2022 Natixis GRI Full Report F

2022 NATIXIS GLOBAL RETIREMENT INDEX
Danger Zone
Global retirement security challenges
come home to roost in 2022
Table of Contents
2 Ten years of the Global Retirement Index
3 Global retirement security challenges come home to roost in 2022
15 Global Retirement Index 2022
16 Framework
17 The Best Performers
19 Spotlight: GRI’s biggest movers: a ten-year retrospective
21 Regional Perspective
23 Performance by Sub-Index
24 Health Index
26 Spotlight: Ukrainian refugees could improve Polish demographic issues
29 Material Wellbeing Index
31 Spotlight: Inflation improving debt-to-GDP ratios? First impressions could be misleading
34 Finances in Retirement Index
36 Spotlight: The pandemic’s lasting impact on the US labor market
38 Quality of Life Index
40 The Top 25: Year-on-Year Trends
42 Country Reports
68 References
69 Framework
70 Appendix A
70 Methodology
70 Constructing the Indicators
74 Constructing the Global Retirement Index
75 Appendix B: Full Rankings

Ten years of the Global Retirement Index
When we introduced the Natixis Global Retirement Index in 2012, the
world had just emerged from the global financial crisis: Memories of
market turmoil were still fresh. Inflation was low, but so was growth.
Central banks had slashed interest rates to all-time lows. Balance
sheets had ballooned from asset repurchase programs. And public debt
had swelled to record highs around the globe.
On top of it all, the first wave of the Baby Boom generation had just
reached retirement age, indicating that pay-as-you-go retirement
systems around the world would soon face a stress test like no other. It
all raised the question of whether the models for those systems would
be sustainable in the long term.
The time was right to examine retirement security from a global

perspective. Working in collaboration with CoreData Research, Natixis
Investment Managers sought to identify, measure, and track the key
factors that would determine if individuals around the world would be
able to live with dignity in the years after work.
As an investment management company, we knew finances would

factor greatly into retirement security. After all, the discussion often
focuses on saving for retirement and generating an income in
retirement. But we also recognized that like many sustainability issues,
retirement security was a more complex, multi-dimensional topic. So the
index went beyond interest rates, savings rates, and inflation.
People are living longer, and with age comes increased need for
medical care. So the index considers health factors alongside finances.
To ensure their finances hold up, the index considers key economic
indicators that examine material wellbeing. And because retirees need
to live in a clean, safe environment, the index considers quality of life.
In 2022, the world finds itself recovering from another global crisis.
Inflation is running at levels not seen since the 1980s. Balance sheets
and debt levels have soared even higher. Central bankers again are
turning to interest rates as a stopgap, only this time they’re raising rates.
After a decade-long bull run, the markets are more volatile, with indexes
and investors around the world experiencing losses. The Boomer
retirement wave is at its crest, and the Millennial generation is making
its presence known in the workforce.
As the global economy evolves, the Natixis Global Retirement Index still
meets its clear objective: to provide policy makers, employers and the
public at large with a comparative tool for seeing where the factors are
best aligned to ensure a secure retirement.
Global Retirement Index 2022 2

Global retirement security challenges come home to roost in 2022
The warning signals are blaring and the gauges are But inflation is just the starting point of a long list of potential
flashing bright red in 2022 as key risk concerns for mistakes that individuals can make in their retirement plans. From
underestimating how long they will live to forgetting to factor in
retirement security are coming to a head in today’s rapidly
healthcare costs. From overestimating investment income to
changing economic environment. relying too much on public benefits. And a range of other mistakes
Inflation, the long-sleeping giant among financial woes underscore just how hard it can be to get it right.
for retirees, has been riled up in the jet wash of a global Familiar issues. New risks.
pandemic and war in Ukraine. Skyrocketing prices for The risks to global retirement security were clear when we first
oil, food and shelter are taking a dramatic bite out of published the Natixis Global Retirement Index in 2012: aging
the purchasing power of retirees and presenting a core populations, pension funding shortfalls, and an uncertain economic
environment. Those core issues remain the same ten years later, but
economic lesson to those still planning for life after work.
after a decade of increasing pressure they are presenting some new
A bad year to retire risks in 2022:
But even while inflation is running at its highest level in 40 years, it is • Inflation: an immediate threat to retirement security – Rapidly
just one factor on a growing list of concerns. Given all the potential escalating costs can pose a significant threat to the financial
pitfalls, 2022 could be one of the worst years to retire in recent security of retirees by eroding purchasing power. Institutional
memory. With markets down, rates still relatively low, and inflation investors will be challenged to preserve assets in a more volatile
taking a big bite out of retirees’ wallets, those who step out of the investment environment.
working world run the risk of taking retirement distributions from
• Interest rates and income: long-term gains, short-term pain –
an already depleted pool of assets. At the same time, it’s likely they
After a decade of historically low interest rates, central bank rate
will have to take greater risks with their portfolio to make up ground
hikes hold promise for annuitizing assets in the long term, but
they’ve already lost. Both will make it hard to preserve retirement
not without some short-term pain for individual and institutional
savings and make it harder to attain a secure retirement, but with 20
investors alike.
years ahead in retirement, there is still time for 2022’s retirees to reset
their plans. • Demographics: the good and bad of living longer – For individuals,
the longevity revolution will tax their income plans. For institutions,
Where retirement plans can go wrong
rapidly aging populations will test the limits of both pensions and
How much does inflation factor into retirement security? Financial government benefits systems.
professionals around the world say underestimating the impact of
inflation is the number one mistake investors make in their retirement Getting retirement security right and helping to ensure individuals can
planning, according to the 2022 Natixis Global Survey of Financial live with dignity after their working years is a core sustainability issue
Professionals. Perhaps more than any other factor, it has the potential for society in the 21st century. Success will require a concerted effort
to upset the plans that have taken decades for millions of people to from policy makers, employers, the financial services industry and
realize by simply eroding the value of what they’ve worked so hard to individuals. It all starts with understanding the risks.
accumulate.
Top 10 retirement planning mistakes

1 Underestimating the impact of inflation 49% 6 Forgetting to factor in healthcare costs 39%
2 Underestimating how long you will live 46% 7 Failing to understand income sources 35%
3 Overestimating investment income 42% 8 Relying too much on public benefits 33%
4 Being too conservative in investments 41% 9 Underestimating real estate costs 23%
5 Setting unrealistic return expectations 40% 10 Being too aggressive in investments 21%
Source: Natixis Investment Managers, Global Survey of Financial Professionals

Inflation: an immediate threat to
retirement security
A global pandemic, a disruption to the global supply chain, and a war in Ukraine are all linked as a
series of world events that has delivered the highest level of inflation since the Reagan-Thatcher era.
While inflation is always a concern, the speed at which costs have ramped up gives reason to rethink
fundamentals in retirement planning.
For most of the past decade inflation has been exceptionally low. Between 2012 and 2020 inflation Inflation pains were
for 38 OECD member countries averaged just 1.76%. Supply chain disruptions helped inflation more not felt equally across
than double to 4% in 2021, but even still, the decade average remains less than 2% (1.92%). Then came retirees’ wallets.
Russia’s war on Ukraine. In just the first half of the year, inflation for those same 38 countries spiked to
9.6% in May.2
But inflation pains were not felt equally across retirees’ wallets. With a post-pandemic jump in
demand for energy and the war in Ukraine driving scarcity, consumers have felt a powerful inflation
effect at the gas pump.
Inflation has increased dramatically from 2012 to 2022
2012 Q2 2022
2.0%
France
5.3%
2.0%
Germany
7.6%
3.0%
Italy
6.9%
0.3%
Japan
0.9%
4.1%
Mexico
7.8%
2.4%
Spain
9.1%
2.6%
UK
7.9%
2.1%
USA
8.6%
2.2%
OECD
9.7%
Source: OECD

For those on a fixed income an extra
$3,000 for food and fuel can have a
Pain at the pump dramatic impact on quality of life.
Between 2012 and 2021 gasoline cost an average of $2.80 per gallon
in the US,3 making a fill-up for a 15-gallon tank $42. While that may
still be a significant bill for someone living on a fixed income, it is
more manageable than the $75 it cost in June 2022 when average
pump prices hit $5.4 While prices have moderated, the point is clear:
A 40% hike tallies up to a $1,700 increase in retirees’ expenses for just
one tank a week. But it’s not just at the pump that retirees are feeling
the squeeze. Pain at the checkout line
Food prices have also spiked, and this jump can be even more
detrimental to retirement security. In simple terms, you can always
Rising gas costs put the squeeze on go without travel, but you can’t go without food. Grocery prices had
been relatively stable in recent years. Between 2017 and 2021 food
retirees in the last year inflation averaged about 3.6% across OECD countries. Even in that
time, the US (-0.2%) and Canada (-1.0%) saw food prices actually
decline in 2017.5 But the picture is much different in 2022.
2021 July
2022
By June 2022, OECD reports that food inflation spiked to 13.3%
$2.31 across member countries, including a 12.2% increase in the US,
US 11.95% in Germany, and 9.8% in the UK. Even Japan, where food
$4.61
inflation had been less than 1% in four of the five previous years,
$5.79
saw food prices jump 4.11%.6 In practical terms this translates
UK into a significant increase in grocery bills. For example, USDA’s
$8.50
estimated costs for a moderate weekly meal plan for two adults
increased from $141.40 in 2017 to $167.53 in 2022.7 It all adds up
$6.21
FRANCE to another $1,300 annually.
$7.16
For those on a fixed income an extra $3,000 for food and fuel can
$5.41 have a dramatic impact on quality of life.
SPAIN
$7.30
MEXICO
$3.33
Consumers are getting less for their money
$4.39
at the grocery store
Prices are USD per US gallon
COST FOR A MODERATE WEEKLY MEAL PLAN
Sources: Statista, GlobalPetrolPrices.com
FOR TWO ADULTS (US) +$1,300
2017 $141 $7,353 Annually
$168 $8,712 Annually

2022
Source: USDA

Social Security orders up a COLA Now with rates increasing, liabilities are shrinking for many. But not all
Policymakers have a key tool at their disposal to help mitigate the pensions respond in equal measure. The math on inflation ultimately
impact of inflation on pensioners – the Cost of Living Adjustment. works out to the better for private pensions. With inflation driving
In the US, low inflation has meant Social Security beneficiaries had rates up and liabilities down, these managers generally see their
received an average adjustment of just 1.32% between 2012 and contribution rate decline. On the public side of pensions, the math may
2021. The good news was that the COLA was increased to 5.9% in not be as advantageous.
December of 2021.8 Unfortunately, inflation has reached much higher
levels and expenses are increasing. For example, rising prescription Two key differences for public and private pensions
drug benefit premiums in general, and for Alzheimer medication Two other factors add significantly to the challenge for public
Aduhelm in particular, have resulted in a one-time increase in Medicare pensions: First, most private pensions are closed to new members
Part B monthly premiums from $148 to $1709 in 2022. Reduced as employers have shifted retirement plans from defined benefit
pricing for the drug will result in significant cost savings, and as a pensions to defined contribution plans, so fewer and fewer people will
result, premium payments are expected to decrease in 2023. receive pension payments. Most public pensions remain open to new
members. In the simplest terms, getting new members means they
The good and the bad of inflation for institutions will need more money to pay more members and their payments will
While inflation has a negative impact on individuals, certain have to stretch out over a longer, indefinite period of time. Second,
institutions may find an indirect benefit. Pensions generally make out many public plans also include a cost of living adjustment which
better in inflationary times as central banks implement interest rate makes liabilities more variable over the long term.
hikes to curb inflation. This is because of the seesaw effect that rates
have on pension liabilities. In simplest terms: The higher the rate, the Ultimately, inflation is not just the apex of retirement security threats;
lower the liabilities. it is also the trigger for another key challenge facing individuals and
institutions: rising interest rates.
Here’s how it works. All pensions calculate their future liabilities, or
payments that will be made to members for decades into the future. WHEN RATES RISE, PENSION LIABILITIES FALL
But they are required to calculate the sum of what they will pay
members over time using present-day dollars. When rates are low,
liabilities look a lot larger. That’s because the low rates mean the future Rate hikes mean that institutions have the
income from any bonds managers hold will be low as well. When potential for greater income in the future,
rates rise, the future income of those holdings is greater. As a result, which makes today's liabilities lower.
pensions will receive a higher level of income.
Interest Rates
Pension Liabilities

Interest rates and income:
long-term gains, short-term pain
Low interest rates have been the bane of retirement security for well over a decade. Beginning with the cuts
implemented during the global financial crisis, interest rates stayed at historic lows for more than a decade.
But now in the inflationary post-pandemic economy, central banks have begun to raise rates in earnest. While
that is good news in the long term, it will not be without some short-term pain.
In the US, the fed funds rate had dropped to 0.7% in 2011 and stayed well below historic averages until 2016
when a series of small rate hikes began to suggest a return to the norm. Then came the global pandemic and
rates were slashed to 0.05% in April 2020. Two years later, as inflation has spiked, the Fed has responded by
hiking rates by 75 basis points, first in June and then again in July.10
In Europe, a series of cuts by the ECB took rates down to 0% in 2012. By 2014 rates were into negative
territory, where they stayed for the next eight years. It wasn’t until July of 2022, when bankers in Europe
implemented a 50bps hike, that rates even got back to zero.11
CENTRAL BANK RATES HAVE INCREASED SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE LAST TWO YEARS
8/11/2022 6/30/2022 12/31/2021 12/31/2020
Federal Reserve
2.50%
Bank of England
1.75% 1.75%
1.25%
1.58
0.25% 0.25% 0.25%
0.15%
0.0%
-0.50% -0.50% -0.50%
ECB
Source: Bloomberg
Similarly, rates in the UK have remained low, not topping 1% since 2009. Covid and the threat of recession
brought about cuts that brought the Bank of England rate to a 300-year low of 0.1% in March of 2020.12 Two-
plus years later, rates were increased to 1.25% in June 2022.
Elsewhere, the German Bund rose to 0.5% in July 2022 after going to 0% during the pandemic. Australia
hiked rates from 0.85% to 1.35% the same month. In Japan, where they have been steadying the economy
against stagflation since the '90s, the Bank of Japan has continued its negative rate policy, maintaining the
-0.1% rate that’s been in place since 2016.13

The good and the bad of rates
There are a lot of advantages to living in a low-interest-rate world. Low rates helped propel global growth
from $75 trillion to $104 trillion14 over the past decade. They’ve helped drive equity markets to record
highs, helped business grow, and helped individuals attain homeownership.
Those investing for retirement most certainly benefited from the boon, but low rates have not helped
retirees in equal measure. In fact, low rates have presented retirees with some difficult choices.
In the simplest terms, low rates have made it hard for retirees to generate income off their savings.
With rates in low to negative territory, many were not able to follow the golden rule of “Never touch the
principal.” Instead of waiting for bonds to throw off a sustainable income, retirees were forced to dip into
the principal of their nest egg when they might normally seek to preserve their capital.
This puts them in the difficult position of lowering their expected income, accepting that their assets may
run out too early, or taking on more investment risk to make up the difference. Each decision takes on
heavier consequences in 2022’s volatile markets.
Risks at every turn for retirees

With inflation running at a 40-year high, those on a fixed income will already find it difficult to keep pace
with rising costs, let alone find room to cut their income. Longevity adds to the challenge. People may
be living longer, but nobody knows how long they will live. As a result, there’s a crucial piece missing to
the equation that tells you how much income you can take from your savings while ensuring it will last
the rest of your life. And as markets have shown in 2022, equity markets do not operate in a vacuum.
Economic surprises like an inflationary spike, slow growth, and recession can lead to a swift market
downturn, further complicating their ability to preserve capital while taking income.
Bonds also experiencing turbulence

In the long run, retirees may gain some hope for higher income in the future, but not without some pain
along the way as markets weather the change. Unfortunately, few investors may understand what rising
rates hold in store for them. In 2019, the Natixis Center for Investor Insight conducted a quiz with 9,000
investors in 27 countries. We asked them what two things happen when rates go up.
They weren’t sure.
Professionals may recognize that with rising rates there’s a greater chance for higher income in the future,
but that the present value of the bonds you currently own goes down. Only 3% of investors worldwide
understood both sides of the equation. One-third didn’t understand either.15
MANY INVESTORS DON’T UNDERSTAND HOW RISING RATES AFFECT BONDS
3%
of investors from our Survey of
1
Higher rates decrease
2
Higher rates today mean
bonds will generate higher
the present value of
Individual Investors understand the bond. income down the road.
how rates affect bonds.
Source: Natixis Investment Managers, Global Survey of Individual Investors

Bond yields have hovered around historic lows for more than a Equitable reports that with average losses of -10.4%20 in the first
decade, which has put income-oriented investors at a disadvantage. half of 2022, the funded status for state and local pensions has
Now with rates ratcheting up, they are feeling even more pain as US experienced the sharpest decline in funding ratio since the global
government bond values have plummeted -10.41% as of June 30, financial crisis, dropping from 84.8% on average to 77.9%.21 Topping
2022 according to the ICE BofA 7-10 Year Treasury Index, setting the it off, the National Association of State Retirement Administrators
stage for their worst calendar performance year since the index began average assumed rate of return for its US members has dropped
in 1973. German government bonds are down -11.39% and Eurozone below 7% to 6.9%.22
government bonds are down -12.44% in the same time frame – which
is shaping up to the worst year on the continent since the ICE BofA Interest rates have been a challenge to global retirement security for
Index data began in 1986.16 more than a decade. Now, with central banks implementing rate hikes
to counter inflationary pressures, individuals and institutions will find
Funding ratios still troubled by volatile market the hope for higher income and improved funding ratios in the long
It’s not just individuals who are faced with interest rate challenges. The run. But the ancillary effects of rate increases can result in a lot of pain
success and health of public and private pensions is directly linked to in the here and now.
interest rate policy. Not only do rates affect pension funding ratios, but
the knock-on effects can affect their overall investment performance.
Rising rates foretell higher yields for bonds in the future. For A REVERSAL OF FORTUNE FOR PENSION PLANS IN 2022
pensions that estimate their liabilities using current rates, higher
rates demonstrate a greater ability to make payments to members
decades in the future. Improved funding ratios are positive for pension
managers, but they will also feel the effects of any downturns that
may come from reactions to rate hikes.
For example, pension managers might have breathed a sigh of relief

2021 2022
at the start of 2022. Even with rates at pandemic lows, they had seen
some recent improvement in funding ratios. They also benefited Pensions Pensions
from the bull market in which the S&P 500 delivered about 40% over saw gains of 11.6% had average losses of -10.4%
2021 and 2022. As a result of the boon, OECD reports that member
countries had seen pension assets rise by an average of 8% in 2021.17
77.9% Funding ratios Funding ratios
were above 84.8% have dropped to 77.9%
At the high end of pension fund performance, New Zealand saw
assets grow by 19%. Australia (18%), Iceland (17.9%), France (16.6%)
and Mexico (11.2%) all followed suit with double-digit gains. But the
Sources: Pew Charitable Trust; Equable Institute
relief didn’t last long.18 In the US, pensions delivered 11.6% in 2021,
and funding ratios had climbed above 80% for the first time since
2008.19 But the storyline has flipped in 2022.

Demographics: the good and bad of living longer
It’s no secret that the population in Japan, Europe and the US has Challenges ahead for younger countries, too
been aging. The drumbeat of concern has been loud and clear Even regions with young populations could soon face similar
since statisticians first realized that the massive post-World War challenges as improved nutrition, healthcare and environmental
II Baby Boom generation would eventually enter their 60s and factors contribute to longevity and low birth rates help push the
that wave would put a strain on retirement systems. overall population ever older. This is the case in both China and
Latin America in 2022.
In 2012, the earliest wave of the Baby Boom generation was just
reaching retirement age as the 2.1 million individuals born in the Along with other longevity factors, China is also grappling with
US in 194623 inched closer to age 66. Since then, the number of the repercussions from its one-child policy, which capped
people age 65+ in the US has grown to 16%24 of a population of population growth for decades. As a result, the UN estimates
331 million. In Europe, that population represents an even bigger that by 2050, the 65-plus population will reach 366 million
piece of the pie at 20.8% of the 750 million EU residents. The people, surpassing today’s total US population. Over the next
number is bigger still in Italy (23.5%), Finland (22.7%), Greece three decades, the share of people in the cohort will more than
(22.5%), and Portugal (22.4%).25 double from today’s 12% to 26%.27 As a result, policy makers
there announced plans to gradually increase the retirement age
Japan has been at the vanguard of the silver wave sweeping from the current 60 for men, 50 for blue-collar women and 55 for
the global population. Already 12% in 1990, the country’s 65- white-collar women over the next five years.28
plus population has more than doubled and continues to gain
momentum. It took ten years for that share to reach 17% in 2000. In Latin America, where the 65-plus population is expected
It reached 22% in 2010, and 28% in 2020.26 to reach 18% by 2050, the overall impact will not be as great,
but some countries will be facing significant challenges. For
example, Chile and Uruguay are among four countries where it is
expected that by 2050 there will be only two working age adults
for every person over 65.
THE PERCENTAGE OF THE POPULATION OVER 65 IS GROWING
France
2012 17%
2021 21% Japan
2012 24%
2021 29%
US
2012 14% UK Germany
2012 17% 2012 21%
2021 17%
2021 19% 2021 22% China
2012 8.5%
Mexico 2021 12%
2012 6%
2021 8%
Italy
Italy
Spain
Spain
24 %
2012 21%
20%
2012 17.5%
2021 24%
2021 20%
Australia
2012 14%
Chile 2021 17%
2012 10%
2021 12.5%
Source: OECD

