This is the sort of pseudo-statistic that makes me cringe. The headline-grabbing item is the standing of specific countries in the rankings, with virtually no information being given in the stories about what the rankings are supposed to mean or how they were determined. As best I can tell from the news coverage, the rankings are mostly about stability, with the economy being one element alongside “politics,” “society,” “military-security” and “external threats.” How these items are evaluated isn’t clear. Regardless of the missing details, once the focus on stability is recognized, the rankings become much easier to understand. I don’t see any shame in admitting that tiny semi-autonomous territories in the heart of Europe are more “stable” than the US. By the same standard, I expect that rural counties in Nebraska are more stable than New York City. That’s not a commentary on intrinsic goodness or even relative desirability.