2014 Global Retirement Index

As an ESOMAR member, CoreData Research complies with the ICC/ESOMAR International Code of Marketing and Social Research Practice.

Disclaimer

This paper was compiled from primary research and other information available at the time of writing. The information is believed to be accurate however no representation or warranty express or implied is made as to its completeness and CoreData Research does not make any warranty to correct any information subsequently found to be inaccurate.

This paper does not constitute investment advice or a business recommendation. This paper may contain the personal views, standards and opinions of the researchers and third party contributors. The inclusion of this material is not an endorsement by CoreData Research.

In all cases, people reading this material should attain appropriate professional advice in evaluating its accuracy, currency, completeness and relevance for their purposes. CoreData Research disclaims any direct or indirect liability or costs arising from any reliance on the information contained within this publication.

Contents

Background ...... 5 Executive Summary ...... 6 Data Highlights ...... 7 Methodology ...... 10 Constructing the Indicators ...... 10 Framework ...... 17 The Global Retirement Index 2014 ...... 18 The Best and Worst Performers ...... 19 The Top 30: Year-on-Year Trend ...... 23 The Emerging Economies: Is it getting better for retirees? ...... 54 Performance by Sub-Index ...... 60 The Health Index ...... 60 Finances in Retirement Index ...... 63 Quality of Life Index ...... 66 Material Wellbeing Index ...... 69 References ...... 72 Appendix ...... 73

Background

The Natixis CoreData Global Retirement Index is an international comparison tool with an objective of providing a global benchmark for retirees and future retirees to evaluate and compare the suitability of nations globally in meeting retirement expectations, needs and ambitions.

Welfare in retirement is an increasingly relevant issue in modern societies as demographic compositions continue to shift with average ages creeping up relentlessly and the numbers of people finishing their working life increasing.

In this context, institutions, be they public or private, are having to adapt the products and services they provide in order to cater not only to an increasing number of retirees, but also to their very different demands and needs.

The Natixis CoreData Global Retirement Index is a multidimensional welfare index, which has been developed differently to other welfare indices as it has a specific focus on the parameters determining welfare in retirement and old age.

The index incorporates 20 performance indicators, grouped into four thematic sub-indices, which have been calculated on the basis of reliable data from a range of international organizations and academic sources and taking into account the particular characteristics of this demographic group, in order to assess and compare the level of welfare in retirement in different countries around the world.

The four thematic indices cover key aspects for welfare in retirement: having good health and access to quality health services, having enough material means to live a comfortable life, having access to quality financial services (including preserving the value of savings) and living in a clean and safe environment.

This is the second year Natixis Global Asset Management and CoreData have produced the Global Retirement Index as a guide to the changing decisions facing retirees as they focus on their needs and goals for the future, and where and how to most efficiently preserve wealth while enjoying retirement.

Broadly speaking, however, the two editions of the Global Retirement Index are deliberately similar in form and methodology so that a year-by-year comparison may be made which highlights the shifts in quality of life, material well-being, the quality of financial services and the quality of healthcare services that have taken place over the last twelve months.

Such comparisons contextualize the score each country receives on the Global Retirement Index (GRI) by enabling us to maintain a sense of perspective: for instance, if a country has improved its position in the GRI by twenty places since 2013, this may be an indication of the beginning of an upwards trend in its suitability (and therefore desirability) as a home for retirement.

The sub-indices provide some insight into which particular national characteristics are driving an improvement or worsening in each country's position this year, compared with last year.

As the GRI continues to run each year, it is our hope it will be possible to discern ongoing trends in, for instance, the quality of a nation's financial services sector, thereby enabling retirees to make more informed advance decisions about their lives in the future.

Executive Summary

Shouldering the load: Individuals increasingly responsible for their own financial security in retirement

The responsibility for financial security in retirement is falling even more heavily on individuals than ever before and this trend is likely to continue as government resources in countries around the world become scarcer, according to the 2014 Global Retirement Index. It is becoming increasingly apparent that to ensure financial security in retirement, individuals need to take personal ownership of their destiny and view planning and saving for retirement as a serious, conscious and strategic pursuit.

The world’s aging populations will find the greatest financial security for retirees in European countries, which comprise eight of the top-10 countries among the 150 nations analyzed in the second annual Global Retirement Index. However, financial security for retirees shows signs of erosion in many developed nations, including Europe, where governments are facing high debt levels and ongoing financial pressures. In developing markets, the provision of government services has not kept pace with economic growth, and income inequality is preventing widespread financial security.

There is, of course, no one-size-fits-all solution to this growing problem. The optimal pension system for any country must take into account domestic factors such as economic, social, cultural and political traditions. However, the policies and practices adopted in some regions that rate highly could hold valuable lessons for other nations that are trying to shore up their systems. Many of the top countries in this year’s report, for example, have demonstrated a commitment to innovation and have emphasized simplicity in their retirement scheme’s overall design and structure. Many also have proactive governments willing to come together to take bold, sometimes unpopular, policy stances in their ongoing efforts to stabilize retirement security for their citizens.

The bottom line: Employers, governments and individuals – the three legs of the global retirement savings stool – each have a role to play in improving the state of savings around the world. Employers need to be more flexible and open to considering programs that can broaden coverage; governments need to work together to institute meaningful, difference-making reforms; and individuals need to realize that they can no longer depend on the other two legs of the stool, and instead should focus on the factors they themselves can control – such as establishing a plan, setting goals and being more engaged.

Data Highlights

Leaders and laggards

Eight of the 10 highest-ranked nations are European, including Switzerland, Norway, Austria, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Finland and Luxembourg. “Core” European nations outdo “peripheral” countries that were forced to cut more severely into their social programs. Switzerland rose to No. 1 in the world on the retiree financial security scorecard, displacing last year’s top country, Norway. For the second straight year, the United States ranks 19th of 150 nations. This trails countries such as the United Kingdom, Korea and the Czech Republic. New Zealand, Iceland and Korea were among the fastest risers in the report, with each nation moving into the top 20.

o New Zealand’s rise from 22nd to 9th place can mostly be traced to dramatic improvement in the Finances in Retirement category. Specifically, the country has benefited from lowering tax pressures, better performance of its bank loans and improved income equality.

o Iceland (from 23rd to 11th): Iceland’s government deftly steered the nation away from serious economic damage relating to the fall of three major Icelandic banks. This positive outcome, combined with low inflation, low interest rates and the world’s best ranking for income equality, pushed Iceland up the list.

o Korea (from 27th to 17th): Korea rates high on the government indebtedness meter, not surprising given that it was the only developed nation to avoid going into a recession after the 2007 crisis. The country also has a favorable interest rate environment.

Conversely, Japan and Israel both fell from the top 20, and Brazil slipped 21 spots to 61st, trailing such nations as Ukraine, Belarus and Bahrain.

o Japan (from 15th to 27th): Japan’s fall in the rankings has been largely due to internal financial pressures, including high taxes and an above-average level of government debt. Japan’s debt to GDP ratio is nearly 230%. An increase in bank loan defaults has contributed to Japan’s decline as well.

o Brazil (from 40th to 61st): Economic growth in recent years has not translated into improvement for the nation’s retirement system, and with slowing GDP growth and rising inflation, the current climate is unfavorable for retirees.

Sub-Saharan African nations hold all of the bottom-10 places in the report, with Zimbabwe ranking last.

Shifts in retiree financial security attributed to fluctuating macro market and economic factors

Macro market and economic factors – most notably government debt, inflation and fiscal policies – are creating risks that could have a profound influence on financial security for retirees around the globe.

Compounding the challenge, rising demand from aging populations will consume a greater share of government resources.

This dilemma has contributed to the complexities involved in solving the worldwide crisis in retirement funding, and underscores the need for more diverse, more stable sources of funding, including personal savings and investments.

Implications for individuals: More responsibility; re-engineer how they prepare financially for retirement

While many structural factors determine retirement security, individual savers and investors should focus on the factors that remain in their control – namely saving for their futures; obtaining and following professional financial advice; and acting to minimize external risks to the extent possible.

Investors globally are very confident that they are on track to meet their retirement goals, but could it be misguided confidence?

o A recent Natixis survey found that 80% believe their investing approach will provide for them in old age1

o At the same time, nearly six in 10 (58%) admit they don’t have a financial plan in place1

o And the majority of financial advisors say their clients are underestimating the amount of income they will need in retirement, and are overlooking key factors such as rising life expectancies, which could incur additional health-related costs down the road2

Role of financial advisory community never more critical

Financial advisors have a crucial role to play in addressing at least one aspect of this conundrum.

While they cannot resolve the deep structural challenges some governments face, they are in a position to drive demand for investing strategies that will give individuals greater control of their own financial security and deliver durable portfolios that can withstand market fluctuations over time. Research clearly shows that both investors and advisors are increasingly skeptical that traditional investing strategies can accomplish this in today’s investing environment.3

1 Natixis Global Asset Management, Global Survey of Individual Investors, September 2013 2 Natixis Global Asset Management, Global Survey of Financial Advisors, October 2013 3 Natixis Global Asset Management, Global Survey of Individual Investors, September 2013 & Natixis Global Asset Management, Global Survey of Financial Advisors, October 2013

One approach advisors should consider is goals-based investing, which puts the emphasis on what an individual needs to save to meet their specific goals rather than simply trying to outperform an irrelevant benchmark. Making it more personal for individuals – and reinforcing that they are key stakeholders in this process – could help them become more engaged in planning, saving and investing.

Financial advisors can also play a key role in helping individuals understand and plan for evolving trends that could eventually derail their goals and dreams. Rising life expectancies will mean longer working careers and higher income targets to be able to live comfortably in retirement. And as people around the world live longer, and health care costs continue to soar, this could cause significant asset erosion.

Durable Portfolio Construction provides a new approach that can help people pursue their retirement goals.

As they assume more of the planning and saving responsibility, investors need to think of risk first as they build durable, diversified portfolios that can manage short-term volatility, pursue long-term growth, and keep them invested through a variety of market cycles in order to realize their full savings potential.

Methodology

The Natixis CoreData Global Retirement Index is a composite welfare index which combines 20 target-oriented indicators, grouped into four thematic sub-indices.

The four sub-indices cover four relevant considerations for welfare in old age and are:

Health in Retirement Index

Material Wellbeing in Retirement Index

Quality of Life in Retirement Index

Finances in Retirement Index

Constructing the Indicators

The first step in expanding the index is to construct the 20 indicators. These are constructed by selecting and preparing the raw data obtained from reliable secondary sources, and then transforming it into normalized indices.

In order to create normalized indices, minima and maxima need to be established. As a target-oriented performance index, the maxima are determined as ideal outcomes. The selection of targets varies from variable to variable, and will be explored in greater depth later on.

The minima are in fact the opposite, and are defined as lower performance benchmarks, which mark the worst possible scenario. In some cases they will refer to subsistence minimum levels and in others, simply as the worst observed value in the sample for that variable.

These indicators are created, following Emerson, et al. (2012) and based on a “proximity-to-target” methodology by which “each country’s performance on any given indicator is measured based on its position within a range” established by the lower benchmark and the target, on a scale from 0 to 1, where 0 is equal or lower than the lower benchmark and 1 is equal or higher than the target.

The general formula to normalize the indicators is then given by:

– Indicator = (1)

However, this formula is, in certain cases, adapted to the characteristics of the data for each variable.

Again, following Emerson et al. (2012)4 most indicators are transformed into logarithms5 due to the high level of skewness of the data. This has the advantage of identifying not only differences between the worst and the best

4 Emerson, J.W., A. Hsu, M.A. Levy, A. de Sherbinin, V. Mara, D.C. Esty, and M. Jaiteh (2012), 2012 Environmental Performance Index and Pilot Trend Environmental Performance Index. New Haven: Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy.

performers, but it more clearly differentiates between top performing countries, allowing to better distinguish variations among them.

Moreover, using logarithms allows for better identification of differences across the whole scale, distinguishing between differences in performance which are equal in the absolute but very different proportionally.

Also, logarithmic functions are a better representation of variables which have a decreasing marginal welfare benefits, such as income.

Once the indicators have been created they are aggregated by obtaining their geometric mean6 to obtain the thematic indices. The geometric mean offers a number of advantages over the arithmetic mean7; this will be discussed later in this chapter8.

The four thematic sub-indices are constructed using the indicators in the following way:

1. The Health in Retirement Index: this sub-index is obtained with the geometric mean of the following indicators:

a. Life expectancy at birth Index: obtained using data from the World Bank’s World Development Indicators 2013. The target for this indicator is the sample maximum which is equal to 82.69 years, and the low performance benchmark is equal to 40 years, a figure observed in the least developed countries of the World.

b. Health expenditure per capita Index: obtained using data from World Health Organization’s (WHO) NHA database. The target set for this indicator is the sample maximum, equal to $8,361.73 USD, and the low performance benchmark is equal to the sample minimum of US$15. This indicator is transformed into logarithms, as the marginal returns to extra expenditure are decreasing.

c. Physicians per 1,000 people Index: this indicator is calculated using data from the World Bank (WB) World Development Indicators of 2013. The target set for this index is equal to the sample maximum, this is 6.723 physicians for every 1,000 people, and the low-performance benchmark

5 Logarithmic form: variables with skewed distributions are transformed into logarithmic form by taking natural logarithms of the values to make the distribution less skewed. When calculating an indicator we transform into logarithmic form by doing the following: Where: t = target or sample maximum m = minimum benchmark or sample minimum x = value of the variable

non-logarithmic indicator = (x-m) / (t-m) take logs indicator in logarithmic form =[ln(x)-ln(m)] / [ln(t)-ln(m)]

6 Geometric mean is a representation of the typical value or central tendency of a series of numbers calculated as the nth root of the product of n numbers. Geometric mean = (x1 * x2 *…*xn)1/n

7 Arithmetic mean (or average) is a representation of the typical value or central tendency of a series of numbers calculated as the sum of all the values in the series and divided by the number of numbers in the series. Arithmetic mean = (x1 +x2 +…+xn) / n

8 See Constructing the Global Retirement Index on page 14.

is equal to the sample minimum of 1. This indicator undergoes a logarithmic transformation when calculated.

d. Non-insured health expenditure Index: this indicator is included to take into account the level of expenditure in health that is not insured. The smaller the proportion of expenditure in healthcare that is uninsured the higher the probability of having access to healthcare. This indicator is calculated using data on out-of-pocket health insurance as a percentage of total health expenditure, included in the WHO NHA database. The target for this indicator is equal to 0%, which means that all of the population is covered by health insurance, and the low performance benchmark is equal to the sample maximum of 88.14%.

e. Hospital beds Index: obtained using data on the number of hospital beds for every 1,000 people included in the WB's World Development Indicators 2013. The sample maximum of 13.7 hospital beds for every 1,000 people is used as the target, and the sample minimum of 0.13 is used as a low performance benchmark. This indicator is calculated in logarithmic form.

2. The Material Wellbeing in Retirement Index: this sub-index measures the ability of a country’s population to provide for their material needs. The following indicators are aggregated by obtaining their geometric mean to obtain a single measure.

a. Income per capita Index: this indicator is calculated using data for the Gross National Income per Capita from the WB's WDI 2013. The purchasing power parity (PPP) version is used as it provides a better approximation to the real purchasing power of incomes across countries. The target used for this indicator is the sample maximum, that is US$81,300, and the low performance benchmark is equal to US$730, which is equal to US$2 per day which is widely used as a level of income that allows for a minimum subsistence level9.

b. Income equality Index: this indicator is included as it has been generally accepted that average levels of income in a society cannot on their own measure material welfare, and including a measure of equality ensures that countries with higher and more equally distributed income get a better score. This index is constructed using the GINI index with data obtained from the World Bank's World Development Indicators 2013 and completed with data from the CIA World Factbook and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The target is set at a score of 24.4, which is the sample minimum. The lower benchmark is set at 64.3, which is the sample maximum. In the GRI 2013, this indicator was calculated using not only the GINI index but also a quintile income ratio because data for the GINI index was not available for every country in the index. However, due to increased GINI index data completeness the use of the quintile income ratio was no longer necessary.

9 This is the median poverty line for all developing countries, as compared with the $1.25 (PPP) measure, which is the average national policy line for the poorest 10-20 countries. Source: World Bank, International Comparison Program (ICP) 2005, press release 26th August 2008, available: http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2008/09/16/new-data-show-14-billion-live-less-us125-day-progress-against- poverty-remains-strong. Accessed: 19th November, 2013.

c. Unemployment Index: a measure of unemployment was included in this index, despite the fact that its focus is on people who have already retired from the labor market. This is because societies with high levels of unemployment will see their social security systems under pressure putting in danger the financing and provision of services for the elderly. Moreover, retirees in countries with low unemployment levels will have a better possibility of complementing their pension incomes with employment income, which is becoming increasingly necessary and common. High levels of unemployment are also indicative of a country undergoing economic problems and it is likely that this will impact the living standards of those in retirement. The target for this index is 3% unemployment, at this level structural and cyclical unemployment can be assumed to be 0 and only frictional unemployment persists, which indicates practical full- employment. The low performance benchmark is set at 60% which is the sample maximum when excluding one outlier (Zimbabwe, 95%). The data used for this index was sourced from the World Bank's WDI 2013 and the CIA World Factbook.

3. Finances in Retirement Index: this sub-index captures the soundness of a country's financial system as well as the level of returns to savings and investment and the preservation of the purchasing power of savings. It is calculated as the arithmetic mean of the institutional strength index and the investment environment index, which is in itself the geometric mean of six indicators of the soundness of government finances and the strength of the financial system. The rationale behind this construction is that while a favorable investment environment is extremely important for the finances of retirees, this will only be long-lasting and stable in the presence of sound institutions, low levels of corruption, strong property rights and a strong regulatory framework. Hence, good governance is a necessary condition for long-term financial strength and stability and as such receives an equal weight.

The GRI 2014 doubles the weight of the institutional strength index compared to the GRI 2013, which attached a weight of only 25% to this aspect. This resulted in countries with high rates of return, but dubiously better institutions, being ranked above others with lower rates of return but strong property rights and regulatory frameworks. Also, the sub-index is calculated using a different data set, the World Bank's Governance Indicators instead of the World Governance Index, due to the fact that it offered more recent and complete data.

a. Investment Environment Index: this is calculated as the geometric mean of the following indicators. It includes a new indicator not used in the GRI 2013, the government indebtedness index, which has been included as it is a key variable for soundness of government finances and is becoming increasingly relevant, particularly in the face of rapidly ageing countries with high levels of debt.

b. Old age dependency Index: this indicator is included because a high dependency ratio poses a severe threat to the capacity of society to pay for the care of the elderly, as well as risks reducing the value of savings in the long-run, through several channels such as a fall in asset prices and a fall in output, among others. This index is calculated using data on old age dependency ratios from the WB's WDI 2013 and UN stats. The target value is equal to 10%, which reflects healthy demographics, where for every old age dependent there are 10 people in the working force. The low performance benchmark is equal to 50%, as it is potentially unsustainable to have less than 2 workers for every old age dependent.

c. Inflation index: this is important due to the fact that high inflation will reduce the purchasing power of savings and pensions, which can affect retirees disproportionately. The data used is sourced from the Index of Economic Freedom 2013 and the target is 2%, which is a level of inflation pursued by major central banks, and considered to be sufficiently close to price stability and sufficiently far from deflation to provide some buffer from either. The low performance benchmark is set at the sample maximum of 53.2%.

d. Interest rate Index: this is included as higher interest rates will increase the returns to investment and saving, and in turn increases the level of wealth of retirees, who tend to benefit more than other age groups. The data for this indicator is sourced from The Economist, the WB's WDI 2013 and the OECD.

e. Tax pressure Index: the importance of this indicator lies in the fact that higher levels of taxation will decrease the level of disposable income of retirees and affect their financial position. Data used is the tax burden from the Index of Economic Freedom 2013 which measures the total taxes collected as percentage of GDP. The data used in the GRI 2013 was from the WB's WDI 2012 and measured the taxes on income, profits and capital gains as a percentage of GDP, thus the index was skewed in favor of countries with higher indirect taxes. The target for this index is 0% of GDP, while the lower performance benchmark was set at the sample maximum of 57.7%% of GDP.

f. Bank non-performing loan Index: this indicator captures the strength of the banking system by looking at the proportion of loans that are defaulted on. The target is set at the sample minimum of 0.4%, while the lower performance benchmark is set at the sample maximum of 31.7%.

g. Government Indebtedness Index: captures the soundness and sustainability of government finances and serves as a predictor of future levels of taxation. The target level is set equal to the sample maximum of 5.7% and the lower performance benchmark is the sample maximum of 229.8%.

h. Institutional Strength Index: is calculated as the arithmetic mean of the six different dimensions of the World Bank's Governance Indicators. The target level is set equal to the maximum on the scale used by the indicators, this is +2.5, while the lower performance benchmark is equal to the lowest value of the scale, -2.5.

