Citizen engagement in well-being statistics, an example of good practice

This post by David Skutenko provides an example of good practice in citizen engagement in well-being and progress statistics in Australia and explain the role technology can play. This post is the Australian Bureau of Statistics contributions to the current  Wikiprogress' online discussion on "Engaging citizens in well-being and progress statistics.

Do you have any examples of good practice in citizen engagement in well-being and progress statistics?

A decade on from its first publication of Measures of Australia’s Progress (MAP) and in response to the burgeoning domestic and international interest in measuring progress and wellbeing, the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) considered it was timely to review whether MAP was still measuring those aspects of life that matter most to Australians. In 2011-2012, we undertook a broad-ranging consultation that asked Australians ‘What is important to you for national progress?’ The feedback the ABS received was in the form of aspirational statements. 

The ABS’s method for bringing the consultation feedback together has been iterative. That is, following each phase of the consultation process, the ABS has undertaken a careful and methodical thematic analysis of the feedback received; drawing out and grouping common themes, articulating the important elements of those ideas and refining the aspirations and views expressed by participants. The outcome has been a set of aspirations for national progress that has evolved throughout the consultation process that the ABS hopes resonate with Australians.

In consultation with our Expert Reference Group, we decided upon a multi-faceted consultation model with people drawn from the areas of society shown below. The government, community, business and academic sectors were all represented, as were particular groups through representatives of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. A balance of representation across the various sectors was sought as was a gender and age balance. The following diagram shows the MAP consultation groups and channels.

We consulted directly with around 1000 people and indirectly with many more through social media, utilizing participant networks. We also gathered information through one point of contact who then gathered input from a range of constituents. We used a multi-stream consultation, targeting a variety of audiences. This provided us with a wide representation of views within a limited budget.

The consultation was launched through a national statistical conference by the Australian Statistician where Australians were invited to participate through submissions, workshops and a variety of social media tools. This launch was accompanied by a feature article and media releases.

The whole of the consultation process, including the results, has been reported back to Australians in Measures of Australia’s Progress – Aspirations for our nation: a conversation with Australians about progress 2013 ABS cat.no 1370.0.00.002.

Another key contributor to the success of the MAP consultation was having a clear consultation model. This tool allowed us to visually represent key concepts to participants , such as Progress as an unambiguous movement of society in a positive direction toward an identified aspiration or goal. We also used it to clarify the stages of the consultation that the ABS and participants would contribute to (i.e. Participants provided the aspirations for progress whilst ABS will provide the measures). We used this model to convey and explain the purpose of the consultation - to establish what was important for progress - and that looking at available measures was a subsequent activity. In this way we ensured that the feedback would provide all of the important areas of progress, without reference to whether or not they are currently measurable.

Lessons learned from the MAP consultation were that it's important to engage and include the media in any campaign, both traditional and social. As ABS was launching into the 'new' social media space we learned to be guided by our staff who had skills in this area and listened to their advice about using more informal language and tone and allowing for humour. With such a quick response tool as social media we needed to be prepared and had 3 months worth of conversations starters, prominent Australian contributions, articles of interest etc. With this, we also found that we needed to be flexible enough to respond to conversation threads, rather than ploughing on with our pre-arranged blog schedule. The MAP 2.0 blog needed a dedicated staff member to ensure that the ABS and participants received the benefits that we wanted.

Championship of the consultation within the media, from our prominent Australians and by our ABS leaders also ensured that interest in the project was high and obstacles were removed early. Rather than talking to our traditional data users, we chose to engage in a much broader based consultation. This approach delivered us the broad ranging views that we needed in order to refresh MAP and gather new ideas about progress.


What role can technology play in improving citizen engagement with well-being and progress statistics?

We used multiple modes to contact our audiences, for example social media (which captured a younger cohort), online, paper, face to face, interactive, media. Many of these processes were able to be undertaken simultaneously which helped make the process efficient, in terms of time and cost.

