How to help the world's youth

This post is by Nicole Goldin, director for Youth, Prosperity, and Security Initiative with the Project on Prosperity and Development at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and director of the Global Youth Wellbeing Index project in partnership with the International Youth Foundation. This blog has been posted as part of the Wikiprogress discussion on "Youth well-being: measuring what matters!". 

Brimming with talent and ideas, today’s youth – the largest and most connected generation in human history – are creating a new global reality, and charting an unprecedented course for themselves and their communities. They are defending democracy, promoting peace,  and with an enterprising spirit, desperately wanting  the opportunity to work hard, build a sustainable livelihood and live up to their potential.  Today’s young people are an inspired generation, poised to drive global prosperity and security not only for themselves and their families today, but their communities and nations for generations to come.

But we know demography is not destiny.  Their fate may be challenged.  The promise in youth is often overshadowed – and in some cases undermined – by absent or ineffective policies, weak systems, poor infrastructure, unsatisfactory education and training, or inadequate investments and avenues of participation that limit the opportunities youth deserve and the world demands.

Fundamentally, however, young people’s needs and aspirations have too often gone largely unnoticed or unheard.  Why? One reason is that we simply don’t have a strong enough understanding of how they are doing or feeling.

Video

To help shed light on how young people are faring around the world, and in turn increase youth-centered policy dialogue and investments, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) and the International Youth Foundation (IYF), with principal support form Hilton Worldwide, have today launched the inaugural Global Youth Wellbeing Index in hopes of facilitating thought and action by, with, and in the interests of today’s youth.

The index measures youth wellbeing based on 40 indicators comprising six interconnected domains in 30 countries, covering 70 percent of the world’s young people. And there were some striking lessons [findings?]:

– A large majority of the world’s young people are experiencing lower levels of wellbeing – 85 percent of the youth represented in our Index live in countries with below average scores overall.

– Even where young people are doing relatively well, they still face specific challenges and limitations. Spanish youth, for example, face economic exclusion, while Saudi young people grapple with safety and security.

– Though young people may not be thriving overall, they display success in certain areas. Colombian and Ugandan youth, for example, top the ranks in terms of citizen participation.

– Across countries, average scores indicate young people faring best in health, weakest in economic opportunity, and with the most variance in information and communications technology.

There are roughly 1.8 billion young people on the planet, living for the most part in emerging and developing economies and fragile states.  Yet these global youth are not a monolithic group, and face cultural, geographic, economic, and political constraints and opportunities.

While we anticipate young people, policy makers, donors and investors will largely respond within their immediate communities and countries, we hope this index will also help stimulate discussion about the global economic, social and political agenda (including the Post 2015 development framework) for young people, allowing for recommendations that can be acted upon both globally and locally – anywhere and everywhere.

So where should action start? The index also highlights the need to elevate and better connect and coordinate policies and investments concerning young people, and for closer attention to youth satisfaction and aspirations, increasing youth participation and elevating youth voices by highlighting the opinions and outlook of young people themselves.

Of course, providing sufficient opportunities, addressing needs, meeting aspirations and supporting success among millions of youth is a real challenge – especially for still cash-strapped governments still trying to steer their economies back toward sustainable growth. But the potential payoff is huge – not least economically.  Now is the time to invest in strategic policies, partnerships and programs that engage and equip youth to be productive and realize their ambitions.

If this transformative generation can be given the tools it needs to thrive, then we will all be the better off for it.

Nicole Goldin

Twitter @nicolegoldin and @csis

This blog was first posted on CNN, here. 

Join the discussion on "Youth well-being: measuring what matters!", click here. 

Europe’s social polarisation and the generational struggle

This post, written by Bruegel's Olga Tschekassin, discusses the latest results on Europe's poverty rates, unemployment rates and income inequalities. The post is a part of the Wikiprogress Series on Jobs and Earnings.

According to the latest Eurobarometer survey on the social impact of the crisis, 80% of respondents believe that poverty has increased in their country over the past 12 months. Over 30% of respondents in Greece, Latvia, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary reported that their household ran out of money to pay for ordinary bills, food and other daily consumer items at some point during the previous 12 months. These alarming numbers are reflecting the perception of European citizens. But what do indicators measuring different dimensions of poverty and inequality actually show?

The best publically available indicator to assess poverty is the ”Severe Material Deprivation Rate” (SMDR). It is an absolute measure of poverty and represents the proportion of people who cannot afford at least four out of nine basic needs, like utilities, regular hot meals or heating to keep the home adequately warm. As you can see in the interactive map below, there is a strong dispersion across Europe. While Bulgaria has the highest rate (44.1%), in Luxembourg only 1.3% of people are severely affected by a lack of resources. The average rate in EU27 countries increased from 9% percent in 2007 to 9.9% in 2012. Even though this increase does not seem to be as dramatic as the survey implies, it is worth highlighting that a share of almost 10% is unacceptable and against the objective of promoting the well-being of EU citizens.

