Albania GOI: Weighted Rank data was reported at 68.000 NA in 2019. This records a decrease from the previous number of 79.000 NA for 2018. Albania GOI: Weighted Rank data is updated yearly, averaging 71.000 NA from Dec 2017 (Median) to 2019, with 3 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 79.000 NA in 2018 and a record low of 68.000 NA in 2019. Albania GOI: Weighted Rank data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by Milken Institute. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Albania – Table AL.Milken: Global Oportunity Index.

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.

Belarus received an overall Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) score of **. This was almost ** points below the ******-lowest ranking country, Ukraine. Both Ukraine and Albania received a general "C" grade. Moldova began the "*" grades with an overall ESG score of ****. Those scoring ** and above were awarded an "A" grade, with Denmark having scored the highest overall score, reaching ****.

Time series data for the statistic Rank: Getting electricity (1=most business-friendly regulations) and country Albania. Indicator Definition:

Albania GOI: Total Rank data was reported at 63.000 NA in 2019. This records a decrease from the previous number of 73.000 NA for 2018. Albania GOI: Total Rank data is updated yearly, averaging 64.000 NA from Dec 2017 (Median) to 2019, with 3 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 73.000 NA in 2018 and a record low of 63.000 NA in 2019. Albania GOI: Total Rank data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by Milken Institute. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Albania – Table AL.Milken: Global Oportunity Index.

Abstract

The Freedom in the World 1972-2010 dataset, produced by a US based organisation, Freedom House, contains data on political rights and civil liberties for countries. Numerical ratings of between 1 and 7 are allocated to each country or territory, with 1 representing the most free and 7 the least free. The status designation of Free, Partly Free, or Not Free, which is determined by the combination of the political rights and civil liberties ratings, indicates the general state of freedom in a country or territory.

The total number of points awarded to the political rights and civil liberties checklists determines the political rights and civil liberties ratings for each country in the Freedom House dataset. Each point total corresponds to a rating of 1 through 7, with 1 representing the highest and 7 the lowest level of freedom. Each pair of political rights and civil liberties ratings is averaged to determine an overall status of "Free," "Partly Free," or "Not Free." Those whose ratings average 1.0 to 2.5 are considered Free, 3.0 to 5.0 Partly Free, and 5.5 to 7.0 Not Free . The designations of Free, Partly Free, and Not Free each cover a broad third of the available raw points. Therefore, countries and territories within any one category, especially those at either end of the category, can have quite different human rights situations. In order to see the distinctions within each category, a country or territory's political rights and civil liberties ratings should be examined. For example, countries at the lowest end of the Free category (2 in political rights and 3 in civil liberties, or 3 in political rights and 2 in civil liberties) differ from those at the upper end of the Free group (1 for both political rights and civil liberties). Also, a designation of Free does not mean that a country enjoys perfect freedom or lacks serious problems, only that it enjoys comparably more freedom than Partly Free or Not Free (or some other Free) countries.

