An interview with Simon Anholt, Author of the Good Country Equation
How Can We Repair the World in One Generation?
What are the problems with living in a world where countries compete over GDP growth?
Put simply, it’s the tragedy of the commons. If each country pursues its own goals regardless of the interests of others, then humanity’s common assets – the planet, basically – are continually neglected and depleted until they are no longer able to support human civilisation.
The nations of the earth are still configured as they were in 1648: as a set of warring, competing tribes. Fixing this is long overdue, but it’s a vast and primarily cultural challenge.
My condensed story of humanity: First, countries went out to conquer. Then they went out to market. Now they need to go out to work together.
Why is the world so bad at scaling humanitarian efforts? How do we better incentivize those efforts?
When a baby is born, it only considers its own interests. As it grows, it gradually learns to share responsibility with its parents, its wider family, its community and ultimately its nation. This is where human development got stuck: most people (about 90% of humanity, according to my research) feel relatively little sense of belonging, responsibility or loyalty to anything bigger than their nation-state. Part of the reason for this is that families, communities and nations are forged in a very hot crucible: defence against a real (or perceived) common enemy. But until we are attacked by aliens, humanity doesn’t think it has a common enemy. Unfortunately, pandemics and climate change don’t fill this role very effectively, for reasons it would take much more space than this to discuss!
Another problem is the fixed idea of politicians that good international behaviour is necessarily incompatible with good domestic policy. The belief is that anything you do which is good for your population and your territory is probably bad for someone else, and anything you do for the planet or other populations will probably harm or disadvantage your own population. All governments seem to be convinced of this: yet it’s simply not true, and I’ve spent the last 20 years showing governments how harmonising your domestic and international responsibilities isn’t national-self sacrifice or altruism: it’s enlightened self-interest, and it usually produces better policies.
My forthcoming book, The Good Country Equation, shows the result of big data analysis I’ve conducted over the past 15 years proving that the most admired countries are the countries that work hardest to tackle global challenges; and the most admired countries get the most investment, tourists, talent and trade. This is a powerful incentive for countries to blend their domestic and international responsibilities more imaginatively and courageously. It’s a powerful incentive because pretty much the only international phenomenon all governments and all citizens truly, deeply care about is their country’s image.
Would you consider GDP a government institution that shapes markets?
Yes. It has been doing so for seventy years: by tying the idea of national progress to the size of a country’s economy, it has devalued everything else.
Do you believe it is hard for a market based, socioeconomic system to value that which economics fails to? If we measured a citizen's health in an economic context will markets become more efficient at rewarding companies that improve those metrics?
Possibly, although measurement is not the most rapid or immediate tool for changing the culture of governance on a wide scale.
How does a statistical index like the SPI or GCI integrate into macroeconomic models quickly? Is that part of SPI/GCI’s goals? If not, why?
Unfortunately these things don’t tend to happen quickly. But I’ve always seen the GCI primarily as a tool of public diplomacy rather than a would-be official measurement: and it has been very effective at encouraging people to discuss countries in a different way. Instead of constantly asking how well countries are doing, it encourages them to ask how much countries are doing. So the impact is deliberately more cultural than systemic or procedural.
The goal of the GCI is to normalise the idea that harmonising domestic and international responsibilities is the primary duty of government in the 21st century, and indeed there are governments that use it to measure their progress on this axis. It is also used by citizens in many countries as a framework for challenging the work of their governments (and candidates in elections). But a widespread cultural change is necessary first: more people have to care about their country’s role in the world before we can expect politicians to start shaping their plans and actions around such goals.
Is integrating the SPI, GCI, and GDP a viable concept?
Of course, and nobody should ever imagine that they can receive a complete or accurate account of the state of the world from any single indicator: countries and their interactions are just more complicated than that. SPI plus GCI is a useful combination, as Mike (Green) and I have often said: it gives you the full “inside-outside” picture of how a country performs and contributes. They both also fit very neatly with the Global Footprint Network indicators. I’m currently writing a paper for UNDP’s Human Development Report Office, looking at ways in which the Good Country Index and the Human Development Report can be better aligned: these are all good conversations to have.
Is an index that offers a social progress/ goodness indicator for S&P 500 companies something that you would support?
When I launched the first edition of the Good Country Index back in 2014 it was just one part of a plan to create a Good Cities Index, a Good Leaders Index, a Good University Index and a Good Company Index. These are all at different stages of development (the Good Leaders Index is now in Beta testing at www.good.country/good-leaders). So the application of the Good Country Index principles onto corporations is a sure thing but because, like the Good Cities Index, it requires primary research, it’s a bigger undertaking.
