THE EU REGIONAL SOCIAL PROGRESS INDEX METHODOLOGICAL...

EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL REGIONAL AND URBAN POLICY Economic Analysis Unit

THE EU REGIONAL SOCIAL PROGRESS INDEX: METHODOLOGICAL NOTE

Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 2

2. WHAT IS THE SOCIAL PROGRESS INDEX? .................................................................... 2

3. WHY AN EU REGIONAL SOCIAL PROGRESS INDEX?..................................................... 3

4. HOW WAS THE EU REGIONAL SOCIAL PROGRESS INDEX CONSTRUCTED? ................ 3

4.1. Geographical coverage ...................................................................................... 4

4.2. Internal statistical consistency of each component .......................................... 5

4.3. Normalization .................................................................................................... 5

4.4. Type of aggregation ........................................................................................... 6

5. REGIONS’ RELATIVE STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES .................................................. 7

6. NEXT STEPS .................................................................................................................. 7

7. EU-SPI MAIN MAPS ...................................................................................................... 9

APPENDIX ........................................................................................................................... 11

2

1. INTRODUCTION

This note summarises the state of play of the project to create a composite index of social progress for the regions of the European Union (EU), the EU-Social Progress Index (EU-SPI) and briefly discusses the methodological steps for the setting-up of the draft Index.

The EU-SPI is a three-year collaborative project carried out by the Social Progress Imperative, Orkestra (a research institute on competitiveness in the Basque region) and the Directorate-General for Regional and Urban Policy of the European Commission. The Index builds on the global Social Progress Index developed by the Social Progress Imperative, a non-profit, non-governmental organisation based in Washington DC. The regional EU-SPI aims at providing consistent, comparable and actionable measures of social and environmental issues for the regions in the 28 EU Member States (272 regions in total).

2. WHAT IS THE SOCIAL PROGRESS INDEX?

The Social Progress Index is an aggregate index of 50 social and environmental indicators that capture three dimensions of social progress: Basic Human Needs, Foundations of Wellbeing, and Opportunity.

The image below shows the three dimensions each including four components of the Social Progress Index. The index framework is identical to the one of the global Social Progress Index.

3

Each component is measured through several indicators. Four key principles guided the initial selection of the indicators exactly as for the global Social Progress Index: 1. they are exclusively social and environmental indicators (no economic measure is included); 2. they measure outcomes and not inputs; 3. they are relevant to all the regions and 4. they cover matters that can be directly addressed by policy intervention.

One of the key differences with other wellbeing indexes is that the EU-SPI, by mirroring the global Social Progress Index, includes social and environmental indicators and excludes GDP or an income-based indicator. The aim is in fact to measure social progress directly, rather than utilize economic proxies. By excluding economic indicators, the index can systematically analyse the relationship between economic development (measured for example by GDP per capita) and social development. Measures that mix social and economic indicators, the Human Development Index used by the United Nations, make it difficult to disentangle cause and effect. The Social Progress Index has been designed to complement GDP in a way it can be used as a robust, comprehensive and practical measure of inclusive growth.

3. WHY AN EU REGIONAL SOCIAL PROGRESS INDEX?

All the twelve components included in the Index cover issues that show significant variations within EU Member States. We are used to observe sometimes radical differences across the EU regions (especially between rural and urban areas) in terms, for example, of access to health care, quality and affordability of housing, personal safety, access to higher education and ICT or environmental pollution. EU Cohesion Policy is focussed on the least developed regions and supports regional strategies to promote economic, social and territorial cohesion.

This new regional index may:

help regions to identify peers, at any level of economic development, from whom they could learn and, if applicable, prioritise issues they want to address with their Cohesion Policy Programme;

serve as a sounding board for the European Commission to assess whether the 2014-2020 programmes address the right issues in the right places;

allow DG REGIO to make an contribution to the GDP and beyond debate.

4. HOW WAS THE EU REGIONAL SOCIAL PROGRESS INDEX CONSTRUCTED?

The global Social Progress Index has been published in 2014 and 2015 by the Social Progress Imperative for over 130 countries in the world. Some globally important indicators, such as primary school enrolment or household access to electricity, are important factors worldwide but less pressing issues in the EU. The EU-SPI is therefore based on a different set of indicators but with the identical set of dimensions and components.

4

A list of candidate indicators for each of the 12 components was first assembled. Besides the four key criteria mentioned above, the availability of a time series and the credibility of the data source have been the additional conditions used for indicator selection. About two-third of the indicators (36 out of 50) come from EUROSTAT, either directly from the web-site or from ad ad-hoc extraction from the module on well-being of the EU Survey on Social and Living Conditions – EU-SILC. Other sources are the European Environmental Agency (EEA), the Gallup World Poll, the Quality of Government Institute of the University of Gothenburg and Eurobarometer.

