OECD
World
Forum
onon
Key
Indicators
OECD
World
Forum
Key
Indicators
Statistics,
Statistics,Knowledge
Knowledgeand
andPolicy
Policy
Palermo,
10-13
November
2004
Palermo,
10-13
November
2004
OECD World Forum “Statistics, Knowledge and Policy”, Palermo, 10-13 November 2004
1
Enhancing Public Accountability
- National Performance Indicators and the role of
the Board of Audit of Japan –
Muneharu Otsuka
Commissioner, Board of Audit of Japan
OECD World Forum “Statistics, Knowledge and Policy”, Palermo, 10-13 November 2004
2
Overview of Today’s Discussion
1. National Performance Indicators from
Public Accountability Aspects
2. Major Indicators in Japan
3. Audit of National Performance Indicators
in Japan
4. Conclusion
OECD World Forum “Statistics, Knowledge and Policy”, Palermo, 10-13 November 2004
3
1. National Performance Indicators
from Public Accountability Aspects
1-1 Public Accountability
•
•
The meaning, content, and social systems of
public accountability have changed
Recently public accountability to evaluation of
policy achievement, performance plays an
important role
OECD World Forum “Statistics, Knowledge and Policy”, Palermo, 10-13 November 2004
4
1-2 Indicators and Public Accountability
•
•
•
•
•
Indicators have added its value for public accountability
Indicators have enabled Government to do fair and
more effective policy evaluation
Indicators have enabled Government to explain the
results of the policy evaluation to the public more
concisely
In some countries, indicators measure nationwide
socio-economic progresses, stimulate public debate,
help Government decide on important issues
These National Performance Indicators are epochmaking for public accountability
OECD World Forum “Statistics, Knowledge and Policy”, Palermo, 10-13 November 2004
5
1-3 Three Key Points in Developing and Using
National Performance Indicators
i.
ii.
iii.
Making National Performance Indicators logically and
practically consistent with policies
Involvement of the general public and Legislative
body and transparency in development process of
Indicators for credibility of Indicators
SAI’s check and evaluation of National Performance
Indicators
OECD World Forum “Statistics, Knowledge and Policy”, Palermo, 10-13 November 2004
6
2. Major Indicators in Japan
2-1 Outline
•
•
Ministries and Agencies in Japan established a variety
of credible statistical indicators
Major nationwide indicators
To show living standard of people other than
economic aspects shown by GDP and to make
individual indicators concise to the general public
and policy makers
1974 Social Indicators (SI)
1986 New Social Indicators (NSI)
1992 People’s Life Indicators (PLI)
OECD World Forum “Statistics, Knowledge and Policy”, Palermo, 10-13 November 2004
7
Back
ground
Social Indicator
(SI)
(from 1974)
New Social
Indicators (NSI)
(from 1986)
People’s Life
Indicator (PLI)
(from 1992)
•Review of relying
too much on
economic indicators
•Stable economic
development, rise of
income, diversification
of one’s interest in
Japan
•Overpopulation in
Tokyo
•Need to measure
varied good living
conditions in the
provinces
•8 aspects of activity
Characte •10 aspects of social •Beginning an attitude
life including health, survey and international of life, and 4 aspects
ristics
education etc. based comparison
on 261 indicators
•8 aspects of life
area(84 indicators), 11
subjective indicators,
and 6 special area (53
indicators)
OECD World Forum “Statistics, Knowledge and Policy”, Palermo, 10-13 November 2004
of value of life
•Including subdivided
indicators for each
prefecture
8
People’s Life Indicators (PLI)
•
•
Established in 1992
Background of 1980’s:
① Despite high per capita income, people could not
sense high living standard, needed more realistic
indicators
② Over-population in Tokyo, needed to measure
varying and good living conditions in provincial
areas
OECD World Forum “Statistics, Knowledge and Policy”, Palermo, 10-13 November 2004
9
PLI: Indicators of 8 activities of life, and 4 value of life
Security
Fairness
Freedom
Comfort
Work
(Example)
Unemployment
rate
(out of 10
indicators)
The rate of the
disadvantaged
who work
(out of 8
Indicators)
The cases of
starting a
business
(out of 7
indicators)
The rate of
overtime work
(out of 7
indicators)
Living
indicators
indicators
indicators
indicators
Consumption
indicators
indicators
indicators
indicators
Raising children
indicators
indicators
Indicators
indicators
Health
indicators
indicators
indicators
indicators
Play
indicators
indicators
indicators
indicators
Study
indicators
indicators
indicators
indicators
Communication
indicators
indicators
indicators
indicators
OECD World Forum “Statistics, Knowledge and Policy”, Palermo, 10-13 November 2004
10