Older for longer The problem is best illustrated by old-age dependency ratio,
Adding to the sheer volume of individuals who would be entering which provides a simple statement on the number of retired
retirement is how long they will live after they retire. OECD reports people out of every 100 people within a population. For most of
that the average life expectancy past age 65 in G20 countries the developed world, that number has been climbing steadily
reached 21.3 years for women and 18.1 years for men between higher for the past century.
2015 and 2020. And while the gains in lifespans past 65 have
slowed slightly since 2010, the average for women past 65 in In 1950, just 15 years after its Social Security system was
these countries will reach 25.2 between 2060 and 2065, while it created, the US had an old-age dependency ratio of just 14.2%.
will increase to 22.5 for men.29 Seventy years later it reached 28.4%. By 2050 the over-65
population in the US will reach 40.4%. But even with four in ten
As a result of increased life expectancy and slowing fertility rates, Americans past retirement age, the challenge won’t be as great
OECD projects the over-65 population to increase from 2019’s as it is in other countries:
17.3% to 26.7% by 2050. The percentage will be even higher in • Japan’s ratio has already grown from 9.9% in 1950 to today’s
older countries. OECD estimates that this share of population 54%. In 30 years, it’s expected that 80.7% of the Japanese
will surpass 30% by 2050 in Greece, Italy, Japan, Korea, and population will be 65+.
Portugal.30 • Italy is projected to see its share of older people grow from
39.5% in 2020 to nearly three-quarters (74.4%) by 2050.
Population growth doesn’t add up to retirement security
• Germany’s will rise from 36.5% in 2020 to 58.1% in 2050.
This is where math becomes most concerning for policy makers.
A larger population that will live longer breaks the formula • France’s will grow from 37.3% in 2020 to 54.5% in 2050.
behind most pay-as-you-go retirement systems. Many of these A similar trend shows up in the perennial top three countries in
systems, like Social Security in the US, use payroll taxes to fund the Natixis Global Retirement Index. Iceland will see its old-age
government retirement benefits. What makes them work is the dependency increase from 26.6% to 46.2%, Switzerland’s will go
balance between the number of working age people and the from 31.3% to 54.4%, and Norway’s will rise from 29.6% to 43.4.%.31
number of retirees – and others – drawing benefits.
OLD-AGE DEPENDENCY IS HIGH – AND WILL SKYROCKET BY 2050
2020 2050
Australia 27.7 41.6
Canada 29.8 44.9
Chile 19.7 44.6
China 18.5 47.5
France 37.3 54.5
Germany 36.5 58.1
Italy 39.5 74.4
Japan 52.0 80.7
Mexico 13.2 28.9
Spain 32.8 78.4
UK 32.0 47.1
Source: OECD US 28.4 40.4

Limited options for policy makers translate into a slower economy. With large numbers of individuals
Aging populations present limited choices for policy makers – choices leaving the workforce, OECD suggests that there could be significant
that will be difficult as retirement benefits compete with a growing economic consequences. Growth could be impeded as “there will be
public debt burden. The debt to GDP ratio for OECD countries reached less working-age people in the population, older workers tend to be
a record high of 95% in 2020, a figure that’s 73% greater than it was in employed less, and may be less productive and entrepreneurial.” In
2007, before the Global Financial Crisis.32 addition, OECD cautions that the cost of healthcare, pensions, and
long-term care could become “unmanageable for many countries.”36
Down the road, policy makers could be forced into one of three tough
decisions, none of which are real vote-getters. To make up for funding Retire or keep working?
shortfalls they may need to: For many individuals globally, the traditional view of retirement is
fading. Many continue to work well beyond retirement age. In fact,
1. Raise payroll taxes: Hiking taxes is never popular and will be even results from the 2021 Natixis Global Survey of Individual Investors
less so should inflation continue to reduce consumer purchasing show that even as they plan to retire at age 62 on average, six in
power as it’s done in 2021 and 2022. ten believe they will have to work longer than they anticipated. This
2. Raise the retirement age: Telling people they have to work longer from a group of more than 8500 individuals who already has at least
than planned is an unenviable position. In 2020, French workers $100,000 in investable assets.37
took to the streets to protest a proposed retirement age increase
Whether by economic necessity or by choice, the silver workforce
from 62 to 64. And in 2021, Swiss workers marched in Bern
is growing. OECD reports that the highest rate of workers over age
to protest retirement reforms including a proposed hike in the
65 can be found in Asia, 47.6% in both South Korea and Japan. New
retirement age for women from 64 to 65.
Zealand also sees high labor participation among the same group,
3. Reduce benefits: Maybe the least popular option, reducing benefits reporting 45% of those age 65–69 continue to work.38
is not only a political loser, it’s also an economic nightmare for
retirees, especially during inflationary periods when their dollars Eurostat reports that 20% of people age 55 or older were working,
don’t go as far to begin with. including the 48% of all men and 60% of women aged 65-plus in the
Aging also presents a critical healthcare challenge for both policy EU who work part-time.39 While the numbers are smaller in the US
makers and retirees themselves. Growing elderly populations will today, the number of people age 65 and older still working is expected
put additional strains on healthcare and long-term care systems. For to grow from 24% of men and 16% of women in 2018 to 26% and 18%
example, in the US, where health expenditures already account for respectively in 2026.40
nearly 19% of GDP,33 those age 55 and older accounted for 56% of
healthcare spending in 2019. Those 65 and older accounted for 35% For many in the US, working in the flexible gig economy may provide
on their own.34 an opportunity to augment their income beyond Social Security and
savings. In fact, 44% of workers aged 55–64 and 37% of those age 65
Rising costs are not limited to the US. The World Health Organization and older say they are interested in gig economy jobs for extra money
reports that global healthcare spending topped $8.5 trillion in 2019 and flexibility.41
– twice the $4.2 spent globally in 2000. An older population can also
PERCENTAGE OF THE POPULATION OVER 65 THAT IS STILL WORKING
25.6 25.1
23.9 23.3
18.9 18.2
15.5 15.0
10.5
7.5
3.5
Japan New Zealand Mexico Colombia US Chile OECD Australia UK Germany France
Average
Source: OECD

Retirement security: a shared responsibility
The factors that make 2022 one of the worst years to retire in recent be more likely to work for a company that provides a match. The
memory – inflation, interest rates, poor market performance – could match can be a critical advantage in today’s tight labor market.
right themselves within a year or two. But the risks will still be great. If • Employee engagement is needed to maximize the savings
we are to achieve retirement security, every stakeholder will have to do opportunity. Auto-escalation can help boost contribution rates
their part. by allowing employees to increase the size of their contribution
annually. Investment choices also incentivize participation.
Policy makers
• Looking beyond saving, employers may even consider financial
Demographics provide the most direct motivation for policy makers.
solutions that help participants navigate the complex process of
Aging populations have the potential to weaken pay-as-you-go
drawing a sustainable income from their savings.
retirement systems. Smart policy will focus on setting individuals up
for success: • Education is necessary. Employees need to understand why they
should save and how to make the most out of a company plan.
• Ensuring access to a workplace retirement savings plan is a crucial
Assuming the responsibility to save is a big ask of individuals. It’s
first step. Australia, New Zealand, Singapore and other countries
critical to ensure they are financially literate and ready to take on this
have taken on the challenge with compulsory retirement savings
important job.
programs.
• Incentives for employers as well as their employees are crucial. Tax Individuals
incentives and streamlined plan requirements are strategies for Even if favorable retirement policies are set and employers provide
motivating businesses large and small to give employees the tools access to a plan and the tools to maximize the opportunity, individuals
they need to fulfill their personal savings responsibilities. need to act: Retirement saving needs to be a lifelong financial
• Education and advice on how to manage retirement assets is priority. Individuals have clear objectives for fulfilling their personal
increasingly needed given today’s complex financial choices. In fact, responsibility:
62% of individuals surveyed in 2021 say they need professional
advice in selecting investments from their workplace retirement • Participation is essential. It’s been said the best advice on saving for
plan.42 retirement is to start as early as you can to maximize the number
of years available to for saving. But even those individuals who start
Retirement policy will need to adapt to a range of long-term economic later in life benefit from saving, especially if there are incentives
and demographic changes. The focus as always will need to be on designed to help older workers increase their savings.
ensuring people have the opportunity to meet their responsibilities and
goals. • Personal engagement: Individuals should take the time to get
familiar with the features and benefits of their employers. Take
Employers advantage of incentives like company match. Leverage tools like
auto-escalation. Participate in educational opportunities.
There is no question that individuals are looking to employers for help.
In fact, 80% of individual investors surveyed in 2021 said they believe • Go beyond the workplace plan. Many countries allow for personal
employers have a responsibility to help employees achieve retirement retirement savings vehicles such as the UK’s Individual Savings
security.43 Providing access to an effective retirement savings plan is Account (ISA), Canada’s Registered Retirement Savings Plan (RRSP),
just the starting point: or Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) in the US. Making smart
use of these opportunities can enhance savings levels dramatically.
• Participation is the foundation. Auto-enrollment is one of the key
The key step toward achieving retirement security is to have a plan.
starting points to getting employees to save. Rather than waiting
Whether working with a financial professional or working with an
for workers to opt in on a company-sponsored plan, allow them
online tool, individuals need goals and a road map to guide their
to opt out if they choose not to participate. Similarly, allowing plan
savings and investment decisions.
participation to begin on the first day of employment is another
consideration.
• Incentives to increase savings rates. If an employer has any doubt
about how much the match is valued by employees, just consider
what investors told us. Eight in ten of those surveyed said they would

Graphic sources 19. The Pew Charitable Trusts, “The State Pension Funding Gap: Plans Have
Stabilized in Wake of Pandemic” (2021), https://www.pewtrusts.org//media/
Page 3: Natixis Investment Managers, Global Survey of Financial Professionals assets/2021/09/the_state_pension_funding_gap.pdf.
conducted by CoreData Research in March and April 2022. Survey included 2,700
respondents in 16 countries. 20. “The State of Pensions 2022.” Equable, https://equable.org/wp-content/
uploads/2022/07/Equable-Institute_State-of-Pensions-2022-Fact-Sheet_Final.pdf.
Page 4: OECD (2022), Inflation (CPI) (indicator). doi: 10.1787/eee82e6e-en
21. “Equable Institute: State of Pensions 2022.” Equable, https://equable.org/
(Accessed on 26 August 2022)
state-of-pensions-2022/.
Page 5: Compare The Market, Average gasoline prices in selected countries world- 22. Latest Investment Return Assumptions. National Association of State
wide in 2021 (in U.S. dollars per liter) Statista Retirement Administrators, https://www.nasra.org/latestreturnassumptions.
Page 5: Gasoline Prices around the World. GlobalPetrolPrices.com 23. American Hospital Association. "Total Number of Births in U.S. Hospitals from
Page 5: USDA Food Plans: Cost of Food Reports (Monthly Reports). Food and 1946 to 2019." Statista, Statista Inc., 31 Jan 2021, https://www.statista.com/
Nutrition Service U.S. Department of Agriculture, https://www.fns.usda.gov/cnpp/ statistics/459751/total-hospital-birth-numbers-in-the-us/
usda-food-plans-cost-food-reports-monthly-reports. 24. 2020 Profile of Older Americans. Administration for Community Living,
Page 7: Bloomberg https://acl.gov/sites/default/files/Aging%20and%20Disability%20in%20
Page 8: Natixis Investment Managers, Global Survey of Individual Investors con- America/2020ProfileOlderAmericans.Final_.pdf.
ducted by CoreData Research, February-March 2019. Survey included 9,100 inves- 25. “Population Age Structure by Major Age Groups.” Statistics Explained, https://
tors from 25 countries. ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=File:Population_age_
Page 9: The Pew Charitable Trusts, “The State Pension Funding Gap: Plans Have structure_by_major_age_groups,_2011,_2020_and_2021_(%25_of_the_total_popu-
Stabilized in Wake of Pandemic” (2021), https://www.pewtrusts.org//media/ lation)_rev.png&oldid=555635.
assets/2021/09/the_state_pension_funding_gap.pdf. 26. Population Ages 65 and above (% of Total Population). https://data.worldbank.
Page 9: “The State of Pensions 2022.” Equable, https://equable.org/wp-content/ org/indicator/SP.POP.65UP.TO.ZS?locations=JP.
uploads/2022/07/Equable-Institute_State-of-Pensions-2022-Fact-Sheet_Final.pdf. 27. “Aging and Health in China: What Can We Learn from the World's
Largest Population of Older People?” PRB, https://www.prb.org/resources/
Page 9: “Equable Institute: State of Pensions 2022.” Equable, https://equable.org/ china-aging-worlds-largest-population-older-people/.
state-of-pensions-2022/.
28. China's Push for Delayed Retirement Kicks off as Pension
Page 10: OECD (2022), Elderly population (indicator). doi: 10.1787/8d805ea1-en Costs Grow, Nikkei Asia, https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/
(Accessed on 11 August 2022) China-s-push-for-delayed-retirement-kicks-off-as-pension-costs-grow.
Page 11: OECD (2022), Old-age dependency ratio (indicator). doi: 10.1787/ 29. “Pensions at a Glance.” OECD and G20 Indicators | OECD
e0255c98-en (Accessed on 11 August 2022) ILibrary, https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/a957e891-en/index.
Page 12: OECD Statistics - Labor Force Participation . OECD, https://stats.oecd.org/ html?itemId=%2Fcontent%2Fcomponent%2Fa957e891-en.
Index.aspx?DataSetCode=AVE_HRS). 30. OECD Health Statistics 2021, OECD Historical Population Data and Projections
Database, 2021.
Footnotes
31. OECD (2022), Old-age dependency ratio (indicator). doi: 10.1787/e0255c98-en
1. Natixis Investment Managers, Global Survey of Financial Professionals conduct- (Accessed on 24 August 2022)
ed by CoreData Research in March and April 2022. Survey included 2,700 respon- 32. OECD (2022), General government debt (indicator). doi: 10.1787/a0528cc2-en
dents in 16 countries. (Accessed on 24 August 2022)
2. “Consumer Prices, OECD - Updated: 5 July 2022.” OECD, https://www.oecd.org/ 33. OECD. "Health Expenditure as a Percentage of Gross Domestic
newsroom/consumer-prices-oecd-updated-5-july-2022.htm. Product (Gdp) in Selected Countries in 2020." Statista, Statista
3. “PETROLEUM & OTHER LIQUIDS.” U.S. Regular All Formulations Retail Gasoline Inc., 12 Jul 2022, https://www.statista.com/statistics/268826/
Prices (Dollars per Gallon), https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler. health-expenditure-as-gdp-percentage-in-oecd-countries/
ashx?n=PET&s=EMM_EPMR_PTE_NUS_DPG&f=A. 34. “How Do Health Expenditures Vary across the Population?” Peterson-KFF
4. Edmonds, Ellen. “National Average Hits New All-Time High at $5 per Health System Tracker, https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/
Gallon.” AAA Newsroom, 13 June 2022, https://newsroom.aaa.com/2022/06/ health-expenditures-vary-across-population.
national-average-hits-new-all-time-high-at-5-per-gallon/. 35. Global Report Global Expenditure on Health: Public Spending on the Rise? World
5. OECD (2022), Inflation (CPI) (indicator). doi: 10.1787/eee82e6e-en (Accessed on Health Organization, https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/350560/97
08 August 2022) 89240041219-eng.pdf.
6. OECD (2022), Inflation (CPI) (indicator). doi: 10.1787/eee82e6e-en (Accessed on 36. “Is Age Just a Number? Meeting the Economic Challenges of a
26 August 2022) Graying World.” ECOSCOPE, https://oecdecoscope.blog/2019/09/11/
7. USDA Food Plans: Cost of Food Reports (Monthly Reports). Food and Nutrition is-age-just-a-number-meeting-the-economic-challenges-of-a-graying-world/.
Service U.S. Department of Agriculture, https://www.fns.usda.gov/cnpp/ 37. Natixis Investment Managers, Global Survey of Individual Investors conducted
usda-food-plans-cost-food-reports-monthly-reports. by CoreData Research, March and April 2021. Survey included 8,550 investors
8. “Social Security.” Latest Cost-of-Living Adjustment, https://www.ssa.gov/oact/ across 24 countries.
cola/latestCOLA.html. 38. McCarthy, Niall. "Where People Are Working Beyond 65 ." Statista,
9. “Press Release CMS Releases Analysis on 2022 Medicare Part B Premium Statista Inc., 24 Sep 2019, https://www.statista.com/chart/12202/
Reexamination.” CMS, https://www.cms.gov/newsroom/press-releases/ where-people-are-working-beyond-65/
cms-releases-analysis-2022-medicare-part-b-premium-reexamination. 39. “Ageing Europe - Statistics on Working and Moving into Retirement.”
10. “Federal Funds Effective Rate.” FRED, n.d., https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/ Statistics Explained, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.
FEDFUNDS. php?title=Ageing_Europe_-_statistics_on_working_and_moving_into_retirement.
11. “Key ECB Interest Rates.” European Central Bank, https://www.ecb.europa.eu/ 40. “Fact Sheet: Aging in the United States.” PRB, https://www.prb.org/resources/
stats/policy_and_exchange_rates/key_ecb_interest_rates/html/index.en.html. fact-sheet-aging-in-the-united-states/.
12. "United Kingdom Interest Rate.” United Kingdom Interest Rate - 2022 41. Morning Consult. "Interest in Gig Economy Jobs for Extra Money and Flexibility
Data - 1971-2021 Historical - 2023 Forecast, https://tradingeconomics.com/ in The U.S. in 2018, by Age." Statista, Statista Inc., 12 Sep 2018, https://www.statis-
united-kingdom/interest-rate. ta.com/statistics/916789/gig-economy-interest-jobs-age-us/
13. “Interest Rate.” Interest Rate - Countries - List, TRADING ECONOMICS, https:// 42. Natixis Investment Managers, Global Survey of Individual Investors conducted
tradingeconomics.com/country-list/interest-rate. by CoreData Research, March and April 2021. Survey included 8,550 investors
across 24 countries.
14. IMF. "Global Gross Domestic Product (Gdp) at Current Prices from 1985 to 2027
(in Billion U.S. Dollars)." Statista, Statista Inc., 19 Apr 2022, https://www.statista. 43. Natixis Investment Managers, Global Survey of Individual Investors conducted
com/statistics/268750/global-gross-domestic-product-gdp/ by CoreData Research, March and April 2021. Survey included 8,550 investors
across 24 countries.
15. Natixis Investment Managers, Global Survey of Individual Investors conducted
by CoreData Research, February-March 2019. Survey included 9,100 investors from
25 countries.
16. Bloomberg
17. “Pension Markets in Focus.” OECD, https://www.oecd.org/finance/private-
pensions/pensionmarketsinfocus.htm.
18. Pension Markets in Focus - OECD. OECD, https://www.oecd.org/daf/fin/
private-pensions/Pension-Markets-in-Focus-Preliminary-2021-Data-on-Pension-
Funds.pdf.
The views and opinions expressed may change based on market and other conditions. exclusively outside of Mexico. Natixis Investment Managers is an entity organized
This material is provided for informational purposes only and should not be construed under the laws of France and is not authorized by or registered with the CNBV or
as investment advice. There can be no assurance that developments will transpire as any other Mexican authority to operate within Mexico as an investment manager in
forecasted. Actual results may vary. terms of the Mexican Securities Market Law (Ley del Mercado de Valores). Any use
of the expression or reference contained herein to “Investment Managers” is made to
All investing involves risk, including the risk of loss. No investment strategy or
Natixis Investment Managers and/or any of the investment management subsidiaries
risk management technique can guarantee return or eliminate risk in all market
of Natixis Investment Managers, which are also not authorized by or registered with
environments.
the CNBV or any other Mexican authority to operate within Mexico as investment
Outside the United States, this communication is for information only and is intended managers. In Uruguay: Provided by Natixis Investment Managers Uruguay S.A., a
for investment service providers or other Professional Clients. This material must duly registered investment advisor, authorized and supervised by the Central Bank of
not be used with Retail Investors. This material may not be redistributed, published, Uruguay. Office: San Lucar 1491, oficina 102B, Montevideo, Uruguay, CP 11500.
or reproduced, in whole or in part. Although Natixis Investment Managers believes
The above referenced entities are business development units of Natixis Investment
the information provided in this material to be reliable, including that from third party
Managers, the holding company of a diverse lineup of specialized investment
sources, it does not guarantee the accuracy, adequacy or completeness of such
management and distribution entities worldwide. The investment management
information. In the EU (ex UK): Provided by Natixis Investment Managers S.A. or one
subsidiaries of Natixis Investment Managers conduct any regulated activities only in
of its branch offices listed below. Natixis Investment Managers S.A. is a Luxembourg
and from the jurisdictions in which they are licensed or authorized. Their services and
management company that is authorized by the Commission de Surveillance du
the products they manage are not available to all investors in all jurisdictions.
Secteur Financier and is incorporated under Luxembourg laws and registered under
n. B 115843. Registered office of Natixis Investment Managers S.A.: 2, rue Jean In the United States: Provided by Natixis Distribution, LLC, 888 Boylston St., Boston,
Monnet, L-2180 Luxembourg, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg. France: Natixis Investment MA 02199. Natixis Investment Managers includes all of the investment management
Managers Distribution (n.509 471 173 RCS Paris). Registered office: 43 avenue Pierre and distribution entities affiliated with Natixis Distribution, LLC and Natixis Investment
Mendès France, 75013 Paris. Italy: Natixis Investment Managers S.A., Succursale Managers S.A.
Italiana (Bank of Italy Register of Italian Asset Management Companies no 23458.3).
This material should not be considered a solicitation to buy or an offer to sell any
Registered office: Via Larga, 2 - 20122, Milan, Italy. Germany: Natixis Investment
product or service to any person in any jurisdiction where such activity would be
Managers S.A., Zweigniederlassung Deutschland (Registration number: HRB 88541).
unlawful.
Registered office: Im Trutz Frankfurt 55, Westend Carrée, 7. Floor, Frankfurt am
Main 60322, Germany. Netherlands: Natixis Investment Managers, Nederlands 4894131.1.1
(Registration number 50774670). Registered office: Stadsplateau 7, 3521AZ Utrecht,
the Netherlands. Sweden: Natixis Investment Managers, Nordics Filial (Registration
number 516405-9601 - Swedish Companies Registration Office). Registered office:
Kungsgatan 48 5tr, Stockholm 111 35, Sweden. Spain: Natixis Investment Managers,
Sucursal en España. Serrano n°90, 6th Floor, 28006 Madrid, Spain. In Switzerland:
Provided by Natixis Investment Managers, Switzerland Sàrl, Rue du Vieux Collège 10,
1204 Geneva, Switzerland or its representative office in Zurich, Schweizergasse 6, 8001
Zürich. In the UK: Provided by Natixis Investment Managers UK Limited, authorized
and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (register no. 190258). Registered
Office: Natixis Investment Managers UK Limited, One Carter Lane, London, EC4V 5ER.
In the DIFC: Distributed in and from the DIFC financial district to Professional Clients
only by Natixis Investment Managers Middle East (DIFC Branch) which is regulated
by the DFSA. Related financial products or services are only available to persons
who have sufficient financial experience and understanding to participate in financial
markets within the DIFC, and qualify as Professional Clients as defined by the DFSA.
Registered office: Office 603 - Level 6, Currency House Tower 2, PO Box 118257, DIFC,
Dubai, United Arab Emirates. In Singapore: Provided by Natixis Investment Managers
Singapore (name registration no. 53102724D), a division of Ostrum Asset Management
Asia Limited (company registration no. 199801044D). Registered address of Natixis
Investment Managers Singapore: 5 Shenton Way, #22-05 UIC Building, Singapore
068808. In Taiwan: Provided by Natixis Investment Managers Securities Investment
Consulting (Taipei) Co., Ltd., a Securities Investment Consulting Enterprise regulated
by the Financial Supervisory Commission of the R.O.C. Registered address: 16F-1,
No. 76, Section 2, Tun Hwa South Road, Taipei, Taiwan, Da-An District, 106 (Ruentex
Financial Building I), R.O.C., license number 2017 FSC SICE No. 018, Tel. +886 2 2784
5777. In Japan: Provided by Natixis Investment Managers Japan Co., Ltd., Registration
No.: Director-General of the Kanto Local Financial Bureau (kinsho) No. 425. Content
of Business: The Company conducts discretionary asset management business
and investment advisory and agency business as a Financial Instruments Business
Operator. Registered address: 1-4-5, Roppongi, Minato-ku, Tokyo. In Hong Kong:
Provided by Natixis Investment Managers Hong Kong Limited to institutional/corporate
professional investors only. Please note that the content of the above website has not
been reviewed or approved by the HK SFC. It may contain information about funds that
are not authorized by the SFC. In Australia: Provided by Natixis Investment Managers
Australia Pty Limited (ABN 60 088 786 289) (AFSL No. 246830) and is intended for the
general information of financial advisers and wholesale clients only. In New Zealand:
This document is intended for the general information of New Zealand wholesale
investors only and does not constitute financial advice. This is not a regulated offer for
the purposes of the Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013 (FMCA) and is only available
to New Zealand investors who have certified that they meet the requirements in the
FMCA for wholesale investors. Natixis Investment Managers Australia Pty Limited is
not a registered financial service provider in New Zealand. In Latin America: Provided
by Natixis Investment Managers S.A. In Colombia: Provided by Natixis Investment
Managers S.A. Oficina de Representación (Colombia) to professional clients for
informational purposes only as permitted under Decree 2555 of 2010. Any products,
services or investments referred to herein are rendered exclusively outside of Colombia.
In Mexico: Provided by Natixis IM Mexico, S. de R.L. de C.V., which is not a regulated
financial entity or an investment manager in terms of the Mexican Securities Market
Law (Ley del Mercado de Valores) and is not registered with the Comisión Nacional
Bancaria y de Valores (CNBV) or any other Mexican authority. Any products, services
or investments referred to herein that require authorization or license are rendered
Global Retirement 10
Index 2022 Years
The Global Retirement Index (GRI) is a multi-dimensional index focus on their needs and goals for the future, and where and how
developed by Natixis Investment Managers and CoreData to most efficiently preserve wealth while enjoying retirement.
Research to examine the factors that drive retirement security As part of celebrating a decade producing the GRI, the report
and to provide a comparison tool for best practices in retirement will include historical analysis of previous country rankings
policy. to examine changes in retirement conditions in the individual
countries.
As the GRI continues to run each year, it is our hope it will be
possible to discern ongoing trends in, for instance, the quality The index includes International Monetary Fund (IMF) advanced
of a nation’s financial services sector, thereby identifying those economies, members of the Organization for Economic
variables that can be best managed to ensure a more secure Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the BRIC countries
retirement. The country rankings are intended to examine key (Brazil, Russia, India and China). The researchers calculated a
retirement factors and a discussion of best practices. mean score in each category and combined the category
scores for a final overall ranking of the 44 nations studied. See
This is the tenth year Natixis and CoreData have produced the page 75: Appendix B for the full list of countries.
GRI as a guide to the changing decisions facing retirees as they
OVERALL GRI SCORE
40% and below 41%–50% 51%–60% 61%–70% 71%–80% 81% and above