Whenever possible, the indicators have been averaged over three years, 2011-2013, to smooth out erratic changes and limit missing values problems. For consistency across the indicators, the reference period is 2011-2013 even when more recent data is available. In case of ICT indicators, which are rapidly moving, the latest year is taken as reference.

Table 1 in Appendix lists all the candidate indicators each with a short description. From this list, 50 indicators have been retained for the draft version of the EU- SPI.

A step-wise approach was followed to compute the index.

4.1. Geographical coverage

One of the major challenges of the project is reaching the sub-national, NUTS2 level for such a wide set of indicators from many different sources. The regional coverage depends on both the indicator and the country and follows a variable-geometry pattern across the components. A simple rule was adopted within and across the components. The geographical coverage that a certain component can reach for a certain country is the one reached by at least half of the indicator for that country. For instance, if at least 50% of the indicators in the Nutrition and Basic Care are observed at the NUTS2 level for Austria, then Austria is considered to be described at the NUTS2 level for that component. If some of the indicators are not actually observed at the NUTS2 level but at a less disaggregated level for Austria, the NUTS1 or national values are assigned to all the NUTS2 regions within the country. This means that the within-country variability of the Index and sub-indexes is underestimated.

Table 2 in the Appendix shows the resulting final coverage for all the countries in each of the components. The "50%-rule" allowed us to reach the NUTS2 level (with the limitations mentioned above) in almost 90% of the cases, the NUTS1 in 6% of the cases and the national level in 5% of the cases.

The same 50%-rule is then reiterated across the components included in each dimension. Given that more than 50% of the components are measured at the NUTS2 level for all the cases, regional NUTS2 scores are provided for all the countries in all the dimensions.

5

4.2. Internal statistical consistency of each component

Internal data consistency within each component is verified by a classical multivariate method, Principal Component Analysis (PCA), which is a dimensionality reduction technique designed to capture all relevant information into a small number of transformed dimensions.

We used PCA to assess which is the best set of indicators to describe a particular component. In the ideal situation each component should show a unique, most relevant PCA factor accounting for most part of the variability. Moreover, all the indicators should contribute roughly to the same extent and with the same orientation to the most relevant factor. Non-influencing indicators, or indicators describing something else they are supposed to, are easily detected by the analysis.

PCA is then a tool to refine the set of indicators to be retained in each single component. In the revised framework, all the components should show a unique, underlying factor with a well-balanced contribution of each indicator within the component.

4.3. Normalization

In line with the Global SPI, the EU-SPI scores at the overall, dimension, and component levels are all based on a 0-100 scale. This scale is determined by identifying the best and worst global performance on each indicator by any region. To set these boundaries we sometimes use: 1. theoretical utopian and dystopian values, when meaningful; 2. maximum and minimum values across a time series, when available1, or 3. guidelines or projection data. Table 3 in the Appendix shows the boundary values for the draft version of the EU-SPI.

This type of normalization allows the EU-SPI scores to benchmark against realistic rather than abstract measures and to track absolute, not just relative, performance of the regions on each component of the model.

All the indicators are oriented in order to have high values representing high levels of social progress. Once the minimum (xmin) and maximum (xmax) values for indicator x have been set, the transformation adopted is then:

= 100 ∙ ( − )( − ) −100 ∙ ( − )( − ) + 100

1 Sometimes a 0.95 or 1.05 correction factor is applied to the worst/best value across the time series to allow for a margin of deterioration/improvement (buffer).

6

4.4. Type of aggregation

Two types of aggregating operators are chosen: the arithmetic mean within each component and the generalized mean across components and across dimensions.

Within the components, the internal consistency assessed through PCA guarantees that the simple arithmetic mean is a proper way to aggregate because the compensability effect across the indicators is limited.

Across the components and, even more, across the dimensions the effect of compensability is generally more accentuated. To avoid that a surplus in one component can fully compensate a shortage in another, we use a (un-weighted) generalized mean of order β:

= 1 ≠ 0for = 0(geometricmean)

where Ij is the aggregated score for region j for a certain component, q is the number of indicators included in the component and xi is the value of indicator i observed for region j. For β=1, Ij is the arithmetic mean.

If 0 < β < 1, the generalised mean is said to be inequality-adverse: a rise in the level of one indicator in the lower tail of the distribution will increase the overall mean by more than a similar rise in the upper tail, thus giving more importance to low levels.

