Progress measurement Progress measurement and democracyand democracy

Adj Professor Mike SalvarisAdj Professor Mike Salvaris

School of Global Studies, Social Science and School of Global Studies, Social Science and PlanningPlanning

RMIT University, MelbourneRMIT University, Melbournesalvaris@optusnet.com.ausalvaris@optusnet.com.au

April 2007April 2007

SummarySummary

Brief history of indicator developmentBrief history of indicator development Democratic and governance issuesDemocratic and governance issues Renovating democracy, engage Renovating democracy, engage

citizenscitizens Australian work, the VCIP Australian work, the VCIP Canadian Index of WellbeingCanadian Index of Wellbeing OECD ‘Measuring Progress of OECD ‘Measuring Progress of

Societies’Societies’ New Zealand’s opportunitiesNew 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 20 2000 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

/8

Agree

%

Dis- agree

%

Don’t know

%

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

How important? (%) Rank 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?

Av rating

rank

guarantee basic human rights for all Australian citizens 9.20 1 guarantee good quality public health and education for everyone 8.88 2 ensure that in all elections, every person’s vote has equal weight 8.87 3 define powers of the Federal government 8.83 4 establish, as basic national values, fairness, equal opportunity and justice for all

8.82 5

establish Australia as independent and democratic country in which all political power comes from the Australian people

8.73 6

code of ethical conduct for politicians and public officials 8.68 7 establish that everyone must pay tax fairly according to their income and wealth

8.65 8

define the role and powers of the Parliament 8.64 9 protect the independence of the legal system 8.59 10 Source: Mike Salvaris, Swinburne Institute for Social Research. ‘Benchmarks for Australian Citizenship’ funded by Australian Research Council. 1999.

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

IV. Democracy beyond

the State

1. Nationhood and common citizenship

5. Free and fair elections

10. Democratic media

14. Democracy of international relations

2. The rule of law and access to justice

6. Democratic role of political parties

11. Citizen partici- pation in public life

3. Civil and political rights equal, guaranteed

7. Government effectiveness and accountability

12. Government responsiveness to citizens

4. Economic and social rights equal, guaranteed

8. Civilian control of the military and police

13. Decentralisation to most appropriate 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 Rank Country 2004 CPI

Score* Country

Rank

Country

2004 CPI Score*

1 Finland 9,7 12 Austria 8,4

2 New Zealand 9,6 12 Luxembourg 8,4

3 Denmark 9,5 14 Germany 8,2

3 Iceland 9,5 15 Belgium 7,5

5 Sweden 9,2 15 Ireland 7,5

6 Switzerland 9,1 15 USA 7,5

7 Norway 8,9 18 France 7,1

8 Australia 8,8 18 Spain 7,1

9 Netherlands 8,7 20 Japan 6,9

10 United Kingdom 8,6 21 Italy 4,8

11 Canada 8,5 22

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 Promise

Objective and Promise

Objective and Promise

Objective and Promise

Objective and Promise

To provide the public with bal-anced and objective in-formation

To obtain public feed-back on analysis, al-ternatives, or decisions

To work di-rectly with the public throughout the process

To partner with the pub-lic in each aspect of the decision

To place final decision making in the hands of the public

Source: International Association for Public Participation: www.iap2.org (adapted)

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 Applications Reporting conditions In selected issues, localities or policy fields

Current wellbeing of whole state or municipality (social, economic, environmental, democratic)

Measuring progress and performance

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) Planning, priority and goal setting

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

Enhancing democracy and accountability

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

Building communities, participation and social cohesion

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

SOCIAL AND COMMUNITY WELLBEING DEMOCRACY &

GOVERNANCE

ECONOMIC WELLBEING

ENVIRONMENTWELLBEING

Individual Group Community

Qualities Infrastructure

Health & well being

Children and families

Fairness, equal opportunity

Public and civic institutions

Democracy Viable sustain- able productivity

Healthy eco- logical systems

Education & training

People on low incomes

Social capital and trust

Planning & phys infrastructure

Human rights Economic vitality

Envir’t quality: air, water, land

Income, wealth and poverty

People with disabilities

Health & viability of communities

Community services

Justice and legal rights

Appropriate job creation

Environment diversity, species

Safety and security

Women Citizenship and participation

Transport Good governance

Healthy region- al economies

Sustainable use nat. resources

Personal development

Older persons Creativity & innovation

Media and communications

Local government

Housing Ethnic and NESB groups

Crime & social dysfunction

Culture and the arts

Employment and work life

Indigenous people

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 - Atkinson Charitable Foundation - York University School of Health Policy and Management Saskatchewan - University of Saskatchewan Community University Institute for Social Research (Saskatoon)

National agencies - Statistics Canada - Health Council of Canada - Centre for the Study of Living Standards - Canadian Council on Social Development - Environment Canada State of the Environment - Canadian Policy Research Networks (Quality of Life Indicators)

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