Transcript WA Presentation

Progress measurement
and democracy
Adj Professor Mike Salvaris
School of Global Studies, Social Science and Planning
RMIT University, Melbourne
[email protected]
April 2007
Summary







Brief history of indicator development
Democratic and governance issues
Renovating democracy, engage citizens
Australian work, the VCIP
Canadian Index of Wellbeing
OECD ‘Measuring Progress of Societies’
New Zealand’s opportunities
Two key thoughts
The future is not a place to which we are going, it is a place
we are creating. The paths to the future are not found, but
made, and the activity of making them changes both the
maker and the destination. (John Schaar)
The idea of people taking charge of their own
measurements of progress is a powerful and far reaching
innovation that can bring about a new sense of civic
engagement. (Sustainable Seattle. 2000)
Not everything that counts can
be counted, and not everything
that can be counted counts.
Albert Einstein
Measuring the Progress of Nations
The day will come when nations will be judged not by
their military or economic strength, nor by the
splendour of their capital cities and public buildings,
but by the well-being of their people: by their levels of
health, nutrition and education; by their opportunities
to earn a fair reward for their labours; by their ability to
participate in the decisions that affect their lives; by the
respect that is shown for their civil and political
liberties; by the provision that is made for those who
are vulnerable and disadvantaged; and by the
protection that is afforded to the growing minds and
bodies of their children.
(United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), The Progress of Nations, 1998)
Wellbeing compared to human rights, democracy, wealth,
government spending and inequality
Selected OECD countries, ranked by performance
Overall
Wellbeing
Human
rights
Democracy
National
wealth
Government
spending
Income
inequality
Sweden
1
2
3
12
1
1
Norway
2
6
4
2
9
2
Denmark
3
2
2
3
2
6
Finland
4
1
1
10
3
3
Netherlands
5
2
5
5
5
5
Austria
6
8
12
6
6
8
Germany
7
2
9
9
11
7
Canada
8
9
7
4
10
10
Belgium
9
7
10
8
4
4
France
10
9
13
14
8
9
UK
11
11
8
13
12
12
Australia
12
12
6
7
13
11
Italy
13
13
14
11
7
12
USA
14
13
11
1
14
14
Sources: Overall Wellbeing: Horvath, R. 2004. ‘Australia: lucky country or laggard?’, Australian Review of Public Affairs,. ‘Wellbeing rank’ is based on overall performance on 100 accepted measures of progress
wellbeing..http://www.econ.usyd.edu.au/drawingboard/digest/0411/horvath.html Human rights: Humana, C. 1992. World Human Rights Guide. ‘Human rights rank’ compares performance on 30 key human rights. The human rights figures are the last
available in this UN endorsed series, but more recent similar studies suggest little change in the past decade Democracy: World Audit, 2004, http://www.worldaudit.org/democracy.htm); National Wealth: GDP per head in 2000, OECD (2002).
Government Spending: Total government outlays as % of GDP, 1990-1999, ranked from highest (Sweden, 63.2%) to lowest (USA, 36.2%), Australia at 36.6%, mean at 47.8%. OECD historical statistics 1960-1995, 1970-1999. Income inequality: Luxembourg
Income Study, Gini coefficients. Figures for mid to late 1990’s. See: www.lisproject.org/keyfigures/ineqtable.htm. Income and wealth figures are cited in Tiffen, R. and Gittins, R. 2004. How Australia Compares. Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.
(EDIT: 1-2007)
Confidence in the honesty and ethics of
politicians:
Australia, 1976-2000
% rating level of honesty/ethics as ‘high’
year
1976
2000
%
20
8
How much do young Australians trust government?
Survey of young Australians (Year 11) 1998
Agree
Neither Disagree
Most people in government are honest
6
26
68
People in government care a lot about what people like us think
9
25
66
People in government can be trusted to do the right thing for
the country
15
22
64
People in government waste a lot of taxpayers money
70
22
8
People running the government are smart and usually know
what they’re doing
29
24
48
Source: Mellor, S. 1998. What’s the Point? Political attitudes of Victorian Year 11 Students.
