You spoke, we listened - Measures of Australia's Progress Consultation

Since the Australian Bureau of Statistics first published Measures of Australia's Progress (MAP) in 2002, it has been bringing together a large range of statistics about Australia’s society, economy and environment to help give an insight into our national progress and ask the question - 'Is life in Australia getting better?'.

The statistics are put into social, economic and environmental domains to best display whether progress or regress is being made as a whole and allows for each domain to be considered side by side.

Given the explosion of interest in international and domestic activity occurring in measuring progress, the ABS considered it was timely to review whether MAP is still measuring the aspects of life that matter most to Australians. To do this, the ABS has undertaken the largest, broad-ranging consultation in the agency's history.  In a nut shell,  for the last two years the MAP Consultation has been asking Australians, 'What is important to you for your nation's progress?'

On November 20, 2012 ‘Measures of Australia’s Progress - aspirations for our nation: a conversation with Australians about progress’ was released. This report provides a full and transparent account of the aspirations that Australians told us were important to them for progress.

What Australians want

From what people told us, we found that ideas of what progress is have changed since we first set out to measure it in 2002. We also found that there is a gap in the current picture of progress, particularly in the areas of the built environment and other aspects that enrich people's lives.  Many people strongly endorsed the area of Governance as a fourth MAP domain, which echoes the international trend to give greater focus to measuring progress in things such as human rights and having a political voice. People also wanted more statistics to be broken down by population groups and geographic areas.

The people we spoke to provided many new and interesting aspirations for Australia's progress. Many Australians feel that having equal opportunity or a fair go is an essential element for progress, as are other aspects that enrich people's lives such as recreation, sport, popular culture and the arts. The consultation also revealed that Australians think that having a say in the decision making that affects their lives, and having institutions that are accountable for their decisions, are crucial for progress.

This word cloud represents the range of ideas expressed during the MAP consultation.  The size of the words represent how often they were raised.

So, where to next?

We will be using the aspirations from the consultation to refresh the existing MAP indicators and release a new version of MAP in late 2013. We are also planning on giving the 2013 release a brand new look, ensuring it's easy to use and retaining MAP's 'at a glance' view of national progress. We also want to clearly communicate the stories behind the statistics, and allow users to directly access data they are interested in. Take a look at the mock-ups on BetaWorks and let us know if you like the new layout and functionality.

We'll also plan to include infographics and videos in MAP 2013, so you can easily get the top progress stories fast! Check out our example demo video to find out more!

Hannah Wetzler

Social Analyst

Social and Progress Reporting  |  Population Labour and Social Statistics  |  Australian Bureau of Statistics

Wikichild Blog Catch Up - 2012

Hi Everyone,

2012 has been an exciting year for Wikichild and we decided to wrap it up by blogging a selection of  child related articles from the last 12 months. Enjoy!

Rapid urbanization is leaving millions of disadvantaged children behind by guest blogger James Elder of UNICEF - March 5th

Kids in High Poverty Communities: 5 Ways it Affects us all by Laura Speer is the Associate Director for Policy Reform and Data at the Annie E. Casey Foundation in Baltimore Maryland, USA - March 15th

The Arab Knowledge Report 2010/2011: Why focusing on Arab children and youth is necessary for the future of the region by Hannah Chadwick - Former Wikichild consultant - 6 April 

“I am fighting for my future” by Hannah Chadwick - 19 June 

Early stimulation and micronutrients interventions: the next frontiers to break the cycle of child poverty by Christelle Chapoy, 3ie International Initiative for Impact Evaluation - 13  July 

The Child Development Index 2012 by Alex Cobham, Save the Children - 19 July 

The Global Whole Child by Sean Slade, ASCD the Whole Child - 8 August

A Kony 2012 for Syria??? by Hannah Chadwick - 19 August 

Education for All - A Focus on Nutrition by Robbie Lawrence, Wikichild Coordinator - 1st November

The threat of inequality to children by Robbie Lawrence - 20 November 

Thank you to all who have followed us in 2012 and stay tuned for a diverse and interesting range of Child Well-being blogs in the new year. 

