Negev cogress presentation
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Negev cogress presentation

on

  • 221 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
221
Views on SlideShare
55
Embed Views
166

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

2 Embeds 166

http://www.kamam.org.il 139
http://www.lsed-wealth.org 27

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Negev cogress presentation Presentation Transcript

  • 1. Regional Well-being Measurement & Public Deliberation Tommaso Rondinella (Istat), Dr. Anat Itay-Sarig (JDC) Elisabetta Segre (Istat) Duccio Zola (Lunaria and “Sapienza University” of Rome) The Negev LSED Euromed Congress Ben Gurion University, Beer Sheva, 10th December 2013
  • 2. Progress and Quality of Life How do we define it? How do we measure it? How do we make it happen?
  • 3. Measuring Well-being Around the World The Canadian Index of Well-being Measures of Australia's Progress National Well-being wheel of measures Gross National Happiness NEF – Happy planet Index Lunaria:!Sbilanciamoci
  • 4. Thinking about our Quality of Life Choosing Indicators Following Trends Increase in participation and involvement Better quality of life Civic Society Community Assessment Projects
  • 5. Why Measure Locally or Regionally? • When well-being indicators are based on civic engagement and local authorities, they are more likely to succeed (Walace & Schmuecker 2013). • People identify their well-being in their close environment. • Who are the relevant forces on that close environment? • Usually rich sets of indicators – easier to manage on a local level. • Allows for focused investments: based on unique needs and preferences. • Dealing with changes in the area – identifying problems before they become acute (violence in Toronto).
  • 6. Why Measure Locally or Regionally? • Close to regional developments and changes; • A clear regional voice and preferences; • Local action involving and empowering local actors; • Differences between different regions;
  • 7. Well-being Indicators – Local and Regional Examples • Santa-Cruz (ASR 2012; Brutzky 2008): 50% decrease in teen drug abuse within 8 years. • Map (MAP 2012; ACOLA 2013) – developing regional structures (more effective levels). • Virginia, USA: measuring is a government initiative, but performed on the regional level with regional control of the priorities.
  • 8. Well-being Indicators – Local and Regional Examples • Headwater, Ontario: Health. Citizens with local government – determining priorities – 44% increase in health positions, (HCIA, 2010). • Vital Signs, Canada (Walace & Schmuecker 2013): Philanthropy, with strong public participation with close municipal connections.
  • 9. Main challenges • Cooperation: government, civil society, etc. • Not all domains are in within strong regional influence – it is vital to identify what changes can be generated locally and which ones cannot.
  • 10. How do we make it work? • Adapting bureaucracy to policy: a complex world, needing new solutions – cooperation, collective impact. (e.g, a champion from one relevant office, responsible for the collaboration). • Involving the public. • Being focused and following the trends. • Allocation of responsibilities according to strengths (CIW).
  • 11. Granting legitimacy to wellbeing indicators through public deliberation and civil society engagement.
  • 12. Well-being and democracy • Statistical information needs a certain degree of legitimacy in order to be followed by policy makers (relevant, reliable). • The choice of the phenomena to monitor coincides with the selection of policy priorities. What we measure affects what we do. (Stiglitz-Sen-Fitoussi report)
  • 13. The crisis of democracy In the past thirty years strong crisis signals have emerged in terms of democratic legitimacy exactly where democracy developed – in Europe, in Japan and in the USA. [Norris 1999; Pharr and Putnam 2000]. The symptoms: • the very low electoral participation, • the declining credibility of political parties and trade unions, • the growing gap between people and élites, • the fading away of traditional socio-cultural points of reference, • the management of power without contacts with voters
  • 14. The role of civil society • Public choices may not only be legitimized through the formal State bodies (institutional, juridical, constitutional) but necessarily must be based also on contributions from civil society, the autonomous and non-formalised space where public opinions are formed. [Habermas 2001b; Benhabib 1996; Bohman 1996]. • It is a political contribution, merging the cognitive and participatory dimensions, the activists and experts' work, protest and proposal. [Pianta 2001; Marcon 2004; Marcon 2005 ].
  • 15. Legitimacy and public deliberation • “[…] a legitimate decision does not represent the will of all, but is one that results from the deliberation of all. It is the process by which everyone’s will is formed that confers its legitimacy on the outcome, rather than the sum of already formed wills. • It implies that all participate in the deliberation, and in this sense the decision made can reasonably be considered as emanating from the people […]. • The decision also proceeds from the liberty of individuals: those individuals deliberate together, form their opinions through deliberation, and at the close of the process each opts freely for one solution or another […]. [Manin 1987, 352].
  • 16. Conditions for public deliberation • Equality among participants. • Inclusion in the decision-making process of all those who are affected by the deliberation. • Free, public and equal representation of interests. • Mutual understanding. • Pursuing of the common good. For more technical issues see also e-Frame FP7 project (Work Package 7 - www.eframeproject.eu)
  • 17. The Istat-Cnel initiative  Steering Committee: with the participation of 33 stakeholders (CNEL representatives, NGO networks, women / consumers / environmental organizations) and Istat experts, to identify the domains and to agree on the final list of indicators  Scientific Commission: with the participation of 80 experts in different fields, to select indicators for each domain.  Public consultation: National survey Online survey Blog Regional meetings
  • 18. BES: the process Discussion Annual survey on what is important for wellbeing (24k households) Steering Committee 12 Dimensions Scientific commission 134 Indicators Online survey (2500 people) and Blog Meetings in every region and Blog Final report
  • 19. Key domains for the Italian BES
  • 20. Different informative needs. • Different definitions of well-being in different territories (north-south, urban-rural etc.) and need for further consultation. • Comparability at risk. Limited availability of data. In order to avoid the too costly option of enlarging national surveys’ samples: • ad hoc elaboration on national data (subsamples selections or small area estimates), • strengthening of the use of administrative data, • use of local surveys. Obstacles in shifting to the local level: UrBES
  • 21. Thank you! rondinella@istat.it AnatI@jdc.org.il