The Most Popular Cities in the World to Work

In an increasingly globalized world, expats have no shortage of options when it comes to choosing their place of business. Advances in telecommunications technology, airline travel, and international relations make it easier than ever to reside in tens of thousands of cities of your choosing.

But with literally a whole world to choose from, it can be overwhelming trying to make up your mind. Thankfully, the record number of expats across the world has spurred consultancies and other institutions to uncover the best place in which to unlock all that global talent.

CityLab cites a recent study conducted jointly by the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) and The Network, a recruiting firm, which asked respondents what five cities they would consider living in. Over 203,000 people across 189 countries replied, and the following chart represents their consensus:

Before assessing the results further, it is important to take into account the following caveat:

These results should, however, be taken in the context of the global distribution of survey respondents. Roughly half of respondents are currently located in Europe, which may help explain the relatively high share of those selecting European cities for an international move. This compares to the just 10 percent of respondents from Asia. But an even smaller share —about nine percent—are currently located in the U.S., and just under two percent are from Canada. Those low percentages indicate that the countries’ popularity as work destinations is less skewed by relative locals willing to hop over borders, and more by their global attractiveness to international talent.

It’s also worth pointing out that the survey is skewed towards top talent and does not reflect the preferred destinations of the world’s populations broadly. Nearly one in four (23 percent) of respondents had master’s degree or postgraduate qualifications; 36 percent had bachelor’s degrees; and just 10 percent of respondents replied “none” or “other” when queried about their educational attainment.

All that said, perhaps it unsurprising that the world’s leading economic and financial hub, London, took the top place, followed by its equally weighty rivals of New York City and Paris. Most of the remaining top ten are made up of medium-sized cities best known for their quality of life rather than their business opportunities – only Singapore tends to rank as a powerful commercial center.

Indeed, the majority of the top thirty are comprised of cities that strike that vital balance of economic growth, sociopolitical stability, and cultural richness that most expats seek. As with any domestic career, most workers want to enjoy a health work-life balance made easier by good infrastructure, lots of recreational and leisure opportunities, and the like.

The study also revealed a lot of other interesting trends and motivations regarding the world’s increasingly globalized labor force. For example, while nearly two-thirds of respondents expressed a willingness to move abroad for work, this varied widely depending on where they currently lived and worked:

Workers from the U.S., U.K., Denmark, Germany, and Ireland, as well as Latvia and Russia, were among the least likely to move. But workers from the United Arab Emirates, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Jamaica, and surprisingly the advanced nations of France and the Netherlands were among the nations with the highest share of residents ready to move. The survey results don’t indicate why the latter two countries had such high percentages of pro-moving respondents, but it may be because highly-educated French and Dutch residents are likely to be attracted to global powerhouses like London and New York, which provide more opportunities for top talent.

Willingness to move abroad for work, however, is not always a good sign. In countries like Pakistan, the report found that 97 percent of residents said they would be willing to go abroad for work—in this case, an indication of just how many people are interested in escaping that nation’s troubled economy and political instability.

There are a lot of other factors at play in these trends, including sociocultural attitudes (many countries have a long and established history of emigration and travel, or have significant diaspora communities that make settling and working abroad easier). It is also no coincidence that many of the top cities chosen by workers (as well as the countries in which they are based) tend to be fairly cosmopolitan and multicultural places.

Of course, where one decides to work and live also comes down to personal preference, forces beyond one’s control notwithstanding. That said, where would you live and work if you could choose?

Graph: Most Common Occupation of World Political Leaders

In the United States, law and political administration are deeply intertwined: most politicians, at least at the national level, are lawyers. Many others are career politicians, spending most or all of their professional lives climbing the ranks of civil service; still others are both.

But how does this play out in the global stage? Is the predominance of legal and public service experience among national leaders uniquely American? Does it vary by sociopolitical culture or history? The following daily chart from The Economist sheds some light on this:

Note that this chart only looks at executive positions — presidents and prime ministers. I am curious as to how national legislatures pan out in this regard (I would imagine the picture would be similar, since most political leaders tend to emerge among national representatives). I also wonder how sub-national or local leaders differ from national ones; for example, the U.S. has a lot more ethnic, religious, and occupational diversity among its mayors, state legislatures, and governors when compared to national bodies.

