THE ECONOMIST INTELLIGENCE UNIT

Liveability ranking and overview

January 2008
Economist Intelligence Unit 26 Red Lion Square London WC1R 4HQ United Kingdom

The Economist Intelligence Unit The Economist Intelligence Unit is a specialist publisher serving companies establishing and managing operations across national borders. For 60 years it has been a source of information on business developments, economic and political trends, government regulations and corporate practice worldwide. The Economist Intelligence Unit delivers its information in four ways: through its digital portfolio, where the latest analysis is updated daily; through printed subscription products ranging from newsletters to annual reference works; through research reports; and by organising seminars and presentations. The firm is a member of The Economist Group. London The Economist Intelligence Unit 26 Red Lion Square London WC1R 4HQ United Kingdom Tel: (44.20) 7576 8000 Fax: (44.20) 7576 8500 E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.eiu.com New York The Economist Intelligence Unit The Economist Building 111 West 57th Street New York NY 10019, US Tel: (1.212) 554 0600 Fax: (1.212) 586 0248 E-mail: [email protected] Hong Kong The Economist Intelligence Unit 60/F, Central Plaza 18 Harbour Road Wanchai Hong Kong Tel: (852) 2585 3888 Fax: (852) 2802 7638 E-mail: [email protected]

Electronic delivery This publication can be viewed by subscribing online at www.store.eiu.com. Reports are also available in various other electronic formats, such as CD-ROM, Lotus Notes, online databases and as direct feeds to corporate intranets. For further information, please contact your nearest Economist Intelligence Unit office.

Copyright 2008 The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited. All rights reserved. Neither this publication nor any part of it may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited. All information in this report is verified to the best of the author's and the publisher's ability. However, the Economist Intelligence Unit does not accept responsibility for any loss arising from reliance on it.

Symbols for tables n/a means not available; means not applicable

Liveability ranking and overview

The Economist Intelligence Unit's liveability survey

How the rating works The concept of liveability is simple: it assesses which locations around the world provide the best or the worst living conditions. Assessing liveability has a broad range of uses, from benchmarking perceptions of development levels to assigning a hardship allowance as part of expatriate relocation packages. The Economist Intelligence Units liveability rating quantifies the challenges that might be presented to an individual's lifestyle in any given location, and allows for direct comparison between locations. Every city is assigned a rating of relative comfort for over 30 qualitative and quantitative factors across five broad categories: stability; healthcare; culture and environment; education; and infrastructure. Each factor in each city is rated as acceptable, tolerable, uncomfortable, undesirable or intolerable. For qualitative indicators, a rating is awarded based on the judgment of inhouse analysts and incity contributors. For quantitative indicators, a rating is calculated based on the relative performance of a number of external data points. The scores are then compiled and weighted to provide a score of 1100, where 1 is considered intolerable and 100 is considered ideal. The liveability rating is provided both as an overall score and as a score for each category. To provide points of reference, the score is also given for each category relative to New York and an overall position in the ranking of 140 cities is provided. The suggested liveability scale Companies pay a premium (usually a percentage of a salary) to employees who move to cities where living conditions are particularly difficult, and there is excessive physical hardship or notably unhealthy conditions. The Economist Intelligence Unit has given a suggested allowance to correspond with the rating. However, the actual level of the allowance is often a matter of company policy. It is not uncommon, for example, for companies to pay higher allowancesperhaps up to double the Economist Intelligence Units suggested level.
Rating 80100 7080 6070 5060 50 or less Description There are few, if any, challenges to living standards Daytoday living is fine, in general, but some aspects of life may entail problems Negative factors have an impact on day-to-day living Liveability is substantially constrained Most aspects of living are severely restricted Suggested allowance (%) 0 5 10 15 20

How the rating is calculated

The liveability score is reached through category weights, which are equally divided into relevant subcategories to ensure that the score covers as many indicators as possible. Indicators are scored as acceptable, tolerable, uncomfortable, undesirable or intolerable. These are then weighted to produce a rating, where 100 means that liveability in a city is ideal and 1 means that it is intolerable.

