Political Domain: - Number of in-country embassies and high commissions

1. Maastricht Globalisation Index (MGI) variables Political Domain: - Number of in-country embassies and high commissions - Number of memberships in international organizations - Trade in conventional arms as a share of military spending Economic domain: - Trade (imports + exports) of goods and services as a share of GDP - Gross foreign direct stocks (FDI) as a share of GDP - Gross private capital flows as a share of GDP

2. Maastricht Globalisation Index (MGI) variables contd Social & Cultural Domain: - Migrants (who changes their country of usual residence per 100 inhabitant) - Tourism (international arrivals + departures per 100 inhabitants) Technological Domain: - Phone (incoming + outgoing international telephone traffic in minutes per capita) - Internet users as a share of population Ecological Domain: - Eco footprint (ecological deficit in global ha)

4. Maastricht Globalisation Index (MGI) versus Sustainability Indices

5. Sustainability Indices considered: Human Development Index (HDI) Environmental Performance Index (EPI) - reducing environmental stresses to human health - promoting ecosystem vitality and sound natural resource management. Global Environment Facility (GEF) Benefits Index (GBI) - biodiversity potential Responsible Competitiveness Index (RCI) - countries efforts to promote responsible business practices Sustainable Society Index (SSI) - integrates various aspects of sustainability and quality of life of a national society in a simple and transparent way, consisting of personal development, clean environment, well-balanced society, sustainable use of resources, and sustainable world.

6. Spearman‘s correlations for MGI and the sustainability indices: HDI EPI GBI RCI SSI MGI 0.795** 0.628** –0.291* 0.759** 0.170 MGI domains Political 0.447** 0.286** 0.086 0.369** –0.051 Economical 0.413** 0.376** –0.404** 0.406** 0.202* Social & cultural 0.724** 0.631** –0.492** 0.682** 0.247** Technological 0.906** 0.817** –0.228* 0.869** 0.349** Ecological 0.356** 0.202* –0.311** 0.319** 0.021

7. Explain the lack of (or low) relationship between the level of globalisation and the biodiversity potential (measured by GBI):

8. Explain the lack of (or low) relationship between Society Sustainability Index (SSI) and the level of globalisation: As the SSI is the most comprehensive index, it is likely that both positive and negative implications of globalisation are reflected in the sub-indicators of the SSI.

9. 2010 KOF Index of Globalization Weights Economic Globalization [37%] Social Globalization [39%] Political Globalization [25%]

10. 2010 KOF Index of Globalization Weights Economic Globalization [37%] i) Actual Flows(50%) Trade (% of GDP) (19%) Foreign Direct Investment, flows (% of GDP) (20%) Foreign Direct Investment, stocks (% of GDP) (24%) Portfolio Investment (% of GDP) (17%) Income Payments to Foreign Nationals (% of GDP) (20%) ii) Restrictions(50%) Hidden Import Barriers (22%) Mean Tariff Rate (28%) Taxes on International Trade (% of current revenue)(27%) Capital Account Restrictions (22%)

11. 2010 KOF Index of Globalization Weights Social Globalization [39%] i) Data on Personal Contact(33%) Telephone Traffic (26%) Transfers (% of GDP) (3%) International Tourism (26%) Foreign Population (% of total population) (20%) International letters (per capita) (25%) ii) Data on Information Flows(36%) Internet Users (per 1000 people) (36%) Television (per 1000 people) (36%) Trade in Newspapers (% of GDP) (28%) iii) Data on Cultural Proximity(31%) Number of McDonald's Restaurants (per capita) (43%) Number of Ikea (per capita) (44%) Trade in books (% of GDP) (12%)

12. 2010 KOF Index of Globalization Weights Political Globalization [25%] Embassies in Country (25%) Membership in International Organizations (28%) Participation in U.N. Security Council Missions (22%) International Treaties (25%)

13. Alternative world scenarios to achieve sustainability: http://www.tellus.org/programs/taxonomy.html

14. Conventional Worlds: Global system of the 21st century evolves - without major surprises, - sharp discontinuities - or fundamental transformations in the basis for human civilization. Dominant values and institutions shape the future. World economy grows rapidly. Developing countries gradually converge toward the norms set by highly industrialized countries. http://www.tellus.org/programs/taxonomy.html

15. Conventional Worlds – Market Forces (MF): • MF incorporates • mid-range population projection (40% expansion by 2050) • mid-range development projection (global economy expands over three-fold by 2050, eightfold by 2100) • typical technological change assumptions. • MF is constructed as a future in which free trade and deregulation drive growth. • The problem of resolving the social and environmental stress arising from global population and economic growth is left to the self-correcting logic of competitive markets. http://www.tellus.org/programs/taxonomy.html

16. Conventional Worlds – Policy Reform (PR): PR assumes the emergence of a massive government-led effort achieves sustainability without major changes in the state-centric international order, modern institutional structures, and consumerist values. Strong and harmonized policies are implemented that, by redirecting the world economy and promoting technological innovation, are able to achieve internationally recognized goals for - poverty reduction, - climate change stabilization, - ecosystem preservation, - freshwater protection, and - pollution control.

17. If the market adaptations and policy reforms of Conventional Worlds were to prove insufficient for redirecting development away from destabilization, the global trajectory could move in an unwelcome direction.