Framework
The index incorporates 18 performance indicators, grouped into access to quality financial services to help preserve savings
four thematic sub-indices, which have been calculated on the value and maximize income; access to quality health services;
basis of reliable data from a range of international organizations and a clean and safe environment.
and academic sources. It takes into account the particular
characteristics of the older demographic retiree group in order to The sub-indices provide insight into which particular
assess and compare the level of retirement security in different characteristics are driving an improvement or worsening each
countries around the world. country’s position. Data has been tracked consistently to provide
a basis for year-over-year comparison.
The four thematic indices cover key aspects for welfare in
retirement: the material means to live comfortably in retirement;
Finances in Retirement
Health
Old-Age Dependency
Bank Non-Performing Loans
Life Expectancy Inflation
Health Expenditure per Capita Interest Rates
Non-Insured Health Expenditure Tax Pressure
Governance
Government Indebtedness
Quality of Life Material Wellbeing
Happiness Income Equality

Air Quality Income per Capita
Water and Sanitation Unemployment
Biodiversity and Habitat
Environmental Factors

The Best Performers
1. Norway
Top 10
81%
Countries in 2
Norway returns to the top in this year’s
GRI after four years in third place,
2022 GRI 80%
registering a score of 81%. Iceland
2
moves down two spots into third with
87%
2. Switzerland a score of 79%. Switzerland remains
in second while Ireland also retains
80% the same rank as last year at fourth.
0
Australia, New Zealand, Netherlands and
81%
Denmark remain in the top ten this year
0
with rankings of fifth, sixth, eighth and
85%
R an ki n g ninth respectively. Luxembourg (seventh)
c h an g e and Czech Republic (tenth) are two new
entrants in the top ten this year, replacing
3. Iceland Germany and Canada.
2022
2021 79% Countries in the top ten overall typically
2012 2
score very well across all four sub-
83%
indices. Both Norway and Iceland have
16
the distinction of finishing in the top ten
73%
4. Ireland in all four sub-indices. The rest of the
5. Australia top ten countries have at least one top-
76% ten sub-index score, with no countries
75% 0 ranking in the bottom ten. The one outlier
2 78% in the group is Denmark, which ranks in
76% 34 the bottom half (33rd) for Finances.
1 59%
79% This year, the top performers’
6. New Zealand rankings across the four sub-indices
75% are more consistent than in years
0 past. Among the top ten overall
76% countries, there are six top ten
28 finishes for Health, Material Wellbeing
63% and Finances and seven for Quality of
Life. In previous years, some of the
top ten countries did very well in
7. Luxembourg 10. Czech Republic Health and Quality of Life but would
be near the middle or bottom of
75% 73% the rankings for Material Wellbeing
4 4
and Finances. While this is still the
74% 73%
case for some countries such as
8 8
Denmark, others have managed to
82% 72%
improve weak spots to improve their
8. Netherlands 9. Denmark overall placement. For example,
75% 74% Norway rose from 25th to eighth in
3 0 Finances because its five-year average
76% 75% for interest rates moved into positive
1 1 territory. Finances had been the one
79% 77% sub-index holding it back from pole

position given the rest of its sub-indices are in the top five with Finances and Health respectively, while New Zealand ranks sixth
Health ranking first, Material Wellbeing ranking second and and ninth for Finances and Quality of Life respectively. Both have
Quality of Life ranking fourth. relatively mediocre scores for the Material Wellbeing sub-index
at 19th and 20th.
Switzerland remains second this year with a marginally lower
score compared to last year. Its rankings are relatively consistent Luxembourg and Czech Republic, two new entrants in the
with the previous year with Health ranking fourth, Finances top ten at seventh and tenth respectively, took different paths
ranking second and Quality of Life ranking fifth. Material to get there. While both countries climbed up four spots, only
Wellbeing is its only sub-index to not make the top ten with a Luxembourg registers a higher overall score, with Czech Republic
ranking of 14th. curiously keeping the same score as last year. Luxembourg is
only one of two countries in the top ten to have a higher overall
Although Iceland drops two spots to third overall, it still has score compared to last year due to higher scores across all four
superb performances across all four sub-indices. All its sub- sub-indices. Two of its sub-index rankings, Material Wellbeing
indices place in the top ten with Material Wellbeing ranking (ninth) and Quality of Life (tenth), move into the top ten while
fifth, Quality of Life ranking sixth and both Health and Finances Health remains in the top ten at second. Meanwhile, Czech
ranking tenth. Republic has the same overall score as last year and only has
one sub-index (Material Wellbeing) placing in the top ten, albeit
Ireland, which has made considerable score improvements first place. Czech Republic’s move into the top ten is therefore
over the years, continues its steady performance and more of a result of other countries losing ground such as
retains its overall ranking of fourth. It posts top-ten finishes in Germany and Canada.
Finances and Health, ranking seventh and eighth respectively,
while it finishes twelfth in Quality of Life. It falls out of the top The Netherlands and Denmark, at eighth and ninth respectively,
ten for Material Wellbeing after dropping seven spots to 17th. round out the top ten overall. Both countries have two sub-
index finishes in the top ten, with the Netherlands ranking third
Australia and New Zealand rank fifth and sixth overall in this and seventh for Material Wellbeing and Health respectively,
year’s GRI with Australia moving up two spots and New Zealand and Denmark ranking second and sixth for Quality of Life and
retaining the same rank as last year. Both countries place in the Material Wellbeing respectively.
top ten for two sub-indices. Australia ranks fourth and ninth for

Spotlight:
GRI’s Biggest Movers:

A Ten-Year Retrospective
The Leaders
Ireland stands alone with the largest gains in the GRI rankings over the past decade. It has rocketed from 38th overall
in 2012 all the way to fourth this year. The Finances sub-index is the biggest driver of its gains. The sub-index
started at rock bottom of the list in 2012 and now ranks seventh among all countries. Indicators leading the
charge include tax pressure, which went from bottom 15 to eighth this year, and government indebtedness which
moved from 21st to ninth. The Quality of Life sub-index also had a meaningful positive impact on Ireland’s overall
score trajectory, moving from 24th a decade ago to 12th this year. Within this sub-index, the largest
improvements over the ten years are in biodiversity and environmental factors.
New Zealand has also had a meteoric rise in the overall rankings, improving 28 spots from 34th to sixth overall.
Compared to a decade ago, New Zealand has realized the largest gains in the Health sub-index. The country had
the second-lowest score for the sub-index in 2012 with poor performance in the health expenditure indicators.
Since then, the sub-index score has improved 26 spots to 16th this year. Recently, New Zealand has posted
consistent strong performance, holding the same overall rank for the past four years. Steady top
ten performances in Finances and Quality of Life have helped solidify the country in the top ten, while its Material
Wellbeing rank continues to hover in the middle of the pack.
Iceland has posted the third-largest climb over the decade. After starting 17th overall in 2012, Iceland has managed
to consistently compete in the top three over the past eight years, finishing top of the pile on four occasions.
Similar to Ireland, the Finances sub-index has been the biggest factor pushing Iceland into the top echelon of the
overall rankings. Ten years ago, it started at 41st for the Finances sub-index. Improvements across its indicators,
particularly bank nonperforming loans and interest rates, have moved Iceland’s sub-index ranking up to eighth. As
for the other sub-indices, Iceland’s performance in the Quality of Life and Health sub-indices has actually slipped
somewhat since 2012, but remains strong relative to peers.
Czech Republic is a new entrant in the top ten this year and has experienced significant score growth from a
decade ago. It started at 22nd in 2012 and now ranks tenth overall this year. The Finances and Material Wellbeing
sub-indices are the main drivers of the Czech Republic’s overall positive movement from 2012, with the former sub-
index moving from 32nd to 15th and the latter moving from 17th to first. The Health and Quality of Life sub-indices
lag somewhat, as the former has moved from 12th to 27th and the latter has hovered between 21st and 30th over
the course of the decade.

The Leaders
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
1 1
2 2
3 3 Iceland
4 4 Ireland
5 5
6 6 New Zealand
7 7
8 8
9 9
10 10 Czech Republic
11 11
12 12
13 13
14 14
15 15
16 16
17 17
18 18
19 19
20 20
21 21
22 22
23 23
24 24
25 25 Estonia
26 26
27 27
28 28
29 29
30 30
31 31
32 32
33 33
34 34
35 35
36 36
37 37
38 38

Regional Perspective
Asia
Pac
ific For the fourth year in a row, North America
has the highest score among regions
at 69%. Western Europe places second
with an overall score of 66%, followed by
Eastern Europe and Central Asia (49%)
Ea and Latin America (37%), with Asia Pacific
st
e (32%) finishing last. The regional scores
63% are population-weighted, so the scores of
rn
Eu
countries with larger populations have a
ro
larger proportional effect on the regional
pe
score than the scores of countries with
an
dC
smaller populations.
en
55%
tra
32% North America sets the pace for the
l
overall rankings as a result of having the
Asi
32% 53%
highest regional scores for the Finances
a
23% and Material Wellbeing sub-indices,
and the second-highest scores for the
45% Health and Quality of Life sub-indices.
The region benefits from having just two
49%
relatively strong performers to account
for, whereas other regions contain weak
32% 54% countries that drag down the regional
49% scores.
Latin America
60%
Western Europe has the same sub-index
37% rankings as last year. The region ranks
57% first for both the Health and Quality of
69% 16% Life sub-indices, second for Material
Wellbeing and fourth for Finances.
66% Individual country performances remain
superb in the former two sub-indices,
with Western European countries making
up eight of the top ten for Health and nine
of the top ten for Quality of Life. As for the
85% Finances sub-index, more of its countries
67%
56% 72%
ca
eri
54%
Am
rth
56%
No
85% Health Index

78% Finances in Retirement Index
Quality of Life Index
Material Wellbeing Index
ope
Eur
Global Retirement Index
ern
West

finish either in the middle of the pack or the back end, such as Wellbeing, where its score is just 16%, continues to significantly
Greece at second-to-last, France at fourth-to-last and Belgium hold back its overall performance. All four Latin American
at seventh-to-last. If Western Europe’s Finances score were to countries, namely Brazil, Colombia, Chile and Mexico, feature in
match the pace of its other sub-indices, it would have the highest the bottom ten for Material Wellbeing with scores of less than
overall regional score. 40%. Brazil in particular scores extremely low at 4%. While some
countries perform relatively better in other sub-indices, such as
Eastern Europe and Central Asia finishes third overall as a Chile ranking fifth for Finances, it is not enough to compensate
region. Like Western Europe, it struggles in Finances where for the poor score in Material Wellbeing.
it finishes rock bottom. Four of the bottom ten countries in
Finances belong to this region, namely Turkey, Hungary, Slovak Asia Pacific has the lowest overall regional score due to posting
Republic and Latvia. The region also ranks second-to-last in poor scores in three of the four sub-indices. The low scores for
Quality of Life but manages to move up one spot to third for the Health and Quality of Life sub-index are in large part driven
Health and maintains its ranking for Material Wellbeing. This by India’s exceptionally low scores in these two sub-indices.
mixed performance across the sub-indices leads to a middle of The Finances sub-index is a bright spot, where the region has
the pack result overall. the second-highest score. Four of the top six countries in the
sub-index are Asia Pacific countries with Singapore ranking first,
Latin America comes in at fourth overall. The region ranks third South Korea ranking third, Australia ranking fourth and New
for both Finances and Quality of Life, fourth for Health and fifth Zealand ranking sixth. Still, this bright spot is not enough to
for Material Wellbeing. Latin America’s performance in Material outweigh the relatively low scores in the other sub-indices.

Performance
by Sub-Index
The performance by sub-index section
analyzes GRI performance on an indicator-
by-indicator basis. Focusing on sub-index
performance highlights the strengths of
some countries’ indicators and illuminates
good practices for certain countries while
highlighting needed areas of improvement
for others.

Health Index
were made in life expectancy and
Norway health expenditure per capita. Ireland,
1
91% 1 90% 2 86% which ranks 8th, posts the biggest
drop in ranking among all countries for
Luxembourg health expenditure per capita, falling
2 to 10th from 6th in 2021. However, its
91% 1 90% 3 86% life expectancy ranking improves to
15th from 18th and thus mitigates the
Japan
3 negative impact on the overall index
91% 2 90% 7 85% score. Australia increases one spot to
9th despite dropping 2 places in the life
Switzerland expectancy indicator (from 7th to
4
9th). Its overall index score was buoyed
90% 1 88% 4 85%
by its insured health expenditure,
Top 10 Sweden which moves up 2 spots, in concert
Countries 5 with an improvement in its health
in Health 90% 1 88% 9 83% expenditure per capita score. Iceland
Sub-Index takes back its top 10 place this year
France after ranking 12th in 2021. All its heath
6
90% 2 89% 2 89% sub-index indicators improved,
propelling Iceland two ranks up.
Netherlands
7 Canada, Germany, Denmark, Austria
89% 1 87% 3 86%
and Belgium make up 11th to 15th in
the Health sub-index. Canada maintains
Ireland
8 its position as an increase in health
89% 1 87% 3 84% expenditure per capita is neutralized by
the decrease in scores of life expectancy
Australia Ranki ng
c hange and insured health expenditure. Germany
9
88% 1 87% 10 82% leaves the top 10 list as it suffers a major
slide in the life expectancy indicator
202 2 (20th to 27th) and registers a one-spot
Iceland
10 202 1 decline in each of the other two
88% 2 86% 5 86% 201 2 Health sub-index indicators. Denmark
and Austria remain at 13th and 14th
respectively, but their insured health
Norway reclaims the top spot in the and insured health expenditure but tops expenditures both decrease from 2021.
Health sub-index, as Japan slides the life expectancy index – ultimately the Belgium posts moderate improvement in
from 1st to 3rd. Luxembourg moves two negatives outweigh the one positive, life expectancy and insured health
into 2nd place, climbing up one spot pushing Japan 2 ranks down from 2021. expenditure which is instrumental for its
from 2021. The Health sub-index is Switzerland and Sweden round out the placement in 15th.
based on performance across three top five, with each inching up one spot
indicators: insured health expenditure, from last year by either maintaining or The next five countries are New Zealand,
life expectancy and health expenditure advancing their ranks across all Health the United States, Spain, Finland, and Italy.
per capita. Norway benefited from sub-index indicators. France, which was New Zealand swaps spots with Belgium
improving its ranking in life expectancy 4th in 2021, falls 2 spots down to 6th and is now in 16th place. Its decline is
and insured health expenditure and even though it posted an improved score due to a significant decrease in the
maintaining a high rank for health for two Health sub-index indicators and life expectancy indicator (16th to
expenditure per capita. Luxembourg maintained its top score for insured 22nd). The United States maintained its
slides two places for life expectancy health expenditure. status in 17th. The country’s health
despite an increase in score but exhibits a expenditure per capita ranks first among
sizable increase in its health expenditure Completing the top ten are the all countries and even the insured health
per capita score, warranting an overall Netherlands, Ireland, Australia, and expenditures is very high (4th), but its
improvement for the country. Japan slips Iceland. The Netherlands moves from life expectancy score still languishes
one spot for health expenditure per capita 8th to 7th, as significant improvements well below in 31st, an increase of 3
spots from 2021. The remaining three
countries in the top 20
all increased their rankings from 2021. Spain is up 1 spot to expectancy and health expenditure per capita leading the way.
18th by improving scores and maintaining ranks on all Health Slovenia also ranks strongly in the insured health expenditure
sub-index indicators. Similarly, Finland is up 1 spot to 19th by indicator. With Slovenia going 2 spots up, Singapore and Israel
increasing its scores and ranks on all indicators. Italy, at rank 20, each move 1 spot down, placing 23rd and 24th for Health sub-
increases its scores on all indicators, but only the life expectancy index. Both countries are performing well in life expectancy
ranking reflected that, climbing up 2 spots in 2022. indicators (top 10) but show mediocre scores and ranks in
health expenditure per capita and insured health indicators.
The last five countries in the top 25 are the United Kingdom, South Korea maintained its 25th spot. Similar to Singapore and
Slovenia, Singapore, Israel, and South Korea. The UK falls out of Israel, South Korea scores well in the life expectancy indicator,
the top 20 for the first time in five years, driven by improvements but poorly in the health expenditure per capita and insured health
from other countries rather than a decrease in its own scores. indicators.
Slovenia jumps up 2 spots to 22nd, with progress in life
Top 25 Countries in Health Sub-Index
Ranking Score
Country
2022 2021 2012 2022 2021 2012
1 2 4 Norway 91% 90% 86%

2 3 6 Luxembourg 91% 90% 86%
3 1 8 Japan 91% 90% 85%
4 5 9 Switzerland 90% 88% 85%
5 6 15 Sweden 90% 88% 83%
6 4 2 France 90% 89% 89%
7 8 5 Netherlands 89% 87% 86%
8 7 10 Ireland 89% 87% 84%
9 10 20 Australia 88% 87% 82%
10 12 7 Iceland 88% 86% 86%
11 11 26 Canada 87% 86% 79%
12 9 3 Germany 87% 87% 88%
13 13 13 Denmark 86% 85% 84%
14 14 1 Austria 86% 85% 90%
15 16 11 Belgium 85% 83% 84%
16 15 42 New Zealand 85% 84% 35%
17 17 21 United States 85% 83% 81%
18 19 17 Spain 85% 82% 83%
19 20 16 Finland 84% 82% 83%
20 21 18 Italy 83% 81% 83%
21 18 19 United Kingdom 83% 82% 82%
22 24 23 Slovenia 82% 80% 81%
23 22 36 Singapore 82% 81% 67%
24 23 24 Israel 82% 80% 80%
25 25 30 Korea, Rep. 80% 77% 78%
0%–60% 61%–70% 71%–80% 81%–90% 91%–100%

Color Scale

Spotlight:
Ukrainian refugees could improve

Polish demographic issues
Poland is facing a demographic crisis, with population both aging at a faster rate than similar countries and also
starting to shrink in size, according to its most recent census.¹ In this context, the arrival of over a million, if not
more, Ukrainian refugees so far in 2022 might be a silver lining to a dark demographic cloud hovering over Poland.
Poland sits at 26th overall in the GRI rankings for 2022, with its strongest performance coming from a 7th place
ranking in the Material Wellbeing sub-index. However, as a greater portion of the population ages out of the labor
force, Poland will feel considerable pressure on its old-age dependency ratio, a key factor within the GRI’s Finances
in Retirement sub-index. But could an influx of refugees from the war in Ukraine help to change Poland’s fortunes
in this area over the long term? And what lessons can be taken from the arrival of Syrian migrants over the past
decade in Poland’s neighbor to the west, Germany?
Over the past ten years, Poland has seen its old-age dependency ratio increase from 21.2% in 2012 to 32.2% in
2022. Poland’s demographic shift outpaces the change seen across all OECD members over that same timeframe,
which grew more modestly from 25.8% in 2012 to 32.4% this year. The demographic old-age dependency ratio is
defined as the number of individuals aged 65 and over per 100 people of working age. The ratio is a function of
both an aging population and the size of the labor force. While Poland’s old-age dependency ratio currently
sits roughly in line with the OECD average, the country’s older age group is forecasted to rise considerably faster
than its counterparts. Poland’s old-age dependency ratio is forecasted to reach 60.3% by 2050, compared to
52.7% for OECD countries overall.²
Poland’s population is also on a downward path. From a peak of 38.6 million in 1999, it is projected to fall to 33.3
million by 2050,³ the result of both a low birth rate and negative net migration in recent times, as many younger
workers left in search of work abroad.
Poland Population Clock
Poland Population (as of 6/13/2022) 37,742,939
Last UN Estimate (7/1/2022) 37,739,785
Births per Day 961
Deaths per Day 1,089
Migrations per Day -38
Net Change per Day -166
Population Change Since Jan. 1 -27,058
Net decrease of 1 person every 9 minutes

