Tuesday, 13 August 2013

What is the European Network on Measuring Progress?


This blog is part of the Wikiprogress series on networks. This week the focus is on the e-Frame European Network on Measuring Progress (eFrameNet).

The e-Frame European Network on Measuring Progress (European Network) was launched at the European Conference on Measuring Well-Being and Fostering the Progress of Societies, 26-28 June 2012,  with the objective to contribute to the establishment of a European position on the issues related to methodological and theoretical aspects of new indicators for the measurement of societal progress and well-being ‘beyond GDP’.

The Network aims to increase the visibility of the findings of pertinent projects on progressing beyond GDP and to elevate the debate via the highly global Wikiprogress platform to an international level.  The Network is hosted by the Wikiprogress platform and was set up by the Italian National Institute of Statistics. The European Network on Measuring Progress is an off-shoot of the e-Frame EU FP7 Project.

The European Network's Activities 
The Network’s structure allows members to communicate through the e-Frame website and the Wikiprogress platform in order to connect stakeholders, researchers, organisations, citizens and policymakers in the ongoing debate about what constitutes the most “accurate” measurement of well-being and societal progress.

The position of the European Network on the Wikiprogress platform represents a key strength, driving the European local, national and international debate towards a highly global perspective. The European Network sits alongside the regional Wikiprogress Africa and Wikiprogress Latin America networks and benefits from the synergies created with Global Progress Research Network (GPRNet), Wikichild and Wikigender, contributing to discussion at a regional and subject-specific level.

The European Network forms a community of academics, analysts, opinion leaders and citizens around the subject of measuring well-being who are able to contribute to the definition of “better statistics” produced by the European National Statistics Institutions (EU NSIs). Key members include the EU NSIs, civil society organisations, academia and research centres.

To subscribe to the European Network on Measuring Progress news alert, click here or email us for further information: info@wikiprogress.org.

Wikiprogress Team  

To find out more about the Wikiprogress family of networks see below:

Monday, 12 August 2013

FGM: the Dynamics of Change

This blog, by Wikichild Co-ordinator Melinda Deleuze, is part of the Wikiprogress Series on the Wikiprogress Africa Network. This post provides a summary of the UNICEF report entitled “Female genital mutilation/cutting: a statistical overview and exploration of the dynamics of change.” 

When I first heard of female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C), I was mortified. Upon reading this UNICEF report, I realized that my previous impressions - that this practice it only occurs in small African villages and affects very few women -  were misconceptions. Only now is reliable data on FGM/C available, giving us a clearer picture about the practice, at least for all 29 countries where the practice is concentrated. The report addresses key questions: How many girls and women have undergone FGM/C? Where is the practice most prevalent? How does this concentration vary within countries and across population groups? 

This WHO report defines FGM/C as “all procedures involving partial or total removal of the female external genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons,” and the Organization categorizes the procedure into 4 types. In 2012, the UN General Assembly unanimously passed a resolution that banned FGM/C. Twenty-six countries in Africa and the Middle East have prohibited FGM/C by law; however, the legislation has proven ineffective. The practice remains widespread in 24 countries where FGM/C is illegal. 
There is a social obligation to perform the procedure and the belief that if one does not, then the consequences could include exclusion, criticism, ridicule, stigma or inability to find suitable marriage partners. Relatively few women reported concern over marriage prospects as justification for FGM/C, except in Eritrea and Sierra Leone. The primary benefit cited among men and women was social acceptance and preserving virginity.

In the 29 countries assessed, more than 125 million girls and women alive today have undergone FGM/C, and in the next decade, another 30 million are at risk. There is a large variation in percentages of cut females across the countries. The countries are divided into 5 categories based on their prevalence levels of FGM/C. One in five cut girls live in one country: Egypt.
 
Variation among regions within a country can be striking, as seen in this map of Senegal (right).

The age at which the procedure is carried out varies across countries. In Somalia, Egypt, Chad and the Central African Republic, at least 80% of cut girls were between 5 and 14 years old. In Nigeria, Mali, Eritrea, Ghana and Mauritania, at least 80% of cut girls were younger than 5. Half of cut girls in Kenya were older than 9 when they had the procedure performed.

