1. Regional Well-being
Measurement
&
Public Deliberation
Tommaso Rondinella (Istat),
Dr. Anat Itay-Sarig (JDC)
Elisabetta Segre (Istat)
Duccio Zola (Lunaria and “Sapienza
University” of Rome)
The Negev LSED Euromed Congress
Ben Gurion University, Beer Sheva,
10th December 2013

2. Progress and Quality of Life
How do
we
define
it?
How do
we
measure
it?
How do
we make
it
happen?

3. Measuring Well-being Around the World
The Canadian Index of Well-being
Measures of Australia's Progress
National Well-being wheel of measures
Gross National Happiness
NEF – Happy planet Index
Lunaria:!Sbilanciamoci

4. Thinking about our Quality of Life
Choosing Indicators
Following Trends
Increase in participation and involvement
Better quality of life
Civic Society
Community Assessment Projects

5. Why Measure Locally or Regionally?
• When well-being indicators are based on civic engagement
and local authorities, they are more likely to succeed
(Walace & Schmuecker 2013).
• People identify their well-being in their close environment.
• Who are the relevant forces on that close environment?
• Usually rich sets of indicators – easier to manage on a local
level.
• Allows for focused investments: based on unique needs
and preferences.
• Dealing with changes in the area – identifying problems
before they become acute (violence in Toronto).

6. Why Measure Locally or Regionally?
• Close to regional developments and changes;
• A clear regional voice and preferences;
• Local action involving and empowering local
actors;
• Differences between different regions;

8. Well-being Indicators – Local and
Regional Examples
• Santa-Cruz (ASR 2012; Brutzky 2008): 50% decrease
in teen drug abuse within 8 years.
• Map (MAP 2012; ACOLA 2013) – developing regional
structures (more effective levels).
• Virginia, USA: measuring is a government initiative,
but performed on the regional level with regional
control of the priorities.

9. Well-being Indicators – Local and
Regional Examples
• Headwater, Ontario: Health. Citizens with local
government – determining priorities – 44% increase
in health positions, (HCIA, 2010).
• Vital Signs, Canada (Walace & Schmuecker 2013):
Philanthropy, with strong public participation with
close municipal connections.

10. Main challenges
• Cooperation: government, civil society, etc.
• Not all domains are in within strong regional
influence – it is vital to identify what changes
can be generated locally and which ones
cannot.

11. How do we make it work?
• Adapting bureaucracy to policy: a complex
world, needing new solutions –
cooperation, collective impact. (e.g, a
champion from one relevant
office, responsible for the collaboration).
• Involving the public.
• Being focused and following the trends.
• Allocation of responsibilities according to
strengths (CIW).

12. Granting legitimacy to wellbeing indicators
through public deliberation and civil society
engagement.

13. Well-being and democracy
• Statistical information needs a certain degree of
legitimacy in order to be followed by policy makers
(relevant, reliable).
• The choice of the phenomena to monitor coincides
with the selection of policy priorities.
What we measure affects what we do.
(Stiglitz-Sen-Fitoussi report)

14. The crisis of democracy
In the past thirty years strong crisis signals have emerged in
terms of democratic legitimacy exactly where democracy
developed – in Europe, in Japan and in the USA.
[Norris 1999; Pharr and Putnam 2000].
The symptoms:
• the very low electoral participation,
• the declining credibility of political parties and trade unions,
• the growing gap between people and élites,
• the fading away of traditional socio-cultural points of
reference,
• the management of power without contacts with voters

15. The role of civil society
• Public choices may not only be legitimized through the
formal State bodies (institutional, juridical,
constitutional) but necessarily must be based also on
contributions from civil society, the autonomous and
non-formalised space where public opinions are
formed.
[Habermas 2001b; Benhabib 1996; Bohman 1996].
• It is a political contribution, merging the cognitive and
participatory dimensions, the activists and experts'
work, protest and proposal.
[Pianta 2001; Marcon 2004; Marcon 2005 ].

16. Legitimacy and public deliberation
• “[…] a legitimate decision does not represent the will of all,
but is one that results from the deliberation of all.
It is the process by which everyone’s will is formed that
confers its legitimacy on the outcome, rather than the sum
of already formed wills.
• It implies that all participate in the deliberation, and in this
sense the decision made can reasonably be considered as
emanating from the people […].
• The decision also proceeds from the liberty of individuals:
those individuals deliberate together, form their opinions
through deliberation, and at the close of the process each
opts freely for one solution or another […].
[Manin 1987, 352].

17. Conditions for public deliberation
• Equality among participants.
• Inclusion in the decision-making process of all those who
are affected by the deliberation.
• Free, public and equal representation of interests.
• Mutual understanding.
• Pursuing of the common good.
For more technical issues see also e-Frame FP7 project
(Work Package 7 - www.eframeproject.eu)

18. The Istat-Cnel initiative
 Steering Committee: with the participation of 33
stakeholders (CNEL representatives, NGO networks,
women / consumers / environmental organizations) and
Istat experts, to identify the domains and to agree on the
final list of indicators
 Scientific Commission: with the participation of 80 experts
in different fields, to select indicators for each domain.
 Public consultation:
National survey
Online survey
Blog
Regional meetings

19. BES: the process
Discussion
Annual survey on what is important
for wellbeing
(24k households)
Steering
Committee
12
Dimensions
Scientific
commission
134
Indicators
Online survey
(2500 people)
and Blog
Meetings in
every region
and Blog
Final report

20. Key domains for the Italian BES

21. Different informative needs.
• Different definitions of well-being in different territories
(north-south, urban-rural etc.) and need for further
consultation.
• Comparability at risk.
Limited availability of data.
In order to avoid the too costly option of enlarging national
surveys’ samples:
• ad hoc elaboration on national data (subsamples selections
or small area estimates),
• strengthening of the use of administrative data,
• use of local surveys.
Obstacles in shifting to the local level: UrBES

22. Thank you!
rondinella@istat.it
AnatI@jdc.org.il