Melbourne: Australian Council of Educational Research
Are young Australians giving up on democracy?
‘Little or no interest in politics’ (18-24)
1987
33%
2001
51%
Eligible voters not enrolled (2004)
Age group
% not enrolled
No of people
18-24
25%
300,000
Over 24
5%
580,000
‘Would still vote if voting voluntary (2004)
18-24
60%
Sources:

‘Why young Australians have given up on voting – which doesn’t mean they’re apathetic’. Liz Minchin, ‘The Age’, 3-9-04, p. 8)

Youth Electoral Study 2004. Australian Electoral Commission and University of Sydney (Prof Murray Print)

AEC website (enrolments 2004 election by age)
Democracy: how well does Australia perform?
A = How important B = How do we perform? C = The gap
A
B
C
Everyone paying tax fairly, according to income and wealth
9.0
3.4
- 5.6
High standards of honesty in politics and public life
9.3
4.3
- 5.0
Ability to trust other people, including strangers
8.4
3.9
- 4.5
Diverse ownership and control of the media
7.9
3.7
- 4.2
Everyone treated equally and fairly by the law
9.3
5.4
- 3.9
Justified confidence that public institutions act fairly
9.0
5.1
- 3.9
Good quality basic services (health, education etc) for all
9.1
5.5
- 3.6
People responsible for each other and to the community
8.7
5.1
- 3.6
No big differences in wealth and power between people
6.8
3.3
- 3.5
Respect for, and strict enforcement of, the laws
8.6
5.5
- 3.1
People participating in decision-making that affects them
8.1
5.1
- 3.0
Equal opportunities for men and women
9.0
6.4
- 2.6
Basic human rights of all citizens strongly protected
9.1
6.6
- 2.5
Vigorous freedom of speech, diverse public opinions
8.1
6.3
- 1.8
Protection of religious freedom
8.2
7.5
- 0.7
Freedom to do what we like if we don’t harm others
7.4
7.1
- 0.3
People having similar social values and lifestyles
4.5
4.6
+ 0.1
Source: Mike Salvaris, Institute for Social Research, Swinburne University of Technology. Results from study ‘Citizen Benchmarks Survey’ carried out in
1998-99 as part of the project ‘National Citizenship Indicators’ project.
What Australians think a right is
‘People have different ideas about what a right is. In your view is a right …?’
Rank
Agree
%
Disagree
%
Don’t
know
%
/8
A responsibility that citizens have towards each other
1
89
8
3
Something belonging to all human beings
2
87
10
3
A kind of moral rule to ensure the equality of all citizens
3
87
8
4
A kind of duty the government owes to citizens
4
65
28
7
A limitation on the power of the government
5
51
20
12
Permission or liberty to do as you like
6
28
69
3
A gift from God
7
25
64
11
A legal status that can only be granted by the Parliament
8
23
70
7
Source: University of Tasmania, Centre for Citizenship and Education. 1998. Preliminary Results of ‘Citizenship in Australia’ National Survey 1997 (reprinted
with kind permission). This was a national survey funded by the Australian Research Council.
Most important rights to Australians
Rank
How important? (%)
very
quite
total
The right to a fair trial
1
90
8
98
The right to an education
2
86
11
97
The right to decent health care
3
85
12
97
The right to public safety and protection
4
85
12
97
The right to work
5
84
13
97
The right of free speech
6
80
15
95
The right to a decent standard of living
7
78
17
95
The right not to be discriminated against
8
83
11
93
The right to a vote of equal value to others
9
80
12
92
The right to vote
10
80
12
92
The right to join groups and associations
11
70
21
92
The right to join church of choice
12
69
14
83
The right to protest
13
63
20
83
The right to join political party of choice
14
67
15
82
Source: University of Tasmania, Centre for Citizenship and Education. 1998. Preliminary Results
of ‘Citizenship in Australia’ National Survey 1997 (reprinted with kind permission).