The MAP consultation aimed to promote a conversation about progress. Even though blogs are one of the oldest social media tools, they have many advantages as an engagement tool, and the MAP 2.0 blog proved a successful way of inspiring interest in the topic of national progress, and enabling us to quickly gain insights into people's views on progress. The blog allowed a range of responses from short replies to more lengthy and complex replies. One aspect of promoting interest in the blog and the consultation was to post contributions from prominent Australians, from entrepreneurs through to sports people. Media outlets picked up on these contributions and a series of interviews and radio talk back sessions followed, further promoting and broadening 'the conversation' about progress. ABS Facebook and twitter were used to channel people to the MAP 2.0 blog. We felt our social media campaign was successful with many 1000's of website hits and page visits and hundreds of quality comments that we could use.

We developed a list of MAP Community contacts during the consultation and used these to tap into further online networks. We linked to relevant progress and wellbeing sites, particularly by developing innovative infographics that captured interest and imagination, for example our Progress MAP below. 

Click map to enlarge. 

We developed and produced an promotional video, using contributions from our prominent Australians, to capture the aspirational spirit of the consultation. This was shown at forums and online.

David Skutenko

Director, Social and Progress Reporting, ABS

Wikiprogress and partners invite you to participate in an online discussion from 22 – 30 April 

Engaging citizens in well-being and progress statistics

• How can citizen engagement improve the development and use of well-being and progress statistics?

• Do you have any examples of good practice in citizen engagement in well-being and progress statistics?

• What role can technology - such as mobile apps or interactive web platforms - play in improving citizen engagement with well-being and progress statistics?

To leave a comment, click here and scroll to the section entitled “Contribute!”

Here is the short link to the page: http://bit.ly/1itMg6L 
Follow the Twitter hashtag #CitizenEngagement and #StatsForAll

You may contact us or send comments via:

Email (info@wikiprogress.org)

The ProgBlog

Wikiprogress on Facebook

Wikiprogress on Twitter

We are already in a Beyond-GDP world, but we need a compass

This blog, written by Donato Speroni, provides some highlights from the final conference of the BRAINPOoL project which prove useful for moving beyond GDP. The post is based on an article published on numerus.corriere.it and is part of the Wikiprogress Series on Data and Statistics.

Being a journalist and blogger about statistics and politics, I have been following the “Beyond GDP” (B-GDP) research since the 1st OECD Forum on “Statistics, Knowledge and policy” in Palermo in 2004. We all know that the need to find new ways for measuring progress was outlined almost 50 years ago by Robert Kennedy and that the research became a global effort from 2009, after the publication of the Stiglitz Report. The economic crisis dramatized the need for new parameters, because it changed the values contributing to an acceptable well-being, while sustainability is also becoming a growing concern.

Everywhere new statistics were provided, dashboards and composite indicators were tested, but the real problem was the limited use of these experiences by decision makers, especially at national level. The whole “measuring progress initiative” was risking to run aground, to remain a stimulating intellectual exercise with no impact on the real word.

In this framework, the final conference of the BRAINPOoL project on March 24 in Paris set a turning point. BRAINPOoL means “bringing alternative indicators into policy”, and the European Commission finances the project. The Paris meeting included two panel discussions, the first hosted personalities who had governmental or political responsibilities (Enrico Giovannini, Helen Goodman, Chantal Jouanno and Mikael Jungner), the second hosted economists and civil service directors from different countries (Jan Verschooten, Gus O’Donnell, Andrew Dean, Volker Schmitt, Wanda Gaj, Stefan Kooths), under the Chair of Martin Durand, OECD chief statistician. 

Here are some outputs that I found particularly interesting and stimulating:

• Testimonials who held effective political and administrative power confirm that the adoption of B-GDP indicators might really change the priorities of political action. For example, labour market policy might be different if explicitly driven by the aim of maximising well-being. Today’s politicians mainly look at employment and unemployment rates. The use of alternative indicators would show greater importance for a work-life balance, quality working conditions and job security.

• Inequalities impair the adoption of alternative indicators. The have-nots, who should benefit more from the B-GDP policies, cannot afford a trade-off between actual economic benefits, however limited, and future improvements of the social or environmental context. Talking about alternative indicators does not win votes.