Initially, opposition towards the practice focused on health risks, which may have unintentionally encouraged medical professionals to carry out the practice. Traditional practitioners and, more specifically, traditional circumcisers usually perform FGM/C. Though, in countries such as Egypt, Sudan and Kenya, many medical personnel now complete the procedure. In Egypt, for example, 77% of procedures were carried out mostly by doctors, and around half of those procedures were performed at the girl’s home.

Ethnicity still plays a strong role in some countries, as it may be a proxy for shared norms and values. Also, the practice remains to be a physical marker of insider/outsider status. This graph below shows the degree of variability in FGM/C prevalence among ethnic lines by contrasting ethnic groups with the highest and lowest prevalence in countries.

Regarding religion, the practice is most prevalent among Muslim girls and women; however, it is also found among Catholic and other Christian communities. In Niger, for example, 55% of Christian girls and women have undergone FGM/C, compared to 2% of Muslim girls and women.

There is also a rural-urban divide, an income divide, and an education divide. In Kenya, for example, the percentage of girls in rural areas was four times that of those in urban areas. In most instances, daughters of wealthier families were less likely to be cut. In terms of education, the prevalence of FGM/C was highest among daughters of women with no education, and tends to diminish considerably as the mother’s educational level rises. The reason given for these trends is due to the fact that those in urban areas, in wealthier households, or with a higher educational level are more likely to interact with individuals and groups that do not practice FGM/C, shifting normative expectations around FGM/C as a result.

Support for the continuation of FGM/C varies across countries. In most countries (19 out of 29), a majority of girls and women think the practice should end (see graph below). Nevertheless, more than half the female population in Mali, Guinea, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Gambia and Egypt think FGM/C should continue. More men than women favored stopping the practice, especially in Guinea, Sierra Leone and Chad. When fathers were included in the decision-making, their daughters were less likely to be cut. 

FGM/C remains a complicated issue, and this report does not give the whole picture; FGM/C is being performed outside these 29 countries, including  in Europe and North America. The fight against FGM/C has just begun. Stronger efforts will be essential in order to transform the cultural traditions and expectations ingrained in these societies. 

Fortunately, this report gives us a better understanding of FGM/C and, more importantly, an evidence base to begin measuring progress in this area. We know there have already been steps forward in terms of awareness, decreased health risks and legislative bans, but now we can track progress inside countries regarding specific population groups, procedures and attitudes. Hopefully, this evidence base will help us be more effective in promptly eliminating the practice.

- Melinda Deleuze

*This week's Wikiprogress spotlight is on the e-Frame Net (European Network on Measuring Progress).  

Saturday, 10 August 2013

Week in Review


This Week in Review will provide an overview of what has been trending across the Wikiprogress Networks, with findings from the ONS well-being data saying the UK is a little happier and an interesting interactive visualisation tool used by a campaign against US inequality. Our focus on the Wikiprogress Africa Network this week brings us a blog on the African Diasporas role in post-2015, a report looking at MDG progress against donor spending and a touching video and an insightful UNICEF report on Female Genital Mutilation (FGM).


People in the UK are reporting higher levels of life satisfaction, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS) UK bulletin that presents annual findings for personal well-being in the UK for April 2012 to March 2013.

See also the Chicago Tribune article “Do official measures of happiness take all relevant factors into account?


This interactive visualisation tool by the Economic Policy Institute is worth exploring. The site essentially explain the fact that the United States has become increasingly unequal in terms of income, wages, wealth and opportunity has hit the mainstream and public demands for economic fairness have gone viral. 


Growth alone is not enough. The MDGs alone are not enough. Africa needs sustainable, inclusive development and in this, the diaspora could be key. This is a blog by Onyekachi Wambu, Director of Policy and Engagement at the African Foundation for Development (AFFORD).



In order to achieve the Millennium Development Goal targets on time, this 2013 DATA Report b the NGO ONE examines the recent progress of individual countries against eight MDGs targets, with a focus on Sub-Saharan Africa, and compares this progress against African government and donor spending in three key poverty-reducing sectors: health, education and agriculture. 


Video: Blood on the leaves: Ending FGM/C in Côte d'Ivoire





Female genital mutilation/cutting: a statistical overview and exploration of the dynamics of change

This report by UNECEF is a comprehensive statistical overview of female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C) in the 29 countries where the practice is concentrated, drawing on data from more than 70 nationally representative surveys over a 20-year period. It examines differentials in prevalence according to social, economic, demographic and other characteristics. The purpose of the report is to generate an in-depth understanding of FGM/C that can be applied to the development of policies and programmes, with the ultimate aim of eliminating the practice.