Population estimates based on interpolation of data from World Population Prospects
Source: World Population Review, https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/poland-population
¹ https://notesfrompoland.com/2022/01/28/census-data-show-polands-society-shrinking-and-ageing/
² OECD, https://data.oecd.org/pop/old-age-dependency-ratio.htm
³ World Population Review, Poland population 2022 (live) https://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/poland-population

Given Poland’s dire demographics, the mass migration caused Given that Ukrainian men of conscription age, 18 to 60, have
by Russia’s attack on Ukraine may help improve its outlook. not been allowed to leave the country, women and children
At present, there is considerable uncertainty over how many account for a vast proportion of refugees. Anecdotally, refugee
Ukrainian refugees have settled in Poland since the Russian groups also incorporate relatively fewer people from older
invasion began in February. According to the United Nations demographics based on greater challenges associated with
High Commissioner on Refugees (UNHCR), Poland has been fleeing the country (healthcare, mobility, etc.). These combined
the biggest recipient of Ukrainian refugees, with more than 1.15 factors mean that the demographics of refugees arriving in
million, compared to 1.12 million in the Russian Federation, Poland skew towards working-age females today, as well as
780,000 in Germany and 366,632 in the Czech Republic.4 children that can significantly contribute to the labor pool in the
However, another report5 claimed the Polish population has future. As a result, Poland has the potential to make up ground
increased by 8%, or almost 3.2 million people, this year due to in old-age dependency compared to its peers, or at least slow
influx of refugees, although others think the true figure is closer the current trends expected from the currently aging population.
to 2 million. In any event, Poland already hosted a substantial
Ukrainian diaspora, with 600,000 individuals registered to the
Polish social insurance system and up to double that number
estimated to be in Poland in total.6
The impact of Ukrainian immigration on Poland’s demographics
Age Pyramid of Poland

Males - Polish Males – Ukrainian Females – Polish Females – Ukrainian
100+
95–99
90–94
85–89
80–84
75–79
70–74
65–69
60–64
55–59
50–54
45–49
40–44
35–39
30–34
25–29
20–24
15–19
10-14
5-9
0–4
2,000,000 1,000,000 0 1,000,000 2,000,000
Note: Ukrainian refugees aged 65 and older were all added to the 65–69 age group, even if some of them were
older. The official data do not report on specific age sub-groups for refugees aged 65 and older.
Source: Notes from Poland website, How many Ukrainian refugees are there really in Poland, and who are they?
4 https://data.unhcr.org/en/situations/ukraine
5 Union of Polish Metropolises, https://metropolie.pl/fileadmin/news/2022/04/Ump_Ukraina_RAPORT_final_2.pdf
6 https://notesfrompoland.com/2022/05/11/how-many-ukrainian-refugees-are-there-really-in-poland-and-who-are-they/

A recent historical parallel can be found in Germany, which led An unknown factor for Poland is whether the refugees from
the way among European countries in accepting Syrian refugees war-torn Ukraine will want to stay permanently or return home
during the migrant crisis that began in 2014. It currently hosts in the future. Whereas Syrian migrants to Germany are likely to
over 600,000 refugees from the country.7 Over the past decade, settle there, in search of a better life and because of the fear of
Germany faced similar pressures as Poland regarding a rapidly persecution should they return to Syria, many Ukrainian refugees
aging population, as it saw its old-age dependency ratio increase may want to return and help to rebuild their country, if and when
from 26.5% in 2000 to 35.0% in 2014, when the migrant crisis peace returns. Against this, the cultural and linguistic similarities
took hold, and it has since increased further to 40.5% in 2022.8 In of Poland and Ukraine may lead others to decide to remain in
2014 Germany also faced an overall population decline.9 While Poland, particularly if they assimilate and find work opportunities
the influx of Syrian refugees could not change the momentum of they might not have had at home. If a substantial part of the
the old-age dependency ratio, Germany did reverse its population Ukrainian population that has migrated to Poland puts down
decline and begin to grow again. This experience in Germany roots for the long term, the country stands to see a considerable
bodes well for the impact of the current refugee trends in Poland. improvement in its old-age dependency ratio and will benefit in
Not only does the number of Ukrainian refugees entering Poland its efforts to provide for its growing number of retirees.
significantly outpace Syrian entries to Germany on an absolute
basis, but they are also entering into a country with less than half
the population of Germany¹0 leading to a proportionally larger
demographic impact.
7 Statista, Ranking of the largest Syrian refugee-hosting countries in 2020, https://www.statista.com/statistics/740233/major-syrian-refugee-hosting-countries-

worldwide/
8 OECD, https://data.oecd.org/pop/old-age-dependency-ratio.htm
9 Newsham, N., Rowe, F. Projecting the demographic impact of Syrian migration in a rapidly ageing society, Germany. J Geogr Syst 23, 231–261 (2021). https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10109-018-00290-y
10 OECD, https://data.oecd.org/pop/population.htm#indicator-chart

resulting in a 6-place decrease in the
Czech Republic latter (from 8th to 14th) and a 16-place
1
fall in the latter (from 6th to 22nd).
84% 3 86% 13 74%
However, Iceland’s income equality
Norway performance remains strong in second
2 place, mitigating a major slide down the
79% 0 90% 1 96% Material Wellbeing ranks.
Netherlands Denmark, Poland, Malta, Luxembourg,

3
78% 0 87% 2 84% and Japan complete the top 10 in the
Material Wellbeing sub-index. All of
Slovenia these countries increase their
4 rankings this year with the exception
77% 2 82% 9 75%
of Malta, which slips 1 spot down from
Top 10 7th to 8th. The underperformance of
Iceland
Countries 5 Malta is driven by a marked decline in
in Material 77% 4 92% 13 79% its income equality ranking (down 6
Wellbeing spots to 18th) and income per capita
Sub-Index Denmark (down 5 spots to 27th). A more drastic
6
76% 2 78% 5 80% decrease in Malta’s sub-index rank is
negated by a big improvement in its
Poland unemployment indicator ranking (up
7 from 8th to 4th). Denmark and Poland
75% 4 76% 15 66% made a decent jump forward over the
last year, with the former moving up two
Malta places to 6th based on an increase in its
8
72% 1 79% 2 82% unemployment ranking. Poland moves
up four places to 7th as rankings across
Luxembourg Ranki ng all their indicators improve. Luxembourg
9 c hange
and Japan post the highest climb among
72% 8 72% 15 94%
the top 10 countries. The former jumps 8
202 2 places to 9th while the latter climbs 6
Japan
10 202 1 places to 10th, driven by a boost in
72% 6 73% 5 72% 201 2 rankings in their income equality and
unemployment indicators.
The 11th to 15th ranks are all in Europe:

Germany, Hungary, Belgium, Switzerland,
Czech Republic moves up three spots by a plunge in unemployment scores, and Austria. Among these five, three
from 2021 and tops this year’s Material which push Norway’s ranking down 9 countries decline in ranking compared to
Wellbeing sub-index, a first for the spots and the Netherlands by 7 spots. last year. Germany slides 6 ranks down
country since the GRI’s inception. The The Netherlands also slips 5 spots in the to 11th and leaves the top 10 for the very
Material Wellbeing sub-index is based on income equality indicator. first time. Its income equality indicator
performance across three indicators: deteriorates massively, slipping 11 spots
income equality, income per capita and Rounding out the top 5 are Slovenia and to 28th. Austria also slides 6 spots down
unemployment. Czech Republic is one of Iceland. Slovenia jumps two spots to 4th to 15th as all its indicators fall. Belgium
the top 5 countries in unemployment and as a result of rising 3 places in income has a small decline in rank from 13th
income equality, and its income per per capita, while holding its high ranks to 12th, while Hungary inches one spot
capita indicator posts improvement in in income equality and unemployment. up to 12th. Switzerland keeps its place
score and ranking. Norway and the Iceland, which secured first or second of 14th as the country shows a steady
Netherlands maintain their positions at spot in the Material Wellbeing sub-index performance.
2nd and 3rd, respectively. Despite for the past 6 years, now slips four places
retaining their ranks, the Material to 5th. Its scores for income per capita South Korea ranks 16th this year,
Wellbeing scores of these countries fell and unemployment post the largest continuing its climb back toward the
significantly. The dips are driven primarily decreases of all countries in the GRI, top 10 after falling 17 places in 2020.

All its Material Wellbeing indicators show improvement, with In spots 21 to 25 are Finland, Cyprus, United Kingdom, Estonia,
unemployment improving dramatically (from 19th to 5th in and Israel. Among them, Cyprus was the standout, progressing 8
2022). Completing the top 20 are Ireland, Slovak Republic, places from last year and returning to the top 25 after spending
Australia, and New Zealand. Ireland (17th) and Slovak Republic eight years outside. This gain is attributed to improvements in
(18th) fall seven and three spots respectively, as both post a unemployment (12 spots up) and income equality (7 spots up).
greater than 15% drop in scores for unemployment. Australia The United Kingdom’s score for income equality decreases
(19th) and New Zealand (20th) both move up 4 spots from last by 15% and drives the country’s Material Wellbeing rank to
year because of increases in their income per capita and 23rd from 18th. Israel (25th) just barely keeps its place in the
unemployment indicators. top 25, as its score for unemployment decreases by 19% and
pulls its sub-index rank down 3 places.
Top 25 Countries in Material Wellbeing Sub-Index
Ranking Score
Country
2022 2021 2012 2022 2021 2012
1 4 17 Czech Republic 84% 86% 74%

2 2 1 Norway 79% 90% 96%
3 3 5 Netherlands 78% 87% 84%
4 6 15 Slovenia 77% 82% 75%
5 1 14 Iceland 77% 92% 79%
6 8 13 Denmark 76% 78% 80%
7 11 26 Poland 75% 76% 66%
8 7 9 Malta 72% 79% 82%
9 17 2 Luxembourg 72% 72% 94%
10 16 21 Japan 72% 73% 72%
11 5 10 Germany 71% 83% 82%
12 13 25 Hungary 70% 75% 67%
13 12 19 Belgium 70% 76% 74%
14 14 8 Switzerland 69% 75% 82%
15 9 3 Austria 69% 77% 86%
16 27 7 Korea, Rep. 68% 65% 83%
17 10 28 Ireland 67% 77% 65%
18 15 22 Slovak Republic 67% 74% 71%
19 23 4 Australia 66% 67% 85%
20 24 23 New Zealand 64% 66% 70%
21 20 11 Finland 63% 69% 81%
22 30 12 Cyprus 62% 58% 81%
23 18 20 United Kingdom 61% 69% 73%
24 25 36 Estonia 60% 65% 56%
25 22 27 Israel 60% 67% 66%
0%–60% 61%–70% 71%–80% 81%–90% 91%–100%

Color Scale

Spotlight:
Inflation improving debt-to-GDP ratios?

First impressions could be misleading
Ever since the global financial crisis (GFC) of 2008, the advanced economies have experienced relatively high
debt-to-GDP ratios, as a debt crisis that began in the private sector shifted to the public sector. The Covid-19
pandemic has further increased government debt levels, following the introduction of emergency aid packages
and furlough schemes to prevent corporate failures and mass unemployment, when the pandemic brought a
sudden downturn to large parts of the global economy.
Data from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) shows that debt-to-GDP was at 71% for advanced economies in
2007 before the GFC, rising to 105.5% in 2012 after the GFC, as growth rates fell and governments were required
to provide support to ailing economies at that time. Debt-to-GDP then spiked at 123.2% in advanced economies in
2020, with the impact of the pandemic.
Countries with largest overall gains over the decade
150
100
50
0
1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015 2018 2021 2024 2027
Source : IMF Fiscal Monitor, April 2022
Now, after a prolonged period of very low inflation, the recent rise in inflation is improving debt-to-GDP ratios.
This is due to price rises caused by inflation boosting GDP figures and tax revenues. Growth rates also initially
rebounded, as economies opened up following the pandemic, adding to this effect. At the same time, debt levels
have remained constant and government borrowing costs are still relatively low. This has led to debt-to-GDP ratios
falling in various countries. For example, in the USA, the ratio has gone from 134.2% in 2020 to 125.6% in 2022.
Similar falls have happened in the UK (102.6% in 2022 to 87.8% in 2020), Italy (155.3% in 2020 to 150.6% in 2022)
and Canada (117.8% in 2020 to 101.8% in 2022). These countries have also seen inflation rise in the same period;
inflation in the UK rose from 0.8% in 2020 to 7.4% in 2022, and in the USA from 1.2% in 2020 to 7.7% in 2022
(average consumer prices).¹
1 World Economic Outlook database: April 2022

In the article “ Fiscal Policy from Pandemic to War” in the is being devalued by inflation. While there have been historical
IMF Fiscal Monitor, April 2022, the IMF noted the link cases where inflation has helped reduce public debt, such as
between the initial rise in inflation and falling debt-to-GDP in the USA after World War Two, this is unlikely to happen now
ratios, saying that surprise inflation (the difference between as circumstances have changed. “Although the surprise rise in
actual and projected inflation rates) contributed to an average inflation may have provided short-term relief for fiscal accounts,
fall of 1.8% from 2021 debt-to-GDP ratios in advanced the effects of higher and persistent inflation could reverse
economies, and of 4.1% in emerging markets. It added that those gains and undermine financial stability and medium-term
the 2022 fiscal balance could improve from higher inflation. growth,” the IMF stated.
But while inflation has had an initial positive impact on debt-to- The conflict in Ukraine is another factor at work here. According
GDP ratios, this is unlikely to last if inflation persists. As the IMF to the latest OECD Economic Outlook, released in June 2022,
Fiscal Monitor, April 2022, states: “Although inflation surprises the war in Ukraine has intensified inflation pressures, as it is
can improve debt dynamics, unexpected inflation cannot last. contributing to energy and food price inflation. Russia is a major
In the longer run, preserving the special status of government gas supplier to many European countries and is an oil exporter,
debt as the safe asset of reference requires maintaining price while Ukraine is an important producer of wheat. The OECD has
stability.” This means that if inflation continues, governments found widespread increases in the annual inflation projections
are likely to raise interest rates both to choke off inflation and for 2022, from between December 2021 and June 2022, caused
to compensate investors for holding government debt which by the conflict.
Annual inflation projections for 2022
December 2021 projection June 2022 projection

Turkey 23.9% 72.0%
Argentina 44.4% 60.1%
Lithuania 3.2% 15.6%
Estonia 6.0% 13.3%
Latvia 4.9% 13.3%
Czech Rep. 6.1% 12.9%
Poland 6.2% 11.1%
Slovak Rep. 4.1% 10.8%
Hungary 6.0% 10.3%
Netherlands 3.1% 9.2%
Greece 3.1% 8.8%
United Kingdom 4.4% 8.8%
Spain 3.2% 8.1%
Germany 2.8% 7.2%
Mexico 4.4% 6.9%
Austria 3.0% 6.7%
Italy 2.2% 6.3%
Portugal 6.3%
Finland 6.2%
Canada 3.3% 6.0%
United States 4.4% 5.9%
Australia 2.7% 5.3%
France 2.3% 5.2%
Korea 2.1% 4.8% >20%
Norway 2.0% 4.6% 10%–20%
Switzerland 2.5% 5%–10%
Japan <5%
Source: https://www.oecd.org/economic-outlook/

Because food and energy price inflation are significant parts inflation expectations are changing, which could lead to higher
of the overall increase in inflation, governments could be under wage demands, which are passed on with higher prices, making
additional pressure to help the worse off, who spend a larger inflation longer lasting. Another fear is stagflation, or low growth
proportion of their incomes on food and heating, with financial and high inflation, which would also add to pressure on public
support, adding to pressures on public debt. finances. In summary, inflation may have reduced debt-to-GDP
ratios, but this is an initial effect of rising inflation. Ultimately,
At this stage, another uncertainty over inflation is whether it will higher and persistent inflation will likely have a negative impact
be temporary or permanent. Some experts are now warning that on government finances and debt-to-GDP ratios.
The contribution of food and energy to CPI inflation
The contribution of food and energy to CPI inflation varies widely across the largest OECD economies.
Contributions to year-on-year CPI inflation, March 2022, percentage points
9.0
Energy Food Housing Recreation and accommodation Transport Other
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
Percent
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
United States Germany Canada Italy United Kingdom France
Source: https://www.oecd.org/sdd/prices-ppp/statistical-insights-why-is-inflation-so-high-now-in-the-largest-oecd-economies-a-statistical-analysis.htm
Data: https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=PRICES_CPI

Finances in Retirement Index
The next five countries in the Finances in
Singapore Retirement rankings are New Zealand,
1
76% 0 77% 1 80% Ireland, Norway, Estonia, and Iceland.
New Zealand dropped three spots after
Switzerland ranking third in 2021, with the largest
2 change this year being a seven-spot drop
74% 0 75% 1 83% in interest rates. While experiencing a
slide in the Finance in Retirement
Korea, Rep. rankings, New Zealand still ranked in the
3
73% 2 73% 30 60% top ten for inflation (first), governance
(third), bank nonperforming loans
Australia (fourth), and government indebtedness
4
(eighth). Norway sees the biggest
72% 0 74% 4 73%
positive change of any country in the
Top 10 sub-index, moving up 17 spots to eighth
Chile
Countries in 5 after ranking 25th last year. Norway’s rise
Finances in 72% 1 73% 15 67% is driven primarily by higher rankings this
Retirement year in government indebtedness (ninth)
Sub-Index New Zealand and interest rate (14th). Estonia’s ninth
6
71% 3 75% 2 78% place ranking for Finances in Retirement
is considerably stronger than its overall
Ireland GRI ranking of 25th. Rounding out the top
7 15 are the United States, Canada, Israel,
70% 71% 30%
1 36
China, and the Czech Republic, which all
ranked between 10th and 14th for
Norway
8 Finances in Retirement in 2021. Most of
69% 17 58% 22 79% these countries rate below average in
government indebtedness and
Estonia Ranki ng
c hange
governance, with the exceptions being
9
68% 2 71% 13 69% government indebtedness for the Czech
Republic (sixth) and governance for
202 2 Canada (11th).
Iceland
10 202 1
68% 1 70% 32 48% 201 2 The next five countries are Malta,
Colombia, India, Mexico, and Poland.All
five ranked between 15th and 19th in
2021, with Colombia jumping two spots
Singapore, 27th in the GRI overall, (40th). Switzerland remains second in this year while both Mexico and Poland
maintains the top spot in the Finances in the Finances in Retirement rankings, fall by three spots. There are significant
Retirement sub-index, a position it has driven by strong rankings in inflation bright spots among these five countries,
held since 2019. The Finances in (first), bank nonperforming loans (fifth), but all see their rankings dragged down
Retirement sub-index is based on and governance (sixth). South Korea has by below average performance in both
performance across seven indicators: risen to third place, up two spots from bank nonperforming loans (between 28th
old-age dependency, bank nonperforming last year, having moved up one spot in the and 41st) and governance (between 26th
loans, inflation, interest rates, tax rankings for interest rate, tax pressure, and 42nd). India, Mexico, and Colombia
pressure, government indebtedness and and governance. Australia maintains all rank in the top three for old-age
governance. Singapore’s top ranking fourth place in the rankings, while Chile dependency, identical to the rankings in
is driven by strong performance in has risen one spot in 2022 to rank fifth. 2021. Colombia and India rank second
inflation (first), tax pressure (third), Chile improved this year in both old- and third respectively for interest rates,
interest rate (fifth), old-age dependency age dependency (seventh) and interest while India ranks first in tax pressure
(eighth), and governance (eighth), rate (20th) to solidify a top 5 spot, but followed by Mexico (fifth), Colombia
despite having a moderate ranking in weaknesses in the other major indices (sixth), and Malta (12th). Roundingout
bank nonperforming loans (15th) and a leave it 34th in the GRI overall. the top 25 for the sub-index are
poor record in government indebtedness

Luxembourg, Spain, Portugal, Brazil, and the Russian Federation. The Netherlands and Denmark rank eighth and ninth respectively
Luxembourg climbs three spots to 21st while Brazil and the in the GRI overall despite coming outside the top 25 for Finances
Russian Federation each rise by two spots. Spain falls two spots in Retirement. Each suffers from below average performance in
to 22nd and Portugal slips one spot into 23rd. Despite ranking tax pressure where the Netherlands ranks 36th and Denmark
seventh in the GRI overall, Luxembourg’s ranking for Finances ranks 41st. The two biggest declines in Finances in Retirement
in Retirement suffers from below average rankings for interest come from Slovenia (37th) and Cyprus (39th) as each falls by 17
rates (26th) and tax pressure (35th) while finishing in the top spots compared to their 2021 rankings. Japan, France, Hungary,
ten for all other metrics. Brazil comes in below average for Greece, and Turkey are the lowest performing countries in the
most factors but ranks first in interest rates and fifth in old-age sub-index for the third consecutive year.
dependency.
Top 25 Countries in Finances in Retirement Sub-Index
Ranking Score
Country
2022 2021 2012 2022 2021 2012
1 1 2 Singapore 76% 77% 80%

2 2 1 Switzerland 74% 75% 83%
3 5 35 Korea, Rep. 73% 73% 60%
4 4 8 Australia 72% 74% 73%
5 6 21 Chile 72% 73% 67%
6 3 5 New Zealand 71% 75% 78%
7 8 44 Ireland 70% 71% 30%
8 25 3 Norway 69% 58% 79%
9 7 20 Estonia 68% 71% 69%
10 9 41 Iceland 68% 70% 48%
11 11 19 United States 67% 69% 69%
12 10 9 Canada 67% 69% 72%
13 13 4 Israel 66% 67% 78%
14 12 33 China 65% 67% 60%
15 14 32 Czech Republic 64% 65% 61%
16 15 28 Malta 63% 65% 64%
17 19 18 Colombia 62% 62% 69%
18 18 14 India 62% 63% 71%
19 16 12 Mexico 62% 63% 72%
20 17 31 Poland 61% 63% 62%
21 24 10 Luxembourg 59% 59% 72%
22 20 17 Spain 59% 61% 69%
23 22 13 Portugal 59% 60% 72%
24 26 15 Brazil 57% 57% 71%
25 27 42 Russian Federation 56% 56% 42%
0%–60% 61%–70% 71%–80% 81%–90% 91%–100%

