Transcript OECD Regions at a glance 2009

1st meeting of the working
group constructing indicators
of progress/well-being with
citizens/communities
Monica Brezzi
OECD Public Governance and
Territorial Policies
Paris 24-25, July 2008
Regional development policies
RDP aim to improve competitiveness and to expand people’s opportunities
through a better use of territorial resources
1. Multidimensional concept of regional well-being as a key
factor to support regional opportunities
2. In addressing inequalities, use of both relative measures
and absolute measures (minimum agreed standard)
3. Multilevel governance approach, emphasis is given to
vertical and horizontal coordination, accountability, local
capacity building
1. Multidimensional concept of well-being
Tertiary education attainment
Source: “OECD Regions at a glance 2007”
Age-adjusted mortality rate
Elderly dependency rate: North America and rural/urban
regions (2005)
Higher than 31%
Between 25% and 31%
Between 18% and 25%
Between 12% and 18%
Between 5% and 12%
Lower than 5%
2. Addressing inequalities with relative and absolute measures
Share of national GDP generated by the 10%
richest regions
65
1995
54%
53%
49%
47%
46%
44%
44%
44%
43%
42%
41%
40%
40%
39%
39%
37%
37%
35%
35%
31%
30%
30%
28%
27%
25%
24%
22%
21%
Turkey
Greece
Portugal
Sweden
Hungary
Finland
Spain
Austria
Canada
New Zealand
Japan
Mexico
Italy
United States
OECD(27) Total
France
United Kingdom
Germany
Korea
Norway
Ireland
Poland
Czech Republic
Australia
Netherlands
Denmark
Slovak Republic
Belgium
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
% of population in regions under the median GDP
per capita
2005
Gini index of inequalities and people affected
AUS
MEX
60
SVK
55
50
CAN
JPN ESP
45
40
DEU
35
FIN
FRA
NLD
30
SWE
ITA
DNK
USA
CZE
PRT
NOR
NZL
GRC
POL
GBR HUN
IRL
BEL
OECD (27) average
TUR
AUT
KOR
25
20
0.0
0.1
0.2
Gini index of GDP per capita, year 2005
0.3
Further Steps (synergies with the
community indicator project)/1
1.
Multidimensional concept of well-being
1. How to influence the Statistical Institutes to make a better
use of the information of interest for local community and
policy making
Examples: Atlas of the index of multiple deprivation (UK National Statistics)
2. The poor availability of data on some dimensions of wellbeing and social inclusion at disaggregated territorial level
(from official statistics) can make the “only gdp counts”
approach regains ground.
3. Use of administrative data as “context information” in the
community indicator cycle (starting point
Further Steps (synergies with the
community indicator project)/2
2. Measuring inequalities
1. Explain more clearly the link between individual well-being
and influence of the context (place/territory);
2. Inequalities in access to public services are directly linked
with region-specific characteristics. Poor access to public
services in certain regions undermines the opportunities
available to the inhabitants of these regions, and in turn
aggravates income inequalities over time.
Example: Supply of relevant services (child and elderly care, education, health,
quality of the environment etc.) but also their accessibility and quality. Different
needs also according to geography.
3. The definition of ‘ essential standards” (absolute
thresholds) must be done through an inclusive process taking
into account people expectations. Therefore standards change
over time
Further Steps (synergies with the
community indicator project)/3
3. Multilevel governance approach
More emphasis on the participatory/collaborative nature of
the policy process; make citizens engagement part of the
everyday business of government
Why through the use of indicators and measures?
1. Conveying information spread among individuals,
institutions, agency etc.
2. While doing it, consensus is built on the necessary changes
(and how to get there);
3. Ensure that marginal/ more vulnerable groups are also
represented