The Economist Intelligence Unit

Liveability ranking and overview

December 2020
The Economist Intelligence Unit
20 Cabot Square
London E14 4QW
United Kingdom
The Economist Intelligence Unit
The Economist Intelligence Unit is a specialist publisher serving companies establishing and managing
operations across national borders. For 60 years it has been a source of information on business developments,
economic and political trends, government regulations and corporate practice worldwide.
The Economist Intelligence Unit delivers its information in four ways: through its digital portfolio, where the
latest analysis is updated daily; through printed subscription products ranging from newsletters to annual
reference works; through research reports; and by organising seminars and presentations. The firm is a
member of The Economist Group.
London New York
The Economist Intelligence Unit The Economist Intelligence Unit
20 Cabot Square The Economist Group
London 750 Third Avenue
E14 4QW 5th Floor
United Kingdom New York, NY 10017, US
Tel: + 44.(0) 20 7576 8181 Tel: + 1 212 698 9717
Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]
Gurgaon Hong Kong
The Economist Intelligence Unit The Economist Intelligence Unit
Skootr Spaces, Unit No. 1, 1301 Cityplaza Four
12th Floor, Tower B, Building No. 9 12 Taikoo Wan Road
DLF Cyber City, Phase – III Taikoo Shing
Gurgaon – 122002 Hong Kong
Haryana
India
Tel: + 44.(0) 20 7576 8181 Tel: + 852 2802 7288
Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]

This report can be accessed electronically as soon as it is published by visiting store.eiu.com or by contacting a
local sales representative.

The whole report may be viewed in PDF format, or can be navigated section-by-section by using the HTML links.
In addition, the full archive of previous reports can be accessed in HTML or PDF format, and our search engine
can be used to find content of interest quickly. Our automatic alerting service will send a notification via email
when new reports become available.

Copyright
© 2020 The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited. All rights reserved. Neither this publication nor
any part of it may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means,
electronic, mechanical, by photocopy, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission
of The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited.
All information in this report is verified to the best of the author's and the publisher's ability. However,
The Economist Intelligence Unit does not accept responsibility for any loss arising from reliance on it.
ISSN 2057-4169

Symbols for tables

“0 or 0.0” means nil or negligible; “n/a” means not available; “–” means not applicable
Liveability ranking and overview 3

The Economist Intelligence Unit's liveability survey

The findings of the latest survey
Covid-19 drives huge swings The September 2020 Liveability survey produced by The Economist Intelligence
in liveability scores Unit reveals that the coronavirus pandemic has pushed the quality of life in 140
for September 2020 cities down to the lowest levels since the survey began in 2007. The imposition
of lockdown measures and the temporary suspension of services such as
education and healthcare (in addition to the timing of the survey) meant that
the liveability scores for some cities that traditionally score very highly in the
index fell significantly compared with a year earlier. Living standards in some
of the world’s most challenging places have also worsened.
The pandemic has affected our assessments of quality of life in two main ways.
First, it has exposed previously hidden weaknesses in public healthcare
infrastructure (we considered the number of active cases as a ratio to doctors
and hospitals). Second, the imposition of national and regional lockdowns has
prevented city-dwellers from accessing many of the services and activities that
their cities previously offered, such as education, culture and sport.
Although the decline in liveability has been steep, the deterioration is unlikely
to be permanent. Cities such as Melbourne and Sydney in Australia have been
able to restore their cultural offerings to a large extent since the tightest
restrictions have been lifted. Our base assumption that vaccinations will be
distributed throughout 2021 will mean that many closed institutions will be
able to reopen. Similarly, educational provision should also return. The quality
of healthcare may take longer to reach previous levels, depending on the
number of waves of the virus and the length of time required for hospitals and
care facilities to tackle the backlog of patients whose treatment has been
delayed by the virus.
Even without the pandemic, it is doubtful that 2020 would have seen an
improvement in overall liveability, given the number of cities that have become
less stable. In this edition of the Liveability survey, we have downgraded
stability scores for cities in the US, Turkey, Greece, South Africa and several
smaller African countries. This reflects both aggressive government policies,
directed either towards their neighbours or minorities within their populations,
or worsening security. The weakening of the global economy means that we do
not expect a rapid improvement in this area in 2021.
For all of the changes wrought by the pandemic and its associated recession in
2020, our index remains dominated by mid-size cities in wealthy countries.
These cities have well-funded public healthcare systems, compulsory and high-
quality education, and impressive road and rail infrastructure. The provision of
these services is assisted by the presence of fully democratic electoral systems
and low levels of corruption. That the Japanese capital, Tokyo, fares well
demonstrates that it is possible to scale up these characteristics, but this is not
always straightforward, especially in cities that tend to be greater magnets for
crime and terrorism. This is why other large “global” cities in advanced
economies, such as London and Paris, are considered less liveable than Vienna
and Osaka.

