Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Go
al
1.1 1: Po
ve
P
1.2 overt rty
y
Pov rat
ert e
yg
ap
Go
al
2.1 2: Ag
G ri
2.2 ross cultu
Ob agric re a
n
esi
ty r ultura d nu
ate l n
utr tritio
ien
tb n
Go
ala
al
nce
3
s
3.1 : H
e
a
He
l
t
h
3.2 alth
Life y life
sat exp
isfa ect
ctio anc
y
n
Go
al
4.1 4: Ed
U uc
4.2 pper atio
PIS seco n
A r nd
esu ary
lts
att
ain
me
Go
nt
al
5.1 5: G
e
n
S
5.2 hare der e
Ge of w qua
nd om lity
er
pay en in
gap nat
ion
al p
Go
arli
al
am
6.1 6: W
ent
a
s
Fre ter
shw
a
of
t
e
6.2 tota r with
Pop l inte draw
ula rnal als
tion
re
as
Go
con sourc perc
al
ent
es
n
e
cte
7.1 7: En
dt
ow
Ene ergy
ast
7.2 rg
ew
ate
Sha y inte
r tr
nsi
re
eat
ty
of
me
ren
nt
ew
abl
ee
ner
gy
in T
FEC
1.1
Summary table:
1.2
rank 1 5 |
2.1
2.2
3.1
rank 6 13 |
3.2
4.1
rank 14 20 |
4.2
5.1
rank 21 27 |
5.2
6.1
6.2
rank 28 34 |
7.1
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Chile
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Korea, Rep.
Japan
Luxembourg
Mexico
New Zealand
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovenia
Slovakia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
United Kingdom
Turkey
United States
no data
7.2
Go
al
8.1 8: Ec
G on
8.2 NI p omy
Em er ca and
plo pita
lab
ym
or
ent
-to
-po
pu
Go
lati
al
on
9.1 9: In
rat
io
Gro frast
9.2
ruc
ss
fi
Re xed ture
sea
rch capit and
and al fo inn
dev rma ova
elo tion tio
Go
n
pm
al
ent
1
0
10
exp
.1 : Ine
e
P
nd
10 alma qual
itu
.2
i
re
PIS ratio ty
AS
oci
al J
ust
ice
Go
Ind
al
ex
1
11 1: C
.1
i
t
11 Partic ies
.2
Ro ulate
om ma
sp
er tter
per
son
Go
al
1
12 2: C
.1
on
12 Muni sum
.2
cip
Do al w ptio
n
me
stic aste and
ma gen pro
ter era
ial
t duct
Go
con ed
ion
al
sum
1
13 3: C
pti
.1
o
l
n
Pro ima
du te
cti
r
13 elate on-b
a
.2
d
Gre CO sed e
enh 2 em ner
ou issio gyGo
se
al
gas ns
em
14 14: O
issi
.1
ce
on
14 Ocea ans
sp
.2
nH
er
Ov
GD
e
a
ere lth
P
xpl
I
n
d
oit
e
x
ed
fish
Go
sto
al
cks
1
5
15
.1 : Bio
T
15 erres dive
.2
r
Re trial p sity
dL
ist rotec
Ind ted
ex
for areas
Go
bir
ds
al
16 16: I
.1
ns
16 Homi titut
.2
i
Tra cides ons
nsp
are
ncy
Co
rru
Go
pti
on
al
Per
1
17 7:
cep
.1
Glo
tio
O
b
ns
17 ffici
Ind
.2
al d al pa
ex
Ca
r
e
t
v
pac elo ne
r
ity
pm sh
ip
to
e
n
mo t a
nito ssis
r th tan
e S ce
DG
s
8.1
8.2
9.1
9.2
10.1
10.2
11.1
11.2
12.1
12.2
13.1
13.2
14.1
14.2
15.1
15.2
16.1
16.2
17.1
17.2
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Chile
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Korea, Rep.
Luxembourg
Mexico
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
United Kingdom
United States
This table shows at a glance the relative performance of every OECD country for each goal. Deep green represents the leading countries in the respective indicator, while deep red indicates the least readiness. Looking at the countries relative performance, it becomes evident that not all of them are fit for the goals,
and indeed no one country performs outstandingly in all goals. Every country has its own particular lessons to draw from the others. Moreover, even the bestperforming countries by todays standards will need to strive for significant improvements over the next 15 years. The chapters in this study contain more detailed
analysis of each indicator and country.
Executive summary
these goals have the power to question the way we live, how
countries themselves.
Key findings
the global policy goals for the coming 15 years. It is the rst
stress test of rich countries for the SDGs and presents a new
evident that not all countries are t for the goals, and indeed
of this world.
ing world, the SDGs are the mirror in which they see their
picking is impossible.
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/
7891Transforming%20Our%20World.pdf
future.
11. Best practices are becoming visible that can facilitate peer
and also call for domestic reforms in the rich countries them-
selves. The main challenges for the entire set of OECD coun-
coal, oil, natural gas, petrol, and aviation fuel. It set the right
patterns (goal 12). In the rst respect, sadly, the rich countries
12. Rich nations must do more to achieve the SDGs globally but
Sweden
Norway
Denmark
.00
10
7.79
7.55
7.52
Finland
4
5
Germany
7.08
Netherlands
7.04
Belgium
7.00
Iceland
6.97
France 10
6.94
Canada 11
6.93
Austria 12
6.92
Japan 13
6.91
Slovenia 13
6.91
7.21
United Kingdom 15
6.83
New Zealand 16
6.80
Luxembourg 17
6.66
Australia 18
6.65
Spain 18
6.65
Ireland 20
6.47
Estonia 21
6.42
6.42
Poland 21
6.32
Korea, Rep. 23
Czech Republic 24
6.24
Portugal 25
6.23
6.13
Italy 26
Slovakia 27
6.02
Israel 28
6.01
United States 29
5.95
Greece 30
5.88
Chile 31
5.73
Hungary 32
Mexico 34
7.86
Switzerland
Turkey 33
9.0
7.0
8.0
0
6.0
0
5.0
0
4.0
0
3.0
0
2.0
1.
00
5.55
5.19
4.91
The SDG Index illustrates the overall performance of each OECD country based on the 17 goals and 34 indicators examined
in the study. In sum, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, and Switzerland are best prepared to meet the SDGs and in a good
position to foster sustainable development by 2030. However, even these countries are faced with particular challenges, as
the country profiles in this study illustrate.
Table of contents
Portugal ......................................................................... 43
Slovakia.......................................................................... 44
Foreword ..................................................................... 8
Slovenia ......................................................................... 45
Spain.............................................................................. 46
2. Methodology............................................................... 14
Sweden .......................................................................... 47
Switzerland .................................................................... 48
Turkey ............................................................................ 49
Australia......................................................................... 18
Austria ........................................................................... 19
United States.................................................................. 51
Belgium.......................................................................... 20
Canada .......................................................................... 21
4. Performance by goal................................................... 52
Chile .............................................................................. 22
Goal 1:
Poverty ............................................................ 54
Czech Republic............................................................... 23
Denmark ........................................................................ 24
Estonia ........................................................................... 25
Finland ........................................................................... 26
France ............................................................................ 27
Germany ........................................................................ 28
Greece ........................................................................... 29
Hungary ......................................................................... 30
Iceland ........................................................................... 31
Ireland............................................................................ 32
Israel .............................................................................. 33
Italy ................................................................................ 34
Japan ............................................................................. 35
Luxembourg ................................................................... 37
Mexico ........................................................................... 38
Netherlands ................................................................... 39
New Zealand .................................................................. 40
Norway .......................................................................... 41
6. Bibliography ................................................................ 96
Poland............................................................................ 42
Foreword
Foreword
by more than half, falling from 1.9 billion in 1990 to 836 million
ger, and disease that so many of our fellow human beings still
in 2015.
reached the highest political level and, for the rst time, devel-
remain hungry and sick, too many mothers die in childbirth, and
people across the world to improve their lives and future prospects.
of goals for all countries, including the rich nations of this world.
the quest to end extreme poverty. They will also have to do their
this issue in such elaborate detail with the support of the Sus-
Kofi A. Annan
Founder and Chairman of the Kofi Annan Foundation,
Seventh Secretary-General of the United Nations
(19972006) and Nobel Peace Prize Laureate (2001)
Foreword
Foreword
ity rate of children under the age of ve years and the number
a crucial rst step for making the SDGs become a game changer
poverty in the most desperate corners of the world, but this will
not be enough. The MDGs did not include the full spectrum of
shows that rich countries will fail the new goals if they do not
The MDG focus divided the world into developing countries and
10
just economic model. Only then will they be able to serve as role
models for the rest of the world. But the study also identies
York in September 2015. We hope that the study will spark and
The SDGs are not legally binding goals, they are merely
political goals. They will only be achieved if civil society and citizens are effective in putting pressure on their own governments
to pursue these goals. The SDGs should serve as leverage for
politics to pursue a better economic and social model. The Bertelsmann Stiftung is ready to help make these goals a success.
This study and the assessment it provides should be a starting
Aart De Geus
Senior Director
Executive Board
Bertelsmann Stiftung
Bertelsmann Stiftung
11
Introduction
1. Introduction:
New goals for the world
In the years 2000 2015, the UN Millennium Development
These goals were (1) eradicate extreme poverty and hunger, (2)
ity and empower women, (4) reduce child mortality, (5) improve
Fifteen years after the MDGs were put in place, the number
girls are in school now and the primary school enrolment rate
September 2015.2
with, for instance, over 6.2 million malaria deaths having been
Development Goals.
number of goals.1
So while levels of fulllment vary across the goals, and
ing standards would have come about without the targets, the
September 20153
mit on September 25, 2015, in New York (see box for the 17 pro-
12
that not all countries are t for the goals, and indeed no one
of GDP, which few countries have managed so far. The truth is,
however, that the SDGs will not just require rich countries to
tal policy changes in their own countries. If the MDGs were the
world, the SDGs are the mirror in which they see their own poli-
fact means, for OECD countries, that efforts in all policy areas be
way we, citizens of the rich world, structure our economies, the
for the full set. And, as a consequence, this study will make
the OECD nations keep up their end of the global deal on sustain-
able development.
pressing for the OECD as they are for the developing world. Eco-
sustainable development.4
and which ones are lagging behind? What can OECD countries
must do more to achieve them. Civil society will have to put pres-
13
Methodology
2. Methodology
nations.
the SDGs are signed into action. This will make visible the
shortcomings and best practices which policymakers can and
countries ready for the SDGs? For this reason, we assign par-
14
averages can tell us, and in the future they should be comple-
4. To calculate the index, the raw data for each indicator have
6 In the long run, to strike a good balance between accessibility and complexity of an SDG monitoring
system, it might be possible to display the larger number of indicators concisely using a sub-index for
each of the 17 goals.
been normalized to the interval [0;1] using a linear transformation, with the minimum and maximum values over the three
observed data points as upper and lower boundaries. Subsequently, a score between one and ten has been assigned to the
transformed data in such a way that for each indicator, a score
of ten is the best and a score of one the worst result possible.
The overall SDG Index was calculated as an unweighted arithmetic mean of the 34 individual indicators.
The key theme of the SDGs, namely that no one gets
left behind, should eventually also be reected in the nal
7 Thanks to the participants of an expert workshop hosted by the Bertelsmann Stiftung and SDSN in
Paris in April 2015 on SDG indicators for OECD countries which provided input into the selection
of indicators displayed here: Guido Schmidt-Traub, Eve de la Mothe Karoubi, Maria Cortes-Puch (all
SDSN Paris), Simone Bastianoni (SDSN Mediterranean and University of Siena), Nilgun Ciliz (SDSN
Turkey and Bosphorus University), Nicola Massarelli (Eurostat), Marco Mira dErcole (OECD), El Iza
Mohamedou (PARIS21), Nicole Rippin (SDSN Germany and German Development Institute), as well as
thanks to Wilfried Rickels (IfW Kiel) and all participants of a workshop at the Bonn Conference for
Global Transformation (May 2015). The selection of indicators or views expressed in this publication do
not represent an official position on the subject by the institutions that participants of the workshop are
affiliated with. The author of this study bears full responsibility for the final selection of the indicators.
8 For the future, further improvements in data coverage and quality are, of course, desired. For this assessment of current performance, however, the indicator selection had to be restricted to the data that is
already available.
9 Sustainable Development Solutions Network (2015). Indicators and a monitoring framework
for the Sustainable Development Goals. http://indicators.report/
10 http://www.sgi-network.org
15
Country profiles
Chapter 3 presents a detailed pro le of the strengths and weaknesses of each country for all
17 SDGs. Charts are used to illustrate relative performance in each of the snapshot indicators
discussed in more detail in chapter 4. The outer circles of the chart in green represent the best
results moving to the worst at the center. A chart for a country that ranks highly in numerous
indicators will have a large shaded area. Where values are missing (e.g., the ocean-related goals
for landlocked countries) the line is interrupted.
These charts and country proles serve as an illustration of what a concise but informative
SDG monitoring system could look like in the future. It would make it impossible for policymakers to cherry-pick selected goals, drawing attention to areas where their country excels and
ignoring dimensions where performance is wanting. In this chapter, then, the whole set of 17
goals will be examined. What emerges is a holistic image of country performance across the
entire catalogue of goals.
In addition, detailed country reports which examine more dimensions than covered here in
this study can be viewed at www.sgi-network.org. Country reports for low- and middle-income
countries are available at www.bti-project.org.
16
3. Country profiles
Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Austria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Belgium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Chile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Czech Republic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Denmark. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Estonia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Finland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Greece . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Hungary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Iceland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Ireland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Israel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Italy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Korea, Rep. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Luxembourg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Netherlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Norway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Poland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Portugal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Slovakia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Slovenia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Spain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Sweden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Switzerland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Turkey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
United Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
17
1 Goal: Poverty
1.1 Poverty rate
1.2 Poverty gap
1.1
17.2
1.2
2.1
17.1
Goal: Institutions 16
Homicides 16.1
Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index 16.2
16.2
2.2
16.1
3.1
3 Goal: Health
3.1 Healthy life expectancy
3.2 Life satisfaction
3.2
15.2
Goal: Biodiversity 15
Terrestrial protected areas 15.1
Red List Index for birds 15.2
15.1
4.1
4.2
14.2
Goal: Oceans 14
Ocean Health Index 14.1
Overexploited fish stocks 14.2
5.1
14.1
AUSTRALIA
Goal: Climate 13
Production-based energy- 13.1
related CO2 emissions
Greenhouse gas emissions 13.2
per GDP
18th of 34
13.2
6.1
6.2
12.2
11.2
7.2
8 Goal: Economy and labor
8.1 GNI per capita
8.2 Employment-to-population ratio
8.1
11.1
10.2
10.1
9.2
9.1
8.2
Goal: Inequality 10
Palma ratio 10.1
PISA Social Justice Index 10.2
rank 1 5 |
6 Goal: Water
6.1 Freshwater withdrawals as percent
of total internal resources
6.2 Population connected to
wastewater treatment
7 Goal: Energy
7.1 Energy intensity
7.2 Share of renewable energy in TFEC
7.1
12.1
Goal: Cities 11
Particulate matter 11.1
Rooms per person 11.2
5.2
13.1
4 Goal: Education
4.1 Upper secondary attainment
4.2 PISA results
rank 6 13 |
rank 14 20 |
rank 21 27 |
rank 28 34 |
no data
Overall
Australia ranks 18th out of 34 countries across all dimensions
for goal 14 (which calls for the sustainable use of oceans, seas
better than the very high 17.8 percent OECD average and just
0.2 percent behind front-runner Japan, but still illustrating how
Strengths
Weaknesses
this indicator. Australia is also among the top countries for goal
With 47 tons per capita, Australia has the worst rates of domes-
space, with 2.3 rooms per person, with particulate matter air
tralia ranks 33rd, with the countrys fossil fuel energy produc-
per capita.
18
1 Goal: Poverty
1.1 Poverty rate
1.2 Poverty gap
1.1
17.2
1.2
2.1
17.1
Goal: Institutions 16
Homicides 16.1
Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index 16.2
16.2
2.2
16.1
3.1
3 Goal: Health
3.1 Healthy life expectancy
3.2 Life satisfaction
3.2
15.2
Goal: Biodiversity 15
Terrestrial protected areas 15.1
Red List Index for birds 15.2
15.1
4.1
4.2
14.2
Goal: Oceans 14
Ocean Health Index 14.1
Overexploited fish stocks 14.2
5.1
14.1
AUSTRIA
Goal: Climate 13
Production-based energy- 13.1
related CO2 emissions
Greenhouse gas emissions 13.2
per GDP
12th of 34
13.2
6.1
6.2
12.2
11.2
7.2
8 Goal: Economy and labor
8.1 GNI per capita
8.2 Employment-to-population ratio
8.1
11.1
10.2
10.1
9.2
9.1
8.2
Goal: Inequality 10
Palma ratio 10.1
PISA Social Justice Index 10.2
rank 1 5 |
6 Goal: Water
6.1 Freshwater withdrawals as percent
of total internal resources
6.2 Population connected to
wastewater treatment
7 Goal: Energy
7.1 Energy intensity
7.2 Share of renewable energy in TFEC
7.1
12.1
Goal: Cities 11
Particulate matter 11.1
Rooms per person 11.2
5.2
13.1
4 Goal: Education
4.1 Upper secondary attainment
4.2 PISA results
rank 6 13 |
rank 14 20 |
rank 21 27 |
rank 28 34 |
no data
Overall
Weaknesses
of the SDG Index. The country is among the top ten in twelve
Strengths
tries studied, its low PISA index ranking means that Austrias
19
1 Goal: Poverty
1.1 Poverty rate
1.2 Poverty gap
1.1
17.2
1.2
2.1
17.1
Goal: Institutions 16
Homicides 16.1
Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index 16.2
16.2
2.2
16.1
3.1
3 Goal: Health
3.1 Healthy life expectancy
3.2 Life satisfaction
3.2
15.2
Goal: Biodiversity 15
Terrestrial protected areas 15.1
Red List Index for birds 15.2
15.1
4.1
4.2
14.2
Goal: Oceans 14
Ocean Health Index 14.1
Overexploited fish stocks 14.2
4 Goal: Education
4.1 Upper secondary attainment
4.2 PISA results
5 Goal: Gender equality
5.1 Share of women in
national parliaments
5.2 Gender pay gap
5.1
14.1
BELGIUM
Goal: Climate 13
Production-based energy- 13.1
related CO2 emissions
Greenhouse gas emissions 13.2
per GDP
8th of 34
13.2
5.2
13.1
6.1
6.2
12.2
7 Goal: Energy
7.1 Energy intensity
7.2 Share of renewable energy in TFEC
7.1
12.1
11.2
Goal: Cities 11
Particulate matter 11.1
Rooms per person 11.2
7.2
8 Goal: Economy and labor
8.1 GNI per capita
8.2 Employment-to-population ratio
8.1
11.1
10.2
10.1
9.2
9.1
8.2
Goal: Inequality 10
Palma ratio 10.1
PISA Social Justice Index 10.2
rank 1 5 |
6 Goal: Water
6.1 Freshwater withdrawals as percent
of total internal resources
6.2 Population connected to
wastewater treatment
rank 6 13 |
rank 14 20 |
rank 21 27 |
rank 28 34 |
no data
Overall
Weaknesses
of the SDG Index. The country is among the top ten in nine of
51.8 percent of its total renewable freshwater resources, putting it at 31st among the 34 OECD countries, and indicating
Strengths
the OECD is 15.5 percent. With 2.2 rooms per person, Belgians
try among the top ve. In addition, the country ranks among
sity (6.4 petajoules per GDP) and low share of renewable energy
mean income of the poor falls below the poverty line). This posi-
20
1 Goal: Poverty
1.1 Poverty rate
1.2 Poverty gap
1.1
17.2
1.2
2.1
17.1
Goal: Institutions 16
Homicides 16.1
Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index 16.2
16.2
2.2
16.1
3.1
3 Goal: Health
3.1 Healthy life expectancy
3.2 Life satisfaction
3.2
15.2
Goal: Biodiversity 15
Terrestrial protected areas 15.1
Red List Index for birds 15.2
15.1
4.1
4.2
14.2
Goal: Oceans 14
Ocean Health Index 14.1
Overexploited fish stocks 14.2
4 Goal: Education
4.1 Upper secondary attainment
4.2 PISA results
5 Goal: Gender equality
5.1 Share of women in
national parliaments
5.2 Gender pay gap
5.1
14.1
CANADA
Goal: Climate 13
Production-based energy- 13.1
related CO2 emissions
Greenhouse gas emissions 13.2
per GDP
11th of 34
13.2
5.2
13.1
6.1
6.2
12.2
6 Goal: Water
6.1 Freshwater withdrawals as percent
of total internal resources
6.2 Population connected to
wastewater treatment
11.2
Goal: Cities 11
Particulate matter 11.1
Rooms per person 11.2
7.2
8 Goal: Economy and labor
8.1 GNI per capita
8.2 Employment-to-population ratio
8.1
11.1
10.2
10.1
9.2
9.1
8.2
Goal: Inequality 10
Palma ratio 10.1
PISA Social Justice Index 10.2
rank 1 5 |
7 Goal: Energy
7.1 Energy intensity
7.2 Share of renewable energy in TFEC
7.1
12.1
rank 6 13 |
rank 14 20 |
rank 21 27 |
rank 28 34 |
no data
Overall
Canada ranks eleventh out of 34 countries across all dimen-
Weaknesses
tors it ranks in the top ve. Across the various goals, Canadas
Australia and Estonia faring worse) and 31st for CO2 emissions
from energy production. The countrys fossil fuel energy produc-
Strengths
contrast, the top ve OECD countries each emit less than half
of Canadas total GHG emissions and less than 5 tons per capita
(goal 11). With 2.5 rooms per person, Canadians enjoy consid-
far short of countries like Japan, Hungary and the United King-
21
1 Goal: Poverty
1.1 Poverty rate
1.2 Poverty gap
1.1
17.2
1.2
2.1
17.1
Goal: Institutions 16
Homicides 16.1
Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index 16.2
16.2
2.2
16.1
3.1
3 Goal: Health
3.1 Healthy life expectancy
3.2 Life satisfaction
3.2
15.2
Goal: Biodiversity 15
Terrestrial protected areas 15.1
Red List Index for birds 15.2
15.1
4.1
4.2
14.2
Goal: Oceans 14
Ocean Health Index 14.1
Overexploited fish stocks 14.2
5.1
14.1
CHILE
Goal: Climate 13
Production-based energy- 13.1
related CO2 emissions
Greenhouse gas emissions 13.2
per GDP
31st of 34
13.2
6.1
6.2
12.2
11.2
7.2
8 Goal: Economy and labor
8.1 GNI per capita
8.2 Employment-to-population ratio
8.1
11.1
10.2
10.1
9.2
9.1
8.2
Goal: Inequality 10
Palma ratio 10.1
PISA Social Justice Index 10.2
rank 1 5 |
6 Goal: Water
6.1 Freshwater withdrawals as percent
of total internal resources
6.2 Population connected to
wastewater treatment
7 Goal: Energy
7.1 Energy intensity
7.2 Share of renewable energy in TFEC
7.1
12.1
Goal: Cities 11
Particulate matter 11.1
Rooms per person 11.2
5.2
13.1
4 Goal: Education
4.1 Upper secondary attainment
4.2 PISA results
rank 6 13 |
rank 14 20 |
rank 21 27 |
rank 28 34 |
no data
Overall
Weaknesses
SDG Index. Chile is among the top ten in seven of the 34 indica-
tors in this study, but only once manages to crack the top ve.
try (just 0.4 percent of GDP). By contrast, the top six countries
domestic R&D. The countrys last place for income gap between
rich and poor (Palma ratio of 3.3) indicates that Chile has so far
failed to adequately address inequality. Even more worrying,
Strengths
par with most other OECD countries. In 2011, just 57.5 percent
This is somewhat better than the 17.8 percent OECD average. The
country also is among the top ten for taking urgent action to com-
bat climate change and its impacts (goal 13). For example, the
also has lower greenhouse gas emissions per GDP than 25 other
OECD countries. With emissions per GDP of 273 tons per million
USD, the country performs better than the 352.1 tons OECD aver-
its economy.
age, but still short of the front-runner, Sweden (which emits just
66.8 tons).
