1. Constructing indicators of progress/well-being with citizens/communities Dr Jonathan POTTER OECD Local Economic and Employment Development Programme

2. What is an indicator of progress? Key considerations: Defining progress Agency – deciding who to interact with Distinguishing progress monitoring and assessment of results of actions to influence progress Models of progress Objective v. subjective indicators Mixing top-down and bottom-up information Benchmarking

3. Defining progress People’s views vary –relative importance of trust, safety, distribution of income –‘right’ level of trust, safety, income distribution –whether progress means participative democracy, high cohesion, collective provision –or representative democracy, high incentives, private provision If we are seeking empowerment, should let local people decide their own objectives and how to get there Suggests a decentralised approach – handbook on how to collect and use but not a prescription of indicators to use

4. Agency – who to interact with Most citizens do not have the time or inclination to engage more than superficially Danger of capture by elites and interest groups Process of strategy design and delivery delegated to local agencies Suggests designing a handbook to be used principally by local agencies – local governments, development agencies, NGOs

5. Monitoring v. action assessment Two levels of progress indicator 1.Monitoring: What is the situation, what is changing –Indicates where may need to intervene to improve 2.Assessment: What are the results of actions taken to achieve progress –Indicates whether actions are working as intended Difficult to use monitoring for assessment of actions Suggests choice to be made on focus of the Handbook, monitoring only or monitoring and assessment?

6. Models of progress Need some conceptual framework or theory of change These ‘models’ are likely to vary by locality or agency FIELD approach... Suggests including indicators on influences of policy actions on drivers of progress and on the enablers of progress

7. -Economy -Labour -Population -Social cohesion DRIVERS OF PERFORMANCE -Education, skills - Entrepreneurship and business development -Infrastructure, ICT - Innovation Advice and finance for new enterprises Innovation grants -Etc Training Job matching - Etc ENABLERS (Institutional and social capacities) -Leadership -Social capital -Partnerships -Resources and assets -Powers and legal options LEGACY (History) - - Labour market - - Population - - Industry - - Growth - - Location OUTPUT TRENDS IN LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PERFORMANCE 2 1 4 3 5 POLICY ACTIONS ON DRIVERS Business incubators Support for higher education - - - Effective labour market functioning - - Etc

8. Objective v. subjective indicators Simple principle –Measure what can quantitatively, but without distorting the target – Measure the rest qualitatively, but with maximum quality Drivers: Quantitative – traditional statistics Enablers: Qualitative – local surveys, expert polls Policy results: Quantitative and qualitative evaluations Suggests using many subjective indicators because much of what we want to understand requires it

9. Top-down & bottom-up info NSO information not sufficiently spatially disaggregated and not covering what local agencies believe is important Trento example 1.Invest in knowledge and education (e.g. learning over life course) 2.Internationalise research and innovation (e.g. % professors from outside Italy; spend on international research projects) 3.Maintain cohesive social model (e.g. cooperative membership, women with key role in enterprises) Suggests combining self-collected and external information

10. External information Self-collected information How is the locality performing? Performance outcomes National statistical offices Local surveys What are the problems and challenges? DriversNational statistical offices and partners Local surveys How can we improve? Policy actions on drivers External evaluations Self-monitoring and evaluation Enablers and capacity External researchExpert polls and stakeholder views

11. Benchmarking Useful to have the same indicators in each locality to compare progress/well-being But Difficulties if we don’t compare like with like Local people/agencies may have different visions of progress and how to achieve it Suggests –core set of indicators –complementary tailoring to each area –no composite indicator –groupings of comparator areas with same objectives and legacy