What rights should be protected by the Constitution?
guarantee basic human rights for all Australian citizens
guarantee good quality public health and education for everyone
ensure that in all elections, every person’s vote has equal weight
define powers of the Federal government
establish, as basic national values, fairness, equal opportunity and
justice for all
establish Australia as independent and democratic country in which all
political power comes from the Australian people
code of ethical conduct for politicians and public officials
establish that everyone must pay tax fairly according to their income
and wealth
define the role and powers of the Parliament
protect the independence of the legal system
Av
rating
9.20
8.88
8.87
8.83
8.82
rank
8.73
6
8.68
8.65
7
8
8.64
8.59
9
10
Source: Mike Salvaris, Swinburne Institute for Social Research. ‘Benchmarks for Australian Citizenship’ funded by Australian Research Council. 1999.
1
2
3
4
5
Democracy vs feudalism
In democracy, your vote counts.
In feudalism, your Count votes.
(Anon.)
Key indicators of the health of democracy and citizenship
Trust in government and public institutions
Belief in honesty of politicians
Percentage of women in parliament
Human rights performance ranking
Equality before law and availability of legal aid
Freedom of press ranking
Participation in voting where not compulsory
Youth voting enrolment
Membership of political parties
Participation in community organisations
Civics and citizenship education in schools
Inequalities of wealth and power
Social health index of nation
Constitutional guarantees of basic rights
Rights perceived under threat
Constitutional guarantees of local government
IDEA healthy democracy assessment framework
I. Citizenship, Law
and Rights
II. Representative and
accountable
government
III. Civil society and
popular participation
1. Nationhood and
common citizenship
5. Free and fair
elections
10. Democratic
media
2. The rule of law
and access to justice
6. Democratic role
of political parties
11. Citizen participation in public life
3. Civil and political 7. Government
rights equal,
effectiveness and
guaranteed
accountability
4. Economic and
social rights equal,
guaranteed
IV. Democracy beyond
the State
14. Democracy of
international
relations
12. Government
responsiveness to
citizens
8. Civilian control of 13. Decentralisation
the military and
to most appropriate
police
levels
9. Minimising
corruption
Source: International Institute for Democracy and
Electoral Assistance (IDEA),Stockholm), State Of
Democracy: Trends From The Pilot Countries
www.idea.int/ideas_work/14_political_state.htm
Accessed 29/1/02
International democracy ranking 2001
Democracy
Press
freedom
Corruption
Democracy
Press
freedom
Corruption
Finland
1
3
1
Germany
11
13
13
Denmark
2
1
3
United States
13
9
14
New Zealand
2
3
2
Austria
14
19
12
Sweden
4
1
5
Ireland
15
13
14
Switzerland
5
3
6
Spain
16
15
18
Norway
6
3
7
France
16
15
18
Netherlands
7
8
9
Chile
18
19
17
Australia
8
10
8
Portugal
19
10
24
Canada
9
12
11
Slovenia
20
15
28
United Kingdom
10
15
10
Uruguay
21
21
25
Belgium
11
3
14
Italy
22
22
36
Source: World Audit http://www.worldaudit.org/democracy.htm (accessed 20-12-04). World Audit is an independent UK-based international
organisation which develops its rankings from the statistics of five associated agencies: Freedom House; Transparency international; Amnesty
International; Human Rights Watch; and the International Commission of Jurists. The above ranking is the most up to date on the World
Audit website as at December 2004.