22
1 Goal: Poverty
1.1 Poverty rate
1.2 Poverty gap
1.1
17.2
1.2
2.1
17.1
Goal: Institutions 16
Homicides 16.1
Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index 16.2
16.2
16.1
3.1
3 Goal: Health
3.1 Healthy life expectancy
3.2 Life satisfaction
3.2
15.2
Goal: Biodiversity 15
Terrestrial protected areas 15.1
Red List Index for birds 15.2
15.1
4.1
4.2
14.2
Goal: Oceans 14
Ocean Health Index 14.1
Overexploited fish stocks 14.2
Goal: Climate 13
Production-based energy- 13.1
related CO2 emissions
Greenhouse gas emissions 13.2
per GDP
2.2
14.1
CZECH
REPUBLIC
5.1
13.2
24th of 34
5.2
13.1
6.1
6.2
12.2
11.2
Goal: Cities 11
Particulate matter 11.1
Rooms per person 11.2
6 Goal: Water
6.1 Freshwater withdrawals as percent
of total internal resources
6.2 Population connected to
wastewater treatment
7.2
8 Goal: Economy and labor
8.1 GNI per capita
8.2 Employment-to-population ratio
8.1
11.1
10.2
10.1
9.2
9.1
8.2
Goal: Inequality 10
Palma ratio 10.1
PISA Social Justice Index 10.2
rank 1 5 |
7 Goal: Energy
7.1 Energy intensity
7.2 Share of renewable energy in TFEC
7.1
12.1
4 Goal: Education
4.1 Upper secondary attainment
4.2 PISA results
rank 6 13 |
rank 14 20 |
rank 21 27 |
rank 28 34 |
no data
Overall
Weaknesses
this study the country is among the top ten of OECD countries,
the country ranks among the bottom third, and for ve indica-
Strengths
Czechs are second only to the Japanese for education rates, with
kept within these limits. The countrys bird species are also not
poverty in all its forms (goal 1). A relatively low 5.2 percent (the
lowest rate in this study) of Czechs live below the poverty line,
far better than the 11.5 percent OECD average and almost on
gap (the percentage by which the mean income of the poor falls
below the poverty line) places it among the top ten OECD countries. The Czech Republics gross xed capital formation (25.3
percent of GDP) ranks it fth and a relatively progressive Palma
ratio (0.9) the distance between the richest and the poorest
10 percent ranks it fourth, indicating that some policies are
helping to reduce inequality (goal 10).
23
1 Goal: Poverty
1.1 Poverty rate
1.2 Poverty gap
1.1
17.2
1.2
2.1
17.1
Goal: Institutions 16
Homicides 16.1
Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index 16.2
16.2
2.2
16.1
3.1
3 Goal: Health
3.1 Healthy life expectancy
3.2 Life satisfaction
3.2
15.2
Goal: Biodiversity 15
Terrestrial protected areas 15.1
Red List Index for birds 15.2
15.1
4.1
4.2
14.2
Goal: Oceans 14
Ocean Health Index 14.1
Overexploited fish stocks 14.2
5.1
14.1
DENMARK
Goal: Climate 13
Production-based energy- 13.1
related CO2 emissions
Greenhouse gas emissions 13.2
per GDP
3rd of 34
13.2
6.1
6.2
12.2
11.2
7.2
8 Goal: Economy and labor
8.1 GNI per capita
8.2 Employment-to-population ratio
8.1
11.1
10.2
10.1
9.2
9.1
8.2
Goal: Inequality 10
Palma ratio 10.1
PISA Social Justice Index 10.2
rank 1 5 |
6 Goal: Water
6.1 Freshwater withdrawals as percent
of total internal resources
6.2 Population connected to
wastewater treatment
7 Goal: Energy
7.1 Energy intensity
7.2 Share of renewable energy in TFEC
7.1
12.1
Goal: Cities 11
Particulate matter 11.1
Rooms per person 11.2
5.2
13.1
4 Goal: Education
4.1 Upper secondary attainment
4.2 PISA results
rank 6 13 |
rank 14 20 |
rank 21 27 |
rank 28 34 |
no data
Overall
Denmark ranks third out of 34 countries across all dimensions
ranks third in the Ocean Health Index, behind Estonia and New
of the SDG Index. The country is among the top ten for over half
high average. The country nds itself among the bottom third for
ve of the indicators, and in the bottom ve for just one.
Weaknesses
Despite its positive showing, Denmark is not without its chal-
Strengths
capita every year, one of the worst rates among OECD countries.
public sector. The country also ranks among the top ten for
per capita. And while it rates highly for income gap, the other
poverty rate of 6 percent puts the country right behind the Czech
by socioeconomic status.
reducing inequality. Denmark also leads the way in citizens satisfaction with life. The Danish government is at the same time
among the ve most generous in development assistance, giving
0.9 percent of GNI (nearly $3 billion in 2014). Signicant nancial
contributions to developing countries are essential to sustainable
development on a global scale. Also noteworthy: the country
24
1 Goal: Poverty
1.1 Poverty rate
1.2 Poverty gap
1.1
17.2
1.2
2.1
17.1
Goal: Institutions 16
Homicides 16.1
Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index 16.2
16.2
2.2
16.1
3.1
3 Goal: Health
3.1 Healthy life expectancy
3.2 Life satisfaction
3.2
15.2
Goal: Biodiversity 15
Terrestrial protected areas 15.1
Red List Index for birds 15.2
15.1
4.1
4.2
14.2
Goal: Oceans 14
Ocean Health Index 14.1
Overexploited fish stocks 14.2
5.1
14.1
ESTONIA
Goal: Climate 13
Production-based energy- 13.1
related CO2 emissions
Greenhouse gas emissions 13.2
per GDP
21st of 34
13.2
6.1
6.2
12.2
11.2
7.2
8 Goal: Economy and labor
8.1 GNI per capita
8.2 Employment-to-population ratio
8.1
11.1
10.2
10.1
9.2
9.1
8.2
Goal: Inequality 10
Palma ratio 10.1
PISA Social Justice Index 10.2
rank 1 5 |
6 Goal: Water
6.1 Freshwater withdrawals as percent
of total internal resources
6.2 Population connected to
wastewater treatment
7 Goal: Energy
7.1 Energy intensity
7.2 Share of renewable energy in TFEC
7.1
12.1
Goal: Cities 11
Particulate matter 11.1
Rooms per person 11.2
5.2
13.1
4 Goal: Education
4.1 Upper secondary attainment
4.2 PISA results
rank 6 13 |
rank 14 20 |
rank 21 27 |
rank 28 34 |
no data
Overall
Estonia ranks 21st out of 34 countries across all dimensions of the
OECD countries and for ve it tops the rankings. Estonias performance, however, varies greatly. For 13 indicators the country is
Weaknesses
among the bottom third, and among the bottom ve for eight.
For all of its impressive accomplishments, Estonia faces signicant policy challenges. Estonia performs dismally in goal
Strengths
The country tops the PISA index of economic, social and cul-
tries for greenhouse gas emissions and 30th for CO2 emissions
per million, the country emits nearly double the OECD aver-
age and more than ten times the front-runner, Sweden (which
tion emits 12.3 tons of carbon dioxide emissions per capita; the
top ve countries each emit less than 5 tons per capita. Just as
(9.1 petajoules per GDP) is more than double that of each of the
the countrys 293 kilograms per capita is far below the OECD
1 Goal: Poverty
1.1 Poverty rate
1.2 Poverty gap
1.1
17.2
1.2
2.1
17.1
Goal: Institutions 16
Homicides 16.1
Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index 16.2
16.2
2.2
16.1
3.1
3 Goal: Health
3.1 Healthy life expectancy
3.2 Life satisfaction
3.2
15.2
Goal: Biodiversity 15
Terrestrial protected areas 15.1
Red List Index for birds 15.2
15.1
4.1
4.2
14.2
Goal: Oceans 14
Ocean Health Index 14.1
Overexploited fish stocks 14.2
5.1
14.1
FINLAND
Goal: Climate 13
Production-based energy- 13.1
related CO2 emissions
Greenhouse gas emissions 13.2
per GDP
4th of 34
13.2
6.1
6.2
12.2
11.2
7.2
8 Goal: Economy and labor
8.1 GNI per capita
8.2 Employment-to-population ratio
8.1
11.1
10.2
10.1
9.2
9.1
8.2
Goal: Inequality 10
Palma ratio 10.1
PISA Social Justice Index 10.2
rank 1 5 |
6 Goal: Water
6.1 Freshwater withdrawals as percent
of total internal resources
6.2 Population connected to
wastewater treatment
7 Goal: Energy
7.1 Energy intensity
7.2 Share of renewable energy in TFEC
7.1
12.1
Goal: Cities 11
Particulate matter 11.1
Rooms per person 11.2
5.2
13.1
4 Goal: Education
4.1 Upper secondary attainment
4.2 PISA results
rank 6 13 |
rank 14 20 |
rank 21 27 |
rank 28 34 |
no data
Overall
Finland ranks fourth out of 34 countries across all dimensions
of the SDG Index. For more than half of the indicators the coun-
try ranks in the top ten and in the top ve for 13 indicators.
Weaknesses
two indicators.
Finlands relatively high primary energy intensity (8.2 petajoules per GDP) puts it well toward the bottom of the table, with
Strengths
in all its forms (goal 1). A relatively low 6.6 percent of Finns live
below the poverty line, far better than the 11.5 percent OECD
poor falls below the poverty line) of any OECD country. Finland
sample.
26
1 Goal: Poverty
1.1 Poverty rate
1.2 Poverty gap
1.1
17.2
1.2
2.1
17.1
Goal: Institutions 16
Homicides 16.1
Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index 16.2
16.2
2.2
16.1
3.1
3 Goal: Health
3.1 Healthy life expectancy
3.2 Life satisfaction
3.2
15.2
Goal: Biodiversity 15
Terrestrial protected areas 15.1
Red List Index for birds 15.2
15.1
4.1
4.2
14.2
Goal: Oceans 14
Ocean Health Index 14.1
Overexploited fish stocks 14.2
5.1
14.1
FRANCE
Goal: Climate 13
Production-based energy- 13.1
related CO2 emissions
Greenhouse gas emissions 13.2
per GDP
10th of 34
13.2
6.1
6.2
12.2
11.2
7.2
8 Goal: Economy and labor
8.1 GNI per capita
8.2 Employment-to-population ratio
8.1
11.1
10.2
10.1
9.2
9.1
8.2
Goal: Inequality 10
Palma ratio 10.1
PISA Social Justice Index 10.2
rank 1 5 |
6 Goal: Water
6.1 Freshwater withdrawals as percent
of total internal resources
6.2 Population connected to
wastewater treatment
7 Goal: Energy
7.1 Energy intensity
7.2 Share of renewable energy in TFEC
7.1
12.1
Goal: Cities 11
Particulate matter 11.1
Rooms per person 11.2
5.2
13.1
4 Goal: Education
4.1 Upper secondary attainment
4.2 PISA results
rank 6 13 |
rank 14 20 |
rank 21 27 |
rank 28 34 |
no data
Overall
France ranks tenth out of 34 countries across all dimensions of
the SDG Index. France ranks among the top ten for eight of the 34
Weaknesses
tors does the country nd itself in the bottom third, and only once
Strengths
France ranks among the top ten for urgent action to combat
climate change and its impacts (goal 13). The country has lower
tries. With emissions per GDP of 230.8 tons per million USD,
France performs better than the 352.1-ton OECD average, but still
far short of the front-runner, Sweden (which emits 66.8 tons). The
per capita, putting the country 24th among the OECD coun-
dioxide per capita (eighth place in the sample). France has also
27
1 Goal: Poverty
1.1 Poverty rate
1.2 Poverty gap
1.1
17.2
1.2
2.1
17.1
Goal: Institutions 16
Homicides 16.1
Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index 16.2
16.2
2.2
16.1
3.1
3 Goal: Health
3.1 Healthy life expectancy
3.2 Life satisfaction
3.2
15.2
Goal: Biodiversity 15
Terrestrial protected areas 15.1
Red List Index for birds 15.2
15.1
4.1
4.2
14.2
Goal: Oceans 14
Ocean Health Index 14.1
Overexploited fish stocks 14.2
5.1
14.1
GERMANY
Goal: Climate 13
Production-based energy- 13.1
related CO2 emissions
Greenhouse gas emissions 13.2
per GDP
6th of 34
13.2
6.1
6.2
12.2
11.2
7.2
8 Goal: Economy and labor
8.1 GNI per capita
8.2 Employment-to-population ratio
8.1
11.1
10.2
10.1
9.2
9.1
8.2
Goal: Inequality 10
Palma ratio 10.1
PISA Social Justice Index 10.2
rank 1 5 |
6 Goal: Water
6.1 Freshwater withdrawals as percent
of total internal resources
6.2 Population connected to
wastewater treatment
7 Goal: Energy
7.1 Energy intensity
7.2 Share of renewable energy in TFEC
7.1
12.1
Goal: Cities 11
Particulate matter 11.1
Rooms per person 11.2
5.2
13.1
4 Goal: Education
4.1 Upper secondary attainment
4.2 PISA results
rank 6 13 |
rank 14 20 |
rank 21 27 |
rank 28 34 |
no data
Overall
Germany ranks sixth out of 34 countries across all dimensions
of the SDG Index. It is among the top ten for twelve of the 34
percent of GDP).
tors the country nds itself in the bottom third, yet only twice
among the bottom ve.
Weaknesses
The sustainability of agriculture in Germany is severely threat-
Strengths
poor falls below the poverty line) puts it at fourth among the
28
1 Goal: Poverty
1.1 Poverty rate
1.2 Poverty gap
1.1
17.2
1.2
2.1
17.1
Goal: Institutions 16
Homicides 16.1
Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index 16.2
16.2
2.2
16.1
3.1
3 Goal: Health
3.1 Healthy life expectancy
3.2 Life satisfaction
3.2
15.2
Goal: Biodiversity 15
Terrestrial protected areas 15.1
Red List Index for birds 15.2
15.1
4.1
4.2
14.2
Goal: Oceans 14
Ocean Health Index 14.1
Overexploited fish stocks 14.2
4 Goal: Education
4.1 Upper secondary attainment
4.2 PISA results
5 Goal: Gender equality
5.1 Share of women in
national parliaments
5.2 Gender pay gap
5.1
14.1
GREECE
Goal: Climate 13
Production-based energy- 13.1
related CO2 emissions
Greenhouse gas emissions 13.2
per GDP
30th of 34
13.2
5.2
13.1
6.1
6.2
12.2
11.2
Goal: Cities 11
Particulate matter 11.1
Rooms per person 11.2
7 Goal: Energy
7.1 Energy intensity
7.2 Share of renewable energy in TFEC
7.1
12.1
7.2
8 Goal: Economy and labor
8.1 GNI per capita
8.2 Employment-to-population ratio
8.1
11.1
10.2
10.1
9.2
9.1
8.2
Goal: Inequality 10
Palma ratio 10.1
PISA Social Justice Index 10.2
rank 1 5 |
6 Goal: Water
6.1 Freshwater withdrawals as percent
of total internal resources
6.2 Population connected to
wastewater treatment
rank 6 13 |
rank 14 20 |
rank 21 27 |
rank 28 34 |
no data
Overall
Weaknesses
by which the mean income of the poor falls below the poverty
Strengths
9). Greece ranks last in gross xed capital formation and only
tion, yet the country spends just 0.8 percent of GDP on research
country also ranks fourth among the 34 OECD countries for its
than the 17.8 percent OECD average. At 12.1 tons per capita,
29
1 Goal: Poverty
1.1 Poverty rate
1.2 Poverty gap
1.1
17.2
1.2
2.1
17.1
Goal: Institutions 16
Homicides 16.1
Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index 16.2
16.2
2.2
16.1
3.1
3 Goal: Health
3.1 Healthy life expectancy
3.2 Life satisfaction
3.2
15.2
Goal: Biodiversity 15
Terrestrial protected areas 15.1
Red List Index for birds 15.2
15.1
4.1
4.2
14.2
Goal: Oceans 14
Ocean Health Index 14.1
Overexploited fish stocks 14.2
5.1
14.1
HUNGARY
Goal: Climate 13
Production-based energy- 13.1
related CO2 emissions
Greenhouse gas emissions 13.2
per GDP
32nd of 34
13.2
6.1
6.2
12.2
11.2
7.2
8 Goal: Economy and labor
8.1 GNI per capita
8.2 Employment-to-population ratio
8.1
11.1
10.2
10.1
9.2
9.1
8.2
Goal: Inequality 10
Palma ratio 10.1
PISA Social Justice Index 10.2
rank 1 5 |
6 Goal: Water
6.1 Freshwater withdrawals as percent
of total internal resources
6.2 Population connected to
wastewater treatment
7 Goal: Energy
7.1 Energy intensity
7.2 Share of renewable energy in TFEC
7.1
12.1
Goal: Cities 11
Particulate matter 11.1
Rooms per person 11.2
5.2
13.1
4 Goal: Education
4.1 Upper secondary attainment
4.2 PISA results
rank 6 13 |
rank 14 20 |
rank 21 27 |
rank 28 34 |
no data
Overall
Weaknesses
Strengths
lution and only one place higher for use of renewable water
the sample). Hungary is also among the top ten for its relatively
of this may help explain why Hungarians rank 32nd for life
satisfaction.
good position to monitor SDGs in the future with over 83 percent of the SDG indicators used in this study reported annually
with a time lag no greater than three years.
30
1 Goal: Poverty
1.1 Poverty rate
1.2 Poverty gap
1.1
17.2
1.2
2.1
17.1
Goal: Institutions 16
Homicides 16.1
Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index 16.2
16.2
2.2
16.1
3.1
3 Goal: Health
3.1 Healthy life expectancy
3.2 Life satisfaction
3.2
15.2
Goal: Biodiversity 15
Terrestrial protected areas 15.1
Red List Index for birds 15.2
15.1
4.1
4.2
14.2
Goal: Oceans 14
Ocean Health Index 14.1
Overexploited fish stocks 14.2
5.1
14.1
ICELAND
Goal: Climate 13
Production-based energy- 13.1
related CO2 emissions
Greenhouse gas emissions 13.2
per GDP
9th of 34
13.2
6.1
6.2
12.2
11.2
7.2
8 Goal: Economy and labor
8.1 GNI per capita
8.2 Employment-to-population ratio
8.1
11.1
10.2
10.1
9.2
9.1
8.2
Goal: Inequality 10
Palma ratio 10.1
PISA Social Justice Index 10.2
rank 1 5 |
6 Goal: Water
6.1 Freshwater withdrawals as percent
of total internal resources
6.2 Population connected to
wastewater treatment
7 Goal: Energy
7.1 Energy intensity
7.2 Share of renewable energy in TFEC
7.1
12.1
Goal: Cities 11
Particulate matter 11.1
Rooms per person 11.2
5.2
13.1
4 Goal: Education
4.1 Upper secondary attainment
4.2 PISA results
rank 6 13 |
rank 14 20 |
rank 21 27 |
rank 28 34 |
no data
Overall
Iceland ranks ninth out of 34 countries across all dimensions
of the SDG Index. The country is in the top third for almost
Iceland in the top ve. Iceland in fact comes out on top for
income gap between rich and poor (0.9), and second for its score
country nds itself among the bottom third, and in the bottom
tion opportunities). Finally, Iceland leads the world for its use of
renewable energy sources (76.7 percent) effectively all from
Strengths
Iceland leads the OECD countries in employment with 82.8 percent of its working-age citizens employed. Iceland has also made
Weaknesses
progress toward ending poverty in all its forms (goal 1). The
country has a low poverty rate among OECD countries, with just
energy, it also has the least efcient energy use with a primary
far better than the 11.5 percent OECD average. Yet, the countrys
centage by which the mean income of the poor falls below the
poverty line) ranks 18th among the countries in the sample. The
OECD average).
31
1 Goal: Poverty
1.1 Poverty rate
1.2 Poverty gap
1.1
17.2
1.2
2.1
17.1
Goal: Institutions 16
Homicides 16.1
Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index 16.2
16.2
2.2
16.1
3.1
3 Goal: Health
3.1 Healthy life expectancy
3.2 Life satisfaction
3.2
15.2
Goal: Biodiversity 15
Terrestrial protected areas 15.1
Red List Index for birds 15.2
15.1
4.1
4.2
14.2
Goal: Oceans 14
Ocean Health Index 14.1
Overexploited fish stocks 14.2
5.1
14.1
IRELAND
Goal: Climate 13
Production-based energy- 13.1
related CO2 emissions
Greenhouse gas emissions 13.2
per GDP
20th of 34
13.2
6.1
6.2
12.2
11.2
7.2
8 Goal: Economy and labor
8.1 GNI per capita
8.2 Employment-to-population ratio
8.1
11.1
10.2
10.1
9.2
9.1
8.2
Goal: Inequality 10
Palma ratio 10.1
PISA Social Justice Index 10.2
rank 1 5 |
6 Goal: Water
6.1 Freshwater withdrawals as percent
of total internal resources
6.2 Population connected to
wastewater treatment
7 Goal: Energy
7.1 Energy intensity
7.2 Share of renewable energy in TFEC
7.1
12.1
Goal: Cities 11
Particulate matter 11.1
Rooms per person 11.2
5.2
13.1
4 Goal: Education
4.1 Upper secondary attainment
4.2 PISA results
rank 6 13 |
rank 14 20 |
rank 21 27 |
rank 28 34 |
no data
Overall
Weaknesses
mixed. For nine indicators the country ranks among the bottom
current energy needs are met without jeopardizing future generations. The Irish government faces other policy challenges:
Strengths
space, with 2.1 rooms per person, and particulate matter air
the top ten in this study. Irelands efcient energy use is also
32
1 Goal: Poverty
1.1 Poverty rate
1.2 Poverty gap
1.1
17.2
1.2
2.1
17.1
Goal: Institutions 16
Homicides 16.1
Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index 16.2
16.2
2.2
16.1
3.1
3 Goal: Health
3.1 Healthy life expectancy
3.2 Life satisfaction
3.2
15.2
Goal: Biodiversity 15
Terrestrial protected areas 15.1
Red List Index for birds 15.2
15.1
4.1
4.2
14.2
Goal: Oceans 14
Ocean Health Index 14.1
Overexploited fish stocks 14.2
5.1
14.1
ISRAEL
Goal: Climate 13
Production-based energy- 13.1
related CO2 emissions
Greenhouse gas emissions 13.2
per GDP
28th of 34
13.2
6.1
6.2
12.2
11.2
7.2
8 Goal: Economy and labor
8.1 GNI per capita
8.2 Employment-to-population ratio
8.1
11.1
10.2
10.1
9.2
9.1
8.2
Goal: Inequality 10
Palma ratio 10.1
PISA Social Justice Index 10.2
rank 1 5 |
6 Goal: Water
6.1 Freshwater withdrawals as percent
of total internal resources
6.2 Population connected to
wastewater treatment
7 Goal: Energy
7.1 Energy intensity
7.2 Share of renewable energy in TFEC
7.1
12.1
Goal: Cities 11
Particulate matter 11.1
Rooms per person 11.2
5.2
13.1
4 Goal: Education
4.1 Upper secondary attainment
4.2 PISA results
rank 6 13 |
rank 14 20 |
rank 21 27 |
rank 28 34 |
no data
Overall
Weaknesses
SDG Index. Israel is among the top ten for four indicators, twice
making it into the top ve. For 16 indicators (almost half of the
bottom ve.