4. Quality of Life and Environmental Index: this sub-index captures the level of happiness and fulfillment in a society as well as the effect of environmental factors on the quality of life of individuals. It is constructed by aggregating the following indicators, where 50% of the sub-index is determined by environmental factors and the other half by the level of happiness.

a. Happiness Index: accounts for 50% of the sub-index, it is elaborated on the basis of the Ladder of Life question from the Gallup World Poll 2012, which asks individuals in different countries about their level of happiness and satisfaction with past, present and future life. The target is set at the

sample maximum, which is an average score of 7.8, and the lower benchmark at the minimum of 2.6.

b. Air pollution Index, Water pollution Index, Biodiversity and habitat Index and Climate change Index: these indicators measure the environmental quality of a country and the effects of pollution on humans. They are elaborated using data from the Environmental Performance Index 2012, as well as from the US Energy Information Administration and the World Health Organization.

Constructing the Global Retirement Index

The four sub-indices are then aggregated into the Global Retirement Index by obtaining their geometric mean. The geometric mean was chosen over the arithmetic mean as the functional form of the index in order to address the issue of perfect substitutability between the different indices when using the arithmetic mean.

In this sense, Klugman, Rodriguez and Choi (2011)10 argue that the use of an arithmetic mean is problematic because it implies that a decrease in the level of one of the sub-indices can be offset by an equal increase in the level of another sub-index without taking into account the level of each variable. This poses problems from a welfare point of view, as for example a fall in the level of health cannot be assumed to be offset by an increase in the level of income on a one-by-one basis and at a constant rate. Thus, perfect substitutability does not apply when analyzing the effects of different factors on welfare.

The opposite alternative, full complementarity, would also be problematic, as it would assume that the only way of increasing well-being is by improving two components at the same time (Klugman, Rodriguez and Choi, 2011), and so for example, an increase in the level of health would have no effect on welfare if it is not accompanied by an improvement in the other three sub-indices.

In this light, it makes sense to assume that there is some level of complementarity and some level of substitutability between the different parameters in the index, as on one hand a worsening of one of the indicators can be partially offset by an improvement of another one, but we can also assume that at least a basic level of health, financial services, material provision and quality of life is necessary in order to enjoy a good retirement.

In the end, each of the 150 countries is awarded a score between 0% and 100%, for their suitability and convenience for retirees. A score of 100% would represent the ideal country to retire to, with a great healthcare system and an outstanding health record, a very high quality of life and a well preserved environment with low levels of pollution, a sound financial system offering high rates of return and a very high level of material wealth.

10 Klugman, Rodriguez and Choi (2011), “The HDI 2010: New Controversies, Old Critiques”, Human Development Research Paper 2011/1, UNDP, New York.

Material Wellbeing Index Wellbeing Material

Health Index Source: Klugman Rodriguez and Choi (2011)

The chart graphically shows the three cases:

1. Perfect substitutability (lO): where the effect on the GRI score of a unit decrease in one of the sub-indices can be perfectly offset by a unit increase in another sub-index. For example, the GRI score will not change after a 1% decrease in the Health Index score if accompanied by a 1% increase in the Material Wellbeing Index. This assumes that welfare remains unchanged if a decrease in the health of the population is matched by a proportional increase in their material wellbeing, which is problematic (e.g. If taken to the extreme it means that the welfare of a society with middle levels of income and good health could be equal to that of a very rich society affected by a deadly epidemic.)

2. Perfect complementarity (lf): where the effect on the GRI score of a unit increase in one of the sub- indices is zero if not accompanied by an equal increase in all the other sub-indices. This means that a 1% increase in the Health Index would not increase the overall GRI score unless accompanied by a 1% increase in the other 4 sub-indices. (i.e. Assumes that an increase in health is not an increase in overall welfare unless material wellbeing, finances and quality of life all increase concurrently.)

3. Unit-elastic substitution (ln): this is the assumption made in the construction of the GRI by using the geometric means. It means that the sub-indices become perfect substitutes as their levels approach the high-end of the scale (100%) and perfect complements as their levels approach the low end of the scale (0%). As a result, when a country scores very low on one or more sub-indices, an increase to a high score on another sub-index will result in a less than proportional increase in the overall GRI score. This is consistent with the assumption that that at least a basic level of health, financial services, material provision and quality of life is necessary in order to enjoy a good retirement.

The geometric mean also offers an advantage over the arithmetic mean and other aggregation methods in that the results do not vary due to differences in the scales in which the variables are measured.

Framework

Policy Category Weight (% Indicator Weight (% of Sub- Low performance Index Sub-Index Indicators Data Source Latest Data Available Target Statistical transformation of Index) Index) benchmark

Sample Maximum (82.69 years, Life Expectancy Index GEOMEAN Life Expectancy at Birth 1 World Bank WDI 2013 2011 40 years none Switzerland) Health Expenditure per Health Expenditure Per World Health Oganisation Sample Maximum ($8607.88, GEOMEAN Capita PPP (Constant 2005 1 2011 $15 USD natural logarithm Capita Index NHA Database USA) USD$) Physicians per 1000 people Health Index GEOMEAN Physicians per 1,000 people 1 World Bank WDI 2013 2011, 2010 Sample Maximum (6.723, Cuba) 1 natural logarithm index Out of pocket health Non-insured health World Health Oganisation Sample Maximum (80.68%, GEOMEAN expenditure (% of total 1 2011 0% none expenditure index NHA Database Myanmar) health expenditure) Hospital Beds per 1,000 Hospital Beds Index GEOMEAN 1 World Bank WDI 2013 2011, 2010, 2009 Sample Maximum (13.65, Japan) Sample Minimum (0.1, Mali) natural logarithm people

World Bank WDI 2013, CIA Between 2008 and 2011 Sample Maximum (Comoros, Income Equality Index GEOMEAN GINI Index 1 Sample Minimum (24.4, Iceland) natural logarithm World Factbook depending on Country 64.3) GNI per capita, PPP World Bank WDI 2013, CIA Sample Maximum ($81,300, Material Wellbeing Index Income per capita Index GEOMEAN (Current International 1 2012 $730 ($2 per day) natural logarithm World Factbook Qatar) USD$) Sample Maximum (60%, Unemployment (%of total World Bank WDI 2013, CIA Unemployment Index GEOMEAN 1 2011 3% Unemployment Turkmenistan) (excluding natural logarithm labour force) World Factbook Zimbabwe, 95%) Average of World Bank World Bank Governance Institutional Strength Index 0.50 1 2012 Maximum on Scale (2.5) Minimum on Scale (-2.5) natural logarithm Governance Indicators Indicators 2013 Age dependency ratio, old World Bank WDI 2012, UN (% of working age GEOMEAN 2010 10% 50% natural logarithm Stats population) Bank nonperforming loans Sample Minimum (0.4%, Sample Maximum (31.7%, GEOMEAN World Bank WDI 2013 2012 natural logarithm to total gross loans (%) Luxembourg) Kazakhstan)

Finances in Retirement Inflation, consumer prices Index of Economic Freedom Sample Maximum (53.2%, GEOMEAN 2012 2% natural logarithm Index (% annual) 2013 Belarus) Finances Sub-Index 0.50 World Bank WDI 2013, The Real interest rate (%) GEOMEAN 2013, 2012 20% 0% natural logarithm Economist, OECD

Government Debt (% of Index of Economic Freedom Sample Minimum (5.7%, Sample Maximum (229.8%, GEOMEAN 2012 natural logarithm GDP) 2013 Madagascar) Japan)

Index of Economic Freedom Sample Maximum (57.7%, Tax Burden (% of GDP) GEOMEAN 2012 0% natural logarithm 2013 Lesotho) WHO / UNICEF Joint Indoor air pollution 0.5 Monitoring Programme (JMP) 2008 0% of population exposed 100 natural logarithm Air pollution Index (EPI 0.125 for Water Supply and Sanitation 2012) NASA Goddard Data and Particulate matter 0.5 Applications Center; NASA 2010 10 ug/m3 48.7916 natural logarithm Socioeconomic Data and WHO / UNICEF Joint Access to drinking water 0.5 Monitoring Programme (JMP) 2011 100% of population with access 36 inverse, natural logarithm

Water Pollution Index 0.125 for Water Supply and Sanitation WHO / UNICEF Joint Access to sanitation 0.5 Monitoring Programme (JMP) 2011 100% of population with access 13 inverse, natural logarithm for Water Supply and Sanitation UNEP World Conservation 17% weighted average of Biome protection 0.5 Monitoring Centre; World 2010 0 none biomes protected Wildlife Fund USA IUCN and UNEP 10% of country's terestrial seas Biodiversity and habitat 0.125 Marine protection* 0.25 WCMC(2011); VLIZ Maritime 2011 and exclussive economic zone 0.00000117 natural logarithm index (EPI 2012) Quality of life / Boundaries Geodatabase protected Environmental Index Critical habitat Alliance for Zero Extinction, 100% of critical habitats 0.25 2011 0 none protection*** The Nature Conservancy protected 1262 kg CO2 eq.(Estimated US Energy Information CO2 per capita 0.33 2011 value associated with 50% 19588.33059 natural logarithm Administration (IEA) reduction in global GHG 0.07842 kg CO2 eq. (Estimated US Energy Information CO2 per GDP 0.33 2011 value associated with 50% 1.532823116 natural logarithm Administration (IEA) Climate Change Index 0.125 reduction in global GHG CO2 emissions per US Energy Information 0.165 2011 0 grammes CO2 per KWh 845.3289722 natural logarithm electricity generation**** Administration (IEA)

US Energy Information 100% electricity from renewable Renewable electricity 0.165 2011 0 none Administration (IEA) sources

Happiness Index 0.500 Ladder of Life 1 Gallup World Poll (2012) 2012 Sample Maximum (7.8, Canada) Sample Minimum (2.6, Togo) natural logarithm

The Global Retirement Index 2014

A holistic assessment of the life conditions for retirees should not be limited to a "snapshot" at a particular point in time but, more importantly, should aim to capture the evolution of the key drivers of wellbeing among people of retirement age. Changes in these drivers reflect not only movements associated with the economic cycle but, more importantly, underlying fundamental trends in policy, economic development, demographics and environmental preservation.

We believe the analysis of these different trends is vital to paint an accurate picture of the way in which retiree life will evolve in the long run, and which particular factors may increase or decrease overall retiree welfare in a particular nation. One of the important objectives of this report is to identify key factors which may cause shifts in the fundamental trends mentioned above, (economic development, demographics, policy and environmental preservation).

The map below shows the overall scores obtained in this year’s Global Retirement Index. The highest performers, scoring over 70%, are either North American or Northern European nations, with the exception of a minority of Asian nations, (i.e. Japan, Australia, etc.). In terms of the lower scale, nations scoring 40% and under are predominantly Sub-Saharan nations, with some Middle Eastern and Southeast Asian countries.

The Best and Worst Performers

The group of best performers in this year’s Global Retirement Index is composed of the four Nordic countries, (Finland, Sweden, Denmark and Norway), four of the six official German-speaking nations (Switzerland, Luxembourg, Germany and Austria), Australia and New Zealand.

1 Norway 84% Sweden 79%

2 Germany Finland 2 79% 78%

7 Luxembourg Denmark 2 78% 79%

Austria 2 81%

Switzerland 1 84% Chad 4 27% Mali 2 26%

Congo, Dem. Rep. 4 2 Guinea 24% 27% Zimbabwe 20% 5 Togo 23% Comoros 1 21% 5 Niger 21%

Lesotho 5 Australia 6 24% 79% 22 Burundi 22%

Legend: New Zealand 13 Top 10 78%

Bottom 10

Generally speaking, these top performing nations are modern industrialized economies with important service sectors and modern infrastructure. Although these countries do have relatively high tax burdens, their citizens still benefit from some of the highest income levels per capita, whilst also having narrow income gaps. In addition, the citizens of these nations benefit from outstanding universal health care systems, and equally government policy is geared towards ensuring high standards with regards to the environment and overall well-being.

The group of worst performers in this year’s Global Retirement Index is composed uniquely of Sub-Saharan countries (Chad, Mali, Guinea, Togo, Niger, Burundi, Lesotho, Comoros, Zimbabwe and DR Congo).

In general, these nations lack modern infrastructure with non-existent or underdeveloped health care systems. These nations have some of the lowest levels of income per capita and are often burdened with substantial barriers to economic development, such as high levels of inflation and sovereign debt. Furthermore, improvement in key indicators seems unlikely in the short term due to these chronic economic issues.

In terms of the Health sub-index, the top 30 performers have modern health care systems, which include high levels of physicians per capita, sustainable health expenditure per capita and high life expectancy. The lowest overall score is 71% for Cyprus and the UAE, and the best score is 90% for Austria. Similarly in the Quality of Life

sub-index, all top 30 countries score above 70% (except for Malta with 60%) and Switzerland tops the sub-index with a score of 95%. As government policy becomes increasingly focused on issues related to the environment and pollution, welfare in these countries has reached a relatively high standard, and therefore they tend to perform well in the Quality of life sub-index.

Fina nc e s in Quality Material Globa l Health Rank Country Retirement of Life Wellbeing Retirement Index Index Index Index Index 1 Sw itzerland 86% 71% 95% 87% 84% 2 Nor w ay 86% 66% 89% 97% 84% 3 Austria 90% 63% 86% 89% 81% 4 Sw eden 83% 68% 87% 82% 79% 5 Australia 84% 74% 82% 78% 79% 6 De nm ar k 83% 64% 87% 83% 79% 7 Ge rm any 88% 63% 85% 82% 79% 8 Finland 82% 68% 83% 81% 78% 9 Ne w Ze aland 79% 72% 87% 75% 78% 10 Luxembourg 85% 59% 80% 89% 78% 11 Iceland 85% 60% 85% 83% 77% 12 Be lgium 86% 62% 81% 82% 77% 13 Ne the r lands 86% 56% 83% 86% 77% 14 Canada 79% 69% 83% 76% 77% 15 Fr ance 88% 61% 85% 74% 76% 16 Czech Republic 83% 63% 76% 80% 75% 17 Kor e a, Re p. 77% 68% 71% 83% 74% 18 Unite d Kingdom 81% 58% 87% 72% 74% 19 Unite d State s 81% 65% 80% 68% 73% 20 Israel 79% 63% 81% 70% 73% 21 Slovenia 80% 60% 73% 80% 73% 22 Slovak Republic 78% 64% 78% 70% 72% 23 Italy 82% 53% 83% 73% 72% 24 Ireland 82% 63% 78% 65% 71% 25 Cyprus 71% 64% 74% 76% 71% 26 Unite d Ar ab Em ir ate s 71% 55% 72% 84% 70% 27 Japan 84% 47% 76% 78% 69% 28 Malta 79% 62% 60% 80% 69% 29 Spain 83% 62% 79% 57% 69% 30 Poland 75% 62% 70% 67% 68%

The overall score for the Finances in Retirement sub-index tends to be relatively low due to many of the top 30 nations having low-birth rates and increasing numbers of retirees as a proportion of their population, coupled with high levels of sovereign debt. For example, the highest score is only 74% for Australia and the lowest is 47% for Japan. In terms of the Material Wellbeing sub-indices, the best performing nations such as Norway and Luxembourg tend to have high levels of income per capita and low unemployment. The highest scoring nation is Norway with 97% and the lowest is Spain with 57%.

In this year’s GRI, with exception of Turkmenistan and Haiti, the 30 worst performers are Sub-Saharan nations. Due to high levels of pollution and little resources in terms of disease prevention, these nations score low in the Quality of Life sub-index, with most countries scoring under 50%, and the lowest score being 14% for Comoros. Similarly, with respect to the Health index, scores do not exceed 40% (except for Turkmenistan with 60%) and the lowest score is 11% for Mali. This is due to an under-developed healthcare system, poor medical infrastructure, and low levels of physicians per capita, which results in low life expectancy and high infant mortality rates.

Fina nc e s in Quality Material Globa l Health Rank Country Retirement of Life Wellbeing Retirement Index Index Index Index Index 121 Bots w ana 38% 68% 41% 18% 37%

122 Bur k ina Fas o 21% 46% 45% 42% 37% 123 Madagascar 23% 64% 43% 28% 37%

124 Ke nya 31% 54% 50% 20% 36% 125 Turkmenistan 60% 35% 57% 14% 36%

126 Sudan 31% 29% 42% 37% 34% 127 Mozambique 19% 61% 51% 22% 34% 128 Cote d'Ivoire 22% 37% 50% 31% 33% 129 Et h io p ia 23% 38% 48% 30% 33% 130 Tanzania 17% 61% 26% 43% 33% 131 Congo, Rep. 30% 64% 38% 16% 33% 132 Be nin 23% 46% 36% 31% 33% 133 Malawi 21% 61% 67% 12% 32% 134 Djibouti 38% 57% 44% 11% 32% 135 Afghanistan 22% 52% 32% 28% 32% 136 Senegal 24% 45% 41% 20% 31% 137 Haiti 37% 57% 34% 11% 30% 138 Liberia 21% 59% 35% 17% 29% 139 Sierra Leone 13% 50% 33% 29% 28% 140 Central African Republic 17% 58% 41% 15% 28% 141 Chad 16% 61% 34% 16% 27% 142 Guine a 20% 33% 43% 18% 27% 143 Mali 11% 43% 35% 26% 26% 144 Lesotho 24% 51% 24% 11% 24% 145 Congo, Dem. Rep. 28% 46% 40% 6% 24% 146 Togo 23% 40% 20% 16% 23% 147 Bur undi 20% 34% 44% 8% 22% 148 Nige r 15% 43% 36% 8% 21% 149 Comoros 31% 57% 14% 7% 21% 150 Zimbabwe 19% 53% 60% 3% 20%

These countries perform equally poorly in the Material Wellbeing sub-index, where only Burkina Faso and Tanzania score over 40%, and Zimbabwe only scores 3%. The main reasons for such low scores are very low levels of income per capita and also the highest rates of income inequality in the world. In contrast, with low levels of tax pressures and overall low age dependency, the performance in the Finances in Retirement sub-index is impressive as seven nations beat the 60% mark, and Botswana scores the highest with 68%. However, one should bear in mind that high performance in the Finances in Retirement sub-index does not take into account future political and economic instability.

Regional Perspective Western Europe maintains its top position in this year’s Global Retirement Index, although it only improved its overall score in the Quality of Life sub-index, moving from 80% to 83%. In the other sub-indices, its score worsened, with a drop of 4% in the Finances in Retirement sub-index, and a low Material Wellbeing sub-index score with only 74% this year. Eastern Europe and Central Asia performed particularly well in this year’s GRI as their score increased in all but the Material Wellbeing sub-index, where the region’s score dropped by 4% to 62%. However, it did improve its overall score, with its Global Retirement Index score increasing from 56% last year to 59% this year.

The Middle East and North Africa’s performance was stable in this year’s GRI at 54%. It improved its standing in the Quality of Life and the Finances in Retirement sub-index, although its performance in the Material Wellbeing index underwent a substantial drop, from 64% to 57%. The Asia Pacific region remained stable with an overall score of 53%, despite having improved in the Quality of life sub-index by 5% and its score in the Health sub-index by 2%, although its score in the Material Wellbeing sub-index fell by 6% to 59%.

With an overall score of 74% in this year’s Global Retirement Index, North America is the second top performing region. It performed especially well in the Material Wellbeing sub-index, second only to Western Europe with 69%, and it also outperformed its previous score in the Quality of life Index, scoring 81%. Latin America and the Caribbean dropped to an overall score of 59%, mainly due to a worsening performance in the Material Wellbeing and the Finances in Retirement sub-indices, where they respectively scored 46% and 60%.