Life Reform Index (LRI)
•
•
•
Established in Feb, 2003
Purpose: To evaluate the incumbent cabinet’s
accomplishment of its Structural Reform Program
directly influencing people’s living conditions
LRI divides into 10 indexes. 10 indexes divide into subindexes
OECD World Forum “Statistics, Knowledge and Policy”, Palermo, 10-13 November 2004
11
Structure of Life Reform Index (LRI)
Level 1
LRI
Level 2
(10 aspects)
Creating good
living conditions
Creating good
working conditions
:
:
Level 3
(points of evaluation) (statistical indicators)
Fair and Free
competition in
housing market
Number of used
house selling
and purchasing
cases
:
:
Creating secure
conditions
OECD World Forum “Statistics, Knowledge and Policy”, Palermo, 10-13 November 2004
12
Structure of Life Reform Index (LRI)
Level 2
(aspect)
Creating good living
conditions
Level 3
(Points of Evaluation)
Fair and Free
competition in
housing market
Shorter
commuting
time
Better house
purchasing
conditions
(Statistical Indicators)
Number of used house
selling and purchasing cases
Average commuting hours
Average floor square
measure of newly purchased
house
Average annual income
versus house purchasing cost ratio
OECD World Forum “Statistics, Knowledge and Policy”, Palermo, 10-13 November 2004
13
10 Aspects of Life Reform Index
Life Reform Index
Creating good living conditions
Creating good working conditions
Creating good conditions for education
Creating good conditions for raising children
Creating good conditions for women
Creating good conditions for the elderly
Creating mobile conditions for people and information
Creating good environment
Creating good conditions for the young
Creating secure conditions
OECD World Forum “Statistics, Knowledge and Policy”, Palermo, 10-13 November 2004
14
2-2 Challenges facing Japan’s major
nationwide Indicators
•
•
•
•
Difficulty to select or set Indicators amid changing
societal and ethical values among Japanese people
Considerable gaps between what the indicators show
and what people feel
Long history of indicators for evaluation of people’s
living standard, but short time for evaluating the effect
of policy goal achievement
Need to strengthen the recent effort to evaluate the
policy goal achievement and its effects
OECD World Forum “Statistics, Knowledge and Policy”, Palermo, 10-13 November 2004
15
3. Audit of National Performance Indicators
in Japan
3-1 Present Status
•
•
No move to establish National Performance Indicators
Japan Board of Audit has not audited People’s Life
Indicators and Life Reform Index
(Reason)
① Audit has mainly focused on financial and
accounting side of the Government activities
② Neither of indicators is established based on broad
consensus among Japanese people, and the
national indicators are still in development stage
OECD World Forum “Statistics, Knowledge and Policy”, Palermo, 10-13 November 2004
16
3-2 Future Prospect
•
•
SAIs are responsible for encouraging the Government
to improve their activities, and eventually enhancing
people’s living standard. And SAIs so far has
contributed to that
If National Performance Indicators are developed in
Japan, the Board of Audit, Japan would take much
interest in the processes of Japanese Government’s
setting the Indicators, and target values
OECD World Forum “Statistics, Knowledge and Policy”, Palermo, 10-13 November 2004
17
3-3 Viewpoints of Auditing National Performance
Indicators
(1) Regarding selection of Indicators
(a) Does the Government properly create and
maintain consistency among indicator reflecting
country’s present socio-economic conditions?
(b) Do the indicators accurately measure national
performance, and produce accurate statistical
value?
(c) Does the Government fairly weigh and balance
each of the individual indicators in individual
area?
OECD World Forum “Statistics, Knowledge and Policy”, Palermo, 10-13 November 2004
18
3-3 Viewpoints of Auditing National Performance
Indicators
(2) Regarding targeted values
(a) Are targeted values sufficiently high and
justifiable, and reflect actual policy goals to be
achieved?
(b) Does the Government fairly measure external
socio-economic elements which influence
indicator accomplishment?
OECD World Forum “Statistics, Knowledge and Policy”, Palermo, 10-13 November 2004
19
Conclusion
• SAI should shift priorities in viewpoints of audit,
audited bodies, audit area, as the country’s socioeconomic conditions change
• The SAI audit of National Performance Indicators will
be sooner of later one of the top priority areas
• Because both Governments who set the indicators
and SAIs who check them share the common goal –
to achieve higher living standards
OECD World Forum “Statistics, Knowledge and Policy”, Palermo, 10-13 November 2004
20