(To view an interactive version of this map, see the original post here.)
 

There were opposite developments for young and old people in the EU: the SMDR stood at 11.7% for those under 18 at the end of 2012, while the rate for the elderly (over 65) reached 7.5%. The evolution of these rates since 2007 is divergent: Between 2007 and 2012, in 20 out of 28 EU countries the elderly SMDR declined on average by 4.5 percentage points (pp). At the same time, however, in 16 out of 28 countries the children SMDR has increased on average by 4.4 pp. Therefore, a generational divide is emerging: while the fall in severely materially deprived elderly people is a welcomed development, the adverse development for children is worrying.

Looking at the unemployment rate, we observe an increase in all EU countries in the period 2007–2012 with the exception of Germany, while the rate remained practically unchanged in Austria, Malta, Finland and Poland. The EU28 average unemployment rate stood at 7.2 % of active population in 2007. By the third quarter of 2013, this rate had increased to 10.9%. The countries with the lowest unemployment rates are Austria, Germany and Luxembourg, as opposed to Greece, Spain, Croatia, Cyprus and Portugal, where the rate is very high. Overall we note that there was an increase in the South-North divide in terms of unemployment, which has reached unacceptably high levels in several south European countries and leads to more polarisation across Europe.

Directly related to this indicator is the share of people living in jobless households, which has increased significantly throughout the crisis. The situation is especially alarming in Ireland, where every fifth child lived in 2012 in a household where no one worked. The share of such children was also higher than 15 % in Bulgaria, the UK and Hungary. Besides, the share of young people not in employment and not in any education and training (NEET) more than doubled in seven countries. The reality for young people aged between 15 and 24 years is worst in Greece, Spain and Croatia.

Using the Gini coefficient as an indicator for inequality, we observe the highest levels of inequality in 2012 in Latvia, Spain, Greece and Portugal, while the lowest rates are reported in Slovenia, Czech Republic and Sweden. As Zsolt Darvas and Guntram Wolff outline in their Policy Brief published on the 1st of April 2014, inequality in most advanced economies has been rising since about 1980 and could have been a reason for the pre-crisis increase in household debt and the consequent consumption squeeze during the crisis.

Therefore, developments of various social indicators show a gloomy picture. Social pain has already undermined the citizens’ trust in the EU and their own governments. This could devitalize the acceptability of painful structural reforms and fiscal consolidation measures and, in turn, diminish the reform momentum or even lead to political instability.

- Olga Tschekassin

This blog first appeared here at Bruegel.org on 1 April, 2014.
 

See Also:

European Network on Measuring Progress

Quality of life in Europe: Subjective well-being

Progress Initiatives in Europe

The European Centre for Social Welfare Policy and Research

 

The Well-being of Youth around the Globe

The blog, by Wikichild co-ordinator Melinda Deleuze, is about the new Global Youth Wellbeing Index which measures how youth are doing under 6 domains in 30 countries with hopes of ultimately improving the outcomes for young people around the world. This post is a part of the Wikiprogress Series on Child Well-being.

This week, the International Youth Foundation (IYF) and the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) launched their "Global Youth Wellbeing Index", with support from Hilton Worldwide. This Index was designed to promote attention to youth issues, to encourage dialogue about the issues, and to invest in young people, given that they are the catalysts for development, prosperity and security. The Index is intended for youth themselves, policymakers, donors and investors, and implementers.

The report on the 2014 results explains some of the situational landscapes in which youth today are living, both negative (i.a. unemployment; poverty; gender inequality) and positive (i.a. education returns; HIV declines; technological know-how). In order to create a clearer picture of what is happening with nearly 70% of the youth (aged 10-24) around the world, the Index uses 40 indicators and provides results for 30 countries.

These indicators are divided into 6 domains (citizen participation; economic opportunity; education; health; information and communications technology; safety and security), with 5-9 indicators per domain. Also, to provide a piece of subjective well-being among youth, the Index integrates 1-2 subjective youth outlook and satisfaction indicators (e.g. perceived stress levels among youth) into each domain.