Wikiprogress Team

Thursday, 8 August 2013

What can OECD's PISA bring to global education post-2015?


This post by Charlotte Demuijnck, provides an overview of the OECD’s input on education in the post-2015 development framework and agenda. The OECD post-2015 paper on education is the first thematic paper in a series which outlines the Organisation’s position on the global debate in the lead up to the UN General Assembly in September 2013. This blog is part of the Wikiprogress series on education.*

The OECD’s contribution on education to the post-2015 framework: PISA for development is the second in a series of contributions to the post-2015 agenda. This paper provides a brief overview of progress to date with the education-related MDGs and looks forward to what global education goals could look like beyond 2015.

Building on the success of the universal access in primary schooling since the establishment of the MDGs, the emerging consensus of the international community on the post-2015 agenda is that education-related goals and targets should remain included in the post-2015 framework. As a matter of fact, the UN High Level Panel report released in May 2013 advises that one of the next universal goals be “Provide Quality Education and Lifelong Learning”. In this regard, the paper on education reflects the Organisation’s converging views towards this consensus. In fact, the OECD’s true contribution to the debate lies in its innovative and efficient approach to forming future education goals, which are both qualitative and measurable.

As emphasised in the Education paper, “experience since 2000 has underlined that schooling doesn’t necessarily produce learning” (p. 1). Although important progress has been made towards the education-related MDGs, challenges remain strong. The paper gives two directions for the post-2015 agenda: the new development agenda should focus on the quality of learning and should shift focus from primary to secondary education. However, such perspective requires dealing with issues of regional inequalities and statistical capacities at the national level, problems which were not sufficiently tackled in the pre-2015 framework. To that effect, the OECD expertise and policy instruments constitute a substantial input.

Particularly relevant is the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), which started in 2000 and is based on a qualitative and causal approach to education outcomes. As intelligibly detailed in the paper, PISA addresses both “cognitive and non-cognitive learning outcomes”. As such, it provides “the most comprehensive and rigorous international assessment of learning outcomes in education” through the testing of 500 million 15 year-old students from both developed and developing countries. As a matter of fact, more and more developing countries like China or India “have expressed an interest [in PISA], following the successful participation of a large number of middle-income countries in previous PISA cycles” (p. 3).



As explained in the paper, “PISA for development” translates the ways in which PISA could become a performing tool in defining realistic and achievable goals in the post-2015 agenda. Based on lessons from PISA, “PISA for development” will help define “how to measure learning, the likely pace of progress towards achieving  a learning goal,” as well as how to avoid setting over-ambitious learning goals  and targets.

More importantly, PISA for development has concrete benefits for the post-2015 education-related goals and targets: as a single world reference, this OECD policy instrument is a comparable, credible and robust measure of progress for educational quality and equity at the global level. Precisely, PISA for development can help identify the world’s top performing and most equitable education systems. It offers developing countries insights for personalised reforms and is a driver for improved instutions and capacity building.

All in all, this paper reflects the OECD’s pioneered position in the education field and the ways in which the Organisation can bring cutting edge ideas and efficient policy instruments to support more equitable and higher levels of learning in the world. Throughout the paper, the reader can see the OECD’s firm commitment to contribute to the global debate on future education and the ways it intends to do so. 

Charlotte Demuijnck

*Education and Skills will be the Wikiprogress focus in September 2013. If you would like to contribute a blog or an article on education, please contact info@wikiprogress.org

Tuesday, 6 August 2013

Good news, we're slightly happier.But why?

This post was written by Mark Williamson, Director of Action for Happiness* . This blog is  part of the Wikiprogress Series on Subjective Well-being. 



How satisfied are you with your life? It's a question we've probably all pondered at times. But for the last two years it's also been one of a handful of new "subjective wellbeing" questions which the Office for National Statistics has been asking people all over the UK.
You may be surprised to learn that the UK is now leading the way in terms of officially measuring the wellbeing of its citizens. We're at the forefront of a growing global movement where people are recognising that there's more to a good society than just economic growth - and that we need measures of progress which reflect the quality of life as people actually experience it.

