Last
week, the OECD co-organised in collaboration with e-Frame (European Framework for Measuring Progress) partners and Eurostat the European Conference on Measuring Well-Being and Fostering the Progress of Societies. This conference is a part of a series of
regional conferences that will feed into the 4th
OECD World Forum on "Statistics, Knowledge and Policy taking place on
16-19 October 2012, in New Delhi, India. The conference was broken down into three main thematic
sections: material conditions, quality of life and sustainability. You can find
the full agenda here.
On the first day of
the conference there was an interesting round table on why or whether we should
look at measures
of well-being in the midst of a financial crisis.
Daniel Daianu, Professor of Economics, The
National School of Political and Administrative Studies, Bucharest, former
finance minister of Romania and former MEP said in support of the well-being
measures and that take into account the inequalities that GDP misses: "fairness
is needed in both good times and bad".
Throughout
the conference, the participants from policy, media and civil society mentioned
the problem of "nowcasting". GDP is a good measure because it is also
a convenient measure. The timeliness of well-being data is of utmost
importance. We have to figure out a way to produce this data quicker and that
is expensive. Though, there are datasets that could be compiled on other well-being
data (the unemployment rate for example among others) that are available more
regularly.
We repeatedly heard that there are now enough alternative (to GDP) indicators of
well-being and progress in Europe. The issue now is how to get these indicators
used for policy. It was mentioned several times that indicators must have a
policy link. For example, if the OECD
Better Life Index is saying that a country is performing badly in the
housing dimension, then there should be a policy recommendation that goes with
it. That of course means that the
relationship between dimensions should be clearer if the aim is to increase
overall well-being and not just housing.
As there aren't well-being ministries in Europe, going for holistic well-being
will have to be a team effort which will oblige policy makers, researchers,
etc. to come out of their silos. This reminds me of a conversation I had with a
friend recently who is leading a lab researching mitochondria(I had to
look it up too). While I couldn't really follow what she is doing, I did note
how dependant she is on the neuroscientists and other scientists in many
different fields as she is a biochemist. Her work is useless without the
others. Perhaps we should look at well-being policy more like biology. Policies in the interest of all
dimensions.
But of
course we are talking about people here and not dimensions. Probably the most
significant issue coming out of the conference (for this blogger) is citizen
participation in policy dialogue. This conference insisted that we have to find
the stories that are relevant to citizens and households and invite citizen involvement
in the process. At the conference, the European
Network on Measuring Well-being was launched with the European
Framework on Measuring Progress (eFrame). This network is committed to
communication and dissemination of well-being work with a heavy emphasis on
two-way communication. The Wikiprogress Africa, Asia and Latin America networks
are also ones to watch. We will keep you posted on the results of this work and
opportunities for participation.
Another
positive sign is that in the conclusions of the conference, Martine Durand, OECD
Chief Statistician, noted that political uptake of well-being measures and
policies depends on both political leadership and public consultation. It is in this way that we can ensure that the policies being made are actually
addressing citizen concerns.
For full
conclusions of the conference, please click here.
Angela
Hariche
OECD, Head of Well-being Networks
No comments:
Post a Comment