The main findings highlighted in the report are:

• A large majority of the world’s youth are experiencing lower levels of well-being (15% experience high or upper-middle well-being, 85% experience lower-middle or low well-being.)
• Even where young people are doing relatively well, they still face specific challenges and limitations
• Even where youth may not be thriving, they display success in certain areas
• How young people feel about their own wellbeing does not always align with what the objective data suggests
• Across countries, domain average scores indicate youth faring strongest in health and weakest in economic opportunity 
• Overall, youth well-being trends correlate more strongly with countries’ income levels than with their regions. Young people in wealthier countries tend to have higher overall well-being (see below).  
  

Global Youth Wellbeing Index Rankings by World Bank Income Classification

The report provides recommendations and next steps:

• Advance youth voices and participation 
• Promote deeper-dive and targeted research and analysis 
• Consider integrated policies and programs
• Advance the body of age-disaggregated and youth survey data

There are limitations to the Index, such as incomplete, inconsistent and uncoordinated data. The picture of youth also too broad, as the data is not disaggregated by gender, region, rural/urban, disability, religion, socio-economic status, etc.. However, the authors believe that by identifying the relevant data gaps, the Index can also assist the post-2015 development agenda.

The first steps can be difficult, but luckily those involved are aware of the challenges ahead and are willing to take this Index deeper and farther in the coming years. I look forward to seeing what the Global Youth Wellbeing Index will teach us in the coming years.  

- Melinda Deleuze

Wikichild Co-ordinator 

See Also

The Good Childhood Index
The Child and Youth Well-being Index
UNICEF Child-Wellbeing measure
Child Development Index
Early Development Index
Holistic Early Childhood Development Index

How should we measure quality of life in urban centres?

This blog, written by David Satterthwaite with the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), discusses what indicators are needed in order to assess the quality of life of the urban poor. The post is part of the Wikiprogress series on the quality of life.

Mexico City

 

Almost 1 billion people currently live in slums, and this number is expected to grow by nearly 500 million by 2020 - if we're to ensure that no one is left behind in the future development agenda, we need to determine whether progress is really reaching these marginalised groups. And for that, we need appropriate indicators and data.

 

 

Rather than reviewing the appropriateness of existing indicators on urban quality of life, this blog begins by considering what indicators are needed. This allows an assessment of existing or proposed indicators for their appropriateness and shows the huge inadequacies in the indicators currently used.

These indicators can be divided into those relating to living conditions (who 'lives in poverty'), access to public services and income and assets. They could include indicators relating to possibilities for citizen and community engagement – a voice for the urban poor, for example that includes whether they can get on the voter register or access public services and the possibilities of getting appropriate responses from government agencies.

Living conditions among urban populations

These should include sufficient indoor space per person, housing constructed with permanent building materials, and a secure site that does not pose any risk (so not on a site at high risk of flooding or under threat of eviction). They should also include safe and regular supplies of drinking water piped to the home, and a good-quality toilet in the home that all residents can use.

Data on each of these indicators should be available for each dwelling unit. The current indicators fail to show us which dwelling units have these conditions. Furthermore, the data is from national sample surveys, with the sample sizes too small to give a clear indication as to where living conditions are poor.

So for example, the Demographic and Health Surveys or Living Standards Measurement Studies may tell a government that X per cent of their urban population lack safe drinking water piped to their dwellings, but they fail to identify the deficient urban centres, let alone pinpoint where the individual dwellings are.

The data collected at the moment is also inadequate in itself. The definitions of what constitutes ‘improved’ water and sanitation are so broad that they include forms of provision that are grossly inadequate for most urban contexts. Even when there is data on water supply, it does not include details of the cost, quality or regularity of supply of that water.

Urban dwellers’ access to public services

Every urban household needs a solid-waste collection service, and a regular toilet-emptying service if not connected to sewers. Urban dwellers need access to good-quality healthcare and emergency services, schools (and day-care provision), public transport, and policing in their settlements to ensure the rule of law. They also need to be able to vote and hold local politicians to account.

At best, data for these indicators is only available from national sample surveys, so once again it’s of no use in identifying where needs are located. In fact there is no data at all for many of these. One surprising fact revealed in studies of informal settlements is that there are often private schools because the inhabitants cannot get their children into government schools without a legal address. Toilet and washing facilities are also often provided by private companies, and these services have to be paid for.

Income, assets and the poverty line

Indicators relating to whether individuals or households have sufficient income to meet their needs are particularly valuable in urban contexts because most aspects of good living conditions have to be paid for. But the monetary poverty line (the minimum income required to meet needs) must be set to reflect local costs.

The costs of food and non-food needs vary a lot within nations; usually they are highest in larger and more successful cities (especially rent for housing). They also rise where provision for water, sanitation, schools and healthcare is inadequate and people have to pay private enterprises for these services.

