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.

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 0.31 index points.

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

Estonia and Lithuania had the highest Digital Quality of Life index in Central and Eastern Europe in 2023, at 0.72 and 0.7 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.

As of 2024, South Africa and Morocco scored highest in the Digital Quality of Life index in Africa, with 0.45 points each. Mauritius and Egypt followed closely with scores of 0.43 points and 0.42 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.

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 dataset presents information on life expectancy in selected countries in 10-year periods. The list covers the years 1950-2020. The dataset also includes GDP values ​​per capita in a given country in the years studied.

In 2023, Uruguay and Chile had the highest Digital Quality of Life index in Latin America and the Caribbean region, at 0.57 and 0.56 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 related to health among adult population by sex, country of birth and age group. Average and standard deviation. Population aged 15 years old and over. National.

The OECD's Better Life Index allows users to compare wellbeing across countries based on 11 topics identified as determinants for material living conditions and quality of life: housing, income, jobs, community, education, environment, civic engagement, health, life satisfaction, safety, and work-life balance. Each topic is based on one to three indicators, and the indicators are averaged with equal weights.

Wellbeing in Developing Countries is a series of studies which aim to develop a conceptual and methodological approach to understanding the social and cultural construction of wellbeing in developing countries. The Wellbeing in Developing Countries Research Group (WeD), based at the University of Bath, drew on knowledge and expertise from three different departments (Economics and International Development, Social and Policy Sciences and Psychology) as well as a network of overseas contacts. The international, interdisciplinary team formed a major programme of comparative research, focused on six communities in each of four countries: Ethiopia, Thailand, Peru and Bangladesh. All sites within the countries have been given anonymous site names, with the exception of Ethiopia where the team chose to follow an alternative locally agreed procedure on anonymisation. Data can be matched across studies using the HOUSEKEY (Site code and household number).

The research raises fundamental questions both for the academic study of development, and for the policy community. The WeD arrived at the following definition of wellbeing through their research: "Wellbeing is a state of being with others, where human needs are met, where one can act meaningfully to pursue one's goals, and where one enjoys a satisfactory quality of life".

Further information about the project can be found on the WeD website and the ESRC Award webpage.
Wellbeing in Developing Countries: Quality of Life, 2004-2005 comprises the Quality of Life (QoL) Survey which was carried out in each of the four countries. The QoL was administered to approx 370 men and women in each country (approximately 60 per research site) in the local language by a team of interviewers selected by each of the country teams. The majority of respondents also completed the other surveys that form part of this research project and are available from the UKDA under GN 33394. The remainder were sampled proportionately according to age, socio-economic status, ethnicity and religion. For each country there is one data file at the individual level.

The Foundation continues its initiative to monitor and report on living conditions and quality of life in Europe.

28-country 'Quality of life in Europe' survey

The European quality of life survey (EQLS) that was carried out in 2003 covered 28 countries and involved interviewing 26,000 people. The survey examined a range of issues, such as employment, income, education, housing, family, health, work-life balance, life satisfaction and perceived quality of society.

Survey results

The main findings have been published in a series of analytical reports, providing a unique insight into the quality of life in 28 European countries.

In a 2023 global evaluation called the Digital Quality of Life index covering 121 countries, India scored an average of 0.52 points in five digital aspects. The country ranked 52nd globally and 13th in Asia. E-government and electronic infrastructure were the country's strengths.

The dataset obtained consists of details of countries from year 2012-2023. The dataset consists of crime index, safety index, quality of life index, purchasing power index, cost of living index and unemployment rate in each country. Unemployment rate is based on age group 15+, 15-25+ and 25+ attributes.

The dataset is obtained by web scraping and the authenticity of data is not confirmed by the source.

Code used for web scraping: https://www.kaggle.com/code/mrudular/web-scraping-world-indices.

Data sources: 1. https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/ 2. International Labour Organization. ILO modelled estimates database, ILOSTAT. https://ilostat.ilo.org/data/. Accessed 07-09-2023.