January 2008

www.eiu.com

The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2008

Liveability ranking and overview

For qualitative variables, an "EIU rating" is awarded based on the judgment of inhouse expert country analysts and a field correspondent based in each city. For quantitative variables, a rating is calculated based on the relative performance of a location using external data sources.
Category 1: Stability (weight: 25% of total)
Indicator Prevalence of petty crime Prevalence of violent crime Threat of terror Threat of military conflict Threat of civil unrest/conflict Source EIU rating EIU rating EIU rating EIU rating EIU rating

Category 2: Healthcare (weight: 20% of total)

Indicator Availability of private healthcare Quality of private healthcare Availability of public healthcare Quality of public healthcare Availability of over-the-counter drugs General healthcare indicators Source EIU rating EIU rating EIU rating EIU rating EIU rating Adapted from World Bank

Category 3: Culture & Environment (weight: 25% of total)

Indicator Humidity/temperature rating Discomfort of climate to travellers Level of corruption Social or religious restrictions Level of censorship Sporting availability Cultural availability Food and drink Consumer goods and services Source Adapted from average weather conditions EIU rating Adapted from Transparency International EIU rating EIU rating EIU field rating of 3 sport indicators EIU field rating of 4 cultural indicators EIU field rating of 4 cultural indicators EIU rating of product availability

Category 4: Education (weight: 10% of total)

Indicator Availability of private education Quality of private education Public education indicators Source EIU rating EIU rating Adapted from World Bank

Category 5: Infrastructure (weight: 20% of total)

Indicator Quality of road network Quality of public transport Quality of international links Availability of good quality housing Quality of energy provision Quality of water provision Quality of telecommunications Source EIU rating EIU rating EIU rating EIU rating EIU rating EIU rating EIU rating

January 2008

www.eiu.com

The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2008

Liveability ranking and overview

The findings of the January 2008 survey

Vancouver is most liveable Vancouver poses the fewest challenges to lifestyle of 140 cities surveyed with a liveability rating of almost 100% and an index of 113 when compared with New York (as 100). Vancouver, host of the 2010 Winter Olympics, achieves the best possible score for all indicators, with the exception of prevalence of petty crime. Although Vancouver is perceived as having high crime rates compared to the rest of Canada, the threat of violent crime is low in the global context. As in previous surveys, Canadian and Australian cities are well placed among the most liveable destinations. Four of the five Australian and three of the four Canadian cities included in the survey feature among the ten most liveable. The rest are provided by Austria (Vienna, 3rd), Finland (Helsinki, 6th) and Switzerland (Zurich and Geneva, joint 9th). Canada and Australia perform strongly as favoured destinations because they benefit from high levels of development and a relatively low population density. As a result, they have well-designed transport and communication infrastructures that address the distances between cities and benefit from lower levels of congestion and crime owing to smaller city populations. Western Europe and North America present no challenges This forms the basis for the strong performance of cities in Western Europe and North America. Any problems associated with larger populations (such as crime, the perceived threat of terror and transport infrastructure) are offset by cultural gains and the broader advantages of wealthier, well-developed locations. Athens (62nd) scores worst in Western Europe as Greece continues to lag behind its euro zone peers in terms of infrastructure, healthcare and education. Lexington (59th) ranks lowest in North America, partly because it lacks the recreational availability and infrastructure offered by larger cities. In both cases, however, the liveability ratings of Lexington (86) and Athens (83) remain high, and no cities in Western Europe or North America fall below a level where liveability presents a problem. A total of 65 of the 140 cities included in the survey present no problems in terms of liveability and only 12 are deemed to fall into the worst category of liveability where most aspects of living are severely restricted.
Average regional performances
(100=ideal; 0=intolerable) Region Western Europe North America Asia & Australasia Eastern Europe Latin America Middle East & Africa World average Average rating 92.5 91.8 72.6 72.7 69.4 59.3 76.3 Stability 87.2 86.3 74.7 70.4 60.7 62.6 74.5 Healthcare 95.9 93.6 69.8 73.3 67.4 56.0 75.7 Culture & environment 93.4 92.2 69.0 75.4 78.9 56.4 76.3 Education Infrastructure 94.0 94.4 98.0 93.5 77.3 74.8 77.9 69.1 77.8 66.3 62.9 60.3 80.8 77.0