General Characteristics of Each Political Rights and Civil Liberties Rating: Political Rights Rating of 1 -- Countries and territories that receive a rating of 1 for political rights come closest to ensuring the freedoms embodied in the checklist questions, beginning with free and fair elections. Those who are elected rule, there are competitive parties or other political groupings, and the opposition plays an important role and has actual power. Minority groups have reasonable self-government or can participate in the government through informal consensus. Rating of 2 -- Countries and territories rated 2 in political rights are less free than those rated 1. Such factors as political corruption, violence, political discrimination against minorities, and foreign or military influence on politics may be present and weaken the quality of freedom. Ratings of 3, 4, 5 -- The same conditions that undermine freedom in countries and territories with a rating of 2 may also weaken political rights in those with a rating of 3, 4, or 5. Other damaging elements can include civil war, heavy military involvement in politics, lingering royal power, unfair elections, and one-party dominance. However, states and territories in these categories may still enjoy some elements of political rights, including the freedom to organize quasi-political groups, reasonably free referendums, or other significant means of popular influence on government. Rating of 6 -- Countries and territories with political rights rated 6 have systems ruled by military juntas, one-party dictatorships, religious hierarchies, or autocrats. These regimes may allow only a minimal manifestation of political rights, such as some degree of representation or autonomy for minorities. A few states are traditional monarchies that mitigate their relative lack of political rights through the use of consultation with their subjects, tolerance of political discussion, and acceptance of public petitions. Rating of 7 -- For countries and territories with a rating of 7, political rights are absent or virtually nonexistent as a result of the extremely oppressive nature of the regime or severe oppression in combination with civil war. States and territories in this group may also be marked by extreme violence or warlord rule that dominates political power in the absence of an authoritative, functioning central government. Civil Liberties Rating of 1 -- Countries and territories that receive a rating of 1 come closest to ensuring the freedoms expressed in the civil liberties checklist, including freedom of expression, assembly, association, education, and religion. They are distinguished by an established and generally equitable system of rule of law. Countries and territories with this rating enjoy free economic activity and tend to strive for equality of opportunity. Rating of 2 -- States and territories with a rating of 2 have deficiencies in a few aspects of civil liberties, but are still relatively free. Ratings of 3, 4, 5 -- Countries and territories that have received a rating of 3, 4, or 5 range from those that are in at least partial compliance with virtually all checklist standards to those with a combination of high or medium scores for some questions and low or very low scores on other questions. The level of oppression increases at each successive rating level, including in the areas of censorship, political terror, and the prevention of free association. There are also many cases in which groups opposed to the state engage in political terror that undermines other freedoms. Therefore, a poor rating for a country is not necessarily a comment on the intentions of the government, but may reflect real restrictions on liberty caused by nongovernmental actors. Rating of 6 -- People in countries and territories with a rating of 6 experience severely restricted rights of expression and association, and there are almost always political prisoners and other manifestations of political terror. These countries may be characterized by a few partial rights, such as some religious and social freedoms, some highly restricted private business activity, and relatively free private discussion. Rating of 7 -- States and territories with a rating of 7 have virtually no freedom. An overwhelming and justified fear of repression characterizes these societies. Countries and territories generally have ratings in political rights and civil liberties that are within two ratings numbers of each other. Without a well-developed civil society, it is difficult, if not impossible, to have an atmosphere supportive of political rights. Consequently, there is no country in the survey with a rating of 6 or 7 for civil liberties and, at the same time, a rating of 1 or 2 for political rights.

Analysis unit

The units of analysis in the survey arel countries

Kind of data

Observation data/ratings [obs]

Mode of data collection

Other [oth]

Cross sectional data, all countries for the statistic Nominal_Exchange_Rate_3_Year_Change_In_Percent. Indicator Definition:Nominal Exchange Rate 1 Year Change In Percent. The Exchange Rate is defined according to the Quantity Notation, that is, foreign currency (here always the USD) per domestic currency (for example the euro for Germany). Hence, a higher value means, that the domestic currency appreciated as more foreign currency units can be purchased for one unit of domestic currency.Indicator Unit:The statistic is measured in Percent.Descriptive Statistics regarding the Indicator "Nominal Exchange Rate 3 Year Change In Percent":The number of countries with data stands at: 153 countries.The average value across those countries stands at: -4.50.The standard deviation across those countries stands at: 25.54.The lowest value stands at: -98.32, and was observed in Lebanon (LBP), which in this case constitutes the country that ranks last.The highest value stands at: 36.51, and was observed in Albania (ALL), which in this case constitutes the country that ranks first.Looking at countries with values, the top 5 countries are:1. Albania, actual value 36.51, actual ranking 1.2. Costa Rica, actual value 36.30, actual ranking 2.3. Afghanistan, actual value 24.75, actual ranking 3.4. Poland, actual value 23.95, actual ranking 4.5. Sri Lanka, actual value 20.48, actual ranking 5.Looking at countries with values, the bottom 5 countries are:1. Lebanon, actual value -98.32, actual ranking 153.2. Venezuela, RB, actual value -94.88, actual ranking 152.3. Iran, Islamic Rep., actual value -93.01, actual ranking 151.4. Argentina, actual value -89.58, actual ranking 150.5. South Sudan, actual value -89.00, actual ranking 149.

Comprehensive ranking dataset of the top 100 YouTube channels from Albania. This dataset features 69 channels with detailed statistics including subscriber counts, total video views, video count, and global rankings. The leading channel has 3,160,000 subscribers and 8,108,849,511 total views. Each entry includes comprehensive metrics to analyze channel performance, growth trends, and competitive positioning. This dataset is regularly updated to reflect the latest YouTube channel statistics and ranking changes, providing valuable insights for content creators, marketers, and researchers analyzing YouTube ecosystem trends and channel performance benchmarks.

