Two part presentation
1. OECD work on measuring well-being and progress
2. Implications for EU regional policies
2

• 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 )
• 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

OVERALL HUMAN WELL-BEING
Quality of Life Material Living Conditions
Work and life balance
Health status
Education and skills
Social connections
Civic Engagement and
Governance
Environmental Quality
Personal Security
Subjective well-being
Income and wealth
Jobs and earnings
Housing
GDP
Regrettables
SUSTAINABILITY OF WELL-BEING OVER TIME
Requires preserving different types of capital:
Natural capital
Economic capital
Human capital
Social capital
4

Ongoing 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 society
 4 th 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


8

2. Implications for cohesion policies
 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 2
 Because 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 one
 Building 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)
12

Conclusions
 “ Better statistics for better policies ” (OECD
Statistics Day, October 2010)  “Better policies for
Better Lives ” (OECD 50 th Anniversary)
 “ Good statistics are much cheaper than bad policies ”
Thank you marco.mira@OECD.org
13