January 2008

www.eiu.com

The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2008

Liveability ranking and overview

In Eastern Europe, European Union members enjoy higher liveability ratings than elsewhere. This is possibly because of entry requirements to the Union or because of any benefits in subsidies that membership can bring. Budapest (Hungary54th), Prague (Czech Republic60th) and Bratislava (Slovakia65th) present no significant problems in terms of liveability, with Warsaw (Poland 68th) presenting problems to some aspects of life. No cities fall into the lowest category of liveability where everyday life is affected, although Istanbul (Turkey109th), Baku (Azerbaijan110th) and Tashkent (Uzbekistan119th) feature among the worst-scoring cities in the bottom 40. Colombia has worst stability In Latin America, Buenos Aires (Argentina61st) and Santiago (Chile63rd) benefit from a relatively strong education, culture and infrastructure indicators, and present no significant problems overall. All other cities in the region present some difficulties, although none occupy the worst category where most aspects of living are severely restricted. Civil war, crime and the threat of terror combine to give Bogota (Colombia126th) the lowest stability rating of all 140 cities surveyed. However, the situation in other categories is much stronger and improving, which prevents the overall rating from falling below 50%. Asian cities are well represented at both ends of the scale, owing to the broad disparities in liveability within the region. Locations across seven countries in the region present no significant problems (Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan). However, Asia is also home to five cities in which most aspects of living are severely restricted: Phnom Penh (Cambodia130th), Colombo (Sri Lanka131st), Karachi (Pakistan135th), Port Moresby (Papua New Guinea137th) and Dhaka (Bangladesh139th). Instability plays a significant part in locations that perform poorly, usually in the form of civil unrest, terrorism and war, as these will inevitably worsen crime levels and other factors such as healthcare, education, and infrastructure. Regional instability is also a key reason why Africa and the Middle East present the lowest liveability ratings. Seven of the 12 lowest scores are in the region (Tehran: Iran129th, Dakar: Senegal132nd, Abidjan: Cte d'Ivoire133rd, Douala: Cameroon134th, Lagos: Nigeria136th, Algiers: Algeria138th and Harare: Zimbabwe140th), and even the best-performing city in the region (Tel Aviv Israel) suffers from the threat of terrorism and regional conflict. The worsening situation in Zimbabwe sees Harare falling to the lowest position of all cities surveyed. Below is a ranking of all the cities surveyed, accompanied by the liveability rating for that city. The liveability score is the combination of all the factors surveyed across the five main categories. Scores are also given for each category.

Asia among the best and worst

Unrest puts Middle East and Africa at the bottom

Full ranking with rating and category breakdown

January 2008

www.eiu.com

The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2008

Liveability ranking and overview

Country Canada Australia Austria Australia Canada Finland Australia Canada Switzerland Australia Switzerland Sweden Japan Denmark New Zealand Germany Canada Australia France Germany New Zealand Japan Germany Netherlands Norway Luxembourg Belgium Germany US US Spain US US France Spain Hong Kong Germany US Iceland US US US US US US US UK UK US

City Vancouver Melbourne Vienna Perth Toronto Helsinki Adelaide Calgary Geneva Sydney Zurich Stockholm Osaka Copenhagen Auckland Hamburg Montreal Brisbane Paris Frankfurt Wellington Tokyo Berlin Amsterdam Oslo Luxembourg Brussels Munich Pittsburgh Honolulu Barcelona Boston Chicago Lyon Madrid Hong Kong Dsseldorf Detroit Reykjavik Minneapolis Washington, DC Atlanta Miami Cleveland Houston Seattle London Manchester Los Angeles