Robbie Lawrence 

Wikichild Coordinator 

@Wiki_child

@robbielawrence1

The road to Busan

This post first appeared on OECD Insights.

An editor I once worked for had a golden rule for his reporters and editors: We don’t do process. By that he meant that news stories should focus on what had happened, not the tedious ins and outs of how it had happened. Not bad advice it you want to write a vivid story, and many journalists would probably subscribe to it. Indeed, it may help to explain why there’s such a gap in public awareness regarding two of the landmark development declarations of the 2000s.

The first, the Millennium Development Goals, is known worldwide. Under eight main headings, it sets down a series of anti-poverty goals to be attained by the year 2015, including a memorable pledge to cut by half the number of people living on less than a dollar a day.

The second declaration is less well known, in part, perhaps, because it’s all process. While the Millennium Development Goals are about what development should seek to achieve, the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness is about the processes developing and developed countries should follow to achieve those goals. The language of the declaration and its five core principles can be a little obscure, but the message basically boils down to this: Development won’t happen sustainably unless developing countries themselves – and not donors – take the lead in setting priorities and coordinating activities.

Since it was adopted in 2005, the Paris Declaration has been widely credited with helping to reshape relations between donor and developing countries – development expert Homi Kharas describes the process that created the declaration as a “watershed”. But whether enough has really changed is a matter for debate: It’s probably fair to say that developing countries still feel their donor partners could do more.

How much more? That question, and many others, will be keenly debated at a major conference on development and aid effectiveness in November in the Korean city of Busan. The issues on the table are previewed in an article by OECD colleague Stephen Groff in the latest issue of Global Asia.

As Steve points out, this forum – the latest in a series over the past decade – “will be the first international meeting of its kind to focus on aid in the new development landscape”. That landscape is, indeed, new: Traditional donors in North America and Europe are facing squeezed budgets and rising pressure to get value for money for their aid budgets. Newer donors, like China, India and Brazil, are becoming ever more important players in development. And there’s the evolving political and social situation, in which, as the Arab Spring has shown, things can change in a heartbeat.

Busan will look back at what the Paris Declaration, and other agreements, have and have not achieved. But, as Steve points out, it will also look forward. “In Busan, there is the opportunity to build a fresh — and flexible — global development partnership that will include today’s diversity of actors and approaches,” he writes. “In these times of economic uncertainty, the world simply cannot afford anything less than effective aid and Busan is a critical milestone on the path to more effective development.”

Focusing on inequality or poverty reduction is not enough

This post first appeared on OECD Insights.

Our second post from the Annual Bank Conference on Development Economics (ABCDE) is from Mario Pezzini, Director of the OECD Development Centre. 

Day two of the 2011 ABCDE conference has just finished and so far, the conference has given me a lot to think about. There seems a growing consensus that high levels of inequality are not conducive to sustained growth and development.

At the Development Centre we go beyond this, arguing that societies that are growing rapidly and undergoing significant structural changes could see their growth trajectories compromised unless they put in place policies to help manage the process.

What is less clear is what policies should be employed, and in what order. Given the extensive changes that many countries are experiencing, focusing on inequality or poverty reduction is not enough.  Rapid economic growth may be instrumental to reducing poverty, but if large parts of the population get absorbed into the informal sector for example, then these “non-poor” will remain very vulnerable over time.

In this context we need a broader policy objective, one which caters to the multi-faceted challenges that many emerging and developing countries face.  I would call this policy objective social cohesion: a combination of social inclusion, social capital and social mobility. These three dimensions all interact and influence each other, which is why they need to be viewed as part of a whole. 

I don’t mean to belittle what is being said at the ABCDE. On the contrary, the breadth of topics covered in both the plenaries and side-sessions is impressive. Yet there is still a tendency to fragment policies, focusing on isolated outcomes rather than broader development objectives. An example is education, where often the focus can often be on improving enrollment or raising completion rates. But if there is no coherence between education and labour market policies, aren’t today’s school children tomorrow’s (albeit higher qualified) unemployed?  

These issues are explored in a forthcoming OECD Development Centre publication, the second in our Perspectives on Global Development series which focuses on social cohesion in a world of Shifting Wealth.   