December 2020 www.eiu.com © The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2020

4 Liveability ranking and overview

The uneven impact of the One of the defining characteristics of the coronavirus pandemic has been its
pandemic on living standards ability to bring normal life to an immediate halt almost everywhere. Natural
disasters and economic shocks have previously triggered sudden deteriorations
in quality of life in single countries or in regional blocs, but there has not been
such a sudden cessation to economic activity in living memory.
Nevertheless, our survey has highlighted that the liveability of some cities has
been more severely compromised than others. For example, the decline was
particularly steep in Melbourne in Australia at the time of the survey.
Melbourne is usually considered among the most liveable in the world, but in
September 2020 did not offer the same quality of life, for two reasons. First, the
lockdown in Melbourne (as with some other cities in Australia) was especially
severe, requiring the closure of all non-essential businesses and public facilities,
including restaurants, cultural institutions and sporting events. Second, a
resurgence in active cases in August-September coincided exactly with the
period when our survey was conducted. This explains why Melbourne suffered
while Auckland and Wellington in New Zealand, which also imposed tough
restrictions, were not affected to the same extent. By the time we conducted our
survey, many of the restrictions previously imposed in Auckland and
Wellington had been lifted. Other cities that fared poorly for the same reasons
include several cities in emerging markets, such as Buenos Aires in Argentina,
Guatemala City in Guatemala and Mumbai in India.
Country City Healthcare
Australia Adelaide 100.0
Austria Vienna 100.0
Canada Calgary 100.0
Canada Toronto 100.0
Canada Vancouver 100.0
Japan Osaka 100.0
Japan Tokyo 100.0
Switzerland Geneva 100.0
Switzerland Zurich 100.0
New Zealand Auckland 95.8

Another group of cities was also considered less liveable in September because
of the impact of the pandemic on their ability to provide high-quality and
accessible public healthcare. Cities in advanced economies that were assumed
to have sufficient healthcare capacity to cope with even large-scale natural
disasters or terrorist attacks, such as Madrid and New York City, have been
exposed by major outbreaks of coronavirus. This meant that hospitals were
unable to provide their usual level of service. Cities located in countries where
governments instituted stronger measures more quickly or where the
institutional strength or capacity of the healthcare system is greater, such as
Seoul in South Korea and Taipei in Taiwan, coped much better.
Indeed, it is Asian cities, and those in east Asia in particular, which have tended
to fare best with the pandemic. Taipei and Seoul managed to keep institutional
closures to a minimum—Taiwan was one of the few countries to keep its
schools open throughout 2020—while the low number of cases ensured that
their health systems could cope. Other east Asian cities that were able to offer a

December 2020 www.eiu.com © The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2020

Liveability ranking and overview 5

high standard of living (in terms of their culture-related scores in the Liveability
survey) include Osaka and Tokyo, Singapore, Kuala Lumpur in Malaysia, and
Bangkok in Thailand. Furthermore, cities in China such as Suzhou, Shanghai,
Beijing and Tianjin have also fared well in terms of covid-impacted indicators
within the Healthcare and Culture & Environment categories of the survey.
One advantage that these cities have over their contemporaries in Europe and
North America is their previous experience of coping with airborne viruses, as
a result of the SARS (2002-04) and MERS (2015) epidemics. Governments
presiding over these cities were generally quicker in recommending wearing
face masks and beginning contact-tracing programmes.

