was available. The day was still included, but the value of total cases was set to Null. The processing therefore was updated to include tracking of the spacing between intervals with valid values.100 News Cases in a day as a spike threshold: Empirically, this is based on COVID-19’s rate of spread, or r0 of ~2.5, which indicates each case will infect between two and three other people. There is a point at which each administrative area’s capacity will not have the resources to trace and account for all contacts of each patient. Thus, this is an indicator of uncontrolled or epidemic trend. Spiking activity in combination with the rate of new cases is the basis for determining whether an area has a spreading or epidemic trend (see below). Source used as basis:World Health Organization (WHO). 16-24 Feb 2020. Report of the WHO-China Joint Mission on Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Obtained online.Mean of Recent Tail of NCD = Empirical, and a COVID-19-specific basis for establishing a recent trend. The recent mean of NCD is taken from the most recent fourteen days. A minimum of 21 days of cases is required for analysis but cannot be considered reliable. Thus, a preference of 42 days of cases ensures much higher reliability. This analysis is not explanatory and thus, merely represents a likely trend. The tail is analyzed for the following:Most recent 2 days: In terms of likelihood, this does not mean much, but can indicate a reason for hope and a basis to share positive change that is not yet a trend. There are two worthwhile indicators:Last 2 days count of new cases is less than any in either the past five or 14 days. Past 2 days has only one or fewer new cases – this is an extremely positive outcome if the rate of testing has continued at the same rate as the previous 5 days or 14 days. Most recent 5 days: In terms of likelihood, this is more meaningful, as it does represent at short-term trend. There are five worthwhile indicators:Past five days is greater than past 2 days and past 14 days indicates the potential of the past 2 days being an aberration. Past five days is greater than past 14 days and less than past 2 days indicates slight positive trend, but likely still within peak trend time frame.Past five days is less than the past 14 days. This means a downward trend. This would be an

In 2023, the average life expectancy of the world was 70 years for men and 75 years for women. The lowest life expectancies were found in Africa, while Oceania and Europe had the highest.

What is life expectancy?

Life expectancy is defined as a statistical measure of how long a person may live, based on demographic factors such as gender, current age, and most importantly the year of their birth. The most commonly used measure of life expectancy is life expectancy at birth or at age zero. The calculation is based on the assumption that mortality rates at each age were to remain constant in the future.

Life expectancy has changed drastically over time, especially during the past 200 years. In the early 20th century, the average life expectancy at birth in the developed world stood at 31 years. It has grown to an average of 70 and 75 years for males and females respectively, and is expected to keep on growing with advances in medical treatment and living standard continuing.

Highest and lowest life expectancy worldwide

Life expectancy still varies greatly between different regions and countries of the world. The biggest impact on life expectancy is the quality of public health, medical care, and diet. As of 2021, the countries with the highest life expectancy were Japan, Liechtenstein, Switzerland, and South Korea, all at 84 years. Most of the countries with the lowest life expectancy are mostly African countries. The ranking was led by the Chad, Nigeria, and Lesotho with 53 years.

The Candidate Countries Eurobarometer (CCEB) series, first conducted in 2001, gathers information from the countries applying to become members of the European Union (EU) in a way that allows direct comparison with the standard Eurobarometer series carried out in the existing EU countries. The CCEB provides decision-makers and the European public with opinion data on the similarities and differences between the EU and candidate countries. The CCEB continuously tracks support for EU membership in each country and records changes in attitudes related to European issues in the candidate countries. This round of the CCEB survey was conducted between March 1 and April 5, 2002, in the candidate countries: Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Turkey. The survey first asked respondents three questions in regard to European Union membership. In addition to these questions, respondents were queried on the following major areas of focus: (1) quality of life indicators and life satisfaction, (2) family and children, (3) elderly people, (4) lifestyle and health , (5) access to and quality of social services, (6) household income and standard of living, (7) social protection, inclusion, and exclusion, (8) social and political participation and integration, (9) employment, unemployment, and quality of work, and (10) regional mobility. For the first major area of focus, quality of life indicators and life satisfaction, respondents were questioned about life satisfaction in the past, present, and near future, and particular factors which contribute to or improve their present quality of life. For the second major area of focus, family and children, respondents provided their views in regard to the ideal number of children for a family, decision-making in having a child, age at birth of first child, parental and family roles, and the role of government in improving life for families with children. For the third major area of focus, elderly people, respondents gave their opinion on who should care for elderly persons, as well as who should pay for their care. The survey also asked respondents whether they cared for an individual who has a long-term illness, or who is handicapped or elderly, in-home or outside the home. For the fourth major area of focus, lifestyle and health, respondents were queried about their current lifestyle and whether they had any long-term illness and/or handicap that limits their activities in any way. For the fifth major area of focus, access to and quality of social services, respondents provided feedback about their distance from a particular service or business, their satisfaction with the health and social services in their country, and whether the local or national government, private companies, or associations should provide certain services. For the sixth major area of focus, household income and standard of living, questions asked of respondents included the lowest net monthly income level their household would need in order to make a living, their appraisal of the current household income situation, whether any household member had difficulties in paying the bills, and their ability to save and invest. The survey also queried respondents about their current standard of living, and whether and how they are improving their standard of living. For the seventh major focus, social protection, inclusion, and exclusion, respondents provided their ideas about necessities of the good life, their opinion as to whether they could rely on anyone outside the home for certain problems, and their views on social exclusion, poverty, and the state of the area in which they live within their country. In addition, the respondents were asked about their response to the poor or socially excluded, which entities provide the most help to these individuals versus who should do so, the reasons why people are poor or socially excluded, as well as the extent of social disparities in their country and government's role in reducing these disparities. For the eighth major area of focus, social and political participation and integration, respondents were asked about their participation in social, community, political, and advocacy groups or organizations. For the ninth major area of focus, employment, unemployment, and quality of work, the survey qu

The average for 2024 based on 7 countries was 6.58 points. The highest value was in Canada: 6.9 points and the lowest value was in Japan: 6.06 points. The indicator is available from 2013 to 2024. Below is a chart for all countries where data are available.

In 2024, Sudan was ranked as the most miserable country in the world, with a misery index score of 374.8. Argentina ranked second with an index score of 195.9. Quality of life around the worldThe misery index was created by the economist Arthur Okun in the 1960s. The index is calculated by adding the unemployment rate, the lending rate and the inflation rate minus percent change of GDP per capita. Another famous tool used for the comparison of development of countries around the world is the Human Development Index, which takes into account such factors as life expectancy at birth, literacy rate, education level and gross national income (GNI) per capita. Better economic conditions correlate with higher quality of life Economic conditions affect the life expectancy, which is much higher in the wealthiest regions. With a life expectancy of 85 years, Liechtenstein led the ranking of countries with the highest life expectancy in 2023. On the other hand, Nigeria was the country with the lowest life expectancy, where men were expected to live 55 years as of 2024. The Global Liveability Index ranks the quality of life in cities around the world, basing on political, social, economic and environmental aspects, such as personal safety and health, education and transport services and other public services. In 2024, Vienna was ranked as the city with the highest quality of life worldwide.