Measuring Well-being where it Matters E-Frame Conference on Measuring Well-being and Fostering the Progress of Societies 27 June 2012 Giovanni A. Barbieri (Istat), Monica Brezzi (OECD)

Towards a Place-based Well-being People need to measure progress and well-being where it happens, i. e. where they work and live GDP is unfit to measure progress and well-being in a place-based approach – Economic growth implies division of labour and trade between localities – The fundamentals of national accounts do not hold at the local scale – Thus: 1.Regional accounts are but a disaggregation of national figures 2.A top-down approach is unavoidable

What does place-based mean, anyway? Place vs. Space: – Space: A grid for measurement (phenomena happen in space) and analysis (interpretive models) – Place: Where society self-organizes; Where policies are decided and implemented (democracy, supply of services, administration, multilevel governance) Shifting the paradigm: the example of gender statistics

Different actors with different needs Central policy makers need to articulate national policies at a local scale → top-down approach → disaggregation of national statistics → loss of definition and focus Local policy makers need to decide and implement specific policies for place-based growth and development → bottom-up approach → specific measurements and indicators → possible problems with consistency Citizens need the information for evaluation and accountability (at both national and local level)

How’s life in your region? 1.Clarifying a common methodological framework 2.Identifying a set of indicators for which the regional dimension is particularly important, and provide support for producing data at different scales. 3.Creating a knowledge base to support countries and local authorities in the use of outcome indicators expressed in terms of people’s well-being to enhance their policies. Measuring local and regional well-being for policymaking Project aims at:

1. Common methodological framework Common set of well-being indicators or a common set of domains (and indicators specific to places?) Inequalities within regions and not only among regions Perception of objective conditions

2. Indicators at different scales Metropolitan area CO2 per capita 2000 CO2 per capita 2005 Milan3,2553,210 Cagliari1,1441,186 Barcelona2,1362,275 Oviedo4,3724,945 Paris3,2402,734 Grenoble1,9741,788 Co2 carbon in metropolitan areas of different sizes and regions

3. Links between metrics and policy results Learning from the many national, regional, local experiences already in place. Case studies from Denmark, France, Italy, Mexico, United Kingdom, United States (create network and knowledge spillover). Guidance for citizens and policy-makers – national and local – on indicators selection and choices of baselines; connect users to the relevant resources to measure their progress; accountability of results that depend on the actions of many actors and different institutions; citizens engagement and how best to reflect their preferences in the choice of well- being dimensions. On the governance aspects of systems of indicators, such approach would require balancing top-down approaches and bottom-up ones

What needs to be done Measuring “different” places Synthesis, not aggregation – Need for methodological advancements Externalities and spillovers between places – Need to build a shared conceptual framework Measuring outcomes Policy co-ordination and multi-level governance – A set of indicators for: Planning and ex ante evaluation (multi-objective) Implementation and monitoring Accountability and ex post evaluation (outcomes)