As stated previously, Sub-Saharan Africa’s performance has been particularly poor in this year’s GRI, having performed worse in the Health sub-index, (scoring 27%), and the Material Wellbeing sub-index, (scoring 26%). Although Sub-Saharan Africa did manage to improve in the Finances in Retirement sub-index and Quality of Life sub-indices, it only scores 34% overall, and finishes last by a substantial margin (Asia-Pacific finished second to last with an overall score of 51%).

The Top 30: Year-on-Year Trend This year’s top 30 performers in the Global Retirement Index are overwhelmingly represented by Europe and North America. Other regional groups were also represented, such as Asia Pacific, with South Korea, Japan, Australia and New Zealand. Finally, Israel and the United Arab Emirates were the two nations representing the Middle East. There were no top performers on the list from either Latin America or Africa.

Difference Difference Ranking Ranking Score Score Country in in 2014 2013 2014 2013 Ranking Score

Sw itzerland 1 2 84% 87% -3%

Nor w ay 2 1 84% 87% -3% Austria 3 5 81% 81% 0% Sw eden 4 4 79% 82% -2% Australia 5 11 79% 78% 1% De nm ar k 6 8 79% 79% 0% 2 Ge rm any 7 9 79% 78% 0% Finland 8 6 78% 79% -1% Ne w Ze aland 9 22 78% 73% 5% Luxembourg 10 3 78% 82% -4% Iceland 11 23 77% 73% 4% Be lgium 12 14 77% 77% 0% Ne the r lands 13 7 77% 80% -3% Canada 14 13 77% 77% -1% Fr ance 15 10 76% 78% -2% Czech Republic 16 17 75% 74% 2% Kor e a, Re p. 17 27 74% 72% 2% Unite d Kingdom 18 20 74% 74% 0% Unite d State s 19 19 73% 74% -1% Israel 20 12 73% 77% -4% Slovenia 21 16 73% 76% -3% Slovak Republic 22 18 72% 74% -2% Italy 23 21 72% 74% -2% Ireland 24 48 71% 64% 7% Cyprus 25 24 71% 73% -2% Unite d Ar ab Em ir ate s 26 30 70% 71% -2%

Japan 27 15 69% 77% -7% Malta 28 26 69% 73% -3%

Spain 29 25 69% 73% -4% Poland 30 36 68% 70% -1%

The most important move in this year’s GRI is Ireland’s 7% increase to a score of 71%, which placed Ireland in 24th position up from 48th place in the 2013 GRI. Iceland also increased its score to 77%, ranking 11th in this year’s GRI, up from 23rd place last year. Both Ireland and Iceland improved their performance in the Finances in Retirement index, due to positive outcomes regarding the sovereign debt crisis. In terms of worst performers, Japan dropped 7% in its overall score and now ranks 27th down from 15th place in last year’s GRI. Israel was the second worst performer, dropping from 12th position to 20th in the 2014 GRI. In the case of Japan and Israel, performance in the Finances in Retirement sub-index was limited by high tax pressures and high levels of government debt.

1. Switzerland

Health 100%

75%

Material 50% Finances Wellbeing

2014 2013 Switzerland Quality of Top 30 Average Life

Global Retirement Index 2014 2013 Change

Rank ing 1 2 Score 84% 87% Sub-Index and Indicator Rankings 2014 2013 Change 2014 2013 Change He alth Inde x Finances in Retirement 5 9 6 1

Life Expectancy 1 2 Old-Age De pe nde ncy 133 133

Health Expenditure per Capita 4 4 Bank Non-Pe r for m ing Loans 6 1 Physicians per Capita 7 8 Inflation 1 1 Non- Insured Health Expenditure 53 65 Interest Rates 106 82 Hos pital Be ds pe r Capita 31 29 Tax Pressure 115 86 2014 2013 Change Gove rnance 6 6 Quality of Life Index 1 1 Government Indebtedness 95 Well-Being 4 4 2014 2013 Change Material Wellbeing Index Air Pollution 1 1 5 9

Water Pollution 1 1 Income Equality 24 41 Biodive r s ity and Habitat 10 10 Income per Capita 5 6 Climate Change 28 42 Une m ploym e nt 25 21

This year’s Global Retirement Index is topped by Switzerland after moving up one place and marginally overtaking last year’s highest ranked country, Norway. Interestingly, Switzerland has climbed one place in the rankings despite having an overall score of 84%, compared to 87% last year, signaling that average scores have gone down at the top of the rankings. The inclusion of a government indebtedness indicator serves to explain this, as it is developed country governments that generally have higher levels of debt as a percentage of GDP.

This new indicator, coupled with historically low real interest rates and a rise in the proportion of bank loans that are in default relative to other countries in the index, resulted in Switzerland falling from 1st to 6th place in the Finances in Retirement sub-index. In contrast, decreasing income inequality and rising incomes saw the country jump from 9th to 5th place in the Material Wellbeing sub-index.

Improvements in the number of physicians per capita and the proportion of total health expenditure covered by insurance resulted in a rise from 9th to 5th place in the Health sub-index, which coupled with a top spot in the Quality of Life sub-index signal an increasing level of welfare among retirees and future retirees.

2. Norway

Health 100%

75%

Material 50% Finances Wellbeing

2014 2013

Norway Quality of Top 30 Average Life Global Retirement Index 2014 2013 Change

Rank ing 2 1 Score 84% 87% Sub-Index and Indicator Rankings 2014 2013 Change 2014 2013 Change He alth Inde x Finances in Retirement 4 4 19 4

Life Expectancy 12 11 Old-Age De pe nde ncy 129 128

Health Expenditure per Capita 3 3 Bank Non-Pe r for m ing Loans 16 10 Physicians per Capita 6 6 Inflation 1 44 Non- Insured Health Expenditure 16 26 Interest Rates 116 23 Hos pital Be ds pe r Capita 54 52 Tax Pressure 143 140 2014 2013 Change Gove rnance 4 7 Quality of Life Index 2 2 Government Indebtedness 98 Well-Being 3 3 2014 2013 Change Material Wellbeing Index Air Pollution 1 1 1 1 Water Pollution 1 1 Income Equality 3 3 Biodive r s ity and Habitat 64 64 Income per Capita 2 2 Climate Change 39 49 Une m ploym e nt 14 15

While Norway loses one place in the rankings in this year’s Global Retirement Index, going from 1st to 2nd place, it is a country with an extremely high quality of life, an outstanding healthcare system and a sound financial system. Moreover, it is one of the wealthiest countries in the world (on a per capita basis) with a sovereign wealth fund worth over $800bn, or nearly twice the value of the country’s annual output.

In fact, and despite its fall in the rankings, Norway sees improvement in a number of indicators and outperforms the average of the top 30 countries in all 4 dimensions of the GRI, particularly in the Material Wellbeing and the Quality of Life sub-indices. Norway’s most notable improvements over the last year can be seen in a lower level of inflation, which prevents the loss of purchasing power of savings, a decrease in the level of unemployment, as well as notable improvement in the curtailment of factors that lead to climate change, most notably CO2 emissions.

On the other hand, Norway’s ageing population sees it underperform in the Old-Age Dependency indicator, its ultra-low interest rate environment poses huge challenges for investors to grow their retirement savings and its high levels of taxation (43% of GDP) hurt disposable incomes and the capacity to put aside savings for retirement.

3. Austria

Health 100%

75%

Material 50% Finances Wellbeing

2014 2013 Austria Quality of Top 30 Average Life Global Retirement Index 2014 2013 Change

Rank ing 3 5 Score 81% 81% Sub-Index and Indicator Rankings 2014 2013 Change 2014 2013 Change He alth Inde x Finances in Retirement 1 1 35 45

Life Expectancy 15 19 Old-Age De pe nde ncy 140 141

Health Expenditure per Capita 8 8 Bank Non-Pe r for m ing Loans 35 28 Physicians per Capita 3 4 Inflation 46 1 Non- Insured Health Expenditure 27 22 Interest Rates 113 103 Hos pital Be ds pe r Capita 7 6 Tax Pressure 141 106 2014 2013 Change Gove rnance 12 11 Quality of Life Index 8 7 Government Indebtedness 123 Well-Being 11 11 2014 2013 Change Material Wellbeing Index Air Pollution 1 1 3 4 Water Pollution 1 1 Income Equality 11 14 Biodive r s ity and Habitat 76 76 Income per Capita 9 10 Climate Change 44 58 Une m ploym e nt 25 24

Austria takes the bronze medal in this year’s Global Retirement Index, up from 5th place in last year’s index. Austria has a well-developed social market economy and a high standard of living, with an exceptional universal health care system. In addition, Austria is also one of the wealthiest nations in the European Union with approximately $44,000 in income per capita.

Austria maintains its top position in the Health sub-index, with impressive figures in the physicians and health expenditure per capita indicators, and a higher relative life expectancy compared to last year’s figures, (an increase from 80 years to 81 years of age). In terms of the Material Wellbeing sub-index, Austria is now in 3rd place and substantially outperforms the average of the top 30 nations in this category, due to high income equality and low levels of unemployment, (around 4% in 2014).

Although Austria’s financial system is somewhat burdened with tax and inflationary pressures, it has enabled Austrian retirees to benefit from one of the best health care systems.

4. Sweden

Health 100%

75%

Material 50% Finances Wellbeing

2014 2013 Sweden Quality of Top 30 Average Life Global Retirement Index 2014 2013 Change

Rank ing 4 4 Score 79% 82% Sub-Index and Indicator Rankings 2014 2013 Change 2014 2013 Change He alth Inde x Finances in Retirement 15 17 14 9

Life Expectancy 9 8 Old-Age De pe nde ncy 146 147

Health Expenditure per Capita 13 12 Bank Non-Pe r for m ing Loans 5 16 Physicians per Capita 13 12 Inflation 1 1 Non- Insured Health Expenditure 30 31 Interest Rates 88 100 Hos pital Be ds pe r Capita 63 61 Tax Pressure 147 79 2014 2013 Change Gove rnance 2 3 Quality of Life Index 5 4 Government Indebtedness 64 Well-Being 4 4 2014 2013 Change Material Wellbeing Index Air Pollution 1 1 14 12 Water Pollution 1 1 Income Equality 12 1 Biodive r s ity and Habitat 89 89 Income per Capita 8 11 Climate Change 38 43 Une m ploym e nt 66 71

Although Sweden’s overall score has decreased to 79%, it still manages to maintain 4th position in this year’s Global Retirement Index. Sweden is a prime example of the Nordic model, a competitive, export-oriented and capitalist economy, with a universal welfare system. Sweden’s universal health care system, with high levels of physicians per capita, (close to 4 per 1,000 people), and high life expectancy, (around 82 years), making it one of the top health care systems in this index.

With regards to material wellbeing, Swedes benefit from high levels of income equality and one of the highest levels of income per capita in the EU with around $42,000 per capita. However, in order to sustain a generous welfare state, tax pressures have substantially increased, which have impacted the Finances in Retirement sub- index, (the tax burden as a percentage of GDP is estimated at 46% in 2014).

In terms of the Quality of Life sub-index, Sweden takes the 5th position, as policy makers continue to focus their efforts on important environmental concerns such as climate change. Overall, Sweden performs extremely well as its worst position over the four sub-indices is 15th place in the Health sub-index.

5. Australia

Health 100%

75%

Material 50% Finances Wellbeing

2014 2013 Australia Quality of Top 30 Average Life Global Retirement Index 2014 2013 Change

Rank ing 5 11 Score 79% 78% Sub-Index and Indicator Rankings 2014 2013 Change 2014 2013 Change He alth Inde x Finances in Retirement 11 22 2 13

Life Expectancy 8 4 Old-Age De pe nde ncy 119 119

Health Expenditure per Capita 14 15 Bank Non-Pe r for m ing Loans 20 20 Physicians per Capita 10 32 Inflation 33 51 Non- Insured Health Expenditure 43 45 Interest Rates 98 46 Hos pital Be ds pe r Capita 43 42 Tax Pressure 89 147 2014 2013 Change Gove rnance 10 10 Quality of Life Index 18 25 Government Indebtedness 28 Well-Being 8 8 2014 2013 Change Material Wellbeing Index Air Pollution 1 1 19 15 Water Pollution 1 1 Income Equality 48 45 Biodive r s ity and Habitat 27 27 Income per Capita 12 16 Climate Change 130 121 Une m ploym e nt 42 33

Australia has increased its ranking in this year’s Global Retirement Index, from 11th to 5th place. Australia is one of the fastest growing developed economies in the world, with a strong services and commodities industry. Australians benefit from a strong welfare system, high income equality but unlike other large economies Australia has extremely low levels of unemployment, (approximately 5% in 2014).

Australia’s performance in the Finances in Retirement sub-index puts it into 2nd place, with low tax pressures and low levels of inflation, 2.4% in 2014. In addition, improvements in the number of physicians per capita, (an increase from 3 to 4 physicians per 1000 people in 2014), and stability in the total health expenditure covered by insurance resulted in a rise from 22nd place to 11th place in the Health sub-index.

In terms of the Quality of Life sub-index, Australia has improved its standing, with high indicators of well-being and water and air pollution.

6. Denmark

Health 100%

75%

Material 50% Finances Wellbeing

2014 2013 Denmark Quality of Top 30 Average Life Global Retirement Index 2014 2013 Change

Rank ing 6 8 Score 79% 79% Sub-Index and Indicator Rankings 2014 2013 Change 2014 2013 Change He alth Inde x Finances in Retirement 12 14 26 47

Life Expectancy 27 28 Old-Age De pe nde ncy 139 135

Health Expenditure per Capita 6 6 Bank Non-Pe r for m ing Loans 52 52 Physicians per Capita 25 24 Inflation 21 40 Non- Insured Health Expenditure 15 15 Interest Rates 100 95 Hos pital Be ds pe r Capita 49 47 Tax Pressure 148 148 2014 2013 Change Gove rnance 5 2 Quality of Life Index 3 8 Government Indebtedness 92 Well-Being 1 1 2014 2013 Change Material Wellbeing Index Air Pollution 1 1 10 10 Water Pollution 1 1 Income Equality 4 6 Biodive r s ity and Habitat 70 70 Income per Capita 11 9 Climate Change 67 82 Une m ploym e nt 67 57

In this year’s Global Retirement Index, Denmark has increased its standing from 8th to 6th place, even though its overall score has remained at 79%. Considered a modern market economy, Danish people also benefit from extensive government welfare measures and comfortable living standards. As shown in the Material Wellbeing sub-index, Denmark has extremely low levels of income inequality whilst possessing one of the highest levels of income per capita, with approximately $40,000 per capita.

In terms of its financial system, Denmark has increased its ranking in the Finances in Retirement to 26th place, with a reduction of inflation (2.3% to 0.5% from 2013 to 2014), and overall lower levels of governance. With regards to the Health sub-index, Denmark also improves its ranking, with one of the most favorable levels of health expenditure per capita coupled with a high number of physicians per capita, (3.5 physicians per 1000 people in 2014).

Denmark is famous for being one of the ‘happiest’ nations on the planet. This is reflected in the Quality of Life sub- index where it now ranks third, with a top spot for the well-being indicator.

7. Germany

Health 100%

75%

Material 50% Finances Wellbeing

2014 2013 Germany Quality of Top 30 Average Life Global Retirement Index 2014 2013 Change

Rank ing 7 9 Score 79% 78% Sub-Index and Indicator Rankings 2014 2013 Change 2014 2013 Change He alth Inde x Finances in Retirement 2 3 41 51

Life Expectancy 21 22 Old-Age De pe nde ncy 149 148

Health Expenditure per Capita 9 9 Bank Non-Pe r for m ing Loans 39 42 Physicians per Capita 18 20 Inflation 18 1 Non- Insured Health Expenditure 12 13 Interest Rates 114 103 Hos pital Be ds pe r Capita 6 5 Tax Pressure 132 71 2014 2013 Change Gove rnance 14 15 Quality of Life Index 11 12 Government Indebtedness 131 Well-Being 25 25 2014 2013 Change Material Wellbeing Index Air Pollution 1 1 13 13 Water Pollution 1 1 Income Equality 19 12 Biodive r s ity and Habitat 1 1 Income per Capita 15 14 Climate Change 88 95 Une m ploym e nt 50 49

Germany has increased its ranking in this year’s Global Retirement Index from 9th to 7th place. Germany is the largest economy in Europe, with an important service sector and a strong export-oriented economy specializing in high-end manufactured goods. In conjunction with strong economic fundamentals, it also has a top welfare and health care system.

In this year’s report, Germany has performed extremely well in the Health sub-index, with improvements in almost every indicator, such as the number of physicians per capita and insured health expenditure, it is now in 2nd place. Germany also improves its standing in the Quality of Life sub-index, as German policy has continued to focus on environmental issues, having also increased its performance with regards to climate change.

In terms of the Finances in Retirement sub-index, although increased tax pressures could hinder economic prosperity, low levels of inflation and sustainable government debt, (82% of Debt to GDP ratio in 2014), have contributed to increasing Germany’s standing to 41st position, which outperforms the average of the top 30 nations.

8. Finland

Health 100%

75%

Material 50% Finances Wellbeing

2014 2013 Finland Quality of Top 30 Average Life Global Retirement Index 2014 2013 Change

Rank ing 8 6 Score 78% 80% Sub-Index and Indicator Rankings 2014 2013 Change 2014 2013 Change He alth Inde x Finances in Retirement 18 18 12 11

Life Expectancy 25 24 Old-Age De pe nde ncy 145 142

Health Expenditure per Capita 15 16 Bank Non-Pe r for m ing Loans 2 1 Physicians per Capita 35 34 Inflation 31 1

Non-Ins ur e d He alth Expe nditur e 40 36 Interest Rates 110 103 Hos pital Be ds pe r Capita 22 20 Tax Pressure 142 105 2014 2013 Change Gove rnance 1 1 Quality of Life Index 16 19 Government Indebtedness 95 Well-Being 8 8 2014 2013 Change Material Wellbeing Index Air Pollution 1 1 15 14

Water Pollution 1 1 Income Equality 7 5 Biodive r s ity and Habitat 88 88 Income per Capita 17 15 Climate Change 81 90 Une m ploym e nt 68 71

Finland loses two places in the rankings in this year’s Global Retirement Index, going from 6th to 8th place. It is a country with an overall high quality of life, and although its ranking in Finances in Retirement and Material Wellbeing sub-indices have decreased, it still maintains a great healthcare system and a sound financial system.

Despite being the only Nordic nation to be part of the Eurozone, Finland still manages to offer a comfortable situation to retirees and future retirees, with low levels of inflation and other indicators such as positive results for bank non-performing loans. In addition, as a mixed economy, Finland has one of the highest levels of income per capita, and is one of the best performers worldwide in terms of income equality. Thus, in both the Finances in Retirement and Material Wellbeing sub-indices, Finland outperforms this year’s average of top 30 performers.

In terms of the Health sub-index, Finland’s performance is similar to other Nordic nations, with an overall good performance in health care services and expenditure. However, Finland’s most notable improvement has been in the Quality of Life sub-index, where it increased its position to 16th.

9. New Zealand

Health 100%

75%

Material 50% Finances Wellbeing

2014 2013 New Zealand Quality of Top 30 Average Life Global Retirement Index 2014 2013 Change

Rank ing 9 22 Score 78% 73% Sub-Index and Indicator Rankings 2014 2013 Change 2014 2013 Change He alth Inde x Finances in Retirement 26 10 5 88

Life Expectancy 17 15 Old-Age De pe nde ncy 118 116

Health Expenditure per Capita 21 21 Bank Non-Pe r for m ing Loans 16 94 Physicians per Capita 45 40 Inflation 54 54

Non-Ins ur e d He alth Expe nditur e 9 8 Interest Rates 73 61 Hos pital Be ds pe r Capita 69 Tax Pressure 120 149 2014 2013 Change Gove rnance 3 4 Quality of Life Index 6 5 Government Indebtedness 62 Well-Being 15 15 2014 2013 Change Material Wellbeing Index Air Pollution 1 1 26 25

Water Pollution 1 1 Income Equality 35 63 Biodive r s ity and Habitat 46 46 Income per Capita 27 26 Climate Change 65 64 Une m ploym e nt 53 43

New Zealand improves its overall score to 78%, moving it from 22nd into 9th position in this year’s Global Retirement Index. New Zealand is considered to be a free market economy, particularly dependent on international trade and also one of the top nations for ease of doing business. In this year’s Finances in Retirement sub-index with a move from 88th place to 5th place, due to a lowering of tax pressures and increased performance on various indicators such as bank non-performing loans.

