Transcript First Results on Active Ageing Indicators and on Active

The Seminar at Kosice University
November 6, 2012
Kosice University, Slovakia
First Results on Active Ageing
Indicators and Active Ageing
Index (AAI) for EU-27 Countries
by Asghar Zaidi
Work-in-Progress, subject
to further revisions.
On behalf of the project team at European Centre
Vienna: Katrin Gasior, Maria M. Hofmarcher, Orsolya
Lelkes, Bernd Marin, Ricardo Rodrigues, Andrea Schmidt,
Pieter Vanhuysse, Eszter Zolyomi and Michael Fuchs
The background: EC-sponsored UNECE / ECV
Project
.... the ‘Active Ageing Index’ (AAI) project is a jointly-managed research
project between European Commission, UNECE and ECV; undertaken
within the framework of activities of the EY2012 and marking the 2nd cycle
of review and appraisal of the implementation of MIPAA / RIS.
Its aims are:
.... to develop and launch an Active Ageing Index (AAI) measuring outcomes
of economic and social activity and independent and healthy living of older
people as well as measuring the capacity for active ageing across EU/
UNECE countries.
.... the AAI is expected to serve as an evidence tool to monitor active ageing
outcomes as well as potential at the country level, with a breakdown by
gender, for mutual learning and advocacy of most appropriate policy
implementation.
This work is undertaken:
… in consultation with the UNECE Expert Group, which includes many
distinguished international experts on active ageing and intergenerational
relationships, from UNECE, European Commission, OECD, academia and
civil society organisations as well as from Eurostat and national statistical
agencies (UK, IT) and also representatives of policymakers (BE).
… (also) to work with the UNECE’s Working Group on Ageing, formed by
UNECE’s Member States in 2008.
The progress made so far:
… (July/August 2012) completion of the first results paper ‘Towards an Active
Ageing Index: Concept, Methodology and First Results’ bringing out the first
full set of results on individual indicators, and their aggregation into a
gender-specific index for 27 EU Member States;
… (August 2012) presentation made of first results at the World Demographic
and Ageing (WDA) Forum, St Gallen, Switzerland;
… (September 2012) presentation at the side event of the Ministerial
Conference: Ensuring a society for all ages: promoting quality of life and
active ageing, (20th September 2012, Vienna, Austria)
Three parts of the presentation ...
1. Concept and methodology
1.1 The conceptual choices and the novelty 
1.2 Selection of indicators and domains 
2. First results (domain-specific indices and the overall AAI)
2.0 Ranking of countries by the overall index, AAI 
2.1 The 1st domain results: ‘Contribution through paid activities / employment’ 
2.2 The 2nd domain results: ‘Contribution through unpaid activities’ 
2.3 The 3rd domain results: ‘Independent and autonomous living’ 
2.4 The 4th domain results: ‘Capacity for active ageing / enabling environment’ 
2.5 The overall index (AAI) and its decomposition across four domains 
3. Conclusions 
Part 1
The concept and methodology
1.1 The conceptual choices
 Definition (aligned with the EY2012 principles): Active ageing
refers to phenomenon in which, with rising life expectancy on
average, people are expected and allowed to continue to active
longer in the formal labour market as well as in unpaid
productive activities (such as care provision to family members
and volunteering) and live healthy, independent and
autonomous lives in their older ages.
 Novelty (arising from recommendations of the EG
recommendations): The AA measurement divided into two
broadly defined dimensions:
a) actual experiences of active ageing (by countries and
subgroups within countries)
b) capacity / ability to actively age (that can still be tapped to
improve their quality of life and to make public welfare systems more
sustainable)
1.1 The conceptual choices
The gender disaggregation has been emphasised, to understand
better the actual experiences in the context of cultures and
institutional differences across European countries as well as in
measuring potential for active ageing.
1.2 Selection criteria for indicators choice
1. Outcome indicators, instead of input or process
indicators
2. International comparability within EU27 countries
thus ruling out indicators drawn from national data sources
3. Coverage of countries
the minimum syndicale to be EU27 coverage; data for the
most recent year
4. Replicability of results essential,
not necessarily annual; should rule out use of special module!