December 2020 www.eiu.com © The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2020

6 Liveability ranking and overview

Regional round-up
Average regional performances
(100=ideal; 0=intolerable)
Culture &
Region Average rating Stability Healthcare environment Education Infrastructure
Western Europe 86.4 88.9 86.0 79.1 85.5 93.2
North America 80.2 83.0 66.2 74.6 91.3 92.2
Asia & Australasia 68.5 76.4 68.4 54.8 71.0 74.7
Central &Eastern Europe 67.7 72.9 70.5 58.2 67.9 70.4
Latin America 60.5 61.0 51.7 59.5 67.8 66.4
Middle East & North Africa 55.5 61.4 57.4 40.6 56.9 64.0
Sub-Saharan Africa 47.6 47.2 38.0 53.1 48.1 50.6
World average 69.7 73.9 66.5 61.2 72.7 76.5

Much of the pandemic- Although the current reduction in quality of life in many cities is substantial, it
induced reduction in is unlikely to remain that way in the long term. It is not possible for most cities
liveability will be temporary to halt community transmission of coronavirus in the way that has been
achieved in Auckland and Wellington. This might be because of their higher
population densities, their status as transport hubs or because of a lack of
government scope and capacity. Consequently, most cities will require
comprehensive vaccination programmes in order for governments to lift the
restrictions that have compromised liveability in 2020.
Our base scenario assumes that several vaccines will be manufactured and
distributed during 2021. Vaccination programmes face stiff logistical challenges
and will take many months to complete. Nevertheless, we envisage that city
lockdowns will gradually diminish in the next year and the pressure on
healthcare and education provision will eventually dissipate. Consequently, the
Liveability surveys that we conduct in 2021 are likely to have a more familiar
appearance, with cities such as Melbourne, Sydney and Honolulu (Hawaii)
performing more strongly than in September 2020.
There are some risks to this outlook. It may take longer than we expect for
vaccines to be distributed, especially in some cities with challenging geography,
inadequate census records or large migrant populations. In addition, significant
populations within some cities may refuse to be vaccinated. As the pandemic
has progressed, pollsters have recorded growing numbers of conspiracy
theorists who doubt the origin story of the pandemic or the willingness of
governments to eradicate it. Resistance to take part in vaccination programmes
could ensure that caseloads in many cities remain substantial, preventing the
recovery of healthcare and education sectors.
Even if coronavirus is brought under control, governments around the world
will be left with huge budget deficits. In many emerging markets, these deficits
will be expensive to finance, even at a time of rock-bottom global interest rates.
With tax revenue also hit by an ongoing global recession, some spending on
education, healthcare or cultural provisions could be cut, preventing some cities
from offering their pre-pandemic level of liveability. In advanced economies,
recent memories of austerity programmes introduced after the global financial
crisis of 2008-09 mean that aggressive rounds of cost-cutting would be
politically unpopular; however, it is likely that at least some partially publicly-
funded institutions will disappear.