For the draft version of the EU-SPI, the generalized mean of order β=0.5 is used to aggregate the components into the dimension scores and the dimension scores into the final, overall EU-SPI score. The effect on regions scores/rankings due to the value of β varying in between the interval [0,1] will be tested by an uncertainty analysis.

4.5. Regional scores anchored to national ones

For each country, component scores are computed at the regional level, when indicators are available at the regional level, but also at the national level from national indicators. In order for the regional and national scores to be consistent, regional component scores are rescaled and anchored to the national component scores. In this way, population weighted averages of regional scores are equal to national scores for all the components.

7

5. REGIONS’ RELATIVE STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES

The normalized 0-100 scale shows a region’s performance relative to the best and worst possible score. But in some cases, it is also helpful to compare a region’s performance to other regions at a similar level of economic development. For example, a lower-income region may have a low score on a certain component, but could greatly exceed typical scores for regions with similar per capita incomes. Conversely, a high-income region may have a high absolute score on a component, but still fall short of what is typical for comparably wealthy regions.

For this reason, we have developed a methodology to present a region’s strengths and weaknesses on a relative rather than absolute basis, comparing a region’s performance to that of its economic peers. Within the group of peer regions, yellow signifies that a region’s performance is typical for regions at its level of economic development, green signifies that the region performs substantially better than its peer group, and red signifies that the region performs substantially worse than its peer group.

We define the group of economic peers as the 15 regions closest in GDP PPP per capita. Each region’s GDP per capita is compared to every other region and the 15 regions with the smallest difference on an absolute value basis are selected for the comparator group. After significant testing, we found that groupings larger than 15 resulted in a wider range of typical scores and therefore too few relative strengths and weakness. Smaller groupings become too sensitive to outliers.

Once the group of comparator regions is established, the region’s performance is compared to the median performance of regions in the group. The median is used rather than the mean, to minimize the influence of outliers. If the region’s score is greater than (or less than) the average absolute deviation from the median of the comparator group, it is considered a strength (or weakness). Scores that are within one average absolute deviation are within the range of expected scores and are considered neither strengths nor weaknesses. A floor is established so the thresholds are no less than those for poorer regions and the minimum distance from median to strength or median to weakness is 1 point.

6. NEXT STEPS

• Sensitivity analysis to test the effect of key choices on regional scores and sub-scores.

• Presentation of the final version of the EU Regional Social Progress Index at the Open Days (October 2016) after having revised and updated the Index according to comments from regions, stakeholders and the scientific committee.

Example scorecard for Brussels BE10, Belgium

7. EU-SPI MAIN MAPS

11

APPENDIX

Table 1: List of all candidate indicators for the draft EU-SPI

12

indicator #

Indicators source geographical level description and unit of measurement reference period

included (I)/ discarded (D)

reason for discarding

Nutrition and Basic care

1 1 Premature mortality (<65) EUROSTAT NUTS2 all countries Percentage of deaths before age 65 average

2011-2012I


1 2 Infant mortality EUROSTAT NUTS2 all countries Ratio of the number of deaths of children under one year of age during the year to the number of l ive births in that year. The value is expressed per 1000 live births

average 2011-2012

I


1 3 Infectious diseases death rates EUROSTAT NUTS2 all countriesStandardised death rate rates for less than 65 years old due to certain infectious and

parasitic diseases (A00-B99) by 100 000 inhabitants. The standardisation adjusts the death rate to a standard age distribution.

average 2008-2010

Dnot fitting based on

multivariate statistical analysis


1 4 Unmet medical needs EU-SILCNUTS0 FOR: AT, BE, DE, FR, HR, PT, UKNUTS1 FOR: EL, HU, NL, PLNUTS2 for all the other countries

Percentage of people declaring having experienced unmet medical needs because: cannot afford (affordabil ity) or long waiting l ist (efficiency) or too far (accessibil ity) or didn't

know a good doctor (trust/quality)

average 2011-2013

I


1 5 Insufficient food EU-SILCNUTS0 FOR: AT, DE, FR, HR, PT, UKNUTS1 FOR: BE, EL, HU, NL, PLNUTS2 for all the other countries

Percentage of people declaring their inabil ity to afford a meal with meat, chicken, fish (or vegetarian equivalent) every second day

average 2011-2013

I

Water and Sanitation

2 1 Satisfaction with water quality Gallup NUTS1 FOR: BE, DE, EL, NL, UKNUTS2 for all the other countries