• In order to go beyond these difficulties, we need a “new narrative”. The alternative indicators should be presented in an effective and understandable way, putting the accent on the risks that we are taking if we stick to the traditional political targets. Data like GDP or unemployment are important, but place the attention on the short-term goals of political action. B-GDP indicators envision problems and collective interventions that might have an influence on the quality of life after five years or more, well beyond the electoral cycle. This contrast is evident if we take into consideration the environmental changes or the deterioration of the human and social capital of a community. A new narrative must be capable of arousing interest and engagement in the media, in public opinion and hence in political leaders, presenting the future effects of these current unsolved problems. Without this narrative, the short-term problems to be dealt with before the next elections will always prevail.

• We need social and environmental data just as timely as the economic data. Almost all the social data comes out yearly, while the economic figures come out quarterly or monthly. Instead, “we want to know in real time how many people are alone at Xmas” as was said in Paris. Polls are not enough; we need reliable information, based on adequate investments in social statistics. In the UK, Margaret Thatcher decided to cut the social surveys because she did not want too many figures about poverty while she was implementing free market policies. Now (I think) we still need policies based on the free market (for instance, cuts in public spending), but we also want to know as soon as possible the social consequences in order to manage timely interventions.

• In any case, the ideological quarrel about GDP should be scrapped. Tax revenues, public deficits and European policies aimed at reducing the sovereign debts all depend on the trends of the domestic product. GDP determines the dimension of public expenses and of social contributions. Therefore, it is a bad mistake (and a lost battle) to present GDP indicators and policies as a banner for “anti-market economics”.

• The core of B-GDP is finding a way to enhance people’s satisfaction with their lives. It cannot be done without stronger policy interventions. This means having public powers which care about citizens’ relations, long life training and maybe people’s capacity to “extract happiness” from their condition. Do we really want this “invasive” public action? This is the real political issue, which requires common sense and “middle of the road” answers. We probably cannot accept ideologies in favour of knocking down State intervention with the wrong idea that the free market will “someday” overcome excessive inequalities in incomes, health or instruction. Most of us want public powers that protect the right to pursue happiness, but not many of us want a government telling its citizens “how to be happy” and “how to behave for their own good”. It’s a delicate political balance.

• We need B-GDP models, as we have models based on GDP, but we do not know how to put the social data into these models. It would be even more difficult to include the environmental data about phenomena which cannot be priced, like biodiversity. Econometric models are not perfect and their predictions are often wrong, especially in these times of crisis, but they are employed to evaluate different alternatives in fiscal and monetary policy. National and international institutions have their own models, constantly updated. Now we would need to enlarge these systems of equations in order to obtain a “well-being forecast”, which should tell us, if new public decisions might increase or decrease collective quality of life, distances between social classes, preservation of natural or cultural resources, or even warn us of the risks of social unrest or environmental catastrophe. It’s a big challenge.

The general impression after the Paris debate was that we are already “beyond GDP”, because political decisions do not depend only on growth and other economic factors. We currently have many statistical indicators which might help in this process, much more than ten years ago, However, decision makers use them randomly, following their own convenience without any effective consensus on the choice of the data considered important in the political debate. We are in a B-GDP Europe, but we still don’t have a compass to help us find our way. This is an important topic for the next European elections and for the incoming Commission in Brussels. The BRAINPOoL process offered a lot of food for thought and needs to be continued.

In a short time, another important B-GDP project will come to a conclusion: the E–Frame project by the National statistics institutes will produce a “Handbook for the use of alternative indicators”. Italy has an important role in this process, with the leadership of E-Frame by Istat (together with Statistics Netherlands) and the new national Bes indicators for equitable and sustainable well-being. I hope that the government in Rome will give adequate attention to the B-GDP issues during the Italian semester of the European presidency starting on July 1st of this year.

- Donato Speroni
@dospe

See Also:

• Review report on Beyond GDP indicators: categorisation, intentions and impacts 
• Barriers to the use of alternative (‘beyond GDP’) indicators in policy making and how they are being overcome and can be overcome
• The National Well-being Project
• New Economics Foundation

 

Women in Science – Explore the Data for Countries Worldwide

This blog, by UNESCO's Institute for Statistics (UIS) is about a new tool which presents cross-country data regarding women working in science-oriented careers. The post is part of Wikiprogress and Wikigender's contribution to tomorrow's International Women's Day.

