Presentation on theme: "CSPP WELLBEING IN THE COMMUNITY PROFESSOR RICHARD ROSE FBA Centre for the Study of Public Policy EC-Eurofound-EPC Conference Brussels 14 September 2010."— Presentation transcript:
CSPP WELLBEING IN THE COMMUNITY PROFESSOR RICHARD ROSE FBA Centre for the Study of Public Policy EC-Eurofound-EPC Conference Brussels 14 September 2010 A full text of the Report on which this talk is based is available at:
EVALUATION OF PUBLIC SERVICES QUESTION 56. In general, how would you rate the quality of each of the following public services in your country on a scale from 1, very poor quality, to 10, very high quality. Source: European Quality of Life Survey (EQLS) 2007 in 27 member states Mean on 10 point scale (Standard deviation) (2.1)(2.0) (2.2) (2.1) (2.2) 2
PUBLIC SERVICES BY COUNTRY Mean score: 3 Very poor qualityVery high quality Source: EQLS 2007
4 PUBLIC EXPENDITURE BY PUBLIC SERVICES Sources: Quality of public service: EQLS 2007, aggregated mean scores for each of 27 EU member states; Public expenditure as percent of GDP. Correlation: 0.30.
5 NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES QUESTION 54. Please think about the area where you live now – I mean the immediate neighbourhood of your home. Do you have very many reasons, many reasons, a few reasons, or no reason at all to complain about each of the following (4=no reason; 1=very many reasons). (Mean on 4 point scale) Source: EQLS, 2007.
6 EUROPEAN EVALUATION OF ACCESS TO HEALTH SERVICES QUESTION 47. On the last occasion you needed to see a doctor or medical specialist, to what extent did each of the following factors make it difficult for you to do so? Very A little No difficult difficult difficulty Mean (1) (2) (3) (percent) Q47_1 Distance Q47_4 Cost of seeing doctor Q47_2 Hard to get appointment Q47_3 Waiting time to see doctor Source: EQLS 2007.
Trust Political institutionsMost people Denmark7.2 Finland Sweden Netherlands Austria Luxembourg Malta Spain Estonia Ireland Belgium Germany EU France Greece United Kingdom Slovakia Portugal Slovenia Italy Romania NMS Czech Republic Hungary Poland Lithuania Latvia Bulgaria EU POLITICAL TRUST BY COUNTRY 7 Source: EQLS Political trust score is the mean of five items in Q. 27; see Figure 7.1. Cyprus unavailable.
8 TRANSPARENCY AND TRUST Sources: Transparency International 2007 Corruption Perceptions Index (www.transparency.org); EQLS Correlation: 0.85.www.transparency.org
No tension 15% Some 55% A lot 30% No tension 10% Some 58% A lot 32% None 30% Some 58% A lot 12%None 24% Some 58% A lot 18% None 11% Some 49% A lot 40% None 20% Some 49% A lot 31% Poor and rich Management and workers Men and womenOld and young Different racial and ethnic groupsDifferent religious groups 9 TENSIONS BETWEEN SOCIAL GROUPS Source: EQLS 2007, Q25.
Index of: Public services Neigh- bourhood Health access Political trust Low econ tension Low tension religion-race Mean (100=Mean national score for a given index) Denmark Finland Cyprus Sweden Estonia Malta Ireland Latvia Austria Luxembourg Netherlands Spain EU Slovakia Portugal United Kingdom Bulgaria Belgium NMS Germany Romania Lithuania Poland Greece Slovenia France Czech R Italy Hungary EU27 (mean)100 (standard devn.) COUNTRIES WITH PROBLEMS NOT PROBLEM COUNTRIES 10 Source: EQLS 2007; results weighted equally. The computation of a standardized index score involves calculating a coefficient by dividing into 100 the mean of the index for 27 EU countries weighted equally and then multiplying each countrys mean by the coefficient.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS FOR WELLBEING IN THE COMMUNITY REDUCE DEPRIVATION, INADEQUATE INCOMES especially to: Improve access to health Reduce economic tensions IMPROVE NEIGHBOURHOOD SERVICES, ADDRESS MAJORITY VIEWS To reduce racial, religious tensions REDUCE CORRUPTION especially to: Raise political trust Improve neighbourhood services 11