Advertisement

A Multi-stakeholder Framework to Facilitate Policy Making in the Use of BES Data: A Focus on Health in South Tyrol

  • Andrea Salustri
  • Federica Viganò
Chapter
Part of the Social Indicators Research Series book series (SINS, volume 77)

Abstract

We present a statistical analysis aimed at investigating the quality of the health domain of BES in South Tyrol. After having summarized the academic debate on the distinction between objective and subjective indicators and on the use of subjective measures in policy making, we illustrate the rationale behind the approach adopted to interpret the available data. We observe how the heterogeneity of the stakeholders influences the way in which information is turned into policy action and the conflicts of interests that might arise must be resolved. Therefore we merge the information collected in a harmonized policy framework and we use it to identify the most critical issues regarding the improvement of health conditions in South Tyrol. Due to the high level of standardization, the exercise can be replicated for other BES domains and territories, promoting a more effective use of well-being data within policy making in Italy.

Keywords

Equitable and Sustainable Well-being (BES) Quality of life Social indicators Beyond GDP Public policy 

JEL Code

I31 R5 

References

  1. Abrams, M. (1973). Research on subjective social indicators. In M. Nissel (Ed.), Social trends (Vol. 4, pp. 35–50). London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  2. Adler, A. & Seligman, M. E. P. (2016). Using well-being for public policy: Theory, measurement, and recommendations. International Journal of Well-being, 6(1), 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. ASTAT, (2014). La salute degli altoatesini – 2013. Astat info n.56. Bolzano.Google Scholar
  4. ASTAT, (2015). Soddisfazione dei cittadini nei confronti dei servizi pubblici – 2015. Astat info n. 50. Bolzano.Google Scholar
  5. Campbell, A., Converse, P., Rodgers, W. (1976). The quality of American life. New York: Russell Sage FoundationGoogle Scholar
  6. Diener, E., Lucas, R. E., Schimmack, U., Helliwell, J. F. (2009). Well-being for public policy. Oxford/New York: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  7. Dolan, P., Layard, R., Metcalf, R. (2011). Measuring subjective well-being for public policy; recommendations on measures. Special paper No. 23. Centre for Economic Performance.Google Scholar
  8. Dolan, P. & Peasgood, T. (2008). Measuring Well-Being for Public Policy: Preferences or Experiences?, The Journal of Legal Studies, 37, 5–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dolan, P. & White, M. P. (2007). How Can Measures of Subjective Well-Being be Used to Inform Public Policy?. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2, 71–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Duncan, G. (2010). Should happiness-maximization be the goal of government?. Journal of Happiness Studies, 11(2), 163–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Forgeard, M. J. C., Jayawickreme, E., Kern, M., Seligman, M. E. P. (2011). Doing the right thing: Measuring well-being for public policy. International Journal of Well-being, 1(1), 79–106Google Scholar
  12. Frey B. & Stutzer A. (2002). What can economists learn from happiness research?. Journal of Economic Literature, 40(2):402–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Frey B. & Stutzer A., (2010). Happiness and Public Choice. Public Choice, 144, 557–573Google Scholar
  14. Helliwell, J. F. (2006). Well-being, social capital and public policy: what’s new?. Economic Journal, 116, 34–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Helliwell, J. F., Layard, R., Sachs, J. (Eds.). (2012). World Happiness Report. New York, NY: The Earth Institute, Columbia UniversityGoogle Scholar
  16. ISTAT (2015). URBES Il benessere equo e sostenibile nelle città. Rapporto SISTANGoogle Scholar
  17. ISTAT, CNEL, Città di Bolzano, (2015) Rapporto URBES 2015, Bolzano, http://www.istat.it/storage/urbes2015/bolzano.pdf. Accessed 1st November 2017.
  18. Kahneman, D., Krueger, A. B., Schkade, D. A., Schwarz, N., Stone, A. A. (2004). A survey method for characterizing daily life experience: the day reconstruction method. Science, 306, 1776–1780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kroll, C., & Delhey, J. (2013). A happy nation? Opportunities and challenges of using subjective indicators in policymaking. Social Indicators Research, 114(1), 13–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Layard, R. (2011). Happiness: Lessons from a New Science (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Penguin Press.Google Scholar
  21. Noll, H. H. (2008). European survey data: Rich sources for quality of life research. In V. Møller, et al. (Eds.), Barometers of quality of life around the globe social indicators research series (Vol. 33, pp. 1–21). Dordrecht: SpringerGoogle Scholar
  22. Noll, H. H. (2013). Subjective Social Indicators: Benefits and Limitations for Policy Making—An Introduction to this Special Issue. Social Indicators Research 113, 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. OECD. (2013). OECD guidelines on measuring subjective well-being. OECD PublishingGoogle Scholar
  24. Seaford C. (2013). The Multiple Uses of Subjective Well-Being Indicators. Social Indicators Research, 114: 29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Stiglitz, J. E., Sen, A., Fitoussi, J. P. (2009). Report by the Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress. OECDGoogle Scholar
  26. Veenhoven R. (2001), Why social policy needs subjective indicators. Discussion Paper Series Social Science Research Center Berlin, Berlin.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrea Salustri
    • 1
  • Federica Viganò
    • 1
  1. 1.Free University of BozenBolzanoItaly

Personalised recommendations