Defining liveability

So we have another one of them. It's amazing that so-called international surveys on 'happiness', 'good governance' and even 'liveability' of cities always have to be initiated in the west, based on their view, their criteria. It's almost as if to say that these are sacrosanct in importance universally. The Economist Intelligence Unit has over the years churned out countless reports and probably only in the last decade or so moved from the basic to peripheral economics. And for the most these reports did what any intelligence finding would, contribute to informed decision making. How a liveability index helps in such decision-making is a matter up for debate except to show up deficiencies that are probably well known already. We often hear people talking about an investment-friendly climate and hasten to criticise acts and activity that will be detrimental to investment. Whether such a report is 'investment friendly' is open for debate. Of course, it could well be another attempt by the 'free' media of the developed world to convince investments in the flagging western economies based on such 'liveability' indexes. A look at the criteria that was used for evaluation makes for interesting reading. The list is topped by the word stability. Judging from what is happening in Europe after recession and the countless governments that come and go in Italy, the scoring doesn't seem quite right. Health care is an obvious favourite target for the developed world and the UN Millennium Development Goals and yet it was a sheepish developed world leader's admission that they hadn't kept their commitment in terms of improvements in Africa and Asia. Note that Dakar and Karachi are the lowest two of the liveable places. But maybe this index would be better positioned, undertaken a few years later after all the cuts in health benefits kick in the developed world as it struggles to battle budget deficits. Or perhaps someone could ask why so many people from the advantaged part of the world travel to disadvantaged countries such as India for treatment. When culture and environment becomes a criterion the Pandora's Box really opens up. Japan tops the list of countries where ministers resign after admitting to corruption. And while it could be argued that that is how democracy should function, democracies are guilty of launching wars on countries on the flimsiest of grounds that were later proven wrong in the first place. Was any compensation offered for such 'mistakes'? Perish the thought! Education and infrastructure undoubtedly are areas where the lower listed countries suffer most. But the question now begs as to why so many educational institutions of the west have to advertise and hold regular fairs to woo those from the 'disadvantaged' section of the world. Is it suggestive of education not being as attractive to their citizens? Or are we again to wait and see how competitive educational institutions of this part of the world outstrip the more illustrious ones. The times are changing and new dawns ahead. The future will tell a different story. (The writer can be reached at e-mail: mahmudrahman@gmail.com)