In 2023, Singapore dominated the ranking of the world's health and health systems, followed by Japan and South Korea. The health index score is calculated by evaluating various indicators that assess the health of the population, and access to the services required to sustain good health, including health outcomes, health systems, sickness and risk factors, and mortality rates. The health and health system index score of the top ten countries with the best healthcare system in the world ranged between 82 and 86.9, measured on a scale of zero to 100.

Global Health Security Index  Numerous health and health system indexes have been developed to assess various attributes and aspects of a nation's healthcare system. One such measure is the Global Health Security (GHS) index. This index evaluates the ability of 195 nations to identify, assess, and mitigate biological hazards in addition to political and socioeconomic concerns, the quality of their healthcare systems, and their compliance with international finance and standards. In 2021, the United States was ranked at the top of the GHS index, but due to multiple reasons, the U.S. government failed to effectively manage the COVID-19 pandemic. The GHS Index evaluates capability and identifies preparation gaps; nevertheless, it cannot predict a nation's resource allocation in case of a public health emergency.

Universal Health Coverage Index  Another health index that is used globally by the members of the United Nations (UN) is the universal health care (UHC) service coverage index. The UHC index monitors the country's progress related to the sustainable developmental goal (SDG) number three. The UHC service coverage index tracks 14 indicators related to reproductive, maternal, newborn, and child health, infectious diseases, non-communicable diseases, service capacity, and access to care. The main target of universal health coverage is to ensure that no one is denied access to essential medical services due to financial hardships. In 2021, the UHC index scores ranged from as low as 21 to a high score of 91 across 194 countries. 

Abstract

In an environment where the Bank must demonstrate its impact and value, it is critical that the institution collects and tracks empirical data on how its work is perceived by clients, partners and other stakeholders in our client countries.

The Country Opinion Survey Program was scaled up in order to: - Annually assess perceptions of the World Bank among key stakeholders in a representative sample of client countries; - Track these opinions over time, representative of: regions, stakeholders, country lending levels, country income/size levels, etc. - Inform strategy and decision making: apply findings to challenges to ensure real time response at several levels: corporate, regional, country - Obtain systematic feedback from stakeholders regarding: • The general environment in their country; • Value of the World Bank in their country; • World Bank's presence (work, relationships, etc.); • World Bank's future role in their country. - Create a feedback loop that allows data to be shared with stakeholders.

Geographic coverage

The data from the 29 country surveys were combined in this review. Although individual countries are not specified, each country was designated as part of a particular region: Africa (AFR), East Asia (EAP), Europe/Central Asia (ECA), Latin America (LAC), Middle East/North Africa (MNA), and South Asia (SAR).

Analysis unit

Client Country

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

In FY 2012 (July 2011 to July 1, 2012), 15,029 stakeholders of the World Bank in 29 different countries were invited to provide their opinions on the Bank's assistance to the country by participating in a country survey. Participants in these surveys were drawn from among senior government officials (from the office of the Prime Minister, President, Minister, Parliamentarian; i.e., elected officials), staff of ministries (employees of ministries, ministerial departments, or implementation agencies, and government officials; i.e., non-elected government officials, and those attached to agencies implementing Bank-supported projects), consultants/contractors working on World Bank-supported projects/programs; project management units (PMUs) overseeing implementation of a project; local government officials or staff, bilateral and multilateral agency staff, private sector organizations, private foundations; the financial sector/private banks; non-government organizations (NGOs, including CBOs), the media, independent government institutions (e.g., regulatory agencies, central banks), trade unions, faith-based groups, members of academia or research institutes, and members of the judiciary.

Mode of data collection

Mail Questionnaire [mail]

Research instrument

The Questionnaire consists of the following sections:

A. General Issues facing a country: Respondents were asked to indicate whether the country is headed in the right direction, what they thought were the top three most important development priorities, and which areas would contribute most to reducing poverty and generating economic growth in the country.