Color Scale

Spotlight:
The pandemic’s lasting

impact on the US labor market
The Covid-19 pandemic has had a far-reaching and unpredictable impact on the US economy. One manifestation of
this has been a reduction in the labor force. According to Miguel Faria-e-Castro, senior economist at the Federal
Reserve Bank of St. Louis, the pandemic was responsible for 2.4 million excess retirements by August 2021.¹
In addition to this, many workers quit their jobs for reasons including low pay, lack of benefits and Covid-related
concerns in what came to be known as the Great Resignation.
Meanwhile, pandemic-related immigration curbs meant fewer additional workers were entering the country to fill
the void as the economy reopened. Economists Giovanni Peri and Reem Zaiour of the University of California,
Davis, estimate there are about 2 million fewer immigrants in the US than would have been the case if pre-
pandemic trends continued.²
Working-age foreign-born population
40
2010–2019 Trends
Foreign-born 18–65 years old (in millions)
Shortfall:
2 million
38
36
34
March 2020
32
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Year
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, and Current Population Survey, U.S. Census Bureau EconoFact econofact.org
¹ https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2021/december/excess-retirements-covid-19-
pandemic ² https://econofact.org/labor-shortages-and-the-immigration-shortfall

All of which has created something of a perfect storm for the labor Statistics. The resulting wage pressures helped push inflation to
market. These worker shortages, fueled by people voluntarily a multidecade high, prompting the Fed to embark on a series of
quitting the workforce, culminated in job openings hitting an all- rate hikes.
time high in March 2022, according to the US Bureau of Labor
United States Job Openings
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
Jul 2020 Jan 2021 Jul 2021 Jan 2022
Source: Tradingeconomics.com | U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
The yawning gap between workers and jobs has driven Indeed, labor participation rates have improved across most
unemployment to near pre-pandemic levels and increased age groups over the last two years. But crucially, participation
competition for staff. These trends point to a tight labor market, rates of the oldest workers (65+) have remained stubbornly
making it more difficult for employers to hire or retain workers. below pre-pandemic levels.³ Retirees cite a variety of factors for
But there are signs of a recovery in labor participation rates remaining outside the workforce, in line with their unique set of
as higher wages, increases in the cost of living and reduced circumstances.
Covid fears encourage people back into the workforce.
The labor force participation rate of people age 65+
Index, February 2020 = 100 Index, February 2020 = 100
102 Age 25–54 Age 55–64 Age 65+ Aggregate (age 16+) 102
100 100
98 98
96 96
94 94
92 92
90 90
88 88
86 86
February 2020 August 2020 February 2021 August 2021 February 2022
Source: Didem Tüzemen and U.S. Census Bureau
Should the labor market continue to tighten, policymakers will Furthermore, the task facing Fed Chair Jerome Powell of
need to make some tough choices. If the Fed cannot use improving participation rates will be made that much harder as
monetary policy tools to rebalance the jobs market, then it may more Baby Boomers exit the workforce.
need to consider other options including more immigration.
3 https://www.kansascityfed.org/research/economic-bulletin/how-many-workers-are-truly-missing-from-the-labor-force/

Quality of Life Index
sub-index this year. Some changes are
Finland observed in environmental factors and
1
89% 0 89% 15 78% happiness indicators for these countries,
but these variations are not significant
Denmark enough to shift their sub-index rankings
2
88% 87% 82% from last year. Austria and New Zealand
1 5
each drop slightly in both environmental
Sweden factors and happiness, while Iceland’s
3 rank rises in both. The United Kingdom
87% 2 87% 1 85% climbs one spot in environmental factors
but sees a comparable drop in the
Norway happiness indicator. Luxembourg climbs
4
87% 2 87% 0 87% three spots from last year and reaches
the top 10 of the Quality of Life sub-index
Top 10
Switzerland for the very first time, driven by higher
Countries 5
scores in both the environmental factors
in Quality 86% 1 87% 3 92%
and happiness indicators.
of life
Sub-Index Iceland
6 The Netherlands, Ireland, Germany,
86% 0 85% 3 86% France, and Australia rank 11th through
15th in the Quality of Life sub-index.
United Kingdom Among these countries, only the
7
82% 0 83% 1 83% Netherlands inches upward in the sub-
index rankings this year, due to the
Austria increase in its score on environmental
8 factors. Ireland and Germany both drop
82% 0 83% 1 83% in the rankings due to a slide in one
Ranki ng indicator, despite showing a rise in
New Zealand
9 c hange other indicator ranks. France and
81% 0 82% 4 84% Australia maintain their rankings from
202 2
last year, even as France falls five spots
Luxembourg in the environmental factors indicator.
10 202 1
Australia drops in the rankings for both
81% 3 80% 2 78% 201 2
environmental factors and happiness
but holds on to its previous spot in the
sub-index rankings overall. Both the
Finland, 12th in the GRI overall, remains 2021 ranking. Norway slips two places to Netherlands and Australia reside in the
at the top of Quality of Life sub-index for 4th in the sub-index as its happiness top 15 for the Quality of Life sub-index
the fourth consecutive year. The ranking slides two spots this year. As a despite bottom 10 rankings in the
Quality of Life sub-index is based on result, Denmark and Sweden move up environmental factors indicator.
performance across five indicators: air the rankings, with Sweden seeing a larger
quality, biodiversity and habitat, relative rise based on improvement in its The countries in 16th to 20th in the sub-
environmental factors, happiness, and happiness indicator. Switzerland rounds index rankings are Canada, Belgium,
water and sanitation. Finland ranks out the top five and falls one spot from Israel, Spain, and Italy. Canada keeps the
highly on three indicators – happiness 2021. Switzerland ranks first in the 16th rank this year even with a small slide
(1st), air quality (3rd), and water and environmental factors indicator, an in the happiness indicator. Belgium and
sanitation (4th). Its environmental increase of 3 spots from last year, but its Israel move upwards in rank this year,
factors indicator inches up two spots happiness indicator falls one spot and with Belgium improving in environmental
from last year, helping Finland to secure contributes to the decrease in its sub- factors and Israel’s rank boosted by
the top position in Quality of Life sub- index ranking. increases in both environmental factors
index. Nordic countries constitute the and happiness. Spain and Italy each
next three in the rankings, with Denmark Iceland, the United Kingdom, Austria, decline in their ranks from last year, with
(2nd) and Sweden (3rd) moving up one and New Zealand remain in sixth to ninth each dropping one rank in the happiness
and two places respectively from their places respectively in Quality of Life indicator despite an increase in score

from last year. The improvement from Belgium and Israel both indicators. Japan retains its position from last year as a
outpaced the positive changes for Spain and Italy, leading to decrease in score on environmental factors is counteracted by a
a jump in their Quality of Life sub-index rankings. rise in score for the happiness indicator.
Rounding out the top 25 countries are the United States, Lithuania and South Korea both remain in the bottom half of the
Slovenia, Estonia, the Czech Republic, and Japan. The United Quality of Life rankings but each rises three spots versus last
States moves up 2 places for both the environmental factors and year. Lithuania benefits from a climb in the happiness rankings
happiness indicators, but the change is not enough to improve its relative to 2021. South Korea maintains the same ranking
sub-index ranking. The opposite effect happens for Slovenia and for each indicator this year but sees its overall sub-index
Estonia, where the upswing in scores for both environmental ranking rise due to falls from other countries. Singapore, the
factors and happiness pushes them higher in the sub-index at Russian Federation, China, Turkey, and India remain the
the expense of the Czech Republic, which shows a decline in bottom five in the Quality of Life rankings this year.
Top 25 Countries in Quality of Life Sub-Index
Ranking Score
Country
2022 2021 2012 2022 2021 2012
1 1 16 Finland 89% 89% 78%

2 3 8 Denmark 88% 87% 82%
3 5 4 Sweden 87% 87% 85%
4 2 2 Norway 87% 87% 87%
5 4 1 Switzerland 86% 87% 92%
6 6 3 Iceland 86% 85% 86%
7 7 6 United Kingdom 82% 83% 83%
8 8 7 Austria 82% 83% 83%
9 9 5 New Zealand 81% 82% 84%
10 13 15 Luxembourg 81% 80% 78%
11 12 10 Netherlands 80% 80% 82%
12 11 24 Ireland 80% 80% 73%
13 10 11 Germany 80% 80% 80%
14 14 9 France 78% 78% 82%
15 15 21 Australia 77% 77% 75%
16 16 14 Canada 74% 75% 79%
17 18 13 Belgium 74% 74% 79%
18 20 17 Israel 74% 72% 78%
19 17 19 Spain 74% 74% 76%
20 19 12 Italy 72% 72% 80%
21 21 22 United States 72% 71% 74%
22 23 29 Slovenia 69% 67% 70%
23 24 39 Estonia 68% 66% 55%
24 22 28 Czech Republic 68% 68% 71%
25 25 25 Japan 67% 66% 72%
0%–60% 61%–70% 71%–80% 81%–90% 91%–100%

Color Scale

Norway, Switzerland and Iceland are
the top three countries, followed by
Ireland, Australia and New Zealand. Both
Luxembourg and Czech Republic move
into the top ten at seventh and tenth
respectively, while Germany and Canada
move out of the top ten to 11th and 15th
respectively. Netherlands and Denmark
round out the rest of the top ten at eighth
and ninth respectively.
Some countries are remarkably

consistent and have maintained the
same overall placement for the past three
years. In fact, four of the top ten countries
have maintained the same ranking for the
The Top 25: past three years: Switzerland in second,

Ireland in fourth, New Zealand in sixth
and Denmark in ninth.
Year-on-Year However, across the top 25, there are
Trends some noteworthy movements. Three

countries had swings of five places or
more with South Korea moving up six
spots to 17th, and both Canada and
The list of countries in the top 25 has Slovenia dropping five spots to 15th and
remained steady for three straight years. 21st respectively. The Netherlands,
Germany, Malta, Finland and Israel all
swung three spots with the former three
moving down and the latter two moving
up.

Even larger swings were exhibited across the top 25 over the past moving from 17th and 34th respectively to third and sixth this
decade. Ireland registered the largest change by far, improving year. Meanwhile, France has had a large swing in the opposite
a whopping 34 spots (from 38th in 2012 to fourth this year). direction, moving from 11th in 2012 to 24th this year.
Iceland and New zealand have also had huge improvements,
Top 25 Countries in 2022 GRI
Ranking Trend in Score

Country Ranking
(2022–2012)
2022 2021 2012 2022 2021 2012
1 3 1 Norway 81% 80% 87%

2 2 2 Switzerland 80% 81% 85%
3 1 17 Iceland 79% 83% 73%
4 4 38 Ireland 76% 78% 59%
5 7 8 Australia 75% 76% 79%
6 6 34 New Zealand 75% 76% 63%
7 11 3 Luxembourg 75% 74% 82%
8 5 6 Netherlands 75% 76% 79%
9 9 10 Denmark 74% 75% 77%
10 14 22 Czech Republic 73% 73% 72%
11 8 9 Germany 72% 75% 78%
12 15 7 Finland 71% 72% 79%
13 13 4 Sweden 71% 73% 81%
14 12 5 Austria 71% 74% 81%
15 10 12 Canada 71% 75% 76%
16 19 14 Israel 70% 71% 75%
17 23 24 Korea, Rep. 70% 67% 71%
18 17 23 United States 69% 72% 71%
19 18 18 United Kingdom 69% 72% 73%
20 21 13 Belgium 69% 69% 76%
21 16 15 Slovenia 69% 72% 74%
22 22 25 Japan 69% 68% 71%
23 20 20 Malta 68% 70% 72%
24 25 11 France 66% 67% 77%
25 24 33 Estonia 66% 67% 64%
Changes in 2022 Color Scale

Increase Consistent Decrease 51%–60% 61%–70% 71%–80% 81%–100%

Country
Reports
This section offers a summary of GRI
performance for each country finishing
in the top 25 overall. Each country report
references last year’s figures and shows
how different indicator movements have
affected the country’s overall and sub-index
scores this year.
The goal of the country analysis is to

obtain an adequate proxy for changes in
retirement conditions in a particular country
by comparing year-on-year performance and
movements in ranking.

1
Norway
Norway moves into first overall in this year’s GRI with a score
of 81%. It has a higher overall score because of stronger
performances in the Finances (8th) and Health (1st) sub-indices. NORWAY
Norway has remained relatively consistent over the past decade
with the country also ranking first overall in 2012.
RANKING SCORE
Norway’s significantly higher score in the Finances sub-index is
mainly due to its five-year average for real interest rates moving 2022 2021 2012 2022 2021 2012
from negative to positive. As a result, its interest rate score
significantly improves and boosts its placement within the sub-
1 3 1 81% 80% 87%
index. It also has higher scores in the government indebtedness,
inflation and governance indicators. It has the highest score for SUB-INDEX AND
SCORES CHANGE
governance among all GRI countries and ranks in the top ten INDICATOR SCORES 2022 2021 2012
for both bank non-performing loans (7th) and government
indebtedness (9th) but also has the eighth-lowest score for the HEALTH 91% 90% 86%
tax pressure indicator.
QUALITY OF LIFE 87% 87% 87%
Norway boasts the highest score among all countries for the
Health sub-index. It has a higher score compared to last year MATERIAL WELLBEING 79% 90% 96%
because of improvements in all three indicators. It finishes in the
top ten for all indicators by ranking third for health expenditure FINANCES IN RETIREMENT 69% 58% 79%
per capita, eighth for life expectancy and tenth for insured health
expenditure. Old-Age Dependency 39% 40% 51%
The country moves down to fourth in the Quality of Life sub- Bank Non-Performing Loans 68% 77% 87%
index because of a lower score compared to last year. The main
reason for this is a reduced score for the environmental factors Inflation 92% 87% 92%
indicator. Still, it has several top ten placements in the sub-index
with environmental factors ranking third, air quality fourth, water Interest Rates 70% 1% 77%
and sanitation fifth and happiness eighth.
Tax Pressure 8% 10% 27%
Norway remains at second in the Material Wellbeing sub-index
despite a lower sub-index score. It has lower scores in both the Government Indebtedness 69% 52% 96%
unemployment and income equality indicators. It finishes in the
top ten for the income per capita and income equality indicators
Governance 93% 93% 96%
by ranking fifth in both indicators.

2
Switzerland
Switzerland remains in second place overall in this year’s GRI. Its

overall score drops due to lower scores in the Material Wellbeing
(14th), Finances (2nd) and Quality of Life (5th) sub-indices. SWITZERLAND
Switzerland also ranked second in 2012.
Switzerland registers its largest score slide in the Material RANKING SCORE
Wellbeing sub-index. It has a lower sub-index score due to lower
scores in the income equality and unemployment indicators. The 2022 2021 2012 2022 2021 2012
country has the fourth highest score for income per capita
among all GRI countries.
2 2 2 80% 81% 85%
Switzerland has a lower score in the Finances sub-index due SUB-INDEX AND
SCORES CHANGE
to lower scores in the bank nonperforming loans, tax pressure, INDICATOR SCORES 2022 2021 2012
old-age dependency, interest rate and governance indicators.
Despite these falls, the sub-index still ranks highly with several HEALTH 90% 88% 85%
top ten indicator placements. The country ranks fifth in bank
nonperforming loans, sixth in governance, eighth in interest QUALITY OF LIFE 86% 87% 92%
rates and tenth in the government indebtedness indicator.
MATERIAL WELLBEING 69% 75% 82%
Switzerland also has a lower score in the Quality of Life sub-
index. It has a lower sub-index score due to a lower score in FINANCES IN RETIREMENT 74% 75% 83%
the happiness indicator. Switzerland ranks in the top ten for
environmental factors (1st) and happiness (4th) but has a Old-Age Dependency 34% 35% 44%
bottom ten finish in the biodiversity indicator with the tenth-
lowest score. Bank Non-Performing Loans 73% 79% 100%
Switzerland’s sole sub-index with a higher score compared to last Inflation 100% 100% 100%
year is Health (4th). It has higher scores in all three indicators. It
has the second highest scores for both the life expectancy and Interest Rates 74% 75% 57%
health expenditure per capita indicators among all GRI countries.
Government Indebtedness 68% 54% 97%

3
Iceland
Iceland moves down two spots overall to third place this year. It
has a lower overall score compared to last year because of lower
scores in the Material Wellbeing (5th) and Finances (10th) sub- ICELAND
indices. Iceland has had significant improvement since 2012
with the country moving up 14 spots from 17th to third overall
this year. RANKING SCORE
The country’s lower score in the Material Wellbeing sub-index is 2022 2021 2012 2022 2021 2012
due to lower scores in all three indicators. It finishes in the top
ten for the income equality indicator by ranking second.
3 1 17 79% 83% 73%
The country also registers a lower score compared to last SUB-INDEX AND
SCORES CHANGE
year in the Finances sub-index (10th). It has lower scores across INDICATOR SCORES 2022 2021 2012
all indicators within the sub-index with the government
indebtedness indicator having the largest drop in score. Despite HEALTH 88% 86% 86%
the lower scores, it manages to have multiple top ten finishes
with the interest rates indicator ranking seventh and governance QUALITY OF LIFE 86% 85% 86%
ranking tenth.
Iceland has a higher score in Quality of Life (6th) and maintains
the same sub-index ranking as last year. The better sub-index FINANCES IN RETIREMENT 68% 70% 48%
performance is due to higher scores in both the environmental
factors and happiness indicators. Iceland has multiple top ten Old-Age Dependency 45% 47% 64%
finishes in the sub-index with air quality ranking second and
happiness ranking third. Bank Non-Performing Loans 45% 46% 1%
Iceland also manages to improve in the Health sub-index (10th) Inflation 90% 96% 65%
and moves into the top ten rankings. It has a higher sub-
index score because of improvements in all three indicators. Interest Rates 79% 80% 59%
None of its indicators make the top or bottom ten.

4
Ireland
Ireland remains in fourth place overall with a score of 76%.

Its overall score drops from last year due to lower scores in
the Material Wellbeing (17th) and Finances (7th) sub-indices. IRELAND
Ireland has had the most significant improvement among all
GRI countries compared to a decade ago with the country
moving 34 spots from 38th overall in 2012. RANKING SCORE
Ireland has a lower score in the Material Wellbeing sub-index due 2022 2021 2012 2022 2021 2012
to lower scores in the unemployment and income equality
indicators. It has the third highest score for the income per
4 4 38 76% 78% 59%
capita indicator.
SCORES CHANGE
SUB-INDEX AND
Ireland also sees its score fall in the Finances sub-index. Indicator INDICATOR SCORES 2022 2021 2012
scores for tax pressure, bank nonperforming loans and old-age
dependency have all dropped compared to last year. It has a top HEALTH 89% 87% 84%
ten finish with the tax pressure indicator ranking eighth.
Ireland improves its score in the Quality of Life sub-index
(12th). It has a higher sub-index score due to a higher score MATERIAL WELLBEING 67% 77% 65%
in the environmental factors indicator. Ireland has multiple
top ten finishes in the sub-index with air quality ranking ninth FINANCES IN RETIREMENT 70% 71% 30%
and environmental factors ranking tenth.
Old-Age Dependency 49% 51% 66%
Ireland also sees an improvement in the Health sub-index (8th).
It improves in all three indicators compared to last year Bank Non-Performing Loans 38% 44% 39%
and ranks in the top ten for both the insured health expenditure
(6th) and health expenditure per capita (10th) indicators. Inflation 100% 100% 1%
Interest Rates 43% 52% 65%

5
Australia
Australia moves up two spots to fifth overall this year. It has a

lower score compared to last year due to lower scores in the
Finances (4th), Material Wellbeing (19th) and Quality of Life AUSTRALIA
(15th) sub-indices. Australia is relatively consistent with its
performance a decade ago, where it ranked 8th overall.
RANKING SCORE
The country has a lower score in the Finances sub-index on
the back of lower scores in the tax pressure, interest rate, bank 2022 2021 2012 2022 2021 2012
nonperforming loans, old-age dependency and governance
indicators. However, it manages a top ten finish in the bank
5 7 8 75% 76% 79%
nonperforming loans indicator with a ranking of tenth.
SCORES CHANGE
SUB-INDEX AND
Australia also has a lower score in the Material Wellbeing INDICATOR SCORES 2022 2021 2012
sub-index. Improvements in both the income per capita
and unemployment indicators are offset by a lower score in the HEALTH 88% 87% 82%
income equality indicator. None of its indicators rank in the top
or bottom ten. QUALITY OF LIFE 77% 77% 75%
Australia’s other sub-index with a lower score than last year MATERIAL WELLBEING 66% 67% 85%
is Quality of Life. This is mainly due to a lower score in the
environmental factors indicator. It has the sixth highest score FINANCES IN RETIREMENT 72% 74% 73%
for the air quality indicator but has the eighth-lowest for the
environmental factors indicator. Old-Age Dependency 43% 44% 57%
Australia’s lone sub-index improvement is in the Health sub- Bank Non-Performing Loans 63% 67% 78%
index (9th). It has a higher sub-index score due to higher scores
in both the health expenditure per capita and insured health Inflation 100% 100% 86%
expenditure indicators. It makes the top ten for the life
expectancy indicator by ranking ninth. Interest Rates 73% 78% 71%

6
New Zealand
New Zealand remains in sixth place in this year’s GRI. It sees

its overall score dip slightly because of score declines in the
Finances (6th), Material Wellbeing (20th) and Quality of Life NEW ZEALAND
(9th) sub-indices. New Zealand has made a relatively large
improvement from a decade ago where it ranked 34th overall.
RANKING SCORE
New Zealand’s lower score in the Finances sub-index results from
lower scores in the interest rates, bank nonperforming loans, 2022 2021 2012 2022 2021 2012
tax pressure, old-age dependency and governance indicators.
Despite these lower scores, it manages top ten finishes in
6 6 34 75% 76% 63%
multiple indicators. It ranks third for governance, fourth for bank
nonperforming loans and eighth for government indebtedness. SUB-INDEX AND
SCORES CHANGE
INDICATOR SCORES 2022 2021 2012

New Zealand’s lower score in the Material Wellbeing sub-index
is due to lower scores in both the income equality and HEALTH 85% 84% 35%
unemployment indicators. It has the tenth highest score for
the unemployment indicator. QUALITY OF LIFE 81% 82% 84%
New Zealand has a lower Quality of Life sub-index score due to MATERIAL WELLBEING 64% 66% 70%
a lower score in the happiness indicator. It ranks fifth for air
quality and tenth for happiness. FINANCES IN RETIREMENT 71% 75% 78%
New Zealand has a higher score in the Health sub-index (16th) Old-Age Dependency 42% 44% 58%
compared to last year. The higher sub-index score is due
to higher scores for the health expenditure per capita and Bank Non-Performing Loans 76% 85% N/A
insured health expenditure indicators. It has the seventh
highest score for the insured health expenditure among all GRI Inflation 100% 100% 85%
countries.