December 2020 www.eiu.com © The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2020

Liveability ranking and overview 7

Hardline government policies The impact of the covid-19 pandemic was transmitted through the culture,
create instability healthcare and education categories of our survey. But even without the spread
of coronavirus, it is unlikely that 2020 would have seen an improvement in
average liveability around the world, owing to a series of declining scores in
our stability category. Overall, stability is measured by assessments of the
likelihood of terrorist attacks, civilian and military conflict and crime levels.
This edition of the Liveability survey sees cities in some of the world’s largest
economies, including the US and cities in some African countries deteriorate
because of government policy positions.
Country City Stability
Austria Vienna 100.0
Japan Osaka 100.0
Japan Tokyo 100.0
Canada Calgary 100.0
Canada Toronto 100.0
Finland Helsinki 100.0
New Caledonia Nouméa 100.0
Switzerland Zurich 95.0
New Zealand Auckland 95.0
Switzerland Geneva 95.0

The US endured a summer of civil unrest arising from clashes between Black
Lives Matter protestors, pro-government militias and the police. The trigger for
the deterioration in the security situation was the death of an African-American
man, George Floyd, at the hands of police officers attempting an arrest in the
city of Minneapolis in Minnesota in May. Mr Floyd’s death was the latest in a
series of killings of black men by law enforcement officials in the US in recent
years, and brought suspicions of systemic racism within American institutions
to the fore once again. The clashes were intensified by the federal
administration’s characterisation of the (largely peaceful) protestors as
dangerous and anti-American.
Despite the election of a Democratic president, Joe Biden, who has the support
of the vast majority of those sympathetic to the Black Lives Matter movement,
we do not expect the new administration to be able to tackle deep societal
divisions immediately. The chances of more killings of African-Americans by
police, and therefore of further protests, in the coming years is extremely high.
This means that risks to stability are likely to endure in many US cities in the
coming years.
This edition of our Liveability survey is highly unusual. The modern world has
not previously experienced such a sudden stop to economic activity, nor the
suspension of so many activities considered fundamental to contemporary life.
This has resulted in almost all cities becoming less liveable in September 2020.
However, we are also confident that this deterioration is temporary. The likely
distribution of vaccines in 2021 ought to break the cycle of repeated periods
under lockdown, enabling the restoration of education, healthcare and cultural
services, and a return to more familiar levels of liveability.

December 2020 www.eiu.com © The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2020