Just 30% of the world’s researchers are women. While a growing number of women are enrolling in university, many opt out at the highest levels required for a research career. But a closer look at the data reveals some surprising exceptions. For example, in Myanmar and Bolivia, women account for 86% and 63% respectively of scientists, compared to France with a rate of 26% or Ethiopia at 8%.

Women in Science – a new interactive tool – presents the latest available data for countries at all stages of development. Produced by the UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS), the tool lets you explore and visualize gender gaps in the pipeline leading to a research career, from the decision to get a doctorate degree to the fields of research women pursue and the sectors in which they work.

In Sweden, for example, women form the majority (60%) of students enrolled in a Bachelor’s programme, but their numbers decline as they move up the education ladder, accounting for 49% of doctoral students and only 36% of researchers. The data tool reveals this trend across every region, highlighting the conflict that many women face as they try to reconcile career ambitions with family-caring responsibilities.

Women researchers also tend to work in the academic and government sectors, while men dominate the private sector which offers better salaries and opportunities. This is the case even in countries with high shares of women scientists. In Argentina, for example, 52% of researchers are women. However, they account for only 29% of researchers employed in the private sector.

Perhaps most importantly, the data tool shows just how important it is to encourage girls to pursue mathematics and science at a young age. In every region, women researchers remain the minority in the fields of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM). In the Republic of Korea, for example, only 17% of researchers are women and they account for just 9% of those working in the field of engineering and technology.

By highlighting trends in different regions and countries, this tool provides a unique view on International Women’s Day (8 March). It is particularly useful for those interested in a global perspective on the gender gap in research, especially in the STEM fields. Available in English, French and Spanish, it can be easily embedded on your website, blog or social media sites.

It should be noted that this tool presents internationally comparable data produced by the Institute. This means that the indicators can be accurately compared across countries with very different contexts for women in science. Yet, due to methodological differences, data are missing for countries such as the United States or Canada. In addition, data are also missing for some developing countries that do not have the resources to collect or report R&D data. The Institute seeks to work with all countries to improve the availability of accurate data that can be compared internationally.

This post first appeared on UNESCO's Science, Technology and Innovation page, here.

See Also:
Women in Science
Women in Science Data Tool
International Women's Day (article)
OECD celebrates International Women's Day
Women in Science International League
Women in Bio-Technology
UNESCO

 

 

 

Women's socio-economic empowerment: where are the data gaps?

This blog, written by Wikigender Coordinator Estelle Loiseau, give the highlights of the Wikigender online discussion on "Data Gaps on Gender Equality", which in its first week focused on the socio-economic empowerment of women.* 

Wow, this is impressive - 48 comments in the first week of the discussion! This not only shows high interest, but also gives an idea of the importance of the topic. Last week we heard from you on where has progress been made in the area of data on gender equality since the establishment of the MDGs in 2000, as well as where the gaps are and where improvements can be made. So, where do we stand?

We can say that participants agreed that there has been progress, notably in the area of sex-disaggregated and gender-sensitive data (but with important limitations) and also in terms of the quality, analysis and dissemination of gender statistics. However, more efforts are needed in several areas, for example regarding the data collection at country level and in certain specific sectors like agriculture or aquaculture and fisheries. Also, a number of new areas of research and priority areas were brought to the fore. Let's take a look in detail...

Data issues mentioned

• Comparability of data at EU level, within OECD countries and beyond, within and across regions
• Common standards, harmonised data and definitions
• Coverage in terms of countries, type of policy and time trends (e.g. for indicators on policies that promote women's socio-economic empowerment)
• Lack of continuity between surveys 
• Data gaps in access to finance and land, and data gaps in agriculture, among others
• Capacity building of National Statistics Offices
• Many surveys are not gender-sensitive, e.g. in agriculture
• Data demand/use needs to be enhanced