Strengths
ranks among the top ten countries for the efciency of its
a 21.8 percent gender pay gap, wider than the OECD average
33
1 Goal: Poverty
1.1 Poverty rate
1.2 Poverty gap
1.1
17.2
1.2
2.1
17.1
Goal: Institutions 16
Homicides 16.1
Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index 16.2
16.2
2.2
16.1
3.1
3 Goal: Health
3.1 Healthy life expectancy
3.2 Life satisfaction
3.2
15.2
Goal: Biodiversity 15
Terrestrial protected areas 15.1
Red List Index for birds 15.2
15.1
4.1
4.2
14.2
Goal: Oceans 14
Ocean Health Index 14.1
Overexploited fish stocks 14.2
5.1
14.1
ITALY
Goal: Climate 13
Production-based energy- 13.1
related CO2 emissions
Greenhouse gas emissions 13.2
per GDP
26th of 34
13.2
6.1
6.2
12.2
11.2
7.2
8 Goal: Economy and labor
8.1 GNI per capita
8.2 Employment-to-population ratio
8.1
11.1
10.2
10.1
9.2
9.1
8.2
Goal: Inequality 10
Palma ratio 10.1
PISA Social Justice Index 10.2
rank 1 5 |
6 Goal: Water
6.1 Freshwater withdrawals as percent
of total internal resources
6.2 Population connected to
wastewater treatment
7 Goal: Energy
7.1 Energy intensity
7.2 Share of renewable energy in TFEC
7.1
12.1
Goal: Cities 11
Particulate matter 11.1
Rooms per person 11.2
5.2
13.1
4 Goal: Education
4.1 Upper secondary attainment
4.2 PISA results
rank 6 13 |
rank 14 20 |
rank 21 27 |
rank 28 34 |
no data
Overall
Italy ranks 26th out of 34 countries across all dimensions of
the SDG Index. For nine of the 34 indicators in this study the
country is among the top third OECD countries, and among the
top ve for three of those. Italys performance, however, varies
Weaknesses
Greeks, the two joint second only to Mexico. One of the coun-
for ve indicators.
Strengths
also ranks 31st for particulate matter air pollution, with levels
yet Italian students can only manage average PISA results and
prising that Italy ranks among the bottom third for life satisfac-
34
1 Goal: Poverty
1.1 Poverty rate
1.2 Poverty gap
1.1
17.2
1.2
2.1
17.1
Goal: Institutions 16
Homicides 16.1
Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index 16.2
16.2
2.2
16.1
3.1
3 Goal: Health
3.1 Healthy life expectancy
3.2 Life satisfaction
3.2
15.2
Goal: Biodiversity 15
Terrestrial protected areas 15.1
Red List Index for birds 15.2
15.1
4.1
4.2
14.2
Goal: Oceans 14
Ocean Health Index 14.1
Overexploited fish stocks 14.2
5.1
14.1
JAPAN
Goal: Climate 13
Production-based energy- 13.1
related CO2 emissions
Greenhouse gas emissions 13.2
per GDP
13th of 34
13.2
6.1
6.2
12.2
11.2
7.2
8 Goal: Economy and labor
8.1 GNI per capita
8.2 Employment-to-population ratio
8.1
11.1
10.2
10.1
9.2
9.1
8.2
Goal: Inequality 10
Palma ratio 10.1
PISA Social Justice Index 10.2
rank 1 5 |
6 Goal: Water
6.1 Freshwater withdrawals as percent
of total internal resources
6.2 Population connected to
wastewater treatment
7 Goal: Energy
7.1 Energy intensity
7.2 Share of renewable energy in TFEC
7.1
12.1
Goal: Cities 11
Particulate matter 11.1
Rooms per person 11.2
5.2
13.1
4 Goal: Education
4.1 Upper secondary attainment
4.2 PISA results
rank 6 13 |
rank 14 20 |
rank 21 27 |
rank 28 34 |
no data
Overall
Japan ranks 13th out of 34 countries across all dimensions of
leader in both of the indicators for goal 4 (which calls for inclu-
the top third, with nine indicators in the top three, and for an
education.
Weaknesses
Strengths
35
1 Goal: Poverty
1.1 Poverty rate
1.2 Poverty gap
1.1
17.2
1.2
2.1
17.1
Goal: Institutions 16
Homicides 16.1
Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index 16.2
16.2
16.1
3.1
3 Goal: Health
3.1 Healthy life expectancy
3.2 Life satisfaction
3.2
15.2
Goal: Biodiversity 15
Terrestrial protected areas 15.1
Red List Index for birds 15.2
15.1
4.1
4.2
14.2
Goal: Oceans 14
Ocean Health Index 14.1
Overexploited fish stocks 14.2
Goal: Climate 13
Production-based energy- 13.1
related CO2 emissions
Greenhouse gas emissions 13.2
per GDP
2.2
14.1
REPUBLIC
OF KOREA
5.1
13.2
23rd of 34
5.2
13.1
6.1
6.2
12.2
11.2
Goal: Cities 11
Particulate matter 11.1
Rooms per person 11.2
6 Goal: Water
6.1 Freshwater withdrawals as percent
of total internal resources
6.2 Population connected to
wastewater treatment
7.2
8 Goal: Economy and labor
8.1 GNI per capita
8.2 Employment-to-population ratio
8.1
11.1
10.2
10.1
9.2
9.1
8.2
Goal: Inequality 10
Palma ratio 10.1
PISA Social Justice Index 10.2
rank 1 5 |
7 Goal: Energy
7.1 Energy intensity
7.2 Share of renewable energy in TFEC
7.1
12.1
4 Goal: Education
4.1 Upper secondary attainment
4.2 PISA results
rank 6 13 |
rank 14 20 |
rank 21 27 |
rank 28 34 |
no data
Overall
Weaknesses
pay gap. At 36.6 percent, this disturbingly wide gap puts the
can be found among the top third, and on eight indicators in the
country at the bottom of the list, far exceeding the OECD aver-
by which the mean income of the poor falls below the poverty
line) also puts it among the bottom ve. The country ranks
Strengths
South Koreas PISA results are the best in the OECD. The aver-
age Korean students PISA score was 45 points above the aver-
parison, the top ve countries for this measure each use over
more than double the OECD average. South Korea should also
36
1 Goal: Poverty
1.1 Poverty rate
1.2 Poverty gap
1.1
17.2
1.2
2.1
17.1
Goal: Institutions 16
Homicides 16.1
Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index 16.2
16.2
2.2
16.1
3.1
3 Goal: Health
3.1 Healthy life expectancy
3.2 Life satisfaction
3.2
15.2
Goal: Biodiversity 15
Terrestrial protected areas 15.1
Red List Index for birds 15.2
15.1
4.1
4.2
14.2
Goal: Oceans 14
Ocean Health Index 14.1
Overexploited fish stocks 14.2
5.1
14.1
LUXEMBOURG
Goal: Climate 13
Production-based energy- 13.1
related CO2 emissions
Greenhouse gas emissions 13.2
per GDP
17th of 34
13.2
6.1
6.2
12.2
11.2
7.2
8 Goal: Economy and labor
8.1 GNI per capita
8.2 Employment-to-population ratio
8.1
11.1
10.2
10.1
9.2
9.1
8.2
Goal: Inequality 10
Palma ratio 10.1
PISA Social Justice Index 10.2
rank 1 5 |
6 Goal: Water
6.1 Freshwater withdrawals as percent
of total internal resources
6.2 Population connected to
wastewater treatment
7 Goal: Energy
7.1 Energy intensity
7.2 Share of renewable energy in TFEC
7.1
12.1
Goal: Cities 11
Particulate matter 11.1
Rooms per person 11.2
5.2
13.1
4 Goal: Education
4.1 Upper secondary attainment
4.2 PISA results
rank 6 13 |
rank 14 20 |
rank 21 27 |
rank 28 34 |
no data
Overall
Weaknesses
of the SDG Index. For 12 indicators the country is among the top
ing, emitting 19.5 tons of carbon dioxide per capita. This puts it
at the bottom of the OECD, where the top ve countries each emit
even manages rst for three indicators, and overall the countrys
tors the country nds itself among the bottom third, and on ve
Strengths
all its forms (goal 1). The countrys poverty rate of 8.3 percent
puts it among the top ten. Luxembourgs gender pay gap (6.5
37
1 Goal: Poverty
1.1 Poverty rate
1.2 Poverty gap
1.1
17.2
1.2
2.1
17.1
Goal: Institutions 16
Homicides 16.1
Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index 16.2
16.2
2.2
16.1
3.1
3 Goal: Health
3.1 Healthy life expectancy
3.2 Life satisfaction
3.2
15.2
Goal: Biodiversity 15
Terrestrial protected areas 15.1
Red List Index for birds 15.2
15.1
4.1
4.2
14.2
Goal: Oceans 14
Ocean Health Index 14.1
Overexploited fish stocks 14.2
5.1
14.1
MEXICO
Goal: Climate 13
Production-based energy- 13.1
related CO2 emissions
Greenhouse gas emissions 13.2
per GDP
34th of 34
13.2
6.1
6.2
12.2
11.2
7.2
8 Goal: Economy and labor
8.1 GNI per capita
8.2 Employment-to-population ratio
8.1
11.1
10.2
10.1
9.2
9.1
8.2
Goal: Inequality 10
Palma ratio 10.1
PISA Social Justice Index 10.2
rank 1 5 |
6 Goal: Water
6.1 Freshwater withdrawals as percent
of total internal resources
6.2 Population connected to
wastewater treatment
7 Goal: Energy
7.1 Energy intensity
7.2 Share of renewable energy in TFEC
7.1
12.1
Goal: Cities 11
Particulate matter 11.1
Rooms per person 11.2
5.2
13.1
4 Goal: Education
4.1 Upper secondary attainment
4.2 PISA results
rank 6 13 |
rank 14 20 |
rank 21 27 |
rank 28 34 |
no data
Overall
Weaknesses
poverty in all its forms (goal 1). With 21.4 percent of Mexicans
living below the national poverty line, the country has the
top ve. For over half of the measures, on the other hand, the
worst poverty rate in this study and nearly double the OECD
country nds itself among the bottom third, and in the bottom
ve for 16 indicators.
centage by which the mean income of the poor falls below the
poverty line) where the country ranks 33rd. In 2013, just 38.4
Strengths
times that amount. The country ranks fourth on the PISA index
are also at the greatest risk of homicide, with a rate of 18.9 per
38
1 Goal: Poverty
1.1 Poverty rate
1.2 Poverty gap
1.1
17.2
1.2
2.1
17.1
Goal: Institutions 16
Homicides 16.1
Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index 16.2
16.2
2.2
16.1
3.1
3 Goal: Health
3.1 Healthy life expectancy
3.2 Life satisfaction
3.2
15.2
Goal: Biodiversity 15
Terrestrial protected areas 15.1
Red List Index for birds 15.2
15.1
4.1
4.2
14.2
Goal: Oceans 14
Ocean Health Index 14.1
Overexploited fish stocks 14.2
4 Goal: Education
4.1 Upper secondary attainment
4.2 PISA results
5 Goal: Gender equality
5.1 Share of women in
national parliaments
5.2 Gender pay gap
5.1
14.1
NETHERLANDS
Goal: Climate 13
Production-based energy- 13.1
related CO2 emissions
Greenhouse gas emissions 13.2
per GDP
7th of 34
13.2
5.2
13.1
6.1
6.2
12.2
11.2
Goal: Cities 11
Particulate matter 11.1
Rooms per person 11.2
7 Goal: Energy
7.1 Energy intensity
7.2 Share of renewable energy in TFEC
7.1
12.1
7.2
8 Goal: Economy and labor
8.1 GNI per capita
8.2 Employment-to-population ratio
8.1
11.1
10.2
10.1
9.2
9.1
8.2
Goal: Inequality 10
Palma ratio 10.1
PISA Social Justice Index 10.2
rank 1 5 |
6 Goal: Water
6.1 Freshwater withdrawals as percent
of total internal resources
6.2 Population connected to
wastewater treatment
rank 6 13 |
rank 14 20 |
rank 21 27 |
rank 28 34 |
no data
Overall
The Netherlands ranks seventh out of the 34 countries across
poverty line, better than the 11.5 percent OECD average. These
the top ve for three of them. For nine measures the country
nds itself among the bottom third, and on ve indicators in
Weaknesses
The Netherlands ranks second-last for freshwater withdrawals, annually withdrawing 96.5 percent of its total renewable
Strengths
32nd for renewable energy use with just 3.6 percent of Dutch
39
1 Goal: Poverty
1.1 Poverty rate
1.2 Poverty gap
1.1
17.2
1.2
2.1
17.1
Goal: Institutions 16
Homicides 16.1
Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index 16.2
16.2
16.1
3.1
3 Goal: Health
3.1 Healthy life expectancy
3.2 Life satisfaction
3.2
15.2
Goal: Biodiversity 15
Terrestrial protected areas 15.1
Red List Index for birds 15.2
15.1
4.1
4.2
14.2
Goal: Oceans 14
Ocean Health Index 14.1
Overexploited fish stocks 14.2
Goal: Climate 13
Production-based energy- 13.1
related CO2 emissions
Greenhouse gas emissions 13.2
per GDP
2.2
14.1
NEW
ZEALAND
5.1
13.2
16th of 34
5.2
13.1
6.1
6.2
12.2
11.2
Goal: Cities 11
Particulate matter 11.1
Rooms per person 11.2
6 Goal: Water
6.1 Freshwater withdrawals as percent
of total internal resources
6.2 Population connected to
wastewater treatment
7.2
8 Goal: Economy and labor
8.1 GNI per capita
8.2 Employment-to-population ratio
8.1
11.1
10.2
10.1
9.2
9.1
8.2
Goal: Inequality 10
Palma ratio 10.1
PISA Social Justice Index 10.2
rank 1 5 |
7 Goal: Energy
7.1 Energy intensity
7.2 Share of renewable energy in TFEC
7.1
12.1
4 Goal: Education
4.1 Upper secondary attainment
4.2 PISA results
rank 6 13 |
rank 14 20 |
rank 21 27 |
rank 28 34 |
no data
Overall
New Zealand ranks 16th out of 34 countries across all dimen-
sions of the SDG Index. The country is in the top third for 13 of
Weaknesses
Strengths
23.7 tons per capita puts it among the bottom ten countries; the
40
1 Goal: Poverty
1.1 Poverty rate
1.2 Poverty gap
1.1
17.2
1.2
2.1
17.1
Goal: Institutions 16
Homicides 16.1
Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index 16.2
16.2
2.2
16.1
3.1
3 Goal: Health
3.1 Healthy life expectancy
3.2 Life satisfaction
3.2
15.2
Goal: Biodiversity 15
Terrestrial protected areas 15.1
Red List Index for birds 15.2
15.1
4.1
4.2
14.2
Goal: Oceans 14
Ocean Health Index 14.1
Overexploited fish stocks 14.2
5.1
14.1
NORWAY
Goal: Climate 13
Production-based energy- 13.1
related CO2 emissions
Greenhouse gas emissions 13.2
per GDP
2nd of 34
13.2
6.1
6.2
12.2
11.2
7.2
8 Goal: Economy and labor
8.1 GNI per capita
8.2 Employment-to-population ratio
8.1
11.1
10.2
10.1
9.2
9.1
8.2
Goal: Inequality 10
Palma ratio 10.1
PISA Social Justice Index 10.2
rank 1 5 |
6 Goal: Water
6.1 Freshwater withdrawals as percent
of total internal resources
6.2 Population connected to
wastewater treatment
7 Goal: Energy
7.1 Energy intensity
7.2 Share of renewable energy in TFEC
7.1
12.1
Goal: Cities 11
Particulate matter 11.1
Rooms per person 11.2
5.2
13.1
4 Goal: Education
4.1 Upper secondary attainment
4.2 PISA results
rank 6 13 |
rank 14 20 |
rank 21 27 |
rank 28 34 |
no data
Overall
Norway ranks second out of 34 countries across all dimensions
marine ecosystems).
Weaknesses
At 35.6 tons per capita, Norways high domestic material
Strengths
Norway ranks among the top three countries for promoting sus-
Only Chile and Australia perform more poorly here, while the
ecosystems and water quality, and put Norway at 28th for this
indicator.
41
1 Goal: Poverty
1.1 Poverty rate
1.2 Poverty gap
1.1
17.2
1.2
2.1
17.1
Goal: Institutions 16
Homicides 16.1
Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index 16.2
16.2
2.2
16.1
3.1
3 Goal: Health
3.1 Healthy life expectancy
3.2 Life satisfaction
3.2
15.2
Goal: Biodiversity 15
Terrestrial protected areas 15.1
Red List Index for birds 15.2
15.1
4.1
4.2
14.2
Goal: Oceans 14
Ocean Health Index 14.1
Overexploited fish stocks 14.2
5.1
14.1
POLAND
Goal: Climate 13
Production-based energy- 13.1
related CO2 emissions
Greenhouse gas emissions 13.2
per GDP
21st of 34
13.2
6.1
6.2
12.2
11.2
7.2
8 Goal: Economy and labor
8.1 GNI per capita
8.2 Employment-to-population ratio
8.1
11.1
10.2
10.1
9.2
9.1
8.2
Goal: Inequality 10
Palma ratio 10.1
PISA Social Justice Index 10.2
rank 1 5 |
6 Goal: Water
6.1 Freshwater withdrawals as percent
of total internal resources
6.2 Population connected to
wastewater treatment
7 Goal: Energy
7.1 Energy intensity
7.2 Share of renewable energy in TFEC
7.1
12.1
Goal: Cities 11
Particulate matter 11.1
Rooms per person 11.2
5.2
13.1
4 Goal: Education
4.1 Upper secondary attainment
4.2 PISA results
rank 6 13 |
rank 14 20 |
rank 21 27 |
rank 28 34 |
no data
Overall
Poland ranks 21st out of 34 countries across all dimensions of
the SDG Index. The country is among the top third on ten of the
top ve. On seven indicators the country nds itself among the
tenth and ahead of the 17.8 percent OECD average, but there is
bottom ve nations.
Strengths
Weaknesses
are among the shortest in the OECD, putting the country in the
ting the country in fth place. High PISA results (sixth in the
tion. Also noteworthy: Poland ranks among the top ten for its
42
1 Goal: Poverty
1.1 Poverty rate
1.2 Poverty gap
1.1
17.2
1.2
2.1
17.1
Goal: Institutions 16
Homicides 16.1
Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index 16.2
16.2
2.2
16.1
3.1
3 Goal: Health
3.1 Healthy life expectancy
3.2 Life satisfaction
3.2
15.2
Goal: Biodiversity 15
Terrestrial protected areas 15.1
Red List Index for birds 15.2
15.1
4.1
4.2
14.2
Goal: Oceans 14
Ocean Health Index 14.1
Overexploited fish stocks 14.2
4 Goal: Education
4.1 Upper secondary attainment
4.2 PISA results
5 Goal: Gender equality
5.1 Share of women in
national parliaments
5.2 Gender pay gap
5.1
14.1
PORTUGAL
Goal: Climate 13
Production-based energy- 13.1
related CO2 emissions
Greenhouse gas emissions 13.2
per GDP
25th of 34
13.2
5.2
13.1
6.1
6.2
12.2
11.2
Goal: Cities 11
Particulate matter 11.1
Rooms per person 11.2
7 Goal: Energy
7.1 Energy intensity
7.2 Share of renewable energy in TFEC
7.1
12.1
7.2
8 Goal: Economy and labor
8.1 GNI per capita
8.2 Employment-to-population ratio
8.1
11.1
10.2
10.1
9.2
9.1
8.2
Goal: Inequality 10
Palma ratio 10.1
PISA Social Justice Index 10.2
rank 1 5 |
6 Goal: Water
6.1 Freshwater withdrawals as percent
of total internal resources
6.2 Population connected to
wastewater treatment
rank 6 13 |
rank 14 20 |
rank 21 27 |
rank 28 34 |
no data
Overall
Portugal ranks 25th out of 34 countries across all dimensions
of the SDG Index. The country is in the top ten for eight of the
Strengths
Weaknesses
Portugal ranks among the top ten countries in the sample for
the top ten for energy sustainability (goal 7), with a primary
its energy mix. The country ranks fth on efcient energy use
with a primary energy intensity of 4.1 petajoules per billion
43
1 Goal: Poverty
1.1 Poverty rate
1.2 Poverty gap
1.1
17.2
1.2
2.1
17.1
Goal: Institutions 16
Homicides 16.1
Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index 16.2
16.2
2.2
16.1
3.1
3 Goal: Health
3.1 Healthy life expectancy
3.2 Life satisfaction
3.2
15.2
Goal: Biodiversity 15
Terrestrial protected areas 15.1
Red List Index for birds 15.2
15.1
4.1
4.2
14.2
Goal: Oceans 14
Ocean Health Index 14.1
Overexploited fish stocks 14.2
4 Goal: Education
4.1 Upper secondary attainment
4.2 PISA results
5 Goal: Gender equality
5.1 Share of women in
national parliaments
5.2 Gender pay gap
5.1
14.1
SLOVAKIA
Goal: Climate 13
Production-based energy- 13.1
related CO2 emissions
Greenhouse gas emissions 13.2
per GDP
27th of 34
13.2
5.2
13.1
6.1
6.2
12.2
11.2
Goal: Cities 11
Particulate matter 11.1
Rooms per person 11.2
7 Goal: Energy
7.1 Energy intensity
7.2 Share of renewable energy in TFEC
7.1
12.1
7.2
8 Goal: Economy and labor
8.1 GNI per capita
8.2 Employment-to-population ratio
8.1
11.1
10.2
10.1
9.2
9.1
8.2
Goal: Inequality 10
Palma ratio 10.1
PISA Social Justice Index 10.2
rank 1 5 |
6 Goal: Water
6.1 Freshwater withdrawals as percent
of total internal resources
6.2 Population connected to
wastewater treatment
rank 6 13 |
rank 14 20 |
rank 21 27 |
rank 28 34 |
no data
Overall
Weaknesses
is among the top third of OECD countries, and among the top
bottom ve.