8 Liveability ranking and overview

Full ranking with rating and category breakdown

Below is a ranking of all the cities surveyed, accompanied by the liveability
rating for each city. The liveability score is the combination of all the factors
surveyed across the five main categories. Scores are also given for each
category.
Overall Rating Culture &
Country City Rank (100=ideal) Stability Healthcare Environment Education Infrastructure
Austria Vienna 1 94.4 100.0 100.0 81.0 91.7 100.0
Japan Osaka 2 93.9 100.0 100.0 81.9 91.7 96.4
Japan Tokyo 3 93.2 100.0 100.0 81.9 91.7 92.9
Canada Calgary 3 93.2 100.0 100.0 76.2 91.7 100.0
Switzerland Zurich 5 92.3 95.0 100.0 83.8 83.3 96.4
New Zealand Auckland 6 92.2 95.0 95.8 86.1 91.7 92.9
Switzerland Geneva 7 92.1 95.0 100.0 83.1 83.3 96.4
Australia Adelaide 8 91.5 95.0 100.0 77.1 91.7 96.4
Canada Vancouver 8 91.5 95.0 100.0 79.9 91.7 92.9
Canada Toronto 10 91.3 100.0 100.0 77.1 91.7 89.3
Germany Frankfurt 10 91.3 90.0 100.0 81.9 83.3 100.0
Australia Perth 12 90.6 95.0 100.0 70.8 91.7 100.0
Germany Hamburg 13 90.4 90.0 100.0 78.2 83.3 100.0
Germany Berlin 14 90.1 85.0 100.0 81.9 83.3 100.0
New Zealand Wellington 15 89.8 95.0 91.7 82.6 91.7 89.3
Luxembourg Luxembourg 16 89.5 95.0 100.0 78.7 75.0 92.9
Australia Brisbane 17 89.3 95.0 100.0 77.1 91.7 85.7
Germany Munich 18 89.2 90.0 100.0 81.9 83.3 89.3
Australia Sydney 19 88.9 95.0 100.0 63.9 91.7 100.0
Denmark Copenhagen 20 88.8 95.0 79.2 80.1 91.7 100.0
Canada Montreal 21 88.7 95.0 100.0 68.8 91.7 92.9
Finland Helsinki 22 88.5 100.0 83.3 76.9 83.3 96.4
Germany Dusseldorf 22 88.5 90.0 100.0 80.3 66.7 96.4
Australia Melbourne 24 87.5 95.0 100.0 58.3 91.7 100.0
Singapore Singapore 24 87.5 95.0 91.7 64.8 91.7 100.0
Netherlands Amsterdam 26 87.3 90.0 83.3 81.9 83.3 96.4
Hungary Budapest 26 87.3 90.0 91.7 76.4 91.7 91.1
Norway Oslo 28 87.1 95.0 79.2 76.9 83.3 100.0
Ireland Dublin 29 86.5 90.0 91.7 76.2 91.7 87.5
Iceland Reykjavik 30 86.3 95.0 95.8 71.5 83.3 85.7
France Paris 31 85.6 80.0 83.3 81.9 91.7 96.4
Italy Milan 31 85.6 85.0 87.5 79.2 91.7 89.3
France Lyon 33 84.9 90.0 83.3 75.0 91.7 89.3
Belgium Brussels 33 84.9 85.0 83.3 76.9 91.7 92.9
Sweden Stockholm 35 84.6 95.0 62.5 79.4 91.7 96.4
Italy Rome 36 83.8 75.0 87.5 79.2 91.7 92.9
UK Manchester 37 83.3 90.0 75.0 81.3 83.3 85.7
Spain Barcelona 38 82.8 85.0 66.7 79.2 91.7 96.4
China Hong Kong* 39 81.8 85.0 87.5 58.3 91.7 96.4
US Atlanta 40 81.7 90.0 58.3 79.2 91.7 92.9
South Korea Seoul 41 81.5 80.0 83.3 71.1 91.7 89.3
Taiwan Taipei 41 81.5 90.0 83.3 64.1 91.7 85.7
UK London 43 81.4 75.0 75.0 82.6 91.7 89.3
Spain Madrid 44 81.3 85.0 62.5 79.2 91.7 92.9

December 2020 www.eiu.com © The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2020

