New Delhi: In a world crowded with rankings that measure power, wealth and influence, a think tank is asking a fundamental question: What does it mean for a nation to behave responsibly? The formal launch of the Responsible Nations Index at New Delhi’s Dr Ambedkar International Centre centred around this question.
RNI is an Indian initiative evaluating 154 countries not by GDP alone, but by their responsibility toward citizens, the environment, and the global community.
“We live in a world today on a surfeit of data. There is no dearth of indices–more than 400 of them exist. The real question is whether, in such a crowded space, one more index can actually add value by nudging nations towards more responsible behaviour,” said NK Singh, economist and former Chairman of India’s 15th Finance Commission.
RNI, developed by World Intellectual Foundation (WIF) with academic support from Jawaharlal Nehru University and IIM Mumbai, aims to do just that.
It attempts to move the global conversation away from raw economic outcomes to ethical and behavioural choices. The launch brought together a diverse gathering of former judges, diplomats, economists, students and policymakers.
The event began with a panel discussion on ‘From Human Well-being to Global Stewardship: Rethinking Responsibility, Prosperity and Peace in the 21st Century.’
The panel, moderated by Singh, featured Prachi Mishra, Professor of Economics and Director of the Isaac Centre for Public Policy at Ashoka University; economist and financial strategist Neelkanth Mishra; and political economist Laveesh Bhandari. They explored whether responsibility can be measured and whether global institutions have fallen short in doing so.
The panel was followed by the release of the Responsible Nations Index Report, marking the start of a global conversation on responsible nationhood and international cooperation.
The index is the result of a three-year academic and policy effort led by the World Intellectual Foundation. Singapore tops the Responsible Nations Index (RNI) 2026, followed by Switzerland in second and Denmark in third place. India ranks 16th out of 154 countries, ahead of major economies including France, Germany, the United States, and China.
Former President of India Ram Nath Kovind, who launched the report, described the index as “an active intellectual thought that defines the meaning of a responsible nation,” and congratulated WIF, JNU and IIM Mumbai for attempting to measure what global institutions have long avoided.
Also read: India’s growth story masks unemployment and weak cities: Devesh Kapur, Arvind Subramanian
Containing spillovers
To illustrate why measuring global responsibility matters, Prachi Mishra recalled an incident from 2013 when she was part of the Indian delegation to the G20.
At the time, then US Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke hinted at slowing the pace of Quantitative Easing (QE) as the US economy recovered. That statement sent shockwaves across global financial markets. Economies with weaker fundamentals suffered the most, and India, then among the “fragile five,” saw its rupee drop 15 to 20 per cent between May and September 2013, alongside a sharp decline in asset markets.
At the G20 meeting in Moscow, Mishra and her team argued that advanced economies must act responsibly, acknowledging the spillover effects of their policies on the global community. The response was blunt: “It’s our action, but it’s your problem. You complained when we eased, now you complain when we slow down. Fix your institutions.”
“This experience is exactly why the Responsible Nations Index is so important. It allows the world to rank and debate responsibility, highlighting the need for accountability from all countries, including global powers. That contribution, coming from a large emerging market like India, is crucial,” she said
Mishra argued that responsibility must include the external spillovers of powerful economies—particularly in monetary policy, trade protectionism and control of international institutions.
Also read: Is freedom of speech a dangerous idea? JLF closing panel couldn’t find an answer
Holding nations accountable
Neelkanth Mishra, speaking on the need for a global benchmark for responsibility, highlighted the widening gap between ethical norms and global behaviour.
He emphasised the need for an objective framework around which like-minded countries, beyond the US and China, could rally.
“In the past year, we have moved to a global regime where right seems to be right, and irresponsibility is alive,” he said.
Mishra pointed to China’s financial practices as a key example of irresponsible behaviour.
“There has been artificial reduction of the cost of capital and misuse of the balance sheet. Some industries don’t make money for decades, yet they survive. In the process, norms of the WTO are misused, hurting industries worldwide. This behaviour has accelerated the US’ breakdown of the trade regime,” he said.
For Mishra, the Responsible Nations Index offered a solution by combining existing global research into a single, credible measure. “There are research centres in Europe tracking Chinese investments, in Latin America doing similar work, and in India as well. But bringing all this together into something the world can rally around is crucial to hold the irresponsible accountable.”
He also suggested expanding the index to include measures of sustainability and material consumption.
Also read: Colonial narratives still fuel hate speech in India, says historian Irfan S Habib
Tools for introspection
The final section of the panel discussion moved from geopolitics to methodology—and from power to people.
Political economist Laveesh Bhandari, drawing on his experience in state-level governance ratings, emphasised that indices matter not because of rankings, but because of reform incentives.
“Ratings are not a Miss India contest. They are tools for introspection. When states saw where they were falling short, many came back year after year, and real improvements followed,” said Bhandari.
Bhandari praised the ambition of the Responsible Nations Index, but cautioned against confusing outcomes with responsibility itself. Responsibility is about intent, effort and ethical choice, not merely economic success.
The panel also explored whether responsibility could extend to less tangible dimensions such as mental health, happiness, equity and social cohesion.
“The limitation is data availability. We can only include indicators that are globally comparable. But areas like mental health, gender equity, reproductive health and social bias are increasingly measurable and deserve inclusion,” said Bhandari.
(Edited by Theres Sudeep)