Romina Boarini OECD Statistics Directorate Evidence-Based Cohesion Policy Conference

1. OECD Well-Being Indicators RominaBoariniOECD Statistics Directorate Evidence-Based Cohesion Policy Conference July 7th 2011, Gdansk, Poland

2. Background • Long-standingdebate on GDP and beyond • OECD Global Project on Measuring the Progress ofSocieties • Manyinternational and nationalinitiativessteering the agenda on well-being • The OECD Better Life Initiative

3. Well-being indicators and policies Well-being indicators feed into policy by: • Better understanding of the range of factors driving well-being in particular domains and encouraging benchmarking • Evaluating policy trade-offs of policies and improving the consistency of policies • Putting issues which political leaders may have been less attentive to in the past into light, including people’s concerns and expectations and the gaps between reality and perception

4. The framework: which dimensions, which indicators • Focuses on overall well-being achievements/ outcomes • Well-being is a complex phenomenon, i.e. depends on many factors, their interaction and their relative importance. Thus the framework: • has to be comprehensive • has to go deep (i.e. assess how well-being achievements vary across individuals and how these achievements are correlated across dimensions)

5. Outcomes • The ultimate objective is enhancing people’s lives and well-being • Focusing on inputs or outputs risks, missing the point • Context statistics can be misleading (ex. GDP)

6. Framework of OECD work on well-being

7. Criteria for selecting well-being domains and dimensions • Consolidated approach based on : • theory (SSF, OECD and other established research on well-being) • practice (national and international initiatives) • internal consultation (with National Statistical Offices of OECD Member Countries)

8. Choice of Indicators of Outcomes Based on criteria relating to: • Relevance with respect to the target concept • face-validity [REASONABLE] • easily understood, unambiguous interpretation [NORMATIVE] • amenable to policy changes [~= RESPONSIVE TO POLICY] • possibility of disaggregation • Quality of supporting data [ROBUST] • well-established sources • comparable/standardized definitions • maximum country-coverage • recurrent data collection RED: Barca and McCann, 2011

9. An evolutionary process [DEBATABLE] • Improvedindicatorsasresearchresultsbecomeavailable and consultationmovesforward • Will include feedback fromvariousinitiatives (e.g. YourBetterLifeIndex) • Will include more countries (e.g. BRICS) and sustainability

10. Does it make a difference? • International experiencesofM&E • The PISA shock • National experiencesofM&E • Australia: ReviewofGovernmentServicesProvision • UK: SpendingReview & Public Service Agreement (PSA) targets • Community experiencesofM&E • Santa Cruiz: the Santa Cruiz Community Assessment Project

11. Challenges • Information needs • Building capacity in the administration • Havingstakeholders on board

12. THANK YOU

13. A virtuous circle