"When it comes to data on entrepreneurship, it seems that data collection is greatly impaired by problems of definitions. There are no agreed definitions of what 'entrepreneurship' means, although it is regarded as a driver for social inclusion, empowerment and growth."                                                                                                  - Anne Laure Humbert

New areas of research and suggestions

• Time-use: to better understand women's participation in the labour market and the balance of family and work responsibilities
• Unpaid work: to make sure that women's contribution in the area of care is accounted for in the economic measures
• Social norms: to better understand the power imbalances at household level, which have an impact on women's empowerment at society level
• Fiscal policy: to better recognise women's contribution to the economy, one could disaggregate taxpayers' data by sex
• Technology: to develop a measurement framework to evaluate empowerment within technology initiatives where women are central players (e.g. in sectors such as clean cooking)

"ECLAC (...) has been key in moving forward with time use surveys and in that sense achieving comparability inasmuch as possible. This is creating the possibility to use these surveys to construct satellite accounts that can serve for policy design, but also micro simulation and other uses."                                                                                 - Elizabeth Villagomez

Priority areas

• Earning gaps, including from self employment
• Unpaid work
• Informal work, especially with a focus on poor women
• Systematic inclusion of age and sex in data collection, including old age

"We need more countries to collect data on informal employment (...), including on specific categories of informal workers such as domestic workers, home-based workers, street vendors and waste pickers and we need data on the earnings of the self employed."                                                                                                                     - Joann Vanek, WIEGO

To improve data quality, availability and coverage, participants emphasised: South-South cooperation and support from donors and international agencies; more political will for gender equality (e.g. Africa); strong advocacy for new research areas and priority areas; continued capacity building at country level; systematic inclusion of data at country level in global reports; national action plans; and more.

Many examples of initiatives and programmes were mentioned, including: PARIS21's data revolution; HBSC's data collection work on the health and well-being of adolescents; a measurement framework for monitoring equality and human rights in Great Britain by the UK's Equality and Human Rights Commission; the OECD Gender Data Portal; Women's Empowerment in Agriculture Index; and many more! 

The discussion during week 1 was particularly rich and interactive. This summary does not provide a full picture of the various mini-discussions which took place at several levels on some of the above-mentioned areas. Click here to read the full thread of comments and engage further!

This second week (3-9 February), we turn the focus on data gaps in the area of violence against women. See the questions asked for week 2 and join in the conversation!

*The discussion is brought to you by Wikigender, the UN Foundation, Health Behaviour in School-Aged Children (HBSC), the EU-LAC Foundation, European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE), ECLAC and PARIS21 - and in collaboration with Wikiprogress and Wikichild.

Online Discussion: Data Gaps on Gender Equality

Wikigender is running a new online discussion in partnership with the UN Foundation, Health Behaviour in School-Aged Children (HBSC), the EU-LAC Foundation, European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE), ECLAC and PARIS21 – while collaborating with Wikiprogress and Wikichild regarding:

Data Gaps on Gender Equality

Open from 27 January-14 February

We would like to engage participants in a discussion about where the data gaps exist concerning gender equality. With this discussion, we hope to pioneer initiatives that generate new data and new methodological approaches and to examine complex areas of gender equality, including unpaid care, time use and social norms. The discussion will also address the “data revolution” and gender statistics, lessons learned since the adoption of the MDGs in 2000, and proposals for priority targets for the post-2015 development agenda.

Each week of the discussion, there will be a different theme open for comments and dialogue:

Week 1: The socio-economic empowerment of women

Week 2: Violence against women

Week 3: Civic and political participation of women

The outcomes and main findings of the discussion will be summarised in a final report and presented at a side event at the 58^th session of the UN Commission on the Status of Women held in New York in March 2014. The side event will be organised by the OECD Development Centre, Overseas Development Institute (ODI) and the UK Department for International Development (DFID).

We invite you to find out more about the online discussion and questions for each theme by clicking here: http://bit.ly/1dnPEkI

You may begin participating in the discussion on 27 January, 2014. To post a comment, simply go to the “Contribute!” section of the discussion page. We count on your participation and hope that you will disseminate this information widely to your contacts! Feel free to use the following links to send an invitation to your contacts in Spanish or French also. On Twitter, we use the hashtags #gender and #datagaps

See you very soon on www.wikigender.org to discuss this issue!