Share of people who declared of being satisfied with water qualitymultiple

latest yearsI


2 2 Lack of toilet in dwelling EU-SILC

NUTS0 FOR: AT, DE, FR, HR, PT, UKNUTS1 FOR: BE, EL, HU, NL, PLSE missingNUTS2 for all the other countries

Share of total population not having indoor flushing toilet for the sole use of their household

average 2011-2013

I


2 3 Uncollected sewage European Environment Agency

NUTS2 all countries Urban wastewater not collected by collecting systems nor treated by individual or other appropriate systemsas a % of generated load 2010 I


2 4 Sewage treatment European Environment Agency

NUTS2 all countriesHR missing

Urban wastewater with more stringent treatment as a percentage of collected wastewater 2010 I

Shelter 3 1 Burdensome cost of housing EU-SILCNUTS0 FOR: AT, DE, FR, HR, PT, UKNUTS1 FOR: BE, EL, HU, NL, PLNUTS2 for all the other countries

Percentage of people l iving in a dwell ing where housing costs (mortgage repayment or rent, insurance and service charges ) are a financial burden

average 2011-2013

I

Shelter 3 2 Satisfaction with housing EU-SILCNUTS0 FOR: AT, BE, DE, EL, FR, HR, HU, NL, PL, PT, UKNUTS2 for all the other countries

Percentage of people who feel satisfied with the dwelling they l ive in 2012 I

Shelter 3 3 Overcrowding EU-SILCNUTS0 FOR: AT, DE, FR, HR, PT, UKNUTS1 FOR: BE, EL, HU, NL, PLNUTS2 for all the other countries

Percentage of people l iving in an overcrowded dwelling, as defined by the number of rooms available to the household, the household’s size, as well as its members’ ages and

family situation

average 2011-2013

I

Shelter 3 4 Housing quality EU-SILCNUTS0 FOR: AT, DE, FR, HR, PT, UKNUTS1 FOR: BE, EL, HU, NL, PLNUTS2 for all the other countries

Percentage of people declaring of suffering of housing deficiencies: lack of basic sanitary facil ities in the dwell ing (bath or shower or indoor flushing toilet), problems in the

general condition of the dwelling (leaking roof or dwelling being too dark)

average 2011-2013



Shelter 3 5 Lack of adequate heating EU-SILCNUTS0 FOR: AT, DE, FR, HR, PT, UKNUTS1 FOR: BE, EL, HU, NL, PLNUTS2 for all the other countries

Percentage of people who are in the state of enforced inabil ity to keep home adequately warm

average 2011-2013

I

Personal Safety 4 1 Homicide rate EUROSTATNUTS0 FOR: HR, IENUTS1 FOR: EL, NLNUTS2 for all the other countries

Rate of homicides per 100 thousand inhabitants (homicide is defined as the intentional kil l ing of a person, including murder, manslaughter, euthanasia and infanticide. It

excludes death by dangerous driving, abortion and assisted suicide)

average 2008-2010

I

Personal Safety 4 2 Crime EU-SILCNUTS0 FOR: AT, DE, FR, HR, PT, UKNUTS1 FOR: BE, EL, HU, NL, PLNUTS2 for all the other countries

Percentage of people who declared having faced the problem of crime, violence or vandalism in the local area

average 2011-2013



Personal Safety 4 3 Safety at night Gallup NUTS1 FOR: BE, DE, EL, NL, UKNUTS2 for all the other countries

Share of people who declared they feel safe when walking at night alonemultiple

latest yearsI

Personal Safety 4 4 Traffic deaths EUROSTAT NUTS0 FOR: HRNUTS2 for all the other countries

Number of road traffic accident fatalities per million inhabitantsaverage

2011-2013I

component name

13

indicator #

Indicators source geographical level description and unit of measurement reference year



Access to basic Knowledge

5 1 Pre-primary enrolment EUROSTATNUTS0 FOR: HRNUTS1 FOR: DE, UKNUTS2 for all the other countries

Percentage of the age group between 4-years-old and the starting age of compulsory education participating in early chi ldhood education 2013 D

not fitting based on multivariate

statistical analysis


5 2 Upper-secondary enrolment rate EUROSTAT and DG Regio own computations

NUTS0 FOR: HRNUTS1 FOR: DE, UKNUTS2 for all the other countries

Enrolment rates of age group 12-18 in upper-secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education (ISCED 3-4) corrected for commuting patterns (capped at 1)

average 2011-2012

I


5 3 Lower-secondary completion only EUROSTAT NUTS2 all countries Percentage of people aged 25 to 64 who have successfully completed at most lower secondary education (ISCED 0-2)

average 2011-2013

I


5 4 Early school leavers EUROSTAT NUTS2 all countriesPercentage of people aged 18-24 with at most lower secondary education (ISCED 0-2) and

who were not in further education or training during the last four weeks preceding the survey

average 2011-2013

I

Access to basic Knowledge 5 5

Gender-gap in early school leavers

EUROSTAT and DG Regio own computations

NUTS0 FOR: HRNUTS1 FOR: UKMIXED NUTS1/NUTS2 for: DENUTS2 for all the other countries

