SOCIAL QUALITY INDICATORS: SINGAPORE

M RameshLKY School of Public PolicyNational University of Singapore

Paper presented at the Asian Conference on Social Quality and Sustainable Welfare Societies, Taipei, 28-29 March 2007

Introduction

Singaporeans a “happy” lot, overall! Yet it is difficult to assess the real conditions in the

country Both traditional and social quality approaches

have limitations Traditional approach difficult to apply to Singapore:

Does not fully capture the contribution of economic growth to social policy

Does not deal with different emphasis on components of social policy. Example, education and housing instead of social security and health. Ad hoc discretionary payments

Introduction

Social Quality approach difficult to apply due to its dependence on subjective data, which is not

readily available.Social indicators hard to separate from

economic indicators: the former shaped by latter Severe data limitations for Singapore

Patchy social dataObjective rather than subjective dataAvailable data more likely to show island in good

light!Restrictions on conducting social surveys

Socio-Economic Security

One of the highest economic growth rates in the world for four decades, except for 1997-2005

Per capita income of USD 29,000 in 2006 High income inequality: 0.53 gini Necessities consume 56% of household

expenditures. Shares largely constant since early 1990sLittle difference between the richest and poorestProbably explained by higher savings by the

former

Socio-Economic Security

No official poverty line. Various government documents refer to SGD10/day as poverty line.4% of population poor.

Public assistance available to less than 0.1% of populationPA rate about 4% of per capita GDP

Socio-Economic Security

93% home ownership. One of the highest in the world65% live in public housing.Almost all public housing (95%) privately owned.Very short waiting time for heavily subsidized

rental housing Crime rate of 0.9 per capita

Very low by international standards Environment quality better than most comparable

cities.

Socio-Economic Security Healthcare – no right to it.

Yet (almost) everyone who needs it gets it.One of the best health status indicators in the

world Education

Not compulsory, until 2005, when primary education made compulsory

Yet universal enrolmentEnrolment and completion rate for primary and

secondary education almost universal.

Socio-Economic Security

Drop-out rate of 0.2% at primary level and 1.6% at secondary level.

Nearly all primary and secondary education paid by state. Nearly 75% of tertiary education expendituresw paid by state

Tertiary education enrolment rate of 50%92% of graduates find employment within 6

months of graduation

Socio-Economic Security

Very low unemployment rate Average paid hours/week per employee: 46.5 Labor participation rate of of 76% for men and 54%

for women 83% of the labourforce in formal employment.

Ie small informal sector Accident rate at workplace of 5 per 100,000 (twice

the EU average. Little formal employment protection

Mitigated by low unemployment Unionization rate of around 25%

Social Cohesion

Low volunteer rate: 16% of population Low blood donation rate Low trust

Only 17% believe “most people can be trusted. High trust in family

Over 99% believe family importantOver 93% believe friends important

Politics unimportantFor 47% of respondents: 70%

Not in favour of immigration

Social Empowerment

18% of seats in parliament held by women Women’s salary compared to men’s: 77%