New Zealand remains relatively stable in the Material Wellbeing sub-index, even though it substantially improves on income equality and still retains a high ratio of income per capita. Nonetheless, it has suffered increases in unemployment levels since the 2008 crisis. In terms of the Quality of Life sub-index, New Zealand continues to outperform the top 30 average, with policies remaining focused on environmental issues.

Finally, with regards to the Health sub-index, New Zealand falls to 26th place, although it does have a good health care system, it experienced lower indicators compared to last year, with deceases in physicians per capita and life expectancy.

10. Luxembourg

Health 100%

75%

Material 50% Finances Wellbeing

2014 2013 Luxembourg Quality of Top 30 Average Life

Global Retirement Index 2014 2013 Change

Rank ing 10 3 Score 78% 82% Sub-Index and Indicator Rankings 2014 2013 Change 2014 2013 Change He alth Inde x Finances in Retirement 8 6 71 19

Life Expectancy 16 21 Old-Age De pe nde ncy 117 121

Health Expenditure per Capita 2 2 Bank Non-Pe r for m ing Loans 1 1 Physicians per Capita 40 37 Inflation 33 38

Non-Ins ur e d He alth Expe nditur e 11 10 Interest Rates 118 103 Hos pital Be ds pe r Capita 26 25 Tax Pressure 134 136 2014 2013 Change Gove rnance 8 5 Quality of Life Index 23 18 Government Indebtedness 24 Well-Being 18 18 2014 2013 Change Material Wellbeing Index Air Pollution 1 1 2 2

Water Pollution 1 1 Income Equality 13 7 Biodive r s ity and Habitat 1 1 Income per Capita 3 1 Climate Change 135 114 Une m ploym e nt 38 24

Luxembourg has seen its ranking move from 3rd to 10th place in this year’s Global Retirement Index. Luxembourg is one of the most prosperous economies in the world, the 3rd highest income per capita in the world, and an outstanding health care system. However, Luxembourg’s banking industry, the largest sector of its economy, was severely hit by the global financial crisis, which still hinders the pre-crisis economic prosperity.

Nonetheless, Luxembourg still maintains its excellent performance in the Material Wellbeing sub-index, with relatively low levels of unemployment, (5% in 2014), and remaining one of the most equal nations in terms of income. Similarly, Luxembourg outperforms the top 30 average in the Health sub-index, with high life expectancy and impressive figures for health expenditure per capita.

11. Iceland

Health 100%

75%

Material 50% Finances Wellbeing

2014 2013 Iceland Quality of Top 30 Average Life Global Retirement Index 2014 2013 Change

Rank ing 11 23 Score 77% 73% Sub-Index and Indicator Rankings 2014 2013 Change 2014 2013 Change He alth Inde x Finances in Retirement 9 7 66 102

Life Expectancy 3 8 Old-Age De pe nde ncy 112 112

Health Expenditure per Capita 17 17 Bank Non-Pe r for m ing Loans 98 94 Physicians per Capita 24 15 Inflation 54 87

Non-Ins ur e d He alth Expe nditur e 36 34 Interest Rates 56 79 Hos pital Be ds pe r Capita 23 23 Tax Pressure 132 127 2014 2013 Change Gove rnance 13 33 Quality of Life Index 10 3 Government Indebtedness 139 Well-Being 20 20 2014 2013 Change Material Wellbeing Index Air Pollution 1 1 9 20

Water Pollution 1 1 Income Equality 1 17 Biodive r s ity and Habitat 54 54 Income per Capita 22 25 Climate Change 49 29 Une m ploym e nt 60 59

Iceland increased its overall score to 77%, and is now ranked 11th in this year’s Global Retirement Index. Although Iceland witnessed the systemic collapse of its 3 major commercial banks, the government has been able to limit serious economic damages, and in fact, with sustainable levels of sovereign debt, has improved the financial soundness of the country. This is best represented by Iceland’s performance in the Finances in Retirement sub- index, where it moved from the 102nd to the 66th position, with a reduction in the inflation rate from 5.4% to 3.9% from 2013 to 2014.

In terms of the Health sub-index, Iceland has a top health care system and other positive indications such as high life expectancy. Although Iceland’s ranking decreased in the Quality of Life sub-index, its relative performance is still strong with regards to pollution and environmental concerns, such as climate change.

Iceland’s economic situation has improved substantially since the global financial crisis, and continues to perform. Icelanders benefit from one of the highest levels of income equality in the world, and also high levels of income per capita. This places Iceland 9th on the Material Wellbeing sub-index, and thus outperforms the top 30 average.

12. Belgium

Health 100%

75%

Material 50% Finances Wellbeing

2014 2013 Belgium Quality of Top 30 Average Life

Global Retirement Index 2014 2013 Change

Rank ing 12 14 Score 77% 77% Sub-Index and Indicator Rankings 2014 2013 Change 2014 2013 Change He alth Inde x Finances in Retirement 6 12 50 38

Life Expectancy 24 23 Old-Age De pe nde ncy 138 144

Health Expenditure per Capita 10 10 Bank Non-Pe r for m ing Loans 37 30 Physicians per Capita 12 30 Inflation 41 37

Non-Ins ur e d He alth Expe nditur e 39 44 Interest Rates 96 97 Hos pital Be ds pe r Capita 15 16 Tax Pressure 146 142 2014 2013 Change Gove rnance 17 18 Quality of Life Index 21 15 Government Indebtedness 138 Well-Being 20 20 2014 2013 Change Material Wellbeing Index Air Pollution 1 1 12 22

Water Pollution 1 1 Income Equality 9 32 Biodive r s ity and Habitat 40 40 Income per Capita 16 13 Climate Change 113 93 Une m ploym e nt 60 69

Belgium is now 12th in this year’s Global Retirement Index. Belgium is a typical modern economy within the European Union, possessing a universal health care system and generally a high quality of life. In terms of its financial soundness, issues over sovereign debt have been of concern since the beginning of the global financial crisis, which are reflected in the drop in the Finances and Retirement, as Belgium slips under the top 30 average of best performers.

Belgium substantially increased its standing in both the Health and Material Wellbeing sub-indices, with most indicators having risen. Notably, unemployment in Belgium has been decreasing whilst income inequality has substantially improved, (close to a 20% reduction in the income gap). In terms of the Health sub-index, Belgium has performed extremely well, particularly increasing the number of physicians per capita from 3 to 4 per 1,000 people between 2013 and 2014.

The Quality of Life sub-index remained relatively stable with a decline in the climate change indicator. However, the potential threat for retirees is financial, and whether the government can reduce debt and tax pressures.

13. Netherlands

Health 100%

75%

Material 50% Finances Wellbeing

2014 2013 Netherlands Quality of Top 30 Average Life Global Retirement Index 2014 2013 Change

Rank ing 13 7 Score 77% 80% Sub-Index and Indicator Rankings 2014 2013 Change 2014 2013 Change He alth Inde x Finances in Retirement 7 5 86 43

Life Expectancy 13 15 Old-Age De pe nde ncy 131 129

Health Expenditure per Capita 5 5 Bank Non-Pe r for m ing Loans 42 28 Physicians per Capita 37 35 Inflation 18 1

Non-Ins ur e d He alth Expe nditur e 2 1 Interest Rates 118 103 Hos pital Be ds pe r Capita 34 34 Tax Pressure 139 124 2014 2013 Change Gove rnance 7 8 Quality of Life Index 13 10 Government Indebtedness 113 Well-Being 4 4 2014 2013 Change Material Wellbeing Index Air Pollution 1 1 6 6

Water Pollution 1 1 Income Equality 20 28 Biodive r s ity and Habitat 29 29 Income per Capita 10 8 Climate Change 127 101 Une m ploym e nt 32 26

In the top 30 for the Quality of Life, Health, and Material Wellbeing sub-indices, the Netherlands is often celebrated for the quality of life of its citizens. Its major fall in the rankings has come probably as a result of its significant drop in the rankings in the Finances in Retirement sub-index, from 43 in 2013 to 86 this year.

The Netherlands’ credit rating has remained high in 2014, at AAA across the main rating agencies, but the proportion of bank loans in default has increased relative to other countries and interest rate conditions and tax pressures have worsened (although their governance ranking has improved drastically). This has led to a seven place drop in the overall GRI rankings but, at number 13, it remains a very good place to retire to, with high health expenditure per capita, low air and water pollution, and a high rank in the well-being indicator.

There has recently been much debate, as in many developed Western nations, about whether the Netherlands’ provision of the state pension from the age of 65 is sustainable given its high Old-Age Dependency ratio (reflected in the rankings for that indicator). The speed with which the government’s financial situation deteriorates will be relevant to those coming to retire in the country, but currently the Netherlands remains towards the top of the list.

14. Canada

Health 100%

75%

Material 50% Finances Wellbeing

2014 2013 Canada Quality of Top 30 Average Life

Global Retirement Index 2014 2013 Change

Rank ing 14 13 Score 77% 77% Sub-Index and Indicator Rankings 2014 2013 Change 2014 2013 Change He alth Inde x Finances in Retirement 28 28 8 17

Life Expectancy 14 13 Old-Age De pe nde ncy 122 120

Health Expenditure per Capita 7 7 Bank Non-Pe r for m ing Loans 3 5 Physicians per Capita 57 57 Inflation 23 1

Non-Ins ur e d He alth Expe nditur e 20 23 Interest Rates 103 103 Hos pital Be ds pe r Capita 55 55 Tax Pressure 118 128 2014 2013 Change Gove rnance 9 9 Quality of Life Index 14 16 Government Indebtedness 133 Well-Being 1 1 2014 2013 Change Material Wellbeing Index Air Pollution 1 1 25 23

Water Pollution 27 1 Income Equality 38 37 Biodive r s ity and Habitat 83 83 Income per Capita 13 12 Climate Change 98 100 Une m ploym e nt 64 64

Canada has been very consistent in the ranking of this year’s Global Retirement Index, maintaining the same overall score of 77%, and only dropping 1 place. Canada has increased both its ranking in the Quality of Life and the Finances in Retirement sub-indices, where it has also outperformed the average 30 top performing nations.

Retirees in Canada benefit from a top healthcare system and other positive related outcomes such as a life expectancy, (81 in 2014), and universal health coverage. Canada also performs well in the Quality of Life sub-index, due to policy makers increased focus on environmental issues, thus pushing Canada into 14th position in this sub- index.

However, Canada’s performance in the Finances in Retirement sub-index is particularly outstanding, as it has increased its ranking. Thanks partly to the wealth derived from natural resources, the Canadian economy has prospered in recent times. This has had positive effects on retiree life, as the Canadian government has been able to fund generous social security programs.

15. France

Health 100%

75%

Material 50% Finances Wellbeing

2014 2013 France Quality of Top 30 Average Life

Global Retirement Index 2014 2013 Change

Rank ing 15 10 Score 76% 78% Sub-Index and Indicator Rankings 2014 2013 Change 2014 2013 Change He alth Inde x Finances in Retirement 3 2 58 46

Life Expectancy 11 10 Old-Age De pe nde ncy 141 140

Health Expenditure per Capita 11 11 Bank Non-Pe r for m ing Loans 55 50 Physicians per Capita 27 23 Inflation 15 1

Non-Ins ur e d He alth Expe nditur e 5 3 Interest Rates 99 102 Hos pital Be ds pe r Capita 13 11 Tax Pressure 144 108 2014 2013 Change Gove rnance 21 19 Quality of Life Index 9 9 Government Indebtedness 134 Well-Being 22 22 2014 2013 Change Material Wellbeing Index Air Pollution 46 46 28 24

Water Pollution 1 1 Income Equality 28 19 Biodive r s ity and Habitat 35 35 Income per Capita 19 18 Climate Change 51 63 Une m ploym e nt 88 79

France loses five places in this year’s Global Retirement Index, pushing it to the 15th place. It is a country of extremes as it is one of the top ranked nations for its health care system and quality of life, whilst having one of the lowest ranked financial systems, especially when compared to other western nations.

With an increase in tax pressures and old-age dependency, the French economy has also suffered losses in purchasing power. This is reflected in the Finances in Retirement sub-index where France dropped from the 46th position to the 58th. In addition, the income gap has widened and unemployment remains at 9.3% from 2013 to 2014, which moves France to the 28th place in the Material Wellbeing sub-index.

However, France manages to maintain its spot on the podium for the Health sub-index, with a special mention to its high life expectancy and social security system especially favorable to retirees. France also maintains 9th position for Quality of Life, which reflects government policy towards the environment.

16. Czech Republic

Health 100%

75%

Material 50% Finances Wellbeing

2014 2013 Czech Republic Quality of Top 30 Average Life Global Retirement Index 2014 2013 Change

Rank ing 16 17 Score 75% 74% Sub-Index and Indicator Rankings 2014 2013 Change 2014 2013 Change He alth Inde x Finances in Retirement 14 12 34 61

Life Expectancy 35 34 Old-Age De pe nde ncy 128 123

Health Expenditure per Capita 31 29 Bank Non-Pe r for m ing Loans 60 58 Physicians per Capita 17 17 Inflation 1 1

Non-Ins ur e d He alth Expe nditur e 23 24 Interest Rates 104 103 Hos pital Be ds pe r Capita 10 9 Tax Pressure 129 74 2014 2013 Change Gove rnance 27 27 Quality of Life Index 31 33 Government Indebtedness 77 Well-Being 40 40 2014 2013 Change Material Wellbeing Index Air Pollution 1 1 16 17

Water Pollution 26 34 Income Equality 5 1 Biodive r s ity and Habitat 32 32 Income per Capita 35 35 Climate Change 117 110 Une m ploym e nt 56 52

The GRI ranking of the Czech Republic has improved slightly since last year, going from 17 in 2013 to 16 this year. In every sub-index except for Health, its position has improved. Despite what some are calling a stagnating economy, and an increase in regressive taxation (VAT has increased from 20% to 21% in the last year), the country has improved on its 2013 Finances in Retirement ranking, moving from 61st to 34th place. This has been largely due to an improvement in its Governance indicator.

From a certain perspective, the Czech Republic’s position is sustainable: they have low levels of inflation, tax pressure has increased relative to other states but this will presumably help to finance the government in the longer term, and current government indebtedness is relatively low. On the other hand, the Old-Age Dependency ranking is high (ranked 128th) and interest rates have remained suppressed, hurting savers. In terms of living in the Czech Republic, although physicians and hospital beds per capita are relatively high compared with other countries, the indicators for well-being and life expectancy suggest less than impressive statistics on these issues.

17. Republic of Korea

Health 100%

75%

Material 50% Finances Wellbeing

2014 2013 Korea, Rep. Quality of Top 30 Average Life Global Retirement Index 2014 2013 Change

Rank ing 17 27 Score 74% 72% Sub-Index and Indicator Rankings 2014 2013 Change 2014 2013 Change He alth Inde x Finances in Retirement 35 34 11 65

Life Expectancy 18 14 Old-Age De pe nde ncy 103 101

Health Expenditure per Capita 28 30 Bank Non-Pe r for m ing Loans 12 14 Physicians per Capita 59 56 Inflation 54 55

Non-Ins ur e d He alth Expe nditur e 75 68 Interest Rates 81 89 Hos pital Be ds pe r Capita 3 3 Tax Pressure 103 107 2014 2013 Change Gove rnance 35 107 Quality of Life Index 43 44 Government Indebtedness 53 Well-Being 44 44 2014 2013 Change Material Wellbeing Index Air Pollution 51 51 11 6

Water Pollution 41 37 Income Equality 33 22 Biodive r s ity and Habitat 63 63 Income per Capita 25 24 Climate Change 124 109 Une m ploym e nt 17 17

Financially, the Republic of Korea has significantly improved its rankings. From a position of 65 on the Finances in Retirement index in 2013, it has jumped over 50 places to sit at number 11 this year, partly because of a relatively high ranking in the Government Indebtedness indicator and an improvement in interest rates relative to others in the index. It has remained approximately static or fallen in rank for every other sub-index, but its improvement in financial circumstances has been enough to take South Korea up ten places overall, from 27 to 17 in the GRI.

As the only developed nation to have avoided going into economic recession after the 2007 financial crisis, South Korea was expected to have a high ranking in the Government Indebtedness indicator. However, improvement in the interest rate indicator was unexpected given a reduction in real interest rates from 2.7% to 1.7% over the period.

Despite high levels of income per capita and relatively low unemployment levels compared to other nations, South Korea does not impress in terms of quality of life, with water pollution worsening relative to other nations and its rank on the Well-Being indicator remaining constant at the moderately impressive position of 11th.

18. United Kingdom

Health 100%

75%

Material 50% Finances Wellbeing

2014 2013

United Kingdom Quality of Top 30 Average Life Global Retirement Index 2014 2013 Change

Rank ing 18 20 Score 74% 74% Sub-Index and Indicator Rankings 2014 2013 Change 2014 2013 Change He alth Inde x Finances in Retirement 22 21 77 77

Life Expectancy 19 17 Old-Age De pe nde ncy 135 136

Health Expenditure per Capita 16 14 Bank Non-Pe r for m ing Loans 52 48 Physicians per Capita 41 39 Inflation 63 57

Non-Ins ur e d He alth Expe nditur e 8 7 Interest Rates 117 103 Hos pital Be ds pe r Capita 60 52 Tax Pressure 130 143 2014 2013 Change Gove rnance 16 17 Quality of Life Index 4 6 Government Indebtedness 132 Well-Being 19 19 2014 2013 Change Material Wellbeing Index Air Pollution 1 1 31 26

Water Pollution 1 1 Income Equality 56 56 Biodive r s ity and Habitat 1 1 Income per Capita 18 17 Climate Change 84 87 Une m ploym e nt 71 62

The United Kingdom gained two spots in this year’s Global Retirement Index, bringing it to the 18th place. The UK has been relatively stable in comparison to last year’s performance, with a satisfactory health care system and a mediocre financial system for retirees. The UK’s overall score remains at 74% on the GRI Index.

The United Kingdom manages to improve substantially on the Quality of Life sub-index as it continues to maintain the top spot for multiple sub-indices (i.e. water pollution and air pollution). The UK’s 22nd place in the Health sub- index remains satisfactory with an effective universal health care system and reasonable health expenditure for retirees.

However, high tax pressures and increasing inflation have affected retirees’ current income and purchasing power, whilst also increasing pressure on the UK pension system. This puts the UK in 77th position for the Finances in Retirement sub-index, one of the lowest rankings for a western nation. Added to this, income inequality still remains high and unemployment remains at 7.8% from 2013, increasing the UK’s ranking to 31 on the Material Wellbeing sub-index.

19. United States

Health 100%

75%

Material 50% Finances Wellbeing

2014 2013 United States Quality of Top 30 Average Life

Global Retirement Index 2014 2013 Change

Rank ing 19 19 Score 73% 74% Sub-Index and Indicator Rankings 2014 2013 Change 2014 2013 Change He alth Inde x Finances in Retirement 21 23 22 28

Life Expectancy 33 32 Old-Age De pe nde ncy 116 115

Health Expenditure per Capita 1 1 Bank Non-Pe r for m ing Loans 50 54 Physicians per Capita 52 48 Inflation 27 1

Non-Ins ur e d He alth Expe nditur e 10 11 Interest Rates 107 86 Hos pital Be ds pe r Capita 58 60 Tax Pressure 102 112 2014 2013 Change Gove rnance 18 21 Quality of Life Index 24 26 Government Indebtedness 141 Well-Being 15 15 2014 2013 Change Material Wellbeing Index Air Pollution 1 1 36 38

Water Pollution 36 30 Income Equality 81 91 Biodive r s ity and Habitat 52 52 Income per Capita 6 7 Climate Change 121 118 Une m ploym e nt 84 81

With a ranking of 19th place in the GRI overall, the United States has remained relatively static over the past year, perhaps due to increasing economic stability – even in the face of political uncertainty and a period of government shutdown. The national and international press has spent much time and energy decrying the US debt burden, which is reflected in the Government Indebtedness indicator where the country underperforms most of it peers coming in at position 141. Inflation rates have almost doubled since 2013, from 1.6% to 3.9%, and as a consequence the US has dropped 26 places in the Inflation indicator.