Since 2016, the global edition of the Sustainable Development Report (SDR) has provided the most up-to-date data to track and rank the performance of all UN member states on the SDGs. This year’s edition was written by a group of independent experts at the SDG Transformation Center, an initiative of the SDSN. It focuses on the UN Summit of the Future, with an opening chapter endorsed by 100+ global scientists and practitioners. The report also includes two thematic chapters, related to SDG 17 (Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development) and SDG 2 (End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture).This year’s SDR highlights five key findings:On average, globally, only 16% of the SDG targets are on track to be achieved by 2030, with the remaining 84% demonstrating limited or a reversal of progress. At the global level, SDG progress has been stagnant since 2020, with SDG 2 (Zero Hunger), SDG11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities), SDG14 (Life Below Water), SDG15 (Life on Land) and SDG16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions) particularly off-track. Globally, the five SDG targets on which the highest proportion of countries show a reversal of progress since 2015 include: obesity rate (under SDG 2), press freedom (under SDG 16), the red list index (under SDG 15), sustainable nitrogen management (under SDG 2), and – due in a large part to the COVID-19 pandemic and other factors that may vary across countries – life expectancy at birth (under SDG 3). Goals and targets related to basic access to infrastructure and services, including SDG9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure), show slightly more positive trends, although progress remains too slow and uneven across countries.The pace of SDG progress varies significantly across country groups. Nordic countries continue to lead on SDG achievement, with BRICS demonstrating strong progress and poor and vulnerable nations lagging far behind. Similar to past years, European countries – notably Nordic countries – top the 2024 SDG Index. Finland ranks number 1 on the SDG Index, followed by Sweden (#2), Denmark (#3), Germany (#4), and France (#5). Yet, even these countries face significant challenges in achieving several SDGs. Average SDG progress in BRICS (Brazil, the Russian Federation, India, China, and South Africa) and BRICS+ (Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates) since 2015 has been faster than the world average. In addition, East and South Asia has emerged as the region that has made the most SDG progress since 2015. By contrast, the gap between the world average SDG Index and the performance of the poorest and most vulnerable countries, including Small Island Developing States (SIDS), has widened since 2015.Sustainable development remains a long-term investment challenge. Reforming the Global Financial Architecture is more urgent than ever. The world requires many essential public goods that far transcend the nation-state. Low-income countries (LICs) and lower-middle-income countries (LMICs) urgently need to gain access to affordable long-term capital so that they can invest at scale to achieve their sustainable development objectives. Mobilizing the necessary levels of finance will require new institutions, new forms of global financing — including global taxation —, and new priorities for global financing, such as investing in quality education for all. The report presents five complementary strategies to reform the Global Financial Architecture.Global challenges require global cooperation. Barbados ranks the highest in its commitment to UN-based multilateralism; the United States ranks last. As with the challenge of SDGs, strengthening multilateralism requires metrics and monitoring. The report’s new Index of countries’ support to UN-based multilateralism (UN-Mi) ranks countries based on their engagement with the UN system including treaty ratification, votes at the UN General Assembly, membership in UN organizations, participation in conflicts and militarization, use of unilateral sanctions and financial contributions to the UN. The five countries most committed to UN-based multilateralism are: Barbados (#1), Antigua and Barbuda (#2), Uruguay (#3), Mauritius (#4), and the Maldives (#5). By contrast, the United States (#193), Somalia (#192), South Sudan (#191), Israel (#190), and the Democratic Republic of Korea (#189) rank the lowest on the UN-Mi.SDG targets related to food and land systems are particularly off-track. The SDR presents new FABLE pathways to support sustainable food and land systems. Globally, 600 million people will still suffer from hunger by 2030, obesity is increasing globally, and greenhouse gas emissions from Agriculture, Forestry, and Other Land Use (AFOLU) represent almost a quarter of annual global GHG emissions. The new FABLE pathways brought together more than 80 local researchers across 22 countries to assess how 