Strengths
ita, nearly 180 kilograms lower than the OECD average; only
over the previous three years, the country is now among the
poor puts it in rst place. The number of people living below the
poverty line is also relatively low 8.3 percent, putting Slovakia ahead of the 11.5 percent OECD average and into the top ten.
44
1 Goal: Poverty
1.1 Poverty rate
1.2 Poverty gap
1.1
17.2
1.2
2.1
17.1
Goal: Institutions 16
Homicides 16.1
Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index 16.2
16.2
2.2
16.1
3.1
3 Goal: Health
3.1 Healthy life expectancy
3.2 Life satisfaction
3.2
15.2
Goal: Biodiversity 15
Terrestrial protected areas 15.1
Red List Index for birds 15.2
15.1
4.1
4.2
14.2
Goal: Oceans 14
Ocean Health Index 14.1
Overexploited fish stocks 14.2
5.1
14.1
SLOVENIA
Goal: Climate 13
Production-based energy- 13.1
related CO2 emissions
Greenhouse gas emissions 13.2
per GDP
13th of 34
13.2
6.1
6.2
12.2
11.2
7.2
8 Goal: Economy and labor
8.1 GNI per capita
8.2 Employment-to-population ratio
8.1
11.1
10.2
10.1
9.2
9.1
8.2
Goal: Inequality 10
Palma ratio 10.1
PISA Social Justice Index 10.2
rank 1 5 |
6 Goal: Water
6.1 Freshwater withdrawals as percent
of total internal resources
6.2 Population connected to
wastewater treatment
7 Goal: Energy
7.1 Energy intensity
7.2 Share of renewable energy in TFEC
7.1
12.1
Goal: Cities 11
Particulate matter 11.1
Rooms per person 11.2
5.2
13.1
4 Goal: Education
4.1 Upper secondary attainment
4.2 PISA results
rank 6 13 |
rank 14 20 |
rank 21 27 |
rank 28 34 |
no data
Overall
Weaknesses
of the SDG Index. Slovenia is among the top third for ten of the
3, however, which calls for healthy lives and well-being for all,
Strengths
the mean income of the poor falls below the poverty line), for
45
1 Goal: Poverty
1.1 Poverty rate
1.2 Poverty gap
1.1
17.2
1.2
2.1
17.1
Goal: Institutions 16
Homicides 16.1
Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index 16.2
16.2
2.2
16.1
3.1
3 Goal: Health
3.1 Healthy life expectancy
3.2 Life satisfaction
3.2
15.2
Goal: Biodiversity 15
Terrestrial protected areas 15.1
Red List Index for birds 15.2
15.1
4.1
4.2
14.2
Goal: Oceans 14
Ocean Health Index 14.1
Overexploited fish stocks 14.2
5.1
14.1
SPAIN
Goal: Climate 13
Production-based energy- 13.1
related CO2 emissions
Greenhouse gas emissions 13.2
per GDP
18th of 34
13.2
6.1
6.2
12.2
11.2
7.2
8 Goal: Economy and labor
8.1 GNI per capita
8.2 Employment-to-population ratio
8.1
11.1
10.2
10.1
9.2
9.1
8.2
Goal: Inequality 10
Palma ratio 10.1
PISA Social Justice Index 10.2
rank 1 5 |
6 Goal: Water
6.1 Freshwater withdrawals as percent
of total internal resources
6.2 Population connected to
wastewater treatment
7 Goal: Energy
7.1 Energy intensity
7.2 Share of renewable energy in TFEC
7.1
12.1
Goal: Cities 11
Particulate matter 11.1
Rooms per person 11.2
5.2
13.1
4 Goal: Education
4.1 Upper secondary attainment
4.2 PISA results
rank 6 13 |
rank 14 20 |
rank 21 27 |
rank 28 34 |
no data
Overall
Spain ranks 18th out of 34 countries across all dimensions of the
SDG Index. The country nds itself in the top third on 15 of the
Weaknesses
the bottom third for 13 indicators and the bottom ve for three.
Strengths
has one of the widest poverty gaps (the percentage by which the
mean income of the poor falls below the poverty line) among
full health, longer than the OECD average (71 years) and
second only to the Japanese (75 years). The country also has
uctuation, over the last ten years, this rate has remained high.
fared worse. With relatively few opportunities for entry into the
what better than the 17.8 percent OECD average, there has
been a slight rise in overexploitation over the decade. Finally,
Spain comes in second (behind Hungary and Iceland) for
46
1 Goal: Poverty
1.1 Poverty rate
1.2 Poverty gap
1.1
17.2
1.2
2.1
17.1
Goal: Institutions 16
Homicides 16.1
Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index 16.2
16.2
2.2
16.1
3.1
3 Goal: Health
3.1 Healthy life expectancy
3.2 Life satisfaction
3.2
15.2
Goal: Biodiversity 15
Terrestrial protected areas 15.1
Red List Index for birds 15.2
15.1
4.1
4.2
14.2
Goal: Oceans 14
Ocean Health Index 14.1
Overexploited fish stocks 14.2
5.1
14.1
SWEDEN
Goal: Climate 13
Production-based energy- 13.1
related CO2 emissions
Greenhouse gas emissions 13.2
per GDP
1st of 34
13.2
6.1
6.2
12.2
11.2
7.2
8 Goal: Economy and labor
8.1 GNI per capita
8.2 Employment-to-population ratio
8.1
11.1
10.2
10.1
9.2
9.1
8.2
Goal: Inequality 10
Palma ratio 10.1
PISA Social Justice Index 10.2
rank 1 5 |
6 Goal: Water
6.1 Freshwater withdrawals as percent
of total internal resources
6.2 Population connected to
wastewater treatment
7 Goal: Energy
7.1 Energy intensity
7.2 Share of renewable energy in TFEC
7.1
12.1
Goal: Cities 11
Particulate matter 11.1
Rooms per person 11.2
5.2
13.1
4 Goal: Education
4.1 Upper secondary attainment
4.2 PISA results
rank 6 13 |
rank 14 20 |
rank 21 27 |
rank 28 34 |
no data
Overall
Sweden comes out on top of the 34 OECD countries across all
parliament: 45 percent.
over half, the country ranks among the top third, and in the
top ve for an admirable ten indicators. On ve indicators the
Weaknesses
country can be found among the bottom ten, but never in the
bottom ve.
Strengths
ranks 26th for energy efciency. The country also ranks among
tects just 8 percent, well below the 17 percent that eight OECD
action to combat climate change and its impacts (goal 13). The
country also has lower greenhouse gas emissions per GDP than
47
1 Goal: Poverty
1.1 Poverty rate
1.2 Poverty gap
1.1
17.2
1.2
2.1
17.1
Goal: Institutions 16
Homicides 16.1
Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index 16.2
16.2
2.2
16.1
3.1
3 Goal: Health
3.1 Healthy life expectancy
3.2 Life satisfaction
3.2
15.2
Goal: Biodiversity 15
Terrestrial protected areas 15.1
Red List Index for birds 15.2
15.1
4.1
4.2
14.2
Goal: Oceans 14
Ocean Health Index 14.1
Overexploited fish stocks 14.2
4 Goal: Education
4.1 Upper secondary attainment
4.2 PISA results
5 Goal: Gender equality
5.1 Share of women in
national parliaments
5.2 Gender pay gap
5.1
14.1
SWITZERLAND
Goal: Climate 13
Production-based energy- 13.1
related CO2 emissions
Greenhouse gas emissions 13.2
per GDP
5th of 34
13.2
5.2
13.1
6.1
6.2
12.2
11.2
Goal: Cities 11
Particulate matter 11.1
Rooms per person 11.2
7 Goal: Energy
7.1 Energy intensity
7.2 Share of renewable energy in TFEC
7.1
12.1
7.2
8 Goal: Economy and labor
8.1 GNI per capita
8.2 Employment-to-population ratio
8.1
11.1
10.2
10.1
9.2
9.1
8.2
Goal: Inequality 10
Palma ratio 10.1
PISA Social Justice Index 10.2
rank 1 5 |
6 Goal: Water
6.1 Freshwater withdrawals as percent
of total internal resources
6.2 Population connected to
wastewater treatment
rank 6 13 |
rank 14 20 |
rank 21 27 |
rank 28 34 |
no data
Overall
Switzerland ranks fth out of 34 countries across all dimen-
institutions (goal 16). The Swiss also have a homicide rate of just
0.7 per 100,000 inhabitants, making them the sixth safest (from
violent crime). The country is also perceived to have one of the least
country ranks among the top third, nine of these rank in the
top ve. For seven of the indicators, however, the country nds
itself among the bottom third, and in the bottom ve for three.
Strengths
Weaknesses
SDGs. The country is among the top ten OECD countries for ensur-
ing healthy lives and promoting well-being (goal 3). The average
Swiss national can expect 72 years of life lived in full health, just
tries, only Denmark and the United States perform worse. The
three years less than the Japanese. In addition, the Swiss rank
ing for goal 8 (which calls for sustainable economic growth and
per capita (based on PPP) is over $22,000 more per capita than
48
1 Goal: Poverty
1.1 Poverty rate
1.2 Poverty gap
1.1
17.2
1.2
2.1
17.1
Goal: Institutions 16
Homicides 16.1
Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index 16.2
16.2
2.2
16.1
3.1
3 Goal: Health
3.1 Healthy life expectancy
3.2 Life satisfaction
3.2
15.2
Goal: Biodiversity 15
Terrestrial protected areas 15.1
Red List Index for birds 15.2
15.1
4.1
4.2
14.2
Goal: Oceans 14
Ocean Health Index 14.1
Overexploited fish stocks 14.2
5.1
14.1
TURKEY
Goal: Climate 13
Production-based energy- 13.1
related CO2 emissions
Greenhouse gas emissions 13.2
per GDP
33rd of 34
13.2
6.1
6.2
12.2
11.2
7.2
8 Goal: Economy and labor
8.1 GNI per capita
8.2 Employment-to-population ratio
8.1
11.1
10.2
10.1
9.2
9.1
8.2
Goal: Inequality 10
Palma ratio 10.1
PISA Social Justice Index 10.2
rank 1 5 |
6 Goal: Water
6.1 Freshwater withdrawals as percent
of total internal resources
6.2 Population connected to
wastewater treatment
7 Goal: Energy
7.1 Energy intensity
7.2 Share of renewable energy in TFEC
7.1
12.1
Goal: Cities 11
Particulate matter 11.1
Rooms per person 11.2
5.2
13.1
4 Goal: Education
4.1 Upper secondary attainment
4.2 PISA results
rank 6 13 |
rank 14 20 |
rank 21 27 |
rank 28 34 |
no data
Overall
Weaknesses
among the top third, and in the top ve for three. For over half
indicators.
Strengths
However, the country has designated only 2.3 percent of its ter-
49
1 Goal: Poverty
1.1 Poverty rate
1.2 Poverty gap
1.1
17.2
1.2
2.1
17.1
Goal: Institutions 16
Homicides 16.1
Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index 16.2
16.2
16.1
3.1
3 Goal: Health
3.1 Healthy life expectancy
3.2 Life satisfaction
3.2
15.2
Goal: Biodiversity 15
Terrestrial protected areas 15.1
Red List Index for birds 15.2
15.1
4.1
4.2
14.2
Goal: Oceans 14
Ocean Health Index 14.1
Overexploited fish stocks 14.2
Goal: Climate 13
Production-based energy- 13.1
related CO2 emissions
Greenhouse gas emissions 13.2
per GDP
2.2
14.1
UNITED
KINGDOM
5.1
13.2
15th of 34
5.2
13.1
6.1
6.2
12.2
11.2
Goal: Cities 11
Particulate matter 11.1
Rooms per person 11.2
6 Goal: Water
6.1 Freshwater withdrawals as percent
of total internal resources
6.2 Population connected to
wastewater treatment
7.2
8 Goal: Economy and labor
8.1 GNI per capita
8.2 Employment-to-population ratio
8.1
11.1
10.2
10.1
9.2
9.1
8.2
Goal: Inequality 10
Palma ratio 10.1
PISA Social Justice Index 10.2
rank 1 5 |
7 Goal: Energy
7.1 Energy intensity
7.2 Share of renewable energy in TFEC
7.1
12.1
4 Goal: Education
4.1 Upper secondary attainment
4.2 PISA results
rank 6 13 |
rank 14 20 |
rank 21 27 |
rank 28 34 |
no data
Overall
The United Kingdom ranks 15th out of 34 countries across all
top third for eleven of the 34 indicators in this study and in the
study).
top ve for six indicators. For seven indicators the country nds
itself among the bottom third, and in the bottom ve for two.
Weaknesses
The United Kingdoms performance on goal 7, which calls for
Strengths
be noted that the UKs DMC has improved steadily since 2005.
Kingdom comes in 29th for its income gap between rich and
even during the global nancial crisis, a time when many coun-
50
1 Goal: Poverty
1.1 Poverty rate
1.2 Poverty gap
1.1
17.2
1.2
2.1
17.1
Goal: Institutions 16
Homicides 16.1
Transparency Corruption Perceptions Index 16.2
16.2
16.1
3.1
3 Goal: Health
3.1 Healthy life expectancy
3.2 Life satisfaction
3.2
15.2
Goal: Biodiversity 15
Terrestrial protected areas 15.1
Red List Index for birds 15.2
15.1
4.1
4.2
14.2
Goal: Oceans 14
Ocean Health Index 14.1
Overexploited fish stocks 14.2
Goal: Climate 13
Production-based energy- 13.1
related CO2 emissions
Greenhouse gas emissions 13.2
per GDP
2.2
14.1
UNITED
STATES
5.1
13.2
29th of 34
5.2
13.1
6.1
6.2
12.2
11.2
Goal: Cities 11
Particulate matter 11.1
Rooms per person 11.2
6 Goal: Water
6.1 Freshwater withdrawals as percent
of total internal resources
6.2 Population connected to
wastewater treatment
7.2
8 Goal: Economy and labor
8.1 GNI per capita
8.2 Employment-to-population ratio
8.1
11.1
10.2
10.1
9.2
9.1
8.2
Goal: Inequality 10
Palma ratio 10.1
PISA Social Justice Index 10.2
rank 1 5 |
7 Goal: Energy
7.1 Energy intensity
7.2 Share of renewable energy in TFEC
7.1
12.1
4 Goal: Education
4.1 Upper secondary attainment
4.2 PISA results
rank 6 13 |
rank 14 20 |
rank 21 27 |
rank 28 34 |
no data
Overall
Weaknesses
The United States ranks 29th out of 34 countries across all dimen-
cans generate the second most municipal waste per capita: 725
study the country is among the top third, and in the top ve for
found among the bottom third, and in the bottom ve for seven.
tion emits 16.2 tons of carbon dioxide per capita, putting the
country in 32nd place. The United States also has the highest
Strengths
ending poverty in all its forms (goal 1). The United States ranks
30th for its high poverty rate and 29th for its wide poverty gap.
tion, and with 2.4 rooms per person, they enjoy considerable
poor falls below the poverty line) is ahead of only South Korea,
rich and poor, the country only outranks Turkey, Mexico, and
economic growth.
51
Performance by goal
Chapter 4 displays and discusses the performance of OECD countries in each of the proposed 17
SDGs. Two snapshot indicators per goal illustrate where countries stand in the year the SDGs
are signed, thereby showing which countries are best prepared for the respective goal and could
therefore be a role model for other nations. This analytical work enables countries to nd ways
to learn from each other and discuss the adoption of best-practice strategies. Each goal will be
discussed separately in the subsequent section but, of course, it must be noted that there are
many interlinkages between them that should be incorporated when devising holistic strategies
for policy action.
52
4. Performance by goal
Goal 1: Poverty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Goal 2: Agriculture and nutrition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Goal 3: Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Goal 4: Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Goal 5: Gender equality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Goal 6: Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Goal 7: Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Goal 8: Economy and labor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Goal 9: Infrastructure and innovation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Goal 10: Inequality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Goal 11: Cities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
Goal 12: Consumption and production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Goal 13: Climate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Goal 14: Oceans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Goal 15: Biodiversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
Goal 16: Institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
Goal 17: Global partnership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
53
Performance by goal
1. Poverty
1.1 Poverty rate
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
08
08
07
06
08
06
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
07
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
2. 3
5 .0
.9
12
.29
7
0 .5
1
1.9
.9 5
.45
.4 8
.0
16
4
9. 2
9
7.6
.5 0
.36
.6 8
1
.5 0
62
3. 2
.4
15
3. 2
5
2. 3
.74
.7
13
.11
11
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
.0
13
. 28
1
20
20
20
0
7.5
1
. 69
.0 9
0. 3
1
. 26
8
08
20
.9 9
20
08
1
20
0 .9
1
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
% Change
04
05
04
05
03
05
05
04
05
04
05
05
05
05
05
05
03
04
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
04
05
05
05
05
.5 7
.5
13
.86
6
1.7
.6 8
7
5.3
5
3.1
.30
. 85
.61
10
.21
1
1.7
.9 4
.86
1
3. 8
9
5.1
. 49
5
1.8
58
.5 9
.05
21
.6 8
3
1.9
2
4
1.5
1
.71
14
.21
21
.5
24
9
1.5
5
5.4
21.4
20.9
19.2
17.8
16.0
15.2
14.6
14.0
13.8
12.6
11.7
11.5
11.5
10.6
10.4
10.3
10.0
9.8
9.8
9.7
9.6
9.5
8.7
8.3
8.3
8.3
8.0
7.8
6.6
6.1
6.0
5.2
10.00
7.7
15.00
13.0
20.00
17.4
25.00
5.00
Cz
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
15
15
14
13
12
11
ech
Re
pu
b
De lic
nm
ark
Ice
lan
d
Fin
lan
d
No
Ne rwa
y
the
rla
nd
s
Fra
nce
Ir
Lux elan
em d
bo
ur
Slo g
vak
Ge ia
rm
an
y
Au
str
i
a
Be
lgi
um
S
Ne wede
w
Ze n
ala
n
Slo d
Un
ven
ite
dK
i
ing a
Sw dom
itze
rla
n
Hu d
ng
ary
OE
CD Polan
d
av
era
ge
Est
on
i
Ca a
na
da
Ita
Po ly
rtu
g
Au al
str
alia
S
Ko pain
rea
,R
ep
Gr .
eec
e
Un Japa
ite
dS n
tat
es
Ch
ile
Tur
key
Isra
e
Me l
xic
o
Unit: Percent, Source: OECD (data refer to 2012, except DNK, NOR, FRA, DEU, SWE, NZL, CHE, CAN, CHL, TUR, ISR: 2011, GBR: 2010, JPN: 2009)
OECD drift ever further apart. While the latter had seven times
desperate need.
listed here should, however, make sure that they govern their
11 Open Working Group Proposal for Sustainable Development Goals (2014). https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?page=view&type=400&nr=1579&menu=1300
54
08
.5 3
21
.05
.9 6
3.6
23
25
9
7.6
4
3. 2
9. 8
4.2
5
9. 4
.3 4
. 25
0.3
26
.74
.5
14
4
5.7
.9 6
0.6
.05
17
0.6
.13
1
6 .0
29
9. 6
.70
4
7.8
26
.16
14
.14
.0 4
.0 6
11
.42
2
0. 4
41.2
40.0
39.5
39.3
38.2
36.9
34.7
33.6
33.2
32.7
32.5
32.3
31.9
31.3
31.1
30.8
30.6
30.2
30.1
30.0
29.7
28.4
27.5
26.1
25.8
25.5
25.5
25.1
24.3
24.0
. 87
23.8
5
1.8
23.1
04
04
0. 3
1
2.9
. 33
1
.2
14
.27
13
.7
16
.61
.42
3.0
1
4
3.1
0.0
1
.3
12
5.4
1
.9 9
.2
10
.42
2
8 .0
20
7
7.4
6
3 .5
1
2
4.8
2
4
2.7
3
6
7.2
.8
12
8 .6
2
0. 4
.24
1
. 85
0.7
22.8
20
20
05
05
05
04
05
05
03
05
05
05
04
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
03
05
04
04
05
05
04
05
05
05
30.0
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
35.0
39.2
6 .3
1
.30
1
4.8
40.0
21.7
20
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
06
08
06
08
08
07
08
08
07
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
45.0
25.0
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
% Change
20.0
15.0
10.0
5.0
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
Fin
lan
Slo d
ven
Be ia
lgi
u
Ge m
rm
an
y
Fr
Sw ance
Cz itzerl
ech
an
Re d
pu
b
Au lic
str
alia
S
Ne wede
w
Ze n
Lux alan
em d
bo
urg
Po
lan
d
De
nm
ark
Ire
lan
Slo d
vak
i
Ca a
na
da
OE Hun
CD
ga
av ry
era
ge
Ic
Ne eland
the
rla
nd
s
Tur
key
Isra
Po el
rtu
ga
l
Ch
ile
Est
on
ia
Jap
an
Un
Au
ite
d K stria
ing
do
m
N
Un orw
ay
ite
dS
Ko tates
rea
,R
ep
Gr .
eec
e
Sp
ain
Me
xic
o
Ita
ly
Unit: Percent, Source: OECD (data refer to 2012, except DEU, FRA, CHE, SWE, NZL, DNK, CAN, TUR, ISR, CHL, NOR: 2011, GBR: 2010, JPN: 2009)
poor falls below the poverty line. Thus, it tells us how severe
falls below the poverty line, dened as half the median house-
the top places here, while Italy (41.2 percent) has a higher gap
rates also display high poverty gaps. But there are exceptions.
55
Performance by goal
06
06
0. 8
1
.47
.73
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
.76
5.3
. 87
2
4.4
5 .0
1
.5 0
12
6
1.7
1
.79
7
.9 0
8
4.1
8 .4
.16
2. 2
0
1.7
6
2
3 .9
5
1.2
3
2
4 .5
1
3
7.7
9
2 .9
2
03
20
. 49
5
03
5
20
2. 4
1
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
.8 4
7
20
20
.0 0
25
6
4.7
2
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
8
7.2
03
20
.73
23
03
20
5
3. 4
03
1
20
9.9
2
03
1
0. 8
1
5
6.2
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
.4
19
235.3
300.0
198.0
250.0
258.6
06
06
06
06
06
06
.24
18
06
20
0
1.2
06
5
20
7.1
1
06
5
20
4 .3
2
7
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
03
03
0
0.0
5
03
20
.9 0
4
03
8
20
2 .5
2
03
2
4 .0
1
20
20
20
20
6
1.6
06
2
20
1.9
2
06
8
20
7.7
3
06
5
20
4.1
3
06
0
20
9.7
1
06
20
0
06
20
. 82
5
3
06
6
20
2. 3
2
06
5
20
6.2
10
06
1
20
3. 8
2
06
5
20
0.0
2
06
20
.11
61
06
7
7.1
4
20
06
.2
12
5 .9
1
5 .0
.3
13
0.0
6 .6
.17
5.6
4
20
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
7
7.2
2
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
% Change
136.1
108.0
102.0
94.0
90.0
79.0
71.0
61.4
57.0
56.0
54.0
53.0
51.0
43.0
36.8
33.0
32.0
29.5
29.0
28.0
24.0
23.8
21.1
21.0
17.0
12.0
10.0
9.0
50.0
14.5
100.0
67.0
150.0
123.0
200.0
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
Ice
lan
d
Sp
ain
Gr
ee
Au ce
str
al
Po ia
rtu
ga
Est l
on
ia
Me
xic
Ca o
na
da
Au
str
i
Sw a
ed
en
Un
ite Italy
dS
tat
e
Slo s
vak
Hu ia
ng
ary
Tur
key
Fin
lan
d
Fra
nce
Ire
lan
d
S
l
o
Cz
ech veni
Re a
pu
bli
c
P
Ne olan
w
d
Z
OE
CD ealan
d
av
e
Sw rage
itze
rla
De nd
nm
Lux
a
em rk
bo
urg
Un Germ
ite
d K any
ing
do
m
No
rw
ay
Be
lgi
um
Ne Israe
the
l
rla
nd
s
Ja
Ko pan
rea
,R
ep.
