Key Points
- Canberra ranked first globally for quality of life in the latest Oxford Economics index.
- Bergen finished second with a score of 94.3, and Singapore placed third at 91.6.
- European cities took 23 of the top 30 spots in the quality of life category.
- New York and London led overall economic performance rankings but scored lower on quality of life because of housing costs.
- The rankings measured income levels, housing expenses, life expectancy, public infrastructure, and environmental standards.
London (Oxford Daily) October 17, 2026 – As reported by researcher Hillary Bett of The Star, the latest international evaluation from Oxford Economics has revealed the top metropolitan locations worldwide for living standards.
The comprehensive Global Cities Index assessed 1,000 of the world’s largest urban areas across crucial dimensions including economic performance, human capital, governance, environment, and quality of life.
As detailed in the research analysis published by Visual Capitalist editor Marcus Lu, Canberra achieved a perfect score of 100 on the quality of life index to take the world’s top spot. Following closely was Bergen in Norway with a score of 94.3, whilst Singapore scored 91.6 to secure third position overall.
“Canberra has achieved a perfect score of 100 on the quality of life index, securing the top spot among the world’s best cities for living.”
How do European cities perform across the top twenty rankings?
European municipalities continue to hold a dominant presence in liveability rankings across the globe. As highlighted by Oxford Economics, European locations claim 23 of the top 30 positions globally. Grenoble in France achieved fourth position with a score of 90.8, followed by Bern in Switzerland at 89.8, Oslo in Norway at 89.3, and Luxembourg City at 89.0.
German and Swiss metropolitan areas recorded exceptionally strong performances throughout the upper tier. Dresden recorded a score of 88.5, Ghent in Belgium achieved 88.4, Paris earned 88.1, whilst Basel and Linz tied with scores of 88.0. Zurich and Berlin both registered scores of 87.7, with Munich closely following at 87.3.
Why do major financial hubs differ between economic strength and quality of life?
The findings highlight a clear divide between sheer economic magnitude and overall residential satisfaction. Major global financial centres often score lower in liveability indices due to prohibitive housing expenditure and cost of living constraints.
“New York ranks first overall but 86th for Quality of Life. High housing costs weigh on the city’s score, even as it benefits from high incomes and strong access to recreation.”
As observed by analyst Marcus Lu of Visual Capitalist, New York City maintains the premier spot in overall economic output but drops to 86th place specifically for quality of life. Similarly, London ranks second overall across the broader index due to human capital strength, yet sits at 147th for quality of life as housing affordability weighs on resident experiences.
Vancouver in Canada presents a similar structural divergence, ranking 24th overall but falling to 215th in liveability due to real estate costs.
Background of the particular development
Quality of life benchmarking has evolved into a key tool for urban planning experts, corporate mobility teams, and policymaking bodies worldwide. Index metrics look beyond traditional gross domestic product per capita figures to incorporate structural factors that directly affect daily living standards.
The framework utilized by Oxford Economics weighs several key components. These include household income equality, housing expenditure relative to earnings, life expectancy, access to cultural and recreational amenities, internet connection speeds, and local environmental standards.
Historically, mid-sized capital cities and regional economic centres with well-funded public services, accessible healthcare, efficient public transport, and lower housing costs consistently outrank massive megacities.
The latest cycle reflects post-pandemic economic adjustments, including real estate inflation, remote working patterns, and increased consumer focus on urban green space and environmental wellbeing.
Prediction: How this development can affect global city residents and urban planners
This development is likely to influence how city residents, international workers, and local municipal councils approach long-term planning and investment:
- For International Workers and Expatriates: Professionals seeking career relocations are increasingly prioritizing mid-tier cities that offer higher disposable incomes and lower living costs over traditional primary financial hubs. Cities like Canberra, Bergen, and Bern are positioned to attract skilled talent looking for a higher standard of daily living.
- For Municipal Governments and City Councils: Local authorities in major primary hubs like London, New York, and Vancouver face growing pressure to address structural housing affordability issues. Failure to mitigate shelter cost burdens risks losing talent to second-tier cities that provide strong governance and superior public amenities.
- For Real Estate and Infrastructure Developers: Property investments are expected to pivot further towards mid-sized European and Asia-Pacific metropolitan areas that exhibit strong quality-of-life indicators. Development focus will likely emphasize affordable housing projects, sustainable transport links, and public recreation access to bolster overall liveability rankings.