On the 30th of July we saw something rather remarkable on two counts. Firstly, the publication of the very first official year-on-year comparisons of UK wellbeing, a landmark moment in this new era of measuring what matters. And secondly, we had the unexpected news that, as a nation, we've actually become happier and less anxious over the last 12 months. Not hugely happier, but a statistically significant step in the right direction nonetheless.

The proportion of people giving a high life satisfaction score (7 or more out of 10) rose from 75.9% in 2012 to 77% in 2013. And the proportion of people giving a low (i.e. positive) score for "feeling anxious" (3 or less out of 10) rose from 60.1% to 61.5%. That sounds promising, but how has this improvement in average wellbeing been distributed across the population? Well, the ONS hasn't yet provided a regional breakdown, but it does appear that the people with the lowest wellbeing have seen some of the benefit. For example, the proportion of people with a very low life satisfaction score has fallen from 6.6% to 5.8% and the proportion with a very high (i.e. negative) score for "feeling anxious" has fallen from 21.8% to 20.9%. Encouragingly, it's not just a case of the fairly happy folks getting even happier.
So what's going on here? Is this an "Olympics bounce", a reflection of a slightly improving economic outlook or something else? In a separate recent analysis, the ONS explored the factors that most affect our personal wellbeing and identified three that appear to make the biggest difference. The first is whether we perceive our health to be good. The second is our employment status, with unemployment clearly being very detrimental to wellbeing. And the third is our marital status, with people who are married or in civil partnerships being happier than those who aren't. Of these, the most likely contributor to recent improvements in national wellbeing is the slight reduction in unemployment over the last year, which is clearly welcome, although levels remain worryingly high.

But I believe the ONS analysis is missing some vitally important contributors to wellbeing. Research suggests that the external circumstances of our lives generally have a smaller impact on our happiness than our attitudes and actions. And at Action for Happiness, our review of the latest evidence has identified ten areas where actions we take as individuals tend to increase our wellbeing. We call these the Ten Keys to Happier Living. They include having positive relationships and strong social connections, giving to others, being mindful, staying physically active, taking a resilient approach to adversity, pursuing life goals and being part of something bigger than ourselves. These are the real drivers of wellbeing just as much as having a job, good health or being married.

The ONS identified the Jubilee celebrations and Olympics as factors that may have contributed to our boost in wellbeing since last year. I suspect this may indeed be true. But if so, this is not thanks to our love of the Royal Family or our outstanding sporting success. It's because these events encouraged actions which helped us to connect in our communities, to share enjoyable times together and to feel part of something bigger. Although these once-in-a-lifetime events won't be repeated any time soon, there's still so much more we can do to create and maintain those community connections and that positive and outward-looking spirit.
Finally, the ONS has also uncovered some rather startling findings regarding people's levels of anxiety. Some of the most anxious people are those who, you might imagine, have least to worry about. For example, people in higher professional occupations report more anxiety than those in lower supervisory and technical occupations. People with the highest levels of education are more anxious than people with lower educational attainment. And most surprisingly, people who live in the least deprived areas actually report higher levels of anxiety than those who live in the most deprived areas. This is a timely reminder that anxiety, and indeed depression, are classless and affect people from all walks of life. Many of those we hold up as role models and paragons of success are actually trapped in busy and stressful lives where they feel under constant pressure and unhappy. As Arianna Huffington says, it's time for us to redefine what we mean by success.

So this move towards measuring wellbeing should be warmly welcomed. It's a call for governments to place a greater focus on the things that affect people's quality of life - and nothing could be more important. But it's also a reminder for each of us that real success and happiness come from a balanced life, with time to connect with the people around us and to focus on the things that matter.
Mark Williamson is Director of Action for Happiness.
This article was first posted on the Action for Happiness website, here

*Action for Happiness is a movement of people taking action in their personal lives, homes, workplaces and communities - to help create a happier society. The movement has tens of thousands of members from a wide range of backgrounds including community leaders, parents, teachers, business leaders, students, policy makers, researchers, health experts and more. Action for Happiness provides information, inspiration and resources to help its members make a difference, all based on the latest empirical scientific evidence relating to happiness, wellbeing and resilience. 

Thursday, 1 August 2013

Service Delivery Indicators Initiative: Monitoring Health and Education performances in Africa

This blog, written by Ousmane Aly Diallo, is part of the Wikiprogress focus on its Africa Network*.

