Callback
Contact
+1 514 288 1997
In this section we outline the methodology for the Investment Migration Programs Health Risk Assessment produced by Henley & Partners and Deep Knowledge Analytics (DKA) as well as the methodologies for DKA’s Covid-19 Regional Safety Assessment and Henley & Partners’ Global Residence Programs Index (GRPI) and Global Citizenship Programs Index (GCPI).
The Investment Migration Programs Health Risk Assessment overlays three different datasets: Deep Knowledge Analytics’ (DKA’s) Covid-19 Regional Safety Assessment and Henley & Partners’ 2021 Global Residence Programs Index (GRPI) and Global Citizenship Programs Index (GCPI), published in Investment Migration Programs 2021.
The data for the 31 countries that host residence- and citizenship-by-investment (RCBI) programs that feature in the GRPI and the GCPI was extracted from DKA’s Covid-19 Regional Safety Assessment and updated with new data collected up until 16 February 2021. The extracted data was then overlayed with the GRPI and GCPI data in various ways. The end result is a new combined dataset for the 31 RCBI countries that includes over 140 parameters and over 4,000 datapoints providing deep insights into the health management capacity and risk preparedness of the countries that host the world’s leading RCBI programs.
To produce the Investment Migration Programs Health Risk Assessment, the total scores for each RBCI country in the GRPI and GCPI have been included and presented along with the six main parameters of the Covid-19 Regional Safety Assessment, namely Quarantine Efficiency, Government Efficiency, Monitoring and Detection, Healthcare Readiness, Country Vulnerability, and Emergency Preparedness. This provides a ranking of RCBI countries viewed through the lens of how well each has managed the coronavirus pandemic.
The bar-line combination charts provide a deep-dive into each of the abovementioned six parameters, comparing each RCBI country’s performance in the parameter with its total score in the GRPI and/or GCPI. The scatter charts and regional overview maps provide alternative visualizations of the same data overlays.
The framework comprises six top-level categories (Quarantine Efficiency, Government Efficiency of Risk Management, Monitoring and Detection, Health Readiness, Regional Resilience and Emergency Preparedness).
Each category consists of a matrix of sub-parameters (referred to here as Indicators), which relate to specific factors of importance impacting the stability of current regional circumstances, of the effectiveness of various regions’ emergency response efforts, and these variables will also address post-pandemic planning measures in future studies.
Finally, each indicator itself consists of a matrix of between two and ten quantitative or qualitative sub-parameters relating to the specific topic, analytical focus, and end-point of their parent indicator. Quantitative parameters are numeric and are obtained from a variety of reputable, publicly available sources of data. Qualitative parameters are binary, and regions are assigned either a 1 or a 0, which represents an answer to a specific yes/no question.
The index utilizes a combination of publicly available databases (including but not limited to indexes and region statistics), as well as manually curated and researched quantitative and qualitative data obtained by manual searches using search engines, media, and governmental reports, and the use of expert opinions and consultations in cases where data was not available.
In utilizing three qualitatively distinct sources of data, Deep Knowledge Group analysts have attempted to overcome barriers in conducting a robust and comprehensive, yet reliable and methodologically-rigorous analysis by utilizing the largest and most reputable databases (usually constructed by an unbiased international group or foundation) where possible, by consulting region-specific resources in cases when open-source international databases are not possible, and finally by utilizing expert opinion in all cases where publicly-accessible regional and/or international sources of data are unavailable.
By utilizing this approach, the present analysis attempts to find an optimal balance between using maximally transparent and reliable sources of data and including data that are only obtainable from expert consultation.
The full methodology is available here.
In constructing the Global Residence Program Index (GRPI) and Global Citizenship Program Index (GCPI) Henley & Partners referred to multiple sources and experts to obtain and interpret the primarily qualitative data used. We relied principally on the expertise of residence and citizenship analysts and the experience of investors and government officials. As a result, the explanatory power that supports the scores in the different categories is based on surveys, interviews with respondents, and opinions solicited from selected experts. Where possible, the subjectivity of the various factors has been assessed against publicly available data and widely accepted composite indicators. The factors that are analyzed in each of the indexes are as follows:
Global Residence Program Index
Global Citizenship Program Index
Each RCBI program is given a score out of 10 for each equally weighted factor, with 10 indicating excellence and 0 indicating a very poor performance. The scores for each factor are added and divided by 10 to arrive at a total score, according to which the countries are ranked.
The data for surveys and interviews has been consistently collected from a representative sample that includes respondents, experts on citizenship, and practitioners who have been involved in the design of qualitative research in global mobility and related spaces. The sample frame for respondents consists of existing and potential investors, their advisors, and government officials in countries that either already have, or are in the process of establishing, investment migration programs. Relying on potential clients means that the responses of those who decided against proceeding with any program are also included. It may also be noted that among our respondent and expert base are government officials and consultants engaged in investment migration programs that have been discontinued as well as those that are in the process of being established or reformed.
The full methodology is available here.