Liveability ranking and overview 9

Overall Rating Culture &

Country City Rank (100=ideal) Stability Healthcare Environment Education Infrastructure
Czech Rep Prague 45 80.8 85.0 79.2 74.8 75.0 87.5
Portugal Lisbon 46 80.0 85.0 70.8 80.6 83.3 80.4
US Pittsburgh 47 79.9 85.0 58.3 74.1 91.7 96.4
New Caledonia Nouméa 47 79.9 100.0 87.5 67.4 66.7 69.6
US Chicago 49 79.2 80.0 58.3 79.2 91.7 92.9
US Seattle 50 79.0 75.0 58.3 80.6 91.7 96.4
US San Francisco 50 79.0 85.0 58.3 79.2 91.7 85.7
US Washington DC 52 78.7 75.0 58.3 79.2 91.7 96.4
US Miami 52 78.7 85.0 58.3 72.2 91.7 92.9
US Boston 52 78.7 75.0 58.3 79.2 91.7 96.4
US Minneapolis 55 77.8 85.0 58.3 68.5 91.7 92.9
US Cleveland 56 77.6 80.0 58.3 75.5 91.7 89.3
Chile Santiago 57 77.3 80.0 70.8 73.8 75.0 85.7
Slovakia Bratislava 57 77.3 90.0 75.0 66.7 66.7 82.1
Uruguay Montevideo 59 76.7 75.0 83.3 72.5 75.0 78.6
US Honolulu 60 76.4 95.0 58.3 47.2 91.7 100.0
Russia Moscow 60 76.4 75.0 87.5 58.6 83.3 85.7
US Houston 62 76.2 80.0 54.2 76.4 91.7 85.7
US Los Angeles 63 76.0 70.0 58.3 79.2 91.7 89.3
Poland Warsaw 64 75.8 85.0 75.0 65.7 66.7 82.1
Argentina Buenos Aires 65 74.9 70.0 79.2 61.1 91.7 85.7
US Lexington 66 74.3 85.0 54.2 69.9 83.3 82.1
UAE Dubai 67 73.4 90.0 66.7 52.5 58.3 92.9
US Detroit 68 73.3 65.0 58.3 73.6 91.7 89.3
UAE Abu Dhabi 69 73.2 90.0 70.8 48.4 58.3 92.9
Russia St Petersburg 70 73.1 70.0 87.5 58.6 66.7 83.9
US New York 71 72.8 60.0 58.3 76.4 91.7 89.3
Greece Athens 72 72.0 75.0 70.8 68.1 66.7 76.8
China Suzhou 73 71.8 85.0 70.8 53.5 58.3 85.7
China Beijing 74 71.2 75.0 66.7 57.9 75.0 85.7
China Tianjin 75 70.9 85.0 66.7 53.2 58.3 85.7
China Shanghai 76 70.1 75.0 66.7 62.7 66.7 78.6
Malaysia Kuala Lumpur 77 70.0 80.0 62.5 52.3 83.3 80.4
Bulgaria Sofia 78 69.5 80.0 75.0 64.4 66.7 58.9
China Shenzhen 79 68.6 80.0 62.5 52.5 58.3 85.7
Israel Tel Aviv 80 66.9 50.0 79.2 56.5 83.3 80.4
Serbia Belgrade 81 66.5 75.0 62.5 60.2 66.7 67.9
Romania Bucharest 81 66.5 80.0 54.2 60.6 58.3 73.2
China Dalian 83 66.3 80.0 62.5 51.9 58.3 75.0
Kuwait Kuwait City 84 66.2 80.0 54.2 43.1 75.0 85.7
Qatar Doha 85 66.0 80.0 62.5 49.8 75.0 67.9
China Guangzhou 85 66.0 75.0 62.5 51.4 58.3 80.4
Puerto Rico San Juan 87 64.7 90.0 45.8 54.6 58.3 67.9
South Africa Johannesburg 87 64.7 55.0 54.2 77.8 75.0 66.1
Oman Muscat 89 64.6 80.0 54.2 36.3 75.0 85.7
Costa Rica San Jose 90 63.5 75.0 54.2 61.8 66.7 58.9
South Africa Pretoria 91 63.2 50.0 54.2 75.0 75.0 67.9
China Qingdao 92 63.0 80.0 58.3 51.2 50.0 67.9
Thailand Bangkok 93 62.4 55.0 62.5 52.3 91.7 69.6
Brunei Bandar Seri Begawan 94 62.1 85.0 66.7 32.6 58.3 67.9
Brazil Rio de Janeiro 95 61.8 60.0 50.0 63.0 75.0 67.9

December 2020 www.eiu.com © The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2020