Difference between female and male rates of early-school leavers. The indicator is capped to 0.

average 2011-2013 D

not an EU issue as drop-out levels

almost always less for girls than for boys

Access to ICT 6 1 Internet at home EUROSTATNUTS0 FOR: SINUTS1 FOR: DE, EL, FR, PL, UKNUTS2 for all the other countries

Percentage of households with access to the internet at home 2013 I

Access to ICT 6 2 Broadband at home EUROSTATNUTS0 FOR: SINUTS1 FOR: DE, EL, FR, PL, UKNUTS2 for all the other countries

Percentage of households with broadband connection 2013 I

Access to ICT 6 3Online intearction with public authorities

EUROSTATNUTS0 FOR: SINUTS1 FOR: DE, EL, FR, PL, UKNUTS2 for all the other countries

Percentage of individuals who used the Internet for interaction with publ ic authorities 2013 I

Access to ICT 6 4 Buying online EUROSTATNUTS0 FOR: SINUTS1 FOR: DE, EL, FR, PL, UKNUTS2 for all the other countries

Percentage of individuals who ordered goods or services over the Internet for private useaverage

2011-2013D not as relevant as

the others

Access to ICT 6 5 Mobile phone users Gallup NUTS1 FOR: BE, DE, EL, NL, UKNUTS2 for all the other countries

Percentage of mobile phone users 2013 Dnot fitting based on


Health and Wellness

7 1 Life expectancy EUROSTAT NUTS2 all countriesLife expectancy at birth is the mean number of years that a newborn child can expect to

live if subjected throughout his l ife to the current mortality conditions (age specific probabilities of dying)

average 2011-2012

I

Health and Wellness

7 2 General health status EU-SILCNUTS0 FOR: AT, DE, FR, HR, PT, UKNUTS1 FOR: BE, EL, HU, NL, PLNUTS2 for all the other countries

Proportion of persons who assess their health to be very good or good to the question on self-perceived health (‘How is your health in general?’)

average 2011-2013

I

Health and Wellness

7 3 Standardized cancer death rate EUROSTAT NUTS1 FOR: DK, HRNUTS2 for all the other countries

Standardised death rate rates for less than 65 years old due to cancer (code C) by 100 000 inhabitants. The standardisation adjusts the death rate to a standard age

distribution. The standardised death rates are calculated on the basis of a standard European population, as defined by the World Health Organization

average 2008-2010

I

Health and Wellness

7 4 Standardized heart disease death rate

EUROSTAT NUTS1 FOR: HRNUTS2 for all the other countries

Standardised death rate for less than 65 years old due to ischaemic heart diseases (code I) by 100 000 inhabitants. The standardisation adjusts the death rate to a standard age

distribution. The standardised death rates are calculated on the basis of a standard European population, as defined by the World Health Organization

average 2008-2010

I

Health and Wellness

7 5 Unmet dental needs EU-SILCNUTS0 FOR: AT, DE, FR, HR, PT, UKNUTS1 FOR: BE, EL, HU, NL, PLNUTS2 for all the other countries

Percentage of people declaring having experienced unmet dental needs because: cannot afford (affordabi lity) or long waiting list (efficiency) or too far (accessibil ity) or didn't

know a good doctor (trust/quality)

average 2011-2013

I

Health and Wellness

7 6 Satisfaction with air quality Gallup NUTS1 FOR: BE, DE, EL, NL, UKNUTS2 for all the other countries

Share of people havig declared being satisfied with the air quality 2013 I

Ecosystem sustainability

8 1 CO2 consumption World Input/Output Database NUTS0 all countries Consumption of CO2 2009 Dnot fitting based on



8 2 Air pollution pm10European Environmental

Agency and DG Regio own computations

NUTS2 all countriesPopulation weighted average of a 10 by 10km of air concentration (μg/m3) of particle matter of size 10 micrometers (big particles) interpolated on a grid created by the EEA.

