One of the BBC’s “UK is worst” charts

I was disappointed to see this chart on the BBC News website on Saturday under Nick Triggle’s byline. In an otherwise balanced piece that introduced some challenging points this chart stood out as being misleading.

First off international bodies such as Eurostat and OECD don’t usually publish these charts with the WORST at the BOTTOM. It isn’t very good for international relations! They print them vertically. Why has the BBC chosen to make this international comparison like this and is the UK really at the bottom for doctors?

The simple answer is: no, it isn’t. The whole data set as originally presented by the OECD shows the UK in the bottom half of the chart but not at the bottom and with some important countries doing worse than us.

But, first let’s consider the countries above us on the BBC chart. Fully half, 6 out of 12, are tiny with populations under 10 million. The UK population is over 67 million. Another 2 are less than 20 million. Only 4 are large, rich democracies like the UK.

Small countries like Austria that avoid defence expenditure can afford to spend more on health. Tiny Ireland is another defence free rider. Tiny, oil rich Norway is similarly blessed. Belgium only just manages to get its nose ahead. If we are counting small countries where is tiny, but very rich, Luxembourg? Slightly below us at 3.0. Why did Luxembourg drop off the chart?

On the original, vertical, OECD chart of the data that the BBC references I have highlighted the 10 large (over 20 million population), rich countries in the OECD. Suddenly the UK (in purple) is not in the BBC’s worst, bottom of the chart place. In fact three fellow G7 members, Japan, USA and Canada, are to our left. Why doesn’t the world’s largest economy have more doctors? What about the 3rd?

So looking at large, rich democracies like us who have to pay for their defence and want to have a say in global affairs we are mid-table for doctoring. We have five states to our left, France slightly ahead and three out performers who, coincidentally, are all comparatively light on defending themselves.