Despite its reputation as the land of opportunity, as well as having one of the highest incomes per capita (with a ranking of 6th for this indicator), the United States places relatively low for income equality, at 81st place – although this has improved ten places since last year. Life expectancy is also relatively low compared to other advanced Western nations (ranked 33rd, dropped 1 place since 2013), and although health expenditure is high relative to other countries, this is not matched by a competitive number of physicians or hospital beds per capita. As one of the largest and most liberal nations, however, such considerations may not be as important to individual retirees as culture or liberty – as one of the most politically free countries, the US may have other appealing characteristics.

20. Israel

Health 100%

75%

Material 50% Finances Wellbeing

2014 2013 Israel Quality of Top 30 Average Life Global Retirement Index 2014 2013 Change

Rank ing 20 12 Score 73% 77% Sub-Index and Indicator Rankings 2014 2013 Change 2014 2013 Change He alth Inde x Finances in Retirement 25 27 40 5

Life Expectancy 10 7 Old-Age De pe nde ncy 107 107

Health Expenditure per Capita 29 27 Bank Non-Pe r for m ing Loans 26 8 Physicians per Capita 33 18 Inflation 41 48

Non-Ins ur e d He alth Expe nditur e 46 61 Interest Rates 85 76 Hos pital Be ds pe r Capita 52 47 Tax Pressure 125 129 2014 2013 Change Gove rnance 40 13 Quality of Life Index 20 20 Government Indebtedness 126 Well-Being 8 8 2014 2013 Change Material Wellbeing Index Air Pollution 47 47 34 31

Water Pollution 1 1 Income Equality 79 83 Biodive r s ity and Habitat 72 72 Income per Capita 29 27 Climate Change 112 102 Une m ploym e nt 48 46

Israel dropped 8 places in this year’s Global Retirement Index and is now in 20th position. Although, Israel’s overall score decreased to 73%, it has managed to maintain satisfactory positions in the Health and Quality of Life sub- index with a respective ranking of 25th and 20th position.

Having suffered similar economic ailments to other western European nations, Israel has been let down by its financial system as it dropped from 5th to 40th on the Finances in Retirement sub-index. Since the global financial crisis, Israel’s middle class has become poorer as income inequality and unemployment remain high. In addition, high levels of sovereign debt (approximately 80% of debt to GDP ratio) are putting further pressure on the pensions system and continue to affect retiree finances.

On a positive note, Israel has managed to maintain a strong Quality of Life sub-index, with a strong well-being indicator, especially in view of the current political instability. This should continue to increase over time as the Israeli government continues to invest in renewable energies, especially solar power.

21. Slovenia

Health 100%

75%

Material 50% Finances Wellbeing

2014 2013 Slovenia Quality of Top 30 Average Life Global Retirement Index 2014 2013 Change

Rank ing 21 16 Score 73% 76% Sub-Index and Indicator Rankings 2014 2013 Change 2014 2013 Change He alth Inde x Finances in Retirement 23 24 64 15

Life Expectancy 26 25 Old-Age De pe nde ncy 130 131

Health Expenditure per Capita 25 24 Bank Non-Pe r for m ing Loans 81 45 Physicians per Capita 49 46 Inflation 1 1

Non-Ins ur e d He alth Expe nditur e 13 12 Interest Rates 80 77 Hos pital Be ds pe r Capita 36 35 Tax Pressure 136 63 2014 2013 Change Gove rnance 26 28 Quality of Life Index 37 35 Government Indebtedness 93 Well-Being 44 44 2014 2013 Change Material Wellbeing Index Air Pollution 64 64 17 21

Water Pollution 30 30 Income Equality 2 23 Biodive r s ity and Habitat 41 41 Income per Capita 30 29 Climate Change 92 81 Une m ploym e nt 77 51

Slovenia has placed in the top thirty on both the Health sub-Index, and the Material Wellbeing index – on the latter, it has actually improved its position by four places since 2013, largely due to an increase in income equality (a 6% reduction in the income gap between 2013 and 2014) a measure which has been associated with happier populations.

Its Finances in Retirement position, on the other hand, has suffered greatly – although it tops the rankings for the indicator for Inflation, Tax Pressure relative to other nations has increased dramatically, and its rankings in terms of the proportion of bank loans in default has also worsened. These problems can mostly be seen as issuing from a high dependency on foreign trade, which suffered during and after the financial crisis and an export sector struggling to recover from a reduction in demand from its European export partners.

Despite these challenges, Slovenia’s low relative inflation rankings suggest at the very least that the cost of living seems set to remain low.

22. Slovak Republic

Health 100%

75%

Material 50% Finances Wellbeing

2014 2013 Slovak Republic Quality of Top 30 Average Life Global Retirement Index 2014 2013 Change

Rank ing 22 18 Score 72% 74% Sub-Index and Indicator Rankings 2014 2013 Change 2014 2013 Change He alth Inde x Finances in Retirement 32 35 27 22

Life Expectancy 46 48 Old-Age De pe nde ncy 108 106

Health Expenditure per Capita 30 28 Bank Non-Pe r for m ing Loans 61 60 Physicians per Capita 34 31 Inflation 57 1

Non-Ins ur e d He alth Expe nditur e 57 63 Interest Rates 92 84 Hos pital Be ds pe r Capita 17 16 Tax Pressure 112 52 2014 2013 Change Gove rnance 33 32 Quality of Life Index 30 23 Government Indebtedness 88 Well-Being 44 44 2014 2013 Change Material Wellbeing Index Air Pollution 1 1 33 33

Water Pollution 25 1 Income Equality 8 4 Biodive r s ity and Habitat 30 30 Income per Capita 33 34 Climate Change 97 79 Une m ploym e nt 103 101

Although it has fallen four places in the GRI overall, the Slovak Republic remains a strong choice for retirement at number 22 in our rankings. Life expectancy has improved slightly relative to other countries and health expenditure per capita remains in the top 30. Until the financial crisis, the Slovak Republic had one of the fastest- growing economies in Europe, benefitting from Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) from a number of European countries and the US. In more recent years, it has necessarily suffered from a fall in investment from the US (its 8th largest investor) and major European nations such as Italy and France.

Although the Slovak Republic has only fallen five places in the Finances in Retirement sub-index, its relative positions in the Inflation and Tax Pressure indicators have suffered the most, dropping 56 places for Inflation. While its Old-Age Dependency ratio relative to other developed Western democracies is fairly competitive, its position in the Bank Non-Performing Loans and Government Indebtedness indicators suggests that even if the economy is not currently suffering much, it will over the next few years unless the government can find solutions to their debt problems.

23. Italy

Health 100%

75%

Material 50% Finances Wellbeing

2014 2013 Italy Quality of Top 30 Average Life

Global Retirement Index 2014 2013 Change

Rank ing 23 21 Score 72% 74% Sub-Index and Indicator Rankings 2014 2013 Change 2014 2013 Change He alth Inde x Finances in Retirement 19 20 101 68

Life Expectancy 5 3 Old-Age De pe nde ncy 148 149

Health Expenditure per Capita 18 20 Bank Non-Pe r for m ing Loans 78 64 Physicians per Capita 23 22 Inflation 23 1

Non-Ins ur e d He alth Expe nditur e 44 41 Interest Rates 76 74 Hos pital Be ds pe r Capita 46 46 Tax Pressure 145 135 2014 2013 Change Gove rnance 42 41 Quality of Life Index 15 13 Government Indebtedness 144 Well-Being 35 35 2014 2013 Change Material Wellbeing Index Air Pollution 1 1 30 29

Water Pollution 1 1 Income Equality 36 61 Biodive r s ity and Habitat 16 16 Income per Capita 23 21 Climate Change 73 76 Une m ploym e nt 82 71

Italy dropped two positions in this year’s Global Retirement Index; ranking it 23rd. Italy follows the trend of other western European nations, with high rankings in Health and Quality of Life sub-indices, but struggles when analyzing the sustainability of retiree finances. Although Italy has improved steadily in the income equality Indicator, it is still struggling with a higher rate of unemployment which is now at 12%.

With high life expectancy and relatively low health care costs, Italian retirees also benefit from a high number of physicians per capita. In addition, Italy has almost maintained its ranking in the Quality of Life sub-index, with low levels of pollution and a strong commitment to the environment.

However, since the outbreak of the sovereign debt crisis in Europe, Italy has faced serious economic and financial difficulties, with a surge in private debt and high interest on government debt. This has put huge pressure on public pension systems and has generally affected retiree pension plans. Italy dropped from 68 to 101 on the Finances in Retirement sub-index.

24. Ireland

Health 100%

75%

Material 50% Finances Wellbeing

2014 2013 Ireland Quality of Top 30 Average Life Global Retirement Index 2014 2013 Change

Rank ing 24 48 Score 71% 65% Sub-Index and Indicator Rankings 2014 2013 Change 2014 2013 Change He alth Inde x Finances in Retirement 20 10 43 130

Life Expectancy 23 20 Old-Age De pe nde ncy 109 109

Health Expenditure per Capita 12 13 Bank Non-Pe r for m ing Loans 95 70 Physicians per Capita 32 27 Inflation 1

Non-Ins ur e d He alth Expe nditur e 21 25 Interest Rates 74 63 Hos pital Be ds pe r Capita 57 32 Tax Pressure 111 133 2014 2013 Change Gove rnance 15 145 Quality of Life Index 29 28 Government Indebtedness 142 Well-Being 11 11 2014 2013 Change Material Wellbeing Index Air Pollution 1 1 44 41

Water Pollution 32 29 Income Equality 45 47 Biodive r s ity and Habitat 113 113 Income per Capita 21 20 Climate Change 75 89 Une m ploym e nt 105 97

Ireland has performed exceptionally well in the Global Retirement Index, as it increased its overall score to 71% and is now in 24th place. As a modern European economy, Ireland had experienced continuous GDP growth and relative economic prosperity for over 20 years, until the bursting of the Irish property bubble, and the consequent issues of high private and government debt.

However, Ireland has made huge improvements, increasing their ranking by 87 in the Finances of Retirement sub- index, thanks to low levels of inflation and sustainable budget deficits. In terms of the Material Wellbeing sub- index, Ireland’s performance remains relatively stable, as income per capita remains high, but unemployment has increased and may be a cause for concern.

Ireland’s performance in the Quality of Life sub-index also remains relatively stable, although it has seen improvement in the climate change indicator. In terms of the Health sub-index, Ireland’s ranking has decreased, partially due to a drop in hospital beds per capita from 5 to 3 per 1000, and a decreased relative life expectancy.

25. Cyprus

Health 100%

75%

Material 50% Finances Wellbeing

2014 2013 Cyprus Quality of Top 30 Average Life Global Retirement Index 2014 2013 Change

Rank ing 25 24 Score 71% 73% Sub-Index and Indicator Rankings 2014 2013 Change 2014 2013 Change He alth Inde x Finances in Retirement 44 44 32 33

Life Expectancy 30 26 Old-Age De pe nde ncy 106 104

Health Expenditure per Capita 27 31 Bank Non-Pe r for m ing Loans 73 61 Physicians per Capita 44 44 Inflation 41 43

Non-Ins ur e d He alth Expe nditur e 115 114 Interest Rates 94 64 Hos pital Be ds pe r Capita 48 42 Tax Pressure 107 131 2014 2013 Change Gove rnance 23 24 Quality of Life Index 34 32 Government Indebtedness 121 Well-Being 35 35 2014 2013 Change Material Wellbeing Index Air Pollution 1 1 23 18

Water Pollution 1 1 Income Equality 21 25 Biodive r s ity and Habitat 71 71 Income per Capita 28 23 Climate Change 120 107 Une m ploym e nt 68 40

Cyprus remains high in the GRI rankings for 2014, with a small decrease in score leading to a fall of one place – from 24th to 25th. Although it has dropped several places in the Material Wellbeing index, due to a fall in income per capita relative to other nations, and an increase in unemployment from 6.2 to 7.7%. Cyprus has actually improved its ranking in the Finances in Retirement index, with tax pressure relative to other nations decreasing, and a positive appraisal of financial governance (although it has fallen 30 places in the rankings for the interest rates indicator). However, this might be due to the fact that the effects of the banking crisis and subsequent bailout this year has not yet sifted through the data underpinning the index.

For instance, the Tax Pressure indicator will surely worsen in the coming months following the EU bailout deal signed by Cyprus earlier this year which included a tax on deposits above 100,000 Euros. It is possible that, for those with significant wealth, this is not the best place to ensure its security. On the other hand, from the perspective of quality of life, we can see that Cyprus would probably make a very pleasant retirement home: it is a popular tourist destination and has the warmest annual temperatures in the European Mediterranean, although rainwater shortages have caused problems in recent years.

26. United Arab Emirates

Health 100%

75%

Material 50% Finances Wellbeing

2014 2013 United Arab Emirates Quality of Top 30 Average Life Global Retirement Index 2014 2013 Change

Rank ing 26 30 Score 70% 72% Sub-Index and Indicator Rankings 2014 2013 Change 2014 2013 Change He alth Inde x Finances in Retirement 45 46 92 14

Life Expectancy 40 37 Old-Age De pe nde ncy 1 1

Health Expenditure per Capita 32 33 Bank Non-Pe r for m ing Loans 65 62 Physicians per Capita 62 59 Inflation 1

Non-Ins ur e d He alth Expe nditur e 26 37 Interest Rates 118 Hos pital Be ds pe r Capita 81 75 Tax Pressure 9 1 2014 2013 Change Gove rnance 41 43 Quality of Life Index 40 60 Government Indebtedness 18 Well-Being 15 15 2014 2013 Change Material Wellbeing Index Air Pollution 55 55 8 5

Water Pollution 37 38 Income Equality 32 43 Biodive r s ity and Habitat 26 26 Income per Capita 14 5 Climate Change 147 126 Une m ploym e nt 24 20

With a 2% increase in its GRI score, UAE has risen four places in the rankings to sit more comfortably inside the top 30 countries for retirement in 2014. Nevertheless, in only one of the sub-indicators does it fall within the top 30: Material Wellbeing, given its high income per capita. The UAE has also jumped twenty places in the Quality of Life index, but this is less due to improvement in its own indicator rankings and more due to, presumably, a worsening in other countries’ positions.

Given that the UAE has not performed particularly well on any of the indicators in the Health or Quality of Life sub- indices, from a certain perspective it would not be a desirable place to retire to. However, when we look at the Finances in Retirement sub-index a little more closely, we can see that even though the UAE has fallen 78 places in the rankings for this, the indicators tell a somewhat hopeful story. It tops the rankings in the Old-Age Dependency and Inflation indicators, suggesting that it will not face the same problems as many other developed nations in the future. Tax Pressure has increased, but it is still ranked in the top 10 for this, and its Governance ranking has improved by 51 places. The UAE government is also not especially indebted, compared to other nations in the GRI.

27. Japan

Health 100%

75%

Material 50% Finances Wellbeing

2014 2013 Japan Quality of Top 30 Average Life Global Retirement Index 2014 2013 Change

Rank ing 27 15 Score 69% 77% Sub-Index and Indicator Rankings 2014 2013 Change 2014 2013 Change He alth Inde x Finances in Retirement 10 8 125 36

Life Expectancy 2 1 Old-Age De pe nde ncy 150 150

Health Expenditure per Capita 19 18 Bank Non-Pe r for m ing Loans 26 11 Physicians per Capita 55 53 Inflation

Non-Ins ur e d He alth Expe nditur e 28 19 Interest Rates 118 72 Hos pital Be ds pe r Capita 1 1 Tax Pressure 113 1 2014 2013 Change Gove rnance 19 58 Quality of Life Index 32 29 Government Indebtedness 148 Well-Being 44 44 2014 2013 Change Material Wellbeing Index Air Pollution 1 1 20 11

Water Pollution 1 1 Income Equality 49 31 Biodive r s ity and Habitat 58 58 Income per Capita 20 19 Climate Change 91 92 Une m ploym e nt 33 29

Although its overall score of 69% is only 8% lower than its score from last year, Japan has fallen twelve places in the rankings since 2013, and has fallen in the rankings for 10 of the indicators of the Health, Finances in Retirement, Quality of Life and Material Wellbeing sub-indices. Although Japan has beat the Top 30 Average in two of the sub-indices (Health, and Material Wellbeing), perhaps unsurprisingly it has performed badly in the Finances in Retirement sub-index. In particular the introduction of the Government Indebtedness indicator has shunted Japan down the rankings in this sub-index with a Debt to GDP ratio of close to 230%. In addition as its poor performance in the rankings for the Interest Rates and Tax Pressure indicators, after a year in which the Japanese government has had to take drastic action to attempt to bring interest rates up – with limited success.

Japan has such a wide range of scores across indicators: it is at the top of the rankings for air and water pollution (with some of the cleanest skies and oceans), as well as life expectancy (almost) and hospital beds per capita. However, with more than double the proportion of defaults on bank loans since 2013, and having fallen 112 places in the indicator for tax pressure, overall Japan has not managed to stand out as somewhere to retire.

28. Malta

Health 100%

75%

Material 50% Finances Wellbeing

2014 2013 Malta Quality of Top 30 Average Life Global Retirement Index 2014 2013 Change

Rank ing 28 26 Score 69% 73% Sub-Index and Indicator Rankings 2014 2013 Change 2014 2013 Change He alth Inde x Finances in Retirement 29 28 44 50

Life Expectancy 6 12 Old-Age De pe nde ncy 125 118

Health Expenditure per Capita 26 26 Bank Non-Pe r for m ing Loans 67 63 Physicians per Capita 30 28 Inflation 17 1

Non-Ins ur e d He alth Expe nditur e 77 70 Interest Rates 89 90 Hos pital Be ds pe r Capita 40 37 Tax Pressure 137 141 2014 2013 Change Gove rnance 22 20 Quality of Life Index 71 46 Government Indebtedness 120 Well-Being 51 51 2014 2013 Change Material Wellbeing Index Air Pollution 1 1 18 15

Water Pollution 1 1 Income Equality 15 7 Biodive r s ity and Habitat 98 98 Income per Capita 31 30 Climate Change 146 88 Une m ploym e nt 52 48

With relatively little movement in the overall rankings, Malta has performed fairly well in 2014, although it has fallen two places since 2013: it remains in the top 30 countries to retire to overall, and its score has fallen by only 4% (half that of Japan’s score decrease).

Although it has remained in the top 30 countries in the Health and Material Wellbeing sub-index, as well as leading the world in terms of the cleanliness of its air and water, the main way in which Malta’s overall score has been protected since 2013 is due to its relatively stable position in the Finances in Retirement sub-index. Government indebtedness is at 102th place, but it has improved in the rankings for tax pressure and governance.

Over 30% of Malta’s GDP comes from tourism, and whereas austerity measures in many European countries have prevented people from travelling further afield for their holidays, it may have increased the number of Europeans travelling as far as Malta. This has perhaps buffered Malta’s rankings for income per capita and unemployment against the effects of a still-recovering European economic area, although the fact that much of Malta’s debt is held in domestic banks is the primary factor contributing to their relative stability in the financial crisis.

29. Spain

Health 100%

75%

Material 50% Finances Wellbeing

2014 2013 Spain Quality of Top 30 Average Life Global Retirement Index 2014 2013 Change

Rank ing 29 25 Score 69% 73% Sub-Index and Indicator Rankings 2014 2013 Change 2014 2013 Change He alth Inde x Finances in Retirement 16 19 48 25

Life Expectancy 4 6 Old-Age De pe nde ncy 134 134

Health Expenditure per Capita 20 19 Bank Non-Pe r for m ing Loans 62 53 Physicians per Capita 8 9 Inflation 27 1

Non-Ins ur e d He alth Expe nditur e 45 46 Interest Rates 68 68 Hos pital Be ds pe r Capita 56 55 Tax Pressure 122 84 2014 2013 Change Gove rnance 28 29 Quality of Life Index 27 22 Government Indebtedness 116 Well-Being 40 40 2014 2013 Change Material Wellbeing Index Air Pollution 1 1 65 63

Water Pollution 24 1 Income Equality 54 48 Biodive r s ity and Habitat 47 47 Income per Capita 24 22 Climate Change 77 74 Une m ploym e nt 121 114

In this year’s Global Retirement Index, Spain loses four places in the rankings, and is now in 29th position. Spain is a country that benefits from a high quality of life, and a top healthcare system. Spanish retirees benefit from one of the highest life expectancies and physicians per capita.

In terms of the Spanish economy, politicians still face major challenges, namely one of the highest levels of unemployment in Western Europe coupled with high levels of private debt. This is reflected in Spain’s substantial drop in the Finances in Retirement sub-index, from 25th to 48th, with an increase in the inflation rate from 1.8% to 2.1% in 2014. These particular economic issues are continuing to impact public retirement systems, and are likely to further affect future retirees’ quality of life.