Human rights performance in OECD Countries
Country
Rating
(/100)
Rank
Country
Rating
(/100)
Rank
Finland
99
1
France
94
11
Sweden
98
2
Canada
94
11
Denmark
98
2
Ireland
94
11
Netherlands
98
2
United Kingdom
93
14
Germany
98
2
Australia
91
15
New Zealand
98
2
USA
90
16
Norway
97
7
Italy
90
16
Switzerland
96
8
Spain
87
18
Belgium
96
8
Greece
87
18
Belgium
96
8
Japan
82
20
Austria
95
10
Source: Humana, C. 1992. World Human Rights Guide
Corruption perceptions index 2004 (OECD)
Country
Country
Rank
1
2
3
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Finland
New Zealand
Denmark
Iceland
Sweden
Switzerland
Norway
Australia
Netherlands
United Kingdom
Canada
2004 CPI
Score*
Country
Rank
9,7
9,6
9,5
9,5
9,2
9,1
8,9
8,8
8,7
8,6
8,5
12
12
14
15
15
15
18
18
20
21
22
Country
Austria
Luxembourg
Germany
Belgium
Ireland
USA
France
Spain
Japan
Italy
2004 CPI
Score*
8,4
8,4
8,2
7,5
7,5
7,5
7,1
7,1
6,9
4,8
Source: Transparency International. CPI Score relates to perceptions of the degree of corruption as seen by business people and country
analysts and ranges between 10 (highly clean) and 0 (highly corrupt). This table was compiled at the University of Passau, adapted for top 21
OECD countries. http://www.transparency.org/cpi/2004/cpi2004.en.html#cpi2004
The spectrum of public engagement
Increasing level of public impact >>>>>
Inform
Consult
Involve
Collaborate Empower
Objective and Objective and Objective and Objective and
Promise
Promise
Promise
Promise
Objective and
Promise
To provide
the public
with balanced and
objective information
To place final
decision
making in
the hands of
the public
To obtain
public feedback on
analysis, alternatives, or
decisions
To work directly with
the public
throughout
the process
Source: International Association for Public Participation: www.iap2.org (adapted)
To partner
with the public in each
aspect of the
decision
More than customers:
Citizens as partners in achieving public outcomes
Citizens are …
How?
Examples
Customers
Citizens are principal users and clients of public
services and should be treated as valued customers by
providers
Citizens’ charters for service
standards (UK)
Owners and
shareholders
Citizens are owners: through their taxes, they invest in
public service and assets. They are shareholders too:
through their votes, they elect the ‘boards of directors’
who govern
Community reps on public
services and utilities boards.
Federal, state and local
elections
Issue framers
As ‘vision builders’: helping define desirable future,
strategic plans. As advisers on government policy
committees etc.
Community indicator projects
(USA, Canada etc.);
community advisory groups
Co-producers of
services
Citizens and community bodies are direct providers of
community services on both a paid and voluntary basis,
in cooperation with government
Non-government community
services. ‘Healthy cities
program.
Service quality
evaluators
As primary users of government services, citizens are
best placed to assess their quality and effectiveness
Service user assessment forms.
Students interviewing park
users.
Independent
auditors
Grassroots measurement by citizen groups is more
likely to be independent and oriented towards actual
community wellbeing outcomes
Citizen environment
monitoring
Source: Epstein, P., Wray, L. et al. 2000. Engaging Citizens in Achieving Results that Matter: A Model for Effective 21st Century Governance. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Citizens League.
Most important qualities for Australia’s progress
Rank
Quality
Avge value /10
1
Honesty and ethics in public life
9.42
2
Security and stability
9.33
3
Environmental responsibility
9.25
4
Democracy, open, accountable government
9.17
5
Efficiency in government, management etc
9.10
6
Economic strength
9.04
7
Happiness and health
9.02
8
Fairness
8.90
9
Education and creativity
8.74
10
Inclusiveness and community
8.65
11
International responsibility
8.65
12
High living standards
8.59
13
Diversity and tolerance
8.50
14
High technology
8.43
15
Political power
7.69
16
Competitiveness
7.68
Source: Mike Salvaris, Swinburne Institute for Social Research, ‘Community Indicators and Local Democracy’ 2002. The table above combines results
(unweighted) from a survey in 2001 of three Victorian municipalities, Moreland, Surf Coast and Geelong, with a total sample of approximately 3000)
Tasmania Together: State-wide Vision for 2020
In 2020 Tasmania will have …
1. A job for everyone who wants one
2. An inclusive and compassionate society
3. A world-class reputation for innovation, imagination and intelligence
4. A society with a focus on whole of life, whole of community learning.
5. An ecologically sustainable future
6. A high quality of life and healthy lifestyle
7. A form of government that is inclusive, open and close to the people
8. An international reputation for excellence in the arts and culture
9. Invigorated rural and regional communities
10. A proud and confident community
The democratic value of local participation
The democratic ideal in local government
implies that active participation of the citizens
in local affairs is both a goal in itself and an
instrument for strengthening democracy in
society at large.