In any case, perhaps it is unsurprising that those with a background in civil service — albeit not exclusively so, since there is often overlap with other careers — make up most national leaders. Some degree of experience in public affairs, whether administrative or legal, is generally expected among those wishing to govern at a higher level. For a similar reason, a knowledge of a nation’s governing laws would be a sensible thing to have as well, whether you are making laws (like legislative members), executing them (executive leaders) or operating in them (everyone, in theory).

The fact that civil service is the overwhelming background of Danish, South Korean, Japanese, and Swiss political leaders is not too surprising either. In all those nations, the state plays a major role in managing public and economic affairs, particularly its bureaucrats (those stereotypically faceless technocrats that execute the day-to-day affairs of various ministries, departments, etc). Indeed, it is no coincidence that these nations tend to have strong values of collectivism and meritocracy, both of which, in theory, underpin good civil service.

Unfortunately, I do not have the time to get into the rest of the results (namely the Netherlands’ uniquely high preponderance of professors, or the prevalence of lawyers among Spain’s national leadership roles). The Economist does provide an interesting tidbit on the matter:

According to a paper by Mark Hallerberg of the Hertie School of Governance in Berlin, and Joachim Wehner of the London School of Economics and Political Science, policymakers with “technical competence” are more likely to hold office during a crisis. The authors found that a banking crisis increases the probability of having an economist as prime minister; a professor is more likely to hold the position during stockmarket crashes or inflation crises. Italy’s Mario Monti and Greece’s Lucas Papademos are recent examples. Unfortunately, voters seem inclined to get rid of them at the earliest opportunity.

Feel free to weigh in with your thoughts, observations, and speculations.

Chart: World’s Biggest Economies, Past and Present

With well over one billion denizens each, China and India make up a huge proportion of the world’s population and, subsequently, its economic potential. But if you think they are large now, consider that for much human history, the area constituting these modern nation states made up an overwhelming percentage of the human race and its economic activity.

Indeed, for many centuries, China alone accounted for one out of every three humans on Earth (with what is now India estimated to have concurrently accounted for another third). Considering that most readers of this blog (as far as I have gleaned) have, like me, been steeped in a Eurocentric telling of world history, it may be strange to imagine that the bulk of human activity and experience was concentrated in these two regions.

A recent chart from The Economist drives this point home by showing the relative sizes of these two behemoths (among other contenders) over the last two thousand years.

Note that Italy and Turkey were, during their peaks, the centers of the Roman and Ottoman empires, respectively. Also, I imagine the U.K.’s proportion would be larger if the colonial empire beyond its modern borders were to be factored in (indeed, all of India and then some would technically be included). Britain’s proportion is pretty impressive given its small geographic and demographic size relative to other rivals — a testament to the speed and intensity of the Industrial Revolution.

Similarly, America’s rapid rise between the late 19th century and turn of the 20th century reflects its own mastery of industry (albeit at great human and environmental cost, like much economic growth at that time). The fact that the U.S. and Soviet Union dominated the post-World War II global economic testifies as much to the sheer devastation wrought on the rest of the world (especially the former great powers) as to their rise as superpowers (Russia’s proportion is particularly impressive given the horrific scale of human and material loss).

But now, it appears China and India will once again reclaim the mantle of being the world’s major centers of economic activity — which is to be expected, given their sheer size and, in the latter’s case, continuing fast population growth. By some measures, China has already overtaken the U.S., although this is disputed.

Still, it seems inevitable that these two giants — which together make up almost 40 percent of the world’s population of 7.1 billion — will take center-stage in the global economy, perhaps even following in America’s footsteps as cultural and ideological powers (thus far a position that the U.S. is likely to enjoy continued dominance for years to come, whatever its relative economic status).

Of course, with other sizable countries like Brazil, Indonesia, Russia, Turkey, Mexico, and more also rising to relative prominence, the world may become more multipolar than anything. Interesting times ahead. What do you think?