B. Overall Attitudes toward the World Bank: Respondents were asked to rate their familiarity with the World Bank, the Bank's effectiveness in the country, the extent to which the Bank meets the country's needs for knowledge services and financial instruments, and the extent to which the Bank should seek or does seek to influence the global development agenda. Respondents were also asked to rate their agreement with various statements regarding the Bank's work and the extent to which the Bank is an effective development partner. Furthermore, respondents were asked to indicate the sectoral areas on which it would be most productive for the Bank to focus its resources, the Bank's greatest values and greatest weaknesses in its work, the most and least effective instruments in helping to reduce poverty in the country, with which groups the Bank should collaborate more, and to what reasons respondents attributed failed or slow reform efforts.

C. World Bank Effectiveness and Results: Respondents were asked to rate the extent to which the Bank's work helps achieve sustainable development results in the country, and the Bank's level of effectiveness across thirty-five development areas, such as economic growth, public sector governance, basic infrastructure, social protection, and others.

D. The World Bank's Knowledge: Respondents were asked to indicate the areas on which the Bank should focus its research efforts, and to rate the effectiveness and quality of the Bank's knowledge/research, including how significant of a contribution it makes to development results, its technical quality, and the Bank's effectiveness at providing linkage to non-Bank expertise.

E. Working with the World Bank: Respondents were asked to rate their level of agreement with a series of statements regarding working with the Bank, such as the World Bank's "Safeguard Policy" requirements being reasonable, the Bank imposing reasonable conditions on its lending, disbursing funds promptly, and increasing the country's institutional capacity.

F. The Future Role of the World Bank in the country: Respondents were asked to rate how significant a role the Bank should play in the country's development in the near future, and to indicate what the Bank should do to make itself of greater value in the country.

G. Communication and Information Sharing: Respondents were asked to indicate where they get information about economic and social development issues, how they prefer to receive information from the Bank, their access to the Internet, and their usage and evaluation of the Bank's websites. Respondents were asked about their awareness of the Bank's Access to Information policy, past information requests from the Bank, and their level of agreement that they use more data from the World Bank as a result of the Bank's Open Data policy. Respondents were also asked to indicate their level of agreement that they know how to find information from the Bank and that the Bank is responsive to information requests.

H. Background Information: Respondents were asked to indicate their current position, specialization, whether they professionally collaborate with the World Bank, their exposure to the Bank in the country, and their geographic location.

Response rate

A total of 7,142 stakeholders (48% response rate) participated and are part of this review.

This report presents the results of a research project, conducted in the framework of the RRPP programme in the period January 2012-June 2013, in Albania and Bosnia-Herzegovina. The project was consisted of three main stages. The results of each stage are presented in separate chapters. In the first stage, econometric analysis of the models of factors determining success of rural entrepreneurs, in order to identify main obstacles to entrepreneurial activities in rural areas in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Albania, was conducted. The second stage was the descriptive statistical analysis of diaspora from these two countries and its possible engagements in economic development of their home countries. In the third stage, review of possible solutions for engaging diaspora in reducing obstacles to rural entrepreneurship, identified in the first stage, developed through selection of best practices from the world and discussion of possible alternatives with key stakeholders in the two countries, are presneted. The main results of the research is a list of possible solutions, agreed among stakeholders, that can be used by the governments in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Albania in order to engage diaspora for rural development of these two countries. In addition, findings from the two separate research activities, one of factors affecting success of rural businesses and another about potential of diaspora, provide some useful insights for all researcher and practitioners working on these two topics.

Within this ranking of ** selected European countries, Spain had the most valuable outstanding microloan portfolio in 2021, which amounted to roughly *** billion euros. Bosnia-Herzegovina was the second country on the list, with a volume of microloans amounting to nearly half a billion euros. Albania, France, and Kosovo were some of the other countries ranking high on the list.

In 2024, Montenegro ranked first by average revenue per user in the e-commerce market among the 5 countries presented in the ranking. Montenegro's average revenue per user amounted to ******** U.S. dollars, while North Macedonia and Albania, the second and third countries, had records amounting to ******** U.S. dollars and ****** U.S. dollars, respectively.Further information about the methodology, more market segments, and metrics can be found on the dedicated Market Insights page on eCommerce.