(Kjellberg, F. 1995. “The Changing Values of Local
Government” in Annals of the American Academy of
Political and Social Science, vol 540, 40)
Most important functions of local government
Av. % who say this function important for local government
Manage waste and pollution
96.3 Involve citizens in decision-making
87.0
Promote community safety
92.3 Enforce local laws (traffic, health, etc)
84.7
Make local government open & accountable
92.0 Conserve heritage and special character
80.7
Provide local recreation facilities
91.7 Promote local pride and involvement
80.0
Maintain local roads, streets, public spaces
91.3 Provide arts and cultural activities
78.7
Protect and enhance natural environment
90.6 Measure wellbeing of whole community
76.7
Provide local community services
89.6 Develop local industry, employm’t, tourism
76.0
Manage council finances, services effectively
89.0 Promote local interests outside municipality
75.0
Plan community future (soc, eco, environm’t)
88.7
(Source: Swinburne Institute for Social Research, 2002. ‘Community Participation and Community Planning in Moreland: a research study’. Hawthorn, Victoria: SISR. Based
on sample of approx. 3000 over 3 Victorian municipalities).
What makes a community a good place to live in?
(% respondents who considered specific factors important
Community quality
%
rank
People are friendly, good neighbours, help others
91
1
Good local facilities: shops, schools, services, parks
89
2
People feel safe and secure
89
3
Nice environment, streets, well planned, no pollution
86
4
People look after their properties
82
5
Local government is responsive to people’s needs
80
6
People can participate in local government decisions
74
7
Good local support: clubs, sports, neighbourhood houses
71
8
Community has a distinct character, a ‘special place’
70
9
People get involved in local issues, activities
69
10
Good mix: different ages, groups, incomes, cultures
63
11
Good work opportunities available locally
59
12
Source: Institute for Social Research, Swinburne University of Technology. 2002. ‘Community Indicators and Local Democracy’ Melbourne. Data
from a sample of approx. 3000 taken across three Victorian municipalities (Moreland, Surf Coast and Geelong) in 2001. Averages are unweighted.
Ten good reasons for community indicators
1.
focus attention on what's important to people
2. get people working together in enthusiastic partnership
3. increase awareness of the community's strengths and weaknesses
4. create opportunities for local people to get involved in decisions that affect them
5. build the community's capacity to find appropriate solutions to their own needs
6. tap hidden potential and energy by building the community's ability to take practical action
7. create learning opportunities for every age group
8. bust through bureaucracy, streamline existing processes and liberate essential
information
9. influence a wide range of decision-makers
10. increase sense of belonging ... and fun!
