RI-N Global Report 2026

Building a World Where Righteousness Drives Success.

Executive Summary
Introduction
Methodology
Global Rankings — Top 20
Complete Rankings — All 135 Countries
Regional Analysis
Key Insights
Limitations
Conclusion
Download Dataset

1. Executive Summary

The Righteous Index for Nation (RI-N) 2026 is the inaugural global assessment of national righteousness across 135 countries. RI-N measures how nations align with the principles of integrity, justice, and lawful motivation across six dimensions: Rule of Law, Anti-Corruption, Human Rights, Freedom, Public Safety, and National Responsibility.

Key Findings from the Inaugural National Righteousness Index

The Righteous Index for Nation (RI‑N) 2026 covers 135 countries across all world regions. The global average RI‑N score is 53.2 (on a 0–100 scale), placing the typical country in the “Developing” category. Scores range from a high of 85.0 (Denmark) to a low of 17.9 (Haiti), with a standard deviation of 15.8, indicating substantial variation in national righteousness performance worldwide.

Global Statistics at a Glance

Metric	Value
Countries covered	135
Global average	53.2
Standard deviation	15.8
Highest score	85.0 (Denmark)
Lowest score	17.9 (Haiti)
Median score	51.3 (India)
Above‑average countries	62
Below‑average countries	73

Rating Distribution

Rating	Score Range	Countries	Percentage
Exemplary	86 – 100	0	0.0%
Proficient	71 – 85	20	14.8%
Developing	51 – 70	30	22.2%
Emerging	0 – 50	85	63.0%

More than six in ten countries (63%) fall into the “Emerging” category, highlighting the scale of the challenge facing global governance, rule of law, and institutional integrity.

Score Distribution

Score Range	Countries	Percentage
80 – 100	6	4.4%
70 – 79	14	10.4%
60 – 69	12	8.9%
50 – 59	17	12.6%
40 – 49	38	28.1%
30 – 39	28	20.7%
20 – 29	13	9.6%
0 – 19	7	5.2%

The largest concentration of countries (28.1%) falls in the 40‑49 range, near the global average. Only 6 countries (4.4%) score 80 or above, while 7 countries (5.2%) score below 20.

Key Takeaways

High performance is concentrated: The top 20 countries (14.8%) are all rated “Proficient” or higher, and they are overwhelmingly located in Europe, Oceania, and North America.
A long tail of low scores: More than half of all countries scored below 50, reflecting systemic weaknesses in Rule of Law, Anti‑Corruption, and National Responsibility.
Regional gaps are wide: The gap between the highest‑scoring region (Nordic, 82.1) and the lowest (Sub‑Saharan Africa, 42.7) is nearly 40 points, illustrating the uneven state of national righteousness worldwide.

2. Introduction

The Righteous Index for Nation (RI-N) is a composite index designed to measure how nations align with the principles of righteousness — defined as the alignment of values, actions, and lawful motivation. RI-N moves beyond traditional economic metrics such as GDP to evaluate how responsibly nations govern, treat their citizens, and contribute to global well-being.

RI-N draws on data from six internationally recognized sources:

World Justice Project (Rule of Law)
Transparency International (Anti-Corruption)
V-Dem Institute (Human Rights)
Cato Institute (Freedom)
Numbeo (Public Safety)
World Intellectual Foundation (National Responsibility)

3. Methodology

3.1 Dimensions and Weights

RI-N evaluates nations across six dimensions, each weighted according to its relative importance to national righteousness:

Dimension	Weight	Data Source	Year
Rule of Law	21%	WJP Rule of Law Index	2025
Anti-Corruption	21%	TI CPI	2025
Human Rights	20%	V-Dem Index	2025
Freedom	15%	Cato Human Freedom	2023
Public Safety	14%	Numbeo Safety Index	2025
National Responsibility	9%	WIF RNI	2026

Note:The dimension weights were established through a multi-stage expert consensus process. Initial weights were assigned based on the “foundation-first” principle, then averaged across four independent expert sources (Righteous Advisory, ChatGPT, Gemini, and Copilot). The final weights were reviewed and approved by the Righteous Advisory founding team to
ensure alignment with the RSS framework.