Africa’s True Size

Last year, I wrote about the many different map projections that exist, and how each distorts spatial and geographic features in one way or another. I briefly touched on how Africa is particularly understated in size, a fact that other sources have noticed as well, such as The Economist, which provided this very telling map:

Africa's True Size

For a more detailed and comprehensive picture, here is another (and much larger) infographic courtesy of io9 (click to enlarge):

 

This is also relevant to the growing concerns about the recent Ebola outbreak in West Africa, which has led to much of the continent being a no-go zone for visitors, airlines, and businesses — despite the fact that, as an NPR piece points out, much of Africa is far and away from the main infection zone.

The Ebola outbreak is centered in four countries in a relatively small part of West Africa: Guinea, Liberia, Sierra Leone and Nigeria. There has also been one reported case in Senegal and a small, unrelated outbreak in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

The distance from the heart of the outbreak to Nairobi, Kenya — where Korean Air canceled all flights on Aug. 14, citing fears over Ebola — is roughly 3,300 miles. That’s about the distance from Orlando, Fla., to Juneau, Alaska. So, geographically speaking, canceling a trip to Kenya is like canceling a trip to Disney World because of an Ebola outbreak in Alaska.

In fact, Africa is so large that many cities in Europe are actually closer to the Ebola outbreak than are cities in eastern and southern Africa. Johannesburg is more than 3,400 miles away — farther than both Paris and London.

Of course, Africa is hardly the only part of the world to be erroneously portrayed; as I discussed at length in my aforementioned post, every map projection thus far conceived exaggerates or underestimates one or all spatial dimensions. It is fascinating to see how much different the world is from the maps we grew up with and took for granted as fully accurate.

But it is also disheartening to see how such misconceptions, especially as they pertain to marginalized parts of the world, can reaffirm or worsen biases — e.g. Africa is a monolithically unsafe place, despite its incredible geographic, ethnic, and sociopolitical diversity.

Note, none of this is not intended to call into question the validity or usefulness of maps as a whole, since different projections serve different purposes, and must necessarily supersede other concerns. This is just an important caveat to keep in mind when analyzing any map, something many cartographers also tend to advise.

Chart: The Best Places to Be Born

In 1988, The Economist compiled a ranking of 50 countries according to which would be the best place to be born (or put another way, which would be the best to settle and start a family). This was determined on the basis of 11 weighted sociopolitical and economic criteria, ranging from the quantifiable (such as GDP growth) to the subjective (cultural richness). The results can be seen below.

The United States tops the list, followed by France, West Germany, Italy, Canada, and Japan. The Soviet Union managed a respectable 21st place, with communist Poland and Hungary not that far behind. The Philippines, India, and Mexico also ranked relatively higher than one would expect from developing countries. Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Iran, Iraq, and Zimbabwe rank the lowest.

Anyway, in 2013, The Economist revisited this “where-to-be-born” index, which basically measures overall quality-of-life both presently and in the foreseeable future. As before, there are 11 indicators involved, including the results of life-satisfaction surveys, public trust, crime, and even geography (environment and natural beauty can go a long way towards leisure and comfort).

So over 25 years later, here are the world’s best places to be born:

The United States is now in 16th place along with former third-place winner Germany; France falls to 26, Italy to 21, Japan to 25, and Canada to a still-respectable 9. In their place are mostly small, northern European countries, as well as Australia, Singapore, and New Zealand. Notice how Saudi Arabia and Iran have improved, while poor Nigeria remains among the bottom five (indeed, it is dead last, although Iraq and Zimbabwe, whose fortunes have each only gotten worse over the years were not measured this time).

Granted, a direct comparison between these two charts can’t say much, since The Economist measured far more countries, and claims to have been much more rigorous in its metrics, the second time around. Moreover, the inclusion of several subjective factors leaves much in dispute; for example, even people in otherwise prosperous places (e.g. the French) often report a low rate of life satisfaction regardless. Needless to say, individuals will weigh certain factors differently depending on their personal or cultural preference: environment may not matter as much to some as, say, public trust, and visa versa.

Of course, any effort to determine where is the best place to live or start of family is going to be arguable. It touches on a macro version of what makes for a good life. Clearly, freedom from violence, starvation, poverty, and the like are nearly universally-agreed upon. But what do you think of these results? Where would you consider to be the best place in the world to live?

