4.1 Global interactions and global power

Economic integration is captured by trade as % of GDP, FDI flows, and tariff rates. Social integration is captured by migration, tourism, internet bandwidth, and phone traffic.

A high economic score requires high trade as % of GDP and high FDI flows, not low tariffs alone or low FDI, since these directly compose that sub-index.

A low social score requires low migration and low internet bandwidth, since these are core social integration indicators; high tourism or high phone traffic would push the social score up instead.

This matches the key concept that a resource-exporting state can be economically integrated through trade but socially closed if migration and information flows are restricted.

Option B pairs high trade/FDI (economic) with low migration/internet (social), which is the only option consistent with both conditions.

High tariffs would lower the economic score, and high internet/tourism would raise the social score -- the opposite of what's needed.

Low trade as % of GDP contradicts a high economic score, and embassies/UN memberships belong to political, not social, integration.

Patent applications and phone traffic are social integration indicators, so high values here would raise, not lower, the social score.

Only option B correctly assigns high values to economic indicators and low values to social indicators.

Option B is the only internally consistent combination, so it is correct.

The KOF Index measures integration at the national scale while the AT Kearney Index measures connectivity at the urban scale.

The teaching content explicitly notes that global power and connectivity are highly clustered, so a handful of cities can be intensely globalized while the wider national territory is not.

A country with one dominant global city (e.g. Mumbai in India, Shanghai in China) can have that city rank highly even if most of the country's regions are weakly connected, pulling the national KOF score down.

This is a scale-of-measurement issue, not a difference in what each index measures conceptually or a calculation artifact.

Option B correctly identifies uneven spatial concentration of connectivity as the explanation.

Both indices measure connectivity/integration, not quality of life -- that is HDI's role, so this misidentifies what AT Kearney measures.

The AT Kearney Index ranks major cities globally including in emerging economies, not exclusively in high-income countries.

National KOF scores are not calculated by averaging city scores; they are built from national-level trade, political and social indicators independently of city rankings.

Only option B reflects the genuine scale-based explanation given in the teaching content.

Option B is correct.