After pilot tests in Tanzania and Senegal in 2010, the World Bank in partnership with the Kenya Institute for Public Policy Research andAnalysis (KIPPRA) launched the Kenyan Service Delivery Initiative (SDI) on 12 July  2013. The initiative aims to assess the performance of Kenya in the domains of education and health and more importantly to determine if what is spent on these domains is reflected in human development outcomes.

Better monitoring of policies with reliable data
For some time now, the lack of reliable data and statistical capacity has been a problem in accurately establishing the progress in well-being as well as the impact of government policies in many African countries (read more). It has also been a priority for international organizations (See the Paris21’s NSDS Initiative as an example of strenghtening statistical capacity in developing countries). The SDI is meant to help governments determine what is working in their national education and health systems, where readjustments are needed and what has to be re-thought completely.

Basically, the SDI gives surveys to health and education providers in the host countries. Three main variables are present in theses questionnaires:
  • education and Health Provider’s Abilities (What do they know?);
  • their effort (What do they do?); and
  •  the Availability of Inputs (What do they have to work with?). 
In Kenya, around 5,000 health practitioners and the education staff in 600 facilities were surveyed for the first SDI (here). The results show that public and private school teachers have the same likelihood of working, but those in the public sector are 50% less likely to be in a classroom teaching students. This is mainly due to the public school system having 20 days of teaching fewer per term. Also, only 35% of teachers showed a mastery of their subjects. When campaigning for basic education and attaining the parity between girls/boys in primary school, the low level of teachers' mastery is disappointing. Reinforcing the skills and mastery of teachers thus appears as important of an element as is children attending school.


In the health sector, over 29% of health providers were absent, and 80% of those absences were reported and sanctioned. Furthermore, only 58% of public health providers could diagnose 4 out of 5 common conditions such as diarrhea with dehydration or malaria with anemia. Additionally, the health providers used  less than half of the correct treatment actions to manage maternal and neonatal complications, and key drug availability for mothers remains a challenge (here). The latter result is particularly revelatory, since maternal health is one of the main health concerns in Africa. Therefore, knowing where the system fails is a step towards overcoming the barriers towards improvement.

Being able to have this level of data is one of the SDI's main points since it gives a snapshot of what is not working and where the focus should be placed.

Assessing the synergy between well-being and expenditures.
“We cannot manage what we cannot measure. We count what we value”. The initial reason for the deployment of the SDI can be traced back to this phrase. Although a substantial part of their budget is spent on education and health, the expenditures have not kept pace with the population's needs in most African countries. The World Bank estimates that developing country governments allocate, on average, a third of their budgets to education and health (read more). In a context of economic downturn and growing demand for transparency, assessing what teachers and help practitioners do in an average workday how well they are equipped and how they can be helped is a step towards higher societal well-being. Schools and health facilities are, more often than not, ill-equipped in terms of their infrastructure (particularly in rural areas) and competences. Additionally, in the fields of education and health “(…) if one considers the level of public funds invested in the process, then the glass becomes half-empty in the sense that a great deal of resources have been wasted in pushing reforms beyond what the existing capacity can command” (See here page 9).

The SDI is meant to help capture what is the cause of this discrepancy, determine how health practitioners and education providers are performing and establish corrective actions if need be.

Service Delivery Indicators and Open Data
One of the main contributions of the SDI is the provision of accurate data regarding the quality of education and health services to both decision-makers and citizens. Furthermore, since it is an Africa-wide initiative, it will help improve the quality of these services through comparisons and taking advantage of what has been done in high-delivery countries. The standardization of the indicators allows comparisons between states and sub-national entities. Sub-national regions with poor education and health infrastructure stand a better chance of seeing the quality of services being improved with the SDI Initiative.

Since the surveys are meant to be redone on a biennial basis, progress in this domain can be easily witnessed and monitored.


Transparency of public expenditures and accountability of governments to their citizens are likely to be two of the externalities of this initiative. The African Development Bank recently launched its Open Data Platform for Africa, which gives useful data on well-being and development issues for the 54 African countries, while giving flexibility and leverage to the user. These two initiatives give a better view of what needs to be done by  the policymakers and the citizens, as well as by the NGOs and international organizations. What matters to citizens and how to foster their well-being will be even more evident with this initiative.

Ousmane Aly Diallo

*Wikiprogress Africa Network aims, to provide a platform for knowledge sharing on measuring progress in an Africa context.