Chart: Poverty in Asia

Much has been made of the rise of Asia and the subsequent arrival of an “Asian Century“, whereby the continent will become the dominant economic, cultural, and political force in the 21st century world. Setting aside the sheer diversity of this massive landmass — in terms of both culture and fortune — most Asian nations still face tremendous challenges, namely in the area of poverty reduction. Consider the following chart:

Courtesy of The Economist.

As The Economist goes on to note:

Asia’s rapid economic growth has put it on track to eradicate “extreme” poverty, defined by the World Bank as daily consumption of less than $1.25 per person, by 2030. However, the Asian Development Bank reckons this is too low given that nowadays, things like mobile phones are seen as necessities; so it has calculated a more suitable daily minimum of $1.51.

This lifts Asia’s 2010 poverty rate to nearly one-third of the population, adding 343m people to the ranks of the poor. The ADB believes food insecurity, and the risks of natural disasters, global economic shocks and the like, should also be taken into account when measuring poverty. This would further raise Asia’s 2010 poverty rate, to nearly 50 percent.

As with so many other parts of the world, Asia holds tremendous promise but faces daunting challenges. As the continent grows richer and more powerful, despite millions being left behind in squalor, it may be wracked by the same strife and instability that historically bedevils most unequal societies.

Inequality in a Global Context

When it comes to wealth and income inequality — a subject I have discussed at length here –  the news is rarely positive. As the following graph makes succinctly clear, the issue has worsened dramatic over the last few decades.

Income includes household wages and government transfers. Source: Census / Colin Gordon. Credit: Quoctrung Bui / NPR

While the most recent data in these sorts of graphs are around seven years old, newer evidence suggests the problem is still prevalent, if not worsening — at least in the United States.

According to an interesting new paper on global income distribution conducted by economists Branko Milanovic and Christoph Lakner, the global pictures regarding income inequality is far more nuanced, if not positive. As NPR reports, the study found that globalization — the same mechanism that plays a large, though hardly solitary, role in rising inequality — has had the opposite effect, broadly speaking.

Essentially, they look at inequality at a global scale, accounting for the world’s population as a whole rather than breaking it down country-to-country (as is usually the case).  S what happens if you look at the change in income over the past few decades for everyone on Earth? Here’s what the graph of the data shows:

Income is defined as per-capita income. Source: Milanovic and Lakner (2014). Credit: Quoctrung Bui/NPR

So what does this mean? Basically, people in the middle of the global income distribution — mostly concentrated in China and India, as as well as a few other developing Asian countries — have had the biggest gains in come by percentage. In fact, the average American, like most others in the developed world, would fall at the far right of this graph, at the top of the global income distribution.

So in a global context, the typical developed-world individual is capturing the lion’s share of income growth. Assuming this is truly the case (I await for more research and scrutiny to be certain one way or the other) that does not make inequality any less worrisome, now and especially in the long-term. Worldwide, we are still finding far too much wealth concentrated at the top amid austere policies, insufficient investment in the public good, and the persistent absolute poverty of hundreds of millions of people.

An increasingly transient global elite is still capturing the lion’s share of investment — as made depressingly clear by the revelation that 85 individuals hold more wealth than 3.5 billion people. Too many countries are mired in the same old problems despite the ever-growing generation of wealth that never seems to be reflected in higher wages, incomes, or public investments. Even if some people in this arrangement have it worse than others, the fact that many have it worse than they should given the capital potential is a problem, for most individual countries and the world at large.

Those are just my brief thoughts. What are your opinions?

World Humanitarian Day

It will come to know no surprise to regular readers that I have an avid interest in humanitarian issues, ranging from global inequality and poverty to human rights abuses and war. I have long had a keen interest in the United Nations as a mechanism for bettering the human species and facilitating the more positive aspects of globalization — illuminating and addressing these global problems in multilateral ways while promoting an ecumenical and unified global identity.