As stated previously, Spain has a top and universal healthcare system that has outperformed the average of the top 30 nations. It is particularly useful for keeping healthcare costs low for retirees. Spain also does well in the Quality of Life sub-index, where Spain maintains its rankings in Well-Being and Air Pollution.

30. Poland

Health 100%

75%

Material 50% Finances Wellbeing

2014 2013 Poland Quality of Top 30 Average Life Global Retirement Index 2014 2013 Change

Rank ing 30 36 Score 68% 70% Sub-Index and Indicator Rankings 2014 2013 Change 2014 2013 Change He alth Inde x Finances in Retirement 39 37 46 58

Life Expectancy 42 39 Old-Age De pe nde ncy 114 114

Health Expenditure per Capita 38 35 Bank Non-Pe r for m ing Loans 68 67 Physicians per Capita 58 52 Inflation 61 49

Non-Ins ur e d He alth Expe nditur e 49 49 Interest Rates 76 96 Hos pital Be ds pe r Capita 14 13 Tax Pressure 123 78 2014 2013 Change Gove rnance 29 31 Quality of Life Index 49 37 Government Indebtedness 107 Well-Being 51 51 2014 2013 Change Material Wellbeing Index Air Pollution 1 1 38 36

Water Pollution 43 Income Equality 41 46 Biodive r s ity and Habitat 9 9 Income per Capita 41 40 Climate Change 125 104 Une m ploym e nt 89 81

Although Poland’s overall score decreases to 68%, its ranking in this year’s Global Retirement Index is now in 30th position. Despite Poland’s recent economic slowdown, it has been one of the fastest growing economies in the European Union. It has performed well in the Finance in Retirement sub-index, ranking now at 46, however it does face high levels of government debt, and inflation is becoming a growing concern.

Poland’s ranking in the Health sub-index has been negatively affected, as almost all indicators have worsened, pushing it down to 39th position. The ranking in the Quality of Life sub-index has significantly decreased with a negative impact on climate change.

However, in terms of the Material Wellbeing sub-index, Poland continues to perform similarly with good levels of income per capita and increasing income equality. The only real concern in this sub-index is the recent relative increase in unemployment to 9.6%.

The Emerging Economies: Is it getting better for retirees?

One cannot talk about future trends in retiree welfare without paying special attention to the World’s emerging powers. Not only do these countries account for a rapidly increasing share of GDP, due to above average “catch- up” economic growth, but will also be home to an increasing proportion of the World’s retirees in the next 50 years.

The catchily-named BRIC nations (Brazil, Russia, India and China) have been touted as the World powers of the future with their economies projected to account for more than half (52.36%) of global output in Purchasing power parity (PPP)1 terms by 2060 (Johansson, et al., 2012)2, an increase from 29.55% in 2010. Export-oriented growth strategies and a commodities boom have underpinned fast economic growth in the BRICs in recent years, but as their economies converge with those of their developed counterparts these growth strategies might become unsustainable and domestic demand will have to play a more important role in their economic models.

BRIC GDP as a % of Global GDP in 2060 vs. 2010

2010 2060

29.55% 52.36%

*Note: This is a projected number for 2060 and it is subject to change.

As a potentially crucial part of this convergence process, emerging economies will have to consider implementing some sort of safety in order to reduce the level of inequality generated by rapid economic growth, increase future economic potential and reduce the need to save for “a rainy day”, thus increasing consumption.

The provision of old-age insurance, in the way of pensions and healthcare for retirees, is most probably going to be one of the priorities, and therefore one of the pillars, of any new welfare state. This will undoubtedly play a major role in determining the level of welfare of retirees in these countries and ultimately their desirability as retirement destinations.

While the retirement issue might not seem a pressing one, as the BRIC nations have young populations relative to their developed country counterparts, this is likely to change rapidly given decreasing fertility rates and higher life expectancy, which will result in a demographic inflection point and rapidly ageing populations.

1 Purchasing power parity is a component of some economic theories and is a technique used to determine the relative value of different currencies.

2 Johansson, Å., et al. (2012), "Looking to 2060: Long-Term Global Growth Prospects: A Going for Growth Report", OECD Economic Policy Papers, No. 3, OECD Publishing.

In fact, old-age dependency ratios are projected to increase dramatically over the coming 50 years in all 4 countries. China is projected to have 49 retirees for every person of working age by 2060, compared to just 13.1 in 2015. India’s old-age dependency ratio is projected to triple from 8.3 to 23.6 over the same period, while Brazil will see a jump from 11.6 to 44.3 retirees per person of working age.

Old-Age Dependency Ratio 50

China 40

30 India Age 20 Russian Federation

10 Brazil

0 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 Year

This rapid population ageing is also reflected in the median age of their populations, which represents the point where 50% of the population are below that age and the other 50% above that age. By 2060 China will have a median age of 46.9 years, up from 36 years in 2015. Brazil will see an increase from 31.2 years in 2015 to 46.7 years in 2060, while India will see its median age increase to 38.9 years from 26.9 years.

Median Age 50

China 45

40 India Age 35 Russian Federation

30 Brazil

25 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055 2060 Year

Given the demographic weight of these countries, their rapid population ageing will result in them being home to an increasing proportion of the world’s retirees. These demographic trends clearly illustrate how relevant the issue of retiree welfare will be in the BRIC nations in the coming years and the enormous impact that their policy choices and economic performance will have on global retiree welfare.

1. Brazil

Health 100%

75%

Material 50% Finances Wellbeing

2014 2013 Brazil Quality of Top 30 Average Life Global Retirement Index 2014 2013 Change

Rank ing 61 40 Score 60% 66% Sub-Index and Indicator Rankings 2014 2013 Change 2014 2013 Change He alth Inde x Finances in Retirement 58 58 70 21

Life Expectancy 76 75 Old-Age De pe nde ncy 87 91

Health Expenditure per Capita 51 51 Bank Non-Pe r for m ing Loans 47 40 Physicians per Capita 69 63 Inflation 95 84

Non-Ins ur e d He alth Expe nditur e 68 64 Interest Rates 51 5 Hos pital Be ds pe r Capita 70 66 Tax Pressure 126 114 2014 2013 Change Gove rnance 54 53 Quality of Life Index 19 21 Government Indebtedness 113 Well-Being 22 22 2014 2013 Change Material Wellbeing Index Air Pollution 61 61 108 100

Water Pollution 70 71 Income Equality 138 141 Biodive r s ity and Habitat 42 42 Income per Capita 62 63 Climate Change 32 16 Une m ploym e nt 80 69

Brazil dropped 21 places in this year’s Global Retirement Index and is now in 61st position. Although, there have been slight improvements in the Quality of Life sub-index, where Brazil is now in the top 20, the overall picture seems mediocre.

Even though Brazil was able to profit from sustained economic growth in recent years, policy makers have struggled to improve the financial system, especially for retirees. With continued fears of slowing GDP growth and inflation rising from 5% to 6.6% in 2014, the current economic climate is unfavorable to retirees. As shown above, Brazil’s ranking collapsed from 21 to 70 in the Finances in Retirement sub-index. In terms of the Material Wellbeing sub-index, Latin American nations, in particular Brazil and Mexico tend to display high levels of income inequality.

On a more positive note, Brazil has increased its ranking to 19th on the Quality of Life sub-index, and fares better than China and India in the Health sub-index, with respectable levels of health expenditure per capita.

2. Russia

Health 100%

75%

Material 50% Finances Wellbeing

2014 2013 Russian Federation Quality of Top 30 Average Life Global Retirement Index 2014 2013 Change

Rank ing 50 70 Score 62% 57% Sub-Index and Indicator Rankings 2014 2013 Change 2014 2013 Change He alth Inde x Finances in Retirement 38 52 102 126

Life Expectancy 96 95 Old-Age De pe nde ncy 110 111

Health Expenditure per Capita 42 52 Bank Non-Pe r for m ing Loans 63 66 Physicians per Capita 4 Inflation 111 102

Non-Ins ur e d He alth Expe nditur e 80 69 Interest Rates 100 103 Hos pital Be ds pe r Capita 4 Tax Pressure 110 48 2014 2013 Change Gove rnance 109 111 Quality of Life Index 72 70 Government Indebtedness 6 Well-Being 64 64 2014 2013 Change Material Wellbeing Index Air Pollution 61 61 45 45

Water Pollution 79 68 Income Equality 94 94 Biodive r s ity and Habitat 66 66 Income per Capita 37 39 Climate Change 139 117 Une m ploym e nt 54 58

Russia performed well in this year’s Global Retirement Index, gaining 20 positions and putting in 50th place. This places Russia as the highest performing BRIC nation, followed by Brazil, in 61st place. Although Russia has not managed to outperform the top 30 countries in the Health sub-index, it has substantially increased its standing by the amount of available care given to patients (4th position for physicians and hospital beds per capita).

Economic growth and low levels of sovereign debt have helped increase Russia’s financial soundness and particularly its standing in the Finances in Retirement sub-index. However, tax pressures and high inflation do remain problems that continue to affect Russian people and more specifically Russian retirees. In terms of the Quality of Life sub-index, the environment and climate change have not been hot topics amongst Russian policy makers; therefore Russia takes the 72nd position.

In terms of overall welfare the Russian Federation does rank better than other BRIC nations, with lower levels of government indebtedness, and an increase in the level of income per capita from $19,240 to $22,720 in 2014.

3. India

Health 100%

75%

Material 50% Finances Wellbeing

2014 2013 India Quality of Top 30 Average Life Global Retirement Index 2014 2013 Change

Rank ing 104 101 Score 46% 49% Sub-Index and Indicator Rankings 2014 2013 Change 2014 2013 Change He alth Inde x Finances in Retirement 105 117 128 20

Life Expectancy 107 108 Old-Age De pe nde ncy 1 1

Health Expenditure per Capita 111 109 Bank Non-Pe r for m ing Loans 39 23 Physicians per Capita 96 83 Inflation 116 129

Non-Ins ur e d He alth Expe nditur e 133 134 Interest Rates 118 70 Hos pital Be ds pe r Capita 116 Tax Pressure 11 109 2014 2013 Change Gove rnance 86 16 Quality of Life Index 131 126 Government Indebtedness 115 Well-Being 82 82 2014 2013 Change Material Wellbeing Index Air Pollution 150 150 53 82

Water Pollution 104 106 Income Equality 55 53 Biodive r s ity and Habitat 104 104 Income per Capita 102 100 Climate Change 86 53 Une m ploym e nt 20 83

India is the worst ranking BRIC nation in this year’s Global Retirement Index, in 104th place. The main upset being its performance in the Finances in Retirement sub-index where it dropped from 20th to 128th place. In addition it continues its mediocre performance in the Health and Quality of life sub-indices.

Although there had been consensus around India’s potential as an economic power house amongst emerging market nations, it has been overshadowed by slowing growth, lack of investment in infrastructure, and overall poverty is not decreasing. The Health sub-index may have improved slightly, but there are still very low levels of health expenditure and the amount of physicians per capita decreased to 0.65 per 1,000 people. Pollution and environmental concerns are low in India, and similarly to China, severely affect populations of the larger metropolises where there are extremely high levels of water and air pollution.

Surprisingly, India performs well on the income equality measure as it easily outperforms all the other BRICs. In addition, India also enjoys has the lowest levels of unemployment as it is ranked 20th.

4. China

Health 100%

75%

Material 50% Finances Wellbeing

2014 2013 China Quality of Top 30 Average Life Global Retirement Index 2014 2013 Change

Rank ing 69 73 Score 57% 57% Sub-Index and Indicator Rankings 2014 2013 Change 2014 2013 Change He alth Inde x Finances in Retirement 60 74 62 64

Life Expectancy 51 72 Old-Age De pe nde ncy 92 93

Health Expenditure per Capita 79 81 Bank Non-Pe r for m ing Loans 7 5 Physicians per Capita 67 70 Inflation 80 59

Non-Ins ur e d He alth Expe nditur e 79 84 Interest Rates 111 103 Hos pital Be ds pe r Capita 44 40 Tax Pressure 77 85 2014 2013 Change Gove rnance 93 99 Quality of Life Index 113 111 Government Indebtedness 33 Well-Being 98 98 2014 2013 Change Material Wellbeing Index Air Pollution 145 145 55 47

Water Pollution 88 97 Income Equality 104 92 Biodive r s ity and Habitat 61 61 Income per Capita 79 78 Climate Change 133 91 Une m ploym e nt 28 23

Although China’s overall score remains at 57%, it now ranks at 69. China has performed particularly well in the Health sub-index, as the Chinese government increased spending in this sector. China increased its rankings in 4 of the 5 Indicators in the Health index, which places it just behind Brazil in terms of health care.

Similarly to Russia and Brazil, sustained economic growth and investment in infrastructure has been beneficial to retirees. The Finances in Retirement sub-index is almost on par with the average of the top 30 performers, a truly impressive result for one of the top emerging economies. In terms of Material Wellbeing, income inequality is continually increasing, and similarly to other emerging economies is one of the most important threats to future retirees. However, Chinese retirees are able to benefit from relatively low tax pressures.

The most serious threat to Chinese ranking in the Global Retirement Index is the continued disregard towards the environment and pollution by policy makers. China is one of the worst-ranking nations for air pollution and climate change, which can deteriorate the life of retirees, especially the inhabitants of larger metropolises.

Performance by Sub-Index

The Health Index

Performance in the Health sub-index has actually remained fairly static over the last year; most movements in the rankings, both in the top and bottom 30, have been small (with a few exceptions). This may be because improvements in health provision and, especially, life expectancy tend to take place slowly over a number of years, so that scores in this sub-index will not show drastic changes. At any rate, this year Austria remains at the top.

Difference Difference Ranking Ranking Health Index Health Index Country in in 2014 2013 2014 2013 Ranking Score

Austria 1 1 90% 90% 0% Ge rm any 2 3 88% 87% 1% Fr ance 3 2 88% 88% 0% Nor w ay 4 4 86% 85% 1% Sw itzerland 5 9 86% 84% 1% Be lgium 6 12 86% 83% 3% Ne the r lands 7 5 86% 85% 0% Luxembourg 8 6 85% 85% 0% Iceland 9 7 85% 85% 0% Japan 10 8 84% 84% -1% Australia 11 22 84% 81% 3% De nm ar k 12 14 83% 83% 0% Gre e ce 13 16 83% 83% 1% Czech Republic 14 13 83% 83% 0% Sw eden 15 17 83% 82% 0% Spain 16 19 83% 82% 0% Cuba 17 15 83% 83% 0% Finland 18 18 82% 82% 0% Italy 19 20 82% 82% 0% Ireland 20 10 82% 83% -2% Unite d State s 21 23 81% 81% 0% Unite d Kingdom 22 21 81% 81% 0% Slovenia 23 25 80% 80% 0% Portugal 24 24 80% 80% 0% Israel 25 27 79% 79% 0% Ne w Ze aland 26 11 79% 83% -4% Croatia 27 30 79% 78% 1% Canada 28 29 79% 78% 1% Malta 29 28 79% 78% 0% Es t o n ia 30 31 78% 78% 1%

In fact, of the top 20 from last year, only one country has dropped out of the top 20, and it is also the country with the largest drop in the top 30, of 15 places: New Zealand, which has fallen from 11th place in 2013 to 26th place this year. This is largely driven by small falls in the life expectancy and number of physicians per capita indicators. Ireland has also fallen significantly, from 10th place to 20th – remaining in the top 20, and improving its overall performance in the GRI, but still decreasing its Health sub-index score by 2%, mostly due to the relative number of physicians and hospital beds per capita.

There is more movement in the bottom 30 countries in the Health sub-index. Although the number of countries who have improved their rankings (15 of them) is greater than the number who have fallen in rank (9), the most dramatic movement has been negative: those countries which moved more than 5% all experienced a drop in their rankings, from Chad and the Central African Republic (a decrease in score of 8%) to Tanzania (a decrease of 27%).

Difference Difference Ranking Ranking Health Index Health Index Country in in 2014 2013 2014 2013 Ranking Score

Mauritania 121 130 29% 25% 4% Congo, Dem. Rep. 122 136 28% 23% 6% Nige r ia 123 129 28% 28% 0% Ghana 124 127 28% 29% -1% Zambia 125 114 28% 40% -13% Yem en, Rep. 126 126 27% 30% -3% Uganda 127 119 27% 37% -10% Lesotho 128 116 24% 39% -14% Senegal 129 134 24% 23% 1% Myanmar 130 135 24% 23% 1% Cameroon 131 123 24% 35% -12% Madagascar 132 133 23% 23% 0% Et h io p ia 133 140 23% 22% 1% Be nin 134 141 23% 21% 2% Togo 135 139 23% 22% 0% Cote d'Ivoire 136 144 22% 20% 2% Afghanistan 137 146 22% 17% 4% Bur k ina Fas o 138 138 21% 22% -2% Malawi 139 143 21% 20% 0% Liberia 140 147 21% 17% 4% Bur undi 141 122 20% 36% -16% Guine a 142 142 20% 21% -1% Mozambique 143 145 19% 18% 1% Zimbabwe 144 120 19% 36% -18% Tanzania 145 107 17% 45% -27% Central African Republic 146 131 17% 25% -8% Chad 147 132 16% 24% -8% Nige r 148 148 15% 13% 3% Sierra Leone 149 149 13% 10% 3% Mali 150 150 11% 6% 5%

Five countries have maintained their positions in the bottom 30: the Republic of Yemen, Burkina Faso, Niger, Sierra Leone, and Mali – although we can see that Niger, Sierra Leone and Mali have actually improved on their Health index scores since 2013, suggesting perhaps that Health outcomes are improving in some overall sense, too.

None of the western or European, more economically developed countries are in the bottom 30 on the Health sub- index: with the exceptions of Myanmar/Burma, the Republic of Yemen, and Afghanistan, they are all in Africa. With Health index scores as low as 11%, compared to Austria’s 90% at the other end of the scale, the health conditions of people living in bottom-30 countries should be very distressing from a humanitarian perspective. Needless to say, scores such as these make all of these countries highly off-putting as retirement locations.

Overall, in the Health sub-index, countries in the top and bottom 10 show quite a lot of movement, mostly down the ranks, but 6 have remained in constant positions – Norway, for instance, has remained in fourth place, and Austria in 1st.

The map below shows how concentrated both the top and bottom 10 countries are: all of the top 10 are in western Europe, except for Japan due to its impressive life expectancy and topping the rankings for the hospital beds per capita indicator. North America is presumably excluded from the top 10 due to the low life expectancy of people in the US, and Canada’s relatively low ranking in the physicians and hospital beds per capita indicators.

All of the bottom 10 countries in the Health sub-index, on the other hand, are in Africa. In fact, as pointed out above, 27 of the bottom 30 countries are.

HEALTH INDEX: TOP 10 AND BOTTOM 10 PERFORMERS

Iceland 2 85% Norway 86%

Germany 1 88% Netherlands 2 2 Luxembourg 86% 85% Belgium 86% 6 1 France 88% Austria 90% Japan 2 84% Switzerland Chad 15 4 86% 16%

Central African 15 Mali Republic 11% 17%

Guinea Tanzania 38 20% 17%

Sierra Leone Zimbabwe 24 13% 19% Mozambique 2 Niger 19% 15%

6 19 Burundi 20%

Legend:

Top 10

Bottom 10

Finances in Retirement Index

The Finances in Retirement sub-index shows some interesting changes in 2014 as compared with 2013. This is partly because its construction has changed since last year. As mentioned earlier, this is the first year data on Government Indebtedness has been included as an indicator – this has caused some movement in the rankings overall.

Secondly, in order to deliver more robust rankings in the sub-index overall, and to more accurately reflect sound financial institutions and frameworks instead of merely high rates of return, the institutional strength index’s weight in the calculation of the Finances in Retirement index has been doubled for 2014.