Ch
ile
Unit: Kg per hectare of agricultural land, deviation from 0, Source: OECD (data refer to 2009, except NZL: 2010, GRC, EST, MEX, ITA, HUN, FRA, SVN, CHE, LUX, DEU, BEL, NLD: 2008)
At the same time, OECD nations face their own particular issues
56
28.50
28.30
25.40
25.10
23.00
22.70
22.30
21.00
21.00
19.00
18.40
18.30
16.90
16.60
15.80
15.80
15.70
15.40
14.70
13.80
13.40
12.40
12.00
11.80
10.40
10.00
15.00
10.30
20.00
14.50
25.00
19.60
30.00
24.70
35.30
32.40
35.00
31.30
40.00
4.60
5.00
3.60
10.00
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
22
22
21
20
19
18
17
15
15
14
13
12
11
10
Ja
Ko pan
rea
,R
ep
No .
Sw rway
itze
rla
nd
Ita
l
Sw y
Ne eden
the
rla
nd
s
Au
str
De ia
nm
ar
Be k
lgi
um
Fra
nce
Ge
rm
an
Po y
rtu
ga
l
Isra
el
Fin
lan
d
Po
lan
d
Sp
ain
Slo
vak
ia
S
OE
lov
CD
en
av ia
era
ge
Est
on
ia
G
Cz
ech reec
Re e
pu
bli
c
Ice
lan
d
T
Lux urke
em y
bo
urg
Un
ite Irelan
dK
d
ing
do
m
Ch
il
Ca e
na
d
Au a
str
alia
H
Ne unga
r
w
Ze y
ala
nd
Me
Un
ite xico
dS
tat
es
57
Performance by goal
3. Health
3.1 Healthy life expectancy
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
3
1.4
3
1.4
3
1.4
3
1.4
1
1.4
9
1.3
% Change
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
65
67
65
66
67
67
68
67
69
69
69
70
70
71
70
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
71
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
72
73
72
73
73
74
73
75
6 .5
3.0
7
3.1
3.0
2
1.5
5
6 .3
7
1.4
2.9
2.9
5
4 .5
2.9
5
1.4
1
4.4
5
1.4
2.9
2.9
2.9
1
4.4
2.9
5
1.4
5
1.4
1
1.4
2. 8
5
4.3
2.9
2. 8
5
4.3
2. 8
1
1.4
4.2
5. 8
4.2
4.2
4
2.7
76
64
62
Au
Jap
an
str
alia 1
2
Ko Italy
rea
2
,R
ep.
2
Sp
ain
Ca
2
na
da
Fra
nce 6
Ice
lan 6
d
I
s
rae 6
Lux
l
em
6
Ne bou
r
w
Ze g 6
ala
n
Sw d 6
Sw eden
itze
6
rla
nd
Au
str 6
Be ia 1
4
lgi
um
Fin
14
la
Ge nd 1
rm
an 4
y
1
Gr
eec 4
e
14
Ire
Ne land
the
1
rla
nd 4
No s 14
rw
a
Po y 1
Un
rtu
4
ite
d K gal
OE
ing
14
CD
do
av m 1
era
4
ge
Ch
De ile 2
Cz
ech nmar 4
Re k 2
pu
bl 4
Slo ic 2
6
ve
Un
ite nia
dS
tat 26
e
Est s 26
on
ia
Me
2
xic 9
o
29
Po
lan
Slo d 2
vak 9
Hu ia 2
9
ng
ary
Tur 33
key
33
60
citizen of the world and at the same time the condition for
(69), Poland (67), Slovakia (67), Estonia (67), and Mexico (67).
Hungary and Turkey are at the bottom of the table with only
lived in full health. Not only can one be more productive if one
at the bottom to ten at the top. The top of the ladder represents
58
4.8
5.1
5.6
5.2
5.7
5.6
5.8
5.9
5.8
6.1
6.0
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.7
6.6
6.8
6.9
6.8
6.9
6.9
7.0
7.2
7.0
7.3
7.2
7.3
7.3
7.4
7.3
.77
8
8.1
1
2
3 .9
7.4
07
08
08
08
08
.45
5
3. 4
.78
27
6.7
0. 2
1
.32
11
.0 8
0 .9
1
7
1.4
. 43
1
.07
12
3
1.4
7.5
20
20
20
20
06
08
08
08
08
06
08
08
07
08
08
08
7
4.1
.89
7
.74
4
1.5
.70
. 33
1
. 33
1
7
1.3
.9 0
7
1.3
.5 0
7.4
1
1.1
1
.92
1
2
6.1
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
06
08
08
7.5
11
11
11
5.6
.0 0
2
1.8
3 .5
.35
5 .9
1
.6 4
1
3.3
.9 0
.14
7
7
3.1
.45
1
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
7.5
20
20
20
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
2
. 82
. 82
.0 0
4 .6
6 .0
.70
1
1.4
.9 5
9
1.3
.35
1
.63
.35
1
. 85
8.7
6.0
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
08
11
11
09
08
11
7.0
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
8.0
% Change
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
33
34
30
32
30
27
29
26
27
25
24
21
21
21
18
20
18
15
15
13
15
11
13
11
1
De
nm
ark
Ice
Sw land
itze
rla
nd
Fin
lan
d
Isra
el
No
rw
Au ay
str
ali
Ca a
Ne nada
the
Ne rland
w
Ze s
ala
nd
S
Un wede
ite
dS n
tat
Ge es
rm
an
y
Ire
lan
d
Au
str
Be ia
l
g
iu
Lux
em m
bo
urg
Un
Ch
ite
il
dK
ing e
do
m
OE
M
CD exic
o
a
Cz vera
ech
ge
Re
pu
bli
c
Fra
nce
Sp
a
Slo in
vak
ia
Ita
ly
Ja
Ko pan
rea
,R
ep.
Po
lan
Slo d
ven
ia
Est
on
ia
Tur
ke
Hu y
ng
a
Po ry
rtu
ga
Gr l
eec
e
Unit: Standardized scale, Source: Gallup (data refer to 2014, except ISL: 2013)
the best possible life for you and the bottom of the ladder
of the ladder would you say you personally feel you stand
59
Performance by goal
4. Education
4.1 Upper secondary attainment
71.4
67.2
40.0
31.9
39.8
50.0
38.4
60.0
57.5
58.2
70.0
55.5
72.2
75.1
72.8
75.8
75.7
76.3
78.3
76.7
80.5
78.4
82.4
83.1
82.5
83.7
83.2
85.0
85.9
85.5
87.2
86.3
89.6
90.1
6.7
1
6 .6
.12
16
5
4 .5
5 .5
5 .5
4.3
6
2.7
3.6
7
4 .0
3.3
8
7.3
.23
1
6 .9
5
1.7
89.6
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
3.6
.2
18
2. 8
2. 6
3.0
3. 2
7
2. 2
2.0
3
1.8
1
3.1
91.9
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
.23
6
1.6
0
2.1
9
1.1
5
2 .5
0. 2
5
1.5
3
2.1
90.6
.32
12
.55
5
8 .3
25
1
4 .9
9 .5
1
5.4
.30
8
7.1
8 .5
3. 2
7
6 .0
2
3. 4
4.8
6
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
100.0
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
5.3
3 .5
2
3.0
2. 4
3.6
4 .0
5
1.8
3 .5
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
92.8
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
2. 6
8
1.4
3. 4
0.7
0 .5
3
1.6
1
1.4
4
0.7
1
1.8
0 .9
6
1.4
0 .9
80.0
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
90.0
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
100.0
% Change
30.0
20.0
10.0
34
33
31
32
ug
a
Me l
xic
o
Tur
key
Po
rt
Sp
ain
30
29
ly
ile
Ch
28
Ita
26
27
24
25
23
22
20
21
19
17
18
15
16
14
12
13
10
11
Cz
ech
Re
Jap
an
pu
bli
Slo c
vak
ia
Est
on
ia
Un Polan
ite
dS d
tat
e
Ca s
Sw nada
itze
rla
Ge nd
rm
an
y
Fin
lan
Slo d
ven
ia
I
Ko srael
rea
,R
ep
Sw .
ed
en
Au
str
Hu ia
ng
ar
No y
Lux rwa
Un emb y
ite
o
d K urg
ing
do
De m
nm
ark
OE
CD Irelan
d
av
e
Ne rage
the
rla
n
Au ds
str
alia
Fra
nc
Be e
lgi
um
I
Ne celan
w
Ze d
ala
nd
Gr
eec
e
Unit: Percent, Source: OECD (AUS, CAN, CHL, ISR, JPN, KOR, MEX, NZL, USA) or Eurostat (data refer to 2013, except CHL: 2011)
life. Such a basic truth should lead one to assume that ensur-
bottom group. The country has come down to 57.5 percent com-
countries in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). As a proxy for the quality of education examined
60
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
.63
.6 8
1
1.7
. 33
.5 6
1
.72
.27
3.3
.35
.83
1
4
0.7
0
1.1
.86
.8 8
.19
4
1.6
2
0.0
0 .5
5
1.9
2.7
.8 4
7
0. 4
0
0.1
. 22
1
0 .9
3.7
.01
7
0. 2
.83
3. 8
.5 9
2
2. 4
7
2.0
4
0. 2
% Change
417.25
436.32
465.63
462.30
474.12
471.87
482.13
486.60
484.49
489.54
488.03
489.57
492.12
489.62
497.22
495.94
498.21
499.81
498.86
500.31
500.05
502.46
509.77
509.19
515.11
512.48
515.56
518.75
518.42
522.22
520.50
529.40
526.08
6
2.7
2.0
5.3
2
1.9
1
1.2
3.0
.73
1
0.6
7
1.4
3 .9
1
3.7
542.45
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
.72
5
1.6
.39
7
3.0
2.7
.41
1
. 25
. 33
.05
.0 8
. 25
. 20
0. 8
.38
6
1.0
.37
0.6
.55
.38
6
0.1
.13
. 69
1
1
2. 3
540.40
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
500.00
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
600.00
400.00
300.00
200.00
100.00
2
Ita 3
Po ly 2
rtu
4
g
Hu al 2
5
ng
ary
Ice
2
lan 6
Sw d 27
ed
en
Isra 28
Slo el 2
vak 9
ia
3
Gr
eec 0
e
Tur 31
key
Ch 32
ile
Me
3
xic 3
o
34
21
22
20
19
17
18
16
14
15
12
13
11
10
1
Ko
re
a,
Re
p.
Jap
an
Fin
lan
d
Est
on
ia
Ca
na
da
Po
Ne land
the
rl
Sw ands
itze
rla
nd
Ire
lan
Ge d
rm
a
Au ny
str
al
B ia
Ne elgiu
m
w
Z
Un
ite ealan
dK
d
ing
do
m
A
Cz
ech ustri
Re a
pu
bli
c
Fra
nce
Slo
ven
i
OE Den a
CD ma
av rk
era
ge
No
r
Un
ite way
dS
Lux tate
em s
bo
urg
Sp
ain
ence scales in gure 4.2. They range from 417 to 542. On aver-
Estonia (526), Finland (529), Japan (540), and above all the
student performance.
61
Performance by goal
5. Gender equality
5.1 Share of women in national parliaments
10.00
8.10
9.30
15.00
14.40
15.70
15.80
15.70
18.70
18.30
19.00
21.00
19.50
22.60
22.50
24.30
26.00
25.10
27.77
26.20
28.30
31.30
31.00
33.30
31.40
33.30
36.50
33.90
38.70
37.40
39.10
39.70
39.60
.81
41.30
5 .0
.9 4
41
39.70
5.6
1
1.4
6.8
3 .9
08
08
. 85
.21
27
40
.3
14
.89
14
08
2
20
0.7
2
08
20
.0 4
56
08
20
0
7.3
08
20
.5 3
13
08
20
. 33
5
08
20
.18
1
08
0
7.1
1
20
20
20
08
08
08
08
. 33
17
.2
12
. 49
7
3. 8
45.00
11
11
11
11
11
.27
11
8 .9
.8
16
20
.0 4
0
20
6
1.3
1
0
08
08
08
08
42.50
20
20
20
20
20
11
11
11
11
.3
12
20
20
20
20
.5
12
5
1.3
2 .5
20
20
.17
2. 2
7
2.1
.9
12
20.00
20
20
20
20
11
11
11
11
11
1
1.2
. 62
5.2
38
.2
13
8.7
08
08
08
08
08
.45
1
2. 8
.83
9.7
.2
19
0
7.3
08
20
0
08
20
1
1.4
08
20
1
1.4
08
1
2.1
14
20
20
20
20
20
08
08
08
08
5
7.6
.89
1
2. 4
25.00
20
20
20
20
20
11
11
11
11
9. 0
.37
45
2
3. 4
.35
19
4
20
20
20
20
20
08
08
08
08
30.00
20
20
20
20
11
11
11
11
11
5.2
.9
10
.7
42
.91
8
20
20
20
20
35.00
20
20
20
20
20
11
11
11
.2
10
8 .6
0.6
40.00
20
20
20
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
45.00
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
50.00
% Change
5.00
34
33
30
32
29
30
28
26
27
24
25
23
21
22
19
20
18
17
15
16
14
12
12
10
11
Sw
ed
en
Fin
lan
Be d
lgi
um
Ice
lan
d
Sp
ain
No
rw
De ay
n
Ne mark
the
rla
nd
s
Me
xic
o
Ge
Ne rman
w
Ze y
ala
nd
Au
str
Slo ia
ven
ia
Ita
Po ly
r
Sw tugal
itze
Lu rlan
OE xemb d
ou
CD
av rg
era
ge
Fra
nce
Au
str
ali
Ca a
na
da
Un
ite Polan
dK
d
ing
do
m
Isra
e
Gr l
Cz
ech eec
Re e
pu
bli
c
Est
on
i
a
S
Un lovak
ite
i
dS a
tat
es
Ch
ile
Ire
Ko land
rea
,R
ep.
Tur
ke
Hu y
ng
ary
Jap
an
less, there are still many areas in which complete equality has
even stood at 47 percent only a few years ago. Mexico also shows
not been achieved and where the success rates vary between
a relatively high rate of female MPs with 37.4 percent, just ahead
nations. Two such areas are displayed here. Figure 5.1 shows
more than a quarter (27.8 percent). This low score certainly does
62
20
20
20
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
09
10
10
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
10
10
10
10
10
.5 9
7
.27
7
1
5.3
0. 2
7
0.1
.9 4
.12
7
1.2
.15
.18
28
.8 4
.0 0
.61
1
.18
21
.86
.0
76
.14
0.0
2
7.4
1
.4 4
32
10
20
7
5.4
10
20
.0 6
5
10
20
.5 0
1
10
20
3
0.3
10
20
.35
0
10
20
.29
0
10
20
.10
0
10
20
. 43
47
10
20
.32
36
10
20
.6 6
41
10
6
20
8 .0
1
10
5
20
3.1
1
2
3. 3
20
20
20
20
20
% Change
20
20
20
20
20
07
06
07
07
06
07
07
07
06
07
3.7
36.60
.63
.02
12
.18
.74
.83
11
6
1.9
1
. 69
. 62
9
12
.45
.91
0.6
8
2
.8 4
9
07
9
20
1.6
1
07
20
.01
4
06
0
20
1.3
1
07
20
.81
8
07
20
. 20
5
07
1
20
1.1
1
20
20
20
20
20
07
07
07
07
0
8.1
4 .6
.4 0
8 .6
.9 8
6
07
2
20
2. 6
1
07
4
5.2
1
20
20
20
20
20
07
07
02
07
07
.92
59
06
5
20
7.1
3
06
20
.9 5
74
07
0
20
1.7
3
07
20
.29
1
07
1
8 .0
1
20
20
20
20
20
20
31.50
40.00
26.60
35.00
21.80
20.50
19.00
18.70
18.50
18.20
18.00
17.90
17.50
16.60
16.30
16.00
15.50
15.46
15.40
14.10
14.10
14.10
12.80
11.60
11.10
8.70
8.60
7.80
7.00
6.90
6.50
5.60
10.00
6.40
15.00
10.60
20.00
15.10
25.00
20.10
30.00
5.00
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
13
13
13
12
11
10
ala
nd
l
Lux gium
em
bo
urg
Gr
eec
No e
rw
De ay
nm
ark
Sp
a
Hu in
ng
ary
Po
lan
d
Ita
l
Slo y
ven
ia
Ire
lan
d
Fra
nce
Ice
lan
Slo d
vak
i
Sw a
ed
en
OE
M
CD exic
o
a
Cz vera
ech
g
Re e
pu
bli
c
Ch
ile
Po
rtu
ga
Un Germ l
ite
d K any
i
Un ngdo
m
ite
dS
tat
Au es
str
alia
Au
s
tr
Sw
itze ia
rla
nd
Fin
lan
Ca d
na
da
T
Ne urke
y
the
rla
nd
s
Isra
el
Jap
an
Est
o
n
Ko
rea ia
,R
ep.
Be
Ze
w
Ne
Unit: Percent, Source: OECD (data refer to 2013, except BEL, GRC, DNK, ESP, POL, ITA, SWE, PRT, AUT, FIN: 2012, ISL, CHL, DEU, ISR: 2011, LUX, SVN, FRA, CHE, TUR, NLD, EST: 2010)
then has grown to 16 percent. This means that the once strong-
is the gap in salaries between the sexes. The gender wage gap dis-
63
Performance by goal
6. Water
6.1 Freshwater withdrawals as percent of total internal resources
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
07
07
07
07
02
07
07
02
07
02
02
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
02
02
02
07
07
02
07
07
07
02
07
07
.5 2
.42
7
.6 8
1
1.7
.7
15
3
1.7
% Change
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
.72
.42
6.7
28
5
7.5
1
.4 6
0
7.5
1
.79
9. 4
. 67
6
19
43
.02
.13
. 82
8
2
22
3
1.2
0
02
20
.55
1
02
20
0
02
20
0
02
20
5
8.7
02
20
.5 2
4
02
20
6
1.0
02
20
8
2.0
02
20
.35
2
02
20
.35
23
02
20
. 03
3
02
9
20
6 .6
1
2
6.4
1
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
260.53
300.00
250.00
200.00
51.80
39.28
30.19
29.19
25.62
24.88
22.31
22.27
20.94
19.63
17.67
16.98
16.33
15.81
14.13
12.92
8.99
6.65
6.47
6.02
5.46
5.05
4.59
4.00
1.61
1.53
1.53
1.48
1.45
0.77
0.10
50.00
11.00
100.00
96.45
93.05
150.00
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
Ice
lan
No d
rw
Ne
a
w
Ze y
ala
nd
Ca
na
da
Fin
lan
Sw d
ed
en
Ire
lan
d
Ch
i
l
Au e
str
al
Slo ia
ven
Slo ia
Lux vaki
em a
b
Sw ourg
itze
rla
nd
Un
Au
ite
d K stria
ing
do
De m
Cz
ech nmar
Re k
pu
bli
c
Est
on
ia
Fra
nce
Un Gree
c
ite
dS e
tat
es
Tur
key
Me
xic
o
Jap
an
Po
rtu
ga
l
Po
lan
d
OE
CD
It
av aly
era
ge
Sp
ain
Ge
rm
a
Ko
rea ny
,R
e
Be p.
lgi
um
Hu
Ne ngar
y
the
rla
nd
s
Isra
el
Our water resources not only affect the well-being of our com-
64
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
10
10
09
05
04
10
09
10
09
10
10
10
10
10
09
9
19
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
10
09
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
04
10
10
10
10
9
19
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
2 .5
5
1.1
1
3. 4
2. 2
5.7
.18
41
3
1.0
2
1.0
1
1.0
1
1.0
7
4.1
% Change
62.0
52.0
70.0
64.0
73.0
72.0
73.0
81.0
80.0
86.0
88.0
87.0
91.0
88.8
92.0
93.0
92.0
97.0
96.0
97.0
99.0
98.0
99.0
99.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
.0
13
.5 7
21
100.0
07
05
05
04
.8
15
5. 8
100.0
20
20
20
05
07
3 .9
3 .5
1
3.6
3 .5
5
3. 4
5
2. 3
4
1.0
.02
1
4
1.0
4.2
.11
11
.0 0
1
80.0
20
20
20
07
06
07
07
07
07
07
9
19
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
07
06
07
06
07
07
9
19
20
20
20
20
20
20
05
07
06
03
04
02
00
06
9
19
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
100.0
60.0
40.0
20.0
31
32
30
29
28
26
26
25
23
24
21
22
18
20
17
18
16
14
14
13
10
10
10
Au
st
De ria
nm
ark
Fin
lan
d
F
Lux ranc
em e
b
Ne ourg
the
rla
nd
Sw s
Sw eden
Un itze
r
ite
d K land
ing
do
Ge m
rm
an
Slo y
vak
ia
Sp
ain
Isra
e
Ca l
na
da
No
rw
ay
Ire
lan
d
Ita
ly
Gr
Ko eece
rea
,R
ep
OE Slo .
CD ven
av ia
era
ge
Jap
an
Est
on
ia
Cz
ech Chil
Re e
Ne publ
w
Ze ic
ala
n
Be d
lgi
um
Ice
lan
Hu d
ng
a
Po ry
rtu
ga
l
Po
lan
d
Me
xic
o
Tur
k
Au ey
Un stral
ite
i
dS a
tat
es
Unit: Percent, Source: OECD (data refer to 2013, except AUT, NLD, SVK, ESP, GRC, EST: 2012, IRL, JPN, CZE: 2011,
GBR, DEU, ISL, MEX, TUR: 2010, CAN, ITA, CHL, BEL, POL: 2009, PRT: 2005, HUN: 2004, NZL: 1999)
resources.