In the presented European countries, the homeownership rate extended from 42.6 percent in Switzerland to as much as 95.9 percent in Albania. Countries with more mature rental markets, such as France, Germany, the UK, and Switzerland, tended to have a lower homeownership rate compared to the frontier countries, such as Lithuania or Slovakia. The share of house owners among the population of all 20 euro area countries stood at 64.5 percent in 2024. Average cost of housing Countries with lower homeownership rates tend to have higher house prices. In 2024, the average transaction price for a house was notably higher in Western and Northern Europe than in Eastern and Southern Europe. In Austria, one of the most expensive European countries to buy a new dwelling in, the average price was three times higher than in Greece. Looking at house price growth, however, the most expensive markets recorded slower house price growth compared to the mid-priced markets. Housing supply With population numbers rising across Europe, the need for affordable housing continues. In 2024, European countries completed between one and six housing units per 1,000 citizens, with Ireland, Poland, and Denmark responsible for heading the ranking. One of the major challenges for supplying the market with more affordable homes is the rising construction costs. In 2021 and 2022, housing construction costs escalated dramatically due to soaring inflation, which has had a significant effect on new supply.

With a Gross Domestic Product of over 4.3 trillion Euros, the German economy was by far the largest in Europe in 2024. The similarly sized economies of the United Kingdom and France were the second and third largest economies in Europe during this year, followed by Italy and Spain. The smallest economy in this statistic is that of the small Balkan nation of Montenegro, which had a GDP of 7.4 billion Euros. In this year, the combined GDP of the 27 member states that compose the European Union amounted to approximately 17.95 trillion Euros. The big five Germany’s economy has consistently had the largest economy in Europe since 1980, even before the reunification of West and East Germany. The United Kingdom, by contrast, has had mixed fortunes during the same period and had a smaller economy than Italy in the late 1980s. The UK also suffered more than the other major economies during the recession of the late 2000s, meaning the French economy was the second largest on the continent for some time afterward. The Spanish economy was continually the fifth-largest in Europe in this 38-year period, and from 2004 onwards, has been worth more than one trillion Euros. The smallest GDP, the highest economic growth in Europe Despite having the smallerst GDP of Europe, Montenegro emerged as the fastest growing economy in the continent, achieving an impressive annual growth rate of 4.5 percent, surpassing Turkey's growth rate of 4 percent. Overall,this Balkan nation has shown a remarkable economic recovery since the 2010 financial crisis, with its GDP projected to grow by 28.71 percent between 2024 and 2029. Contributing to this positive trend are successful tourism seasons in recent years, along with increased private consumption and rising imports. Europe's economic stagnation Malta, Albania, Iceland, and Croatia were among the countries reporting some of the highest growth rates this year. However, Europe's overall performance reflected a general slowdown in growth compared to the trend seen in 2021, during the post-pandemic recovery. Estonia experienced the sharpest negative growth in 2023, with its economy shrinking by 2.3% compared to 2022, primarily due to the negative impact of sanctions placed on its large neighbor, Russia. Other nations, including Sweden, Germany, and Finland, also recorded slight negative growth.

n = 19759, Countries: Albania, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Germany, Great Britain, Hungary, Italy, Kosovo, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Montenegro Poland, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden and Ukraine. The proportional odds assumption was violated for GNI growth (%), Wage Reduction, Education (all categories), and Social Class (middle).Weighted Partial Proportional Odds Model of Self-Rated Health, all countries.

FIFA rankings are a system for scoring the performance of national football teams, based on points awarded for wins and losses in matches. The rankings are determined using an Elo rating system, which considers a team's relative strength, the importance of the match, and the result against the expected result. This system is used for seeding teams in tournaments, like the World Cup, to ensure fairer group draws.

The average for 2023 based on 196 countries was 87.52 percent. The highest value was in Albania: 100 percent and the lowest value was in Burundi: 11.6 percent. The indicator is available from 1990 to 2023. Below is a chart for all countries where data are available.

In 2024, Serbia ranked first by revenue in the it services market among the 5 countries presented in the ranking. Serbia's revenue amounted to ************** U.S. dollars, while Bosnia and Herzegovina and Albania, the second and third countries, had records amounting to ************** U.S. dollars and ************** U.S. dollars, respectively.Further information about the methodology, more market segments, and metrics can be found on the dedicated Market Insights page on IT Services.

In 2024, Serbia ranked first by revenue in the public cloud market among the 5 countries presented in the ranking. Serbia's revenue amounted to ************** U.S. dollars, while Bosnia and Herzegovina and Albania, the second and third countries, had records amounting to ************** U.S. dollars and ************* U.S. dollars, respectively.Further information about the methodology, more market segments, and metrics can be found on the dedicated Market Insights page on Public Cloud.