Difference Fina nc e s in Fina nc e s in Difference Ranking Ranking Country in Retirement Retirement in 2014 2013 Ranking Index 2014 Index 2013 Score

Chile 1 34 76% 67% 8% Australia 2 13 74% 73% 0% Costa Rica 3 8 73% 75% -2% Bahr ain 4 94 73% 51% 21% Ne w Ze aland 5 88 72% 53% 18% Sw itzerland 6 1 71% 83% -12% Singapore 7 3 71% 80% -9% Canada 8 17 69% 72% -3% Mauritius 9 6 69% 76% -7% Bots w ana 10 81 68% 56% 12% Kor e a, Re p. 11 65 68% 60% 8% Finland 12 11 68% 74% -6% Malaysia 13 54 68% 63% 4% Sw eden 14 9 68% 74% -6% Panam a 15 2 68% 81% -14% Mexico 16 16 67% 72% -5% Peru 17 12 67% 73% -7% Trinidad and Tobago 18 115 67% 44% 23% Nor w ay 19 4 66% 79% -12% Es t o n ia 20 29 66% 69% -3% Ur uguay 21 10 65% 74% -8% Unite d State s 22 28 65% 69% -4% Indonesia 23 49 65% 64% 1% Cameroon 24 90 65% 52% 13% Madagascar 25 108 64% 45% 20% De nm ar k 26 47 64% 65% -1% Slovak Republic 27 22 64% 70% -6% Guate m ala 28 42 64% 66% -2% Colombia 29 27 64% 69% -6% Zambia 30 121 64% 43% 21%

For these reasons, as well as the fact that internationally, economies have been undergoing a lot of change, with high inflation rates in some countries, and some others taking drastic measures to pull up low interest rates (such

as Japan). The top 30 displays an interesting range of countries: for once, Chile, rather than a Western European or North American country, has topped the rankings of a sub-index, jumping 33 places since 2013.

Difference Fina nc e s in Fina nc e s in Difference Ranking Ranking Country in Retirement Retirement in 2014 2013 Ranking Index 2014 Index 2013 Score

Uk r aine 121 129 49% 40% 8%

El Salvad o r 122 7 48% 75% -27% Ghana 123 98 47% 50% -3% Tajikistan 124 120 47% 43% 5% Japan 125 36 47% 67% -20% Bur k ina Fas o 126 123 46% 42% 4% Pakistan 127 135 46% 38% 8% India 128 20 46% 71% -25% Be nin 129 80 46% 56% -10% Congo, Dem. Rep. 130 138 46% 35% 11% Tunisia 131 76 45% 57% -12% Senegal 132 48 45% 65% -20% Argentina 133 73 43% 58% -15% Nige r 134 84 43% 54% -11% Mali 135 82 43% 56% -12% Cambodia 136 105 42% 46% -4% Algeria 137 149 42% 27% 15% Cuba 138 134 41% 38% 3% Togo 139 92 40% 52% -12% Ne pal 140 148 39% 28% 11% Uz be k is tan 141 142 38% 32% 6% Et h io p ia 142 141 38% 32% 6% Kaz ak hs tan 143 96 37% 51% -14% Cote d'Ivoire 144 103 37% 48% -11% Myanmar 145 133 36% 39% -4% Turkmenistan 146 144 35% 31% 3% Bur undi 147 127 34% 41% -7% Be lar us 148 122 33% 43% -10% Guine a 149 145 33% 31% 2% Sudan 150 143 29% 32% -3%

The range of scores at the top of the Finances in Retirement, as well as overall, has decreased: while in 2013 the highest score achieved was 83%, and the lowest was under 27% (a range of 56), in 2014 the top score achieved was 76% and the lowest 29% (a range of only 49), suggesting that the countries which had better finances have, on average, gotten worse, and the worse ones slightly better.

The bottom 30 in the Finances in Retirement sub-index mostly consist of those which have fallen over the last year; 24 of these countries have slid down the ranks, while six have been promoted upwards. All of those in the bottom 30 in the Finances in Retirement sub-index are developing countries, except for Japan and Ukraine; the former fell 89 places from 36th place in 2013 to 125th position this year, and the latter has actually improved its ranking since 2013, when Ukraine was at 129th place. Now it is at 121st.

Japan has not experienced the greatest fall in the Finances in Retirement sub-index: El Salvador has dropped from 7th place in 2013 to 122nd place this year (a fall of 115 places), a difference of score of 27% with last year. India and Senegal have also experienced a difference in their score on the sub-index of 25% and 20% respectively compared with last year.

Taking a look at the world’s top 10 and bottom 10 most and least desirable places to retire to, in terms of their finances, we can see that, in this sub-index, the top 10 are a little better spread out than in the Health index. There are two African countries in the top 10 (Botswana and Mauritius), two Latin American (Costa Rica and Chile) and only one country in Europe (Switzerland).

Of the bottom 10 countries in the sub-index, although many are in Africa (five of ten), one is in Europe (Belarus), and three in Asia (Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan).

It is interesting to see the differences between the Finances in Retirement sub-index and the overall GRI rankings: six of the countries in the top 10 in the Finances in Retirement sub-index are not even in the top 30 in the GRI.

FINANCES IN RETIREMENT INDEX: TOP 10 AND BOTTOM 10 PERFORMERS

Belarus 26 33% Kazakhstan Canada 47 9 5 Switzerland 37% 69% 71%

2 Turkmenistan Uzbekistan 1 35% 38%

Bahrain 90 73%

4 Myanmar 12 Sudan 7 36% 5 Costa Rica Guinea 33% 73% 4 1 33% Ethiopia 1 Singapore 4 38% 71%

41 Cote d'Ivoire 37%

20 Burundi Mauritius 3 33 Chile 34% 69% 76% Australia 6 74% 11

Botswana 71 Legend: 68% New Zealand Top 10 83 72% Bottom 10

Quality of Life Index

The Quality of Life sub-index is especially interesting because, from a particular perspective, if one has sufficient wealth and security, then the things measured on the Quality of Life sub-index are the ones which one will experience directly, such as well-being, air and water pollution, and climate change (potentially disastrously).

Difference Difference Ranking Ranking Quality of Life Quality of Life Country in in 2014 2013 Index 2014 Index 2013 Ranking Score

Sw itzerland 1 1 95% 92% 3%

Nor w ay 2 2 89% 87% 2% De nm ar k 3 8 87% 82% 5% Unite d Kingdom 4 6 87% 83% 4% Sw eden 5 4 87% 85% 2% Ne w Ze aland 6 5 87% 84% 2% Costa Rica 7 11 86% 82% 5% Austria 8 7 86% 83% 3% Fr ance 9 9 85% 82% 3% Iceland 10 3 85% 86% -1% Ge rm any 11 12 85% 80% 5% Venezuela, RB 12 14 84% 79% 5%

Ne the r lands 13 10 83% 82% 1% Canada 14 16 83% 79% 4%

Italy 15 13 83% 80% 3% Finland 16 19 83% 78% 5% Be liz e 17 17 83% 79% 4% Australia 18 25 82% 75% 7% Br az il 19 21 82% 76% 6% Israel 20 20 81% 78% 3% Be lgium 21 15 81% 79% 2% Panam a 22 24 81% 75% 6% Luxembourg 23 18 80% 78% 2%

Unite d State s 24 26 80% 74% 6% Colombia 25 31 80% 72% 8%

Chile 26 27 79% 74% 5% Spain 27 22 79% 76% 3% Ecu ad o r 28 30 79% 72% 7% Ireland 29 28 78% 73% 5% Slovak Republic 30 23 78% 76% 2%

In this sub-index, it seems as though movement in the top 30 has been roughly positive in terms of scores across the board, no country’s score has improved by more than 8% (six places), or fallen by more than seven places. Switzerland and Norway top the sub-index for the second year in a row, with scores of 95% and 89% respectively.

The top 30 has a range of countries from different regions and with different levels of economic development – as we might expect, given that many countries with relatively low economic development levels are considered to be ‘untouched’ in terms of natural beauty, and have temperate or even tropical climates. In the top 30 this year such

countries are Ecuador, Chile, Colombia, Panama, Brazil, Belize, Venezuela, and Costa Rica. Some of these countries may receive high scores for well-being despite having a long way to go before they are the ideal retirement country.

The last 30 countries in the Quality of Life sub-index have all (except for one – Libya) gained in terms of their score in this index; however, in terms of movement up and down the rankings, the bottom 30 has a roughly equal number of improvers and those who fell through the ranks.

Difference Difference Ranking Ranking Quality of Life Quality of Life Country in in 2014 2013 Index 2014 Index 2013 Ranking Score Bur undi 121 133 44% 33% 11% Djibouti 122 121 44% 37% 7% Mauritania 123 136 44% 31% 12% Madagascar 124 138 43% 31% 13% Guine a 125 132 43% 33% 10% Sudan 126 120 42% 37% 6% Bots w ana 127 117 41% 38% 4% Central African Republic 128 135 41% 32% 9% Senegal 129 124 41% 35% 5% Congo, Dem. Rep. 130 131 40% 33% 6% India 131 126 39% 35% 5% Ne pal 132 127 39% 35% 5% Congo, Rep. 133 134 38% 33% 5% Bos nia and He r z e govina 134 123 38% 36% 2% Yem en, Rep. 135 137 37% 31% 6% Syrian Arab Republic 136 129 37% 34% 3%

Libya 137 118 37% 38% -1% Be nin 138 130 36% 33% 3%

Nige r 139 140 36% 28% 8% Mali 140 145 35% 23% 12% Liberia 141 143 35% 25% 10% Haiti 142 139 34% 29% 5% Chad 143 141 34% 26% 8% Sierra Leone 144 146 33% 23% 9% Afghanistan 145 147 32% 21% 12% Iraq 146 142 30% 25% 4% Tanzania 147 144 26% 23% 3% Lesotho 148 150 24% 12% 12% Togo 149 148 20% 19% 2% Comoros 150 149 14% 13% 1%

No country’s score changed by more than 13% (Madagascar), and those towards the very bottom of the list have tended to remain in fairly stable positions, although all of the bottom 10 have improved their score in this index by at least a percentage point, and 12% in the case of Afghanistan and Lesotho.

Tragically, many of the countries in the bottom 30 are, or have recently been, war zones – for instance, the Democratic Republic of Congo (in 130th place), Libya (137th), Syria (136th) , and Iraq (146th), which suggests that political and social upheaval is captured in this sub-index largely through the Wellbeing indicator.

Overall the range of scores achieved on the Quality of Life sub-index has increased from 79% in 2013 to 81% this year - but on average the worse-off countries have higher average scores than before, and so do the top- performing countries, so that while inequality may have slightly increased, it is encouragingly not due to a decrease in the least well-off countries’ scores.

When we map the performance of the top and bottom 10 in this sub-index, we can see that although the top 10 countries are, as usual, concentrated around Western Europe, there is an outlier in Costa Rica – and also New Zealand (although this is less surprising as New Zealand is a highly developed country).

Those in the bottom 10 are, predictably by now, mostly focused in Africa, or otherwise in countries which have recently gone through wars, such as Iraq and Afghanistan.

QUALITY OF LIFE INDEX: TOP 10 AND BOTTOM 10 PERFORMERS

Norway 89% Sweden 1 87%

7 Iceland 85%

2 United Kingdom 7 Denmark 87% 5 87%

France Austria 1 85% 86%

Iraq 4 Switzerland 30% 95% Afghanistan 2 32% 3 Haiti 34% Chad 2 34% 4 Costa Rica 86% Tanzania 3 Sierra Leone 26% 2 33% Comoros 1 Liberia 14% 2 35%

Lesotho 2 1 Togo 24% 20%

Legend: 1 New Zealand Top 10 87%

Bottom 10

Material Wellbeing Index

The Material Wellbeing sub-index mostly measures things such as individual incomes, the availability of jobs (unemployment levels) and income inequality. For the second year running, Norway and Luxembourg top the rankings in this index, coming in at 1st and 2nd place with scores of 97% and 89% respectively. Because this measure tends to judge only, or primarily, unemployment and income levels, small, oil-rich states such as the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait come into the top 10.

It is presumably income inequality, relative to other countries, and high unemployment levels which kept the United States and the United Kingdom out of the top 30 in 2014. Just over half (16 countries) of the top 30 have fallen through the ranks, although in no instance by more than nine places (Japan). Two countries rose by more than 10 places – Qatar (15 places, from 36th to 21st place) and Saudi Arabia (17 places, from 39th to 22nd).

Difference Material Material Difference Ranking Ranking Country in Wellbeing Wellbeing in 2014 2013 Ranking Index 2014 Index 2013 Score

Nor w ay 1 1 97% 97% -1% Luxembourg 2 2 89% 95% -5% Austria 3 4 89% 90% -1% Kuw ait 4 3 89% 93% -5% Sw itzerland 5 9 87% 88% -1% Ne the r lands 6 6 86% 88% -3% Be lar us 7 6 84% 88% -4% Unite d Ar ab Em ir ate s 8 5 84% 89% -5% Iceland 9 20 83% 81% 2% De nm ar k 10 10 83% 86% -3% Kor e a, Re p. 11 6 83% 88% -5% Be lgium 12 22 82% 80% 3% Ge rm any 13 13 82% 85% -3% Sw eden 14 12 82% 85% -4% Finland 15 14 81% 84% -3% Czech Republic 16 17 80% 84% -5% Slovenia 17 21 80% 81% -1% Malta 18 15 80% 84% -4% Australia 19 15 78% 84% -5% Japan 20 11 78% 85% -7% Qatar 21 36 77% 73% 5% Saudi Arabia 22 39 77% 72% 6% Cyprus 23 18 76% 83% -7% Cuba 24 19 76% 82% -5% Canada 25 23 76% 80% -4% Ne w Ze aland 26 25 75% 77% -2% Rom ania 27 27 74% 76% -2% Fr ance 28 24 74% 79% -6% Kaz ak hs tan 29 28 73% 76% -3% Italy 30 29 73% 76% -3%

Scores have not changed significantly; the greatest increase or decrease was by 7% in the case of Japan and Cyprus. However, it does seem as though countries in the top 30 mostly have lower scores than last year, certainly on average.

The last thirty countries in the Material Wellbeing sub-index have mostly seen their scores fall, quite dramatically, since last year – the greatest difference in scores since last year has been 43%, Botswana’s score, but many others came in with a difference of 40% (Mali) or 28% (Niger, Senegal). Only 19 countries’ rankings fell, however, due to the poor performance of certain other countries, 11 countries were able to hold their position in the rankings from last year, or improve it.

Difference Material Material Difference Ranking Ranking Country in Wellbeing Wellbeing in 2014 2013 Ranking Index 2014 Index 2013 Score Mauritania 121 125 30% 41% -11% Et h io p ia 122 120 30% 44% -14% Sierra Leone 123 136 29% 34% -6%

Nige r ia 124 121 28% 42% -14% Madagascar 125 135 28% 35% -7% Afghanistan 126 132 28% 36% -8% Mali 127 56 26% 66% -40% Mozambique 128 146 22% 18% 4% Zambia 129 128 21% 38% -17% Senegal 130 111 20% 48% -28% Ke nya 131 140 20% 30% -10% Nam ibia 132 147 18% 8% 10% Bots w ana 133 76 18% 61% -43% Guine a 134 127 18% 39% -21% Liberia 135 143 17% 23% -6% Chad 136 122 16% 42% -25% Congo, Rep. 137 112 16% 47% -31% Togo 138 129 16% 38% -22% South Africa 139 126 15% 40% -25% Central African Republic 140 124 15% 41% -27% Turkmenistan 141 149 14% 7% 6% Malawi 142 130 12% 37% -24% Djibouti 143 143 11% 23% -12% Haiti 144 142 11% 24% -13% Lesotho 145 137 11% 34% -23% Bur undi 146 134 8% 35% -27% Nige r 147 131 8% 36% -28% Comoros 148 145 7% 20% -13% Congo, Dem. Rep. 149 148 6% 8% -2% Zimbabwe 150 150 3% 2% 1%

All of the countries listed in the bottom 30 are developing countries, and most are in Africa (apart from three: Haiti, Turkmenistan, and Afghanistan). That over half of the countries in Africa are in the bottom 30 in the Material Wellbeing sub-index, and most countries in the bottom 30 have worsening scores, should suggest that even if Quality of Life may be improving on this continent, it seems that in economic terms, people’s conditions are worsening.

The range between the top score in the Material Wellbeing index and the bottom one is 94, signaling an extreme difference of material wealth between the richest and poorest countries.

When viewed on a world map, we can see the by now familiar concentration of the top 10 countries in the sub- index in North and West Europe – although two of the top 10, Kuwait and the UAE, are in the Middle East. Most countries in Western Europe who are in the top 10 have improved their position in the rankings, whereas most countries in the bottom 10 have clearly worsened their score to arrive there.

Africa, for instance, is a continent of red dots and downwards-pointing arrows, to indicate that all of these countries have fallen in relative material well-being. Those countries relying for their only sources of income on tourism, aid, or trade with other affected countries will have suffered worse in the aftermath of the slow and tentative recovery of Western Europe and North America since 2007.

MATERIAL WELLBEING INDEX: TOP 10 AND BOTTOM 10 PERFORMERS

Norway 97% 11 Iceland 83% Denmark 83%

Netherlands 86%

Belarus 1 Luxembourg 84% 89% Austria 1 89% Kuwait 1 89%

Switzerland United Arab 4 3 87% Emirates 84%

Turkmenistan 8 14% Congo, Dem. Rep. 2 Haiti 1 4 11% 3% Djibouti 11% Zimbabwe 3%

Comoros 3 16 Niger 7% 8% Malawi 12 12% 6 12 Burundi 8% Lesotho 8 11%

Legend:

Top 10

Bottom 10

References

Central Intelligence Agency (2013), The World Factbook. Accessible online at: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html

Dasgupta, P. and Weale, M. (1992), “On Measuring the Quality of Life”, World Development, Vol. 20:1, pp. 119- 131.

Economist, The (2013), Markets & Data. http://www.economist.com/markets-data

Emerson, J.W., A. Hsu, M.A. Levy, A. de Sherbinin, V. Mara, D.C. Esty, and M. Jaiteh (2012), 2012 Environmental Performance Index and Pilot Trend Environmental Performance Index. New Haven: Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy.

Johansson, Å., et al. (2012), "Looking to 2060: Long-Term Global Growth Prospects: A Going for Growth Report", OECD Economic Policy Papers, No. 3, OECD Publishing.

Klugman, Rodriguez and Choi (2011), “The HDI 2010: New Controversies, Old Critiques”, Human Development Research Paper 2011/1, UNDP, New York.

Miller, T., Holmes, K.R. and Feulner, E.J. (2013), 2013 Index of Economic Freedom. Washington, DC: The Heritage Foundation and Dow Jones & Company, Inc.

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (2013), OECD.Stat. http://stats.oecd.org/

Seth, S. (2009), “A Class of Association Sensitive Multidimensional Welfare Indices”, OPHI Working Paper No. 27.

UNDP (2007): Measuring Human Development. A primer. Guidelines and tools for statistical research, analysis and advocacy. New York.

U.S. Energy Information Administration (2013), International Energy Statistics. Washington, DC. http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm

World Bank (2013), World Development Indicators 2013. Washington, DC. http://databank.worldbank.org/data/download/WDI_excel.zip

World Bank (2013), Worldwide Governance Indicators, 2013 Update. Washington, DC. http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/wgidataset.xlsx

World Health Organization (2013), National Health Accounts 2013. Geneva, Switzerland.

World Health Organization and UNICEF (2013), WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Program for Water Supply and Sanitation. Geneva and New York. http://www.wssinfo.org/

Xavier, Ferraz, Marc, Escosteguy and Moriguchi (2003), “Elderly people’s definition of quality of life”, Revista Brasileira de Psiquiatria, Vol 25:1, pp. 31-39.

Zahava, G. and Bowling, A. (2004), “Quality of life from the perspectives of older people”, Ageing and Society, 24, pp. 675-691.