65
Performance by goal
7. Energy
7.1 Energy intensity
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
.92
.01
.5 3
5. 8
6
2.1
.9 9
1
. 33
. 20
2
1.7
.12
. 33
.02
.24
.4 8
. 85
7
.0 9
.6 8
.5 0
6.8
. 33
.3 4
1
.42
1
.93
.41
9. 8
.35
1
.37
.18
1
.81
.38
.6 6
7
.5 6
4
1
0. 3
1
. 69
7
% Change
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
29
.19
8.2
.79
.5 6
. 67
7
8
1.9
1
.30
1
2. 4
.4 6
. 26
7
.5 6
.23
1
8
9.1
1
.9 6
.38
.02
.16
4.8
1
1
8.7
.5 7
2.9
. 85
.6 8
4.7
.4 8
. 65
.13
7
.5 3
0. 2
1
.6 0
.29
.30
.5 8
2
1.3
21.97
25.00
20.00
9.12
8.15
8.14
7.88
7.13
6.44
6.32
6.30
6.16
6.07
6.01
5.82
5.81
5.81
5.63
5.39
5.38
5.13
5.02
4.90
4.82
4.74
4.74
4.59
4.53
4.43
4.29
4.14
4.05
4.02
3.89
5.00
3.41
3.35
10.00
6.82
15.00
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
20
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
11
11
10
Un
Sw
Ire
lan
itze d
rla
ite
nd
dK
ing
do
De m
nm
a
Po rk
rtu
ga
l
Ita
ly
Sp
ain
Isra
e
Au l
str
i
Ge a
rm
an
y
Jap
an
Gr
eec
e
T
Lux urke
em y
bo
urg
Me
xic
No o
Ne rwa
y
the
rla
nd
s
Fra
nce
Ch
i
Hu le
ng
ary
Po
lan
OE Slo d
CD ven
av ia
era
g
Slo e
vak
Au ia
Un stral
ite
i
dS a
tat
e
Sw s
ed
en
B
Ne elgiu
m
w
Cz Zeal
ech
an
Re d
p
Ko ublic
rea
,R
ep
Ca .
na
da
Fin
lan
d
Est
on
ia
Ice
lan
d
Unit: Petajoules per GDP in billion const. int. 2005 USD PPP, Source: IEA (data refer to 2012)
on the pace of climate change. Goal 7 calls not only for uni-
The higher the primary energy intensity, the less efcient the
and the United Kingdom have the most efcient energy sectors
66
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
25
.9 6
. 33
67
4.3
7
1.3
. 33
11
.16
.8 8
47
65
. 28
.76
4.3
20
28
.73
.74
.10
47
22
30
2
2. 3
.83
97
.81
19
.36
.8 4
27
40
.5 0
27
.03
.15
.4
13
63
33
0 .9
. 33
20
5
7.5
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
.36
35
8
1.1
1
.5 8
20
20
20
20
20
20
5.2
20
8 .0
1
4.7
8 .6
.3 4
1
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
33
76.67
.0 9
.31
.6 6
.6 0
61
69
.17
6
16
.5 8
52
. 33
.17
57
.9 5
.0
15
.6
32
.76
.2
24
.35
.27
7
.45
. 62
69
36
5.3
5.6
8
9.1
.8
12
.38
.36
.19
8
7.1
22
.3 4
.11
7
.35
.27
.9
16
25
1
2. 4
.5
19
2.7
6
1.0
56.90
1.29
3.16
3.71
3.56
5.20
4.15
5.30
7.57
7.27
9.05
8.53
9.46
9.97
10.00
9.49
10.84
10.04
10.90
12.25
11.13
14.85
14.19
17.93
19.87
20.00
18.80
21.41
21.24
30.00
25.13
40.00
27.88
33.48
50.00
26.96
47.36
60.00
31.46
. 97
11
70.00
30.56
07
80.00
20
20
20
20
20
90.00
% Change
33
34
31
32
30
28
29
26
27
25
23
24
21
22
20
18
19
16
17
15
14
12
13
11
10
Ice
lan
No d
rw
a
Sw y
ed
en
F
Ne inlan
w
Ze d
ala
nd
Au
str
Po ia
rtu
ga
l
Ch
ile
Est
on
De ia
nm
a
Sw
itze rk
rla
n
Ca d
na
d
OE Slo a
CD ven
av ia
era
ge
Sp
ain
Tur
key
Fra
nce
Gr
eec
Slo e
vak
Ge ia
rm
an
y
Ita
ly
Me
xic
o
P
Cz
ech olan
Re d
pu
bl
Hu ic
ng
ary
Is
Un
ite rael
dS
tat
Au es
str
al
Be ia
lgi
um
Ire
lan
d
Lux Japa
n
em
b
Ne ourg
t
Un herl
a
ite
d K nds
ing
Ko dom
rea
,R
ep.
lands, the United Kingdom, and South Korea each use less
67
Performance by goal
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
.5
14
3
.81
.7
18
26
.14
.9 9
.3
16
20
30
8.8
.70
7
9
7.7
7
7.7
4 .9
.42
16
1
3.0
0. 2
8.8
. 22
17
5.6
.6
13
8 .4
7
3.0
.17
13
.27
31
.2
14
1
7.7
.71
10
1
7.1
1
8 .6
8 .9
.9
15
.91
13
5 .0
5. 8
9.5
.92
12
% Change
16710
21570
20000
19040
23830
25690
24090
26130
25970
26970
28650
30000
28010
32860
32550
33760
34710
34620
37920
37515
40000
38370
40000
39720
42530
40820
42880
43400
43030
46160
45040
46710
47660
50000
46840
57830
55860
5
9. 4
.0
16
.6
15
.8
13
.03
.4 8
21
.71
14
2
0.3
0. 2
6 .5
5
0 .5
. 25
4 .0
4
7.5
1
9. 4
2.7
.76
0 .9
5.4
65970
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
0
3.3
2
0. 3
1
6
2. 4
1
8
7.3
1
7.9
9
1.2
4
7.5
2
9. 4
7
2.1
8.2
5
3.3
6
1.1
6.2
1
.0
14
5 .0
59600
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
60000
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
70000
10000
34
33
31
32
29
30
28
26
27
24
25
23
21
22
19
20
Ko Italy
re
Ne a, Re
p.
w
Ze
ala
nd
Sp
ain
Isra
Slo el
ven
ia
Cz Portu
ech
ga
l
Re
pu
bli
c
Gr
eec
Slo e
vak
ia
Est
on
ia
Po
lan
Hu d
ng
ary
Ch
ile
Tur
key
Me
xic
o
17
18
15
16
14
12
13
10
11
Sw
No
rw
itze ay
Lux rlan
em d
Un bou
r
ite
dS g
Ne tate
s
the
rla
n
Ge ds
rm
an
Sw y
ed
De en
nm
ark
Au
str
i
Ca a
na
da
Be
lgi
u
Au m
str
alia
Ice
lan
d
Ire
lan
d
Fin
lan
d
Un
ite Fran
ce
dK
ing
do
m
OE
CD Japa
n
av
era
ge
Unit: Current int. USD PPP, Source: World Bank (data refer to 2014, except CHE, LUX, AUT, FIN, ESP, SVN, CZE, SVK: 2013, NZL: 2012)
equal rigor.
ing power parity (PPP). GNI is the sum of value added by all
15 Kassenbhmer, S. C., and Schmidt, C. M. (2011): Beyond GDP and Back: What Is the Value-Added by Additional Components of Welfare Measurement? SOEPpapers 351. DIW Berlin.
16 Delhey, J., and Kroll, C. (2012): A happiness-test for the new measures of national well-being: How much better than GDP are they? WZB Discussion Paper SP I 2012 201, June 2012
http://bibliothek.wzb.eu/pdf/2012/i12-201.pdf
68
49.42
49.55
56.78
60.00
56.52
60.97
60.44
61.31
61.78
61.68
62.22
61.90
62.62
64.20
63.89
66.64
65.35
66.92
68.15
67.86
68.96
68.89
69.56
71.60
71.08
72.64
72.30
72.66
73.12
72.80
74.24
73.80
.05
.3 4
3.3
.47
1
5.3
.63
.9 4
.32
3
1.6
75.31
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
.9 6
2
07
20
0
3. 8
07
20
.63
1
07
7
20
0.6
1
07
20
.24
1
07
20
.17
3
07
7
20
3. 2
1
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
.5 9
0. 4
.6 8
.78
.77
.9 5
0. 4
.76
0
3.1
.78
.0 0
.03
74.89
1
7.0
1
.0 6
.83
4
7.0
0. 2
2. 2
3.7
4.6
.18
.0 6
.5 2
11
. 49
4.8
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
7
2.0
07
20
.0 9
7
07
20
.0 9
3
07
20
.6 6
1
07
2
20
2. 0
1
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
07
07
07
07
82.23
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
0 .5
3. 2
8
2.1
.7
12
9
2.1
0 .9
0
6.1
.9 0
.6
13
.0 6
1
6
1.0
3.3
.74
3.6
.14
4
20
20
20
20
79.84
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
1
3.7
2. 6
.07
3. 8
9
1.5
4.2
70.00
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
80.00
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
90.00
% Change
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
33
34
31
32
30
28
29
26
27
25
23
24
21
22
20
19
17
18
16
14
15
12
13
11
10
1
Sw
Ice
lan
itze d
rla
n
No d
rw
ay
S
Ne wede
w
Ze n
ala
Ge nd
rm
a
Ne
the ny
rla
nd
s
De
nm
ark
Un
Ja
ite
d K pan
ing
do
m
Ca
na
d
Au a
str
alia
Au
str
ia
E
Cz
ech stoni
Re a
pu
bli
c
F
Un inlan
ite
d
dS
tat
es
OE
I
sra
CD
av el
e
Lux rage
em
b
Ko ourg
rea
,R
ep.
Fra
nce
Slo
ven
Po ia
rtu
ga
l
Ch
ile
Be
lgi
u
Hu m
ng
ary
Po
lan
d
Ire
lan
Slo d
vak
ia
Me
xic
o
Sp
ain
Ita
ly
Tur
key
Gr
eec
e
however, lead the table by some margin with 82.23 percent and
69
Performance by goal
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
9
.23
.86
6 .5
2 .9
1
.4 8
6.4
1
.76
8 .0
. 49
1
. 26
.5 6
9
7.4
.01
.7
14
. 26
2 .5
1
.5 3
. 22
.8 4
.37
11
2 .5
1
9
3.0
3
11
1
20
0.0
2
11
4
20
6 .9
1
11
20
0
2.0
11
6
20
9.1
1
11
20
.12
16
11
20
2
8 .4
11
20
.02
9
11
20
.38
8
11
20
.12
7
11
1
20
9. 2
1
11
20
1
6
.
0
11
5
20
1.1
1
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
% Change
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
3
6 .0
6
8
1.0
2
.0 9
9 .5
. 43
1
.39
4
7.6
3
.92
7
.18
1
9
5.1
4
8.1
5 .9
3 .5
9. 2
1
.35
.5 6
0.7
1
.6 4
. 22
1
3
. 87
5 .0
1
8
6.1
7
0. 4
.0 8
.61
.70
.18
3.0
1
3
2.7
1
08
20
.4 6
8
08
7
20
2. 0
1
08
20
. 85
6
08
20
.9 0
8
08
6
20
7.1
1
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
15.85
14.88
15.97
17.39
16.53
18.67
17.66
18.88
19.03
18.96
19.47
19.34
20.00
19.71
20.26
19.76
20.88
20.43
21.00
21.83
21.49
21.93
21.86
21.98
23.13
21.99
23.34
23.14
23.57
25.28
25.00
24.07
27.76
26.73
28.82
30.00
28.77
35.00
10.58
15.00
10.00
5.00
34
33
31
32
29
30
28
26
27
24
25
23
21
22
19
20
18
17
15
16
14
12
13
10
11
Ko
re
a,
Re
p
No .
rw
ay
Est
on
ia
A
u
Cz
ech strali
Re a
pu
bli
Ca c
Sw nada
itze
rla
nd
S
Ne wede
w
Ze n
ala
nd
Au
str
ia
Fra
nce
Hu
ng
ary
Me
xic
Be o
lgi
um
Jap
an
Ch
i
Sl le
OE
CD ovak
av ia
era
ge
Fin
lan
d
Un Polan
ite
dS d
tat
e
Slo s
ven
ia
Sp
ain
De
nm
ark
Tur
key
Isra
Ge el
rm
an
Ne
Un therl y
an
ite
d
dK
ing s
do
m
Ire
lan
d
Ita
ly
Ic
Lux elan
em d
bo
ur
Po g
rtu
ga
Gr l
eec
e
and the Czech Republic show the highest GFCF (each in excess
17 Open Working Group Proposal for Sustainable Development Goals (2014). https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?page=view&type=400&nr=1579&menu=1300
70
22
.4 8
.38
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
2
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
.6 4
.05
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
4
1.8
1
.30
9.9
43
5.3
.0 9
.8
14
2 .5
. 26
.76
.37
11
25
4 .9
8 .4
20
9. 0
9
4.1
20
20
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
06
07
07
07
07
07
04
07
07
07
07
07
.37
6 .5
23
6
3.7
.8 8
.78
37
28
.6 8
.7
16
8.8
9. 3
.32
5
7.9
36
.9 4
.24
19
30
.19
0. 2
.0 0
5 .5
48
2. 6
2
1.5
8
4.1
1
9. 6
8
7.6
. 65
.13
11
44
4.2
.8
10
3
1.9
.7
12
.7
16
.24
1
.9 9
.36
11
0.39
0.54
0.83
0.80
0.94
1.00
0.87
1.16
1.24
1.17
1.37
1.26
1.50
1.41
1.62
1.58
1.65
1.63
1.74
1.98
2.00
1.92
2.01
1.99
2.13
2.28
2.50
2.23
2.73
2.59
2.85
2.99
3.00
2.96
3.30
3.47
3.50
3.06
0
1.7
1
.5
15
4.15
07
07
4.00
3.31
20
20
1
2. 6
6
1.1
1
6 .6
.74
19
6.4
4.21
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
09
10
10
10
10
10
10
08
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
.8 4
17
10
20
.78
18
10
20
80
.
33
10
20
97
.
33
10
20
.05
20
10
20
.45
11
10
0
20
2. 8
2
10
20
. 43
8
09
20
.12
8
10
20
9
3.0
10
1
20
0.6
1
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
4.50
% Change
0.50
33
34
31
32
30
28
29
26
27
25
23
24
21
22
20
18
19
16
17
15
14
12
13
11
10
I
Ko srael
rea
,R
ep.
Jap
an
Fin
lan
Sw d
ed
De en
nm
ark
Au
Sw stria
itze
rla
Ge nd
r
m
Un
ite any
dS
tat
e
Slo s
ven
Be ia
lgi
um
Fra
nce
OE Aus
CD tral
av ia
era
ge
Ice
Ne land
t
Cz herla
ech
nd
s
Re
pu
bli
c
Est
on
i
No a
Un
rw
ite
ay
dK
ing
do
m
Ca
na
da
Ire
lan
Hu d
ng
a
Po ry
rtu
ga
l
Ita
ly
Ne Spa
i
w
Ze n
Lux alan
em d
bo
urg
Tur
key
Po
lan
Slo d
vak
ia
Gr
eec
e
Me
xic
o
Ch
ile
Unit: Percent of GDP, Source: OECD (data refer to 2013, except AUT, MEX: 2014, CHE, IRL: 2012, AUS: 2011)
kia, Greece, Mexico, and Chile each spend less than 1 percent
71
Performance by goal
10. Inequality
10.1 Palma ratio
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
06
08
07
08
08
08
08
08
06
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
07
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
.9 6
.32
.72
4 .6
4 .6
2 .5
4 .0
5
5.4
3. 2
4.2
6 .0
.5 2
7
.15
. 28
.8 8
8.2
4.7
.03
3.7
2. 8
.81
2
6.1
7
7.8
.0 0
.19
5.6
.10
1
. 43
0
6.1
.75
9
7.6
% Change
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
04
04
05
05
05
05
05
03
05
04
05
04
03
05
05
05
05
05
04
05
05
04
05
05
05
05
05
04
05
05
05
3.26
.77
2
1.8
.61
. 20
1
.70
3.7
5 .0
.91
7
2. 4
.75
7
5
1.4
1
.6
13
2. 8
2 .5
2
3 .9
5.2
1
. 26
. 20
7
0 .9
6
1.9
.6
12
.11
11
.0 0
.05
1
.18
18
3
5.1
.8 8
6 .6
1
8 .6
1
2.93
3.50
3.00
1.55
1.37
1.36
1.34
1.30
1.28
1.26
1.24
1.23
1.23
1.22
1.18
1.18
1.13
1.11
1.10
1.09
1.04
1.04
0.99
0.96
0.96
0.91
0.90
0.87
0.87
0.87
0.85
0.84
1.00
0.82
1.50
1.07
2.00
1.74
1.99
2.50
0.50
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
22
22
21
19
19
18
17
16
15
14
12
12
11
Slo
vak
Slo ia
ven
i
N a
Cz
ech orwa
Re y
pu
b
De lic
nm
ark
Ice
lan
Be d
lgi
um
Fin
lan
d
Au
str
ia
Sw
Ne eden
the
rla
nd
Hu s
n
Sw gary
itze
rla
Ge nd
rm
an
y
Po
lan
d
Ir
Lux elan
em d
b
Ko ourg
rea
,R
ep
Ca .
na
da
Ne Franc
w
Ze e
ala
n
Au d
str
alia
Est
on
ia
OE
CD
Ita
av ly
era
ge
Sp
ain
Jap
an
Gr
eec
Po e
Un
rt
ite
d K ugal
ing
do
m
Isra
Un
ite
e
dS l
tat
es
Tur
key
Me
xic
o
Ch
ile
Unit: Ratio, Source: OECD (data refer to 2012, except NOR, DNK, SWE, CHE, DEU, KOR, CAN, FRA, NZL, ISR, TUR, CHL: 2011, GBR: 2010, JPN: 2009)
tries. Recent research has shown that in the EU, for instance,
Turkey (1.99), Mexico (2.93), and Chile (3.26) showing the most
19
are currently not on the right track since the gap between the
and educational success. Chapter 4.4 has shown how the level
18 Schraad-Tischler, D., and Kroll, C. (2014). Social Justice in the EU A Cross-national Comparison. Gtersloh: Bertelsmann Stiftung.
http://news.sgi-network.org/uploads/tx_amsgistudies/Social-Justice-in-the-EU-2014.pdf
19 Ostry, et al. (2014): Redistribution, Inequality, and Growth. IMF Staff Discussion Note. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2014/sdn1402.pdf
OECD (2015): In It Together: Why Less Inequality Benefits All. OECD Publishing, Paris. http://www.oecd.org/els/soc/OECD2015-In-It-Together-Chapter1-Overview-Inequality.pdf
72
09
09
09
09
09
1
8.7
0.7
.5 2
7
1
4 .6
2
1.0
2
5
6 .9
6
1.9
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
. 65
8
7.3
. 33
.9
18
43
5
1.3
1
.03
33
4
7.7
1
.91
.47
19
49
5
6.1
.6 6
5 .0
1
4.8
3
1.8
2
5.3
1
2
4.3
.4 8
.5 0
39
.70
20
06
20
70
.
64
06
20
5
3.6
06
20
.78
14
06
20
. 20
37
06
2
20
6 .0
1
03
9
20
3. 4
1
06
20
.6 8
15
06
20
.8 8
39
06
20
. 22
89
06
20
.35
19
06
20
.0 6
68
06
20
.76
91
06
20
6
9. 6
06
3
20
0.7
2
5
0.1
1
20
20
20
20
20
20
2 .5
1
3.0
5
7.4
3
0. 2
. 67
11
8
3. 6
12
09
20
.9 8
27
09
20
.41
1
09
5
20
2.1
3
09
20
.4 8
18
09
7
20
9. 3
1
09
20
6
9.9
09
5
20
0 .5
3
09
20
.80
14
09
20
.93
19
09
3
20
9.1
1
20
20
20
20
20
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
2
4.8
1
09
20
. 67
7
09
8
20
7.3
1
09
6
20
1.1
2
09
5
20
1.9
2
09
9
20
0. 4
4
09
0
20
2. 0
1
09
20
. 49
4
09
20
.71
0
09
4
20
0.1
4
4
3.1
1
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
% Change
13.39
16.00
10.90
14.00
2.00
6.76
6.42
6.37
5.99
5.89
5.82
5.62
5.61
5.22
5.18
5.04
4.98
4.96
4.77
4.75
4.30
4.20
4.17
3.92
3.45
2.99
2.98
2.57
2.47
2.41
2.27
1.87
1.76
4.00
2.07
6.00
4.06
8.00
6.30
8.47
10.00
8.51
12.00
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
Cz
ech
Au
ile
str
Re ia
pu
bli
c
H
Ne unga
r
w
Ze y
ala
nd
Fra
nce
Slo
vak
ia
27
Ch
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
1
Ice
Est
on
ia
lan
No d
rw
ay
Me
xic
Ca o
na
da
Fin
Ko land
rea
,R
ep.
Ita
ly
Jap
an
Sw
ed
en
Sp
ain
G
Ne reece
the
Un rlan
d
ite
dS s
tat
es
Un
ite Turk
ey
dK
ing
do
m
Po
lan
d
Isra
el
A
OE
u
CD stral
av ia
era
g
Po e
r
Sw tugal
itze
rla
Ge nd
rm
an
Slo y
Lux veni
em a
bo
urg
Ire
lan
d
De
nm
ark
Be
lgi
um
Assessment (PISA).
ing eld for their start in life. These countries show that a high
cal culture in the family home. The PISA Social Justice Index is
73
Performance by goal
11. Cities
11.1 Particulate matter
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
.57
21
.33
9
1.7
8
10
4
2.9
20
20
20
20
20
20
.24
88
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
.33
33
.00
00
13
3
8.3
10
0
0.3
3
.00
75
50
87.
9
7.6
.00
80
09
20
0
09
0
20
0.0
3
09
20
0
09
0
20
0.0
4
09
.00
00
1
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
% Change
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
9
9. 2
3
0
4 .0
4
1
2. 4
7
2
2. 8
1
9
1.1
7
0
8 .0
8
7.1
4
1.5
8
6 .3
3
3.1
7
7.2
2
3
3 .5
.0 0
.0 0
8 .5
5
7
.0 0
.0 0
.0 0
.0 0
0.0
00
1
25
00
1
00
1
00
1
57.00
62.00
70.00
50.00
60.00
8.00
7.00
15.00
14.00
9.00
32.00
28.00
25.00
23.00
35.00
34
33
32
31
29
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
Au
str
ali
Ca a
na
da
Est
on
ia
Fin
lan
d
Ice
lan
d
Ire
Ko land
rea
Lux , Rep
.
em
Ne bou
rg
w
Ze
ala
n
No d
rw
ay
Po
lan
Po d
rtu
g
Slo al
ven
ia
Sp
ain
S
Un
ite wede
dK
n
i
Un ngdo
m
ite
dS
tat
es
Ch
i
De le
nm
ark
Fra
nce
Isra
e
OE
Gr l
CD
ee
av ce
era
ge
Me
xic
o
Tur
key
Slo
vak
ia
Jap
Ge an
rm
a
Sw
itze ny
rla
nd
A
Ne ustria
the
rla
nd
s
Cz
Ita
ech
l
y
Re
pu
bl
Hu ic
ng
a
Be ry
lgi
um
3.00
10.00
5.00
20.00
12.53
30.00
21.00
40.00
32.00
50.00
Unit: Percent of population exposed to >15 ug/cbm, Source: Yale (data refer to 2012)
sional goal.
percent), Austria (32 percent), and Italy (35 percent) still have
74
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
22
. 22
. 33
.0
10
.0
10
9. 0
. 69
7
. 25
. 25
4
7.1
.88
5 .5
5 .5
5.2
. 85
5
4.3
5
4.3
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.4
1.2
1.4
1.5
1.4
1.5
1.5
1.6
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.7
1.8
1.8
1.9
1.8
1.9
1.9
2.0
1.9
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.2
2.1
2.4
2.3
2.5
2.5
2.4
3.0
1.0
0.5
34
30
30
30
30
27
27
27
24
24
24
21
21
21
19
19
18
14
14
14
14
10
10
10
10
1
Ne
Ca
na
d
Ze a
ala
Un
nd
ite
dS
tat
Au es
str
al
Be ia
lgi
um
Ir
Lux elan
em d
b
Ne ourg
the
rla
nd
No s
rw
De ay
nm
ark
Fin
lan
d
Un
S
ite
d K pain
ing
do
m
Fra
n
Ge ce
rm
an
y
Jap
Sw
an
itze
rla
n
Sw d
OE
ed
CD
av en
era
ge
Au
str
Po ia
rtu
ga
Est l
on
ia
Ice
lan
d
Cz Slove
ech
nia
Re
pu
bli
c
I
tal
Ko
rea y
,R
ep.