7
Luxembourg
Luxembourg moves up four spots to 7th this year. It has a higher

overall score because of higher scores in all four sub-indices.
LUXEMBOURG
The Health sub-index (2nd) is Luxembourg’s largest score
improvement. Its higher sub-index score is due to score
improvements across all three indicators. It makes the top ten RANKING SCORE
for both the insured health expenditure and health expenditure
per capita indicators by ranking second and fourth respectively. 2022 2021 2012 2022 2021 2012
Luxembourg’s score in the Quality of Life sub-index (10th)

7 11 3 75% 74% 82%
improves compared to last year. It has higher scores in
both the biodiversity and happiness indicators. It places sixth SUB-INDEX AND
SCORES CHANGE
in the happiness indicator and eighth in the biodiversity INDICATOR SCORES 2022 2021 2012
indicator.
HEALTH 91% 90% 86%
Luxembourg’s Finances sub-index score (21st) also improves
from last year. This is a function of score increases in QUALITY OF LIFE 81% 80% 78%
government indebtedness and governance. It has multiple top
ten indicator finishes with government indebtedness ranking MATERIAL WELLBEING 72% 72% 94%
third, governance ranking fifth, bank nonperforming loans
ranking sixth and old-age dependency ranking ninth. FINANCES IN RETIREMENT 59% 59% 72%
Luxembourg’s last sub-index to improve is Material Old-Age Dependency 55% 56% 56%
Wellbeing (9th) after moving up eight spots into the top ten. Its
higher sub-index score is due to a higher score for the Bank Non-Performing Loans 69% 72% 100%
income per capita indicator. It has the second highest
income per capita score among all GRI countries. Inflation 100% 100% 93%

8
Netherlands
The Netherlands moves down three spots to eighth overall this

year. Its overall score falls due to lower scores in the Material
Wellbeing (3rd) and Finances (26th) sub-indices. NETHERLANDS
Material Wellbeing, the Netherlands' highest-ranked sub-

index, returns a lower score than last year due to lower scores RANKING SCORE
for both the unemployment and income equality indicators. It
has the eighth highest score for both the income per capita 2022 2021 2012 2022 2021 2012
and unemployment indicators.
8 5 6 75% 76% 79%
The Netherlands also records a lower score in the Finances
sub-index due to lower scores in the bank nonperforming loans, SUB-INDEX AND
SCORES CHANGE
old-age dependency, tax pressure and governance indicators. It INDICATOR SCORES 2022 2021 2012
has the ninth highest score for the governance indicator but the
ninth-lowest score for the tax pressure indicator. HEALTH 89% 87% 86%
The Netherlands registers a higher score in the Quality of Life QUALITY OF LIFE 80% 80% 82%
sub-index (11th). The improvement is due to a higher score for
the environmental factors indicator. It has the fifth highest MATERIAL WELLBEING 78% 87% 84%
score for the happiness indicator but the tenth lowest score
for the environmental factors indicator. FINANCES IN RETIREMENT 56% 56% 66%
The country also has a higher score for the Health sub-index Old-Age Dependency 29% 31% 49%
(7th). Higher scores across all three indicators drive its higher
sub-index score. It finishes with the third highest score for the Bank Non-Performing Loans 53% 57% 72%
insured health expenditure indicator and the sixth highest score
for the health expenditure per capita indicator. Inflation 100% 100% 100%

9
Denmark
Denmark remains in ninth place this year. It has a lower overall

score because of lower scores in the Material Wellbeing (6th)
and Finances (33rd) sub-indices. DENMARK
Denmark’s largest drop in score occurs in the Material Wellbeing

sub-index. This is due to lower scores for both the RANKING SCORE
income equality and unemployment indicators. It finishes in the
top ten for the income per capita indicator by ranking seventh. 2022 2021 2012 2022 2021 2012
The country also has a lower score in the Finances sub-index.

9 9 10 74% 75% 77%
It has a lower sub-index score due to lower scores in the old-
age dependency, bank nonperforming loans and tax pressure SUB-INDEX AND
SCORES CHANGE
indicators. While it has the fourth highest score for the INDICATOR SCORES 2022 2021 2012
governance indicator, it also has the lowest score for the tax
pressure indicator among all GRI countries. HEALTH 86% 85% 84%
Denmark registers a higher score in the Quality of Life sub-index QUALITY OF LIFE 88% 87% 82%
(2nd). It has higher scores for both the happiness and
environmental factors indicator. The country has multiple top MATERIAL WELLBEING 76% 78% 80%
ten finishes with happiness ranking second and environmental
factors ranking sixth. FINANCES IN RETIREMENT 54% 54% 65%
Denmark sees its Health sub-index score (13th) improve because Old-Age Dependency 28% 29% 43%
of higher scores in the life expectancy and health expenditure per
capita indicators. It has the ninth highest score for the health Bank Non-Performing Loans 58% 58% 59%
expenditure per capita indicator among all GRI countries.
Inflation 100% 100% 93%

10
Czech Republic
The Czech Republic moves into the top ten despite having the
same overall score as last year. An improvement in the
Health sub-index (27th) is balanced out by lower scores for the CZECH REPUBLIC
rest of the sub-indices.
The Czech Republic’s higher score in the Health sub-index is due RANKING SCORE
to higher scores across all three indicators. None of its indicators
make the top or bottom ten. 2022 2021 2012 2022 2021 2012
The Czech Republic has the highest score for the Material
10 14 22 73% 73% 72%
Wellbeing sub-index among all GRI countries. Despite
moving up three spots in the rankings, it has a lower sub- SUB-INDEX AND
SCORES CHANGE
index score compared to last year because of a lower score INDICATOR SCORES 2022 2021 2012
in the income equality indicator. It has the highest score
for the unemployment indicator and the fourth highest score HEALTH 76% 73% 84%
for the income equality indicator.
Finances (15th) is Czech Republic’s second largest drop in sub-
index score. It has lower scores for the interest rate, inflation, MATERIAL WELLBEING 84% 86% 74%
old-age dependency and bank nonperforming loans indicators.
It finishes in the top ten for government indebtedness with a FINANCES IN RETIREMENT 64% 65% 61%
ranking of sixth.
Czech Republic has a lower score in the Quality of Life sub-
index (24th) compared to last year. It has lower scores for Bank Non-Performing Loans 49% 50% 53%
both the environmental factors and happiness indicators. It
has the eighth-lowest score for the environmental factors Inflation 93% 100% 100%
indicator among all GRI countries.

11
Germany
Germany drops three spots this year to 11th. It has a lower

overall score because of lower scores in all four sub-indices.
The country ranks relatively close to a decade ago when it was GERMANY
ranked ninth overall.
Germany’s largest drop in sub-index score is Material Wellbeing RANKING SCORE

(11th). It has a lower sub-index score due to a lower score in
the income equality indicator. It makes the top ten for both the 2022 2021 2012 2022 2021 2012
unemployment and income per capita indicators by ranking
sixth and tenth respectively.
11 8 9 72% 75% 78%
Germany’s next largest fall is in the Health sub-index (12th). It SUB-INDEX AND
SCORES CHANGE
has a lower sub-index score due to a lower score in the life INDICATOR SCORES 2022 2021 2012
expectancy indicator. It finishes in the top ten for both the
health expenditure per capita and insured health expenditure HEALTH 87% 87% 88%
indicators by ranking fifth and eighth respectively.
Germany also has a lower score in the Finances sub-index
(30th). It has reduced scores in the bank nonperforming loans, MATERIAL WELLBEING 71% 83% 82%
tax pressure, old-age dependency and governance indicators.
The country has the sixth-lowest score for the old-age FINANCES IN RETIREMENT 55% 55% 64%
dependency indicator among all GRI countries.
The country’s lower score in the Quality of Life sub-index
(13th) is due to a lower score in the happiness indicator. It Bank Non-Performing Loans 62% 69% 67%
has the third highest score for the biodiversity indicator
among all GRI countries. Inflation 100% 100% 100%

12
Finland
Finland moves up three spots to 12th overall. It has a lower

overall score compared to last year because of a lower score in
the Material Wellbeing sub-index (21st). FINLAND
Finland finishes with a lower score in the Material Wellbeing

sub-index due to lower scores in both the unemployment and RANKING SCORE
income equality indicators. It has the seventh highest score
for the income equality indicator. 2022 2021 2012 2022 2021 2012
Finland registers a score improvement in the Health sub-index

12 15 7 71% 72% 79%
(19th). This is due to higher scores across all three indicators.
None of its indicators make the top or bottom ten. SUB-INDEX AND
SCORES CHANGE

Finland maintains the highest score for the Quality of Life sub-
index among all GRI countries. It has a higher score in the HEALTH 84% 82% 83%
environmental factors indicator compared to last year. It has the
highest score for the happiness indicator and also ranks in QUALITY OF LIFE 89% 89% 78%
the top ten for the air quality indicator by ranking third among
all GRI countries. MATERIAL WELLBEING 63% 69% 81%
The country also has a higher score in the Finances sub-index FINANCES IN RETIREMENT 55% 55% 74%
(28th). It has higher scores compared to last year for both
the government indebtedness and governance indicators. It has Old-Age Dependency 19% 21% 41%
the second highest score for the governance indicator but also
the second-lowest for old-age dependency and the seventh- Bank Non-Performing Loans 54% 62% 100%
lowest for tax pressure.
Inflation 100% 100% 100%

13
Sweden
Sweden remains at 13th overall this year. Its overall score goes
down because of a lower score (26th) in the Material Wellbeing
sub-index. SWEDEN
Sweden sees its Material Wellbeing sub-index score (26th) fall

from last year. This is due to lower scores in both the RANKING SCORE
unemployment and income equality indicators. It has the eighth
highest score for the income equality indicator and the ninth 2022 2021 2012 2022 2021 2012
highest score for the income per capita indicator but also
finishes in the bottom ten for the unemployment indicator with
13 13 4 71% 73% 81%
the eighth-lowest score among all GRI countries.
SCORES CHANGE
SUB-INDEX AND
Sweden’s largest score improvement is the Health sub-index INDICATOR SCORES 2022 2021 2012
(5th). It has a higher sub-index score due to higher scores in the
life expectancy and health expenditure per capita indicators. HEALTH 90% 88% 83%
It has the seventh highest score among all GRI countries for
both the life expectancy and health expenditure per capita QUALITY OF LIFE 87% 87% 85%
indicators.
Sweden rises two spots in Quality of Life (3rd) and records a
higher sub-index score compared to last year. This is due FINANCES IN RETIREMENT 56% 55% 74%
to higher scores in the environmental factors and
happiness indicators. It finishes in the top ten for several Old-Age Dependency 26% 27% 36%
indicators with air quality ranking first, environmental factors
ranking fourth and happiness ranking seventh. Bank Non-Performing Loans 82% 83% 81%
Sweden also has a higher score (27th) for the Finances sub- Inflation 100% 100% 100%
index. It has higher scores in the government indebtedness
indicator. It has multiple top ten finishes with bank Interest Rates 1% 1% 32%
nonperforming loans ranking third and both governance and
government indebtedness ranking seventh. However, it also Tax Pressure 4% 3% 60%
finishes in the bottom ten for both the tax pressure and old-age
dependency indicators with the fourth-lowest and tenth-lowest Government Indebtedness 72% 57% 99%
scores respectively.

14
Austria
Austria moves down two spots to 14th overall this year. It has
a lower overall score compared to last year because of lower
scores in the Material Wellbeing (15th), Quality of Life (8th) and AUSTRIA
Finances (32nd) sub-indices.
Austria’s lower score in the Material Wellbeing sub-index results RANKING SCORE
from lower scores unemployment and in income per capita. It
finishes in the top ten for the income equality indicator by 2022 2021 2012 2022 2021 2012
ranking ninth among all GRI countries.
14 12 5 71% 74% 81%
Austria remains at eighth in the Quality of Life sub-index. It
has a lower sub-index score compared to last year because of SUB-INDEX AND
SCORES CHANGE
lower scores for both the happiness and environmental factors INDICATOR SCORES 2022 2021 2012
indicators. It finishes in the top ten for the environmental factors
indicators with the eighth highest score among all GRI countries. HEALTH 86% 85% 90%
Austria’s last sub-index with a lower score compared to last year QUALITY OF LIFE 82% 83% 83%
is Finances (32nd). It has lower scores in the bank nonperforming
loans, tax pressure, old-age dependency and governance MATERIAL WELLBEING 69% 77% 86%
indicators. It has the sixth lowest score for tax pressure and
none of its indicators make the top ten. FINANCES IN RETIREMENT 54% 54% 65%
Austria’s sole sub-index score improvement (14th) is the Health Old-Age Dependency 34% 35% 41%
sub-index. It has a higher sub-index score due to higher scores
in both the life expectancy and health expenditure per Bank Non-Performing Loans 52% 61% 72%
capita indicators, with the latter ranking eighth highest among
all GRI countries. Inflation 100% 100% 100%

15
Canada
Canada moves down five spots to 15th overall this year.

The lower overall score is due to lower scores in the Material
Wellbeing (27th), Finances (12th) and Quality of Life (16th) sub- CANADA
indices. Canada ranks relatively similar to a decade ago when it
placed 12th overall in 2012.
RANKING SCORE
Canada has a lower score in the Material Wellbeing sub-index
because of lower scores in all three indicators compared to last 2022 2021 2012 2022 2021 2012
year. None of its indicators make the top or bottom ten.
15 10 12 71% 75% 76%
Canada also has a lower score for the Finances sub-index. The
lower sub-index score is due to lower scores in the interest rate, SUB-INDEX AND
SCORES CHANGE
tax pressure, old-age dependency and governance indicators. It INDICATOR SCORES 2022 2021 2012
has the second highest score for the bank nonperforming loans
indicator. HEALTH 87% 86% 79%
Canada also has a lower score in the Quality of Life sub-index QUALITY OF LIFE 74% 75% 79%
because of lower scores in both the happiness and environmental
factors indicators. It has the seventh highest score for the air MATERIAL WELLBEING 58% 69% 75%
quality indicator but the eighth-lowest score for biodiversity.
FINANCES IN RETIREMENT 67% 69% 72%
Canada has a higher score for the Health sub-index (11th)
compared to last year. The improvement in the sub-index score Old-Age Dependency 37% 39% 56%
is because of a higher score in the health expenditure per capita
indicator. None of its indicators make the top or bottom ten. Bank Non-Performing Loans 85% 81% 97%
Inflation 100% 100% 100%

16
Israel
Israel moves up three spots to 16th overall this year despite

having a lower score compared to last year. It has a lower overall
score because of lower scores in the Material Wellbeing (25th) ISRAEL
and Finances (13th) sub-indices.
Israel has a lower score in the Material Wellbeing sub-index due RANKING SCORE
to lower scores in all three indicators. None of the indicators in
the sub-index make the top or bottom ten. 2022 2021 2012 2022 2021 2012
Israel’s next largest drop is in the Finances sub-index. It has

16 19 14 70% 71% 75%
a lower sub-index score compared to last year because of
lower scores in the bank nonperforming loans, tax pressure, SUB-INDEX AND
SCORES CHANGE
governance and old-age dependency indicators. It has the INDICATOR SCORES 2022 2021 2012
ninth highest score for the interest rates indicator and the tenth
highest score for the old-age dependency indicator. HEALTH 82% 80% 80%
Israel’s largest sub-index score improvement is Quality of Life QUALITY OF LIFE 74% 72% 78%
(18th). It has a higher sub-index score because of higher scores
in both the environmental factors and happiness indicators. It MATERIAL WELLBEING 60% 67% 66%
has the ninth highest score for happiness but also the fifth-lowest
score for the biodiversity indicator among all GRI countries. FINANCES IN RETIREMENT 66% 67% 78%
Israel also registers an improvement in the Health (sub-index Old-Age Dependency 55% 56% 68%
(24th). It has a higher sub-index score because of higher scores
across all three indicators. It has the tenth highest score Bank Non-Performing Loans 56% 63% 90%
among all GRI countries for the life expectancy indicator.
Inflation 100% 100% 88%

17
South Korea
South Korea moves up six spots to 17th overall in this year’s

GRI. It has a higher overall score because of higher scores in all
four sub-indices. South Korea has had a relatively large swing in SOUTH KOREA
its overall ranking compared to a decade ago, moving up seven
spots from 24th in 2012.
RANKING SCORE
South Korea’s largest score improvement is in the Material
Wellbeing (16th) sub-index. It has a higher sub-index score 2022 2021 2012 2022 2021 2012
because of higher scores in the unemployment and income per
capita indicators. It has the fifth highest score for the
17 23 24 70% 67% 71%
unemployment indicator among all GRI countries.
SCORES CHANGE
SUB-INDEX AND
South Korea’s next largest improvement is the Quality of Life INDICATOR SCORES 2022 2021 2012
(34th) sub-index. Its higher sub-index score is due to higher
scores in both the environmental factors and happiness HEALTH 80% 77% 78%
indicators. It has multiple bottom ten indicator finishes with the
fourth lowest score for environmental factors, the sixth lowest QUALITY OF LIFE 59% 56% 67%
for happiness and the ninth lowest for biodiversity.
South Korea manages a higher score in the Health sub-index
(25th) because of higher scores in both the health expenditure FINANCES IN RETIREMENT 73% 73% 60%
per capita and insured health expenditure indicators. It has the
fifth highest score among all GRI countries for the life expectancy Old-Age Dependency 51% 54% 73%
indicator.
Bank Non-Performing Loans 100% 100% 82%
Finances (3rd), South Korea’s highest ranked sub-index, also
has a higher score compared to last year. The improvement is Inflation 100% 100% 85%
due to higher scores in the government indebtedness, interest
rates and governance indicators. It has the highest score Interest Rates 72% 70% 50%
among all GRI countries for the bank nonperforming loans
indicator. Tax Pressure 27% 30% 45%

18
United States
The United States falls one spot to 18th overall this year. It has
a lower overall score because of lower scores in the Material
Wellbeing (30th) and Finances (11th) sub-indices. The United UNITED STATES
States ranked 23rd a decade ago.
The US has a lower Material Wellbeing sub-index score RANKING SCORE

because of lower scores in the unemployment and income
equality indicators. It has the sixth highest score for the 2022 2021 2012 2022 2021 2012
income per capita indicator among all GRI countries but also the
18 17 23 69% 72% 71%
seventh-lowest score for the income equality indicator.
SCORES CHANGE
The US also has a lower score for the Finances sub-index. The SUB-INDEX AND
lower sub-index score this year is due to lower scores in the tax INDICATOR SCORES 2022 2021 2012
pressure, bank nonperforming loans, old-age dependency and
governance indicators. It makes the top ten for both the HEALTH 85% 83% 81%
bank nonperforming loans and interest rate indicators by
ranking eighth and tenth respectively but also makes the QUALITY OF LIFE 72% 71% 74%
bottom ten for the government indebtedness indicator with
the sixth-lowest score among all GRI countries. MATERIAL WELLBEING 56% 65% 63%
The US registers an improvement in the Health sub- FINANCES IN RETIREMENT 67% 69% 69%
index (17th). It has a higher sub-index score compared to
last year because of a higher score for the life expectancy Old-Age Dependency 42% 43% 58%
indicator. It has the highest score for the health expenditure
per capita indicator and the fourth highest for insured health Bank Non-Performing Loans 67% 69% 57%
expenditure among all GRI countries.
Inflation 100% 100% 100%
The United States has a higher score in the Quality of Life sub-index
(21st) due to higher scores in both the environmental factors Interest Rates 73% 73% 55%
and happiness indicators. It has the ninth lowest score for
environmental factors among all GRI countries. Tax Pressure 33% 40% 43%

19
United Kingdom
The United Kingdom ranks 19th overall after falling one

spot from last year. Its overall score drops due to lower
scores in the Material Wellbeing (23rd), Finances (29th) and UNITED KINGDOM
Quality of Life (7th) sub-indices. The UK has remained
relatively consistent over the past decade with the country
ranking 18th in 2012. RANKING SCORE
The UK’s largest drop in sub-index score is Material Wellbeing. 2022 2021 2012 2022 2021 2012
It has a lower sub-index score because of lower scores in the
income equality and unemployment indicators. It has the
19 18 18 69% 72% 73%
tenth-lowest score for the income equality indicator among
all GRI countries. SUB-INDEX AND
SCORES CHANGE

The UK’s lower score in Finances is driven by lower scores in
the bank nonperforming loans, tax pressure, governance and HEALTH 83% 82% 82%
old-age dependency indicators. None of its indicators make the
top or bottom ten. QUALITY OF LIFE 82% 83% 83%
The UK finishes with a lower score in Quality of Life (7th) due to MATERIAL WELLBEING 61% 69% 73%
a lower score in the happiness indicator. It finishes in the top
ten for both the biodiversity and air quality indicators by ranking FINANCES IN RETIREMENT 55% 56% 57%
fourth and tenth respectively.
Health (21st) is the UK’s sole sub-index score improvement. It
has a higher sub-index score compared to last year because of Bank Non-Performing Loans 58% 70% 62%
a higher score in the health expenditure per capita indicator.
None of its indicators make the top or bottom ten. Inflation 100% 100% 81%

20
Belgium
Belgium moves up one spot to 20th overall in this year’s GRI. It

has a lower overall score compared to last year because of
a lower score in the Material Wellbeing sub-index (13th). BELGIUM
Belgium has a lower score in the Material Wellbeing sub-index

because of lower scores in the income equality and RANKING SCORE
unemployment indicators. It has the sixth highest score for the
income equality indicator among all GRI countries. 2022 2021 2012 2022 2021 2012
Belgium’s largest score improvement is the Health sub-index

