Evidence is pouring in every month or so confirming the proposition we have long argued here. This is that on all the objective measures of well being known to man, constitutional monarchies outperform republics.
The latest is an index from the OECD, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. This is a club of the world's 34 richest countries.
In its Better Life Index, it has ranked its members over 11 key categories. They are Housing, Income, Jobs, Community, Education, Environment, Governance, Health, Life Satisfaction, Safety, and Work-life balance.
The index is interactive, and users can develop their own index by giving the weight they think appropriate to each category.
There is, however an overall index. The results confirm what we already know: that constitutional monarchies outperform republics.
One of the criticisms that some Australian Republicans make of a use of a whole series of indices is that they lumped together rich and poor countries.
They should have no difficulties with this index. It is after all the rich countries club.
The top five are in this order, Australia, Canada, Sweden, New Zealand, and Norway. So of the top five, 100% our constitutional monarchies. Understood , my dear anonymous republican commentator?
Thus constitutional monarchies are overrepresented by a factor of close to 7.
Of the top 10, 70% our constitutional monarchies. Thus they are overrepresented by a factor of almost 5.
Of the top 20, 55% our constitutional monarchies. Accordingly constitutional monarchies are overrepresented by a factor of four.
I have no doubt that on any reasonable and objective assessment, constitutional monarchies outperform republics.