Appendix

FULL RANKINGS: GRI 2014

Fina nc e s in Quality Material Globa l Health Rank Country Retirement of Life Wellbeing Retirement Index Index Index Index Index

1 Sw itzerland 86%0% 71% 95% 87% 84% 2 Nor w ay 86% 66% 89% 97% 84% 3 Austria 90% 63% 86% 89% 81% 4 Sw eden 83% 68% 87% 82% 79% 5 Australia 84% 74% 82% 78% 79% 6 De nm ar k 83% 64% 87% 83% 79% 7 Ge rm any 88% 63% 85% 82% 79%

8 Finland 82%0% 68%0% 83%0% 81%0% 78%0% 9 Ne w Ze aland 79%0% 72%0% 87%0% 75%0% 78%0% 10 Luxembourg 85%0% 59%0% 80%0% 89%0% 78%0% 11 Iceland 85%0% 60%0% 85%0% 83%0% 77%0% 12 Be lgium 86% 62% 81% 82% 77%0% 13 Ne the r lands 86% 56% 83% 86% 77% 14 Canada 79% 69% 83% 76% 77% 15 Fr ance 88% 61% 85% 74% 76% 16 Czech Republic 83% 63% 76% 80% 75% 17 Kor e a, Re p. 77% 68% 71% 83% 74%

18 Unite d Kingdom 81%0% 58%0% 87%0% 72%0% 74%0% 19 Unite d State s 81%0% 65%0% 80%0% 68%0% 73%0% 20 Israel 79%0% 63%0% 81%0% 70%0% 73%0% 21 Slovenia 80%0% 60%0% 73%0% 80%0% 73%0% 22 Slovak Republic 78%0% 64%0% 78%0% 70% 72% 23 Italy 82% 53% 83% 73% 72% 24 Ireland 82% 63% 78% 65% 71% 25 Cyprus 71% 64% 74% 76% 71% 26 Unite d Ar ab Em ir ate s 71% 55% 72% 84% 70% 27 Japan 84% 47% 76% 78% 69%

28 Malta 79%0% 62%0% 60%0% 80%0% 69%0% 29 Spain 83%0% 62%0% 79%0% 57%0% 69%0% 30 Poland 75%0% 62%0% 70%0% 67%0% 68%0% 31 Qatar 72%0% 56%0% 68%0% 77%0% 68%0% 32 Croatia 79%0% 60%0% 70%0% 62%0% 67%0% 33 Es t o n ia 78% 66% 59% 65% 67% 34 Portugal 80% 60% 66% 63% 67% 35 Ur uguay 78% 65% 66% 56% 66% 36 Chile 62% 76% 79% 51% 66% 37 Costa Rica 64% 73% 86% 47% 66%

38 Panam a 67%0% 68%0% 81%0% 51%0% 66%0% 39 Gre e ce 83%0% 51%0% 73%0% 59%0% 65%0% 40 Kuw ait 69% 52% 57% 89% 65%

FULL RANKINGS: GRI 2014

Fina nc e s in Quality Material Globa l Health Rank Country Retirement of Life Wellbeing Retirement Index Index Index Index Index

41 Singapore 65%0% 71%0% 58%0% 66%0% 65%0% 42 Mexico 63% 67% 75% 56% 65%

43 Hungar y 78%0% 56%0% 56%0% 71%0% 65%0% 44 Lithuania 77%0% 62%0% 64%0% 57%0% 65%0% 45 Saudi Arabia 62% 50% 72% 77% 65%

46 Cuba 83%0% 41%0% 66%0% 76%0% 64%0% 47 Malaysia 58% 68% 70% 60% 64% 48 Rom ania 74% 56% 53% 74% 63%

49 Latvia 71%0% 60%0% 63%0% 59%0% 63%0% 50 Rus s ian Fe de r ation 76% 53% 59% 64% 62% 51 Ecu ad o r 59% 61% 79% 51% 62%

52 Trinidad and Tobago 60%0% 67%0% 54%0% 67%0% 62%0% 53 Bulgar ia 73% 58% 51% 68% 62% 54 Mauritius 57% 69% 60% 61% 62%

55 Turkey 69%0% 60%0% 58%0% 59%0% 61%0% 56 Thailand 50% 62% 67% 65% 61% 57 Bahr ain 66% 73% 48% 58% 60%

58 Argentina 76%0% 43%0% 73%0% 54%0% 60%0% 59 Be lar us 76% 33% 61% 84% 60% 60 Uk r aine 69% 49% 56% 68% 60%

61 Br az il 65%0% 59%0% 82%0% 40%0% 60%0% 62 Be liz e 54% 63% 83% 44% 60%

63 Peru 55%0% 67%0% 70%0% 48%0% 60%0% 64 Venezuela, RB 55% 49% 84% 53% 59% 65 Albania 56% 54% 71% 55% 59%

66 Mongolia 63%0% 58%0% 52%0% 62%0% 58%0% 67 Jordan 66% 60% 55% 52% 58% 68 Azerbaijan 59% 63% 46% 66% 58%

69 China 65%0% 60%0% 46%0% 59%0% 57%0% 70 Moldova 66% 54% 51% 58% 57% 71 Vietnam 53% 54% 62% 59% 57%

72 Lebanon 68%0% 51%0% 54%0% 53%0% 56%0% 73 Dom inican Re public 61% 63% 57% 45% 56%

74 Serbia 70%0% 51%0% 48%0% 56%0% 56%0% 75 El Salvad o r 58% 48% 74% 46% 55% 76 Kaz ak hs tan 69% 37% 49% 73% 55%

77 Jamaica 49%0% 56%0% 71%0% 46%0% 55%0% 78 Algeria 59% 42% 60% 57% 54% 79 Nicar agua 44% 56% 70% 49% 54% 80 Libya 64% 56% 37% 64% 54%

FULL RANKINGS: GRI 2014

Fina nc e s in Quality Material Globa l Health Rank Country Retirement of Life Wellbeing Retirement Index Index Index Index Index 81 Iran, Islamic Rep. 53% 55% 52% 56% 54% 82 Philippines 46% 62% 61% 48% 54% 83 Guate m ala 47% 64% 74% 38% 54% 84 Bolivia 53% 59% 70% 38% 54% 85 Tunisia 59% 45% 56% 55% 53% 86 Sri Lanka 43% 59% 51% 61% 53% 87 Kyr gyz Re public 61% 50% 54% 48% 53% 88 Eg yp t , Ar ab Re p . 56% 51% 45% 61% 53% 89 Paraguay 52% 63% 58% 42% 53% 90 Ge orgia 60% 61% 47% 45% 53% 91 Colombia 43% 64% 80% 35% 53% 92 Indonesia 33% 65% 64% 54% 52% 93 Armenia 60% 61% 46% 44% 52%

94 Macedonia, FYR 70%0% 59% 46% 37% 51% 95 Lao PDR 35%0% 56% 63% 54% 51% 96 Tajikistan 52%0% 47%0% 47% 56%0% 51%0% 97 Morocco 44%0% 61%0% 48%0% 50%0% 50%0% 98 Hondur as 42%0% 61%0% 70%0% 33%0% 49%0% 99 Bos nia and He r z e govina 67%0% 52%0% 38%0% 44%0% 49%0% 100 Uz be k is tan 59%0% 38%0% 46%0% 55%0% 49%0% 101 Guyana 42%0% 56%0% 55%0% 41%0% 48%0% 102 Pakistan 36%0% 46%0% 55%0% 58%0% 48%0% 103 Syrian Arab Republic 53%0% 53%0% 37%0% 49%0% 47%0% 104 India 40%0% 46%0% 39%0% 60%0% 46%0% 105 Banglade s h 32%0% 53%0% 44%0% 51%0% 44%0% 106 Iraq 51% 52% 30% 49% 44% 107 Cambodia 34% 42% 48% 53% 44% 108 Cameroon 24% 65% 48% 49% 44% 109 Angola 30% 55% 45% 43% 42% 110 Ghana 28% 47% 50% 43% 41% 111 Nam ibia 49% 52% 62% 18% 41% 112 Uganda 27% 61% 51% 32% 40% 113 Rw anda 30% 63% 46% 30% 40% 114 Ne pal 35% 39% 39% 47% 40%

115 South Africa 53%0% 63%0% 50%0% 15%0% 40%0% 116 Zambia 28%0% 64%0% 67%0% 21%0% 39%0% 117 Yem en, Rep. 27% 51% 37% 40% 38% 118 Mauritania 29% 55% 44% 30% 38% 119 Nige r ia 28% 51% 50% 28% 38% 120 Myanmar 24% 36% 61% 38% 38%

FULL RANKINGS: GRI 2014

Fina nc e s in Quality Material Globa l Health Rank Country Retirement of Life Wellbeing Retirement Index Index Index Index Index

121 Bots w ana 38%0% 68%0% 41%0% 18%0% 37%0% 122 Bur k ina Fas o 21%0% 46%0% 45%0% 42%0% 37%0% 123 Madagascar 23%0% 64%0% 43%0% 28%0% 37%0% 124 Ke nya 31%0% 54%0% 50%0% 20%0% 36%0%

125 Turkmenistan 60%0% 35%0% 57%0% 14%0% 36%0% 126 Sudan 31%0% 29%0% 42%0% 37%0% 34%0%

127 Mozambique 19%0% 61%0% 51%0% 22%0% 34%0% 128 Cote d'Ivoire 22% 37% 50% 31% 33% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 129 Et h io p ia 23%0% 38%0% 48%0% 30%0% 33%0% 130 Tanzania 17% 61% 26% 43% 33% 131 Congo, Rep. 30% 64% 38% 16% 33% 132 Be nin 23% 46% 36% 31% 33% 133 Malawi 21% 61% 67% 12% 32% 134 Djibouti 38% 57% 44% 11% 32% 135 Afghanistan 22% 52% 32% 28% 32% 136 Senegal 24% 45% 41% 20% 31% 137 Haiti 37% 57% 34% 11% 30% 138 Liberia 21% 59% 35% 17% 29% 139 Sierra Leone 13% 50% 33% 29% 28% 140 Central African Republic 17% 58% 41% 15% 28% 141 Chad 16% 61% 34% 16% 27% 142 Guine a 20% 33% 43% 18% 27%

143 Mali 11%0% 43%0% 35%0% 26%0% 26% 144 Lesotho 24%0% 51%0% 24%0% 11%0% 24%0% 145 Congo, Dem. Rep. 28%0% 46%0% 40%0% 0%6% 24%0% 146 Togo 23%0% 40%0% 20%0% 16%0% 23%0% 147 Bur undi 20%0% 34%0% 44%0% 8%0% 22%0% 148 Nige r 15%0% 43%0% 36%0% 8%0% 21%0% 149 Comoros 31%0% 57%0% 14%0% 0%7% 21%0% 150 Zimbabwe 19% 53% 60% 3% 20%

GRI 2014 VS. GRI 2013

Diffe r e nce Diffe r e nce Rank ing Rank ing Score Score Country in in 2014 2013 2014 2013 Rank ing Score Sw itzerland 1 2 84% 87% -3% Nor w ay 2 1 84% 87% -3% Austria 3 5 81% 81% 0% Sw eden 4 4 79% 82% -2% Australia 5 11 79% 78% 1% De nm ar k 6 8 79% 79% 0% 2 Ge rm any 7 9 79% 78% 0% Finland 8 6 78% 79% -1% Ne w Ze aland 9 22 78% 73% 5% Luxembourg 10 3 78% 82% -4% Iceland 11 23 77% 73% 4% Be lgium 12 14 77% 77% 0% Ne the r lands 13 7 77% 80% -3% Canada 14 13 77% 77% -1% Fr ance 15 10 76% 78% -2% Czech Republic 16 17 75% 74% 2% Kor e a, Re p. 17 27 74% 72% 2% Unite d Kingdom 18 20 74% 74% 0% Unite d State s 19 19 73% 74% -1% Israel 20 12 73% 77% -4% Slovenia 21 16 73% 76% -3% Slovak Republic 22 18 72% 74% -2% Italy 23 21 72% 74% -2% Ireland 24 48 71% 64% 7% Cyprus 25 24 71% 73% -2% Unite d Ar ab Em ir ate s 26 30 70% 71% -2% Japan 27 15 69% 77% -7% Malta 28 26 69% 73% -3% Spain 29 25 69% 73% -4% Poland 30 36 68% 70% -1% Qatar 31 50 68% 64% 4% Croatia 32 35 67% 70% -3% Es t o n ia 33 43 67% 66% 1% Portugal 34 32 67% 71% -4% Ur uguay 35 34 66% 70% -4% Chile 36 37 66% 68% -2% Costa Rica 37 31 66% 71% -5% Panam a 38 29 66% 72% -6% Gre e ce 39 33 65% 70% -4% Kuw ait 40 39 65% 67% -2%

GRI 2014 VS. GRI 2013

Diffe r e nce Diffe r e nce Rank ing Rank ing Score Score Country in in 2014 2013 2014 2013 Rank ing Score

Singapore 41 28 65% 72% -7% Mexico 42 42 65% 66% -1% Hungar y 43 45 65% 66% -1% Lithuania 44 38 65% 67% -3% Saudi Arabia 45 46 65% 65% -1% Cuba 46 54 64% 63% 1% Malaysia 47 49 64% 64% -1% Rom ania 48 58 63% 62% 1% Latvia 49 65 63% 58% 5% Rus s ian Fe de r ation 50 70 62% 57% 5% Ecu ad o r 51 51 62% 64% -2% Trinidad and Tobago 52 85 62% 54% 8% Bulgar ia 53 61 62% 60% 2% Mauritius 54 44 62% 66% -4% Turkey 55 59 61% 62% 0% Thailand 56 63 61% 59% 2% Bahr ain 57 92 60% 52% 8% Argentina 58 41 60% 66% -6% Be lar us 59 47 60% 65% -5% Uk r aine 60 72 60% 57% 3% Br az il 61 40 60% 66% -6% Be liz e 62 56 60% 62% -2% Peru 63 57 60% 62% -2% Venezuela, RB 64 64 59% 59% 0% Albania 65 55 59% 63% -4% Mongolia 66 103 58% 47% 11% Jordan 67 60 58% 61% -3% Azerbaijan 68 93 58% 52% 6% China 69 73 57% 57% 0% Moldova 70 76 57% 56% 1% Vietnam 71 79 57% 55% 2% Lebanon 72 53 56% 63% -7% Dom inican Re public 73 69 56% 58% -1% Serbia 74 75 56% 56% -1% El Salvad o r 75 52 55% 64% -8% Kaz ak hs tan 76 66 55% 58% -3% Jamaica 77 68 55% 58% -3% Algeria 78 98 54% 49% 5% Nicar agua 79 95 54% 52% 2% Libya 80 88 54% 53% 1%

GRI 2014 VS. GRI 2013

Diffe r e nce Diffe r e nce Rank ing Rank ing Score Score Country in in 2014 2013 2014 2013 Rank ing Score

Iran, Islamic Rep. 81 86 54% 54% 0% Philippines 82 82 54% 54% 0% Guate m ala 83 62 54% 59% -6% Bolivia 84 71 54% 57% -4% Tunisia 85 74 53% 56% -3% Sri Lanka 86 91 53% 52% 1% Kyr gyz Re public 87 78 53% 55% -2% Eg yp t , Ar ab Re p . 88 94 53% 52% 1% Paraguay 89 67 53% 58% -5% Ge orgia 90 89 53% 53% 0% Colombia 91 77 53% 55% -2% Indonesia 92 84 52% 54% -1% Armenia 93 80 52% 54% -2% Macedonia, FYR 94 81 51% 54% -3% Lao PDR 95 100 51% 49% 2% Tajikistan 96 117 51% 39% 11% Morocco 97 87 50% 53% -2% Hondur as 98 97 49% 50% -1% Bos nia and He r z e govina 99 96 49% 51% -2% Uz be k is tan 100 105 49% 47% 2% Guyana 101 83 48% 54% -6% Pakistan 102 107 48% 46% 2% Syrian Arab Republic 103 102 47% 47% 0% India 104 101 46% 49% -3% Banglade s h 105 112 44% 43% 1% Iraq 106 115 44% 40% 5% Cambodia 107 108 44% 45% -1% Cameroon 108 106 44% 46% -2% Angola 109 129 42% 35% 7% Ghana 110 111 41% 43% -2% Nam ibia 111 131 41% 35% 6% Uganda 112 104 40% 47% -7% Rw anda 113 109 40% 44% -4% Ne pal 114 118 40% 39% 1% South Africa 115 99 40% 49% -10% Zambia 116 110 39% 44% -4% Yem en, Rep. 117 132 38% 34% 4% Mauritania 118 136 38% 32% 6% Nige r ia 119 120 38% 38% 0% Myanmar 120 121 38% 38% 0%

GRI 2014 VS. GRI 2013

Diffe r e nce Diffe r e nce Rank ing Rank ing Score Score Country in in 2014 2013 2014 2013 Rank ing Score

Bots w ana 121 90 37% 52% -15% Bur k ina Fas o 122 123 37% 37% 0% Madagascar 123 135 37% 33% 4% Ke nya 124 113 36% 42% -6% Turkmenistan 125 142 36% 29% 7% Sudan 126 133 34% 34% 1% Mozambique 127 138 34% 30% 3% Cote d'Ivoire 128 126 33% 36% -3% Et h io p ia 129 134 33% 33% 1% Tanzania 130 116 33% 40% -7% Congo, Rep. 131 127 33% 36% -3% Be nin 132 124 33% 37% -4% Malawi 133 119 32% 38% -6% Djibouti 134 122 32% 38% -6% Afghanistan 135 144 32% 28% 4% Senegal 136 114 31% 40% -9% Haiti 137 130 30% 35% -6% Liberia 138 146 29% 26% 4% Sierra Leone 139 147 28% 24% 4% Central African Republic 140 128 28% 36% -8% Chad 141 137 27% 32% -4% Guine a 142 140 27% 30% -4% Mali 143 145 26% 26% -1% Lesotho 144 139 24% 31% -7% Congo, Dem. Rep. 145 149 24% 22% 2% Togo 146 141 23% 30% -7% Bur undi 147 125 22% 36% -14% Nige r 148 143 21% 29% -8% Comoros 149 148 21% 22% -2% Zimbabwe 150 150 20% 19% 1%

This communication is for information only. Analyses of the survey referenced herein are as of October 24, 2013. There can be no assurance that developments will transpire as may be forecasted in this material. This material may not be distributed, published or reproduced, in whole or in part. Although Natixis Global Asset Management believes the information provided in this material to be reliable, it does not guarantee the accuracy, adequacy or completeness of such information.

In the EU (ex UK): Distributed by NGAM S.A., a Luxembourg management company authorized by the CSSF, or one of its branch offices. NGAM S.A., 51, avenue J.F. Kennedy, L-1855 Luxembourg, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.

In Switzerland: Provided to Qualified Investors by NGAM, Switzerland Sàrl.

In the UK: Approved for use by NGAM UK Limited, authorized and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority.

In the DIFC: Distributed in and from the DIFC financial district to Professional Clients only by NGAM Middle East, a branch of NGAM UK Limited, which is regulated by the DFSA. Registered office: Office 603 - Level 6, Currency House Tower 2, PO Box 118257, DIFC, Dubai, United Arab Emirates.

In Singapore: Provided by NGAM Singapore (name registration no. 5310272FD), a division of Absolute Asia Asset Management Limited, to Institutional Investors and Accredited Investors for information only. Absolute Asia Asset Management Limited is authorized by the Monetary Authority of Singapore (Company registration No. 199801044D) and holds a Capital Markets Services License to provide investment management services in Singapore. Address of NGAM Singapore: 10 Collyer Quay, #14- 07/08 Ocean Financial Centre, Singapore 049315.

In Taiwan: This material is provided by NGAM Securities Investment Consulting (Taipei) Co., Ltd., a Securities Investment Consulting Enterprise, regulated by the Taiwan Financial Supervisory Commission of the R.O.C. Registered address: 16F-1, No. 76, Section 2, Tun Hwa South Road, Taipei, Taiwan, Da-An District, 106 (Ruentex Financial Building I), R.O.C., license number 2012 FSC SICE No. 039, Tel. +886 2 2784 5777.

In Japan: Provided by Natixis Asset Management Japan Co., Registration No.: Director-General of the Kanto Local Financial Bureau (kinsho) No. 425. Content of Business: The Company conducts discretionary asset management business and investment advisory and agency business as a Financial Instruments Business Operator. Registered address: 2-2-3 Uchisaiwaicho, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo.

In Hong Kong: This document is issued by NGAM Hong Kong Limited and is provided solely for general information only and does not constitute a solicitation to buy or an offer to sell any financial products or services.

In the United States: Furnished by NGAM Distribution, L.P., 399 Boylston St., Boston, MA 02116.

Natixis Global Asset Management consists of Natixis Global Asset Management, S.A., NGAM Distribution, L.P., NGAM Advisors, L.P., NGAM S.A., and NGAM S.A.’s business development units across the globe, each of which is an affiliate of Natixis Global Asset Management, S.A. The affiliated investment managers and distribution companies are each an affiliate of Natixis Global

775523