Search results

This study aims to evaluate the competitiveness of nations and seeks to answer the following research question: how does the competitiveness of nations include improvements in the quality of life, thus influencing and contributing to social progress in both social and economic indices?

This paper collected secondary data from the World Economic Forum and the socioeconomic dimensions of the Social Progress Imperative Index and considered the dimensions of these indices, which were demonstrated using Pearson’s correlation coefficient. The main focus was on the documentary analysis that was carried out to explain the realities of 121 countries from 2014 to 2017 as taken from these indices, considering the 10 countries at the top and bottom.

This study showed the use of new measures for the performance of nations that are less dependent on economics and focus more on social development, which may be a trend for the future of nations, and produce a more holistic view for the study. “Innovation” is the factor with the weakest relationship with social progress, which is justified by a weaker relationship with one of the subcategories, “basic human needs”, when analyzed in isolation. However, when the authors analyze the best and worst nations, the authors observe that economic factors are still prevalent, with the “institutions” and “infrastructure” factors being effective for improving competitiveness and the quality of life.

The findings represent a new, emerging configuration in country performance, but the study has its limitations, such as the use of only two pooled variables and the fact that it does not correlate their dimensions or variables.

This study can represents an expansion logic for measuring the performance of countries considering social factors. The main contributions of this study are its statistical evidence and documentary analysis of the relationship between economic and social variables. The main contribution of this paper is to show that over time (2014–2017) economic factors, as measured by the competitiveness index of nations, relate to aspects of social welfare, as measured by the social progress index.

Social development is the ultimate goal of every nation, and climate change is a major stumbling block. Climate Risk Index has documented several climate change events with their devastations in terms of lives lost and economic cost. This study aims to link the climate change and renewable energy with the social progress of extreme climate affected countries.

This research used the top 50 most climate-affected countries of the decade and estimated the impact of climate risk on social progress with moderation effects of renewable energy and technology. Several competing panel data models such as quantile regression, bootstrap quantile regression and feasible generalized least square are used to generate robust estimates.

The results confirm that climate hazards obstruct socioeconomic progress, but renewable energy and technology can help to mitigate the repercussion. Moreover, improved institutions enhance the social progress of nations.

Government should improve the institutional quality that enhances their performance in terms of Voice and Accountability, Political Stability and Absence of Violence, Government Effectiveness, Regulatory Quality, Rule of Law and Control of Corruption to increase social progress. In addition, society should use renewable energy instead of fossil fuels to avoid environmental degradation and health hazards. Innovation and technology also play an important role in social progress and living standards, so there should be free hand to private business research and development, encouraging research institutes and universities to come forward for innovation and research.

The ultimate goal of all human struggle is to have progress that facilitates human beings to uplift their living standard. One of the best measures that can tell us about a nation’s progress is Social Progress Index (SPI), and one of many factors that can abruptly change it is the climate; so this study is an attempt to link the relationship among these variables and also discuss the situation where the impact of climate can be reduced.

Although social progress is an important concept of today’s economics discussion, relatively few studies are using the SPI to measure social well-being. Similarly, there is consensus about the impact of climate on people, government and crops but relatively less study about its overall impact on social progress, so this study attempts to fill the gap about the relationship between social progress and climate change.

The main contribution of this study is the solution for the impact of climate risk. Climate risk is not in human control, and we cannot eliminate it, but we can reduce the negative impacts of climate change. Moderator impact of renewable energy decreases the negative impact of climate change, so there is a need to use more renewable energy to mitigate the bad consequences of climate on social progress. Another moderator is technology; using technology will also mitigate the negative consequences of the climate, so there is a need to facilitate technological advancement.

The main goal of this study is to analyze the influence of social capital and corporate ethics on social progress. A theoretical model is proposed, and the hypotheses were tested on a sample of 32 Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and non-OECD countries between 2011 and 2018 that includes data from the Social Progress Imperative non-profit organization as well as from the World Economic Forum database (Global Competitiveness Reports). The results indicate that, although both social capital and corporate ethics have a direct influence on social progress, social capital also influences corporate ethics so that the latter acts as a mediating variable between social capital and social progress.

Although the Social Progress Index offers a thorough overview of the top-ranked countries with a highly developed social performance, it assigns the same weight to all component scores, implying that each component has identical and independent contribution to the SPI. By removing these flawed assumptions, the purpose of this paper is to examine the causal relationships among component scores and identify the critical components for reform priorities.

