Well-being measures and the future of EU Cohesion Policies

Perugia, Italy, 29 April 2010

Marco Mira d’ErcoleOECD Statistics Directorate

Two part presentation

1. OECD work on measuring well-being and progress

2. Implications for EU regional policies

2

1. OECD work on measuring progressLong tradition:

• 2001 publication ‘The Well-being of Nations’, 2005 report on ‘Alternative Measures of Well-being’

• 2007, OECD launched the Global Project, in partnership with other IGOs and contributed to other initiatives (including Stiglitz Commission)

Today:• An increasing number of high-level initiatives in individual

countries (France, Germany, Japan, Italy, Korea, Slovenia, Spain, the United Kingdom, China) and internationally (G20, EU Communication)

• One of six OECD priorities in 2011-2012, with substantial work programme in various Directorates

3

Well-being Framework

SUSTAINABILITY OF WELL-BEING OVER TIME

Requires preserving different types of capital:

Natural capitalEconomic capitalHuman capitalSocial capital

OVERALL HUMAN WELL-BEING

Regrettables

Material Living Conditions

Income and wealthJobs and earningsHousing

Quality of Life

Work and life balanceHealth statusEducation and skillsSocial connectionsCivic Engagement and GovernanceEnvironmental QualityPersonal SecuritySubjective well-being

GDP

4

1. OECD work on measuring progressOngoing OECD work under three pillars

• Methodological research to improve existing statistics and develop new ones where there are gaps, in the three areas of:

material well-being (disparities in SNA, standards for household wealth, measures of non-market production of household services)

quality of life (guidelines on SWB, social relations, vulnerability) sustainability (human capital, carbon footprint, intangible capital) • Disseminating existing well-being statistics in How’s Life?

publication• Continued dialogue and outreach towards emerging and

developing countries and civil society4th OECD World Forum, New Delhi, fall 2012 Regional conferences Latin America, Asia, Africa, Europe (2011/

2012)

5

2. Implications for cohesion policies•Better well-being measures is not an end but a mean to better policies and better outcomes: different ways in which this can be achieved

The ‘virtuous policy cycle’

6

2. Implications for cohesion policies• One direct way is through the use of outcome indicators as

targets for policies: “a systematic and rigorous use of well-defined outcome indicators is a very powerful tool for increasing policy effectiveness” (HLG reflecting on Future of Cohesion Policy)

• Some of the details of the proposal could be controversial: Selection of targets (i.e. not all ‘outcomes’ indicators are about people,

and not all well-being outcomes are ‘amenable to policy interventions’) balance between top/down and bottom/up approaches (i.e. outcomes

chosen by each region or based on EU priorities, EU2020); requirement of ‘comparability’ of indicators among the ‘methodological

principles’ (e.g. allocation of funds based on achievement of targets?)

• But the re-orientation of cohesion policies described by HLG is a radical one (with huge potential for the ‘measuring progress’ agenda)

7

2. Implications for cohesion policies

Two main challenges:

Building a statistical infrastructure for regional statistics

Better metrics for some of the main factors of cohesion policies

8

2. Implications for cohesion policiesBuilding a statistical infrastructure for regional statistics Most official statistics do not provide regional estimates for key indicators at conventional statistical levels: when the investment is made, the data show huge sub-national differences: INSERT 2Because of competing priorities (e.g. extending official statistics to other) and tighter NSOs budgets, ‘regionalisation’ unlikely to happen at the pace needed: HLG suggestion that “cohesion policies.. finance move in this direction” is a critical oneBuilding a statistical system at sub-national level requires combining different sources (not only surveys, but also administrative data, data-linking, modelling, GIS data): INSERT 3

9

Better metrics needed for some of the aspects that matter most for cohesion policies

• HLG emphasis on “using available data” and on need that “selection and production of indicators should not become too burdensome”: legitimate but…Some of the aspects that matter most for cohesion policies are not adequately measured in official statistics (e.g. quality of public services, communities ties, opportunities for political participation)Some of the critical concepts (e.g. income poverty) will require new thinking (e.g. national /regional thresholds? regional PPPs? Income including/excluding in-kind social transfers? ) Local governments have role to play to trigger production of better statistics in these areas; important as not all ‘aspects’ of a given outcome are supported by indicators; risk of distorting decisions towards what is measured (people rather than places)

NSI can not respond alone to the increasing demand of information (ex. Social capital)

2. Implications for cohesion policies

12

Conclusions

“Better statistics for better policies” (OECD Statistics Day, October 2010) “Better policies for Better Lives” (OECD 50th Anniversary)

“Good statistics are much cheaper than bad policies”

Thank youmarco.mira@OECD.org

13