Measuring local and regional well being
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
0 likes•5,163 views
Presentation on Regional OECD Well-being made at the conference "How to recover from the crisis. Cities, communities and smart specialisations" held in Padua, Italy 11-13 September 2014, by Paolo Veneri, Economist (Rural-Urban Linkages) Regional Development Policy Division. For more information please see www.oecd.org/regional/how-is-life-in-your-region.htm
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (8)
Similar to Measuring local and regional well being
Similar to Measuring local and regional well being (20)
More from OECD Governance
More from OECD Governance (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Measuring local and regional well being
- 1. HOW’S LIFE IN YOUR REGION? Measuring local & regional well-being for policymaking 12 September 2014
- 2. Outline 2 1. OECD project on regional well-being: basic information 2. Why look at well-being at local and regional level? 3. A framework for measuring regional well-being - which dimensions - which indicators 3. Using well-being metrics for policy-making 4. The way forward in measuring well-being in regions and cities
- 3. OECD project on measuring regional well-being Create a national indicator of Better Life based on 11 dimensions of well-being according to the preferences of each user Work on regional inequalities in 2,000 regions and 275 metropolitan areas in OECD A common analytical framework to measure the well-being regionally An interactive Web site to compare welfare in 362 OECD regions from 9 dimensions Case studies in 7 selected OECD regions Guidelines to assist all levels of government to use the indicators of well-being &
- 4. Why look at well-being at local and regional level? (1/3) 4 • Well-being of people is affected by place-based characteristics People’s well-being Material living conditions (e.g. jobs, income) Individual characteristics • Not only bridging national & regional data but also contributing to policymaking. Top-down or bottom-up approach? Measuring well-being for policy making is essentially a bottom-up approach. However, a general framework is needed (can be top-down) The OECD provides: - A common framework and guidelines on indicators (e.g. common set of indicators) – Measuring the right things - Guidelines on how to implement the use of well-being in policy making (built bottom-up) – Using indicators e.g. family, education, skills Place-based factors e.g. regional labour pool, training, etc. = +
- 5. 5 Why look at well-being at local and regional level? (2/3) • Key dimensions for people’s well-being have strong regional variations 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 NLD DNK NOR e.g. Regional differences in youth unemployment rates, 2013 (Figure) NZL IRL JPN ISR SWE AUS GBR DEU AUT CHL SVN CAN SWE FIN HUN CZE GRC FRA TUR USA SVK PRT BEL POL ESP ITA Country value Regional values
- 6. 6 Why look at well-being at local and regional level? (3/3) • Regional disparities in several well-being outcomes come together with lower well-being performance at the national level. Fig. Regional disparities and well-being levels in OECD countries, 2013 Income AUS AUT BEL CHE CAN SVN SVK CHL DEU FRA GBR CZE DNK ESP EST FIN GRC HUN IRL ISL ISR ITA JPN KOR LUX MEX NLD NOR NZL PRT POL SWE TUR USA 10.00 8.00 6.00 4.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.20 2.40 Average income (scores) Regional disparities in income AUT BEL Jobs CAN CHE CHL DEU CZE ESP FIN EST NZL FRA GBR GRC HUN ISR ITA JPN KOR MEX POL PRT SVK SWE TUR USA 10.00 8.00 6.00 4.00 2.00 0.00 1 2 3 4 5 6 Average jobs outcomes (scores) Regional disparities in jobs outcomes AUS CAN AUT BEL Education CHL CZE DEU DNK ESP EST FIN FRA GRC IRL ISLITA JPN LUX KOR MEX NLD NZL PRT TUR 10.00 8.00 6.00 4.00 2.00 0.00 -2.00 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 Average education outcomes (scores) Regional disparities in education outcomes Access to services KOR GBR FIN EST AUS CAN CHL CZEESP GRC ISL ISR ITA JPN MEX NLD POL PRT SVN TUR USA 10.00 8.00 6.00 4.00 2.00 0.00 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 Average access to services (socres) Regional disparities in access to services
