The Use and Impact of Well‐Being Metrics on Policymaking: Developers' and Users' Perspectives in Scotland and Italy

IF 2.6 2区 社会学 Q2 DEVELOPMENT STUDIES
Fabio Battaglia
{"title":"The Use and Impact of Well‐Being Metrics on Policymaking: Developers' and Users' Perspectives in Scotland and Italy","authors":"Fabio Battaglia","doi":"10.1111/spol.13084","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Gross domestic product (GDP) is frequently used as a proxy for well‐being. Such use of GDP is problematic for many reasons, for GDP excludes activities that contribute to well‐being and includes others that have a negative impact instead. As a result, a vast array of metrics has been developed to complement or replace it and put well‐being at the heart of policymaking. Nonetheless, previous research has shown that their use and impact on policymaking has been limited. This article examines the use and impact of well‐being metrics according to their own developers and intended users in the crucial cases of Scotland and Italy, focusing specifically on the two countries' official well‐being frameworks. Despite being at the forefront of the well‐being debate, both countries have never been studied in this regard before. This article fills this gap, collating views from more than 100 stakeholders, including statisticians, members of interest groups, policymakers and journalists. Findings show that the vast majority of informants could not cite any examples of cases in which either framework impacted on policymaking, or in which they themselves had used these. In some cases, this was due to them not being aware of what such frameworks were in the first place. Those who could identify some examples were those who were or used to be part of the government. Examples would, however, tend to be vague, in some instances remarkable yet merely anecdotal, and still in others the result of an ‘ex‐post rationalisation’.","PeriodicalId":47858,"journal":{"name":"Social Policy & Administration","volume":"58 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Policy & Administration","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/spol.13084","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DEVELOPMENT STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Gross domestic product (GDP) is frequently used as a proxy for well‐being. Such use of GDP is problematic for many reasons, for GDP excludes activities that contribute to well‐being and includes others that have a negative impact instead. As a result, a vast array of metrics has been developed to complement or replace it and put well‐being at the heart of policymaking. Nonetheless, previous research has shown that their use and impact on policymaking has been limited. This article examines the use and impact of well‐being metrics according to their own developers and intended users in the crucial cases of Scotland and Italy, focusing specifically on the two countries' official well‐being frameworks. Despite being at the forefront of the well‐being debate, both countries have never been studied in this regard before. This article fills this gap, collating views from more than 100 stakeholders, including statisticians, members of interest groups, policymakers and journalists. Findings show that the vast majority of informants could not cite any examples of cases in which either framework impacted on policymaking, or in which they themselves had used these. In some cases, this was due to them not being aware of what such frameworks were in the first place. Those who could identify some examples were those who were or used to be part of the government. Examples would, however, tend to be vague, in some instances remarkable yet merely anecdotal, and still in others the result of an ‘ex‐post rationalisation’.
福祉指标的使用及其对决策的影响:苏格兰和意大利开发者和用户的观点
国内生产总值(GDP)经常被用作福祉的代用指标。由于许多原因,这样使用国内生产总值是有问题的,因为国内生产总值不包括对福祉有贡献的活动,而包括其他有负面影响的活动。因此,人们制定了大量指标来补充或取代国内生产总值,并将福祉置于决策的核心位置。然而,以往的研究表明,这些指标的使用和对决策的影响有限。本文根据苏格兰和意大利的关键案例,特别是这两个国家的官方福祉框架,根据其自身的开发者和预期用户,研究了福祉指标的使用和影响。尽管这两个国家处于福祉讨论的前沿,但以前从未对其进行过这方面的研究。这篇文章填补了这一空白,整理了 100 多位利益相关者的观点,其中包括统计学家、利益团体成员、政策制定者和记者。研究结果表明,绝大多数信息提供者都无法举出任何例子说明这两个框架对决策产生了影响,或者他们自己曾经使用过这些框架。在某些情况下,这是因为他们根本不知道这些框架是什么。能够举出一些例子的人是那些曾经是或曾经是政府成员的人。然而,这些例子往往比较含糊,在某些情况下,这些例子非常显著,但仅仅是传闻,而在另一些情况下,这些例子则是 "事后合理化 "的结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
6.20%
发文量
93
期刊介绍: Social Policy & Administration is the longest established journal in its field. Whilst remaining faithful to its tradition in academic excellence, the journal also seeks to engender debate about topical and controversial issues. Typical numbers contain papers clustered around a theme. The journal is international in scope. Quality contributions are received from scholars world-wide and cover social policy issues not only in Europe but in the USA, Canada, Australia and Asia Pacific.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信