1. Well-being measures and the future of EU Cohesion Policies Perugia, Italy, 29 April 2010 Marco Mira dErcole OECD Statistics Directorate

2. Two part presentation 1.OECD work on measuring well-being and progress 2.Implications for EU regional policies 2

3. 1. OECD work on measuring progress Long tradition: 2001 publication The Well-being of Nations, 2005 report on Alternative Measures of Well-being 2007, OECD launched the Global Project, in partnership with other IGOs and contributed to other initiatives (including Stiglitz Commission) Today: An increasing number of high-level initiatives in individual countries (France, Germany, Japan, Italy, Korea, Slovenia, Spain, the United Kingdom, China) and internationally (G20, EU Communication) One of six OECD priorities in 2011-2012, with substantial work programme in various Directorates 3

4. Well-being Framework SUSTAINABILITY OF WELL-BEING OVER TIME Requires preserving different types of capital: Natural capital Economic capital Human capital Social capital OVERALL HUMAN WELL-BEING Regrettables Material Living Conditions Income and wealth Jobs and earnings Housing Quality of Life Work and life balance Health status Education and skills Social connections Civic Engagement and Governance Environmental Quality Personal Security Subjective well-being GDP 4

5. 1. OECD work on measuring progress Ongoing OECD work under three pillars Methodological research to improve existing statistics and develop new ones where there are gaps, in the three areas of: material well-being (disparities in SNA, standards for household wealth, measures of non-market production of household services) quality of life (guidelines on SWB, social relations, vulnerability) sustainability (human capital, carbon footprint, intangible capital) Disseminating existing well-being statistics in Hows Life? publication Continued dialogue and outreach towards emerging and developing countries and civil society 4 th OECD World Forum, New Delhi, fall 2012 Regional conferences Latin America, Asia, Africa, Europe (2011/ 2012) 5

6. 2. Implications for cohesion policies Better well-being measures is not an end but a mean to better policies and better outcomes: different ways in which this can be achieved The virtuous policy cycle 6

7. 2. Implications for cohesion policies One direct way is through the use of outcome indicators as targets for policies: a systematic and rigorous use of well- defined outcome indicators is a very powerful tool for increasing policy effectiveness (HLG reflecting on Future of Cohesion Policy) Some of the details of the proposal could be controversial: Selection of targets (i.e. not all outcomes indicators are about people, and not all well-being outcomes are amenable to policy interventions) balance between top/down and bottom/up approaches (i.e. outcomes chosen by each region or based on EU priorities, EU2020); requirement of comparability of indicators among the methodological principles (e.g. allocation of funds based on achievement of targets?) But the re-orientation of cohesion policies described by HLG is a radical one (with huge potential for the measuring progress agenda) 7

8. 2. Implications for cohesion policies Two main challenges: Building a statistical infrastructure for regional statistics Better metrics for some of the main factors of cohesion policies 8

9. 2. Implications for cohesion policies Building a statistical infrastructure for regional statistics Most official statistics do not provide regional estimates for key indicators at conventional statistical levels: when the investment is made, the data show huge sub-national differences: INSERT 2INSERT 2 Because of competing priorities (e.g. extending official statistics to other) and tighter NSOs budgets, regionalisation unlikely to happen at the pace needed: HLG suggestion that cohesion policies.. finance move in this direction is a critical one Building a statistical system at sub-national level requires combining different sources (not only surveys, but also administrative data, data-linking, modelling, GIS data): INSERT 3INSERT 3 9

10. OECD average E.g. PISA results for Italian regions 10

11. Share of regional population exposed to air pollution (PM10); average 2001-2006 E.g. use of GIS data to monitor env. conditions 11

12. Better metrics needed for some of the aspects that matter most for cohesion policies HLG emphasis on using available data and on need thatselection and production of indicators should not become too burdensome: legitimate but… Some of the aspects that matter most for cohesion policies are not adequately measured in official statistics (e.g. quality of public services, communities ties, opportunities for political participation) Some of the critical concepts (e.g. income poverty) will require new thinking (e.g. national /regional thresholds? regional PPPs? Income including/excluding in-kind social transfers? ) Local governments have role to play to trigger production of better statistics in these areas; important as not all aspects of a given outcome are supported by indicators; risk of distorting decisions towards what is measured (people rather than places) NSI can not respond alone to the increasing demand of information (ex. Social capital) 2. Implications for cohesion policies 12

13. Conclusions Better statistics for better policies (OECD Statistics Day, October 2010)Better policies for Better Lives (OECD 50 th Anniversary) Good statistics are much cheaper than bad policies Thank you marco.mira@OECD.org 13