20 21 13 69% 69% 76%
(15th). It has a higher sub-index score compared to last
year because of higher scores across all three indicators. None SUB-INDEX AND
SCORES CHANGE
of its indicators make the top or bottom ten. INDICATOR SCORES 2022 2021 2012
The country’s next highest score improvement is the Finances HEALTH 85% 83% 84%
sub-index (38th). It has a higher sub-index score because of
higher scores in the government indebtedness, tax pressure and QUALITY OF LIFE 74% 74% 79%
governance indicators. It has the third-lowest score for the tax
pressure indicator and the tenth-lowest score for the government MATERIAL WELLBEING 70% 76% 74%
indebtedness indicator among all GRI countries.
Belgium’s last sub-index with a higher score compared to
last year is Quality of Life (17th). The higher sub-index score is Old-Age Dependency 31% 32% 39%
due to a higher score in the environmental factors indicator. It
has the ninth highest score for the biodiversity indicator. Bank Non-Performing Loans 45% 55% 71%
Inflation 100% 100% 95%

21
Slovenia
Slovenia moves down five spots to 21st overall this year. It has
a lower overall score compared to last year because of lower
scores in the Finances (37th) and Material Wellbeing (4th) sub- SLOVENIA
indices.
Slovenia’s score in the Finances sub-index is lower than last year RANKING SCORE
because of lower scores in the interest rates, tax pressure, old-
age dependency, bank nonperforming loans and governance 2022 2021 2012 2022 2021 2012
indicators. None of its indicators make the top or bottom ten.
21 16 15 69% 72% 74%
Slovenia also has a lower score in the Material Wellbeing
sub-index. It has lower scores in both the unemployment and SUB-INDEX AND
SCORES CHANGE
income equality indicators. It has the third highest score for the INDICATOR SCORES 2022 2021 2012
income equality indicator among all GRI countries.
HEALTH 82% 80% 81%
Slovenia manages to improve in the Health sub-index (22nd).
The higher sub-index score is due to higher scores across QUALITY OF LIFE 69% 67% 70%
all three indicators. It has the fifth highest score for the
insured health expenditure among all GRI countries. MATERIAL WELLBEING 77% 82% 75%
The country also records a higher score in the Quality of Life FINANCES IN RETIREMENT 51% 61% 72%
sub-index (22nd). The higher sub-index score is due to a higher
score in the happiness indicator. It has the second highest Old-Age Dependency 27% 29% 47%
score for the biodiversity indicator among all GRI countries.
Bank Non-Performing Loans 45% 47% 65%
Inflation 100% 100% 100%

22
Japan
Japan remains at 22nd overall in this year’s GRI. It has a higher

overall score compared to last year because of higher scores
in the Finances (40th), Quality of Life (25th) and Health (3rd) JAPAN
sub-indices. Japan has had moderate movement in its overall
ranking over the decade after moving up three spots from 25th
in 2012. RANKING SCORE
Finances, Japan’s lowest ranked sub-index, has a higher score 2022 2021 2012 2022 2021 2012
compared to last year. This is due to improved scores in the
interest rate and governance indicators. It has the lowest score
22 22 25 69% 68% 71%
among all GRI countries for both the old-age dependency and
government indebtedness indicators. SUB-INDEX AND
SCORES CHANGE

Japan has a higher score in the Quality of Life sub-index due to
a higher score in the happiness indicator. It has the ninth-lowest HEALTH 91% 90% 85%
score for the happiness indicator among all GRI countries.
Japan’s last increase in sub-index score is Health. The higher sub-
index score is due to a higher score for the health expenditure per MATERIAL WELLBEING 72% 73% 72%
capita indicator. It has the highest score for the life expectancy
indicator and the ninth highest for the insured health expenditure FINANCES IN RETIREMENT 51% 49% 58%
indicator.
Material Wellbeing (10th) is Japan’s only sub-index with a lower
score compared to last year. Its sub-index score decreases Bank Non-Performing Loans 61% 68% 83%
because of a lower score in the income equality indicator. It has
the highest score for the unemployment indicator among all Inflation 100% 100% 1%
GRI countries.

23
Malta
Malta moves down three spots to 23rd overall in this year’s GRI.
It experiences a lower overall score because of lower scores in
the Material Wellbeing (8th), Quality of Life (31st) and Finances MALTA
(16th) sub-indices.
Malta’s largest drop is i n t h e Material Wellbeing sub-index. RANKING SCORE

It has a lower sub-index score due to lower scores across
all three indicators. It has the fourth highest score for the 2022 2021 2012 2022 2021 2012
unemployment indicator among all GRI countries.
23 20 20 68% 70% 72%
Malta’s lower score in Quality of Life is driven by a lower score
in the happiness and environmental factors indicators. It has SUB-INDEX AND
SCORES CHANGE
the second-lowest score for the environmental factors indicator INDICATOR SCORES 2022 2021 2012
among all GRI countries.
HEALTH 78% 76% 79%
Malta records a lower score in the Finances sub-index because
of lower scores in the bank nonperforming loans, tax pressure QUALITY OF LIFE 61% 63% 66%
and old-age dependency indicators. It has the eighth lowest
score for the old-age dependency indicator and the ninth lowest MATERIAL WELLBEING 72% 79% 82%
score for the bank nonperforming loans indicator.
Malta records a higher score in the Health sub-index (26th) due to
higher scores for both the life expectancy and health expenditure Old-Age Dependency 26% 28% 58%
per capita indicators. It has the seventh-lowest score for the
insured health expenditure indicator among all GRI countries. Bank Non-Performing Loans 31% 45% 45%
Inflation 100% 100% 100%
Interest Rates N/A N/A 49%

24
France
France moves up one spot to 24th overall in this year’s GRI. It

has a lower overall score because of lower scores in the Material
Wellbeing (28th) and Finances (41st) sub-indices. France has FRANCE
had significant swings in its overall rankings over the decade
with the country ranking eleventh in 2012.
RANKING SCORE
France’s lower score in the Material Wellbeing sub-index (28th)
is due to a lower score in the income equality indicator. It has 2022 2021 2012 2022 2021 2012
the ninth lowest score for the unemployment indicator among
all GRI countries.
24 25 11 66% 67% 77%
Finances (41st) is France’s other sub-index with a lower score SUB-INDEX AND
SCORES CHANGE
compared to last year. It has a lower sub-index score due to INDICATOR SCORES 2022 2021 2012
lower scores in the bank nonperforming loans, governance and
old-age dependency indicators. It has the second lowest score HEALTH 90% 89% 89%
for the tax pressure indicator and the seventh lowest score for
the old-age dependency indicator. QUALITY OF LIFE 78% 78% 82%
France’s higher score in the Health sub-index (6th) results MATERIAL WELLBEING 57% 59% 74%
from a stronger performance in the life expectancy and
health expenditure per capita indicators. It has the highest FINANCES IN RETIREMENT 48% 49% 65%
score among all GRI countries for the insured health
expenditure indicator. Old-Age Dependency 25% 26% 41%
France’s higher score in the Quality of Life sub-index (14th) Bank Non-Performing Loans 39% 49% 60%
is due to a higher score in the happiness indicator. It has
the fifth highest score for the biodiversity indicator among all Inflation 100% 100% 100%
GRI countries.

25
Estonia
Estonia moves down one spot to 25th this year. It has a lower
overall score because of lower scores in the Material Wellbeing
(24th) and Finances (9th) sub-indices. Over the decade, Estonia ESTONIA
has made relatively large improvements in its overall score
with the country ranking 33rd in 2012.
RANKING SCORE
The country’s lower score in the Material Wellbeing sub-index is
due to lower scores in the unemployment and income equality 2022 2021 2012 2022 2021 2012
indicators. None of its indicators make the top or bottom ten.
25 24 33 66% 67% 64%
Estonia’s other sub-index with a lower score compared to
last year is Finances. It has a lower sub-index score due to SUB-INDEX AND
SCORES CHANGE
lower scores in the bank nonperforming loans, tax INDICATOR SCORES 2022 2021 2012
pressure and old-age dependency indicators. It has the
highest score for government indebtedness among all GRI HEALTH 68% 67% 78%
countries.
Estonia records a higher score in the Quality of Life sub-index (23rd)
due to score improvements in both the environmental factors MATERIAL WELLBEING 60% 65% 56%
and happiness indicators. It has the seventh highest score for
the environmental factors indicator and the tenth highest FINANCES IN RETIREMENT 68% 71% 69%
score for the biodiversity indicator among all GRI countries.
Estonia’s higher score in the Health sub-index (32nd) is due to
higher scores in all three indicators. None of its indicators make Bank Non-Performing Loans 56% 90% 55%
the top or bottom ten.
Inflation 100% 100% 85%
Interest Rates N/A N/A 69%

References
Central Intelligence Agency, The World Factbook. Accessible Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
online at: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world- (2022), OECD.Stat. http://stats.oecd.org/
factbook/index.html
Social Security Administration. “Social Security Programs
Country statistical agencies, central banks, and ministries of Throughout the World”, Washington, DC. https://www.ssa.gov/
finance, economy, and trade; available at http://www.bis.org/ policy/docs/progdesc/ssptw/
cbanks.htm; and https://unstats.un.org/home
Statistical Office of the European Communities (2020), Eurostat.
Dasgupta, P. and Weale, M. (1992), “On Measuring the Quality of Luxembourg. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database
Life”, World Development, Vol. 20:1, pp. 119-131.
United Nations. “World Population Prospects”, New York. https://
Emerson, J. W., Hsu, A., Levy, M. A., de Sherbinin, A., Mara, V., Esty, population.un.org/wpp/
D. C., & Jaiteh, M. (2012), “2012 Environmental Performance
Index and Pilot Trend Environmental Performance Index.” New U.S. Energy Information Administration (2020). http://www.eia.
Haven, CT: Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy. gov/environment/data.cfm
Helliwell, J., Layard, R., & Sachs, J. (2021). “World Happiness Wendling, Z. A., Emerson, J. W., de Sherbinin, A., Esty, D. C., et
Report 2022”, New York: Sustainable Development Solutions al. (2020). “2020 Environmental Performance Index.” New Haven,
Network. CT: Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy. epi.yale.edu
International Monetary Fund (2022), Financial Soundness World Bank (2022), World Development Indicators 2022.
Indicators. Washington, DC. https://www.imf.org/external/np/ Washington, DC. https://datacatalog.worldbank.org/home
sta/fsi/eng/fsi.htm
World Bank (2021), Worldwide Governance Indicators, 2021
Klugman, Rodriguez and Choi (2011), “The HDI 2010: New Update. Washington, DC. http://info.worldbank.org/governance/
Controversies, Old Critiques”, Human Development Research wgi/index.aspx#home
Paper 2011/1, UNDP, New York.
National Institute of Population and Social Security Research.

Tokyo, Japan. http://www.ipss.go.jp/index-e.asp

Framework
Policy Category Indicator
Index Sub-index Indicators Weight Data Source Latest Data Target Low Performance Statistical
Weight
(% of Available Benchmark Transformation
(% of Index)
Sub-Index)
Sample Maximum Sample Minimum
Life Expectancy Index GEOMEAN Life expectancy at birth 1 World Bank WDI 2022 2019 None
(84.36 years, Japan) (69.66 years, India)
Health Expenditure Per Current health expenditure per capita,

GEOMEAN 1 World Bank WDI 2022 2019 Sample Maximum ($10,921.01, USA) Sample Minimum ($211.00, India) Natural Logarithm
Capita Index PPP (current international $)
Health Index
Non-Insured Health Out-of-pocket expenditure
GEOMEAN 1 World Bank WDI 2022 2019 Sample Minimum (9.26%, France) 100% None
Expenditure Index (% of current health expenditure)
Eurostat, OECD, World Bank WDI 2022, Between 2011 and 2020 Sample Minimum
Income Equality Index GEOMEAN GINI Index 1 Sample Maximum (53.40, Brazil) Natural Logarithm
CIA World Factbook depending on Country (20.90, Slovak Republic)
Income per Capita Index GEOMEAN GNI per capita, PPP Sample Maximum
1 World Bank WDI 2022 2020 Sample Minimum ($6,440, India) Natural Logarithm
Material Wellbeing (current international $) ($86,480, Singapore)
Index Unemployment Index GEOMEAN

Unemployment (% of total labor force) 1 World Bank WDI 2022 2021 3% Unemployment Sample Maximum (14.80%, Greece) Natural Logarithm
(modeled ILO estimate)
Average of World Bank World Bank Worldwide Governance
Institutional Strength Index 0.5 1 2020 Maximum on Scale (2.5) Minimum on Scale (-2.5) Natural Logarithm
Governance Indicators Indicators 2021
Age dependency ratio, old
GEOMEAN World Bank WDI 2022 2020 10% 50% Natural Logarithm
(% of working age population)
Bank nonperforming loans Sample Minimum Sample Maximum
GEOMEAN IMF Financial Soundness Indicators 2019, 2020. 2021 Natural Logarithm
to total gross loans (%) (0.22%, South Korea) (12.82%, Greece)
Finances in
Inflation, consumer Sample Maximum
Retirement Investment
Environment 0.5
prices (% annual)
GEOMEAN World Bank WDI 2022 2015 to 2019 2%
(12.54%, Turkey)
Natural Logarithm
Index Index
Real interest rate (%) GEOMEAN World Bank WDI 2022, OECD 2015 to 2019 20% 0% Natural Logarithm
Public debt (% of GDP) GEOMEAN CIA World Factbook 2021 Sample Minimum (18.50%, Estonia) Sample Maximum (256.22%, Japan) Natural Logarithm
Country statistical agencies, central banks,

Tax burden (% of GDP) GEOMEAN 2021 Sample Minimum (6.81%, India) Sample Maximum (46.34%, Denmark) Natural Logarithm
and ministries of finance economy
Environmental Performance 2019

PM2.5 exposure 0.55 Sample Minimum (71.68, Iceland) Sample Maximum (2,706.53, India) Natural Logarithm
Index 2020
Air Quality Index Environmental Performance

0.125 GEOMEAN Household solid fuels 0.40 2019 Sample Minimum (0.22, Switzerland) Sample Maximum (1,837.97, India) Natural Logarithm
Index 2020
Environmental Performance
Ozone exposure 0.05 2019 Sample Minimum (2.66, Ireland) Sample Maximum (293.93, India) Natural Logarithm
Index 2020
Unsafe drinking water 0.6 Environmental Performance Index 2020 2019 Sample Minimum (1.68, Greece) Sample Maximum (1,425.45, India) Natural Algorithm
Water and Sanitation
Index 0.125 GEOMEAN
Unsafe sanitation Environmental Performance Index 2020 2019 Sample Minimum Sample Maximum (815.66, India)
0.4 Natural Algorithm
(0.41, United Kingdom)
Environmental Performance 10% of country's exclusive economic zone (EEZ)
Marine protected areas 0.2 2020 designated as a marine protected area 0% None
Index 2020
Terrestrial protected areas Environmental Performance 17% protection for all
0.2 2020 0% None
(National biome weights) Index 2020 biomes within its borders
Quality of Life Terrestial protected areas
0.2
2020 17% global protection goal 0% None
Biodiversity Index 2020
Index and Habitat Index 0.125 GEOMEAN
(Global biome weights)
Species protection index 0.1 Environmental Performance 2019 100% 0% None

Index 2020
Protected areas Environmental Performance
0.1 2016 0.31 Sample Minimum (0.04, Singapore) None
Representativeness index Index 2020
Biodiversity habitat index 0.1 2015 1.0 0.0 None
Index 2020
Species habitat index 0.1 Environmental Performance 2014 100.0 Sample Minimum (96.4, Brazil) None
Index 2020
US Energy Information Administration (EIA), 1262 kg CO2 eq. (Estimated value associated
CO2 emissions per capita 0.33 2019 with 50% reduction in global GHG emissions by 19588.33059 Natural Logarithm
World Bank WDI 2022 2050, against 1990 levels)
US Energy Information Administration (EIA), 0.07642 kg CO2 eq. (Estimated value

CO2 emissions per GDP 0.33 2019 associated with 50% reduction in global GHG 1.532823116 Natural Logarithm
World Bank WDI 2022 emissions by 2050, against 1990 levels)
Environmental
0.125 GEOMEAN
Factors Index CO2 emissions per US Energy Information Administration (EIA),
0.165 2019 0 grams CO2 per KWh 8.453269722 Natural Logarithm
electricity generation World Bank WDI 2022
US Energy Information Administration (EIA),
Renewable electricity 0.165 2019 100% electricity from renewable sources 0% None
World Bank WDI 2022
Happiness Index 0.5 GEOMEAN Happiness (0-10) 1 World Happiness Report 2022 2021 Sample Maximum (7.82, Finland) Sample Minimum (3.78, India) Natural Logarithm

Appendix A
Methodology by which “each country’s performance on any given

indicator is measured based on its position within a range”
established by the lower performance benchmark and the
The Natixis CoreData Global Retirement Index is a composite target, on a scale from 0.01 (instead of 0 to facilitate further
welfare index which combines 18 target-oriented indicators, calculation) to 1, where 0.01 is equal or lower than the lower
grouped into four thematic sub-indices. performance benchmark and 1 equal or higher than the target.
The four sub-indices cover four relevant considerations for The general formula to normalize the indicators is then given by:
welfare in old age and are:
Health Index
Material Wellbeing Index Observed value - lower performance benchmark
Finances in Retirement Index Indicator =
Quality of Life Index Target - lower performance benchmark
Constructing the Indicators However, this formula is, in certain cases, adapted
to the characteristics of the data for each variable.
The first step in expanding the index is to construct the Again, following Emerson et al. (2012), most indicators are
18 indicators. These are constructed by selecting and transformed into logarithms² due to the high level of skewness
preparing the raw data obtained from reliable secondary of the data. This has the advantage of identifying not only
sources, and then transforming it into normalized indices. differences between the worst and the best performers,
but it more clearly differentiates between top performing
In order to create normalized indices, minima and countries, allowing to better distinguish variations among them.
maxima need to be established. As a target-oriented
performance index, the maxima are determined as ideal Moreover, using logarithms allows for better identification
outcomes. The selection of target varies from variable of differences across the whole scale, distinguishing
to variable, and will be explored in greater depth later on. between differences in performance which are equal
in the absolute but very different proportionally.
The minima are in fact the opposite, and are defined
as lower performance benchmarks, which mark the Also, logarithmic functions are a better representation of variables
worst possible scenario. In some cases, they will refer which have decreasing marginal welfare benefits, such as income.
to subsistence minimum levels and in others, simply as
the worst observed value in the sample for that variable. Once the indicators have been created, they are aggregated by
obtaining their geometric mean³ to obtain the thematic indices.
These indicators are created, following Emerson et al. The geometric mean offers a number of advantages over the
(2012)¹ and based on a “proximity-to-target” methodology arithmetic mean4 ; this will be discussed later in this chapter.5
¹ Emerson, J. W., Hsu, A., Levy, M. A., de Sherbinin, A., Mara, V., Esty, D. C., & Jaiteh, M. (2012), “2012 Environmental Performance Index and Pilot Trend Environmental
Performance Index.” New Haven, CT: Yale Center for Environmental Law & Policy.
² Logarithmic form: variables with skewed distributions are transformed into logarithmic form by taking natural logarithms of the values to make the distribution
less skewed. When calculating an indicator we transform into logarithmic form by doing the following:
Where:
t = target or sample maximum
m = lower performance benchmark or sample minimum
x = value of the variable
non-logarithmic indicator = (x-m) / (t-m) -> take logs -> indicator in logarithmic form = [ln(x)-ln(m)] / [ln(t)-ln(m)]
³ Geometric mean is an representation of the typical value or central tendency of a series of numbers calculated as the nth root of the product of n numbers.
Geometric mean = X1 X2 ... Xn
4 Arithmetic mean (or average) is a representation of the typical value or central tendency of a series of numbers calculated as the sum of all the values in the series
and divided by the number in the series. Arithmetic mean =
5 See Constructing the Global Retirement Index on page 74.

