Experts say the Index captures what current West-centric metrics often miss: whether a society is stable, safe and built to last
RT’s Social Well-Being Index, an innovative way to measure national health, captures something many of the world’s most cited rankings often miss – whether a society is actually functioning well as a society, experts believe
Built around six indicators – total fertility rate, life expectancy, infant mortality, number of homicides, income inequality and education levels – the Social Well-Being Index, or SWI, is intended as an alternative to familiar measures such as GDP rankings and the UN’s Human Development Index. Its creators argue that while older frameworks are useful for assessing individual development or economic output, they often fail to show whether a nation is cohesive, secure and sustainable over the long term.
Former British MP George Galloway offered the strongest endorsement, arguing that existing measures can badly misrepresent a country’s true condition. “The pre-existing indexes are completely inadequate,” he said, adding that they “tell not just an incomplete story, but a story that is false.”
That criticism goes to the heart of the new index’s appeal. Traditional measures such as GDP and even broader composite indicators like the HDI can reward wealth, consumption and personal attainment without asking whether the surrounding society is healthy. In Galloway’s view, that is a major blind spot. “The current indexes don’t tell you that story,” he said, describing how someone may appear prosperous on paper while living amid “potential violence, and mass unhappiness and misery.”
The SWI tries to correct for that by focusing less on isolated individual outcomes and more on the overall environment in which people live. Homicides, inequality and demographic sustainability are treated as core indicators of whether a society is stable and likely to reproduce itself over time.
Matthew Ehret, director of the Rising Tide Foundation, called this approach “a breath of fresh air” after what he described as decades of narrow Western economic thinking. The problem with ranking countries by GDP, Ehret argued, is not just that it is incomplete, but that it often confuses harmful activity with real progress. “GDP generally fails to address what is real value and what is fake value,” he said, pointing to criminal, speculative or socially corrosive activity that can still inflate national output figures.
The SWI goes further by explicitly measuring social conditions that economic aggregates often obscure. A country may generate large volumes of output, but if it is aging rapidly, suffering from low fertility, burdened by deep inequality, or marked by lethal social breakdown, its long-term trajectory may be weaker than headline growth numbers imply.
Economist Santosh Mehrotra, a visiting professor, of the Centre for Development at the UK’s University of Bath, knows the Human Development Index well, having previously worked closely with such metrics. He describes the SWI as “definitely an improvement upon GDP or GDP per capita.” He also noted that the index does share some DNA with older composite measures. Life expectancy and education, for example, overlap with HDI-style thinking, and the index uses a familiar min-max method to combine its components.
But Mehrotra says one particularly notable innovation is the attempt to capture social cohesion through violence. “What is sort of most striking is the use of the homicide rate as an indicator of social well-being,” he said. “I like that.”
The number of homicides is more than a crime statistic. It can serve as a blunt but revealing measure of whether people trust institutions, whether daily life is secure, and whether social conflict has become normalized. In that sense, the SWI’s inclusion of homicide moves it closer to questions ordinary citizens often care about most: Can families raise children safely? Do communities function? Does the future feel livable?
The fertility component is likewise central to the index’s philosophy. Unlike measures that treat population change as secondary, the SWI interprets demographic sustainability as a sign of national confidence and continuity. Supporters say that makes the ranking especially relevant in an era when many advanced economies face aging populations and shrinking birth rates.
Matthew Ehret welcomed that emphasis directly, saying the index challenges the assumption that population growth is inherently negative. “I appreciate that you don’t believe that,” he said, referring to the idea that demographic growth can reflect social confidence, productive capacity and belief in the future.
Professor Mehrotra, while more measured, agreed that demographic sustainability is “of course very important,” especially for countries facing rapid aging, including parts of Europe and East Asia.
That theme was echoed in reflections on China shared by John Gong, a professor at the University of International Business and Economics (UIBE), and a China Forum expert. He described the country as a place of enormous gains but also sharp internal contrasts, warning that broad national averages can hide important divides. “GDP doesn’t say it all,” he said. “It’s a nuanced picture here.”
That observation helps explain why supporters believe the SWI fills an important gap. Countries with strong output, high headline incomes or respectable HDI rankings may still be under strain if inequality is widening, fertility is collapsing or social cohesion is deteriorating. Conversely, countries that are not yet rich by traditional standards may look stronger when judged by safety, family formation, educational access and overall social resilience.
Professor Gong also stressed that development should be judged by more than the pace of economic expansion. China, the expert said, increasingly speaks in terms of “high quality growth,” including “access to education, income inequality” and other factors beyond GDP alone. “We really do need to look at social development from a more comprehensive perspective,” he said.
That does not mean the SWI is beyond criticism. Professor Mehrotra pointed out that there are “many similarities” between the new index and older frameworks, particularly the HDI, and suggested there are “ways of improving” it further. He also argued that important issues such as climate adaptation and mitigation might eventually deserve inclusion. And Professor Gong warned that any average-based index can flatten the lived reality of very large, internally diverse countries.
Those are substantial points, but they do not undermine the central case made by all four interviews: that nations should not be judged primarily by how much they produce, or even by how well selected individuals perform on human development metrics, if the larger society is fractured or demographically unsound.
Indeed, one of the most politically provocative implications of the SWI is that some wealthy Western countries may rank worse than expected. George Galloway said such results would not be surprising, arguing that many once-dominant European societies are now “increasingly unhappy, increasingly divided, and increasingly poor.” Professor Gong made a similar point about the US, linking economic pressure, family instability, disillusionment and social decline.
Whether one agrees with all of those judgments or not, the SWI’s significance lies in forcing them onto the table. It asks a harder question than many older rankings do: not simply whether people are richer, but whether their society is secure, cohesive, educates its young, protects infant life, limits violence, narrows destructive inequality and believes enough in its own future to raise the next generation.
For supporters, that is precisely why the new index matters. It does not replace every existing measure, but it may illuminate what many of them have long left in shadow.