Overall rating Rank (100=ideal) 1 98.8 2 98.2 3 97.9 4 97.3 5 97.0 6 96.9 7 96.6 7 96.6 9 96.1 9 96.1 9 96.1 12 95.7 13 95.2 14 95.1 15 95.0 15 95.0 15 95.0 18 94.9 19 94.8 20 94.7 21 94.5 22 94.0 22 94.0 24 93.5 25 93.4 26 93.3 27 92.7 28 92.6 29 92.3 30 92.1 31 91.9 32 91.8 32 91.8 34 91.7 35 91.6 35 91.6 37 91.4 37 91.4 39 91.3 40 91.2 40 91.2 42 91.1 42 91.1 44 91.0 45 90.9 46 90.0 46 90.0 48 89.9 49 89.8

Stability 95 95 95 95 100 100 95 100 95 90 95 95 90 85 95 90 95 95 85 85 95 90 85 80 95 95 85 85 85 90 80 85 85 85 85 95 85 85 95 85 80 85 85 85 85 80 75 85 80

Healthcare 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 96 100 100 96 100 100 100 100 100 92 100 100 100 92 100 100 100 92 92 92 92 92 100 88 83 100 92 96 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 92 88 92

Culture & Environment 100 98 96.5 94 97 91 94 89 93 94 93 91 94 95 97 94 91 94 97 97 95 92 97 97 89 91 91 97 91 88 94 92 94 91 94 88 94 93 87 89 94 92 92 89 91 96 97 97 94

Education 100 100 100 100 92 92 100 100 92 100 92 100 100 100 100 92 100 92 100 92 100 100 92 92 92 83 100 92 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 75 100 92 100 100 100 100 100 100 92 100 92 100

Infrastructure 100 100 100 100 93 100 96 96 100 100 100 100 96 100 89 100 93 93 96 100 93 93 96 100 100 93 93 89 100 96 100 96 93 89 96 96 96 93 88 96 96 93 93 96 93 93 93 89 89

January 2008

www.eiu.com

The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2008

Liveability ranking and overview

Country Ireland Italy US Italy Hungary Singapore Portugal US South Korea US Czech Rep Argentina Greece Chile Taiwan Slovakia Uruguay New Caledonia Poland Puerto Rico Russia China Costa Rica Russia Bulgaria China China Israel Malaysia China China Amman Peru UAE Romania China China Bahrain Panama UAE China Qatar Ukraine Kuwait South Africa Brazil Serbia Kazakhstan Brazil South Africa Jordan

City Dublin Milan San Francisco Rome Budapest Singapore Lisbon New York Seoul Lexington Prague Buenos Aires Athens Santiago Taipei Bratislava Montevideo Nouma Warsaw San Juan Moscow Tianjin San Jose St Petersburg Sofia Beijing Shanghai Tel Aviv Kuala Lumpur Suzhou Shenzhen Muscat Lima Abu Dhabi Bucharest Dalian Qingdao Bahrain Panama City Dubai Guangzhou Doha Kiev Kuwait City Johannesburg Rio de Janeiro Belgrade Almaty Sao Paulo Pretoria Amman

Overall rating Rank (100=ideal) 50 89.6 51 89.5 52 89.4 53 89.0 54 88.9 55 87.8 56 87.7 57 87.3 58 86.3 59 86.0 60 84.0 61 83.6 62 83.1 63 81.4 64 81.2 65 80.5 66 79.1 67 78.5 68 78.2 69 77.5 70 76.4 71 76.0 72 75.9 73 75.5 74 75.4 75 75.2 76 75.1 77 74.9 78 74.0 78 74.0 80 73.4 80 73.4 82 72.9 83 72.7 84 72.5 84 72.5 86 72.2 87 72.0 88 71.6 89 71.3 90 70.9 91 70.4 92 69.9 93 69.6 94 69.1 94 69.1 96 68.6 96 68.6 98 68.4 99 68.0 100 67.6

Stability 85 85 85 80 85 95 80 70 80 85 85 70 85 75 80 90 70 95 80 90 60 90 85 60 75 80 80 45 75 95 85 95 60 80 80 85 90 70 80 85 80 75 70 70 50 55 60 75 60 50 75

