Simon Anholt, Adviser and Publisher of the Good Country Index

Make a Real Global Impact

Simon Anholt says the investment migration industry needs to become a force for good if it wants to win over the industry’s critics. 

Can you tell us a bit about your research into global perceptions of nations? Can countries influence their image?

No, they cannot, at least not through public relations and marketing campaigns. However, many governments believe they can, and this may be partly my fault. I came up with the term ‘nation brand’ in 1996. My original observation was that the reputations of countries behave like the brand images of companies and products. Unfortunately the term gradually morphed into “nation branding”. Nation branding sounds as if the image of a country can be manipulated or influenced, but countries are definitely not in control of their images. I have been compiling the Nation Brands Index, a huge annual poll of international perceptions of countries, since 2005, and it shows that there is absolutely no correlation between what countries say about themselves and how people perceive them. Yet the notion that a country can simply advertise its way into a better reputation has proved to be a resilient one.

So what do countries and governments wanting a better image need to do?

Countries are judged by what they do, not by what they say. While it is possible and necessary to market certain economic sectors and products, such as a tourism destination, an investment opportunity or the export of goods, governments cannot influence the overall image of their country simply by launching a PR or marketing campaign. These campaigns are nothing more than government propaganda, which people rightly ignore. Countries can only improve their image by changing the way they behave. If a country wants to be admired, it must be admirable, and it must make itself relevant to people from other nations. This means that the country must participate usefully, productively, and imaginatively, in the global conversations on the topics that matter to people elsewhere and everywhere. The list of those topics is a long one, and it includes, amongst others, climate change, poverty, migration, economic stability and human rights. There is plenty of research that shows that this investment can pay off: for example, a 1% improvement in a country’s image can lead to a 38% increase in foreign direct investment.

Governments that have introduced RCBI programmes have come under increased scrutiny in recent years, with international organisations, policy-makers and the public often being critical of its concepts. What’s your view of the industry?

In my opinion, selling residence and citizenship should be viewed as an economic activity just like any other. It is a new form of foreign investment for countries and a useful additional source of foreign income. From an economic point of view, it can either be justified or not justified. If it generates more revenue for the country than it costs, economic objections against it cannot be valid. In fact, most objections are not based on economic grounds, but rather have a socio-cultural subtext. For many people, belonging to a nation is a sacred thing, which should not be shared with people who weren’t born into that nation or who haven’t been through a certain amount of trouble to be part of it. My personal view of this attitude is that it demonstrates one of the worst sides of human nature, a flat refusal to share one’s good fortune with those less fortunate than oneself. The better side of human nature would be that if you are lucky enough to live in a rich country, you should be happy to share your good fortune with others if it doesn’t materially diminish your own prosperity or opportunities.

On an EU level, we often hear the argument that passport and visa programmes offered by one member state affect the entire European Union and that these programmes are effectively exploiting an EU right.

This argument also doesn’t make any sense at all. Let’s look at another example. If a company from one member state builds a factory in another member state and starts polluting the air in that member state, they are exploiting EU rights in the same way, aren’t they? It might sound as if I am defending the investment migration industry. I have no interest in doing so; however, to me it seems ethically inconsistent that RCBI programmes are viewed differently than any other activities that countries engage in order to attract capital. The entire debate shows that humanity has yet to learn to transfer its loyalty to an entity larger than the nation state. In my opinion, this has to happen soon. We live in an age where we are facing gigantic global challenges, from climate change to migration to terrorism. They are all international challenges, and need to be tackled internationally.

Can you explain this a bit more?

Today our problems are not national; they are global, yet only a minority of people feel loyalty and commitment to something bigger than their own country. My research has shown that only about 10% of the world’s population is what you might call naturally cosmopolitan. Those are people that distinctively feel they are members of the human race first, and citizens of their own nation second. The majority of people are still stuck on the idea of the nation state, which was invented in 1648. We went through an enormous amount of trouble to fix people’s loyalty to the nation state. Wars were fought over the nation state; active brainwashing took place to win people’s loyalty for something that was artificially created. To be clear, I am not talking about the love that we feel towards the land that we grew up in, such as a region with its distinctive landscapes and its people. The love for one’s country can be profound and meaningful, and is entirely different from loving your nation, which is more like saying you love your country’s government or its army. The European Union is the noblest experiment in the history of humanity: it was the first time in history that a large number of countries had the wisdom and maturity to give away a tiny part of their sovereignty in return for the common good. This is one of the reasons why I am so bereaved at the UK’s decision to leave the EU. But even the EU is basically a self-interest society: it is still defending its members against competition from the rest of the world. It still looks inwards. Of course, 26 countries looking collectively at their own interests is a whole lot better than 26 countries looking separately at their own interests; but if we continue like this, we will be defeated by climate change, migration and terrorism, and other global challenges. The only way we are going to tackle them is by working collectively, and the investment migration industry might be able to play a role in this.

How would you see that happening?

I think it would be a fascinating idea if one could convert the idea of investment migration into something internationally useful, which doesn’t only benefit the country that is running the programme but also creates broader benefits. The industry needs a global approach, and much like countries, if it wants to be internationally recognised as a force for good, it needs to become a force for good. As a start, countries could agree to accept a certain number of economic migrants and refugees to match the number of investment migrants they are allowing in their country. But the real opportunity is much bigger than this. Very wealthy people are increasingly philanthropic. I reckon that one could have a very fruitful summit with all those investors who are interested in better residence or citizenship arrangements for themselves, as well as in supporting good causes. They could be brought together with countries operating these programmes, as well as with NGOs and representatives of the international community. We know that investment migration results in a substantial flow of capital, but instead of directing this capital flow from one country to another, we could see how that revenue stream could be best distributed to solve some of the most pressing global problems, while delivering the payback to the investors that they require.

What do you think of the idea of nation as a service?

It is great concept because it is attempting to separate out and neutralise the crazy emotions that people feel about nationality, and regards the state as what it really is: a set of services. It is just being cool-headed about it, and that’s what we need in our current age of global challenges. I think the task for the future is to find a narrative that brings nationalists and internationalists together. The idea that nationalists and internationalist have to be enemies has emerged in the last 10 years and appears to have been very broadly accepted, which is odd because you couldn’t imagine a better case for cooperation, given the challenges that we are facing.

BIO Simon Anholt is an independent adviser to various Heads of State and Heads of Government, and during the last 20 years has advised 55 countries on strategies for enhanced economic, political and cultural engagement with other countries. He devised the concept of nation brand in 1996, and is the founder and publisher of the Anholt-IPSOS Nation Brands Index, a large annual opinion poll that measures international perceptions of countries. He also launched the Good Country Index in 2014: the first ever study of what each country contributes to the common good of humanity, and what it takes away, relative to its size. Simon Anholt has served as Vice-Chair of the UK Foreign Office’s Public Diplomacy Board and has a Master’s Degree from the University of Oxford. He holds an Honorary Professorship in Political Science and is the author of six books including two best-sellers. His TED talk launching the first edition of the Good Country Index has been viewed more than 5.5 million times and was ranked the fifth ‘most inspiring’ TED talk ever.