- 7. 7 A framework for measuring regional well-being (1/4) A regional well-being conceptual framework Main features : • Measures well-being where people live • Focus on outcomes rather than output • Multidimensionality (9 dimensions: material conditions and quality of life) • Focus on distributions of outcomes • Look at complementarity across dimensions • Assess how well-being changes over time (resilience, sustainability) • It considers that well-being can be manageable to change by citizens, governance and institutions
- 8. 8 A framework for measuring regional well-being (2/4) • A multidimensional set of indicators Dimensions Regional indicators Material conditions Income Income levels: Mean and median household market and disposable income Income distribution: Gini index and Quintile share ratio (S80/S20) for disposable and market income Relative poverty: Headcount ratios for disposable and market income, with national and regional poverty lines Jobs Employment rate and part-time employment Unemployment, Long-term unemployment and Youth unemployment Women participation rate Housing Number of room per person Quality of life Health status Life expectancy at birth Age adjusted mortality rate Education and skills Educational attainments Competence of 15-year old students (PISA) [only few countries] Environmental quality Air quality (PM2.5) Loss of forest and vegetation Municipal waste recycled [only few countries] Access to green space Personal security Homicide rate Car theft rate Mortality due to transport accidents Civic engagement Voter turnout Accessibility to services Broadband connection Unmet medical needs Share of people having access to public transport (only few countries) Average distance and travel time from the closest hospital (only few countries)
- 9. 9 A framework for measuring regional well-being (3/4) • Looking at complementarities across dimensions: Cross-dimensional indicators consist in combining two well-being dimensions, where the first is measured along the distribution of the second one Indicator Well-being dimensions considered Share of students in primary education with no access to food Education – Income Share of households that devote 30% or more of their income to energy consumption Income – Environment Share of households which cannot afford to keep the house sufficiently warm Income – Housing Share of individuals with no more than lower secondary education whose health status limits their activities Health – Education Share of individuals with a low level of education who report problems related to crime in the area where they live Crime – Education Health status of long-term unemployed Health – Employment Unmet medical need among individuals with limited education levels Health – Education Share of individuals with limited education levels in long-term unemployment Education – Employment
- 10. 10 A framework for measuring regional well-being (4/4) Looking at distributional aspects - Income distribution • Regional differences between regions can be high, but inequalities within regions are higher than between regions • Income inequalities are on average higher in large cities
- 11. 11 Using regional well-being metrics for policy making (1/4) Many regions are trying to design and implement a well-being strategy • Seven case-study regions having well-being initiatives in place participated in the project. • Each initiative covers different well-being dimensions OECD Southern Denmark (DK) Province of Rome (Italy) Sardinia (Italy) Morelos (MX) North of the Netherlands (NL) Newcastle (UK) US Partnership for Sustainable Communities TOTAL Dimensions covered by the OECD How’s Life in Your Region? framework Income X X X X X 5 Jobs X X X X X X X 7 Housing X X X 3 Education X X X X X X 6 Health X X X X X X 6 Environment X X X X X X X 7 Safety X X X 3 Civic engagement X X X X 4 Access to services X X X X X 5 Additional dimensions covered by the OECD Better Life Index at national level Social connections X X X 4 Subjective well-being X X X X 4 Work-life balance X 1
- 12. 12 Using regional well-being metrics for policy making (2/4) Regional well-being measurement cycle: A possible sequencing of steps Translate well-being objectives into policy-relevant indicators Select indicators Identify baselines and expected results Foster citizen engagement and communication Monitor progress and potential of places Information, consultation and participation The starting point of this well-being measurement cycle varies across regions, according to the specific objective of measuring well-being and who is leading the process.