The authors propose an alternative approach to exploring the causal relationships and prioritizing the underlying components of the SPI. The four-step methodology comprises cluster analysis, data mining, partial least square path modeling, and importance-performance matrix analysis.

The authors find evidence of causal interrelations between the 12 components of the SPI. To accelerate social progress, the authors suggest that policy makers should allocate resources in order of priority to personal freedom and choice, personal rights, access to advanced education, water and sanitation, access to information and communications, tolerance and inclusion, personal safety, shelter, ecosystem sustainability, nutrition and basic medical care, health and wellness, and, finally, access to basic knowledge.

Policy makers in government, business, and civil society should become aware of causal relationships among the 12 components of the SPI and select an appropriate methodology to prioritize areas where social improvement is most needed.

Allowing for unequal weighting and causal relationships between component scores of the SPI, the authors’ methodology is the first attempt to offer a concrete way to identify which areas of social progress should constitute priorities for policy reforms.

The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate the potential of the resource-infrastructure-environment (RIE) index as a supplementary tool to assist policy makers.

This study undertakes a sensitivity analysis (SA) to assess the responsiveness of the RIE index to potential policy actions on three countries: Australia (mid-industrialised nation), Mexico (emerging economy) and the USA (highly industrialised nation).

The results show that the RIE framework is capable of accommodating SA to guide the policymakers on the directional changes of the index to measurable changes to its component parts.

Although the initial results seem promising, further refinement of the indicator is required before it can be practically implemented. For instance, the RIE framework has yet to incorporate dimensions to represent distribution and effects of substitution.

The paper undertakes a SA to assess the responsiveness of the RIE index which is an alternative measure of progress for nations that has the capability to capture more aspects important to progress.

In recent decades, companies have increasingly engaged in Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), with the goal of providing benefit to both society and the company. While these efforts can have measurable social impact at the local level, the cumulative impact may be much harder to observe and measure, due to the wide variety in both the CSR initiatives and the social challenges they seek to address. This study is an initial investigation of the relationship between national levels of commitment to CSR and national measures of social progress, in a sample of developing countries.

Using country-level participation in the UN Global Compact (UNGC) as a proxy for the level of CSR commitment, and 2018 Social Progress Index (SPI) scores, we investigate the relationship between these variables. SPI component and sub-component scores serve as dependent variables in several OLS regression models. Independent variables included the total number of companies participating in the UNGC, along with economic and socio-political control variables.

Regression models indicate that higher CSR commitment levels are related with higher scores in the primary components of social progress, but only in some sub-components and not others. Practitioners and policymakers can leverage this understanding when developing and supporting corporate social initiatives.

To our knowledge, this is one of the first studies to demonstrate the country-level impact of firm-level CSR commitment and is among the first to employ the Social Progress Index.

The purpose of this paper is to propose an alternative progress measure revolving around the utilisation of three key constructs: resources, infrastructure and environment.

This paper utilises an interdisciplinary approach to construct a composite indicator to measure progress. Furthermore, a weighting technique based on public opinion, and a non‐monetary evaluation, is employed.

The findings reveal that the methodological approach employed above allows components that are vital to progress to be incorporated.

The research could be applied to countries with regard to issues dealing with project selection and resource allocation, while it is hoped to also promote interdisciplinary research between schools.

The paper proposes an alternative measure of progress for nations. The advantage of the proposed method is that it has the capability to capture aspects important to progress.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the progress of social development in terms of social development index (SDI) of India in the pre- and post-reforms period.

This study used the methodology of Ray (1989, 2008) for the construction of composite index for social development, i.e. SDI. The study also used the ordinary least squares method of regression analysis for checking the impact of development expenditure, non-development expenditure and Per Capita Net National Product (PCNNP) on the SDI value.

The results show an increasing trend in social development. The findings of this study also suggest that there is a sharp increase in the index over the period between 2002/2003 and 2010/2011. But in the remaining period, sluggish improvement in social development has been observed. Though there has been growth in the social sector, but it is not much heartening and perhaps more efforts need to be done in the social sector in India. The results also exhibit that development expenditure, non-development expenditure and PCNNP are significantly affecting the SDI value.

The study suggests that the government should focus more on social sector programs and there is an urgent need to increase development and non-development expenditures to improve the overall social condition of the country.

The work is different in terms of number of development variables from the already existing literature in India. The author constructed the SDI by using the weighted sum of 12 transformed social variables which has not been studied previously.