福祉指标的政策使用

Carrie Exton, Michal Shinwell
{"title":"福祉指标的政策使用","authors":"Carrie Exton, Michal Shinwell","doi":"10.1787/d98eb8ed-en","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The last decade has seen major advances in the measurement of well-being in national statistics – but what are governments doing to incorporate these metrics and frameworks into policy decision making? This paper describes the progress made in many countries on measuring well-being at a national level, and the mechanisms being developed to mainstream both concepts and evidence on well-being into policy settings. In all cases, countries are adopting a multidimensional approach to the measurement of well-being, and several initiatives have been informed by extensive public consultation processes. For seven countries, detailed case studies in the Annex describe the development and implementation of policy mechanisms for integrating well-being evidence: Ecuador, France, Italy, New Zealand, Scotland, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. The paper finds that well-being evidence is applied at several different stages of the policy cycle, from strategic analysis and prioritization to evaluations of policy interventions. In most cases these initiatives are only a few years old, and institutional support will be vital for the durability of these mechanisms over time and through different political cycles.","PeriodicalId":196193,"journal":{"name":"OECD Statistics Working Papers","volume":"45 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"33","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Policy use of well-being metrics\",\"authors\":\"Carrie Exton, Michal Shinwell\",\"doi\":\"10.1787/d98eb8ed-en\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The last decade has seen major advances in the measurement of well-being in national statistics – but what are governments doing to incorporate these metrics and frameworks into policy decision making? This paper describes the progress made in many countries on measuring well-being at a national level, and the mechanisms being developed to mainstream both concepts and evidence on well-being into policy settings. In all cases, countries are adopting a multidimensional approach to the measurement of well-being, and several initiatives have been informed by extensive public consultation processes. For seven countries, detailed case studies in the Annex describe the development and implementation of policy mechanisms for integrating well-being evidence: Ecuador, France, Italy, New Zealand, Scotland, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. The paper finds that well-being evidence is applied at several different stages of the policy cycle, from strategic analysis and prioritization to evaluations of policy interventions. In most cases these initiatives are only a few years old, and institutional support will be vital for the durability of these mechanisms over time and through different political cycles.\",\"PeriodicalId\":196193,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"OECD Statistics Working Papers\",\"volume\":\"45 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-11-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"33\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"OECD Statistics Working Papers\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1787/d98eb8ed-en\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"OECD Statistics Working Papers","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1787/d98eb8ed-en","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 33

摘要

过去十年,在国家统计数据中衡量福祉方面取得了重大进展——但政府在将这些指标和框架纳入政策决策方面做了哪些工作?本文描述了许多国家在国家层面衡量福祉方面取得的进展,以及正在开发的将福祉概念和证据纳入政策制定主流的机制。在所有情况下,各国都在采用一种多层面的方法来衡量福祉,而且有几项倡议是在广泛的公众协商过程中得到启发的。对于厄瓜多尔、法国、意大利、新西兰、苏格兰、瑞典和联合王国这七个国家,附件中详细的案例研究描述了整合福祉证据的政策机制的制定和实施情况。本文发现,福祉证据应用于政策周期的几个不同阶段,从战略分析和优先排序到政策干预的评估。在大多数情况下,这些倡议只有几年的历史,体制支持对于这些机制在不同的政治周期中长期持久至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Policy use of well-being metrics
The last decade has seen major advances in the measurement of well-being in national statistics – but what are governments doing to incorporate these metrics and frameworks into policy decision making? This paper describes the progress made in many countries on measuring well-being at a national level, and the mechanisms being developed to mainstream both concepts and evidence on well-being into policy settings. In all cases, countries are adopting a multidimensional approach to the measurement of well-being, and several initiatives have been informed by extensive public consultation processes. For seven countries, detailed case studies in the Annex describe the development and implementation of policy mechanisms for integrating well-being evidence: Ecuador, France, Italy, New Zealand, Scotland, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. The paper finds that well-being evidence is applied at several different stages of the policy cycle, from strategic analysis and prioritization to evaluations of policy interventions. In most cases these initiatives are only a few years old, and institutional support will be vital for the durability of these mechanisms over time and through different political cycles.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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