What is the richest country in 2025?

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2025/07/18/what-is-the-richest-country-in-the-world-in-2025

by RestlessMind • 1 year ago

45 71 1 year ago

The methodology finally addresses a pet peeve of mine to adjust based on prices and hours worked: "we ranked 178 countries using three measures. The first is GDP per person at market exchange rates. It is simple and intuitive, and widely cited. But it ignores price differences between countries. The second measure adjusts incomes for these local costs (known as purchasing-power parity, or PPP). This offers a better guide to living standards but one that takes no account of leisure time: the share of people in work, and how long they work, varies by country. Our final yardstick accounts for both local prices and hours worked"

tetris112• 1 year ago

Why is average still such a persistent metric though? Isn't median more representative of an individidual's actual purchasing power?

If they paired average metrics with gini coefficient, I'd be happy

__mharrison__• 1 year ago

What would be your recommended way to combine them? Or just show them separately?

dredmorbius• 1 year ago

NB: "average" can mean any of three measures of central tendency: the mean (sum/count), the median (middle value), or the mode (most frequently occurring value). All three may be valid choices in specific contexts.

Whilst it's common to interpret "average" as "mean", this isn't strictly accurate or reliable.

The Economist's article errs in failing to distinguish which measure of central tendency is actually meant by "average".

xnx• 1 year ago

Why measure "rich" at all and just go with life satisfaction surveys?

eastbound• 1 year ago

North Africa countries have very very low suicide rates for the same reason. Many factors can change your self-reporting of events you go through.

dismalaf5• 1 year ago

Because some cultures are "complaining" cultures, meaning they complain socially.

Others will find fault with the tiniest thing, even if 99% of everything is perfect.

And others can be incredibly content with very little. It gives absolutely no insight into how good life actually is anywhere.

Henchman21• 1 year ago

How about we measure how many are in poverty and try to push society to make that number zero everywhere?

NalNezumi2• 1 year ago

Can someone more versed in macro economics clarify to me, to what extent "price differences between countries." goes?

Like are we just comparing simple goods: grocery, white wares, cars, fuel/electricity etc the price of these things there. Or are we also considering things such as: need to save money for Healthcare, University, credit card transaction fee, housing cost (mortgage), required amount of fuel for basic functioning of everyday life?

The latter is basically stuff that is either cheap or free in certain places while astronomically high in other (US, but I guess housing price is everywhere if city).

I feel like layman AND economist doesn't truly account (or even understand) how different some countries have it on those metrics; A person in Tokyo or most capital cities in Europe can get away with ZERO fuel + car cost, while for Americans that's a death sentence. Same for Healthcare. So comparing those prices doesn't even make sense to begin with, but leaving it out is a major boost to places where salaries are high (US) but the (hidden) cost are not measured.

RestlessMind3• 1 year ago

The latter is basically stuff that is either cheap or free in certain places

Healthcare is absolutely not free anywhere. It maybe that the costs are indirect via government taxation and benefits are curtailed via rationing or simply unavailability of certain types of care.

pinewurst• 1 year ago

https://archive.ph/1rt11

musikele2• 1 year ago

this page got blocked by my country's (Italy, not NK) firewall for "pedopornography" :-O

arresin• 1 year ago

The guy that was raided for reviewing an emulator, shutting down cloudflare to stop people streaming soccer, this.

What is going on in Italy with the internet?

1vuio0pswjnm7• 1 year ago

Does "this page" mean the economist.com page or the archive.ph page

master_crab• 1 year ago

This is better.

Not good, but better. Take it with a grain of salt.

another_twist• 1 year ago

Finally something by the economist that isnt "America great, EU doomed, America, murica, capitalism yay".

Didnt know Qatar scored so high on GDP per hours worked metric, but I guess they dont measure hours worked in construction as that one is largely immigrants working in unsafe conditions with confiscated passports. Source - the book Inside Qatar.

readthenotes1• 1 year ago

On a more basic measure, you could just look at whether there are people willing to risk life and limb in order to get into your country instead of getting out...

knorker2• 1 year ago

So mostly Europe, according to this logic?

But that's not entirely fair, since Africa to Europe may mean risking your life on a tiny boat, but Mexico to US is at least a land border.

Also UK gets it's share of life risking boats.

I guess Australia was the winner on this, until they took drastic measures to get people to stop risking their lives in tiny boats.

Infinity315• 1 year ago

That's measuring desirability--or at least immediate desirability, which is sometimes related but distinct from wealth.

It also quickly becomes meaningless as people risking life and limb tend to flee to the nearest stable country. For example, Syrian refugees for the most part tended to stay close to their home country with the majority fleeing to nearby Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, and Iraq--or, moving elsewhere within Syria.

Measuring wealth of a country by measuring how many refugees it takes in is like projecting future revenue/success of a convenience store by measuring how many people come into the store during an active-shooter situation.

Going by your metric, it would suggest that a Pole is wealthier than a Brit because Poland has nearly 1 million Ukrainian refugees to the UK's .25 mil.

freboard• 1 year ago

I would like to see this for cities. Comparing countries seems so dumb to me when you have such huge geographic and population size differences

igravious3• 1 year ago

agreed

mellosouls• 1 year ago

Yes, for instance the UK would probably fare very differently if London (which can itself feel like a foreign country to non-Londoners in the UK) was removed and the country's wealth re-evaluated.

margalabargala2• 1 year ago

This is true of basically any country except very rich, tiny countries like Singapore or the UAE.

dismalaf5• 1 year ago

Lol, Canada in the first column (barely) then just drops off...

glitchc2• 1 year ago

Canada's PPP and quality of life seem to decline every year due to brain-dead government policies.

dismalaf5• 1 year ago

Canadians will still insist we're the richest country in the world though. The propaganda here is wild in that it's super subtle but everyone will insist things are great even in the face of overwhelming evidence.

