2 studies agree: Nicaragua is the second safest country in Central America

While Pronicaragua is in the business of promoting Nicaragua to the world, it is hard to dispute the two studies.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.


The ProNicaragua press release is accurate in generalities but the specific facts are incorrect. The most recent GPI does not assign rank #59 to Nicaragua nor Costa Rica. In fact, #59 is actually Panama. And, since Nicaragua is #61 and Costa Rica is #29. This means, best case scenario, Nicaragua is in 3rd place for the C.A. region. Maybe it is coincidence, but ProNicaragua has made this same mistake several times in the last few years; claiming Nicaragua is 1 or more spots higher than it is in the source they are citing - and not providing a link to the actual source nor a direct quote.

The idea that GPI measures true safety is not without dispute. This is not exactly what GPI measures (peace isn’t always the same as safety; they measure “peace” but conclude “safety”). Even so, it does so in a debatable way. If two countries were just as safe in terms of personal safety, and both had a 50 year record of no international conflicts, and both had a 50 year record or no revolutions, etc., then the two places seem to be equally safe. But, not so via any GPI assessment because how much you spend on defense works against you. In the above example, whichever country spends less on military wins a noticeably higher rank. Even though they are as safe, statistically, this is a key factor GPI counts. If one country had a considerably larger military, they would be grossly outranked by the country with a smaller one – even though there is no real world evidence you are less safe in the bigger military country. It is an important assessment but there is a reason why business/investment/government awards less weight to it than other studies.

The EIU claims are probably true, but hard to verify since they appear to require data that is expensive via The Economist bookstore. ProNicaragua is reporting one aspect of larger risk assessments (personal safety not country-finance-legal-etc. safety though the article). The much broader EIU Risk Rating is less congratulatory. EIU Risk Rating: Panama and Costa Rica have a “B”; El Salvador, Guatemala and Belize a “C”; and Honduras and Nicaragua a “D”. Additionally, the Summary Form EIU Country Risk Report s show that Nicaragua has a grade of “D” in 4 of the 10 key categories, and each and every score stayed the same or went down from the previous ranking (much like Honduras); neither Costa Rica nor Panama have a single “D”. What they say via EIU is likely accurate but it might not be more important than what they don't say about EIU. Then again, it is a press release so that might be expected.

Measuring military expenditures

I wonder how they handle countries which have "armies" that are primarily used for non-military activities, and countries that have armies that aren't called armies (such as Costa Rica, at least according to some folks).

Boiling any complex topic down to a single numerical score is flawed. It's just nice to know what the flaws are.

Thanks mjt

What do they say..you can't change facts. Only the way you look at them. I wonder, to whom this actually benefits. Underground/overground . Thanks again mate. great input.

Summary Form EIU Country Risk Report-Nicaragua

Logan Kuiper

I see that under the category of security that Costa Rica has a ranking of 34 but is outdone by Nicaragua with a 29. Its 53 here in Belize.

Thanks for the references.

Good analysis

Thanks...from us lazy ones.ZZT