The Economist, that esteemed publication which is attached to a research and consulting business called the “Economist Intelligence Unit,” annually lists in order the best and worst cities of size in which to live.  The results are somewhat predictable — nice places do well, Africa and the mid-East not so much.

What is particularly interesting in this year’s list of the top ten most livable cities:  eight are English-speaking, and four are in Australia and three in Canada (the last in New Zealand).  Why is that?  Is it bias in selection, or bias in setting criteria?  Or, are English-speaking cities simply better (so long as they are not in the United States)?

Here are the ranking categories: stability (crime, terror, military conflict, civil unrest), health-care, culture and environment (from humidity to censorship to museums), education (some emphasis on private education availability), and infrastructure (housing, energy,water, roads, phone et al).

These seem to be criteria slightly weighted in favor of a certain life-style that is, shall we say, upscale.  Not all the factors, but those folks without enough to eat, or even in the lower reaches of the middle class, likely aren’t too concerned about private schools and museums, and would gladly incur humidity in exchange for a better diet.  The skewing of the ratings may reflect the business bias of the Economist’s consulting practice:  they want to sell their information to executives of companies that might want to locate a business, or sell goods or service, in a particular place.

Of more general interest (all these top-ten lists are gimmicky to some degree, whether they are of best cities or best movies or best sushi bars):

Falling index: over the past six months and the past five years, over-all liveability (as they measure it at least) has declined.  We have more overt wars and international tension and continued impact of the recession; not surprising.

Population density: if you are a mid-sized city in a wealthier economy, the lower your population density within the city the more liveable that city is rated.  Low density means more recreation without more crime or over-taxing of infrastructure.  Sounds like a bias to me: start with a rich country, spread out the city through perhaps big housing lots or urban planning, and voila: a nice place to live.  And, the better cities won’t get your head blown off; murder rates are really low. 

Notable exclusions: In any event, the following cities did not make the top ten: New York, London, Paris and Tokyo.  Or Boston.  All the places I would like to live….

Final tip: stay out of Damascus, Syria.  But then again, we did not need the Economist to slip us THAT inside piece of information.