Global Competetiveness Report

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Model & Indicators Social Cohesion Social Cohesion Health Equality Crime Freedom Age structure Health care availability Income equality Theft Press freedom Demographics Child mortality Resource equality Violent crime Human rights Birth rate Family planning Gender equality Prison population Happiness Social Cohesion 19 data points Child mortality Hospital bed availability Doctors per capita Overweight ratio Birth per women Teenage mothers Women in parliaments Population over 65 Public services GINI coefficient Income quintile ratio Poverty trends Life satisfaction Press freedom index Peace index Theft cases per capita Conflicts with laws Prison population Homicide rate Indicators Social Cohesion is not a tangible value and therefore hard to measure and evaluate in numeric values. The social consensus in a society is influenced by several factors: health care systems and their universal availability to measure physical health; income and asset equality, which are correlated to crime levels; demographic structure to assess the future balance within a society; and freedom of expression, freedom from fear and the absence of violent conflicts. The indicators selected to measure social cohesion have been selected from these 5 themes. Some of these indicators (e.g. “happiness”) are qualitative, i.e. no statistical data is available for “happiness”. Instead, qualitative indicators from surveys and other sources compiled by other organisations were used to measure the qualitative aspects of social cohesion, including single indicators from the Happy Planet Index (New Economics Foundation), the Press Freedom Index (Reporters Without Borders), and the Global Peace Index (Institute for Economics and Peace). 56 The Global Sustainable Competitiveness Index
Regional Spread Social Cohesion Regional spread Scandinavia tops the social cohesion ranking by a considerable margin, followed by North- Western Europe. Both regions with high average GDP per capita. The high ranking of regions with medium or high GDP seems to indicate a certain correlation of income levels and social consensus. Central America and Africa South of the Mediterranean Arabic countries form the bottom of this regional ranking, with the Middle East and Central Asia occupying the middle ranks. The only ranking not fitting into this pattern is North America’s classification below Southern Europe, due to higher crime levels. There is also a distinct differentiation between North and South visible here, whereby the Northern hemisphere makes the top of the list, while the Southern hemisphere is located at the bottom (expect Australia & New Zealand, which, depending on the definition, are often included in the definition of the North). Scandinavia North-western Europe Australia & New Zealand North-east Asia Southern Europe North America Eastern Europe Central Asia Middle East South-east Asia Northern Africa South America Central America Western Africa Southern Africa Eastern Africa 0 20 40 60 80 Average Deviation Only 43% of countries are above the absolute average of all countries (i.e. 57% are below average), representing an uneven distribution. The high positive deviation amongst the top ten countries of between 70-90% also indicates significant gaps between the countries on the top of the ranking (i.e. between the top ten and the top twenty countries, for example). On the other end of the scale, the deviation is 70% below the average. The high deviation at the top and bottom end indicate a big spread between leading and trailing countries. In other words, the countries at the bottom of the ranking are facing an significant barriers to improve social cohesion and catch up with currently higher ranked countries. -70% -50% -30% -10% 10% 30% 50% 70% 90% Norway Switzerland Poland Qatar Greenland South Korea Portugal Mongolia Costa Rica Bahrain Sri Lanka Bahamas Ecuador Namibia Trinidad and Tobago Mauritius Georgia Benin Swaziland Belize Honduras Fiji The Global Sustainable Competitiveness Index 57
Page 2 and 3:
Acknowledgments Acknowledgments The
Page 4 and 5:
Table of contents The Global Sustai
Page 6 and 7: Foreword The Global Sustainable Com
Page 8 and 9: Executive summary The Global Sustai
Page 10 and 11: The Sustainable Competitiveness Wor
Page 12 and 13: Natural Capital Executive summary N
Page 14 and 15: Sustainable Innovation Executive su
Page 16 and 17: Methodology The Global Sustainable
Page 18 and 19: Sustainability Factors Methodology
Page 20 and 21: Sustainability Indicators Methodolo
Page 22 and 23: Weighting Methodology Scoring of in
Page 24 and 25: Sustainable Competitiveness The Glo
Page 26 and 27: Country rankings Sustainable Compet
Page 28 and 29: Country rankings Sustainable Compet
Page 30 and 31: Natural capital The Global Sustaina
Page 32 and 33: Indicators Natural Capital Natural
Page 34 and 35: Country Rankings Natural Capital Na
Page 36 and 37: Country rankings Natural Capital Na
Page 38 and 39: Resource Intensity & efficiency The
Page 40 and 41: Model & Indicators Resource Intensi
Page 42 and 43: Country Rankings Resource Intensity
Page 44 and 45: Country Rankings Resource Intensity
Page 46 and 47: Sustainable innovation & Competiven
Page 48 and 49: Model & Indicators Sustainable Inno
Page 50 and 51: Country Rankings Sustainable Innova
Page 52 and 53: Country Rankings Sustainable Innova
Page 54 and 55: Social Cohesion The Global Sustaina
Page 58 and 59: Country Rankings Social Cohesion So
Page 60 and 61: Country Rankings Social Cohesion So
Page 62 and 63: Rankings at a glance The Global Sus
Page 64 and 65: All criteria: Rank 1-44 Rankings at
Page 66 and 67: All criteria: Rank 89-132 Rankings
Page 68 and 69: Natural Capital Rankings at a glanc
Page 70 and 71: Sustainable Innovation & Competitiv
Page 72: SolAbility Ltd Ilsan, South Korea w
show all

Global Competetiveness Report

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?