10 Liveability ranking and overview

Overall Rating Culture &

Country City Rank (100=ideal) Stability Healthcare Environment Education Infrastructure
Brazil Sao Paulo 96 61.1 60.0 54.2 65.0 58.3 66.1
Jordan Amman 97 60.7 65.0 70.8 47.2 66.7 58.9
Kazakhstan Almaty 98 60.6 75.0 66.7 42.1 58.3 60.7
Peru Lima 99 59.3 60.0 37.5 53.7 83.3 75.0
Bahrain Bahrain 100 58.1 60.0 50.0 38.9 83.3 75.0
Panama Panama City 101 57.7 75.0 25.0 54.4 75.0 64.3
Paraguay Asuncion 102 57.4 55.0 50.0 60.0 58.3 64.3
Philippines Manila 103 57.3 60.0 58.3 47.9 58.3 64.3
Saudi Arabia Riyadh 104 56.6 70.0 66.7 28.9 50.0 67.9
Tunisia Tunis 105 56.4 50.0 66.7 50.2 58.3 60.7
Azerbaijan Baku 106 56.0 65.0 66.7 39.1 66.7 50.0
Ecuador Quito 106 56.0 50.0 41.7 62.7 66.7 64.3
Mexico Mexico City 108 55.7 40.0 66.7 65.7 66.7 46.4
Vietnam Hanoi 109 55.5 70.0 54.2 41.0 58.3 55.4
Saudi Arabia Jeddah 110 54.6 65.0 62.5 26.2 50.0 71.4
Morocco Casablanca 111 54.1 65.0 41.7 49.3 50.0 60.7
Turkey Istanbul 112 54.0 50.0 50.0 51.9 50.0 67.9
Vietnam Ho Chi Minh City 113 53.2 70.0 50.0 38.2 58.3 51.8
Ukraine Kiev 114 53.0 50.0 58.3 51.6 66.7 46.4
Saudi Arabia Al Khobar 115 52.1 65.0 62.5 28.9 50.0 55.4
Indonesia Jakarta 116 51.7 60.0 45.8 41.0 58.3 57.1
Uzbekistan Tashkent 117 51.5 50.0 58.3 44.2 66.7 48.2
Colombia Bogota 118 51.4 35.0 45.8 59.3 58.3 64.3
Kenya Nairobi 119 49.6 45.0 41.7 56.7 58.3 50.0
India New Delhi 120 48.1 50.0 41.7 35.4 66.7 58.9
India Mumbai 121 47.9 60.0 41.7 33.3 58.3 51.8
Egypt Cairo 122 47.8 55.0 45.8 40.0 41.7 53.6
Cambodia Phnom Penh 123 47.7 60.0 37.5 41.0 50.0 50.0
Guatemala Guatemala City 124 47.6 55.0 37.5 42.6 50.0 53.6
Cote d'Ivoire Abidjan 125 47.5 50.0 45.8 43.8 41.7 53.6
Sri Lanka Colombo 126 47.4 55.0 41.7 36.6 58.3 51.8
Zambia Lusaka 127 47.1 55.0 33.3 49.3 33.3 55.4
Iran Tehran 128 46.3 55.0 62.5 31.9 41.7 39.3
Nepal Kathmandu 129 44.2 65.0 29.2 35.4 50.0 41.1
Venezuela Caracas 130 42.7 35.0 33.3 42.8 58.3 53.6
Senegal Dakar 131 41.8 50.0 29.2 47.2 41.7 37.5
Cameroon Douala 132 40.9 60.0 25.0 39.4 25.0 42.9
Zimbabwe Harare 133 39.6 40.0 20.8 50.0 58.3 35.7
Pakistan Karachi 134 38.7 20.0 45.8 33.3 58.3 51.8
PNG Port Moresby 135 37.9 30.0 37.5 38.0 41.7 46.4
Algeria Algiers 136 37.0 35.0 45.8 35.4 41.7 30.4
Libya Tripoli 137 36.7 30.0 41.7 33.8 41.7 41.1
Nigeria Lagos 138 34.1 20.0 37.5 39.1 25.0 46.4
Bangladesh Dhaka 139 33.0 55.0 16.7 28.9 33.3 26.8
Syria Damascus 140 28.0 20.0 29.2 33.1 25.0 32.1
*Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) of the People's Republic of China.