The four thematic sub-indices are constructed using the distributed income get a better score. This index is
indicators in the following way: constructed using the GINI index with data obtained
from Eurostat, the Organization for Economic Co-
operation and Development (OECD), the WB’s WDI 2021
1. The Health in Retirement Index: this sub-index is obtained and the CIA World Factbook. The target is set at 22.80,
by taking the geometric mean of the following indicators: which is the sample minimum. The low performance
benchmark is set at 53.90, which is the sample
a. Life expectancy Index: obtained using data from the maximum. The index is presented in a logarithmic form.
World Health Organization. The target for this indicator
is the sample maximum which is equal to 84.26 years, c. Unemployment Index: a measure of unemployment
and the low performance benchmark is equal to 70.79 is included in this index, despite the fact that its focus
years, a figure observed as the sample minimum. is on people who have already retired from the labor
market. This is because societies with high levels of
b. Health expenditure per capita Index: obtained using unemployment will see their social security systems
data on current health expenditure per capita, PPP under pressure, putting in danger the financing and
(current international $) from WB’s WDI 2021. The provision of services for the elderly. Moreover, retirees
target set for this indicator is the sample maximum, in countries with low unemployment levels will have
equal to $10,623.85 USD, and the low performance a better possibility of complementing their pension
benchmark is equal to the sample minimum of $275.13. incomes with employment income, which is becoming
The indicator is transformed into logarithms, as the increasingly necessary and common. High levels
marginal returns to extra expenditure are decreasing. of unemployment are also indicative of a country
undergoing economic problems and it is likely that this
c. Non-insured health expenditure Index: this will affect the living standards of those in retirement.
indicator is included to take into account the level The target for this index is 3% unemployment, at which
of expenditure in health that is not insured. The level structural and cyclical unemployment can be
smaller the proportion of expenditure in healthcare assumed to be 0 and only frictional unemployment
that is uninsured, the higher the probability of having persists, which indicates practical full employment.
access to healthcare. This indicator is calculated The low performance benchmark is set at 15.50%,
using data on out-of-pocket expenditure (percentage which is the sample maximum. The index undergoes
of current health expenditure), included in the WB’s a logarithmic transformation and the raw data used
WDI 2021. The target for this indicator is equal to the for this index was sourced from the WB’s WDI 2021.
sample minimum of 9.25% and the low performance
benchmark is equal to 100%, which means that none 3. Finances in Retirement Index: this sub-index captures
of the population is covered by health insurance. the soundness of a country’s financial system as well
as the level of returns to savings and investment and
2. The Material Wellbeing in Retirement Index: this sub-index the preservation of the purchasing power of savings. It
measures the ability of a country’s population to provide for is calculated as the arithmetic mean of the institutional
their material needs. The following indicators are aggregated strength index and the investment environment index,
by obtaining their geometric mean to obtain a single measure: which is in itself the geometric mean of six indicators of the
soundness of government finances and the strength of the
a. Income per capita Index: this indicator is calculated financial system. The rationale behind this construction is
using data for the gross national income per capita, that while a favorable investment environment is extremely
PPP (current International $) from the WB’s WDI 2021. important for the finances of retirees, this will only be long
The purchasing power parity (PPP) version is used as it lasting and stable in the presence of sound institutions,
provides a better approximation to the real purchasing low levels of corruption, strong property rights and a
power of incomes across countries. The target used strong regulatory framework. Hence, good governance
for this indicator is the sample maximum of $92,270 is a necessary condition for long-term financial strength
USD, and the low performance benchmark is equal and stability and as much receives an equal weight.
to the sample minimum of $6,920 USD. Logarithmic
transformation is applied to calculate the indicator. a. Institutional Strength Index: is calculated under
logarithms after obtaining the arithmetic mean
b. Income equality Index: this indicator is included as of the estimates of governance from six different
it has been generally accepted that average levels dimensions (Voice and Accountability, Political
of income in a society cannot on their own measure Stability and Absence of Violence/Terrorism,
material welfare, and including a measure of equality Government Effectiveness, Regulatory Quality, Rule of
ensures that countries with higher and more equally Law, and Control of Corruption) of the WB’s Worldwide

Governance Indicators (2020 Update). The target level the effect of inflation. The data for this indicator is
is set equal to the maximum on the scale used by the sourced from the WB’s WDI 2021 and is
indicators, which is +2.5, while the lower performance completed from the OECD.6,7 The value for each
benchmark is equal to the lowest value of the scale, -2.5. country is the five-year average from 2015 to
2019. The target is 20% and the low performance
b. Investment Environment Index: this is calculated benchmark is 0%. The data is multiplied by 100
as the geometric mean of the following indicators: before logarithmic transformation applied.
I. Old-age dependency Index: this indicator is IV. Tax pressure Index: the importance of this
included because a high dependency ratio poses indicator lies in the fact that higher levels of
a severe threat to the capacity of society to pay for taxation will decrease the level of disposable
the care of the elderly, as well as risks reducing the income of retirees and affect their financial
value of savings in the long run, through several situation. Data used is the tax burden from country
channels such as a fall in asset prices and a fall in statistical agencies, central banks, and ministries
output, among others. This index is transformed of finance, economy, and trade, which measures
into logarithms and is calculated using data on the total taxes collected as percentage of GDP.
old-age dependency ratio (percentage of working- The target is set at the sample minimum of 9.42%
age population) from the WB’s WDI 2021. The of GDP while the low performance benchmark
target value is equal to 10%, which reflects healthy is the sample maximum of 46.09% of GDP.
demographics, where for every old-age dependent This indicator is calculated in logarithmic form.
there are 10 people in the working force. The
low performance benchmark is equal to 50%, V. Bank non-performing loan Index: this indicator
as it is potentially unsustainable to have less captures the strength of the banking system by
than two workers for every old-age dependent. looking at the proportion of loans that are defaulted
on. This index is transformed into logarithms and
II. Inflation Index: this is important due to the fact is constructed using the data observed from the
that high inflation will reduce the purchasing power IMF Financial Soundness Indicators database.
of savings and pensions, which can affect retirees The target for this index is set equal to the sample
disproportionately. The data used is on annual minimum of 0.24% and the low performance
consumer price inflation and is sourced from the benchmark is the sample maximum of 29.80%.
WB’s WDI 2021. The value for each country is the
five-year average from 2015 to 2019. The target is VI. Government indebtedness Index: captures the
2%, which is a level of inflation pursued by major soundness and sustainability of government
central banks, and considered to be sufficiently finances and serves as a predictor of future levels
close to price stability and sufficiently far from of taxation. The data used for this index is sourced
deflation to provide some buffer from either. The from the CIA World Factbook and undergoes
low performance benchmark is set at the sample a logarithmic transformation to construct the
maximum 11.62%. This indicator undergoes a index. The target level is set equal to the sample
logarithmic transformation when calculated. minimum of 8.40% and the low performance
benchmark is the sample maximum of 237.40%.
III. Real interest rate Index: this is included as
higher interest rates will increase the returns to 4. Quality of Life Index: this sub-index captures the level of
investment and saving, and in turn increase the happiness and fulfillment in a society as well as the effect
level of wealth of retirees, who tend to benefit of natural environment factors on the Quality of Life of
more than other age groups. Real interest rate is individuals. It is constructed as the geometric mean of the
used instead of nominal interest rate to eliminate happiness index and the natural environment index.
6 Latest data on annual consumer price inflation and 10-year government bond yields are used to calculate the real interest rate (real interest rate = nominal interest
rate – inflation) for those countries missing data from the WDI.
7 Long-term interest rates are obtained from OECD for the following countries: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Latvia,
Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, and Sweden. Real interest rates are calculated by subtracting
inflation from the long-term interest rate.

a. Happiness Index: this data is taken from the World III. Biodiversity and habitat Index: provides an insight
Happiness Report, which calculates scores for into a country’s protection of its ecosystem. The
happiness based on responses by people asked to higher the score is, the more a country is capable
evaluate the quality of their current lives on a scale to ensure a wide range of “ecosystem service” like
of 0 to 10, averaged over the years 2018–2020. The flood control and soil renewal, the production of
indicator is presented in the logarithmic form. The commodities, and spiritual and aesthetic
target is set at the sample maximum, which is an fulfillment will remain available for current and
average score of 7.84, and the low performance future generations. This index is calculated as the
benchmark is set at the sample minimum of 3.82. weighted average of marine protected areas (20%
weight), national terrestrial protected areas (20%
b. Natural Environment Index: this is calculated as weight), global terrestrial protected areas (20%
the geometric mean of the following indicators, weight), the species protection index (10%
which measure the natural environment quality of weight), the protected areas representativeness
a country and the effects of pollution on humans. index (10%weight), the biodiversity habitat index
(10%weight) and the species habitat index (10%
I. Air quality Index: this index is calculated as weight). The data is obtained from EPI 2020.
the weighted average of PM2.5 exposure
(55% weight), household solid fuels (40% IV. Environmental Factors Index: this index is included
weight), and ozone exposure (5% weight). due to the fact that the impacts of environmental
The data is obtained from EPI 2020. factors will dramatically affect human health,
water resources, agriculture, and ecosystems.
II. Water and sanitation Index: captures the level of The index is calculated as the weighted average
infrastructure providing people with safe drinking of CO2 emissions per capita (1/3 weight), CO2
water and safe sanitation. This index is calculated emissions per GDP (1/3 weight), CO2 emissions
as the weighted average of the two indicators per electricity generation (1/6 weight) and
with water weighing 60% and sanitation weighting renewable electricity (1/6 weight). Logarithmic
40% (after logarithms transformation). Targets transformation is applied for all indicators except
are the sample minimums of 1.68 for unsafe for renewable energy. The data is sourced from
drinking water and 0.41 for unsafe sanitation, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)
and the low performance benchmarks are the and the WB’s WDI 2022.
sample maximums of 1,425.45 for unsafe
drinking water and 815.66 for unsafe sanitation.
The data used is obtained from EPI 2020.

Constructing the Global
Retirement Index
The four sub-indices are then aggregated into the Global 1% decrease in the Material Wellbeing Index. This assumes
Retirement Index by obtaining their geometric mean. The that welfare remains unchanged if a decrease in the health
geometric mean was chosen over the arithmetic mean as the of the population is matched by a proportional increase in
functional form of the index in order to address the issues of their Material Wellbeing, which is problematic (e.g. If taken
perfect substitutability between the different indices when to the extreme it means that the welfare of a society with
using the arithmetic mean. middle levels of income and good health could be equal to
that of a very rich society affected by a deadly epidemic.)
In this sense, Klugman, Rodriguez and Choi (2011) argue
that the use of an arithmetic mean is problematic because it 2. Perfect complementarity (If): where the effect on the GRI
implies that a decrease in the level of one of the sub-indices score of a unit increase in one of the sub-indices is zero if
can be offset by an equal increase in the level of another sub- not accompanied by an equal increase in all the other
index without taking into account the level of each variable. sub-indices. This means that a 1% increase in the Health
This poses problems from a welfare point of view. For example, Index would not increase the overall GRI score unless
a fall in the level of health cannot be assumed to be offset by accompanied by a 1% increase in the other three sub-
an increase in the level of income on a one-by-one basis and indices. (I.e. assumes that an increase in Health is not
at a constant rate. Thus, perfect substitutability does not apply an increase in overall welfare unless Material Wellbeing,
when analyzing the effects of different factors on welfare. Finances and Quality of Life all increase concurrently.)
The opposite alternative, full complementarity, would also 3. Unit-elastic substitution (ln): this is the assumption made
be problematic, as it would assume that the only way in the construction of the GRI by using the geometric
of increasing wellbeing is by providing two components means. It means that the sub-indices become perfect
at the same time (Klugman, Rodriguez and Choi, 2011), substitutes as their levels approach the high end of the
and so for example, an increase in the level of health
scale (100%) and perfect complements as their levels
would have no effect on welfare if it is not accompanied
approach the low end of the scale (0%). As a result, when
by an improvement in the other three sub-indices.
a country scores very low on one or more sub-indices, an
In this light, it makes sense to assume that there is some level of increase to a high score on another sub-index will result in a
complementarity and some level of substitutability between the less than proportional increase in the overall GRI score. This
different parameters in the index. On one hand, a worsening of is consistent with the assumption that at least a basic level
one of the indicators can be partially offset by an improvement of health, financial services, material provision and quality
of another one, but we can also assume that at least a basic of life is necessary in order to enjoy a good retirement.
level of health, financial services, material provision and The geometric mean also offers an advantage over the
quality of life is necessary in order to enjoy a good retirement. arithmetic mean and other aggregation methods in that the
results do not vary due to differences in the scales in which
In the end, each of the 44 countries is awarded a score between the variables are measured.
0% and 100% for their suitability and convenience for retirees. A
score of 100% would present the ideal country to retire to, with
a great healthcare system and an outstanding health record, a
very high quality of life and a well-preserved environment with
low levels of pollution, a sound financial system offering high In
rates of true return and a very high level of material wealth.
The chart graphically shows the three cases: Io

If
1. Perfect substitutability (Io): where the effect on the GRI
score of a unit decrease in one of the sub-indices can be
perfectly offset by a unit increase in another sub-index.
For example, the GRI score will not change after a 1%
decrease in the Health Index score if accompanied by a Health Index Source: Klugman Rodriguez and Choi (2011)
8 Klugman, Rodriguez and Choi (2011), “The HDI 2010: New Controversies, Old Critiques”, Human Development Research Paper 2011/1, UNDP, New York.

Appendix B: Full Rankings
Rank Country Health Finances in Quality of Material Global

Index Retirement Index Life Index Wellbeing Index Retirement Index
1 Norway 91% 69% 87% 79% 81% Color Scale
2 Switzerland 90% 74% 86% 69% 80%

81% and
3 Iceland 88% 68% 86% 77% 79% above
4 Ireland 89% 70% 80% 67% 76% 71%–80%
5 Australia 88% 72% 77% 66% 75%

61%–70%
6 New Zealand 85% 71% 81% 64% 75%
7 Luxembourg 91% 59% 81% 72% 75% 51%–60%
8 Netherlands 89% 56% 80% 78% 75% 41%–50%

9 Denmark 86% 54% 88% 76% 74%
40% and
10 Czech Republic 76% 64% 68% 84% 73% below
11 Germany 87% 55% 80% 71% 72%

12 Finland 84% 55% 89% 63% 71%
13 Sweden 90% 56% 87% 59% 71%
14 Austria 86% 54% 82% 69% 71%
15 Canada 87% 67% 74% 58% 71%
16 Israel 82% 66% 74% 60% 70%
17 Korea, Rep. 80% 73% 59% 68% 70%
18 United States 85% 67% 72% 56% 69%
19 United Kingdom 83% 55% 82% 61% 69%
20 Belgium 85% 51% 74% 70% 69%
21 Slovenia 82% 51% 69% 77% 69%
22 Japan 91% 51% 67% 72% 69%
23 Malta 78% 63% 61% 72% 68%
24 France 90% 48% 78% 57% 66%
25 Estonia 68% 68% 68% 60% 66%
26 Poland 66% 61% 57% 75% 64%
27 Singapore 82% 76% 51% 52% 64%
28 Portugal 74% 59% 67% 57% 64%
29 Cyprus 74% 51% 64% 62% 62%
30 Slovak Republic 66% 51% 64% 67% 62%
31 Italy 83% 52% 72% 46% 62%
32 Hungary 59% 48% 57% 70% 58%
33 Lithuania 60% 54% 64% 49% 57%
34 Chile 69% 72% 61% 31% 55%
35 Latvia 54% 52% 61% 49% 54%
36 Mexico 46% 62% 54% 37% 49%
37 Russian Federation 44% 56% 44% 53% 49%
38 Spain 85% 59% 74% 15% 49%
39 China 50% 65% 37% 45% 48%
40 Greece 72% 46% 63% 15% 42%
41 Turkey 60% 43% 32% 20% 36%
42 Colombia 60% 62% 56% 6% 34%
43 Brazil 56% 57% 59% 4% 29%
44 India 4% 62% 3% 13% 9%

The views and opinions expressed may change based on market and other conditions. exclusively outside of Mexico. Natixis Investment Managers is an entity organized
This material is provided for informational purposes only and should not be construed under the laws of France and is not authorized by or registered with the CNBV or
as investment advice. There can be no assurance that developments will transpire as any other Mexican authority to operate within Mexico as an investment manager in
forecasted. Actual results may vary. terms of the Mexican Securities Market Law (Ley del Mercado de Valores). Any use
of the expression or reference contained herein to “Investment Managers” is made to
All investing involves risk, including the risk of loss. No investment strategy or
Natixis Investment Managers and/or any of the investment management subsidiaries
risk management technique can guarantee return or eliminate risk in all market
of Natixis Investment Managers, which are also not authorized by or registered with
environments.
the CNBV or any other Mexican authority to operate within Mexico as investment
Outside the United States, this communication is for information only and is intended managers. In Uruguay: Provided by Natixis Investment Managers Uruguay S.A., a
for investment service providers or other Professional Clients. This material must duly registered investment advisor, authorized and supervised by the Central Bank of
not be used with Retail Investors. This material may not be redistributed, published, Uruguay. Office: San Lucar 1491, oficina 102B, Montevideo, Uruguay, CP 11500.
or reproduced, in whole or in part. Although Natixis Investment Managers believes
The above referenced entities are business development units of Natixis Investment
the information provided in this material to be reliable, including that from third party
Managers, the holding company of a diverse lineup of specialized investment
sources, it does not guarantee the accuracy, adequacy or completeness of such
management and distribution entities worldwide. The investment management
information. In the EU (ex UK): Provided by Natixis Investment Managers S.A. or one
subsidiaries of Natixis Investment Managers conduct any regulated activities only in
of its branch offices listed below. Natixis Investment Managers S.A. is a Luxembourg
and from the jurisdictions in which they are licensed or authorized. Their services and
management company that is authorized by the Commission de Surveillance du
the products they manage are not available to all investors in all jurisdictions.
Secteur Financier and is incorporated under Luxembourg laws and registered under
n. B 115843. Registered office of Natixis Investment Managers S.A.: 2, rue Jean In the United States: Provided by Natixis Distribution, LLC, 888 Boylston St., Boston,
Monnet, L-2180 Luxembourg, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg. France: Natixis Investment MA 02199. Natixis Investment Managers includes all of the investment management
Managers Distribution (n.509 471 173 RCS Paris). Registered office: 43 avenue Pierre and distribution entities affiliated with Natixis Distribution, LLC and Natixis Investment
Mendès France, 75013 Paris. Italy: Natixis Investment Managers S.A., Succursale Managers S.A.
Italiana (Bank of Italy Register of Italian Asset Management Companies no 23458.3).
This material should not be considered a solicitation to buy or an offer to sell any
Registered office: Via Larga, 2 - 20122, Milan, Italy. Germany: Natixis Investment
product or service to any person in any jurisdiction where such activity would be
Managers S.A., Zweigniederlassung Deutschland (Registration number: HRB 88541).
unlawful.
Registered office: Im Trutz Frankfurt 55, Westend Carrée, 7. Floor, Frankfurt am
Main 60322, Germany. Netherlands: Natixis Investment Managers, Nederlands 4894131.1.1
(Registration number 50774670). Registered office: Stadsplateau 7, 3521AZ Utrecht,
the Netherlands. Sweden: Natixis Investment Managers, Nordics Filial (Registration
number 516405-9601 - Swedish Companies Registration Office). Registered office:
Kungsgatan 48 5tr, Stockholm 111 35, Sweden. Spain: Natixis Investment Managers,
Sucursal en España. Serrano n°90, 6th Floor, 28006 Madrid, Spain. In Switzerland:
Provided by Natixis Investment Managers, Switzerland Sàrl, Rue du Vieux Collège 10,
1204 Geneva, Switzerland or its representative office in Zurich, Schweizergasse 6, 8001
Zürich. In the UK: Provided by Natixis Investment Managers UK Limited, authorized
and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (register no. 190258). Registered
Office: Natixis Investment Managers UK Limited, One Carter Lane, London, EC4V 5ER.
In the DIFC: Distributed in and from the DIFC financial district to Professional Clients
only by Natixis Investment Managers Middle East (DIFC Branch) which is regulated
by the DFSA. Related financial products or services are only available to persons
who have sufficient financial experience and understanding to participate in financial
markets within the DIFC, and qualify as Professional Clients as defined by the DFSA.
Registered office: Office 603 - Level 6, Currency House Tower 2, PO Box 118257, DIFC,
Dubai, United Arab Emirates. In Singapore: Provided by Natixis Investment Managers
Singapore (name registration no. 53102724D), a division of Ostrum Asset Management
Asia Limited (company registration no. 199801044D). Registered address of Natixis
Investment Managers Singapore: 5 Shenton Way, #22-05 UIC Building, Singapore
068808. In Taiwan: Provided by Natixis Investment Managers Securities Investment
Consulting (Taipei) Co., Ltd., a Securities Investment Consulting Enterprise regulated
by the Financial Supervisory Commission of the R.O.C. Registered address: 16F-1,
No. 76, Section 2, Tun Hwa South Road, Taipei, Taiwan, Da-An District, 106 (Ruentex
Financial Building I), R.O.C., license number 2017 FSC SICE No. 018, Tel. +886 2 2784
5777. In Japan: Provided by Natixis Investment Managers Japan Co., Ltd., Registration
No.: Director-General of the Kanto Local Financial Bureau (kinsho) No. 425. Content
of Business: The Company conducts discretionary asset management business
and investment advisory and agency business as a Financial Instruments Business
Operator. Registered address: 1-4-5, Roppongi, Minato-ku, Tokyo. In Hong Kong:
Provided by Natixis Investment Managers Hong Kong Limited to institutional/corporate
professional investors only. Please note that the content of the above website has not
been reviewed or approved by the HK SFC. It may contain information about funds that
are not authorized by the SFC. In Australia: Provided by Natixis Investment Managers
Australia Pty Limited (ABN 60 088 786 289) (AFSL No. 246830) and is intended for the
general information of financial advisers and wholesale clients only. In New Zealand:
This document is intended for the general information of New Zealand wholesale
investors only and does not constitute financial advice. This is not a regulated offer for
the purposes of the Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013 (FMCA) and is only available
to New Zealand investors who have certified that they meet the requirements in the
FMCA for wholesale investors. Natixis Investment Managers Australia Pty Limited is
not a registered financial service provider in New Zealand. In Latin America: Provided
by Natixis Investment Managers S.A. In Colombia: Provided by Natixis Investment
Managers S.A. Oficina de Representación (Colombia) to professional clients for
informational purposes only as permitted under Decree 2555 of 2010. Any products,
services or investments referred to herein are rendered exclusively outside of Colombia.
In Mexico: Provided by Natixis IM Mexico, S. de R.L. de C.V., which is not a regulated
financial entity or an investment manager in terms of the Mexican Securities Market
Law (Ley del Mercado de Valores) and is not registered with the Comisión Nacional
Bancaria y de Valores (CNBV) or any other Mexican authority. Any products, services
or investments referred to herein that require authorization or license are rendered
Global Retirement Index 2022

2022 Natixis GRI Full Report F

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2022 Natixis GRI Full Report F

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2022 Natixis GRI Full Report F

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2022 NATIXIS GLOBAL RETIREMENT INDEX

2 Ten years of the Global Retirement Index

3 Global retirement security challenges come home to roost in 2022

15 Global Retirement Index 2022

17 The Best Performers

19 Spotlight: GRI’s biggest movers: a ten-year retrospective

26 Spotlight: Ukrainian refugees could improve Polish demographic issues

29 Material Wellbeing Index

31 Spotlight: Inflation improving debt-to-GDP ratios? First impressions could be misleading

34 Finances in Retirement Index

36 Spotlight: The pandemic’s lasting impact on the US labor market

38 Quality of Life Index

40 The Top 25: Year-on-Year Trends

70 Constructing the Indicators

74 Constructing the Global Retirement Index

75 Appendix B: Full Rankings

The time was right to examine retirement security from a global

As an investment management company, we knew finances would

Global Retirement Index 2022 2

Top 10 retirement planning mistakes

Source: Natixis Investment Managers, Global Survey of Financial Professionals

Global Retirement Index 2022 3

Inflation has increased dramatically from 2012 to 2022

Global Retirement Index 2022 4

2017 $141 $7,353 Annually

$168 $8,712 Annually

Global Retirement Index 2022 5

Global Retirement Index 2022 6

8/11/2022 6/30/2022 12/31/2021 12/31/2020

-0.50% -0.50% -0.50%

Global Retirement Index 2022 7

Risks at every turn for retirees

Bonds also experiencing turbulence

They weren’t sure.

MANY INVESTORS DON’T UNDERSTAND HOW RISING RATES AFFECT BONDS

Source: Natixis Investment Managers, Global Survey of Individual Investors

Global Retirement Index 2022 8

For example, pension managers might have breathed a sigh of relief

Global Retirement Index 2022 9

THE PERCENTAGE OF THE POPULATION OVER 65 IS GROWING

Global Retirement Index 2022 10

OLD-AGE DEPENDENCY IS HIGH – AND WILL SKYROCKET BY 2050

Australia 27.7 41.6

Canada 29.8 44.9

Chile 19.7 44.6

China 18.5 47.5

France 37.3 54.5

Germany 36.5 58.1

Italy 39.5 74.4

Japan 52.0 80.7

Mexico 13.2 28.9

Spain 32.8 78.4

Source: OECD US 28.4 40.4

Global Retirement Index 2022 11

PERCENTAGE OF THE POPULATION OVER 65 THAT IS STILL WORKING

Global Retirement Index 2022 12

Global Retirement Index 2022 13

OVERALL GRI SCORE

Global Retirement Index 2022 15

Quality of Life Material Wellbeing