So poverty lines need to be adjusted to reflect differences in costs within nations – and we must avoid the application of the same monetary poverty line across a nation. The large variation in costs within nations is already recognised by the United Nations when setting the daily allowances for their own officials; yet this variation is not applied to poverty lines.

The worst offender is the US$1.25 a day poverty line: in many nations this figure bears no relation to the costs of needs (including adequate living conditions) and includes no adjustment for where such costs are particularly high.

The need for local data on urban poverty

Measuring urban quality of life has to be about better measurement in each locality, not more questions in national sample surveys. This needs to be linked to the institutions with responsibilities for addressing needs – mostly local governments and civil-society organisations.

It is also about better use of census data so local authorities can see where the deprivations are located. The collection of data should engage the urban poor themselves; this becomes easier and far more productive where there are representative organisations formed by those living in informal settlements or slums (now the case in over 30 nations).

Engaging with the women-led savings groups at the foundation of most of these federations will produce far more accurate data about living conditions, therefore about what is needed and what it costs. And there are some amazing examples of data on living conditions in informal settlements done by the inhabitants themselves.

Unfortunately, most of what is suggested above does not generally figure in discussions on measuring urban poverty. Debates over how to measure poverty in a post-2015 framework typically fail to acknowledge how the income required to avoid poverty varies within nations and how high that income requirement usually is for those living in informal settlements in cities; nor do they mention the need for official statistics to support local action and actors. If these key necessities were recognised, it really would promote a revolution in national statistical offices.

There is no discussion of the role of urban-poor groups themselves as data-gatherers and users, or as people with the right to question ‘expert’ judgements made about their needs. And there is no mention of the fact that the $1.25 a day poverty line is hugely inappropriate even for measuring ‘extreme’ poverty because of the size of the urban population with a higher income than this figure yet still living in extreme poverty.

 

 

- David Satterthwaite

This blog appeared first in early January as part of the ODI series on "Measuring progress in the quality of life of the urban poor: are indicators and data fit for purpose?".

See also 

Quality of life in Europe: Subjective well-being

Quality of Life in Urban Neighborhoods in Costa Rica

Quality of Life in Urban Neighborhoods in Metropolitan Lima, Peru

Online discussion "Calidad de Vida Urbana"

 

 

Trust in Government: Causes, consequences and solutions

This blog post on trust in governments is a compilation of presentations given at the OECD Workshop entitled "Joint Learning for an OECD Trust Strategy", held on 14 October 2013. The post, composed by Melinda Deleuze, is part of Wikiprogress' December spotlight on governance.

During the workshop, a variety of topics were discussed regarding trust in governments. Some common themes were why measuring trust is important, how to measure trust, the reflection of trust in governments on quality of governments, the crisis' impact on trust and reasons for lack of trust.

To give some highlights:

• Trust in government is intermingled with many other areas, namely:
• policy effectiveness
• economic policy
• the economy
• the economic crisis
• compliance
• accountability
• regulation
• education
• social capital

• After the crisis, in Iceland, trust in institutions remained relatively high, trust in politicians very low, and voter turnout relatively high.
• To strengthen the quality of government, there should be:
• free universal education
• universal social services/insurance systems
• fairness (impartiality) in the implementation of public policies
• merit-based recruitment and promotion to the civil service
• gender equality

•  Unemployment has a strong, negative effect on trust in public institutions. 

In the presentation below, Yann Algan discusses the relationships between institutions, inequality/segmentation and trust. He also examines how to identify impact of policy on trust.

In the presentation below, Tracy Burns discusses trends in governance and education, satisfaction with the education system, accountability, and positive outcomes possible with educated adults.

 

In the presentation below,  Diane Coyle discusses how trust affects the economy and the challenges faced.

In the presentation below, Dóra Györffy discusses trust in-depth including its relationship with decision-making, economic policy, popularity of government and its influence on the crisis.

In the presentation below, Pall Thorhallsson discusses the pre-crash situation, the nature of the 2008 crash, and the crash's impact on trust. He also mentions reasons for the lacking trust.

 

In the presentation below, Marco Mira d’Ercole discusses the interest and importance of trust, how trust should be measured and trust's broader relationship with the quality of democratic institutions.

 

In the presentation below, Felix Roth discusses the consequences of citizens declining trust and the driving factors of declining trust in Europe. He also provides an econometric analysis of trust and unemployment.

In the presentation below,  Bo Rothstein discusses how to capture the quality of government and its impact on social trust. He also provides suggestions for what can be done to strengthen quality of government.

In the presentation below, Frédérique Six discusses effective regulation, the trust triangle, compliance and a trust regime.

In the presentation below,  Mario Solis-Garcia discusses why trust matters and uses a simple economic model to see how government trust influences environment, government, households and timing.