Finally, I would add that a broader policy framework requires new measures. More data detailing citizens’ perceptions and aspirations, and more robust tools capable of capturing new socio-economic realities. Combining traditional and subjective measures will help us get a better picture of the current state of social cohesion, and design policies to nurture it.

Fortunately, new measures and data availability are two areas that will be discussed at length during day three of the ABCDE, specifically during the roundtable on Democratising Development Economics.

I hope to see you there, or if not, that you get a chance to follow the debate online.

Useful links  

Mario Pezzini talks about “Shifting Wealth” to CNBC Africa

Growth and development - for whom?

Today’s post is from Stephen Groff, Deputy Director of the OECD Development Co-operation Directorate.

UNDP’s Human Development Report, launched on Friday at OECD headquarters in Paris, stresses that today’s development challenges require a new outlook. There are no silver bullets or magic potions for human development. Rather than trying to replicate past experience, we need to focus on new opportunities. Rather than attempting to apply policy prescriptions, we need to adapt general principles and guidelines to the local context. And we must address major new challenges - in particular, climate change - and build democratically accountable global institutions to deal with them. Our analysis must go deeper, and we must consider carefully the multidimensionality of development objectives.

The Human Development Index was one of the first serious attempts to broaden the debate around just how we measure development. Over time, the development community has moved from an initial, rather simplistic stance of increased GDP as synonymous with development, to an array of indicators for ranking how countries and people are faring. In recent years, the debate has become much more pronounced with the Stiglitz-Sen-Fitoussi commission and the OECD’s work on measuring the progress of societies.

At OECD we recognise how important measurements are; they are, quite simply, our means of defining success. And, as such, we feel that it is vital to consider development outcomes in their multiple facets—not just poverty or income growth levels. Growth is a means to an end, and not an end in itself. The Human Development Report confirms this central truth, and also makes it clear that there is no single pathway to success. Each country must have the ownership, capacity and resources to find their own solutions to their own development challenges.

In this respect, it is very positive to see the G20’s growing focus on development. Having just attended the G20 Summit in Seoul, I was fortunate to witness global leaders confirming the challenge of closing development gaps as a core element of their economic co-operation.

This is good news for at least two reasons. First, the G20 countries are the largest global economies and major partners of low-income countries (LICs), and what they do matters a lot for LICs’ growth. Second, G20 countries bring to the development debate new perspectives and fresh ideas—in particular, they bring their own development experiences and skills, enriching the menu of options available to LICs for the design of their development strategies and policies.

In Seoul, the G20 adopted the Seoul Development Consensus for Shared Growth and an action plan comprising nine pillars to promote LICs’ growth. The G20 is uniquely placed to provide leadership in advancing the international development agenda and achieving the MDGs. They can do this by: improving their own policies; sharing their development experiences; providing assistance to build capacity; and offering strategic guidance to international organisations, thereby enhancing the effectiveness of the multilateral system. It is essential that all these work together toward the ultimate objective of improving the impact of G20 policies on LICs’ growth.

The OECD, like the G20, takes a comprehensive approach to development and to knowledge sharing, cross-fertilisation and policy coherence, placing development at the core of our work and engaging our full range of policy communities. With decades of experience in development, we are pleased to be mandated by the G20 to work closely with the UN, the World Bank and other international organisations to contribute to implementing the action plan. We believe that our contributions will help the G20 to identify what works when promoting growth and poverty reduction, to better assess the impact of G20’s own policies on LIC growth, and to find ways of maximizing positive impacts.

The G20 approach to development is underpinned by a fundamental belief in the core importance of growth. This is the right perspective as growth is a necessary component of development but it is also important to remember that the rate of poverty reduction depends on the pattern, and not only the pace, of growth. One of the key messages of the HDR—and one that I know the G20 will heed—is that growth does not automatically equate to other aspects of development. Nor is there a minimum threshold of growth required for countries to develop.

At OECD, we are keen to share our experience regarding what makes growth benefit the poor—something we have been exploring for years in the DAC and its Network on Poverty Reduction. More generally, we will continue to put a strong emphasis on measuring the progress of societies, because people, as the HDR says, are the real wealth of nations.