Source: New Economics Foundation, UK. 1998. “Communities Count”
Purposes of a community wellbeing framework
Purposes
Reporting conditions
Measuring progress
and performance
Planning, priority and
goal setting










Enhancing democracy 
and accountability



Building communities, 
participation and

social cohesion

Applications
In selected issues, localities or policy fields
Current wellbeing of whole state or municipality (social, economic,
environmental, democratic)
Selected government programs or policies
Selected issues and localities
Across all government agencies (or local governments)
Current wellbeing of whole state or municipality (social, economic,
environmental, democratic)
Government agencies, LG departments
For whole of state (or local) government
As basis for local community plans
As basis for long-term state or local plan for whole community
More transparent & systematic gov’t reporting and performance evaluation
More honest and accountable government
Giving citizens full and accurate information about conditions in their state
Involving citizens in decision-making about goals and indicators
A framework for local community building and community planning
Citizens together identify local community issues & priorities
Citizens define a common vision for Victoria (or their LGA) as a whole
Source: Swinburne Institute for Social Research. 2000. Measuring Victoria’s Progress. Hawthorn, Victoria: SISR (adapted)
Victorian state wellbeing measurement framework
DEMOCRACY
&
GOVERNANCE
SOCIAL AND COMMUNITY WELLBEING
Individual
Group
ECONOMIC
WELLBEING
ENVIRONMENT
WELLBEING
Community
Qualities
Infrastructure
Health & well
being
Children and
families
Fairness, equal
opportunity
Public and civic
institutions
Democracy
Education &
training
People on low
incomes
Social capital
and trust
Human rights
Income, wealth
and poverty
People with
disabilities
Health &
viability of
communities
Planning & phys
infrastructure
Community
services
Safety and
security
Women
Citizenship
and
participation
Personal
development
Older persons
Housing
Ethnic and
NESB groups
Employment
and work life
Indigenous
people
Viable sustainable
productivity
Economic
vitality
Healthy ecological systems
Justice and
legal rights
Appropriate job
creation
Environment
diversity,
species
Transport
Good
governance
Healthy regional economies
Sustainable use
nat. resources
Creativity &
innovation
Media and
communications
Local
government
Crime & social
dysfunction
Culture and the
arts
Envir’t quality:
air, water, land
Recreation and
sport
Remote
communities
Source: Swinburne University, Institute for Social Research (SISR). 2000. ‘Measuring Victoria’s Progress: a system of social benchmarks and indicators for
Victoria’. Hawthorn, Victoria: SISR
The Canadian Index of Wellbeing: National Network of Experts
Manitoba
- International Institute
for Sustainable Development
Quebec
- Partnership
Under Negotiation
British Columbia
- Institute for Social Research and
Evaluation
University of Northern British
Columbia
(Prince George)
Newfoundland
- Memorial University of
Newfoundland
- Newfoundland and Labrador
Community Accounts
Alberta
- Sustainable Calgary
- Anielski Management Inc.
(Edmonton)
Nova Scotia
- Genuine Progress Index Atlantic
- Dalhousie University
- Atlantic Health Promotion
Research Centre
- Saint Mary's University
Time Use Research Program
Ontario
- University of Ottawa
Institute of Population Health
National agencies
- Statistics Canada
- Health Council of Canada
- Centre for the Study of Living
Standards
- Canadian Council on Social
Development
- Atkinson Charitable Foundation - Environment Canada
State of the Environment
- York University
School of Health Policy
- Canadian Policy
and Management
Research Networks (Quality of
Life Indicators)
Saskatchewan
- University of Saskatchewan
Community University Institute
for Social Research
(Saskatoon)
OECD Milan Group
Key National Wellbeing Framework issues
Participants: Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Sweden, Bhutan, Norway
1.
Design and purpose: principles and assumptions
2. Key models: Canadian IW; European SSI
3. Framework, goals, domains, outcomes, benchmarks, cross-cutting issues
4. Data issues: internationally comparable measures of wellbeing, survey
questions and suggested core indicators
5.
Policy applications
6. Community and democratic participation processes
7.
Presentation, education and accessibility issues.
8. Collaboration partners, mechanisms, resources, national working groups
9. Follow up: Istanbul conference report. Intensive development meeting
(New Zealand?)
The power of public deliberation
Public deliberation is about weighing – together –
the costs and consequences of various approaches to
solving problems. Making choices together in
deliberation promotes civic responsibility. Human
beings take more responsibility for what they have
participated in choosing than for what someone has
chosen for them. Making decisions as a public is
claiming responsibility for the future.
Adapted from Kettering Foundation, Making Choices Together: The
Power of Public Deliberation, 2002
We should be on our guard not to
overestimate science and scientific methods
when it is a question of human problems: and
we should not assume that experts are the
only ones who have a right to express
themselves on questions affecting the
organisation of society.
Albert Einstein