Capped to 40 μg/m3 = limit yearly value of the EU Ambient Air Quality Directive 2011 I


8 3 Air pollution pm2.5European Environmental


NUTS2 all countriesPopulation weighted average of a 10 by 10km of air concentration (μg/m3)of particle

matter of size 2.5 micrometers (smal l particles) interpolated on a grid created by the EEA. Capped to 25 μg/m3 = limit yearly value of the EU Ambient Air Quality Directive

2011 I


8 4 Air pollution ozoneEuropean Environmental


NUTS2 all countriesPopulation weighted average of a 10 by 10km of air Ozone O3 concentration (μg/m3)

interpolated on a grid created by the EEA. Capped to 120 μg/m3 = limit value of the EU Ambient Air Qual ity Directive

2011 I


8 5 Pollution, grime, or other environmental issues

EU-SILCNUTS0 FOR: AT, DE, FR, HR, PT, UKNUTS1 FOR: BE, EL, HU, NL, PLNUTS2 for all the other countries

Percentage of people declaring having experienced pollution, grime or other environmental problems

average 2011-2013

I


8 6 Noise pollution EU-SILCNUTS0 FOR: AT, BE, DE, FR, HR, PT, UKNUTS1 FOR: EL, HU, NL, PLNUTS2 for all the other countries

Percentage of people declaring having experienced noise from neighbours or from the street

average 2012-2013




8 7 Natura2000European Environmental


NUTS2 all countriesShare of area covered by Natura 2000, an European Union wide network of nature

protection areas established under the 1992 Habitats Directive. The indicators has been capped to a maximum value of 40% which is above the P90% of the original indicator.

2012 I


8 8 Landuse efficiencyEuropean Commission Global

Human Settlement Layer (GHSL)

NUTS2 all countries Land-use efficiency measured as built-up area in square meters per inhabitant 2012 Dnot fitting based on


component name

14

indicator #

Indicators source geographical level description and unit of measurement reference year



Personal rights 9 1 Trust in the political systemEU-SILC ad-hoc Quality of Life

module

NUTS0 FOR: AT, BE, DE, FR, HR, PT, UKNUTS1 FOR: EL, HU, NL, PLNUTS2 for all the other countries

Percentage of people having low trust in the Political System 2013 I

Personal rights 9 2 Trust in the legal system EU-SILC ad-hoc Quality of Life module


Percentage of people having low trust in the Legal System 2013 I

Personal rights 9 3 Trust in the police EU-SILC ad-hoc Quality of Life module

NUTS0 FOR: AT, BE, DE, FR, HR, PT, UKNUTS1 FOR: EL, HU, NL, PLHR missingNUTS2 for all the other countries

Percentage of people having low trust in the Police 2013 I

Personal rights 9 4Citizen engagement (my voice counts)

Standard Eurobarometer 79 NUTS0 all countries Percentage of people who agree with the statement: "My voice counts in the EU" 2013 Dnational level only and unclear pattern

Personal rights 9 5 Quality and accountability of government services

European Quality of Institutions Index and DG Regio own computations

NUTS1 FOR: BE, DE, EL, SE, UKHU and SI missingNUTS2 for all the other countries

Quality of the Institutions. The Index is measured in z-scores 2013 I

Personal freedom and choice

10 1 Freedom over life choices Gallup NUTS1 FOR: BE, DE, EL, NL, UKNUTS2 for all the other countries

Share of respondents answering satisfied to the question, “Are you satisfied or dissatisfied with your freedom to choose what you do with your l ife?”

multiple latest years

I


10 2 Freedom of religion Pew Research Centre NUTS0 all countriesA 1 to 10 point index assessing the country’s government policies on religion and what

private religious groups and organizations do in the public sphere. Lower numbers imply less religious freedom restrictions from the government

2013 Dunclear orientation and low variability


10 3 Teenage pregnancy EUROSTAT NUTS2 all countries Ratio between births from mothers 15-19 and the female population of the same age cohort

average 2011-2013

I


10 4Young people not in education, employment or training (NEET)

EUROSTAT NUTS2 all countries Young people, aged between 15 and 24, neither in employment nor in education and training

average 2011-2013

I


10 5 Corruption IndexEuropean Quality of

Institutions Index and DG Regio own computations


Perceived level of Corruption. The Index is measured in z-scores 2013 I

Tolerance and Inclusion

11 1Impartiality of government services

European Quality of Institutions Index and DG Regio own computations


Level of impartiality of government services. The Index is measured in z-scores 2013 I


11 2 Intercultural relations Special Eurobarometer 418 on Social Climate

NUTS0 all countries Relations in (YOUR COUNTRY) between people from different cultural or religious backgrounds or nationalities (evaluation of the current situation)