16 targets related to food security, climate mitigation, biodiversity conservation, and water quality could be achieved by 2030 and 2050. The continuation of current trends widens the gap with targets related to climate mitigation, biodiversity, and water quality. Pursuing commitments that have been already taken by countries would improve the situation, but they are still largely insufficient. Significant progress is possible but requires several dramatic changes: 1) avoid overconsumption beyond recommended levels and limit animal-based protein consumption with dietary shifts compatible with cultural preferences; 2) invest to foster productivity, particularly for products and areas with strong demand growth; and 3) implement inclusive, robust, and transparent monitoring systems to halt deforestation. Our sustainable pathway avoids up to 100 million hectares of deforestation by 2030 and 100 Gt CO2 emissions by 2050. Additional measures would be needed to avoid trade-offs with on-farm employment and water pollution due to excessive fertilizer application and ensure that no one is left behind, particularly to end hunger.About the AuthorsProf. Jeffrey SachsDirector, SDSN; Project Director of the SDG IndexJeffrey D. Sachs is a world-renowned professor of economics, leader in sustainable development, senior UN advisor, bestselling author, and syndicated columnist whose monthly newspaper columns appear in more than 100 countries. He is the co-recipient of the 2015 Blue Planet Prize, the leading global prize for environmental leadership, and many other international awards and honors. He has twice been named among Time magazine’s 100 most influential world leaders. He was called by the New York Times, “probably the most important economist in the world,” and by Time magazine, “the world’s best known economist.” A survey by The Economist in 2011 ranked Professor Sachs as amongst the world’s three most influential living economists of the first decade of the 21st century.Professor Sachs serves as the Director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University. He is University Professor at Columbia University, the university’s highest academic rank. During 2002 to 2016 he served as the Director of the Earth Institute. Sachs is Special Advisor to United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres on the Sustainable Development Goals, and previously advised UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on both the Sustainable Development Goals and Millennium Development Goals and UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan on the Millennium Development Goals.Guillaume LafortuneDirector, SDSN Paris; Scientific Co-Director of the SDG IndexGuillaume Lafortune took up his duties as Director of SDSN Paris in January 2021. He joined SDSN in 2017 to coordinate the production of the Sustainable Development Report and other projects on SDG data and statistics.Previously, he has served as an economist at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) working on public governance reforms and statistics. He was one of the lead advisors for the production of the 2015 and 2017 flagship statistical report Government at a Glance. He also contributed to analytical work related to public sector efficiency, open government data and citizens’ satisfaction with public services. Earlier, Guillaume worked as an economist at the Ministry of Economic Development in the Government of Quebec (Canada). Guillaume holds a M.Sc in public administration from the National School of Public Administration (ENAP) in Montreal and a B.Sc in international economics from the University of Montreal.Contact: EmailGrayson FullerManager, SDG Index & Data team, SDSNGrayson Fuller is the manager of the SDG Index and of the team working on SDG data and statistics at SDSN. He is co-author of the Sustainable Development Report, for which he manages the data, coding, and statistical analyses. He also coordinates the production of regional and subnational editions of the SDG Index, in addition to other statistical reports, in collaboration with national governments, NGOs and international organizations such as the WHO, UNDP and the European Commission. Grayson received his Masters degree in Economic Development at Sciences Po Paris. He holds a Bachelors in Romance Languages and Latin American Studies from Harvard University, where he graduated cum laude. Grayson has lived in several Latin American countries and speaks English, Spanish, French, Portuguese and Italian. He enjoys playing the violin, rock-climbing and taking care of his numerous plants in his free time.Contact: EmailAbout the PublishersDublin University PressDublin University Press is Ireland’s oldest printing and publishing house with its origins in Trinity College Dublin in 1734. The mission of Dublin University Press is to benefit society through scholarly communication, education, research and discourse. To further this goal, the Press