December 2020 www.eiu.com © The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2020

Liveability ranking and overview 11

About the Economist Intelligence Unit's liveability survey

How the rating works The concept of liveability is simple: it assesses which locations around the
world provide the best or the worst living conditions. Assessing liveability has a
broad range of uses, from benchmarking perceptions of development levels to
assigning a hardship allowance as part of expatriate relocation packages. Our
liveability rating quantifies the challenges that might be presented to an
individual's lifestyle in any given location, and allows for direct comparison
between locations.
Every city is assigned a rating of relative comfort for over 30 qualitative and
quantitative factors across five broad categories: stability, healthcare, culture and
environment, education, and infrastructure. Each factor in a city is rated as
acceptable, tolerable, uncomfortable, undesirable or intolerable. For qualitative
indicators, a rating is awarded based on the judgment of in-house analysts and
in-city contributors. For quantitative indicators, a rating is calculated based on
the relative performance of a number of external data points.
The scores are then compiled and weighted to provide a score of 1–100, where
1 is considered intolerable and 100 is considered ideal. The liveability rating is
provided both as an overall score and as a score for each category. To provide
points of reference, the score is also given for each category relative to New
York and an overall position in the ranking of 140 cities is provided.

The suggested liveability scale Companies pay a premium (usually a percentage of a salary) to employees who
move to cities where living conditions are particularly difficult and there is
excessive physical hardship or a notably unhealthy environment.
We have given a suggested allowance to correspond with the rating. However,
the actual level of the allowance is often a matter of company policy. It is not
uncommon, for example, for companies to pay higher allowances—perhaps up
to double our suggested level.
Suggested
Rating Description allowance (%)
80–100 There are few, if any, challenges to living standards 0
Day–to–day living is fine, in general, but some aspects of life may
70–80 5
entail problems
60–70 Negative factors have an impact on day-to-day living 10

50–60 Liveability is substantially constrained 15

50 or less Most aspects of living are severely restricted 20

How the rating is calculated The liveability score is reached through category weights, which are equally
divided into relevant subcategories to ensure that the score covers as many
indicators as possible. Indicators are scored as acceptable, tolerable,
uncomfortable, undesirable or intolerable. These are then weighted to produce
a rating, where 100 means that liveability in a city is ideal and 1 means that it is
intolerable.

December 2020 www.eiu.com © The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2020

12 Liveability ranking and overview

For qualitative variables, an ‘EIU rating’ is awarded, based on the judgement of

in-house expert country analysts and a field correspondent based in each city.
For quantitative variables, a rating is calculated based on the relative
performance of a location using external data sources.

Category 1: Stability (weight: 25% of total)

Indicator Source
Prevalence of petty crime EIU rating
Prevalence of violent crime EIU rating
Threat of terror EIU rating
Threat of military conflict EIU rating
Threat of civil unrest/conflict EIU rating

Category 2: Healthcare (weight: 20% of total)

Indicator Source
Availability of private healthcare EIU rating
Quality of private healthcare EIU rating
Availability of public healthcare EIU rating
Quality of public healthcare EIU rating
Availability of over-the-counter drugs EIU rating
General healthcare indicators Adapted from World Bank

Category 3: Culture and Environment (weight: 25% of total)

Indicator Source
Humidity/temperature rating Adapted from average weather conditions
Discomfort of climate to travellers EIU rating
Level of corruption Adapted from Transparency International
Social or religious restrictions EIU rating
Level of censorship EIU rating
Sporting availability EIU field rating of 3 sport indicators
Cultural availability EIU field rating of 4 cultural indicators
Food and drink EIU field rating of 4 cultural indicators
Consumer goods and services EIU rating of product availability

Category 4: Education (weight: 10% of total)

Indicator Source
Availability of private education EIU rating
Quality of private education EIU rating
Public education indicators Adapted from World Bank

Category 5: Infrastructure (weight: 20% of total)

Indicator Source
Quality of road network EIU rating
Quality of public transport EIU rating
Quality of international links EIU rating
Availability of good quality housing EIU rating
Quality of energy provision EIU rating
Quality of water provision EIU rating
Quality of telecommunications EIU rating

December 2020 www.eiu.com © The Economist Intelligence Unit Limited 2020