5. Access to micro datasets
SILC and ESS not an issue, and LFS will also be accessible,
though with a time lag
1.2 Selection criteria for indicators choice
6. Data quality considerations
e.g. Subjective variables subject to cultural bias, thus used only
when absolutely essential and with caution!
7. Seeking to measure ‘unrealised potential’
.... the work undertaken can be seen as a stock taking exercise
for member countries for policy reforms!
8. Assigning normative value judgement
.... developing ‘positive’ indicators, with the clear interpretation
of “more-is-better”;
9. Disaggregating indicators, by gender/age
.... Gender sub-division most desirable; further considerations
for disaggregation by age groups whenever necessary (lower
age limit 55)
10. Parsimony over number of indicators selected
.... and smart use of left out indicators for the ‘contextual
analyses’ in the follow-up project.
Selected indicators and their domains
Part 2
First results
(Overall AAI and Domain-specific indices)
2.0 Ranking of countries by the overall index, AAI
Overall ranking (first panel) and differentials for men and women (2nd and 3rd panel)
2.1 Index for the 1st domain: Employment
Overall ranking (first panel) and differentials for men and women (2nd and 3rd panel)
Decomposition of the Employment index
Contribution of five indicators to the domain-specific index (total)
100%
Job satisfaction, 55-64
80%
Employment rate, 70-74
60%
Employment rate, 65-69
Employment rate, 60-64
40%
20%
0%
-20%
-40%
-60%
-80%
-100%
Employment rate, 55-59
2.2 Index for the 2nd domain: Unpaid activities
Overall ranking (first panel) and differentials for men and women (2nd and 3rd panel)
2.3 Index for the 3rd domain: Independent living
Overall ranking (first panel) and differentials for men and women (2nd and 3rd panel)
2.4 Index for the 4th domain: Capacity for AA
Overall ranking (first panel) and differentials for men and women (2nd and 3rd panel)
3
Conclusions
Early observations... / Conclusions
• Several quite interesting and surprising results, and the methodology adopted
provide strong insights into policy implementation required (due principally to its
comparative aspects but also due to the decomposition exercise).
• Nordic countries do very well in the overall index (mainly for their good placement in
the 3rd and 4th domain); FI stands out when comparing actual outcomes to the
capacity of active ageing.
• CEECs in general are ranked low (also PT and EL), largely due to a low capacity of
active ageing in these countries. Nonetheless, LV, BG and EL are seen to underperform in comparison to their capacity for active ageing.
Early observations... / Conclusions
• Southern European countries do better for men than for women (e.g. results for CY),
especially in the 1st and 2nd domains (this may partly be due to an under-recording
of informal contributions of women in these societies).
• Gender differences in ranking scores become visibly smaller in the Index for the 3rd
and 4th domain when compared to index values on unpaid activities and
employment.
• Interesting aspect is the heterogeneity across different dimensions of active ageing
(e.g. paid vs. unpaid work) – worth exploring in the future how institutional
differences (such as tax-benefit systems) may have contributed to these differences!
• Methodological choices made also crucial for the policy insights…., there remains
issues to be resolved (e.g. equal weights for all domains; missing values for some
indicators, etc. ?) – comments and observations from the EG will be most useful in
this respect!
Strengths
A transparent numerical exercise, with a potential to provide
strong policy insights in the current context of ageing societies
and their policy reform challenges
Caveats
The coverage and replicability requirements of the AAI have identified
critical data gaps (especially in non-EU countries)
Essential future research
... Contextual analysis towards identifying sources of cross-national
differences is essential work in this area
... Important to link active ageing experiences to positive outcomes
(e.g. how and what forms of active ageing raise QOL of individuals
concerned? What impact of active ageing discourse on the financial
/social sustainability of public welfare systems?)
For more detailed analysis, see
Towards an Active Ageing Index
Concept, Methodology and First Results
By
Asghar Zaidi, Katrin Gasior, Maria M. Hofmarcher, Orsolya Lelkes,
Bernd Marin, Ricardo Rodrigues, Andrea Schmidt, Pieter
Vanhuysse and Eszter Zolyomi
European Centre Vienna
July 2012