Estelle Loiseau

Wikigender Co-ordinator

The Road to 2015 is Paved with Open Data

This blog, by David Hall-Matthews, managing director at Publish What You Fund is about the data revolution, specifically concerning aid transparency. This is the 17th post in ODI's blog series on ‘What kind of ‘data revolution’ do we need for post-2015?’ This post is also a part of the Wikiprogress series on Data and Statistics and Post-2015. 

Transparency is a key pillar of sustainable development: an essential piece of the puzzle to enable effectiveness, accountability and social change. And in recent years, information on aid spending has slowly become more available and open.
 

The basic principle that aid information should be publicly available is now accepted as an essential component of international development. Nowhere has that been seen more prominently than the discussions around the post-2015 Development Goals.

We have two years to create new goals. Too often, in development, looming deadlines induce resignation and recrimination – but there are still reasons to be optimistic for the future of aid transparency and open data within the post-2015 process.

Credit is due to the High Level Panel for their boldness and dynamism. Their call for a “data revolution” set the tone for debates on a range of issues, and quickly became one of the buzz phrases of 2013.

There is no question that the “data revolution” means open data. Making detailed information available to everyone, even on something as well-established as aid, would be genuinely radical.

But buzz phrases can mean different things to different people. Many commentators have focused on inequalities of access to information. While it is of course essential to highlight obstacles to data use by the poorest, it would be foolish to put the cart before the horse. Before anyone can use data, there must be data out there.

Others have pointed out that the data revolution can’t be imposed from above. I agree – but we shouldn’t let an insistence on bottom-up approaches let those at the top off the hook on their own transparency commitments. Changes at the top can make a difference.

Aid may not be the most important resource flow after 2015, but making it transparent can make a significant difference to the problematic top-down relationships between donor and recipient nations – and it can set an example for other flows, because aid transparency has had a head-start.

The International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI) is the only existing international open data standard now in use. Knowing how difficult it is to make new agreements – let alone implement common standards – that’s a massive achievement. Any serious attempt to start a data revolution in 2015 would be crazy to overlook a system that works.

IATI works because:
It’s relatively easy to publish to it. Organisations only need to convert information they hold into a common format, then send links to an online registry.
It’s relatively easy to use the data. It’s raw, and will need to be interpreted to make sense to everyone (like all information), but it’s fully accessible and – critically – comparable.
It’s relatively easy to adopt the standard. Many non-traditional providers of development finance, including NGOs, climate finance providers, philanthropic foundations, development finance institutions and private companies have published to IATI.

IATI itself will be too limited to encompass all resource and information flows. But new standards – for example on domestic budget transparency, or extractive industry payments, could adopt the template – and common code – to make it as easy as possible for users to compare, contrast and collate.

There is increasingly more data out there – now we must make it a useful weapon in the fight to end poverty. We are working hard to ensure donors are becoming more open and now we are working hard to ensure information will be put to use.

We know that raw data may not be understood by the average person on the street, but don’t be fooled into thinking that only small packages of neatly visualised information can be understood. That’s an excuse used too easily by those seeking to control what data is released.

IATI was built specifically in response to partner country, civil society and government requests for more detailed, useful information on money coming into their countries. All donors should publish to IATI if they want to truly bolster the bottom-up approach to international development. It doesn’t make sense for donors to be suggesting new goals and ways to hold partner countries to account, without doing their own bit first.

The end of 2015 is not only the deadline to agree new Development Goals. It is also the date by when the Busan Partnership Agreement needs to be implemented.

Our Aid Transparency Index, the industry standard for assessing transparency among the world’s major donors, shows that most donors have quite a way to go to meeting their Busan commitments. The average score for all 67 organisations was disappointingly low, despite the many international commitments and speeches about openness.

For example, France is the third largest donor in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), spending over USD 1 billion in 2011. But we could find no comprehensive listing of the country’s current aid activities for DRC – or for any other recipient country. Similarly, Japan is the second largest donor in DRC, spending over USD 1.2 billion in 2011. But their database does not include basic information on the projects it’s funding, such as start or end dates of projects or their current status.