3.2 Calculation Formula

RI-N Score = (Rule of Law × 0.21) + (Anti-Corruption × 0.21) + (Human Rights × 0.20) + (Freedom × 0.15) + (Public Safety × 0.14) + (National Responsibility × 0.09)

3.3 Rating Scale

Score Range	Rating
86 – 100	Exemplary
71 – 85	Proficient
51 – 70	Developing
0 – 50	Emerging

4. Global Rankings — Top 20

Rank	Country	RI-N Score	Rating
1	Denmark	85.0	Proficient
2	Switzerland	84.3	Proficient
3	Norway	81.9	Proficient
4	Finland	81.3	Proficient
5	Netherlands	79.8	Proficient
6	Sweden	79.5	Proficient
7	New Zealand	78.5	Proficient
8	Germany	78.2	Proficient
9	Austria	77.8	Proficient
10	United Kingdom	77.5	Proficient
11	Estonia	77.3	Proficient
12	Canada	77.0	Proficient
13	Belgium	76.8	Proficient
14	Ireland	76.5	Proficient
15	Singapore	76.2	Proficient
16	Czech Republic	76.1	Proficient
17	United States	73.8	Proficient
18	Taiwan	73.8	Proficient
19	Slovenia	73.5	Proficient
20	Japan	72.9	Proficient