According to the survey, as of February 2023, four out of the six countries in the Gulf Cooperation Council ranked amongst the top 25 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 six 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 two-thirds 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.

This dataset contains 4,000 entries with 24 columns related to happiness, economic, social, and political indicators for different countries across multiple years.

Columns Overview: Country: Name of the country.

Year: The year of the record.

Happiness_Score: A numerical value indicating the happiness level.

GDP_per_Capita: Economic output per person.

Social_Support: Level of social connections and support.

Healthy_Life_Expectancy: Average life expectancy with good health.

Freedom: Perceived freedom in decision-making.

Generosity: A measure of charitable behavior.

Corruption_Perception: Perception of corruption in society.

Unemployment_Rate: Percentage of unemployed individuals.

Education_Index: A measure of education quality.

Population: Total population of the country.

Urbanization_Rate: Percentage of people living in urban areas.

Life_Satisfaction: A subjective measure of well-being.

Public_Trust: Confidence in public institutions.

Mental_Health_Index: A measure of overall mental health.

Income_Inequality: Economic disparity metric.

Public_Health_Expenditure: Government spending on health.

Climate_Index: A measure of climate conditions.

Work_Life_Balance: An index measuring work-life balance.

Internet_Access: Percentage of population with internet.

Crime_Rate: Reported crime level.

Political_Stability: A measure of political security.

Employment_Rate: Percentage of employed individuals.

In 2023, Hungary reached a moderate quality of life index, scoring 132.13 points. From all the aspects of living taken into consideration, the low purchasing power and the high property price-to-income ratio were the least favorable.

Digital Quality of Life

Besides the Quality of Life Index, the Digital Quality of Life Index also plays an important role: measuring the country’s level and quality of digitalization. Levels of e-security, e-infrastructure, e-government, internet quality, and internet affordability are compared. The country’s e-security index totaled the highest with 0.84 points out of one, while e-infrastructure followed closely with 0.82 points. By contrast, Hungarian internet affordability reached only 0.1 index points out of one.

Happiness as an indicator

Happiness is a factor that is influenced by the quality of life. GDP, social support, life expectancy, and freedom are among the factors that influence one’s perceived happiness. In 2022, many countries that score highest on the list of happiest countries worldwide are Nordic countries such as Finland (7.8) and Denmark (7.59) but others, like Israel (7.47) and the Netherlands (7.4) are also high on the list. Out of CEE countries, Czechia scores the highest with 6.85 out of 10 points.

This data package contains a wide spectrum of internationally comparable indicators that cover population demographics and population health status (including natality, mortality, quality of life and morbidity) and major determinants of health like healthcare system and services and behavioral health risk factors. It must be mentioned that OECD available data cover predominantly two major areas: population health status and healthcare services (resources and utilization).

Progress in health outcomes across Africa has been uneven, marked by significant disparities among countries, which not only challenges the global health security but impede progress towards achieving the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals 3 and 10 (SDG 3 and SDG 10) and Universal Health Coverage (UHC). This paper examines the progress of African countries in reducing intra-country health outcome disparities between 2000 and 2019. In other words, the paper investigates the convergence hypothesis in health outcome using a panel data from 40 African countries. Data were sourced from the World Development Indicators, the World Governance Indicators, and the World Health Organization database. Employing a non-linear dynamic factor model, the study focused on three health outcomes: infant mortality rate, under-5 mortality rate, and life expectancy at birth. The findings indicate that while the hypothesis of convergence is not supported for the selected countries, evidence of convergence clubs is observed for the three health outcome variables. The paper further examine the factors contributing to club formation by using the marginal effects of the ordered logit regression model. The findings indicate that the overall impact of the control variables aligns with existing research. Moreover, governance quality and domestic government health expenditure emerge as significant determinants influencing the probability of membership in specific clubs for the child mortality rate models. In the life expectancy model, governance quality significantly drives club formation. The results suggest that there is a need for common health policies for the different convergence clubs, while country-specific policies should be implemented for the divergent countries. For instance, policies and strategies promoting health prioritization in national budget allocation and reallocation should be encouraged within each final club. Efforts to promote good governance policies by emphasizing anti-corruption measures and government effectiveness should also be encouraged. Moreover, there is a need to implement regional monitoring mechanisms to ensure progress in meeting health commitments, while prioritizing urbanization plans in countries with poorer health outcomes to enhance sanitation access.