Ch
ile
Gr
eec
e
Isra
e
l
Hu
ng
ary
Po
lan
Slo d
vak
ia
Tur
key
Me
xic
o
respective room per person ratio is between 2.3 and 2.5. The
mideld comprises a number of countries with on average 1.6
to 1.8 rooms per person. Countries such as Japan, Germany,
France, Sweden, Austria, Portugal, and Switzerland belong
to this group. At the bottom of the league table, however, we
nd several countries where a person has on average only
one room at his or her disposal: Mexico (1.0), Turkey, Slovakia,
Poland, and Hungary (all 1.1).
Further indicators which could be relevant to this goal
include, but are not limited to, widespread access to public
transport or the number of people killed in road accidents.
75
Performance by goal
20
20
20
20
20
09
09
09
09
09
7
8 .3
0. 2
.5 0
0 .9
6 .5
1
.16
3.7
.83
.93
. 69
1
0. 8
1
9. 3
7
5.4
. 49
7
.19
.78
1
2.7
.21
6.8
1
0
7.5
1
.86
5
1.9
2
2. 0
1
5. 8
.29
.4 8
.5 4
.9 8
.9 8
1
.01
6
1
3. 3
1
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
661
647
626
614
587
580
530
525
504
501
494
493
484
483
458
455
438
429
418
409
407
385
378
360
358
354
347
307
304
607
712
300
297
293
400
500
4 .0
.5 6
.31
7
.23
0. 2
4 .9
3
1.3
0
7.8
1
.19
.81
7
.3 4
1
4 .0
.4 0
3. 4
. 65
.83
7
7.9
1
6
1.6
.5 6
1
5 .0
1
600
06
06
06
06
00
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
.03
4
06
20
.29
7
06
20
.71
3
06
20
.83
11
06
20
0
04
20
5
1.5
06
20
0
1.7
06
20
5
4 .0
06
20
.12
8
06
20
0
06
20
6
2.1
06
6
20
1.4
1
2
7.1
3
20
20
20
20
20
20
700
751
06
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
04
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
800
725
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
% Change
200
100
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
Un
ite
Ita
ly
Fin
d K land
ing
do
m
No
rw
ay
G
Ne reece
the
rla
nd
s
Fra
nce
Au
str
ia
Ire
lan
d
Isra
e
l
Ge
Ne rman
w
Ze y
ala
n
Au d
str
Lux
alia
em
b
Sw ourg
itze
rl
Un
ite and
dS
tat
De es
nm
ark
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
Est
on
ia
Po
lan
d
Cz Slova
ech
kia
Re
pu
bli
c
Ice
lan
d
Ja
Ko pan
rea
,R
ep
Me .
xic
Hu o
ng
ary
Ch
ile
Tur
key
Slo
ven
i
Ca a
na
da
Po
rtu
g
Be al
lgi
um
Sp
ai
Sw n
OE
ed
CD
av en
era
ge
Unit: Kilograms per capita, Source: OECD (data refer to 2013, except KOR, MEX, GRC, AUT, IRL, USA: 2012, JPN: 2010, CHL, AUS: 2009, CAN: 2004)
and the United States come in the last places with 751 and 725
Germany, New Zealand, Australia, Luxembourg, and Switzerland, where the respective gure is even 712 kilograms.
76
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
.0
12
6
3
20
3.0
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
5
1.9
1
.9 0
1
8
3 .9
2
8
8 .0
1
8
3.0
1
1
0.6
1
3
.79
.61
6 .3
2. 3
1
22
5. 8
1
2
0. 4
1
08
20
.41
9
08
20
. 62
3
08
0
20
4.7
2
08
20
.8 8
3
08
0
20
6 .5
2
08
20
. 82
4
08
6
20
0.6
3
08
7
20
6.4
2
08
6
20
2. 0
1
08
3
20
8.1
2
08
7
20
1.2
1
08
4
20
2. 6
2
08
20
4
2. 4
08
20
0
08
20
3
1.2
08
20
.6 0
2
08
8
20
6.1
1
08
2
20
6.8
2
08
5
4.1
1
2
20
20
% Change
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
5
.14
7
3. 4
. 87
1
3
7.0
3. 2
.15
47.00
.76
7
.4
19
5
0.1
2 .5
1
0 .5
.42
.4 4
.76
16
.30
. 22
0
1.1
5.3
.15
19
2
2. 3
.41
12
.7
16
9. 8
0.7
1
.31
2. 2
.0 8
5.3
.92
4
5.1
.81
1
7.2
.15
41.00
50.00
10.00
24.87
21.96
21.74
21.48
21.26
20.76
19.76
18.94
16.80
16.64
16.22
15.57
15.36
15.26
14.44
14.11
13.35
12.59
12.06
12.04
11.94
11.69
11.57
10.98
9.99
9.47
15.00
9.59
20.00
12.87
25.00
18.80
30.00
23.72
35.00
29.20
34.32
40.00
35.60
45.00
5.00
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
1
Un
ite
dK
Jap
an
ing
do
Hu m
ng
ary
Ita
Ne
the ly
rl
Sw ands
itze
rla
nd
Tur
key
Me
xic
o
Gr
eec
e
Fra
nce
Sp
a
Slo in
vak
ia
Isra
Slo el
ven
Ge ia
rm
an
Po y
rtu
g
Ko
rea al
,R
ep
Ice .
lan
d
Cz Belg
ech
ium
Re
Lu publi
OE xemb c
ou
CD
av rg
era
g
De e
nm
ark
Po
lan
Sw d
ed
Un
e
ite
dS n
tat
es
Au
str
ia
E
Ne ston
i
w
Ze a
ala
nd
Ire
lan
Ca d
na
da
Fin
lan
No d
rw
ay
Ch
Au ile
str
alia
Unit: Tons per capita, Source: OECD (data refer to 2010, except JPN, HUN, FRA, SVK, SVN, PRT, ISL, CZE, LUX, POL, SWE, NZL, CAN, AUS: 2011, TUR: 2009, NOR: 2008)
77
Performance by goal
13. Climate
13.1 Production-based energy-related CO2 emissions
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
6
.70
.31
.73
. 82
.2
12
. 67
.42
.10
13
0.6
.7
12
8.7
0.6
1
3.3
0. 3
1
9
0.1
0.7
.0 6
.21
1
0. 4
.30
3
5
3. 3
1
.03
.10
.11
0
1.8
2
.5 9
.18
0.7
1
.6 4
.8
15
3 .5
1
.5 2
.0
13
5 .0
% Change
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
. 97
4
5.1
1
2
1.3
1
.01
.0 8
7
. 33
6 .3
. 85
0 .5
1
.0 8
.5 0
0.7
1
9. 0
1
.72
5 .5
4
8 .5
1
06
2
20
2 .5
1
06
20
.23
5
06
1
20
1.2
1
06
20
.38
4
06
3
20
6.2
1
06
20
.18
7
06
20
.5 9
4
06
8
20
7.8
1
06
1
20
6 .0
1
06
0
20
0 .9
1
06
2
20
8.2
1
06
4
20
1.9
1
06
20
.6 4
9
06
20
.5 0
7
06
20
8
5. 8
06
4
20
3.0
1
06
20
.5 9
7
06
1
5 .0
1
20
20
20
20
16.17
12.30
10.37
10.25
9.59
9.40
9.26
9.22
9.13
8.35
7.75
7.68
7.62
7.25
7.21
7.18
7.11
6.64
6.15
5.90
5.78
5.76
5.26
5.19
4.47
4.39
4.36
4.25
5.00
4.02
3.72
10.00
6.99
15.00
11.86
15.30
20.00
17.00
19.47
25.00
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
Me
xic
o
Tur
key
Sw
ed
e
Po n
rtu
ga
l
Hu
ng
ary
Sw Chile
itze
rla
nd
Fra
nce
Ice
lan
d
Sp
ain
Slo
vak
ia
Ita
De ly
nm
ark
Gr
eec
e
Sl
Un
ite oven
dK
ia
ing
do
m
No
rw
Ne
ay
w
Ze
ala
nd
Po
lan
d
Au
str
ia
OE
CD Irelan
d
av
era
ge
Fin
la
Ge nd
rm
an
y
Isra
Be el
lgi
um
Cz
J
ech apa
Re n
p
Ne ubli
c
the
rla
nd
Ko
rea s
,R
ep
Est .
on
ia
C
Un anad
ite
dS a
tat
Au es
str
Lux
a
em lia
bo
urg
Unit: Tons CO2 equivalent per capita, Source: OECD (data refer to 2012)
based CO2 emissions are below 5 tons per capita. These coun-
Here, CO2 emissions range from 15.3 (Canada) to 19.47 tons per
The data displayed in gures 13.1 and 13.2 show how far many
capita (Luxembourg).
78
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
09
09
09
01
09
06
09
09
09
09
09
09
00
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
06
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
.42
45
. 85
7
3.6
.79
. 28
7
.73
7
8 .3
.3 4
.4 4
.42
13
7
6.4
.6 4
.74
.38
.0 4
.4 4
.21
5. 8
5
7.8
1
.73
.0 4
.29
.15
0
1.9
2
.63
.14
.30
. 62
22
.8 4
7
9. 6
5. 8
1
% Change
06
06
06
06
06
06
00
.0 4
5 .9
.0 0
8 .4
1
5 .0
8
4.1
06
20
.5 3
2
06
8
20
8.2
1
06
20
0
01
8
20
0. 8
1
06
20
0
06
1
20
4.7
1
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
06
06
.9 4
9
06
9
20
1.3
1
06
20
.41
9
06
6
20
1.0
1
06
20
.10
5
06
20
.0 6
5
06
7
20
1.9
1
06
1
20
9 .5
1
06
3
20
2. 6
1
06
20
.15
4
06
9
20
0 .5
1
06
20
. 69
8
06
20
0
06
4
20
6 .9
1
06
0
20
6.4
1
06
7
20
4.2
1
06
20
.5 8
5
06
8
20
0 .5
4
06
20
.0 6
5
06
7
20
9. 4
1
2
2 .9
2
20
20
66.75
100.00
680.01
640.53
555.18
520.69
512.64
496.04
461.12
424.96
389.72
353.34
352.14
340.51
334.47
328.13
326.45
319.49
317.50
316.63
301.44
289.55
289.43
280.05
275.08
251.88
249.80
248.81
230.80
160.28
200.00
109.26
300.00
205.35
400.00
273.03
500.00
374.29
600.00
476.81
700.00
572.74
800.00
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
1
Sw
ed
e
No n
Sw rway
itze
rla
nd
Fin
lan
d
Fra
nce
Au
str
Po ia
rtu
ga
l
Sp
ain
Ch
ile
Un
ite
d K Italy
ing
do
Slo m
ven
De ia
nm
ar
Slo k
vak
Be ia
lgi
um
J
Ne apan
the
r
Lux land
em s
bo
u
Ge rg
rm
an
y
Ire
lan
d
OE Hun
CD
ga
av ry
era
ge
Isra
el
Un Turk
ey
ite
d
Ne Stat
e
w
Ze s
ala
nd
Gr
eec
e
Ice
Cz
ech lan
Re d
pu
bli
c
Me
xic
o
Po
Ko land
rea
,R
ep
Ca .
na
Au da
str
alia
Est
on
ia
Unit: Tons CO2 equivalent per million const. 2005 int. USD PPP, Source: UNFCCC, IEA (data refer to 2012, except ISR: 2010, CHL, MEX: 2006, KOR: 2001)
the top-performing country with an amount of 66.75 tons, Estonia comes in last place with 680 tons more than ten times as
much as in the case of the leading country. Moreover, Sweden is
the only country ranked among the top ve on both indicators
chosen here.
With regard to greenhouse gas emissions per GDP, Norway, Switzerland, Finland, and France follow in places two to
ve. In fth-ranked France, however, emissions are already
nearly four times as high as in Sweden. At the negative end of
the spectrum, Canada and Australia again nd themselves in
the bottom group. Australias greenhouse gas emissions per
GDP amount to 641 tons, which means that the country ranks
second to last on both indicators of goal 13.
79
Performance by goal
14. Oceans
14.1 Ocean Health Index
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
.72
1
.61
1
.5 2
1
. 49
1
. 49
1
3.0
.86
.23
.47
1
.45
1
2.9
.74
1
4.4
.35
1
7
1.3
.32
1
.32
1
.30
1
2
1.3
.30
1
.27
1
2 .5
% Change
61.00
60.00
57.00
66.00
65.00
67.00
66.00
67.00
68.00
68.00
68.00
70.00
69.00
70.00
70.00
71.00
70.75
71.00
73.00
71.00
75.00
74.00
75.00
76.00
75.00
77.00
76.00
.92
77.00
3
3.1
.47
1
.74
.14
7
80.00
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
. 43
1
.41
.11
13
.78
4 .6
3.0
.35
1
9
1.3
1
4.1
.30
1
2. 6
78.00
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
3
1.3
2
1.3
.8 8
8
1.2
70.00
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
12
12
12
12
12
80.00
20
20
20
20
20
90.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
28
27
24
26
24
22
22
19
19
19
18
15
15
15
12
12
11
12
10
Ne
Est
on
i
Ze a
ala
De nd
nm
ark
Fin
lan
Au d
str
ali
No a
rw
a
Be y
Ne lgium
the
rla
nd
s
S
Un
ite wede
dK
n
ing
do
Ge m
rm
an
y
Fra
nce
Ita
K
l
OE orea, y
CD
Re
p
.
av
era
ge
Ca
na
d
Po a
rtu
ga
l
Sl
Un oven
ite
ia
dS
tat
es
Ch
ile
Gr
eec
e
Ire
lan
d
Isra
el
Po
lan
d
Jap
an
Sp
ain
Ice
lan
d
Me
xic
o
Tur
key
Au
Cz
ech stri
Re a
pu
bl
Hu ic
Lux ngar
em y
bo
ur
Slo g
Sw vakia
itze
rla
nd
Unit: Standardized index, Source: Ocean Health Index (data refer to 2014)
Goal 14. Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine
resources for sustainable development
Goal 14 refers to a key dimension of environmental sustainabil-
England Aquarium.
The ten goals that the index refers to are food provision,
now and in the future. Figure 14.1 shows that Turkey and
80
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
0
. 20
4
7.9
3. 4
6
0.7
4.7
.13
.19
10
. 22
.86
1
.37
0
1.0
0
1.0
2
0.3
.4 6
4.4
.31
. 25
7
.9 5
7
0.1
.13
1
8
1.9
. 22
. 22
5
3 .5
% Change
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
05
7
9. 3
.17
14
1
3.6
2
3.1
4.4
. 65
17
4.3
4.4
.10
5.6
4 .5
.61
5
5 .5
39
. 03
2.9
. 97
. 25
9. 0
2
6.4
0.7
3
0.1
3 .5
.0 6
2 .9
1
1
1.9
24.04
22.22
20.47
19.72
19.44
18.59
18.33
18.08
17.94
17.83
17.80
17.65
17.51
17.16
17.03
16.67
16.52
16.29
15.84
15.76
15.70
15.21
15.18
14.94
20.00
15.66
25.00
21.25
30.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
1
Au
Jap
an
str
alia
Ko
rea
,R
ep.
Sp
ain
Gr
eec
e
Ch
ile
Tur
ke
Po y
rtu
ga
Me l
xic
o
Po
lan
No d
rw
a
Ca y
na
da
Ita
ly
S
OE
CD wede
n
av
Ne erag
w
e
Ze
ala
De nd
nm
ark
Ice
lan
Ge d
rm
an
y
Ire
lan
d
F
Un inlan
ite
dS d
Ne tate
s
the
rla
nd
s
Fra
nce
Un
E
ite ston
dK
i
ing a
do
m
Au
str
ia
Cz Belg
ech
ium
Re
pu
bl
Hu ic
ng
ary
Lux Israe
l
em
bo
ur
Slo g
vak
Slo ia
v
Sw enia
itze
rla
nd
In this cross-national comparison, Australia also performs in relative terms well on the second indicator, which
81
Performance by goal
15. Biodiversity
15.1 Terrestrial protected areas
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
0. 8
0.0
0. 8
7
0.0
0. 2
0.0
8
1.3
0.3
2. 8
0
1.8
4
1.7
1
0.0
0. 2
.6
14
% Change
6.17
8.00
6.00
5.03
8.39
8.04
8.54
8.43
10.00
8.55
10.31
8.56
10.70
10.66
12.22
12.29
12.25
12.97
12.71
13.74
14.34
14.27
14.68
14.58
14.72
16.27
14.93
17.00
16.72
17.00
17.00
17.00
17.00
17.00
0. 2
1
2. 3
3. 2
2. 3
0. 8
3. 4
17.00
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
9
0.1
3. 4
6
5.7
0
1.0
.45
13
17.00
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
06
06
06
06
06
0.7
3.3
3 .5
.80
31
3
0.1
12.00
20
20
20
20
06
06
06
06
06
06
.15
19
1
0.0
9
1.9
2
1.1
.2
35
14.00
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
16.00
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
2.33
4.00
1.76
18.00
2.00
34
33
31
32
29
30
28
26
27
24
25
23
21
22
20
19
17
18
15
16
14
12
13
10
11
Est
on
Ge ia
r
Lux man
em y
b
Ne ourg
the
rla
nd
s
Po
lan
Slo d
v
Sw eni
Un itze a
r
ite
d K land
in
Cz
ech gdom
Re
pu
bli
c
Gr
eec
e
Jap
an
Au
str
Be ia
lgi
um
Ice
lan
d
Sl
Ne ovak
i
w
Ze a
ala
nd
Fra
nce
No
rw
a
OE Den y
CD ma
av rk
era
g
Au e
str
alia
Isra
e
Me l
xic
o
Ita
ly
Ch
ile
Sp
ain
Po
rtu
ga
Fin l
Un
lan
ite
dS d
tat
e
Ca s
na
da
Sw
Ko eden
rea
,R
e
Hu p.
ng
ary
Tur
key
Ire
lan
d
Goal 15. Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage
forests, combat desertification and halt and reverse land degradation, and halt biodiversity loss
Goal 15 is the direct counterpart to goal 14. Both goals high-
82
28
28
27
24
24
24
22
21
21
20
16
16
15
15
14
14
13
12
11
11
10
10
20
15
19
27
30
27
35
40
36
44
50
52
50
60
Po ly 2
rtu
6
g
itze al 2
6
rla
Ge nd 2
rm
an 8
y
Ice
2
l
an 9
Lux
d
em
3
Cz
ech bour 0
Re g 3
p
1
ub
Ne
l
w
Ze ic 32
Un
a
ite
d K land
ing
do
m
23
Sw
Ita
23
23
20
20
20
18
18
17
16
14
14
11
11
11
Tur
key
Po
lan
Ca d
na
da
Est
on
ia
Ch
Ko
i
le
re
Un a, Re
ite
p
dS .
tat
e
s
Au
str
alia
Gr
eec
e
Jap
an
Fra
nc
Hu e
ng
ar
No y
rw
De ay
nm
ar
Sw k
ed
en
Isra
Be el
lgi
um
Me
xic
Ne
OE ther o
CD land
s
av
era
ge
Fin
lan
d
Ire
lan
Slo d
vak
ia
Au
str
i
Slo a
ven
ia
Sp
ain
83
Performance by goal
16. Institutions
16.1 Homicides
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
09
20
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
06
18.90
3.7
1
2.7
5
7.6
1
3.3
.35
. 25
9. 0
1
.0 0
30
.88
0.0
3
1.4
2
3
3. 3
1
. 69
7
.0 0
4.2
1
25
0.0
1
0.7
0.0
4.2
1
7
7.3
4
.80
82
06
6
20
8.2
2
06
4
1.7
2
9
20
20
.18
11
20
2
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
06
06
06
06
06
06
.0 9
9
06
0
20
2 .5
1
06
20
.5 0
12
06
0
20
0.0
2
06
20
.0 0
80
06
7
20
8 .5
2
8
8.1
1
20
20
20
20
20
20
.30
30
7
4 .0
2
4 .0
2
6.2
1
.8
92
5. 8
.5 6
. 67
2.7
9
7.6
8 .3
2 .5
1
9. 0
. 33
5.3
1
3.3
6 .6
1
.0 0
8 .4
0.0
2. 2
50
2. 2
2 .5
1
.0 0
3.3
0.0
5 .0
40
% Change
20.00
18.00
16.00
14.00
12.00
10.00
4.30
3.80
3.10
2.70
1.87
1.80
1.70
1.40
1.40
1.40
1.30
1.20
1.10
1.10
1.00
1.00
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.70
0.60
0.60
0.30
0.20
2.00
0.30
4.00
1.70
6.00
4.10
8.00
34
33
32
31
30
29
28
26
26
23
23
23
22
21
19
19
17
17
14
14
14
11
11
11
Lux
em
bo
urg
Ice
lan
d
Jap
an
Slo
ven
ia
Sp
ain
Au
st
De ria
nm
a
Ge rk
r
Ne man
y
the
rl
Sw ands
itze
rla
nd
Ko Italy
rea
,R
ep.
P
Cz
ech olan
Re d
pu
bli
No c
rw
ay
S
Ne wede
w
n
Z
Un
ite ealan
dK
d
ing
do
m
Au
str
alia
Ire
lan
d
Fra
nc
Po e
rtu
ga
Ca l
na
da
Gr
eec
Slo e
vak
ia
Fin
lan
d
Isra
e
l
B
OE
CD elgiu
m
av
era
g
Hu e
ng
ary
C
Un
ite hile
dS
tat
e
Est s
on
ia
Tur
key
Me
xic
o
Unit: Per 100,000 inhabitants, Source: UNODC (data refer to 2013, except KOR, ISR, CHL, TUR: 2012)
Goal 16. Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access
to justice for all, and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels
There has been much discussion in the multi-stakeholder Post-
20
20 See for instance Schraad-Tischler, D. (2013): Enabling factors for sustainable development strengthening rule of law and other key sustainable governance indicators.
