From this week, children of former emigrants from Hong Kong can, if they are of working age and have university degrees, stay in the SAR unconditionally for 12 months and without limit thereafter if they can find work.

This new measure is aimed at attracting the second generation of emigrants from Hong Kong. Locals have commented that this is insufficient to bring such talent to Hong Kong because it does not address the "quality of life" factors that might prove an obstacle for those who have spent their lives elsewhere.

So to what extent is Hong Kong's quality of life likely to be a deterrent to jobseekers? Let's start by looking at how outsiders might compare us to other places where they could work, then consider the likely effectiveness of the new regulation.

The most recent report by the Centre for Quality of Life at the Chinese University of Hong Kong showed that Hong Kong's quality of life fell in 2013 and that its economic sub-index had hit a record low since 2002. The main factor behind this depressing news was - unsurprisingly - housing affordability. Nevertheless, the trend was not all one way: While 7 of the 21 indicators got worse, 13 got better.

What do these internationally respected rankings suggest?

Let's take a look at the Economist Intelligence Unit's (EIU) "where-to-be-born index". Although the EIU is the world's premier private-sector economic forecasting organization, this index goes well beyond mere GDP per head, taking into account subjective life-satisfaction surveys as well as objective factors.

The latest (2013) Index ranks Hong Kong 10th out of 80 economies, with a highly respectable score of 7.8 out of 10. Yes, the SAR comes behind Switzerland, Australasia, the Scandinavian countries and (dare I mention it!) Singapore, but surprisingly perhaps, ahead of prosperous and environment-conscious European countries like Finland and Germany, the United States (16th) and, in East Asia, Taiwan and South Korea. The mainland is at 49th position.

Another prestigious international organization, the United Nations Development Programme, produces the Human Development Index (HDI), which includes not only income per head, but also education (e.g. literacy) and health (e.g. life expectancy) statistics, and covers 166 countries and territories.

The 2014 Human Development Report includes figures for 2013. As with other rankings, the Scandinavians are at or near the top. Hong Kong is an impressive 15th, behind the United States and Germany this time, but ahead of South Korea and Japan.

It would be nice to be able to cite reliable measures based on, for example, Bhutan's gross national happiness index, but such efforts are largely speculative. There are one or two which try to bring in more information on things like the environmental impact. You may not be surprised to learn that Hong Kong does far worse using such criteria.

For example, the Happy Planet Index, which attempts to estimate the amount of natural resources required to sustain the local lifestyle. This placed Hong Kong at an abysmal 102nd place (out of 111 countries and territories) in 2012. This means Hong Kong uses more than its fair share of resources and causes more permanent damage to the planet than most other economies.

You may, though, be pleasantly surprised to learn that the SAR appears ahead of most of the rest of the world in terms of the quality of its democracy! In 2012-2013, it was listed as 17th out of 112 jurisdictions, ahead of some West European countries (Spain and Portugal) and even Japan (in 21st place). In compiling the Democracy Ranking index, an independent body based in Vienna examined not only formal political systems, but also freedom and non-political indicators that demonstrate the output and performance of a society.

Okay, now put all these rankings in the blender. What do you get? An overall impression that Hong Kong is up there with the world's most developed economies not just in terms of income per head but also with respect to other lifestyle indicators. Add to that the probability that people come to work in Hong Kong not because they have examined all these factors but because someone has offered them a job which pays big bucks.

On the other hand, some well educated people really have left Hong Kong because of housing and the unhealthy environment.

Frankly, allowing visitors from developed economies to remain for 12 months unconditionally is no big deal. Without this rule, all they have to do anyway is to stay for their six months non-visa entry and then take a day trip to Macao to extend for another six months, and keep repeating the process indefinitely.

Instead of fiddling with discriminatory visas, the government should focus on core problems that affect the people who already live here, starting with housing affordability.

The author is a former journalist and civil servant.

(HK Edition 05/15/2015 page11)