Botswana’s Happiness Score Hits New Low

Botswana has slipped into the world’s bottom five on the World Happiness Report — ranking 143rd out of 147 (down from 142nd last year) — now clustered with Zimbabwe, Malawi and Sierra Leone, while Afghanistan ranks last. It landed this month with little fanfare, but the latest World Happiness Report carries an uncomfortable message: Botswana is drifting close to the bottom of the global league table. That matters because “the pursuit of happiness is a fundamental human goal”, the United Nations General Assembly has said, urging countries to develop measures of wellbeing to help guide public policy, precisely because GDP alone does not capture how people experience daily life.

Released every March, the report is increasingly treated as more than a feel-good ranking: a quick test of whether citizens believe life is improving, and a mirror held up to the lived reality behind official statistics. In it, Botswana is ranked 143rd out of 147 countries, down from 142nd last year, with a score of 3.464 out of 10 — placing it among the 10 least happy nations globally. Botswana now sits in the bottom five alongside Zimbabwe (144), Malawi (145) and Sierra Leone (146), while Afghanistan (147) remains the least happy country in the world.

At the top, Nordic countries dominate, with Finland ranked first again, followed by Iceland and Denmark. Researchers say Botswana’s decline reflects deeper structural pressures. The report links sharp drops in life evaluations to economic strain, declining trust in institutions and social instability.

[paywall]

“Going from the largest to the smallest drops in life evaluations, these countries include Afghanistan, Malawi, Lebanon, Venezuela and Botswana,” it states. The rankings are based on how people evaluate their own lives. Using Gallup World Poll surveys, respondents rate where they stand on a ladder from 0 (worst possible life) to 10 (best possible life).

(files.worldhappiness.report) The WHR then combines responses across the last three years to reduce random sampling error. The report’s analysis then uses six broad “pillars” — income, health, social support, freedom, generosity and perceptions of corruption — to explain differences between countries.

[/paywall]