2014 Dnot fitting based on



11 3 Tolerance for immigrants Gallup NUTS1 FOR: BE, DE, EL, NL, UKNUTS2 for all the other countries

Share of people who declared that they l ive in good place for immigrantsmultiple

latest yearsI


11 4 Tolerance for minorities Gallup NUTS1 FOR: BE, DE, EL, NL, UKNUTS2 for all the other countries

Share of people who declared that they l ive in good place for minoritiesmultiple

latest yearsI


11 5 Attitudes toward people with disabilities

Special Eurobarometer 393 on discrimination

HR missing NUTS0 for all the other countries

Attitude towards a person with a disabil ity in the highest elected political position in your country. On a scale from 1 to 10 with 1 meaning "totally uncomfortable" and 10

meaning "totally comfortable" 2012 I


11 6 Tolerance for homosexuals Gallup NUTS1 FOR: BE, DE, EL, NL, UKNUTS2 for all the other countries

Share of people who declared that they l ive in good place for homosexualsmultiple

latest yearsI


11 7 Gender employment gap EUROSTAT and DG Regio own computations

NUTS2 all countries Difference between female and male employment rates average

2011-2013I


11 8 Community safety net Gallup NUTS1 FOR: BE, DE, EL, NL, UKNUTS2 for all the other countries

Community safety netsmultiple

latest yearsI


11 9 Trust in others EU-SILC ad-hoc Quality of Life module


The trust in others does not refer to a specific group of people. On a scale fro 0 to 10, o means "You do not trust any other person" and 10 means that "Most people can be

trusted"2013 D

not fitting based on multivariate

statistical analysisAccess to advanced education

12 1 Tertiary education attainment EUROSTAT NUTS2 all countries Percentage of population aged 25-64 with tertiary education (ISCED 5-6) attainmentaverage

2011-2013I

Access to advanced education

12 2 Tertiary enrolment EUROSTAT NUTS2 all countries Ratio of tertiary students (ISCED 5-6) to the total populationaverage

2011-2012I

Access to advanced education

12 3 Lifelong learning EUROSTAT NUTS2 all countriesPercentage of persons aged 25 to 64 who stated that they received education or training in the four weeks preceding the survey with respect to the total population of the same

age group

average 2011-2013

I

component name

15

Table 2: Sub-national coverage by country and by component (NUTS2=white; NUTS1=grey; NUTS0=dark grey)