In other words, over USD 2 billion in aid to DRC – an aid dependent and fragile state –remains unmonitored. And much of the information we could get was out of date, patchy and difficult to compare with that of other funders operating in DRC.

It’s not all bad though. A leading group of organisations is publishing large amounts of useful information on their current aid activities. And some donors have made real progress over the past year. So there is reason to hope for better aid transparency by 2015.

Open data and transparency are becoming fashionable watch words, but we’re checking if donors are really delivering, looking beyond high-level commitments and long-held reputations. Crucially, we are measuring donors’ progress on the road to 2015.

- David Hall-Matthews

This post first appeared January 16, 2014 on ODI's Post2015.org site.

How sustainable is well-being? Measuring resources for the future

This post, written by Carrie Exton (Statistics Directorate of the OECD), is part of the Wikiprogress series on How's Life? 2013 chapter on "Measuring the sustainability of well-being over time". 

"Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards.” So said Søren Kierkegaard.  It is certainly easier to make sense of events with hindsight. The financial crisis that began in 2007 is likely to become a textbook example of a catastrophic event that very few (or certainly not enough) people saw coming. The 2013 edition of “How’s Life?” shows the human cost of the financial crisis, reminding us that, much like stock market investments, people’s well-being can go down as well as up. So how can statistics help us to understand whether the choices made by current generations are likely to put the well-being of future generations at risk? 

Most statistics tend to look backwards. For one thing, it’s a lot easier to measure things that have already happened. But measures of progress also need to look forwards. That is why How’s Life? 2013 also includes a chapter about measuring the sustainability of well-being over time. It’s not the most attention-grabbing part of the report: there aren’t many pictures, and you won’t find a bar-chart showing which country is the ‘most sustainable’. What it does include is a proposal for how the OECD could monitor the resources which help to sustain well-being over time in the future.

It can be helpful to think about the sustainability of well-being in terms of risk-management, where measurement means identifying and regularly auditing risks. In several cases, we are already know something about where to look: you can read about the risks of climate change and financial meltdown in the newspapers almost every day. But some risks, such as those concerning social ties and trust, are less tangible. Getting good quality and internationally comparable data on each of these risks is harder still. Yet building an international picture is vital, because the sustainability of well-being is undoubtedly a global issue, with risks that require international cooperation if they are to be managed effectively. 

To gain a fuller understanding of risks, we need to start by mapping out what helps to sustain well-being over time. A recent UNECE/ Eurostat/ OECD Task Force for Measuring Sustainable Development identified four key types of resources that can be measured today, and that are likely to help shape the well-being of future generations: economic, natural, human, and social capital.  These resources are described as “capital” because they reflect the assets and liabilities that we carry forwards over time. For many people, capital means things like money and machines – and while these are important, they are certainly not the only resources that matter for well-being. So this notion of “capital” for well-being is very broad, and doesn’t necessarily mean measuring everything in terms of money. We know, for example, that there is often a difference between something’s price tag and its well-being value, and in many cases we are far from being able to estimate the size of that gap accurately.  

Click on image to enlarge

For several types of capital, the measurement effort is well underway. How’s Life? 2013 already includes some information about household wealth, education, levels of trust, and the environment. National accounts include information about economic capital; OECD’s Green Growth indicators and Environmental Outlook to 2050 (among others) describe several important types of natural capital; OECD’s skills surveys, health and labour statistics can help to inform estimates of human capital; and Statistics Directorate have recently set out a measurement agenda for social capital. 

For How’s Life? the next step will be to bring together a concise set of indicators that can capture resource stocks on a human scale, including where possible their evolution over time and their distribution across society. “Trans-boundary impacts” (i.e. the impacts that countries have on one another) and “flow” measures (such as investment, depletion and degradation) will also be important indicators – particularly where these highlight significant risk factors, such as in the case of carbon emissions. Measures also need to reflect the latest evidence on the thresholds or tipping points beyond which stocks of resources might be considered dangerously low or imbalanced. 