5. Complete Rankings — All 135 Countries

Rank	Country	RI‑N Score	Rating
1	Denmark	85.0	Proficient
2	Switzerland	84.3	Proficient
3	Norway	81.9	Proficient
4	Finland	81.3	Proficient
5	Netherlands	79.8	Proficient
6	Sweden	79.5	Proficient
7	New Zealand	78.5	Proficient
8	Germany	78.2	Proficient
9	Austria	77.8	Proficient
10	United Kingdom	77.5	Proficient
11	Estonia	77.3	Proficient
12	Canada	77.0	Proficient
13	Belgium	76.8	Proficient
14	Ireland	76.5	Proficient
15	Singapore	76.2	Proficient
16	Czech Republic	76.1	Proficient
17	United States	73.8	Proficient
18	Taiwan	73.8	Proficient
19	Slovenia	73.5	Proficient
20	Japan	72.9	Proficient
21	France	72.5	Proficient
22	Cyprus	72.0	Proficient
23	Hong Kong	71.8	Proficient
24	Portugal	71.4	Proficient
25	Spain	71.1	Proficient
26	South Korea	70.1	Developing
27	Latvia	70.0	Developing
28	Israel	68.9	Developing
29	Costa Rica	68.4	Developing
30	Uruguay	67.8	Developing
31	Chile	67.6	Developing
32	Poland	67.5	Developing
33	Lithuania	67.3	Developing
34	Greece	66.2	Developing
35	Hungary	64.2	Developing
36	Romania	64.1	Developing
37	Slovakia	63.9	Developing
38	Bulgaria	63.4	Developing
39	Croatia	63.2	Developing
40	Georgia	62.9	Developing
41	United Arab Emirates	62.6	Developing
42	Bahamas	61.8	Developing
43	Montenegro	60.1	Developing
44	Barbados	59.5	Developing
45	Panama	59.1	Developing
46	Botswana	56.8	Developing
47	Malaysia	56.3	Developing
48	Gambia	56.3	Developing
49	Ghana	56.1	Developing
50	Belize	55.8	Developing
51	Armenia	55.2	Developing
52	Mauritius	52.5	Developing
53	South Africa	52.0	Developing
54	Albania	52.0	Developing
55	India	51.3	Developing
56	Moldova	50.9	Developing
57	Trinidad and Tobago	49.4	Emerging
58	Brazil	49.3	Emerging
59	Lebanon	48.5	Emerging
60	Jordan	48.5	Emerging
61	Bahrain	48.2	Emerging
62	Jamaica	48.2	Emerging
63	Namibia	48.2	Emerging
64	Peru	48.0	Emerging
65	Turkey	47.9	Emerging
66	Kazakhstan	47.9	Emerging
67	Argentina	47.8	Emerging
68	Mongolia	47.8	Emerging
69	Benin	47.7	Emerging
70	Burkina Faso	47.5	Emerging
71	Zambia	47.4	Emerging
72	Tanzania	47.0	Emerging
73	Liberia	46.8	Emerging
74	Sri Lanka	46.7	Emerging
75	Côte d’Ivoire	46.7	Emerging
76	North Macedonia	46.5	Emerging
77	Kuwait	46.1	Emerging
78	Malawi	46.1	Emerging
79	Ukraine	46.1	Emerging
80	Sierra Leone	45.9	Emerging
81	Togo	45.8	Emerging
82	Nepal	45.8	Emerging
83	Bolivia	45.2	Emerging
84	China	45.2	Emerging
85	Indonesia	44.8	Emerging
86	Qatar	44.5	Emerging
87	Madagascar	44.3	Emerging
88	Ecuador	44.1	Emerging
89	Bosnia and Herzegovina	44.1	Emerging
90	Senegal	44.0	Emerging
91	Mali	44.0	Emerging
92	Azerbaijan	44.0	Emerging
93	Oman	43.4	Emerging
94	Tunisia	43.4	Emerging
95	Serbia	43.3	Emerging
96	Colombia	43.0	Emerging
97	Morocco	42.8	Emerging
98	Vietnam	42.7	Emerging
99	Laos	42.5	Emerging
100	Guinea	42.2	Emerging
101	Mozambique	42.2	Emerging
102	Uganda	42.2	Emerging
103	Cameroon	42.2	Emerging
104	Ethiopia	42.0	Emerging
105	Congo	41.3	Emerging
106	Mauritania	41.7	Emerging
107	Algeria	41.0	Emerging
108	Egypt	41.0	Emerging
109	Russia	40.2	Emerging
110	Congo DRC	40.1	Emerging
111	Belarus	39.8	Emerging
112	Rwanda	39.6	Emerging
113	Paraguay	39.4	Emerging
114	Zimbabwe	39.3	Emerging
115	Iran	38.5	Emerging
116	Pakistan	38.4	Emerging
117	Thailand	37.8	Emerging
118	Bangladesh	37.6	Emerging
119	Philippines	37.4	Emerging
120	Libya	37.3	Emerging
121	Saudi Arabia	37.1	Emerging
122	Nigeria	35.4	Emerging
123	Cambodia	35.2	Emerging
124	Myanmar	29.5	Emerging
125	Nicaragua	28.9	Emerging
126	Afghanistan	25.3	Emerging
127	Somalia	24.8	Emerging
128	Syria	23.4	Emerging
129	Yemen	22.1	Emerging
130	South Sudan	21.8	Emerging
131	Central African Republic	21.2	Emerging
132	Sudan	20.5	Emerging
133	North Korea	19.8	Emerging
134	Venezuela	18.6	Emerging
135	Haiti	17.9	Emerging

6. Regional Analysis

Region	Average Score	Countries	Top Performer
Nordic	82.1	4	Denmark (85.0)
Western Europe	77.8	18	Switzerland (84.3)
Oceania	78.5	3	New Zealand (78.5)
North America	75.4	3	Canada (77.0)
East Asia	72.9	4	Japan (72.9)
Latin America	54.2	12	Chile (67.6)
South Asia	46.9	7	India (51.3)
Sub‑Saharan Africa	42.7	30	South Africa (52.0)
Middle East & North Africa	44.1	14	UAE (62.6)

Nordic countries lead all regions with an average of 82.1, significantly above the global mean. Sub‑Saharan Africa (42.7) and MENA (44.1) trail the global average by roughly 10 points, underscoring the governance and institutional challenges in those regions.

7. Key Insights

7.1 Nordic Countries Lead

Denmark ranks #1 globally with a score of 85.0, followed by Switzerland (84.3) and Norway (81.9). The Nordic countries consistently demonstrate excellence across all six dimensions, particularly in Rule of Law, Anti-Corruption, and Human Rights.