18. Barbarization: Barbarization scenarios envision the grim possibility that the social, economic and moral underpinnings of civilization deteriorate, as emerging problems overwhelm the coping capacity of both markets and policy reforms. http://www.tellus.org/programs/taxonomy.html

19. Barbarization – Fortress World: Fortress World features an authoritarian response to the threat of breakdown. Ensconced in protected enclaves, elites safeguard their privilege by controlling an impoverished majority and managing critical natural resources, while outside the fortress there is repression, environmental destruction and misery. http://www.tellus.org/programs/taxonomy.html

20. Barbarization – Fortress World: In our troubled times, Fortress World seems the true (business-as-usual) scenario to many. In this dark vision, the global archipelago of connected fortresses seeks to control a damaged environment and restive population. Authorities employ geo-engineering techniques to stabilize the global climate, while dispatching (peace-keeping) militia to multiple hotspots in an attempt to quell social conflict and mass migration. But the results are mixed: emergency measures and spotty infrastructure investment cannot keep pace with habitat loss and climate change, nor provide adequate food and water to desperate billions. http://www.tellus.org/programs/taxonomy.html

21. Barbarization – Breakdown: In this scenario, crises combine and spin out of control, leading to unbridled conflict, institutional disintegration and economic collapse. http://www.tellus.org/programs/taxonomy.html

22. GREAT TRANSITIONS: Great Transitions explore visionary solutions to the sustainability challenge, including new socioeconomic arrangements and fundamental changes in values. They depict a transition to a society that preserves natural systems, provides high levels of welfare through material sufficiency and equitable distribution, and enjoys a strong sense of social solidarity. Population levels are stabilized at moderate levels and material flows through the economy are radically reduced through lower consumerism and massive use of green technologies. http://www.tellus.org/programs/taxonomy.html

23. GREAT TRANSITIONS:

24. GREAT TRANSITIONS: Great Transition envisions a values-led change in the guiding paradigm of global development. The transformation is catalyzed by the (push of) deepening crises and the (pull of) desire for a just, sustainable, and planetary civilization.

25. GREAT TRANSITIONS:

26. GREAT TRANSITIONS: A pluralistic transnational world order coalesces as a growing cultural and political movement of global citizens spurs the establishment of effective governance institutions. The new paradigm is rooted in a triad of ascendant values: human solidarity ecological resilience quality of life

27. GREAT TRANSITIONS: Less consumerist lifestyles moderate the growth thrust of Conventional Worlds scenarios, as notions of the good life turn toward qualitative dimensions of well-being: creativity leisure relationships community engagement

28. GREAT TRANSITIONS:

29. GREAT TRANSITIONS: Population stabilizes more rapidly than in other scenarios as more equal gender roles and universal access to education and health care services lower birth rates in developing countries.

30. GREAT TRANSITIONS: The world approaches a steady-state economy with incomes reaching about $30,000 per person by 2100, three times the current average. Although this figure is well below the $50,000 of Conventional Worlds, the egalitarian income distributions of Great Transition leave most people far better off, while the improved social cohesion reduces conflict. In this deeply sustainable vision, crises still linger, but the world is able to confront them with enhanced institutions for reconciliation and cooperation.

31. GREAT TRANSITIONS – Eco-Communalism: The Eco-Communalism variant incorporates the green vision of bio-regionalism, localism, face-to-face democracy, small technology and economic autarky. http://www.tellus.org/programs/taxonomy.html

32. GREAT TRANSITIONS – The New Sustainablity Paradigm: This variant shares some of the goals of the Eco-Communalism scenarios, but would seek to change the character of the urban, industrial situation (rather than to replace it), to build a more humane and equitable global civilization rather than retreat into localism. http://www.tellus.org/programs/taxonomy.html

33. Year in which conventional fossil fuels exhausted: Market Policy Fortress Great Forces Reform World Transition Crude Oil 2034 2071 2034 >2105 Natural Gas 2047 2088 2049 >2123

34. Social dimensions of sustainability: Enhance social stability and resilience  Enhance social cohesion  Democratize governance of key institutions  Strengthen cultural diversity Reduce poverty and hunger  Decrease income and wealth disparities  Raise income to a sufficient level for all  Stabilize then reduce population  Improve access to adequate nutrition, sanitation, and freshwater De-materialize lifestyles  Moderate materialistic values  Reduce formal work time  Promote quality of life activities

35. Environmental and resource dimensions of sustainability: Mitigate greenhouse gas emissions  Reduce combustion of fossil-fuels and sequester CO2 emissions  Minimize then reverse emissions from land-use changes  Reduce other greenhouse gas emissions Protect natural resources  Reduce air and water pollution  Eliminate emissions of toxic chemicals  Reduce mineral flows through economy, and recycle intensively  Reduce water stress Preserve habitats  Reduce urban sprawl  Protect forests and other ecosystems  Fish sustainably  Promote ecological agriculture

36. Selected sustainability measures in 2005 POVERTY Chronic hunger 893 millions CLIMATE CO2 concentration 380 ppm FRESHWATER People in water stress 1.73 billions ECOSYSTEM PRESSURE Deforestation Varies by region Land degradation Varies by region Marine over-fishing Pervasive

37. Selected sustainability targets POVERTY Chronic hunger 56 millions in 2100 CLIMATE CO2 concentration < 350 ppm by 2100 Warming < 2.0 deg C Cumulative CO2 emissions since 2005 < 265 GtC FRESHWATER People in water stress < 2 billions ECOSYSTEM PRESSURE Deforestation slow and reverse Land degradation slow and reverse Marine over-fishing slow and restore stocks