Stocks of resources or capital are not the only determinants of well-being over time, but they offer a practical way to examine links between the present and the future: through the accumulation or depletion of resource stocks, the choices made by one generation can influence the opportunities available to the next. It’s important to start measuring the sustainability of well-being alongside current well-being outcomes – the future is, after all, where we’re going to spend the rest of our lives.

- Carrie Exton

How to engineer a “data revolution”? The OECD’s view on post-2015 goals monitoring

This post, written by the OECD’s Charlotte Demuijnck, provides an overview of the OECD’s input on target measurements in the post-2015 development framework and agenda. The OECD paper Strengthening National Statistical Systems to Monitor Global Goals on post-2015 goals monitoring is the fifth thematic paper in a series which outlines the Organisation’s position on the global debate in the lead up to the UN 68th General Assembly which begins on Tuesday, 17 September 2013. This post is part of the Wikiprogress Post-2015 series.

The paper is the fifth in a series of OECD’s contributions to the post-2015 agenda. It proposes steps needed for efficient tracking of the post-2015 development goals. Despite the positive impact the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) process has had on the production and availability of data, as well as on the development of national statistical capacity, the paper highlights the need to agree on a better statistical strategy to overcome the remaining challenges for post-2015 monitoring.

As emphasised in the paper, the MDG process has significantly helped at improving national statistical capacities. Countries have risen to the challenge of delivering high quality, internationally comparable data, mainly using household surveys. As the paper states: “the average number of surveys produced each year in Ethiopia and Ghana almost doubled since 2000”. In addition to domestic funds, development co-operation was a significant driving force in this improvement. Ghana, for example, relies entirely on external support for data production.

However, some issues remain for proper tracking of the post-2015 agenda such as gaps in the data collection and analysis, as well as the exclusion and under-utilisation of national data in the MDG monitoring process. Apart from household surveys, other sources of MDG monitoring have not been sufficiently developed.As a matter of fact, only 6% of Sub-Saharan countries have complete civil registration systems and about 250 million people are missing from existing surveys. According to the authors, inadequate and under-investment in assistance for data production explains the gaps in MDG data. Another issue is that of the exclusion of national data from the global monitoring exercise leading to huge discrepancies between UN-reported data and national estimates. This has become more problematic as Murray*, among others, has questioned the validity of UN estimates and methodologies. The paper explains that the under-use of national data is due to non-compliance with international standards and poor co-ordination. To solve this issue, “better alignment of national and international efforts to strengthen statistical capacity” is recommended. In this regard, prior consultation and nationally-defined indicators should drive the post-2015 monitoring process.

 A quote from the PARIS21 webpage

Acknowledging the call for a “data revolution” by the High Level panel (HLP) of Eminent Persons onthe post-2015 development goals, the paper emphasises the OECD’s expertise and experience in creating a global statistical strategy and partnership. Indeed, the OECD, and more specifically, the Partnership in Statistics for Development in the 21st Century (PARIS21) offers a ready-made structure on  which to found this global statistical strategy. PARIS21 was mandated to act as the Secretariat for the implementation of the Busan Action Plan for Statistics (BAPS) in 2013, a global initiative to support National Strategies for the Development of Statistics (NSDSs). Several recommendations are given to support the “data revolution”. First, the post-2015 statistical strategy should include more data sources such as the use of mobile technology, social media etc. It should also aim at developing national statistical capacity for more reliable and relevant data in the monitoring process. In this regard, the BAPS represents “an explicit and high-level political commitment” to prioritise national statistics development. Finally, the HLP also recommends the creation of a Global Partnership on Development Data for which, according to the paper, “the logical starting point” would be PARIS21 - as the only international initiative for inclusive data co-operation.

For more information on the side event: http://www.paris21.org/node/1593

In conclusion, the post-2015 agenda needs to rely on existing initiatives and framework for an effective “data revolution” and global goals monitoring. To that end, the paper supports the OECD’s position as the Best Supporting Actor in the global development debate, with its highly valuable expertise and experience.  

- Charlotte Demuijnck

*Murray, C.J. (2007), “Towards good practice for health statistics: Lessons from the Millennium Development Goals health indicators,” The Lancet, 3/369, pp. 862-873.