Presentation at the HLEG thematic workshop on "Multidimensional Subjective Well-being", 30-31 October 2014, Turin, Italy, http://oe.cd/HLEG-workshop-subjective-wb-2014

1. USE AND IMPLEMENTATION OF OECD
GUIDELINES ON MEASURING SWB
Marco Mira d’Ercole
Head of Division, Household Statistics and Progress
Measurement, OECD Statistics Directorate
High Level Expert Group on the Measurement of Economic
Performance and Social Progress
Workshop on Multidimensional Subjective Well-being
30-31 October 2014, Turin

2. Goals of the OECD Guidelines on SWB
2
• Improve the quality of measures collected by national statistical
offices by providing best practice in terms of question wording and
survey design.
• Improve the usefulness of data collected by setting out guidelines on
the appropriate frequency, survey vehicles and co-variates when
collecting subjective well-being data.
• Improve the international comparability of SWB measures by
establishing common concepts, classifications and methods that
national statistical agencies could use.
• Provide early guidance on the reporting and use of SWB measures

3. Good-practice guidance and prototype
question modules
•Intended to be used as a common baseline for
all countries
•Covers all dimensions in a minimal way
The only questions we encourage all countries
to use
•Modules B, C, D, and E are not intended to be
used in full, or in all surveys
•Intended as a resource for countries to develop
their own questionaires
•Two options are included for collecting
experienced well-being
•Encouraged for inclusion in all Time Use
Surveys
Six question modules
A: Core
B: Life evaluation
C: Affect
D: Eudaimonia
E: Domain evaluation
F: Experienced
well-being
3
 But the Guidelines contain much more than just the question modules!

4. NSO data collections
4
EU-SILC coverage
(2013 ad-hoc module; life sat,
affect and eudaimonia – freq.
tbc.)
European countries with
additional collections
Other OECD countries with
SWB measurement initiatives
OECD countries
with no current
NSO data
collection
OECD
countries
(25):
Austria
Belgium
Czech Republic
Denmark
Germany
Estonia
Finland
Greece
Ireland
Spain
France
Iceland
Italy
Luxembourg
Hungary
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Slovenia
Slovakia
Sweden
Switzerland
Turkey
UK
Non-OECD
countries
(7):
Bulgaria
Croatia
Cyprus
FYROM
Latvia
Lithuania
Malta
• Austria (life sat, 2004-
2012)
• France (life sat*, in 2011;
affect in 2010 time-use
survey; freq. tbc.)
• Italy (life sat*, from 2012,
yearly)
• Netherlands (life sat and
happiness, from 1974)
• Poland (life sat, in 2011;
freq. tbc.)
• UK (life sat*, affect* and
eudaimonia*, from 2011,
yearly)
• Australia (life sat**, from 2016;
every 4 years)
• Canada (life sat*, from 1985;
yearly)
• Israel (life sat, from 2006; life
sat*, affect* and eudaimonia*
from 2013, yearly)
• Korea (life sat*, affect* and
eudaimonia*, from 2013, yearly)
• Mexico (life sat* and affect, in
2012, freq, tbc.)
• New Zealand (life sat** and
eudaimonia**, from 2014, every 2
years)
• United States (affect and
experienced eudaimonia in 2011
time-use survey; freq. tbc.)
• Chile
• Japan
*Questions broadly in line with Guidelines; **Questions planned to be in line with Guidelines

5. Interest in OECD SWB Guidelines
extends beyond NSOs
5
• OECD chapters in the World Happiness Report and the Legatum
Commission on Wellbeing and Policy
• WHO-Europe Health 2020 Strategy: OECD is contributing to expert
group on measurement and target-setting for well-being
• Japanese Cabinet Office: Economic and Social Research Institute
• Chinese Academy of Social Sciences: Measuring rural well-being
• Imagina México: ranking of happiness in 100 municipalities
• Education initiatives (e.g. OECD PISA testing; non-cognitive skills)
• PRé Sustainability consulting: measuring social impact
• World Bank (Survey of Well-being via Instant and Frequent Tracking)

6. OECD International workshops on
measuring and using SWB
To promote awareness and uptake of the Guidelines, and
discuss open issues/ next steps…
• Americas workshop (New York, September 2013)
• European workshop (Paris, June 2014)
• Asia-Pacific workshop (Korea, forthcoming 2015)
 Combination of NSOs, community measurement
initiatives, think tanks, commercial organisations, and
government officials
 Generated some useful feedback…
6

7. Feedback so far (1)
• Interest at community/sub-national measurement level –
does the same advice apply, or do we need more context-specific
guidance?
• Challenges reporting SWB, esp. for non-experts (e.g.
thresholds vs. means; understanding if year-on-year
differences are meaningful)
• Translation raised repeatedly - how can NSOs get better info/
share findings on this?
• Several NSOs are doing methodological testing work (ONS,
Netherlands, Poland) – can we showcase?
7

8. Feedback so far (2)
• Strong demand for domain-specific evaluations (e.g.
satisfaction with public services; political system;
neighbourhood…) but relatively little theory/ empirical work
to guide this
• Continuing communication challenges: SWB often described
as “well-being”, but also frequently confused with any kind of
self-report data
• Can lessons from SWB be applied to other areas of self-report?
(e.g. measurement of job quality, social connections,
trust, etc.)
• Causal pathways are complex, making policy implications
challenging to draw out (especially from cross-sectional
household surveys)
8