Reporting social progress; developments in the Netherlands · 2018-03-02 ·...

Rob Bijl

Villa Vigoni conference on Social reporting in

Europe

March 9-11, 2011

Reporting social

progress; developments

in the Netherlands

Villa Vigoni, March 9-11, 2011- Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau

Reporting social progress

classical approach: Social State of the Netherlands: prosperity and wellbeing of current population

- retrospective: past 10 years

progress beyond economy: (social) sustainability

- people, planet, profit

- social progress: generational and global perspective

- prospective


•Stiglitz-Sen-Fitoussy Commission on the measurement of economic performance and social progress (2009)

•Core message: move away from assessing social progress exclusively by measuring a society´s economic output and to devote explicit attention to measuring the well-being of citizens

• In fact no new message but appeared at the right time: major problems confronting the world: climate change, global financial crisis, social unrest

• Historical lines with Club of Rome (1972, Limits to Growth), Brundtland Commission (1987, Our common future)

• Shift from purely ecological inspired notion of ´sustainability to more socioeconomically inspired concept of ´sustainable development´

Social progress by a Social sustainabilityapproach



Sustainability Monitor for the Netherlands

‘Sustainable development’ is the core concept of Our Common Future, the report of the UN’s Brundtland Commission published in 1987.

‘Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.’

The report showed how economic growth, environmental issues, and poverty and development problems are all related

Added = global perspective: needs of ‘people elsewhere’


Sustainability Monitor for the Netherlands

The selection of indicators for this monitor is based on the capital approach.

Welfare is produced by using a community’ s resources.

This approach is internationally recommended as a method to measure sustainability from a theoretical perspective (Swiss Federal Statistical Office, (2004; 2005); Telos, 2006; World Bank, 2006).

A recent joint rapport of the United Nations, Eurostat and the OECD (2009) proposed that the method be further developed and introduced in all countries to improve international comparability.


Indicators selected in 4 types of capital:

– Natural capital (A. Climate and energy; B. Biodiversity; D. Soil, water and air);

– Social capital (E. Social participation; F. Trust);

– Human capital (G. Utilisation of labour; H. Education; J. Health);

– Economic capital (K. Physical capital; L. Knowledge).

Inequality (by gender, ethnic origin, educational level)(social and human capital)

International comparison (natural capital)

Social capital

Social participation

E1 Social participation (hours pw)

E2 Voluntary work (%)

E3 Contacts with family and friends (%)

Trust

F1 Generalised trust (score out of 10)

F2 Feelings of discrimination (%)

F3 Trust in institutions

Human capital

Labour utilisation

G1 Hours worked (hours pp py)

G2 Labour participation (%)

G3 Hours worked by workers (hours pw pwkr

G4 Retirement age (age

G5 Over-65s (%)

Education

H1 Education level (% with sse)

H2 Education level of young people (% sse)

H3 School leavers (%)

H4 Maths skills (PISA score)

H5 Education expenditure (% GDP)

H6 Lifelong learning (%)

Health

J1 Female life expectancy (years)

J2 Healthy female life expectancy (years)

J3 Health expenditure (% GDP)

Natural capital

Climate and energy

A1 Greenhouse gas emissions

A2 Energy reserves (GJ pp)

A3 Energy intensity (oil eq. per 1000 euro GDP)

A4 Renewable energy (%)

Biodiversity

B1 Mean species abundance (%)

B2 Red list (number of species)

B3 Preservation of species (%)

B4 Area of nature and forest (%)

Soil, water and air

D1 Urban exposure to particulate matter (μg/m3) 2)

D2 Acidifying emissions (kg acid eq. Pp)

D3 Nitrogen deposits (mol per ha. py

D4 Phosphorus in soil (kg per ha)

D5 Phosphorus in water (g per l)

Economic capital

Physical capital

K1 Capital stock (1,000 euro (2005) pp)

K2 Capital stock per unit of GDP (proportion)

K3 Investment (% GDP)

Knowledge

L1 Knowledge capital (R&D) (1,000 euro (2005) pp)

L2 Private sector expenditure on R&D (% GDP)

L3 Public sector expenditure on R&D (% GDP

L4 Patents (number pmp)

15/03/2011

Villa Vigoni, March 9-11, 2011- Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau8


Progress? Challenges and trade-offs

Sustainable development will not happen of its own accord. The sustainability of the present level of wealth for future generations and the use of resources in ways that are not detrimental to people living outside the Netherlands pose a number of challenges to Dutch society. To make the necessary choices it is important to realise that not all goals can be realised at the same time.

Sustainability policy is about choices. Choices against a background of scarcity and uncertainty. This means that trade-offs come into play. More of one thing implies less of another.


Challenges and trade-offs

1. Labour force and population ageing

2. Social cohesion

3. Knowledge

4. Climate change

5. Biodiversity and natural resources


Changing the guard


Generations

Progress in terms of generational changes

Sustainability policy is also generational policy

2 meanings of the word ‘generation’:

- societal generations / birth cohorts

- family generations


Pre-war generation

Baby boom generation - born after WW-2 (1945 – 1965)

Protest generation

Einstein generation

The boundless generation / the french fries generation / lost generation

Overlapping like roof- tiles: gradual differences.

Generalising concept , based on objective or subjective characteristics, experiences, behavioural patterns or assumed attitudes


Birth cohorts/generations

Some general findings:

- Younger generations participate less in civil society (church membership, voluntary work). But: probable change when they get older

- New forms of social involvement: supporting human rights and nature/environmental organisations: Greenpeace, AI.

- There is solidarity between generations

- But: demographic changes put this under pression: pensions, financing the social security.

- ‘Babyboombashing’ in the public debate: question of (in)justice . But is it true?



Family generations

Relations between successive (family) generations

Intergenerational mobility: are the children better off (economically, education) than their parents?

Intergenerational transfer: what do children receive from their parents in terms of capital and values?

Intergenerational solidarity: how much and in which form there is solidarity within families?


Some findings:

Demographic and social developments caused changes in the generational structure and the relations within families.

- Less children: in the 50’s > 3 children, now 1.7

- Longer life expectancy

- Vertical relations within families (between (grand)parents and (grand)children) have become stronger, horizontal relations (with uncles, aunts, nieces, nephews) weaker.

- Changes in the ties between parents and children: less obligatory, more voluntarily; less hierarchical, more ‘democratic’. This is all related to increased economic prosperity, individualization, secularization, women’s emancipation, increase of welfare arrangements by the state.

New phenomena:

- Downward mobility in educational levels in men.

- Importance of education as mean of social upward mobility is put into perspective.

- Future generations not necessarily economically better off than present generation.

What do we call social progress?

Date post:	25-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Reporting social progress; developments in the Netherlands · 2018-03-02 ·...

Documents