Edit - lol and here come the down votes, even in the face of actual evidence in the article.

nikanj2• 1 year ago

Canada’s GDP is awesome as long as you include real estate, but selling the same set of houses back and forth with ever increasing prices doesn’t really improve the lives of anyone

dismalaf5• 1 year ago

Yup. Stats would look even worse if the economist used income instead of GDP per capita. The difference between the numbers is larger for Canada than, say, France or Germany.

IrishTechie4• 1 year ago

Highest income country would be a more accurate title here I think. My country (Ireland) has a high income now but has been poor for centuries, we lack many markers of wealthy countries like subways, extensive motorway networks etc. We are well on our way to being a rich country, but not there yet.

amelius2• 1 year ago

Lots of US companies moved there because of favorable tax conditions, but now the US administration wants to revert that.

Can't say I blame them. The Irish and Dutch are the worst when it comes to tax evasion.

IrishTechie4• 1 year ago

Is that true though, quick bit of Googling has Ireland and Netherlands in many but not all Top 10 lists and none at the top. When it comes to citizens using off-shoring to evade tax, the more literal reading of your point, neither Irish nor Dutch people appear in the top ten lists I’ve come across.

gwerbret• 1 year ago

We are well on our way to being a rich country, but not there yet.

Q: Why will Ireland eventually be the richest country in the world?

A: Because its capital is always Dublin.

(I'll see myself out.)

IrishTechie4• 1 year ago

You must have been sitting on that one a long time :-)

RestlessMind3• 1 year ago

Ireland has been specifically called out and excluded in TFA due to its unique tax situation.

dvh• 1 year ago

Simple table with four sortable columns would be infinitely more readable.

kalyantm• 1 year ago

honestly, who even comes up with these graphics?! More importantly, who looks at it and approves this?

igravious3• 1 year ago

"The ranking does not consider inequality"

it should try. because it's using gdp per capita it's stating that it cares how the entire gdp is averaged out over the entire population. the more inequality there is the less useful or representative this averaging out is

dismalaf5• 1 year ago

Rich countries, even with inequality, will generally still have good institutions and infrastructure and poor people are better off there despite their income being low.

Measuring median also ignores that the upper middle can be doing very well, as it's literally just a slice from the 50th percentile.

It's like the US, where the top 10% make as much as the top 1% in Canada (as an example), but if you simply take the median it ignores the massive middle and upper middle class in the US.

igravious3• 1 year ago

I love how a publication called "The Economist" doesn't have the wherewithal to measure supposedly economic outliers like Ireland and Luxembourg and just throws its hands up in the air and doesn't try.

ashishb2• 1 year ago

I was in Dublin, Ireland[1] All of its so called high power capital GDP is mostly accounting gimmick.

Japan, Singapore, or even Eastern European capitals felt more prosperous to me.

https://ashishb.net/travel/dublin-ireland/

cenamus2• 1 year ago

Bit offtopic, but the amount of homeless and drug addicts in Dublin was absolutely astounding, haven't that that many in cities 3x the size.

crawfordcomeaux2• 1 year ago

This doesn't take into account resources in the ground, otherwise it would need to show how rich the so-called "poor" countries locked into debt slavery and colonized infrastructure/governance the "rich" countries continue to impose on them.

If the measures ignore the sources of wealth discovered and not yet extracted, it doesn't accurately indicate what's happening. The whole story is left untold. Not reporting worth basing economic decisions on, except to hire better economists.

hibert• 1 year ago

The article is entirely about income and not at all about wealth. Content was a little surprising given the title, but I wouldn't see the point of a comprehensive wealth analysis given the resource curse you allude to.

crawfordcomeaux2• 1 year ago

The point would be to contextualize income in the exploitation required for it to exist.

breadwinner• 1 year ago

Singapore's rise is amazing. They don't have oil or other natural resources. Singapore adopted free-market capitalism, encouraged foreign direct investment and positioned itself as an attractive destination for multinational corporations. They invested heavily in technical and higher education, ensuring a highly skilled workforce. Singapore is consistently top-three in mathematics and science performance.

whatever1• 1 year ago

It has a unique geography and serves as a link between western and Chinese trade routes. The fact that it is Mandarin friendly also helped a lot of Chinese to move their profits there

lgvln3• 1 year ago

Singapore is an interesting case because it looks great on paper but it’s arguably one of the worst/best form of authoritarianism. For example, ~80% of Singaporeans live in public housing, which they don’t technically own (99 year lease), whose rules are dictated by a government agency. Eg, there are police cameras right up to the apartment lifts and every entry/exit; the number of pets they’re allowed to own is regulated and interestingly less than those living in private property arbitrarily (without consideration for property size). Nevermind the complete lack of civil liberties and high gini coefficient/inequality.

nikanj2• 1 year ago

Living in a police state can be awesome, if you don’t want to dissent. Way less crime, no homeless drug users living on the city streets, etc. For a law-abiding middle-class person, Singapore isn’t too terrible

What is the richest country in 2025?

Related Stories