7.2 Singapore: Asia’s Leader

Singapore ranks 15th globally with a score of 76.2. Its Anti-Corruption score (84.0) is among the highest in the world, while its Public Safety (77.7) and Rule of Law (78.0) are also notably strong.

7.3 Taiwan and Hong Kong

Taiwan ranks 18th globally with a score of 73.8 (Proficient), while Hong Kong ranks 23th with 71.8 (Proficient). Both achieve high scores in Human Rights and Freedom, but lower scores in Rule of Law and National Responsibility relative to their other dimensions.

7.4 Major Economies Comparison

Country	Rank	RI-N Score
Germany	8	78.2
United Kingdom	10	77.5
Canada	12	77.0
United States	17	73.8
Japan	20	72.9
France	21	72.5
South Korea	26	70.1
India	55	51.3
China	84	45.2
Russia	109	40.2

7.5 Bottom Performers

Rank	Country	RI-N Score
135	Haiti	17.9
134	Venezuela	18.6
133	North Korea	19.8
132	Sudan	20.5
131	Central African Republic	21.2
130	South Sudan	21.8
129	Yemen	22.1
128	Syria	23.4
127	Somalia	24.8
126	Afghanistan	25.3

8. Limitations

Limitation	Explanation
Year Inconsistency	Freedom dimension (2023) is older than other dimensions (2025)
Data Availability	Some countries lack complete National Responsibility data
Estimations	Some countries (e.g., Taiwan, Hong Kong) used regional averages for National Responsibility
Perception Data	Public Safety is based on Numbeo perception data, not official crime statistics

9. Conclusion

The RI-N 2026 Global Report provides the first comprehensive assessment of national righteousness across 135 countries. The findings reveal that:

Nordic countries lead in righteousness, demonstrating excellence across all six dimensions
Rule of Law and Anti-Corruption are the most important predictors of national righteousness
National Responsibility remains a significant gap for many countries, highlighting the need for greater global engagement
Economic wealth alone does not guarantee righteousness — several developing countries outperform wealthier nations in specific dimensions

10. Download Dataset

The complete RI-N dataset is available for download:

CSV Format: RI-N_Dataset_2026_Final.csv

Download links are available on the RI-N webpage.

11. About WiseRighteous Network

WiseRighteous Network is a global initiative dedicated to advancing righteousness in governance, business, and society. Through frameworks like RSS, RMF, RI, and RGS, WiseRighteous provides the tools and insights to build a world where righteousness drives success.

References

Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. A. (2012). Why nations fail: The origins of power, prosperity, and poverty. Crown Business.

Cato Institute. (2023). Human freedom index 2023. Cato Institute. https://www.cato.org/human-freedom-index

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.

Fukuyama, F. (2011). The origins of political order: From prehuman times to the French Revolution. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

North, D. C., Wallis, J. J., & Weingast, B. R. (2009). Violence and social orders: A conceptual framework for interpreting recorded human history. Cambridge University Press.

Numbeo. (2025). Crime index by country 2025. Numbeo. https://www.numbeo.com/crime/

OECD. (2008). Handbook on constructing composite indicators: Methodology and user guide. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264043466-en

Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. Oxford University Press.

Transparency International. (2025). Corruption perceptions index 2025. Transparency International. https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi

United Nations Development Programme. (2024). Human development report 2023–24: Breaking the gridlock: Reimagining cooperation in a polarized world. UNDP.

V-Dem Institute. (2025). Human rights index 2025. V-Dem Institute. https://www.v-dem.net/

World Intellectual Foundation. (2026). Responsible nations index 2026: Abridged global report. WIF Delhi. https://wifdelhi.org/

World Justice Project. (2025). Rule of law index 2025. World Justice Project. https://worldjusticeproject.org/rule-of-law-index

This report is intended for informational purposes only. All data is drawn from publicly available sources and is provided without warranty of accuracy. Please refer to original sources for verification.

Building a World Where Righteousness Drives Success.