Search

In the Netherlands, there is a growing movement to adopt and consider non-GDP metrics in policymaking, supported by national statistics institutes such as the Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek (CBS). In 2018, the CBS introduced the Monitor Brede Welvaart (MBW) (van de Sangen, 20180). However, because this movement is still in its early stages, there is little evidence of its adoption in practice (Smit, 2022). This research paper seeks to shed light on this area by exploring the (potential) gap between a recognised need for a broader conception of societal wellbeing, and its adoption in practice. This research will collect qualitative data on the views and experiences of civil servants in the Dutch government (Walker et al., 2020). Exploring the factors that may be facilitating or hindering the adoption of the Brede Welvaart movement into the day to day practice of civil servants is both politically and socially relevant.

DergiPark: 466902 trakyasobed The most significant requirement for people to maintain theirlives comfortably, is to have a specific level of welfare. Therefore, a countryhaving a high level of welfare is preferred as a livable country. This hassignificant influences on the economies of countries. One of most significantresearches conducted for determining the welfare levels of countries is theBetter Life Index (BLI) research conducted by Organization for EconomicCo-operation and Development (OECD) every year on a regular basis. With thisresearch, 38 countries are ranked based on main criteria and sub-criteria, buta general ranking is not made. The aim of this study is to rank the countriesby using Better Life Index data created by OECD. In the study, the criterionweights were determined and then, the countries were ranked with MULTIMOORAmethod. Then, the relationship between ranking of countries and their HumanDevelopment Index (HDI) rankings were investigated with Spearman’s RankCorrelation Coefficient and the results were interpreted. Kişilerin yaşamlarını rahat bir şekildesürdürebilmeleri için en önemli koşul refah düzeyinin belirli bir seviyedeolmasıdır. Dolayısıyla, iyi bir refah düzeyi olan ülke yaşanılabilir ülkeolarak tercih edilmektedir. Bu durum, ülkelerin ekonomileri üzerinde ciddietkiler yaratmaktadır. Ülkelerin refah düzeyini belirlemek adına yapılanaraştırmaların en önemlilerinden biri Ekonomik Kalkınma ve İşbirliği Örgütü (Organisationfor Economic Co-operation and Development: OECD) tarafından her yıl düzenliolarak gerçekleştirilen Daha İyi Yaşam Endeksi (Better Life Index: BLI)araştırmasıdır. Bu araştırma ile 38 ülke ana kriterler ve alt kriterler bazındasıralanmakta ancak genel bir sıralama yapılmamaktadır. Bu çalışmanın amacı,OECD tarafından oluşturulan Daha İyi Yaşam Endeksi verilerini kullanarakülkelerin sıralamalarını elde etmektedir. Çalışmada ilk olarak kriterağırlıkları entropi ile belirlenmiş, daha sonrasında ise MULTIMOORA metodu ileülkeler sıralanmıştır. Bu aşamadan sonra ise ülkelerin elde edilen sıralamalarıile İnsani Gelişme Endeksi (Human Development Index: HDI) sıralamalarıarasındaki ilişki Spearman Sıra Korelasyon Katsayısı ile incelenmiş ve sonuçlaryorumlanmıştır.

Well-being has become an important policy goal to replace gross domestic product (GDP) as an indicator of national progress. Several multidimensional metrics and indicators of well-being have been developed mostly based on the four-capital model that includes natural, economic, human and social capital. These multidimensional measures of well-being, however, are highly categorical and lack a systems perspective that focuses on underlying mechanisms of the metrics and the interconnections between them. This study aims at bringing a systems thinking approach to understanding and measuring national well-being, particularly from a human capital perspective. For this purpose, we employ a qualitative systems mapping approach and identify the direct or indirect relationships between the well-being indicators related to human capital. The results show that the human capital system is governed by several reinforcing feedback loops through economic progress, health and life expectancy, which gives a central role to human capital to enhance well-being. There are balancing loops, however, that may have adverse effects on human capital formation and well-being, for instance through migration and ageing. Future studies can focus on the other three subsystems in the four-capital model, and on quantifying the relationships between different dimensions of well-being.

International comparisons of health systems are frequently used to inform national health policy debates. These comparisons can be used to gauge areas of strength and weakness in a health system, and to find potential solutions from abroad that can be applied locally. But such comparisons are methodologically fraught and, if not carefully performed and used, can be misleading. In a recent IJHPR article, Baruch Levi has raised concerns about the use of international comparisons of self-reported health data in health policy debates in Israel. Self-reported health is one of the most robust and frequently used measures of health, and the OECD uses a commonly accepted measure specification, which has five response categories. Israel’s survey question, unlike the OECD measure specification, includes only four response categories. While this may be a valid method when applied over time as a scale within Israel, it creates problems for international comparison. To improve comparability, Israel’s Central Bureau of Statistics could revise the survey question. However, revising the question would introduce a “break” in the data series that interrupts comparisons within Israel over time. Israeli policymakers therefore face a decision about priorities: is it more important to them to be able to track health status within Israel over time, or to be able to make meaningful comparisons to other countries? If the priority were international comparisons and the Israel survey was revised, a small study could be conducted among a sample of Israeli respondents to enable crosswalking of self-reported health responses from the four-point scale to the five-point scale. If the Central Bureau of Statistics does not revise its survey, the OECD should examine whether a stronger caveat is possible for its comparisons.

Local health companies have been trying to report quantitative and qualitative information through social reporting tools for a long time. The OECD has been questioning for quite some time how to evaluate satisfaction and quality by not considering the economic aspect alone in the quest for satisfying the needs of the citizen. The aim of the work is to evaluate how the compound indicator of well-being perceived by the population and the composite indicator of the quality of health services can be used to define health policies considering the incidence of other variables. In the analysis, it is therefore assessed how much the two indicators are related and linked to other variables that need to be considered and how independent indicators are used without further evaluations to target policies. The data are updated to October 18, 2017. All statistical analyses were performed using STATA V.13 (Stata Corp, College Station, Texas, USA, 2013) and p value

Across the globe there is growing skepticism about the usefulness of GDP as a measure of national well-being. Consequently, several alternative quality-of-life (QOL) measures were developed which either aim at healing the GDP, complementing it, or replacing it. This chapter portrays some of these new measures and puts them to a happiness test: compared to the GDP, are the new QOL measures better able to capture what makes people happy and satisfied with their lives? Using data for 34 OECD societies, we can show that from a happiness perspective, there is-surprisingly-little wrong with the GDP, and most alternative QOL measures do not outperform GDP. Yet, one measure actually does a better job: the OECD's Better Life Index which is particularly effective when it comes to predicting subjective well-being in the richest OECD countries. In sum, the chapter demonstrates that a happiness perspective can add important insights along the way to facilitate the search for a new, widely accepted, internationally comparable measure of well-being. (author's abstract)