While I have no delusions about the U.N.’s vast flaws and shortcomings, I find it to be conceptually sound and an ideal start to a hopefully more effective international framework. One thing is for certain: whatever the institutional problems of this and other international organization, the everyday work done by its members is usually sound, well-intentioned, and altruistic — which is precisely what World Humanitarian Day is dedicated to highlighting.

This day pays tribute to the often unseen aid workers who carry out life-saving activities around the world, often in dangerous and difficult circumstances. It also celebrates the spirit of humanitarian work worldwide, work that brings communities together and alleviates the common human suffering that we should be concerned about.

It is observed annually on August 19, the anniversary of the 2003 bombing of the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad that killed 22 people, including U.N. envoy Sergio Vieira de Mello. There will be a wreath-laying ceremony at the U.N. Headquarters in New York City to honor de Mello and other aid workers killed in the line of duty.

Unfortunately, such a commemoration is especially relevant today, as  aid workers are suffering at record numbers as of 2014:

The research shows that in 2013, 155 aid workers were killed, 171 were seriously wounded and 134 were kidnapped. Overall this represents a 66 per cent increase in the number of victims from the previous year. With 81 aid workers killed in 2013, Afghanistan is still the country with the highest number of attacks.

Preliminary figures show that as of 15 August 2014, 79 aid workers have been killed this year alone. The months of July and August saw a rise in the level of attacks and incidents involving aid workers including in Gaza and South Sudan.

Only these past few weeks, aid workers were killed in the midst of conflicts in South Sudan and Gaza, just two of many places that rely on their vital services. Such loss of life is a tragedy in itself, especially for the global community as a whole. As the world faces increasingly more difficult and existential threats, there needs to be a more concerted effort to address these matters and protect those who willingly risk their lives to dispense such solutions.

Featured Image -- 5941

How the world’s armies picture their enemies

Eupraxsophy:

It is fascinating what one can glean from something as seemingly trivial as a target or effigy used for shooting practice. At the risk of looking too deeply at certain irrelevant elements, many of the most routine and minor practices in a given society can reveal a lot about it history, culture, economics, politics, and the like (especially if one takes into account other dynamics, influenced, etc).

Originally posted on Quartz:

You can often tell a country’s enemies by the targets its soldiers use for shooting practice. That’s what Herlinde Koelbl found while visiting the military shooting ranges of nearly 30 nations over the course of the past six years. Her photographs are collected in a recent book, Targets, and an exhibition at Berlin’s Deutsches Historiches Museum, up through October 5.

At every stop in her travels, Koelbl wondered, she writes in the book’s introduction, “Who is the bad man? What does he look like—the enemy that they are later expected to kill? Is he an abstract figure? Does it have a gender and if so, which? Are there cultural differences? Has the image of the enemy changed?” For the US, the target of choice was once a Soviet figure—”Ivan”—with a red star on his green helmet. Now, reflecting a change that’s taken place in much of the world, Ivan has largely been supplanted by Middle…

View original 211 more words

Video — World Demographics

The following video chat from The Economist tackles a topic that’s been of great concern to the American public for some time: global population growth. In just a little over one minute, it shows that overpopulation isn’t as big an issue as popularly believed.

So overall, the world population is stabilizing, with many countries — including many in the developing world — experiencing negligible or even negative population growth. Most of the population increase stems from longer lifespans and the “demographic momentum” of younger generations coming into child-rearing age (at which point they will have increasingly fewer children, if any at all).

The following map confirms that most of the biggest population gains will be concentrated almost entirely in Sub-Saharan Africa:

Population growth by percentage increase. Source: Wikimedia / CIA World Factbook.

Of course, this doesn’t mean population growth won’t bring its problems, given that most of the growth is concentrated in nations that lack the resources, infrastructure, and institutions to optimally accommodate their ever-larger number of citizens.

However, as much of the rest of the world experiences a stagnating or declining labor force — not to mention the subsequent financial and economic burdens — nations with more youthful populations may gain a considerable advantage on the global market for human resources.

If poorer nations manage to tap into the potential talent of their young and vibrant people, investing in education and infrastructure to facilitate and promote opportunities, they may well reach unprecedented levels of prosperity and influence — provided they are not turned into giant factories for foreign companies first.