Available from www.sgi-network.org
84
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
.6
16
.47
.2
10
26
.0 0
4
7.1
25
.91
15
.39
17
5
1.8
.23
. 69
1
5
3. 4
.91
10
3. 2
. 43
1
1
7.8
. 69
7
9
1.3
4.2
.0 0
. 33
1
. 82
3
1.3
.0 9
.9 0
. 25
1
.5 3
.74
.4 4
.45
.27
.32
.21
.13
% Change
35.00
43.00
45.00
43.00
51.00
50.00
55.00
54.00
60.00
58.00
60.00
61.00
69.00
63.00
69.24
69.00
72.00
74.00
73.00
76.00
74.00
76.00
79.00
78.00
80.00
79.00
82.00
81.00
86.00
83.00
86.00
89.00
87.00
92.00
7
6 .6
1
5
6
7.6
8.7
1
.70
0.0
.80
5.3
1
91.00
08
08
08
08
08
08
.5 7
. 62
4
1.9
1
. 33
.5
19
50.00
20
20
20
20
20
20
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
. 03
.70
5
1.4
.74
.6 0
5
4.3
9.5
4
2.7
60.00
20
20
20
20
20
20
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
.74
0
1.3
7
1.2
5
1.1
. 22
1
2. 4
70.00
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
08
08
08
08
08
08
08
.92
13
4.4
8
1.0
5
2.1
80.00
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
08
08
08
08
08
08
90.00
20
20
20
20
20
20
100.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
32
34
31
32
30
29
27
28
26
24
23
24
20
22
20
19
16
18
16
14
14
11
13
11
10
1
De
Ne
nm
ar
Ze k
ala
nd
Fin
lan
Sw d
ed
e
No n
Sw rway
itze
Ne rland
the
r
Lux land
em s
bo
ur
Ca g
na
Au da
str
a
Ge lia
rm
an
y
Un
I
ite celan
dK
d
ing
do
m
Be
lgi
um
Jap
an
Un Irelan
ite
dS d
tat
es
Ch
ile
OE
A
CD ustr
av ia
era
ge
Est
on
ia
Fra
nce
Po
rtu
ga
l
Po
lan
d
Isra
el
Sp
ain
Slo
v
Ko enia
rea
,R
ep.
Cz Hung
ech
ary
Re
pu
bl
Slo ic
vak
ia
Tur
key
Gr
eec
e
Ita
ly
Me
xic
o
land also belong to the top ve. Countries such as the United
85
Performance by goal
20
20
20
0.0
6.2
.18
18
.5
12
8 .3
. 43
71
.0 0
.2
16
25
0.99
5
1.0
2
. 25
31
. 82
31
. 65
17
1
7.4
6 .0
.70
.24
17
.45
.4 4
.5 8
31
44
.8 4
1
5.4
48
1
5.4
. 33
.03
41
58
.35
12
.5
10
.13
14
4.3
0.08
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
07
0.08
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
1.10
5.2
3
. 33
5.3
1
33
8 .3
4
7.4
.0 0
50
.5 2
.0 0
4.4
6 .6
9
7.5
1
9. 4
8.7
1
8 .0
5 .0
3. 8
5.6
1
5.3
21
3
5.1
9. 6
.6 4
25
0 .9
.5 9
9. 0
.71
.5
24
0
1.9
0.07
0.11
0.12
0.11
0.13
0.14
0.13
0.16
0.15
0.19
0.19
0.20
0.19
0.24
0.21
0.27
0.26
0.36
0.27
0.36
0.41
0.40
0.39
0.41
0.49
0.60
0.45
0.80
0.60
0.71
0.85
1.00
0.64
.4
13
1.07
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
0
10
1
20
1.1
1
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
1.20
% Change
30
32
28
30
28
25
27
24
25
23
22
19
19
19
18
17
14
16
14
13
12
10
10
Lux
Sw
ed
em en
bo
ur
No g
rw
a
Un Den y
m
ite
d K ark
in
Ne gdom
the
rla
nd
Fin s
Sw land
itze
rla
n
Be d
lgi
um
Ge
rm
an
y
Tur
key
Ire
lan
d
OE
CD Franc
e
av
era
ge
Au
Ne stral
i
w
Ze a
ala
nd
Au
str
i
Ca a
na
da
Ice
lan
d
Jap
an
Po
Un rtug
ite
a
dS l
tat
es
Ita
ly
Est
on
ia
S
Ko pain
rea
,R
e
Slo p.
ven
ia
Cz Hung
ech
ary
Re
pu
bli
c
Gr
eec
e
Po
lan
Slo d
vak
ia
Isra
el
Ch
ile
Me
xic
o
clearly shows, this target is far out of sight for the vast majority
86
67.74
72.73
69.70
68.75
70.00
72.73
72.73
75.76
72.73
75.76
78.13
77.42
78.79
78.79
81.82
79.09
81.82
81.82
78.79
80.00
81.82
81.82
81.82
81.82
81.82
81.82
81.82
81.82
81.82
81.82
81.82
83.87
81.82
83.87
84.85
90.00
83.87
84.85
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
Sp
Jap
an
1
ain
Au
Cz
1
ech stri
Re a
pu
bl 3
Hu ic
3
ng
a
Be ry
3
lgi
um
Ca
6
na
De da
nm
6
ark
Fin
lan 6
d
Fra
nce 6
Gr
eec 6
e
Ice
lan 6
d
Ire
6
Ko land
rea
6
Ne , Rep
the
.
rla
nd 6
s
Po
lan 6
Po d
rtu
6
g
Slo al
ven 6
ia
Un
6
ite Turk
ey
dK
OE
ing
CD
do 6
av m
era
6
ge
Est
on
Ge ia 2
rm
an 1
y
Isra 21
el
2
Lux Chil 1
em e 2
bo
ur 4
Slo g 2
vak 5
i
Sw a 26
ed
e
Au n 2
str
alia 6
2
Ita 8
l
No y 28
r
Un
ite way
d
28
Ne Stat
e
w
Ze s 28
ala
nd
M
32
Sw exico
itze
3
3
rla
nd
34
Unit: Percentage of SDG indicators used in this study that are reported annually with time lag no greater than three years, Source: Bertelsmann Stiftung (data refer to 2015)
top performers in this respect are Spain and Japan with nearly
reported for the SDG indicators used in this study is still below
three years in the respective country. This indicator is calculated as the number of indicators reported divided by the
number of indicators applicable for the respective country, multiplied by 100. Figure 17.2 shows that many OECD countries
are already faring quite well on this indicator. Twenty out of 34
OECD member states provide timely data on an annual basis for
more than 80 percent of the SDG indicators selected here. The
87
5. Conclusions:
Who is fit for the goals?
5.1. Countries that are ready for the SDGs: The fit five
Sweden
Norway
Denmark
.00
10
9.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.
00
This stress test has shown that, of all OECD countries, Sweden,
Norway, Denmark, Finland, and Switzerland are best prepared
7.86
for the SDGs. They form the top ve on the aggregated SDG
7.79
7.55
7.52
Finland
Switzerland
Germany
7.08
Netherlands
7.04
Belgium
7.00
Iceland
6.97
France 10
6.94
Canada 11
6.93
Austria 12
6.92
Japan 13
6.91
Slovenia 13
6.91
United Kingdom 15
6.83
tries need to step up their policy efforts and follow the likes of
6.80
Sweden and Norway if they are to reach the UNs ambitious set
7.21
New Zealand 16
of goals by 2030.
Luxembourg 17
6.66
Australia 18
6.65
Spain 18
6.65
Ireland 20
6.47
Estonia 21
6.42
Poland 21
6.42
Korea, Rep. 23
6.32
Czech Republic 24
6.24
Portugal 25
6.23
Italy 26
6.13
Slovakia 27
6.02
Israel 28
6.01
United States 29
5.95
Greece 30
5.88
5.73
Chile 31
Hungary 32
Turkey 33
Mexico 34
5.55
5.19
4.91
21 For details of how the SDG Index was constructed, see Chapter 2, Methodology.
22 Typology by the Civil Society Reflection Group on Global Development Perspectives (2015): Goals for the rich.
https://www.globalpolicywatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/RG-Goals-for-the-Rich-Advaced-Unedited-Version.pdf
88
study has shown that the main challenges overall for the entire
and Norway, while six countries each emit more than 500 tons
the poorest 10 percent. This trend will threaten not only social
person every year. Half of all OECD nations still have a share of
would happen if the likes of India and China followed the path
that these countries have chosen.
In fact, their inability to ght the growing social divide
5.2. The great divide: Where OECD nations lie far apart
tackle poverty even better than the Czech Republic and Finland,
than Iceland and Japan, (3) ensure healthy lives and well-being
words: OECD nations pretty much all play in the same league
for all even better than Japan and e.g. Denmark, (4) ensure
as captured by goal 16. All OECD countries are very safe places
and Korea, (5) promote gender equality even better than Swe-
ter than Ireland and Iceland, (8) promote economic growth and
South Korea and Israel, (10) reduce inequality even better than
Slovakia and Estonia, (11) make cities and settlements safe even
89
Table 1: The best and worst performers in all 17 goals and 34 indicators
Goal
and Japan, (13) cut emissions even better than Mexico and
Best countries
Worst countries
1.1
Czech Republic
Mexico
1.2
Finland
Italy
2.1
Iceland
Korea, Rep.
2.2
Japan
United States
3.1
Japan
Turkey
3.2
Greece
4.1
Japan
Turkey
4.2
Korea, Rep.
Mexico
5.1
Sweden
Japan
5.2
New Zealand
Korea, Rep.
6.1
Iceland
Israel
6.2
Turkey
7.1
Ireland
Iceland
7.2
Iceland
Korea, Rep.
Economy
and labor
8.1
Norway
Mexico
8.2
Iceland
Greece
Infrastructure
and innovation
9.1
Korea, Rep.
Greece
9.2
Israel
Chile
10.1
Slovakia
Chile
10.2
Estonia
Slovakia
Poverty
Agriculture
and nutrition
Health
Education
Gender equality
Water
Energy
Inequality
change. There are too many lessons for them all to be spelled
out here, and they will need to be analyzed in depth going forward. Reform debates need to focus on which policies can be
11.1
Belgium
11.2
Canada
Mexico
Consumption
and production
12.1
Estonia
Denmark
12.2
Japan
Australia
Climate
13.1
Mexico
Luxembourg
13.2
Sweden
Estonia
14.1
Estonia
Turkey
14.2
Japan
United Kingdom
15.1
Ireland
15.2
Turkey
Czech Republic
16.1
Luxembourg
Mexico
16.2
Denmark
Mexico
17.1
Sweden
Israel
17.2
Japan, Spain
Switzerland
Cities
Oceans
Biodiversity
Institutions
Global
partnership
90
the tide with regard to the growing gap between rich and
poor will require more focused policy efforts. One can see,
Goal
Country
to narrow the income gap between rich and poor more than
1.1
Ireland
27.9
Sweden
83.0
any other country, cutting the Palma ratio by 23.4 percent and
1.2
New Zealand
23.2
Ireland
55.5
2.1
Greece
61.3
Luxembourg
40.6
2.2
3.1
South Korea
7.4
3.2
Chile
17.2
Greece
27.3
ening performance over the last few years with regard to the
4.1
Portugal
45.8
Chile
15.0
4.2
Turkey
7.1
Sweden
4.4
5.1
Slovenia
150.4
Hungary
16.2
5.2
Luxembourg
58.1
Chile
304.2
6.1
Slovakia
39.5
Slovenia
201.9
6.2
Ireland
41.2
Canada
1.0
7.1
Slovakia
26.6
Iceland
36.8
7.2
United Kingdom
170.4
Turkey
15.6
8.1
Chile
47.1
Luxembourg
12.0
home, this study has made clear that ghting extreme poverty
8.2
Israel
15.1
Greece
19.5
in the poorest regions of the world must remain the top priority
9.1
Norway
10.6
Greece
57.2
9.2
Slovakia
84.6
Luxembourg
29.5
10.1
Slovakia
23.4
Sweden
21.5
10.2
United States
50.0
Slovakia
102.1
11.1
Slovakia
76.1
Denmark
150.0
For all its domestic problems, Spain should therefore take inspi-
11.2
Turkey
22.2
Slovakia
8.3
ration from those nations which have kept their ODA levels at
12.1
Iceland
38.4
Greece
13.8
12.2
Ireland
49.2
Poland
43.2
13.1
Denmark
35.8
Chile
22.7
13.2
Sweden
35.1
Estonia
51.5
14.1
United States
13.1
Greece
6.9
14.2
Japan
11.9
Italy
40.1
15.1
Estonia
35.2
15.2
16.1
Luxembourg
89.5
Mexico
103.2
16.2
Poland
32.6
Slovenia
13.4
17.1
Turkey
355.6
Spain
62.2
17.2
for instance, that over the last few years, Slovakia managed
Percentage
change*
Worst deterioration
Country
Percentage
change*
5.5. Are the best performers in sustainable development also the most economically powerful or
the happiest?
A widespread belief is that economic power is the basis upon
which progress in other elds can build. The SDGs contain
many dimensions of quality of life beyond merely the sum of
91
and the SDG Index that was produced in this study. Although
the relationship is positive meaning that economic power
Most improvement
Worst deterioration
Goal
Country
Rank
change*
Country
Rank
change*
1.1
Ireland
10
Sweden
12
1.2
New Zealand
15
Austria
14
2.1
Greece | Slovenia
Hungary | Luxembourg
2.2
3.1
South Korea
19
United States
3.2
Iceland
18
Greece
12
4.1
Luxembourg
New Zealand
4.2
Poland
13
Sweden
14
5.1
Slovenia
18
Estonia
5.2
Luxembourg
12
Chile
17
6.1
Finland | Slovakia
Slovenia
how happy people are and how sustainable their lifestyle is.
6.2
United Kingdom
14
7.1
Poland | Slovakia
Greece
7.2
Germany | Italy
Australia
8.1
Germany
Ireland
8.2
Germany | Israel
11
Ireland
12
9.1
Canada
17
Greece | Iceland
20
9.2
Estonia | Slovenia
Luxembourg
10
10.1
Slovakia
13
Japan
10.2
United States
18
Denmark
14
11.1
United States
19
Israel
20
11.2
Turkey
Mexico
12.1
Iceland
16
Greece
11
12.2
Hungary
16
Poland
13
13.1
Denmark
11
South Korea
13.2
Slovakia
10
Estonia
12
14.1
South Korea
11
Greece
14.2
Mexico
12
Finland
15
15.1
Estonia
16
15.2
16.1
Luxembourg
24
Greece
14
16.2
Poland
Austria
the rule of law, while the Governance Index examines how well
17.1
Turkey
17
Spain
13
17.2
other countries. This nding leaves food for thought for those
who are trying to strengthen public awareness of the need for
sustainable development.
the respective index with the SDG Index that captures country
*Rank change from oldest to latest year covered in the respective indicator.
92
str
alia
Au
str
Be ia
lgi
um
Ca
na
da
Cz
ech Chil
Re e
pu
b
De lic
nm
ark
Est
on
ia
Fin
lan
d
Fra
nce
Ge
rm
an
y
Gr
eec
Hu e
ng
ary
Ice
lan
d
Ire
lan
d
Isra
el
Ita
ly
Ja
Ko pan
rea
Lux , Rep
.
em
bo
urg
M
Ne exico
the
Ne rland
w
Ze s
ala
n
No d
rw
ay
Po
lan
Po d
rtu
g
Slo al
vak
Slo ia
ven
ia
Sp
ain
Sw
Sw eden
itze
rla
nd
Un
ite Turk
ey
dK
i
Un ngdo
m
ite
dS
tat
es
Au
Key
SWE
PRT
GRC
ISR
20,000
30,000
5
40,000
MEX
50,000
ISR
USA
HUN
AUS
CHL
IRL
CZE
KOR
TUR
LUX
SVK
POL
EST
60,000
ISL
CAN
NZL
CHE
AUT
NLD
DEU
GBR
ESP
FIN
TU
R
GB
R
US
A
CZE
ISL
AUT
CAN
AUS
NLD
ES
P
SW
E
CH
E
SVK
GBR
DEU
PR
T
SV
K
SV
N
JPN
BEL
X
ME
X
NL
D
NZ
L
NO
R
PO
L
EST
NZL
ESP
KO
R
FIN
LU
FRA
ITA
JPN
SVN
IRL
ISR
POL
FIN
FR
A
DE
U
GR
C
HU
N
ISL
E
DN
K
ES
T
CZ
AU
S
AU
T
BE
L
CA
N
CH
L
SDG Index
Figure 2
DNK
NOR
CHE
IRL
LUX
KOR
ITA
CHL
USA
HUN
TUR
MEX
70,000
Figure 3
DNK
NOR
SWE
BEL
ITA
FRA
JPN
SVN
PRT
GRC
SDG Index
93
cult to pursue all goals to the same extent all the time. The
also inform the relative weights given to each SDG and the
tion of resources.
years. It is the rst stress test of rich countries for the SDGs.
to be successful.
that not all countries are t for the goals, and indeed no coun-
extent for every nation. The country pro les in this study
have shown in which areas countries lag behind and lead the
94
str
alia
Au
str
Be ia
lgi
um
Ca
na
da
Cz
ech Chil
Re e
pu
b
De lic
nm
ark
Est
on
ia
Fin
lan
d
Fra
nce
Ge
rm
an
y
Gr
eec
Hu e
ng
ary
Ice
lan
d
Ire
lan
d
Isra
el
Ita
ly
Ja
Ko pan
rea
Lux , Rep
.
em
bo
urg
M
Ne exico
the
Ne rland
w
Ze s
ala
n
No d
rw
ay
Po
lan
Po d
rtu
g
Slo al
vak
Slo ia
ven
ia
Sp
ain
Sw
Sw eden
itze
rla
nd
Un
ite Turk
ey
dK
i
Un ngdo
m
ite
dS
tat
es
Au
Key
GRC
5
6
NLD
SVN
FRA
JPN
PRT
HUN
CZE
BEL
ESP
EST
KOR
ITA
ISR
AUT
GBR
ITA
ISR SVK
ISL
CAN
SVN
LUX
AUS
CZE
PRT
EST
GRC
7
8
NOR
DNK
CHE
CAN
AUT
IRL
POL
GBR
AUS
TU
R
GB
R
US
A
DNK
ES
P
SW
E
CH
E
KOR
NLD
PR
T
SV
K
SV
N
FRA
X
ME
X
NL
D
NZ
L
NO
R
PO
L
ESP
KO
R
ISL
BEL
LU
JPN
ITA
JPN
IRL
ISR
FIN
FR
A
DE
U
GR
C
HU
N
ISL
E
DN
K
ES
T
CZ
AU
S
AU
T
BE
L
CA
N
CH
L
SDG Index
SDG Index
Figure 4
SWE
NOR
CHE
DEU
FIN
IRL
POL
NZL
CHL
USA
HUN
TUR
MEX
9
10
Figure 5
SWE
FIN
DEU
NZL
LUX
SVK
USA
CHL
TUR
MEX
95
Bibliography
6. Bibliography
https://www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de/de/publikationen/publikation/did
winning-strategies-for-a-sustainable-future-1/
Kroll, C. (2014).
The Guardian.
http://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/
2013/sep/03/happiness-economics-wellbeing-mdgs
Kroll, C. (2015).
Civil Society Reflection Group on Global
Development Perspectives (2015).
https://www.globalpolicywatch.org/wp-content uploads/2015/02/RG-Goals-forthe-Rich-Advanced-Unedited-Version.pdf
OECD (2015).
http://bibliothek.wzb.eu/pdf/2012/i12-201.pdf
http://www.oecd.org/els/soc/OECD2015-In-It-Together-Chapter1Overview-Inequality.pdf
96
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/index.php?page=
view&type=400&nr=1579&menu=1300
https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2014/sdn1402.pdf
http://unsdsn.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/DDPP_Digit.pdf
Sustainable Development.
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/
7891Transforming%20Our%20World.pdf
http://indicators.report/
UNDP (2015).
Sachs, J. (2015).
http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/librarypage/mdg/
the-millennium-development-goals-report-2015.html
Schraad-Tischler, D. (2013).
Enabling factors for sustainable development strengthening
rule of law and other key sustainable governance indicators.
Available from www.sgi-network.org
97
Appendix
7. Appendix:
Full list of indicators
Goal 1: Poverty
1.1
Goal 6: Water
Goal 2: Agriculture and nutrition
2.1
6.1
6.2
Obesity rate
Goal 7: Energy
Goal 3: Health
3.1
7.1
4.1
Life satisfaction
Goal 4: Education
PISA results
Source: OECD PISA 2012 (first data point),
OECD PISA 2009 (second data point),
OECD PISA 2006 (third data point) except USA (OECD PISA 2003)
URL: http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/
98
8.1
Energy intensity
8.2
Employment-to-population ratio
Source: OECD online database
URL: stats.oecd.org
Date of retrieval: August 6, 2015 (first data point),
February 6, 2015 (second and third data point)
9.2
Palma ratio
Source: OECD online database
URL: stats.oecd.org
Date of retrieval: August 7, 2015
10.2
11.1
12.2
12.1
99
Publishing information
Bertelsmann Stiftung
September 2015
Bertelsmann Stiftung
Carl-Bertelsmann-Strae 256
33311 Gtersloh Germany
www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de
Editing
Textklinik, Dsseldorf
Dr. Barbara Serfozo, Berlin
Statistics and calculations advisor
Dr. Margit Kraus (Calculus Consult)
Author
Dr. Christian Kroll
Responsible
Dr. Christian Kroll
Phone +49 5241 81-81471 Fax +49 5241 81-81999
christian.kroll@bertelsmann-stiftung.de
Graphic design
kopfstand, Bielefeld
Photography (cover)
Dimitrios Stefanidis iStockphoto.com
Printing
Druckhaus Rihn, Blomberg
SDG Index
SDG Index
Sweden
Norway
Denmark
7.86
7.79
7.55
7.52
Finland
Switzerland
Germany
7.08
Netherlands
7.04
Belgium
7.00
Iceland
7.21
6.97
France 10
6.94
Canada 11
6.93
Austria 12
6.92
Japan 13
6.91
Slovenia 13
6.91
United Kingdom 15
6.83
New Zealand 16
6.80
Luxembourg 17
6.66
Australia 18
6.65
Spain 18
6.65
Ireland 20
6.47
Estonia 21
6.42
6.42
Poland 21
6.32
Korea, Rep. 23
Czech Republic 24
6.24
Portugal 25
6.23
6.13
Italy 26
Slovakia 27
6.02
Israel 28
6.01
United States 29
5.95
Greece 30
5.88
Chile 31
5.73
Hungary 32
Turkey 33
Mexico 34
5.55
5.19
4.91
.00
10
0
9.0
8.0
7.0
0
6.0
0
5.0
0
4.0
0
3.0
0
2.0
1.
00
This figure displays the worlds first SDG Index. It illustrates the overall performance of each OECD country based on the 17
goals and 34 indicators examined in the study. In sum, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, and Switzerland are best prepared to meet the SDGs and in a good position to foster sustainable development by 2030. However, even these countries are
faced with particular challenges, as the country profiles in this study illustrate.
Address | Contact
Bertelsmann Stiftung
Carl-Bertelsmann-Strae 256
33311 Gtersloh
Germany
Phone
christian.kroll@bertelsmann-stiftung.de
www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de/en
www.sgi-network.org