Nutrition and Basic Medical

Care


Shelter Personal Safety

Access to Basic

Knowledge

Access to Information and Communications

Health and Wellness

Ecosystem Sustainability

Personal Rights

Personal Freedom and

Choice


Access to Advanced Education

ATBEBGCYCZDEDKEEELESFIFRHRHUIEITLTLULVMTNLPLPTROSESISKUK

Basic Human Needs Foundations of Wellbeing Opportunity

16

Table 3: Choice of the min and max values for normalization

Dimension Component Indicator name Inverted?Trial Utopian

valueTrial Dystopian

value Utopian type Dystopian type

Basic Human Needs Nutrition and Basic Medical Care Mortality rate before age 65 Yes 0.07 0.36 best + buffer worst since 2008Basic Human Needs Nutrition and Basic Medical Care Infant mortality Yes 0.00 15.80 best possible worst since 2008Basic Human Needs Nutrition and Basic Medical Care Unmet medical needs Yes 0.00 21.62 best possible worst since 2008Basic Human Needs Nutrition and Basic Medical Care Insufficient food Yes 0.00 68.00 best possible worst since 2008 + bufferBasic Human Needs Water and Sanitation Satisfaction with water quality No 1.00 0.00 best possible worst possibleBasic Human Needs Water and Sanitation Lack of toilet in dwelling Yes 0.00 62.00 best possible worst since 2008 + bufferBasic Human Needs Water and Sanitation Uncollected sewage Yes 0.00 69.00 best possible worst since 2008 + bufferBasic Human Needs Water and Sanitation Sewage treatment No 100.00 0.00 best possible worst possibleBasic Human Needs Shelter Burdensome cost of housing Yes 0.00 100.00 best possible worst possibleBasic Human Needs Shelter Satisfaction with housing No 100.00 0.00 best possible worst possibleBasic Human Needs Shelter Overcrowding Yes 0.00 67.00 best possible worst since 2008 + bufferBasic Human Needs Shelter Lack of adequate heating Yes 0.00 100.00 best possible worst possibleBasic Human Needs Personal Safety Homicide rate Yes 0.00 9.49 best possible worst since 2008Basic Human Needs Personal Safety Safety at night No 1.00 0.00 best possible worst possibleBasic Human Needs Personal Safety Traffic deaths Yes 0.00 258.48 best possible worst since 2008Foundations of Wellbeing Access to Basic Knowledge Secondary enrolment rate No 1.00 0.77 best possible worst since 2008Foundations of Wellbeing Access to Basic Knowledge Lower secondary completion only Yes 0.00 82.00 best possible worst since 2008Foundations of Wellbeing Access to Basic Knowledge Early school leavers Yes 0.00 45.80 best possible worst since 2008Foundations of Wellbeing Access to ICT Internet at home No 100.00 0.00 best possible worst possibleFoundations of Wellbeing Access to ICT Broadband at home No 100.00 0.00 best possible worst possibleFoundations of Wellbeing Access to ICT Online interaction with public authorities No 100.00 0.00 best possible worst possibleFoundations of Wellbeing Health and Wellness Life expectancy No 86.02 71.70 UN projections for EU in 2030-2035 worst since 2008Foundations of Wellbeing Health and Wellness General health status No 100.00 0.00 best possible worst possibleFoundations of Wellbeing Health and Wellness Premature deaths from cancer Yes 0.00 169.10 best possible worst since 2008Foundations of Wellbeing Health and Wellness Premature deaths from heart disease Yes 0.00 217.40 best possible worst since 2008Foundations of Wellbeing Health and Wellness Unmet dental needs Yes 0.00 24.60 best possible worst since 2008Foundations of Wellbeing Health and Wellness Satisfaction with air quality No 1.00 0.00 best possible worst possibleFoundations of Wellbeing Ecosystem Sustainability Air pollution-pm10 Yes 0.00 40.00 best possible EU guidelinesFoundations of Wellbeing Ecosystem Sustainability Air pollution-pm2.5 Yes 0.00 25.00 best possible EU guidelinesFoundations of Wellbeing Ecosystem Sustainability Air pollution-ozone Yes 70.00 120.00 best + buffer EU guidelinesFoundations of Wellbeing Ecosystem Sustainability Pollution, grime or other environmental problems Yes 0.00 49.00 best possible worst since 2008 + bufferFoundations of Wellbeing Ecosystem Sustainability Protected land (Natura 2000) No 40.00 0.00 EU guidelines worst possibleOpportunity Personal Rights Disrust in the political system Yes 0.00 100.00 best possible worst possibleOpportunity Personal Rights Distrust in the legal system Yes 0.00 100.00 best possible worst possibleOpportunity Personal Rights Distrust in the police Yes 0.00 100.00 best possible worst possibleOpportunity Personal Rights Quality and accountability of government services No 3.00 -3.00 best + buffer worst + bufferOpportunity Personal Freedom and Choice Freedom over life choices No 1.00 0.00 best possible worst possibleOpportunity Personal Freedom and Choice Teenage pregnancy Yes 0.00 9.80 best possible worst since 2008Opportunity Personal Freedom and Choice Young people not in education, employment or training Yes 0.00 35.90 best possible worst since 2008Opportunity Personal Freedom and Choice Corruption Yes 3.00 -3.00 best + buffer worst + bufferOpportunity Tolerance and Inclusion Impartiality of government services No 3.00 -3.50 best + buffer worst + bufferOpportunity Tolerance and Inclusion Tolerance for immigrants No 1.00 0.00 best possible worst possibleOpportunity Tolerance and Inclusion Tolerance for minorities No 1.00 0.00 best possible worst possibleOpportunity Tolerance and Inclusion Attitudes toward people with disabilities No 10.00 0.00 best possible worst possibleOpportunity Tolerance and Inclusion Tolerance for homosexuals No 1.00 0.00 best possible worst possibleOpportunity Tolerance and Inclusion Gender gap No 0.00 -33.00 best possible worst since 2008Opportunity Tolerance and Inclusion Community safety net No 1.00 0.00 best possible worst possibleOpportunity Access to Advanced Education Tertiary education attainment No 65.52 0.00 best + buffer worst possibleOpportunity Access to Advanced Education Tertiary enrolment No 0.07 0.00 censored to P95% worst possibleOpportunity Access to Advanced Education Lifelong learning No 23.03 0.00 censored to P95% worst possible

THE EU REGIONAL SOCIAL PROGRESS INDEX METHODOLOGICAL...

Documents

Transcript of THE EU REGIONAL SOCIAL PROGRESS INDEX METHODOLOGICAL...