Healthcare 88 88 92 88 92 83 92 92 83 92 79 87.5 88 71 83 75 83 88 71 83 79 67 79 83 79 63 63 96 63 67 63 58 67 75 67 67 63 67 63 63 63 71 75 71 58 67 75 71 71 58 67

Culture & Environment 94 92 97 92 90 76 95 92 84 83 87 85.9 85 89 75 82 84 67 80 75 81 65 75 81 80 69 76 74 70 60 66 50 82 58 74 62 64 71 72 58 61 59 73 50 91 78 73 65 80 88 65

Education 100 100 83 100 100 83 92 100 100 92 83 100 75 83 100 75 83 67 75 67 92 67 75 83 83 75 75 92 92 58 67 83 92 75 67 67 58 92 83 67 67 83 83 83 83 83 75 67 67 83 75

Infrastructure 88 89 86 93 84 100 82 93 93 82 84 85.7 79 89 79 75 79 70 82 64 80 86 63 77 63 89 80 84 80 80 82 86 75 79 70 79 77 71 64 82 82 71 54 86 70 71 64 64 63 68 59

January 2008

www.eiu.com

The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2008

Liveability ranking and overview

Country Thailand Paraguay Brunei Tunisia Mexico Ecuador Philippines Libya Turkey Azerbaijan Morocco Saudi Arabia Egypt India Saudi Arabia Syria Guatemala Saudi Arabia Uzbekistan Venezuela India Kenya Vietnam Vietnam Indonesia Colombia Zambia Nepal Iran Cambodia Sri Lanka Senegal Cote d'Ivoire Cameroon Pakistan Nigeria PNG Algeria Bangladesh Zimbabwe

Overall rating City Rank (100=ideal) Bangkok 101 67.4 Asuncion 102 67.2 Bandar Seri Begawan 103 65.9 Tunis 104 65.7 Mexico City 105 65.2 Quito 106 62.5 Manila 107 61.9 Tripoli 108 61.6 Istanbul 109 61.3 Baku 110 60.7 Casablanca 111 60.3 Jeddah 112 60.0 Cairo 113 59.4 New Delhi 114 59.3 Riyadh 115 59.1 Damascus 116 58.8 Guatemala City 117 58.3 Al Khobar 118 57.6 Tashkent 119 57.4 Caracas 120 56.0 Mumbai 120 56.0 Nairobi 122 54.8 Hanoi 123 54.2 Ho Chi Minh City 124 53.2 Jakarta 125 52.6 Bogota 126 51.7 Lusaka 127 51.1 Kathmandu 128 50.3 Tehran 129 49.7 Phnom Penh 130 48.4 Colombo 131 48.1 Dakar 132 46.8 Abidjan 133 46.6 Douala 134 46.0 Karachi 135 41.4 Lagos 136 39.7 Port Moresby 137 38.9 Algiers 138 37.3 Dhaka 139 36.9 Harare 140 36.8

Stability 55 65 85 70 55 50 60 85 55 60 65 75 65 55 70 70 55 75 50 30 60 50 55 55 45 10 60 55 65 60 40 50 30 65 25 25 30 50 40 25

Healthcare 63 63 71 71 67 50 58 63 50 67 50 71 50 58 67 54 50 63 63 46 54 42 54 50 50 63 33 46 63 38 42 42 46 25 46 33 38 33 29 21

Culture & Environment 69 79 42 64 82 79 64 46 70 61 64 31 61 56 35 54 72 37 58 76 53 72 54 50 59 75 60 52 37 43 54 60 54 47 39 52 41 32 43 53

Education 100 67 75 67 75 75 67 67 58 75 58 58 58 75 58 58 58 50 75 92 50 67 58 67 58 67 42 58 50 58 67 50 50 25 67 33 50 25 42 67

Infrastructure 70 61 63 57 50 64 63 48 71 48 61 68 61 63 68 55 54 61 52 55 59 46 52 52 54 57 52 43 34 46 48 30 57 52 48 52 43 38 30 32

January 2008

www.eiu.com

The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2008