- 13. Using regional well-being metrics for policy making (3/4) 13 Stakeholders involved in implementing regional well-being initiatives 1 Elected politicians (hold decision-making power) Civil society, citizens, non-governmental organisations (provide inputs on expected results and how to achieve them; public monitoring of results) Scientific community (translate objectives into indicators and targets; help evaluate trends and impact) Private sector, business associations, labour unions, institutional stakeholders (check policy consistency and support for change) Civil servants (make policy objectives explicit) • Implementing this process of well-being metrics requires the involvement of relevant stakeholders and constructive interaction among them (e.g. coordination between levels of governments) • Need to achieve continuity beyond political cycles
- 14. Using regional well-being metrics for policy making (4/4) A web-tool for an user-friendly visualisation of well-being conditions in OECD regions has been released in the Summer www.oecdregionalwellbeing.org
- 15. 15 The way forward in measuring well-being in regions and cities Helping national and sub-national policy makers develop a well-being strategy 1) Fostering the statistical agenda • Improving the measurement of different well-being dimensions • Measuring additional well-being dimensions • Individual-level measures of inequality in well-being (not only for income) • New data production methods for metropolitan areas 2) Well-being reviews (country, regional or metropolitan approach) to help policy makers.. • Develop regional well being metrics that captures people’s daily experience • Using well-being metrics in their policy cycle (complementarities, coordination, etc) • Encourage citizens to adapt well being measurement to their needs
- 16. 16 Final report to be launched on 6th October 2014 in Brussels Contacts: paolo.veneri@oecd.org regionalwellbeing@oecd.org Thank you!
Editor's Notes
- To adequately inform policy, data need to capture the scale of people’s everyday lives, not necessarily according to administrative units. The territorial lens is important not only for highlighting spatial differences, but to help monitor the results of policy. Measuring the “right” things (offering indicators) Example of Newcastle (UK): ranks high among UK regions in terms of health service provision, but underperforms in terms of health status => “we are clearly not measuring the right things” Helping citizens and policymakers to assess the results of policies & monitor progress (using indicators) Through a common framework of domains & indicators at the most relevant geographic scales possible
- To adequately inform policy, data need to capture the scale of people’s everyday lives, not necessarily according to administrative units. The territorial lens is important not only for highlighting spatial differences, but to help monitor the results of policy.
- To adequately inform policy, data need to capture the scale of people’s everyday lives, not necessarily according to administrative units. The territorial lens is important not only for highlighting spatial differences, but to help monitor the results of policy.
- To adequately inform policy, data need to capture the scale of people’s everyday lives, not necessarily according to administrative units. The territorial lens is important not only for highlighting spatial differences, but to help monitor the results of policy.
- To adequately inform policy, data need to capture the scale of people’s everyday lives, not necessarily according to administrative units. The territorial lens is important not only for highlighting spatial differences, but to help monitor the results of policy.
- Regions can use well‑being indicators for many purposes, according to their specific priorities and needs. Indicators can help regions identify their relative strengths and weaknesses in well-being, monitor trends and compare them with those in other places. They can also raise awareness on specific well-being challenges. Finally, they can guide policy prioritisation, reflecting what matters most to citizens.
- Designing and implementing a regional well‑being strategy based on these three building blocks requires a sequential process within a continuous exchange of information, consultation and participation among different stakeholders (Figure): Translating well‑being objectives into policy‑relevant indicators. A regional well‑being measurement strategy needs to provide policy makers and citizens with direct information on people’s lives as they are lived in different communities, and on what can be changed through policy to make them better. This requires establishing a clear link between regional well‑being measurement and regional development goals, and aligning policy objectives across and within levels of government. Selecting indicators. The choice of well‑being indicators needs to reflect local priorities and assets. A deliberative process of consultation should be set up to focus on a limited set of key indicators. These will help reflect objective living conditions against what people perceive, helping to target policy attention towards those in greatest need and make the most of existing information. Identifying baselines and expected results. Establishing a clear starting point and a range of targets to be achieved helps structure the course of public action around a transparent timeline and intermediate milestones. In a policy environment characterised by uncertainty, building a system of incentives promotes learning and capacity. Monitoring progress and assessing the potential of different places. Regional well‑being indicators can provide a tool for tracking change over time and identifying the specific assets for development in different communities. This contributes to pooling resources towards policies that maximise a region’s potential for progress. Fostering citizen engagement and communication of results. Bringing citizens on board from an early stage of the measurement initiative gears efforts towards what matters most to the community and builds momentum for action. Putting in place mechanisms for continuous dialogue allows for a critical assessment of results, facilitates policy adjustments when necessary, and increases accountability and trust.
- Improving the measurement of different well-being dimensions (e.g. Quality of services, education outcomes, etc.) Measuring additional well-being dimensions (e.g. Measuring additional well-being dimensions, transport, subjective well-being) Individual-level measures of inequality in well-being (not only for income) New data production methods for metropolitan areas (e.g. Income and employment, access to services)